The "Agony" and the Ecstasy of Rush Limbaugh

Last week featured the imbroglio with John McCain and the New York Times and and, my personal favorite, an extramarital affair with a blond lobbyist. (In my honest opinion, I think blond lobbyists are just the pits. So full of themselves they are.) Like clockwork, Rush Limbaugh got all upset about how the liberal media is going tough on Republicans while taking it easy on Democrats such as Barack Obama and, especially, Hillary Clinton.

Um, excuse me, Rush? Rush also explained last week how the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media would never do a tough story on Hillary Clinton. Once again, excuse me, Rush? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton is has been scrutinized by the press to an extreme degree. Granted, you should invite a lot of press scrutiny when you decide to run for public office. But do y'all remember all the "headband" stories about Clinton from the 90s? Remember the political agenda of Hillary's headband? How she was trying to disguise herself as a regular working mom so that she could gain the support of women everywhere which would allow her to push her socialistic message? She can't even dress herself without people questioning her motives.

The press coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the president has also been pretty tough. The media seems to think that everything she does in her campaign emerges whole cloth out of some sinister reason. I concede that Hillary Clinton has pulled some shady tactics against her opponent, Barack Obama. (South Carolina was just sad.) But the narrative that emerges if you read the press is that mean lady Hillary is always trying to pick on that innocent choirboy Barack Obama. A narrative that has some truth but only some. It is way easier for the press to pick out a narrative that sells a lot of papers and just keep running with it ad nauseum. They are a business like any other.

It is the best of times and the worst of times for Rush Limbaugh. He is a man without any proactive ideas to push. We know this because Rush is so full of himself that he would totally brag about 'em if he had 'em. But, sadly, he is an empty void, bereft of any ideas that could be useful to us Americans. Thus, he needs stories of malfeasance that feed into his normal tropes. Oh, woe is me, the New York Times is so evil, says Rush. How I hate those university professors because of their fancy book learnin'. Damn ACLU and their trial lawyer buddies. And don't get me started on those feminazis. Somebody go tell them to please shave their legs.

Oh sure, Rush Limbaugh will feign anger and agony when the New York Times does something wrong. But I am not fooled. Rush is ecstatic because a negative story that fits into El Rushbo's world view buys him another day of relevance. Another day to collect a big paycheck. One day, a day that can't get here soon enough, the world according to Rush Limbaugh will be seen as realistic as something written by J.R.R. Tolkien. With Rush Limbaugh starring as Saruman.

Operation Hail Mary

"Saturday Night Live" dropped a bombshell last night, coincidentally a Saturday, when they reported that former Governor Mike Huckabee was launching a top secret and last-ditch effort to overtake John McCain to win the Republican presidential nomination. Huckabee's plan, codenamed Operation Hail Mary, was to steal superdelegates out from underneath Senator Barack Obama. Governor Huckabee has reportedly promised some sort of quid pro quo if a superdelegate was willing to switch his or her vote from Obama to Huckabee. What is Governor Huckabee promising in return for this? His band will cover Bob Dylan songs at your wedding, kid's birthday party, or whatever office parties you have coming up.

If all this fails, Governor Huckabee has promised to implement a sinister and insidious Plan B, codenamed Operation Chuck Norris Will Whip Your Ass, All While Not Even Breaking a Sweat.

And in the unlikely event that even Chuck Norris fails, Governor Huckabee will implement a much more moderate, and potentially much more entertaining, Plan C - he will star in the movie version of Bill Clinton's autobiography "My Life" in the title role of "Bill Clinton." Emma Thompson is slated to play a character named "Hillary Clinton." Hollywood Liberal Rob Reiner will direct.

Chuck Norris will play all the rest of the roles (Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, George Stephanopoulos) because, well, he wanted to.

So What Have They Done?

So an important meme out there is that Hillary is oh so accomplished and gets results, while Obama is oh so green and is nothing but words.

I have to admit, that for the last couple of months, I've had the feeling that both memes were wrong but never looked into it, so I didn't have any proof for my words. Well, finally, I got off my lazy bottom and did do some research...

For those of you who are lazy like me the long and short of what I found is this:

Barack Obama actually has accomplished some things, and crossed the aisle to do so.

Hillary Clinton also has a record of accomplishment, but not that much greater than Obama's.

So here's what I found.

We'll begin by looking at their respective records while in the U.S. Senate. By the way I decided to list the bills that they sponsored by themselves. I listed rather than described them...that way you, our faithful readers (both of you) don't have to go anywhere else...however, I've cited my sources at the end. Finally, I didn't include bills that did more 'pedestrian' things such as naming Post Offices and giving out other kinds of recognition.

Bills sponsored by Hillary Clinton alone that actually became law:

1.) S.1425 : A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 7/17/2003)
Note: For further action, see H.R.2771, which became Public Law 108-328 on 10/16/2004.

