2012 election reactions

• Though I voted for Romney, I'm not upset that Obama won. Both candidates were going to continue busting our budgets and limiting our freedoms. It's just Romney was going to do it with slightly more palatable judicial appointments. This election COULD nudge Obama towards the center and towards compromise. This notion is contrary to all evidence, but one can hope.

• What I am disappointed about is Elizabeth Warren winning in MA. I liked Scott Brown, and think that Warren is full of ignorant populist crap. I tremendously dislike any politician who is driven by their perception of changing the world to meet her view of what's fair, and sees economic division as the best means to enact their vision. She's the embodiment of the limousine liberal, and while good intentioned, doesn't have any idea of the negative consequences of the policies that she advocates. Yes, her financial regulation ideas SEEM to benefit the little guy, but they have unseen consequences, such as raised costs that reduce access.

• I don't agree with all of the talk that the Republican party is now sunk by (pick one) demographics, a liberal tidal wave, national acceptance of liberal social policies, or that the party's policies are inherently bad/unpopular. Instead, I think this election is an indictment of Republican party leadership. The whole "next man up" approach to picking a candidate needs to change. Dole '96, McCain '08, and Romney '12 were all nominees mostly because they were next in line. Surprise - they all lost. Obama was eminently beatable, but next-man-up meant that the R's ran a guy who was both the Father of Obamacare and an evil rich white vulture capitalist. Result: Romney couldn't really campaign on health care, even if Obamacare is very unpopular, and Romney was an easy foil to the "ask a little more of the rich" angle. In retrospect, running a candidate with those qualities was flat-out stupid.

• To support this point, I need to demonstrate that some other candidate would have done better than Romney. It certainly wouldn't have been any of the other announced Republican candidates (Perry, Santorum, Bachman, etc.), but I've got to believe someone (Mitch Daniels? Jeb Bush?) could have been a more effective candidate.

• It still stuns me that Obama's campaign (basically) ran without touting their first term OR clearly stating what their plans were for their second term. (That's how bad of a choice Romney was, as a candidate.)

• I now look forward to watching Obama reconcile his policies and tendencies with the looming economic realities. Some kind of dramatic change in economics is inevitable in the next four years. How will Obama balance his core interest groups (such as unions) with economic challenges such as unsustainable public pensions. 

• If I were in charge of the R's, the first thing that I would do is make Paul Ryan the Speaker of the House. Boehner is the embodiment of all of the party's flaws: old, devoid of new ideas, combative, and definitely not new media savvy or telegenic. Ryan, on the other hand, is vibrant, constructive, and following the presidential election, better known than Boehner. (He's also known for being able to go toe-to-toe intellectually with Obama.

I'm voting for.......

Just for my own enjoyment, what follows are my thoughts about the 2012 Presidential election. I wrote a similar post about the 2008 election that you can read here.

2012 is yet another election where our two party system has delivered us two lame choices. One candidate was a 1-term governor of a nothing-special state and his most recent political accomplishment was coming in a distant second to John McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries. The other candidate’s performance as President has been so underwhelming that his campaign ads only come in two flavors: either “I’ve got a plan,” or “the other candidate is really bad, and he’ll do bad things to you.”

(Sorry, Mr. President. You lose the right to campaign on your plan for the future when you haven’t even had a budget passed in most of your term, even when your party controlled both houses of Congress. If you can’t get a budget passed through a Congress you control, why should I believe you will get a series of legislative initiatives through a divided Congress?)

We’ve got two really bad choices, making the election a choice of the lesser of two evils. (Seriously. I can understand if you want to vote for your candidate because he’s not the other guy, who is way worse. I cannot understand anyone, though, who thinks their candidate is actually doing a good job, or going to do a good job. Anyone who thinks Obama is an effective, positive leader has been asleep the last four years, and anyone who thinks Romney isn’t a neocon and a repeat of Bush #43 isn’t paying attention.)

But rather than pointing out each candidates’ flaws (which might take up all of the space on the internet, though I do recommend reading this), I’ll illustrate how I arrived at my choice by describing my ideal candidate, and picking the one that comes closest.

In my opinion, the ideal Presidential candidate is:

-Constructive, and practically principled. My ideal candidate holds clear positions, but is willing to work with, or to do the deal with the other party that gets 70% of what the leader wants, rather than viewing any compromise as a loss. My ideal candidate also doesn’t demonize the other party or any group on the other side of an issue.

-Extremely limited in the application of the US military.  My perfect candidate would get the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and reduce American military commitments around the globe. Why, for example, are there still ~100,000 US troops in Europe 23 years after the Cold War and 67 years after the end of WWII?

