Independent Caucus

Authenticity

Authenticity may decide this election.  It has others, many others.  Carter/Ford, then, ironically, Reagan/Carter.  It was definitely George W. Bush who was seen as the more authentic in his two races against Gore and Kerry.

The first one to look like he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it will lose this election.

Folks, even some Republican folks, and most analysts, will say the race is Obama's to lose.  Well, it was Gore's to lose, and he lost it.  But Gore lost because, well, for two reasons, but I think the latter one much more significant, and also the topic of this post - (1) he had a bit of Adlai Stevenson disease, that scholarly and remote posture off-putting but to those pursuing their Ph.D, and (2) a different Al Gore showed up at each debate, first the scholarly and remote Al Gore (the one he should have stayed with), then the nice and agreeable Al Gore ("Well, I agree with Governor Bush on this.."), and then, lastly, the almost comical "alpha male" Al Gore.  By the time the last debate was over, his authenticity was shattered.

Democrats, especially, think Senator Obama is the next coming of John Kennedy.  Wrong.  Kennedy, besides being a war hero and winner of the Pulitzer prize for Profiles in Courage, was a historian in academic degree and interest, an inveterate reader of history and biography and also Greek philosophy since a boy, a policy wonk whose endurance for same easily outlasted those who wished to talk to him,  someone who had been around political leaders all his life, and an honors graduate of the Joseph P. Kennedy School For Presidents, a.k.a. the Joseph P. Kennedy dinner table.  As Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."  And you will not see Senator Obama attempt to cast himself as Kennedy, being considerably smarter in that way than was Senator Quayle.

And to the person who didn't have time to know and be aware of all those things, Jack Kennedy seemed real.  And he seemed like change.  Without both of those qualities, against an experienced Republican like Richard Nixon, he doesn't win.  As it was, he only won by 118,000 votes nationally.  The closest presidential election in modern history.  And some of those were dead guys from Chicago (Nixon had his own dead guys, though, in other states, so it was a wash, and Nixon never contested it).

Authenticity is a necessary component of the presidential brand, and never more true than in the case of Senator Obama, who has not just cast his policies as representing change, but rather that he embodies change.  That words matter.  That the old political tricks of saying one thing and doing the other won't do.

And then last week, his campaign announces that they will not accept the public financing for the presidential campaign - $84 million in public money to spend over about 8 weeks between the conclusion of the conventions and election day - as he had promised repeatedly, so long as the Republican candidate accepted it as well.  And futher, after accepting initially the challenge John McCain made to travel together (as President Kennedy and Republican challenger Barry Goldwater had agreed to do) and jointly hold 10 town-hall meetings around the country, the Obama campaign is now indicating there will only be two, and only one will be the town-hall format.

Change.  Authenticity.  These two moves are instead classic and tired.  They are your garden variety double-speak and political opportunism.  Both are flip-flops for the most selfish of reasons, not because of some global change of events.  Such could easily be described as a change of mind.  The financing flip-flop is because he made the commitment to public financing before he realized the hundreds of millions he could raise through individual contributions.  No candidate since 1974 (when it was initiated) has foregone public financing for the general election campaign (as opposed to the primaries), and that includes the previous fund-raising record-holder, George W. Bush.  I guess that's change, but it's a change of position, or pledge he offered as a challenge to John McCain months ago in the same way McCain offered the 10 town-hall meetings.  Except McCain still wants to have his 10 town-hall meetings.

Obama says, well, he can do this because the average contribution is so small; that the money is not coming from big-monied interests and lobbyists.  But he would have said months ago that public financing comes from everyone, meaning a candidate is not beholden to his or her group of donors, but rather to all the people.  That was then.  He thinks the money difference might be the difference in the election.  He would rather talk to the voters three or four times more than his opponent (via TV and radio advertising) than he would join him for equal time in town-hall meetings across the country.  There you go, see, if you write long enough, you can conjoin two flip-flops into one point.

This strikes squarely at his authenticity, and in Obama's case, since he has cast himself and his whole life as the embodiment of change, it strikes at his very brand.  Democrats think Obama can crawl across the finish line and beat McCain.  That just reminds me, oddly, of a similar assumption I believe Hillary made.  Following one of the most popular presidents ever, and possessive of not a trace of personal scandal, it reminds me of an assumption Al Gore must have made.  Senator Obama's experience is not great.  His brand is everything.  I believe, if he holds onto that he wins.  Last week, he dropped his brand, because he couldn't hold onto that and $200 million at the same time.  He was left clenching the cash while his brand, engraved with the words Change You Can Believe In, lay on the floor.