2.) S.1622 : A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 11/1/2001) 
Note: For further action, see H.R. 3986, which became Public Law 107-154 on 3/25/2002.

3.) S.2496 : A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/9/2002) Note: For further action, see H.R. 4687, which became Public Law 107-231 on 10/1/2002.

Bills sponsored by Obama that actually became law:

S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

It is hard to get a bill through the senate sponsored only by a singular senator. As a result it probably is more revealing to look at bills that were co-sponsored. Co-sponsoring a bill is a bit confusing. Often, a senator will sign on as a co-sponsor without having done any work. As a result, I've highlighted co-sponsored bills here, rather than listing like above.

Hillary has co-sponsored numerous bills but, as is common practice, has often not spoke on them or done much work on them. The bills on which she has taken an active role include a bill to achieve emission reductions and cost savings through accelerated use of cost-effective lighting technologies in public buildings, and for other purposes, and a number of revisions to laws, including issues related to environmental concerns, consumer protections. She is also consistently involved in bills related to improving things for veterans. I will say that there is a nice range of issues to which she has at least attached her name.

Obama, also co-sponsored numerous bills that were sponsored by numerous senators. However, Obama, who campaigned in 2004 on the issues of ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation work, actually crossed the aisle for work related to both. His biggest accomplishment came last year when he joined with Richard Lugar (R-Ind) to update the Nunn-Lugar Framework for securing loose nukes. It also extended the scope of the act to include conventional weapons such as RPG's.

As for ethics reform he was appointed by Senator Reid as the senate's point person on the ethics reform and co-sponsored a number of the bills that made up the package that passed in 2006, called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 .

I don't think either of these is insignificant. As for his promise to get past the political divisions of the past 30 years, he has shown an ability to work with members of the Republican party while in the U.S. Senate. He also demonstrated this ability while in the Illinois Senate. The most famous example is his work on a bill that made videotaping mandatory for police interrogations in Illinois. When he proposed this bill, he had little support on his side of the aisle. In addition, the police unions opposed it as did the Illinois governor. Through real legislating, working with other members in the Illinois senate, working with the police unions and eventually the Illinois governor, he was able to get the bill signed into law.

My conclusion is that both have experience. Reading through Hillary's record I realize she is not quite as calculating as is sometimes portrayed, she has worked hard on issues that she cares about. Reading through Obama's record also confirmed that he works hard on issues he cares about and confirmed (at least to me) his assertion that he has the abilities to change (not end but make some change) the partisan atmosphere in Washington politics. Who knows though, I can only think of one way to find out.

Finally, one other thing, while searching for info about, I found that Obama has introduced a bill that is on the Senate Calendar for this year (and Hillary has co-sponsored it.) So there you go Thomas, he's trying...technically it was introduced in late 2007 but I think it counts for something.

Sources:
Thomas, the LOC resource for all things legislatively related.

I also got a lot of information from the blog Obsidian Wings, which is a very interesting read.

The Practical Obama

I am not on the Barack Obama bandwagon but I do understand it. (I hear about Obama pretty often as it seems that 90% of my friends have been swept up in its momentum.) That I am not on this particular bandwagon doesn't mean I am against Barack Obama. I am just doing more research on him and his positions. I like some things and dislike other things. I am one of those deliberate dudes who takes his time deciding stuff. We have until November so I think I will manage.

What I would like to see Obama do (as I suspect some of his hardcore fans would like too) is to see Barack Obama in action. I don't mean another speech or another debate. I mean, I would like to see Barack Obama in action as a United States senator. Ever since Obama started running for president over a year ago, I don't recall him performing many senatorial duties of note. At the very least, running for president should increase one's visibility and likely one's power. Obama should have been taking advantage of this "power bump" to push issues that he cares about. And Obama's campaign has done waaaay more than increase his visibility a little. He is now one of the most famous people on the planet. That should have given him the power and the influence to push legislation that he favors.

There are some problems when a senator runs for the presidency. You can appear to vote against a popular bill because you are holding out for a stronger version of the same bill. There can be technical votes where you vote against something you believe in because you know the votes aren't there at that time and you need to go back and regroup. Pushing for legislation while running for president is inherently risky. Supporting a piece of legislation means you are getting people against your legislation angry. But if a piece of legislation is right, it is right. That a vote on a piece of legislation will make you a little less popular is not something that should enter one's thought process. Chief Justice Earl Warren held out for a 9-0 decision in the Brown v. Board of Education decision because he knew it was such a game-changer that even a little dissent would be picked up and run with by some people. Chief Justice Warren was worried about doing what was right. He wasn't about small steps or waiting for the time when such steps would be more politically expedient.

Obama has been asked why he is running now by many people. He is only 46. He has only been a senator for a couple of years. Obama references Martin Luther King, Jr. when he talks about the "fierce urgency of now." Why is now not the time, Obama asks. The same is true for the responsibilities he controls now as a United States senator. There are pieces of legislation that demand the "fierce urgency of now," well, now. Why hasn't Obama been pushing these pieces of legislation? I would hope he is not acting out of political expediency.

Being a native Texan, I knew quite a bit about George W. Bush when he ran for the presidency in 2000. I knew enough about his years as our governor to know that I would never vote for him for president. It may be hard to remember now but back in the day then-Governor Bush was seen as an easygoing and friendly guy who was easily able to crack jokes. I remember liking Governor Bush as a person. I also liked that he made many attempts to reach out to the Black and Hispanic communities in Texas. But I had seen his governing style and I didn't like it. After the election, I thought to myself, "Well, some of us Texans knew just a little more than the rest of the country. But the rest of the country will soon catch up, I hope."

Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, by any means. But who is he exactly? I don't know yet. With George W. Bush, millions of people got caught up in what a great guy he seemed to be. Being a student of his governorship, I knew that there wasn't much "there" there. Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon. But I need a little more. Obama should have spent part of the last year just being a senator. Get some important legislation passed. Or at least work to get it passed. This would have served Obama in so many ways. People couldn't say that he wasn't substantive enough to be president. And also, his followers who are all caught up in the "Obama wave" would have been brought down to earth a little bit by seeing their guy in the give-and-take (and practical world) of politics. Obama's biggest worry now should be the expectations of his supporters who think he will be a miracle worker. He won't be. And when this fact emerges, there might be some hell to pay.

Hillary's Inspirational Power

Sorry it's been a while since I posted or commented...I've been busy scouring all the political blogs as I follow this presidential nominating contest way too closely.

In fact, I've become quite obsessed with following the races on both sides...I will have more to say about that in the coming days...

For today, all I have is this (thanks to a tip from my friend Scott...) It is clear, unequivocal evidence of the fact that Hillary can inspire as well, and boy does she get results.

No Soldier Left Behind

The other day, I read a story about how the average soldier, when leaving the military, only received enough money to attend the average two-year junior college. While the GI Bill previously covered full tuition for returning veterans, today the bill only provides $9,600 a year for four years, which is basically chump change when it comes to college today. I would have thought that one of the benefits of us living in wartime would be that we as a country would appreciate our soldiers by taking care of them when they came home. They took care of us abroad so we could take of them here, right? Um, wrong.

It seems that part of the reason the GI Bill is not being funded is because the government fears that too many people would leave the military to go to college if they received halfway decent benefits. The reasoning being that if the benefits only get you a place at a junior college, why even bother? Two things get me about this argument. First, it is just wrong. Veterans deserve whatever we can do for them. They need health care. Done. They need an education. Done. They need help buying a house. Done. They need help starting a business. Done.

Second thing, knowing that you will get a real education after you leave the military, instead of an illusory promise of one, will draw more people into the military. Of course people will leave the military if more educational benefits are waiting for them. But people can leave the military for all sorts of reasons. The government needs to make it more attractive to join the military. I bet an all-expense paid trip to the four-year state university of somebody's choice would bring in a whole lot of recruits. A whole new generation of people just looking to make their lives better and more full. The American Dream, if you will.

Conservatives always deny it but they expect all these things from government. They want us to fight all these wars. They want us to build all these walls to keep out those hordes of illegal immigrants. Yet when it comes time to do something about all this, they only get around to talking about tax cuts. Talking about that or their man-crush Ronald Reagan. When the reality differs from their hopes and dreams, they blame gay marriage. The bad news for conservatives? Due to the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," gay marriage can't be blamed for soldiers not being taken care of once they come home. Since gays aren't allowed anywhere near the military, they can't possibly be the ones messing it up, right?

The Lonely Beacon

I live in Seattle, Washington. We just had our presidential caucuses here last weekend as reported on by my fellow co-blogger, that intrepid reporter Josh Moore. Barack Obama won in what can only be described as a major league landslide, besting Hillary Clinton by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Hillary Clinton, to me, seems to be quickly fading from the presidential landscape, likely forever.

Alas, the Clintons will remain highly visible politicians. Hillary Clinton will remain the most famous senator in the United States. Bill Clinton will see his stumbles in South Carolina fade from memory when Obama assumes the presidency because no lasting harm was done. Bill will become what he was before, kind of a traveling ambassador for the United States. But the Clintons will be slightly diminished because there is no potential for growth there anymore. This was Hillary Clinton's chance to become president and it just didn't happen.

Rush Limbaugh's dream has finally come true. The Clintons are through with presidential politics. Rush won't have the Clintons to kick around anymore. The right wing of the Republican Party will have to create new objects of their "affection," I guess. But that is what they do and they are good at it. Still, I am betting that the right wingers are embarrassed. They tried and tried and tried to take down the Clintons for years and they couldn't. They were taken down by a first-term United States senator from Illinois.