Authenticity.  Carter/Ford.  Reagan/Carter.  Bush/Kerry.  McCain/Obama.  ?

The Clintons: A Government in Exile?

That was some analyst's caution on one of the Sunday talking head shows.  That Hillary would be a bad and unlikely choice (come to think of it, it might have been Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, who made a similar comment, if not the comment itself) for Vice President because she would constitute an alternative government right within the administration.

Hmmm.

Brzezinski's pretty smart, but, hmmm.

It's no secret I favored Clinton over Obama, but I like Obama, and favor him over McSpend-More-On-Iraq-And-Don't-Pay-For-It.  In fact, McSpend on a gas-tax holiday and don't pay for that either.  What's several more billion dollars to China plus interest leaving our shores for a long, long time?  Honestly.  "I'm a Conservative.  I have always been, and always will be, a Conservative."  A little straight-talk, please.

But back to the topic at hand.  Government in exile?  You know, I listen, I read, I observe.  And from those collective efforts, and plenty of looking, I still have not seen Sasquatch.

I see nothing to indicate that the Clintons would try to undermine an Obama administration, or do anything other than work their hardest for its success.  Democrats want to win in November, and want Obama to be a great president.  Hillary wants the support of her fellow Democrats.  Now and in the future.  If she is seen to be anything but a help and positive influence on Obama's and her party's success in November, then that truly is the end of her political career.

You see, the analysts are saying that too.  So how do folks reconcile those two conclusions?  I have no idea.  I reconcile them by saying the former one is evidence of Sasquatch I hope I don't step in.

Don't Talk to Me About Spending, Republicans

I've written a lot of posts on this.  And, I guess I'll write more.  It galls me every time.

If a Republican wants to puff out his or her chest on some issue, that's fine.  Not on spending.  Other issues?  I will likely say "You go."  Don't talk to me about spending.  Tell me violence in Iraq is at its lowest level in four months.  Actually, this is IndependentCaucus, but I'm struggling to add another issue to that list which is a good thing and which Republicans own.  Of my Republican readers, I ask you, help me add to that list.

I'm still sitting here, thinking.  What else?  Immigration?  No.  New energy?  No.  Education?  I'm from Baltimore.  No.  Broader availability of health care including and especially for those with preexisting conditions?  Uh-uh.  I'm not trying to be smart.  I'm dead serious.  Now the Democrats don't own those issues, either.  But I can't think of anything.  Free trade?  That Republicans own?  No, not that they own.  NAFTA was George I, but Bill was solidly behind it.  And there are plenty of Democrat free-traders out there.  And that issue has moved slowly but steadily among analysts from a good thing, almost unquestionably good, to at least questionable, in terms of how fair the playing field it has created is for the United States.

The environment?  Under George II?  Ok, I might have to write a follow-up post entitled, "Don't Talk to Me About the Environment, Republicans."  It's been that bad under George II, protection of the environment having been once a fundamental tenant of conservatism (think "conservation").

But, oh, for the love of God, how stunned I am that Republicans are stilling coming onto C-SPAN radio, Meet the Press, Fox, other political shows, and setting the table for the current political season by talking about - spending.  Controlling spending, usually, in the same breath as lambasting earmarks.  They are but an eyedropper of spending in relation to the war.  If you are not going to argue getting out of Iraq as you argue for controlling spending, getting other countries to pay for it (as the first Gulf War), or at the very least increasing taxes on Americans to pay for it, so that we pay for IT, and not also the interest on IT, then, please, just stop.

Stop.

Apollo, Manhattan, New Energy

Wow, that last post about Michigan/Florida was a heavy one.  Makes me tired just reading it....so, a bit on the lighter side for this one.  That said, it's nothing you'll read in lieu of a Billy Connolly spot on youtube, just a bit..lighter.

And after all what's lighter than energy?  Well, energy is mass (thank you, Einstein), so I guess if you have enough of it, it weights quite a lot.  So what's the weight of collective sunshine? or wind, or surf, or stream, or heat from the Earth's molten core?  What's the weight of a nuclear reaction?  Taken altogether, the weight is quite substantial.  More than we need.  Notice that coal and oil aren't in that mix.  So, what the hey, throw them in too.

Oh, and what about people power?  Do I mean, power to the people?  No, but getting anything done actually comes down to that, lest we forget, and instead too many of us to affect any real change focus exclusively, narrowly, on our own existence, short-term needs and goals.  Because energy is long-term, and it will take long-term thinking and long-term commitment to get it right.  That will only happen with the long-term participation and voting habits of, as our Constitution says, we the people.

But, still, that's not the people power I was talking about.  I mean (gasp!) walking or pedaling a bike to many local destinations where we now arrive by car.