I don't agree that Obama was that much of an underdog when he started his presidential campaign in February of 2007. He was probably the second most famous senator in the United States partially due to his unique (for politics) life story. (His dad was from Kenya and his mom was from Kansas.) He had given a now near-legendary speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. At a time when most people had turned against the Iraq War, Obama was against it from the beginning. And in a time of lethargy in our country, Obama was a beacon of hope and reconciliation.

All this aside, I haven't caught the Obama wave yet. I love being inspired. But I gather my inspiration from books or movies or music or good deeds done for one's neighbor or stories on NPR. I don't really expect to gather inspiration from our political leaders. I like to consider myself a student of history and I have spent a fair amount of time looking for inspirational political leaders. I haven't found many. Even my favorite presidents (Truman, Lincoln, FDR) showed wide streaks of cunning and duplicity and political expediency. And you know why? Because they had to. The world is so complex and confusing and difficult to navigate. Sure, presidents will give speeches that aim to "inspire." But that is a tool to further their agendas. A tool by itself does not tell me anything about a person. An agenda is something different. Barack Obama is inspirational to millions of people. But what is his message underneath the way he is pitching himself? I am not sure yet.

I know Barack Obama must be an immensely intelligent man. I am a fellow lawyer so I know what kind of people made law review. (I am not one.) And he was president of the law review of probably the most prestigious law school in the country. But I think he is overly relying on his inspirational pitch. I mean, it must be hard to not overly rely on this pitch because it is working so well. Millions of people are starting to believe that Barack Obama is some kind of miracle worker. I hope Obama is able to please them by doing a good job as president. He will need to do some work to be able to get to the level he will need to be at to satisfy the enormous expectations people have for him.

In a little postscript, I wanted to say a few things about Hillary Clinton. I have always liked her. I think she is an extremely smart woman and, even more importantly, a very hard worker. She seems to be fighting the right battles. I cannot imagine what it must be like to wake up every morning knowing that people just hate you. Hillary is doing what she was supposed to do - she worked hard in school, she got into good schools, she fought to make the lives of children better. And, to millions of people, she is evil. (Witness Mitt Romney's tasteless speech when he dropped his bid for the presidency. He said that if either Hillary or Barack won the White House, they would just "surrender to terror." Can I see a future where Mitt Romney's picture will be found in the dictionary next to the term "sore loser"? Yes I can.)

The origin of "Clinton hate" spewed by Republican right wingers sprouts from a rather mundane explanation. The Clintons were successful against the Republican machine. They angered the Rush Limbaughs and the Tom DeLays and the Mitt Romneys of the world because they pushed back against the Republican machine successfully at times. Would Rush and Tom and Mitt care about the Clintons if they were losers? No.

Showing some political expediency of his own, Barack Obama has used polarization of the Clintons against them. He says he is not as hated as the Clintons. That is true of Obama. But the very success he is experiencing now means that the Republicans are sharpening their knives and dreaming up their attack ads. These knives and ads won't be enough to stop Obama this election. The Obamamania now sweeping the land is just too great. But Republicans are anything if not patient. They will have Obama's whole presidency to tear him down. By the end of eight years, "Obama hate" will rival the "Clinton hate" all of us are familiar with now.

Report From the Frontlines of the Washington Caucus

We here at Pundits-Smundits had heard of these caucus things and always watched curiously as voters gathered in homes in Iowa every four Januaries or so to pick a president. True they have had them here in Washington for quite some time but who wants to go sit in a school on a Saturday (we have a lot of coffee shops around up here in the great Northwest.) That was until Super-Duper Tuesday wasn't the clinching night it was supposed to be and suddenly, the Washington Caucus got interesting. As a result we decided to embed a Pundits-Smundits reporter in the 36th District's 1763 Precinct to see what they were all about. Here's our intrepid reporter's thoughts, enjoy.

The caucus this afternoon was held at a school less than a block from my house, so arriving on time was the easy part. Getting in and signed up was a lot more challenging. The line into the gymnasium stretched out and down about a block (I wished it had gone the other direction because I could have stood in my living room.) After quite some time I got inside and waited in another line (you have to love democracy.) That line led to a table where I could pledge my love to a candidate or declare that I was bachelor to the rapture (aka undecided.) I chose to marry myself to Obama (it wasn't that tough, he does afterall have some good lines and he is a lawyer, just my type.) After that I could have left and my vote would have counted. Instead I wandered through the gym listening in on both congenial and heated conversations between neighbors and friends. As a social studies teacher, I was totally geeking out on all of this. It was an amazing display of civic action and discourse. I'm pretty sure that most people were not swayed one way or the other but still it was great to see people from the hood talking about something other than the latest house project or who the really good nannies are.

Another hour or so passed and then we got to break up into our precinct for a little small sided caucusing. We exited the gym and convened in the adjacent outdoor play court. Our precinct captain read through the arcane rules (boring, even to a history teacher...) and then we divided up into shirts and skins for a couple rounds of half-court ball, tossing the Barack around....okay we didn't but that would have been sweet...instead we divided into corners to show our support. After a few moments it was clear that Obama had carried the day in our little precinct...the vast majority stood around me (which was good because it was an unusually brisk day) and then we got the officially tally. Obamaphiles accounted for 50 of the 78 votes in our precinct. There were 16 for Hillary and 12 undecideds. Each group got to give a one minute speech, which I'd say was a waste of time but it was only a minute (and it would take me longer than that to complain.) Finally we were allotted 15 minutes to try and use peer pressure to get people to switch. This was when the young Obama dude who was looking for a fight pounced on the older Hillary Dudette about health care. Things got quite heated which I didn't really understand seeing as debating the differences on their health care plan is like debating whether Howie Mandel is bald or balding.

Regardless, the Obamaphiles convinced enough of the undecideds to come over to our corner that we picked up an extra delegate. Ultimately our little caucus' job was to pick delegates for the legislative district convention. Obamaphiles got to pick 4 and Hillarylovers got to send 1. Sensing an important story opportunity I embedded myself even further and ended up as an Obama delegate at the Legislative District Convention. Stay tuned for the story during the slow news week of April 5th.

In all seriousness, I was more inspired and impressed and excited about our democracy today than any other political event I've been a part of. I've read a lot of chatter about how lame the caucus system is and that it only represents 10 percent, and so it's undemocratic. I couldn't disagree more, what I saw today was democracy, unfiltered, and vibrant. I think a couple hours in a school on a Saturday in February isn't too much to ask. In fact, I propose we have a caucus style system for the general election (imagine the lines.)

Why I'm for Hillary

Plus I just heard that Obama Girl wouldn't even vote for Obama. Man, that's just sad. To think you couldn't even get somebody named Obama Girl to vote for you if your name is Barack Obama.

On a somewhat similar note, it is a little known fact that I ran for school board when I was living in Houston. I ended up getting 20% of the vote which I considered great especially since I only spent about $200 against the incumbent school board member. I do know for a fact that I carried the "Thomas Girl" vote pretty spectacularly.

Who would have thought there would be five different people named Thomas Girl in my district? And that I would get three of their votes?

Superconservatize Me

Mitt Romney will announce today that he is dropping out of the race for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. My first reaction? YES!!!! But you kind readers need more of an explanation for my dislike for Romney the candidate than "YES!!!!" so here goes. Be forewarned - my relationship with Mitt Romney has been love and hate and more hate. But let me put that aside and try to be objective

It seems strange now but I was intrigued by Mitt Romney when I first heard he may be running for president. All I knew about him then was that he was super-duper rich and that he had saved the Olympics. (Shades of me saving the Jewish Law Students Association at my law school. That I packed it with gentiles is another story.) I knew that Romney was instrumental in passing a health care plan that tried to reach every citizen of Massachusetts, the state where he was governor.

Huh, I thought. Is Romney a different kind of Republican? The old paradigm of what made a Republican needed to be updated for the 21st century. The old tropes just weren't exciting enough people anymore. (How many times can you cry wolf about the horrors of gay marriage anyway?) There were legitimate problems facing our country and there wasn't that much time to waste when Romney first let it be known he was running for president a few years ago. For example, health care. And Romney seemed to have a plan for that.

But something happened on the way to the convention. Romney made a huge mistake when he decided to become the latest guy to try to assume Ronald Reagan's mantle. (Guys, it can't be done.) Instead of being the problem-solving moderate he had always been, Romney decided to hold the most conservative position on every issue. He wanted to be the most conservative candidate ever. I am not a Rudy Giuliani fan by any means but he did get off a good line about Romney when he said Romney would probably have put Ronald Reagan in one of his commercials that criticized Giuliani and McCain and Huckabee for being soft on immigration if Reagan was still alive because Reagan had signed an amnesty bill in 1986.

Also, it seems that neither Romney nor his advisors had ever heard of YouTube. Because there was a wealth of clips of Romney pontificating his views of just a few years ago. Views that were moderate and, in my opinion, where most people were. He showed some tolerance towards gays and lesbians. He wasn't happy about abortions but said it was something that was needed. He wanted some kind of gun control. He showed some humanity toward illegal immigrants. He recognized that there were some excesses during the Reagan/Bush I years.