Who likes gin rummy?  Who likes gin?  Ok, a different post.  Who likes Rummy?  Definitely a different post.  And anyway the answer there, I think, is not many.  But, you know, the card game?  Are you good?  Do you win more than you lose?  Why, do you suppose?

In gin, as perhaps any game, winning happens from giving yourself the most ways to win.  You give yourself multiple ways to win, and one of 'em is likely to show up.  GIN!  Ok, left shoe.  What?  That's not how you play?

Because I like policy - I truly do, like some like pizza, porn or poetry - I make promises (enough with the p's already) to myself periodically (ok..) to read certain books, and educate myself on certain events, topics, etc.  And the promise I made this morning, listening to two guys debate the new Lieberman-Warner energy bill, was not to read a comprehensive book on alternative energy, a.k.a. "new energy", but rather on two much older technical projects - the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program.

These two programs are among the most appropriated metaphors.  So, then, add two or three like projects to that list.  (Silence)   I can't.  We continually reach for these two historical and successful technical projects, refer to them, say things like, "What we need is a Manhattan Project on energy", or on health care, or Social Security, or anything else we deem hard.  But as far as I can tell, we never apply the approach.

I'm almost done. (phew!)  What set of private investors would have invested their money in 1943 in constructing a nuclear bomb?  As the only maker of such a device, they could have commanded a very high price!  What venture capitalist, what segment of the marketplace in 1961 was interested in a means for a human being to travel to the moon and return safely home?  Any of you recall how many products of more common, Earthly utility arrived as spin-offs from that program?  Well, an array of plastics and metals which we take for granted now, and lots more.

My point is, that the Lieberman-Warner bill is a so-called "cap and trade" bill which caps the carbon release of private companies at some government-prescribed level.  As with any cap, some CO2 producers will be under the cap, some at it, some over it.  If you are under it, you get a credit based on how much you are under it.  It's like a share of CO2 stock you can sell for profit on the open market.  Those who are over the cap are your customers for that stock, because they have the option of either buying your CO2 stock or being fined by the government for being over the cap.

Ok, so what part of that reminds you of gin?  What part of it reminds you of Rummy?  Probably quite a lot.  And, mostly, what part of it, a project fundamentally technological in nature (though not to forget about walking, and pedaling, and common-sense conservation), reminds you of either the Manhattan Project or Apollo?

None.  That's right.  None at all.  But those are the latest ideas from Congress.  And they wonder why their approval rating is lower than even the President's record-breaking low.  I mean, throw cap-and-trade into the mix if you want, but don't stop there, and possibly don't even start there.

Let's not just use Apollo and Manhattan as metaphors, let's apply them to the hugely important technological challenge of new energy.  If we do, the group of scientists or the agency (in the case of NASA) we form, charged with that singular goal, and no particular timetable other than "urgent", will play a lot of gin rummy, you can be sure.  They will seek multiple creative, concurrent, and collaborative ways to win.  And when they do, the world will win, and win big.

DNC Overrules Michigan Election, Treats Florida Badly

Yes, my guess is that ruling won't stand.  Hillary will likely still not get the nomination, but that ruling can't possibly hold up before the Credentials Committee at the convention in Denver if Hillary decides to challenge it.

There's simply nothing in the DNC charter - and with incredibly good reason - that allows for a committee, in this case, the Rules and Bylaws Committee (quite ironically, given its name) to transfer, purely on the basis of its own discretionary judgment, delegates from one candidate to another; that is, to allocate delegates in a manner different from the election outcome, especially when they acknowledge that there were no voting irregularities that made the election "flawed", and therefore requiring such discretionary adjustment, but most flawed was Obama's name not appearing on the ballot, something which was a discretionary decision by the Obama campaign, and nothing he was asked or told to do by the DNC.  They are basically taking from Hillary and awarding to Obama based on a bad discretionary decision of the Obama campaign.

Makes you not want to be a Democrat if your party is going to do that.  Why vote?  Why have elections if your vote can be later recast for someone else?  You may as well support a different party.  The tremendous risk the DNC is taking is too many Michigan and other Democrats feeling that way in November.

To me, it was also a bad ruling in the case of Florida to cut its delegates in half.  This is a penalty which, under the rules, applies when states violate the DNC primary calendar.  But that act is and was an act of the Florida state legislature, not the local Florida Democratic Party, and Republicans control that legislature by a huge margin, over 2 to 1, with a Republican governor.  So the legislature passed the law moving up the date and the governor signed it.  The law included a requirement that ballot machines provide a paper trail, which is a top DNC legislative priority, and for that reason, and because their constituents very much want this, nearly all Florida legislators voted for it, including the Democrats.