Romney didn't think who he actually was was enough to to get him elected. He didn't have enough faith in the voters. He didn't think we would see him as a slightly dorky but highly competent individual. It is as if one day he decided to model himself after Rush Limbaugh. As of today, Rush Limbaugh has never won a race for public office. I know Rush's ego is big enough that if he thought he could run for president and win, he would have done that already. So far, no Limbaugh presidency. Romney chose a poor model to copy. The irony is the real Romney would have demolished the phony Romney.

Back in 2006, Romney probably thought his main competition would come from Senator George Allen of Virginia. Back then, Allen was supposed to be the new Reagan. Romney thought he would have to out-right wing Allen. Again, irony shows it lovely head when Allen macacized his chances for his Senate reelection and a subsequent run for the White House. By this point, Romney has committed himself to a rightward tilt. There was to be no turning back. Romney was stuck.

Other problems emerged in Romney's attempt to Reaganize himself. He wasn't the charismatic presence that Reagan was. He wasn't as believable when talking about conservative values. (One of the knocks on Reagan when he was running for president was that he was too tied to his beliefs. Romney had the opposite problem.) Reagan was believable as the common man due to his humble and troubled upbringing. Romney is not a common man; he doesn't look like one. (I wish I was "common" enough to have vacation homes in four states.) When Reagan was running for president, people weren't going around quoting his net worth like a pejorative.

Reagan had a long history in the conservative movement when he won the presidency, going all the way back to "The Speech" of 1964. Romney has been a member of the conservative movement for about two years. There will be rumblings that Romney will run in 2012. I don't see it. Nobody seemed to really like Romney except people making more than $100,000. There aren't enough of those people to ever create a Romney movement.

Do Your Happy Dance

This just came across wire....do your happy dance now Thomas...

I Should Run for President

I totally agree with what this guy is saying. Barack Obama is the frontrunner. He has more money. He has won more states. He has won more delegates. He has won some key establishment endorsements. The primaries over the next month (Louisiana, Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia) favor him. I just want to know where exactly Hillary Clinton is beating him. You know, in any categories that matters.

There are benefits that come with being considered the underdog. You can talk about taking on the "establishment." (Kind of akin to "sticking it to The Man even though you are The Man.") You can run as an "outsider to the Washington system." You can criticize "the old way of doing things in Washington" when you are the underdog. As you can see, I am not quite convinced by Barack Obama quite yet. (Sorry, Josh.)

The Barack Obama message is that he is not the establishment candidate. (All while taking on all the accoutrements of an establishment candidate.) Hmm, interesting. The Barack Obama message is he was right on the single biggest issue of our time (going to war in Iraq) and Hillary Clinton was wrong. The Barack Obama message is that he is unique candidate because of his all-encompassing racial heritage.

All these are true. But there is some nuance missing. (Remember nuance? It has done gone missing since George W. Bush became president in 2001.)

Barack Obama says he was against the war back before it was popular to be against the war. You know what? So was I. Barack Obama points out he was president of the Harvard Law Review. I can't say that I was the president of the Harvard Law Review or that I went to Harvard Law School but I can say that I am a lawyer. Barack Obama says he turned down high-paying jobs to go work as a community organizer in poor neighborhoods in Chicago. I can't say that I have turned down many high-paying jobs but I did go work as a high school teacher in a poor neighborhood in Houston. Barack Obama likes to talk about his mixed racial heritage. I got this one beat. I have a mixed racial heritage AND a mixed religious heritage. My dad is white and Jewish. My mom was from the Philippines and Catholic. Barack Obama mentions his strong support from the Kennedy family. Well, my dad joined the Peace Corps, went to the Philippines to serve for 2 years, and met my mom while there. The Peace Corps was started by John F. Kennedy.

Part of me wonders if I should run for president. I mean, I am about to turn 35. I am so fired up and really ready to go too.

Yes We Can

Oh the power of the viral video....will this be the election which is remembered as the one in which media was wrested by the commoners and used to make their voices heard? Maybe not but it is pretty interesting to consider that things like the Hillary/Apple commercial mash-up would never have seen the light of day just four years ago. This weekend the viral video world embraced a video made by Will.i.am and Jesse Dylan (plus a bunch of friends.)

I know a lot of hay has been made about the nice words verses actually doing things issue. The problem for me is that the criticism of Obama that he gives a nice speech but doesn't have the experience necessary to do the job is an appeal to fear and a bit of a straw man argument (Obama has a lot of experience just not quite as much nationally.) Anyway, I don't know about you all but, this election has made me think a lot about the X-Files, and specifically Molder's office, and the poster that he had behind his desk...the one that said 'I Want To Believe.' I've been in the Obama camp for a long time now but I've been awfully shy about it. No more. I want to believe (in his ability to change the direction of this country, not in UFO's) and chances are I'll probably be disappointed but at least for a season I'll hope and that's worth something. Enjoy.

The Patriot That is Rush Limbaugh

This is a post that will summarize what I think of the state of the Republican race before tomorrow's Super Tuesday primaries. (To be followed by a post describing the Democratic race.) I am still waiting to be convinced that there is a good candidate out there for me. Though I have already ruled out a certain someone. (You know who you are, Mitt Romney.)

John McCain has emerged as the clear favorite to gain the nomination of the Republican Party. People are very surprised by this because at least two different issues arose last year that were supposed to have sunk McCain's campaign. The McCain candidacy almost ended when money was wasted on frivolities that didn't matter and when McCain supported George W. Bush's comprehensive immigration reform plan. I am not President Bush's biggest fan by any means but I think one of the things he has done right is to treat immigrants with a great sense of fairness. I was born and raised in Texas and President Bush has lived most of his life in Texas. Mexican immigrants are so part of the fabric of our lives in Texas that it would make it near impossible for a native Texan to join the hateful campaign against immigrants that is consuming a part of the Republican Party.

McCain was able to overcome his early disasters for one simple reason - the other candidates he was running against turned out to be a true conservative but a mediocre campaigner (Fred D. Thompson), a niche social conservative but economic populist (Mike Huckabee), a liberal mayor of New York with lots of skeletons in his closet who also happened to be truly unlikeable (Rudy Giuliani), and a phony conservative who alienated all the other candidates because he accused the others of positions he held just a year or two earlier (Mitt Romney.)

A mediocre conservative candidate would have had this nomination wrapped up by now but there was no such candidate this year. Of course, Mitt Romney is trying to be the candidate that speaks to the traditional three prongs of Republican conservatism - the social conservatives, the national security conservatives and the tax-cutting conservatives. Romney has been harmed by a lack of a magnetic personality and his flip-flopping on issues important to Republicans. Still he continues to try to push on us the idea that he is Ronald Reagan Jr. (Sorry, Mitt, but such a person already exists.)

What is emerging from the Republican race is the fact that only one prong of the so-called "three prongs of the conservative stool" built by Reagan actually matters. John McCain has spent much of his career in the United States Senate focused on national security matters and is a genuine war hero. ("We will stay in Iraq for 100 years if that is what's needed.") Mike Huckabee has advertised himself as a "Christian leader" in his political ads. He is on the right side of all the issues important to social conservatives. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister who speaks in terms that show he is an ordinary person, not a person pretending to be an ordinary person. This attribute helps Huckabee conform with Republican voters' anti-elitism beliefs. These two men should be embraced by Republicans because of their respective life stories.

The thing is...they have not been. The reason for this is simple. McCain and Huckabee see there are things more important than tax cuts. McCain thinks that we need a strong military and that veterans need to be cared for after their service to our country is over. Huckabee says that children need to be cared for even after they have been born as opposed to those people who thinks life begins at conception and ends at birth. ("No health insurance for you!") These two men probably feel taxes can be cut but only after their agendas have been addressed.

This is the wrong answer according the Republican establishment led by Rush Limbaugh. Of course, Rush will pay lip service to the social issues and a strong military. But what exactly has Rush ever done to prove he cares about social issues and a strong military? Did he serve in the military? No. When it comes to discussing people with drug abuse problems, Rush says, "Don't ask, don't tell." Which leaves us with the one thing Rush Limbaugh truly cares about - tax cuts.

I can understand tax cuts. I really do. Heck, I am about to become a small-business owner. I am going to love tax cuts. It is common knowledge that Rush is struggling by on an average salary of about $20,000,000 a year. According to Rush, charity begins in the homes of people making $20,ooo,ooo a year or more.

John McCain and Mike Huckabee don't believe in this principle. Therefore, they officially suck!

The Yutes

I heard this story on the way into work this morning and it reminded of a blog I wrote four years ago during the last election. The story was part of a series on the different voting blocks and today's story was about the youth vote. Of course the big question of the story was will the yutes actually vote. As a high school history teacher getting the yutes involved politically is a primary goal and I have been frustrated not so much with the yutes but by how much the system didn't understand why yutes weren't voting and why they were so disengaged.

The phrase 'b.s.' meter came up in one of the interviews and I think it is very appropriate. Yutes are onto the politicos and all they hear is B.S. In addition, unlike us non-yutes (yes I realized while listening that sadly I'm no longer in the yute demo....) who feel that showing up and pulling the lever counts as being involved (maybe writing a check or two) the yutes want authentic, tangible and direct involvement. The problem is that few of the politicos actually trusted them. Well this election cycle, that does seem to be changing. Both Obama and Clinton have well structured organizations for involvement of the yutes.