Since the DNC (and RNC, for that matter) understands that DNC rules and state law are independent things, and that therefore one can run counter to the other, there is a provision in the rules which allows for an otherwise mandatory penalty to be forgiven or reduced if it can be shown that Democrats in a state legislature did everything they could to see that a state law in violation of DNC rules does not pass.  It was on this basis that the DNC decided to reduce Florida's delegate count by one half, concluding that Florida legislators did not do everything they could, since they voted so overwhelmingly for the bill.  But if they had voted against the bill, they would have been voting against another aspect of the DNC platform, that being voting machines which generate a verifiable paper trail, something particularly sensitive to and wanted by Floridians after the whole Bush-Gore recount fiasco.  So, Democrats in the Florida legislature would have been voting against the DNC however they voted!  And the point of fact was that this bill, making a paper trail the law of the land in Florida, was not only a Democratic priority, but very popular and very much wanted by all Florida voters, Republican and Democrat.  Had Democrats voted against it, simply to avoid a possible delegate sanction for having jumped the DNC calendar, the price would have been their seats in the next election, and their proportion, already disproportionately small, in the Florida legislature, and with that, a diminution of Democratic power in that very key state.

Michigan has its reasons, too, of course, why they should be awarded 100% of their delegates, but it was a weaker case.  Michigan state government is not controlled by Republicans.  They basically felt cheated, because after years of trying to get the DNC to shake up the calendar so that Iowa and New Hampshire were not always one-two, the DNC finally passed a rule allowing for two caucus states to hold their elections in between Iowa and New Hampshire.  New Hampshire didn't like this, of course, and their legislature voted to move up their date so that there wasn't room or time for two caucus elections in between Iowa and New Hampshire.  They, too, would have under the rules lost one half of their delegates for this, but they applied to the Rules and Bylaws Committee for a waiver of the applicable rule.  And the Rules and Bylaws Committee....granted it.

So they broke their own updated rule and years-long effort by the state of Michigan to insert a more diverse mix of states into the calendar in between Iowa and New Hampshire.  It was for this reason, out of anger, and because no other avenues were available to them to continue their effort and their protest, that the state legislature voted to move up Michigan's primary date.  They fully expected that if the Rules Committee could grant New Hampshire a waiver, they could grant Michigan one, too.  But they were going to take their chances either way.

I think what the Rules and Bylaws Committee did - first changing the rules to stipulate two additional caucus states in between Iowa and New Hampshire, then granting New Hampshire a waiver effectively repealing that rule - was an incredible betrayal to Michigan.  But it's within their power to do, and they did it.  And Michigan consciously reacted to this with a violation of the rules and the calendar.  So Michigan's penalty of losing 1/2 their votes can be reasonably argued.  But shifting delegates determined by the election outcome from Hillary to "uncommitted" has no place whatsoever, especially since "uncommitted" is treated like an actual person, that is, an actual candidate in Michigan elections, and delegates are and have in the past been sent to the convention as "uncommitted" delegates.  To discretionarily move delegates from Hillary to Uncommitted is without precedent, and has no standing, I have to believe.

I mean, how many do you move?  Why not move more?  What the hey, let's move 'em all.  I guess those voters didn't really know what they were doing when they checked "Hillary Clinton" on their ballot.  Best that the DNC correct their mistake.  And, while they're correcting mistakes, best they correct or adjust for Barack taking his name off the ballot, which was the predominant act people cite for the election being "flawed."  Barack ignored or failed to appreciate that elections are acts of state law, which make it possible for voters to register their political preference; whereas delegate assignment is a wholly separate, private matter of the DNC.  Either that, or he made a purely political calculation that it would make Iowans happy and increase his changes there.  Neither the DNC or RNC rules have to stipulate use of election results to assign delegates; they could do it the old way of back-room deals and relationships.  But Barack made the discretionary decision to make it more difficult for those who prefer him to express that in the Michigan election.  It's best, now, that the DNC correct this mistake by giving him a few of Hillary's delegates...right?  It's just ludicrous.  If Hillary wants to challenge that decision in Denver, I believe she has an ironclad case.  It will win her a grand total of two delegates (the 4 delegates moved x 1/2), but an offense worth undoing just to guard precedent.

Florida and Michigan aren't just any two states.  They are and have been for several presidential elections key swing states, and could, as in the recent past, be the the difference in the election.  It is interesting, that the Democratic nominee's greatest liability to winning in November may not be any particular issue - Iraq, health care, the economy - but rather its own national committee.