One last note. I have been stunned by the frenzy of excitement amongst students about this election. The day after the Iowa caucuses, my students were abuzz about Obama's victory and the visceral feel was akin to what I've noticed after some big TV event. The difference was that instead of talking about who got snubbed or what a bad singer so and so is, they were actually talking about policy and I heard them dialoguing about the differences between Clinton's ideas and Obama's ideas. After the New Hampshire primary the mood was somber and I have to admit I was a bit worried that a Clinton nomination might lead youth voters to feel snubbed again. However as the race has continued the policy discussions have continued and I believe that the youth vote will make their voice heard this election. They are ready to be involved and are just waiting for the call.

Anyway here's what I wrote last time we had this discussion and I think a lot of the ideas still apply.

Posted on May 3, 2004
Young Voters Sought After Again, Still Noone Listening

I can still remember the first Rock the Vote shows on MTV back during the '92 election. I had mixed emotions. I was seventeen and wouldn't be old enough to vote in the presidential election, so part of me didn't care. And I also thought it over-the-top pandering. The other half of me, thought that it was way cool that there was so much attention being given to youth. Finally, I remember thinking, young voters matter, and maybe the national discussion will be about something other than prescription drug benefits.

However things didn't turn out that way. Issues like Social Security and health care dominated politics in the 90's and the youth vote actually shrunk. Don't get me wrong those are issues that are important to all ages, but it's hard to get excited about Social Security when you're 19.

As a result Rock the Vote is back and so are a number of other youth-oriented campaigns, all with one purpose: get out the vote.

All are also predicated on the notion that this year's presidential election is going to be close.

All this is good, I guess. I have to admit the ironic, pessimistic side of me sees some of these campaigns as extremely exploitive and condescending. For example, the Republicans are rolling an 18-Wheeler with X-boxxes and plasma screen TV's to college campuses across the country. I mean come on, the same trick has been used for everything from Mtn. Dew to Tony's Pizza.

On the one hand (again) I'm revolted, but if it works and they get people to sign up to vote, does it then become a good thing?

Maybe.

I think there is a huge misconception about why young-adults don't vote. The overriding assumption is that either they are too apathetic to care or that the message isn't being brought to them in 'their language.' Which explains why organizations bring out the TV's and the video games, the old carrot and stick approach, because they think this is the language of youth.

However, just because some one signs up to vote doesn't mean they will. What percentage of registered voters actually votes anyway?

I think the real problem is that the youth of this country are relegated to a second-class citizenship. They are viewed as either apathetic consumers or used as a token display of the nice things that so-and-so politician has done for youth.

As a teacher, I work with young people everyday and as a whole, young people do not strike me as more or less apathetic than any other age group. They do not strike me as more or less engaged in the issues of our time. I know that there are many days where I would rather sit on the couch and pop in a DVD than go to a teach-in or work on a campaign. In fact, on a daily basis, I'm impressed with how hard most teenagers and young adults work and how much they care about the world around them. I'm also impressed with how they think about the world, and given the chance talk about it. (Please note that I hate making generalizations and talking about a whole group of people like some sort of misunderstood species, but it seems necessary to get to my point, which I'm coming to quickly, I promise:)

The key to engagement (not the married kind) is to talk with people.

It's simple, but time consuming, which is why people in politics don't do it in large numbers.

Instead, our youth are either ignored (how many stories on prescription drug benefits can one person read or watch anyway?) or they are given a glitzy-star studded, 'the more you know' spiel from some hack on MTV. There's no dialogue, no sense that what our youth have to say is important.

If politicians and pundits are really concerned about getting youth involved in our civic life it will require more than an x-box or a concert. What will it take?

Here's a couple of ideas:
- Instead of focus groups, how about community outreach groups in every county across the country. Consider it the Peace Corps of our time. Fully fund groups that actively recruit youth (check out Young Life for how to do this), educate them on the issues and then (here's the key) give them a chance to do something about it. That's right, connect them with programs or create opportunities for these groups to put their new knowledge into action. People, regardless of age, need to direct the energy and flow of ideas that accompanies new knowledge.

- Instead of having the token youth appear at the convention or Young Republicans, build youth outreach into every plank of the party platforms. The assumption is that youth don't care about the issues (which is true, but why don't they care about them should be the question) and need their own seperate slate of issues (this leads to the second-class treatment I was talking about.) I think the real problem lies in that the way the issues are presented to the youth.

- Finally, lower the voting age to 16. 16-year olds pay taxes if they work, isn't this a form of taxation without representation? The other benefit, is that, as students are talking about civic issues in school, they'll be coming into the voting age and be able to act (remember what I said about the connection between knowledge and action.) You could also register students at school (how easy would that be) and use a day or two (hopefully more) before each election to educate on the issues and candidates.

I've said way too much and I'm sorry, but I do have one more thing to say, and it's that I think the voter apathy is exactly what the people in power want. The less engaged our citizens are in the politics of our nation, the less likely we are to interfere with their plans.