-Socially quiet. I’m interested in “hiring” a commander-in-chief to execute the policies to improve the country, not to be our conscience-in-chief. On most any social issue our country is split roughly 50/50 (example: abortion). For any President then, imposing social policies is inherently a losing proposition – half of the population is likely in violent disagreement to a given policy. Let social policies work through other channels – state legislatures, for example. (I realize the concept of the socially quiet candidate is a bit naïve, but a real leader knows that there are three ways to make change happen, and brute force (i.e. driving a social change through legislation) is the least effective.)

-Fiscally prudent. I still don’t understand why the most prosperous nation on the planet is also the biggest debtor on the planet.  A balanced budget (or something a few trillion dollars closer) should be a central tenet.

-Unequivocally for free trade.

-Against any internet regulation. 

-Consitutionally limited. Once – just once – I’d like to hear a candidate say that something is a problem best addressed by something other than the Federal government. One great place to start: education.

In short, my ideal candidate is a Jeffersonian Democrat. Too bad they went out of style in the Democratic party decades ago. (Jeffersonian Democrats might even be extinct – I can’t think of any Democrats who would qualify.)

Grading both Obama and Romney against my wish list is depressing. Romney comes out at a slight advantage, largely because in some dimensions he’s an unknown, whereas we know how bad Obama is in a given dimension.  

There is one person on the ballot who scores fairly well versus my criteria: Paul Ryan. He’s demonstrated that he’s practically principled in his legislative efforts with Sen. Wyden (D) in health care, he’s certainly fiscally prudent, a free trader, and many of his positions are driven by an interest in limited government. He also is NOT loud or widely known for his stance on social issues.

Unfortunately, though, Ryan is only one the ballot as VP, but I’ll credit Romney with a bit of Ryan’s halo.

Also on the subject of VP, Joe Biden to me is a walking disaster. I don’t agree with his policies, but I am even more alarmed by his utter lack of principles (remember his theft of Neil Kinnock’speeches?), impact (he's been a Senator or VP for the last 39 years - can you name one thing he's done?) or frankly brains. Where are the people who slammed Bush #43 for umm, stupidity, when Joe Biden is a heart beat away from the Presidency, and IMHO a bigger moron? (And a crook, if the stories I’ve heard are even half-true.)

So, comparing Obama and Romney gives a slight advantage to Romney, but mostly because of Paul Ryan.  Really, though, the Presidential candidate that I most connect with this year is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Unfortunately, he has no chance of winning.

I’m certainly willing to cast my vote for a lost cause, but I live in Virginia – a swing state with a very tight race. It's a tight race in Virginia, with the leader changing daily. State polls show everything from a 5 point Romney lead to a 4 point Obama lead in Virginia, so the only conclusion that I can reach is that it is a very close race. I like the notion that I am going to cast the deciding vote.

The last presidential election was a choice between two mediocre candidates. This election is a contest to decide which Harvard grad will do the least bad job of running enormous deficits. Neither choice is appealing for that reason, and I’m not hopeful that much will change.

But it is very likely that the next four years will see multiple appointments to the Supreme Court, and the next President will have a chance to significantly alter the demeanor of the Court.

Obama has already appointed two Supreme Court Justices (Kagan and Sotomayor), neither is considered moderate. I’m not a legal scholar, but my views are best characterized as a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, with a limitation on government power and against judicial activism. (I’m a believer in the now-radical position that the legislative branch is responsible for writing the law, not the judicial branch.)

So, only because of the Supreme Court impact of this election and a small Paul Ryan halo, I tepidly endorse Mitt Romney for President. If he wins, though, I won’t be celebrating. Instead I’ll be laughing about how the most powerful man on the planet wears magic underwear.

(Polls here in Virginia open in four days, so there’s still time for you to change my mind – leave me a message to set me straight.)

ADDENDUM: CLOSING ARGUMENTS REVEAL THAT BOTH CANDIDATES ARE FULL OF IT.

Obama: incendiary rhetoric bad for you, good for me

This is worth re-blogging. From ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper's blog:

President Obama at the GOP House retreat, January 2010:

“We're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

President Obama today (4/13, while introducing his budget proposal):

 “One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”

I don't begrudge politicians for posturing, exaggeration (50 million Americans?)  or even for talking out of both sides of their mouth, but the blatantly provacative and exploitative use of Down's syndrome kids and autistic kids is disgusting, as is the attempt to smear the R's as insensitive to these causes. So much for the notion that Obama was a uniter and not a divider.

Libya: zero to quagmire in under 30 days.

I just finished reading an excellent article on the politics of the Libya intervention (erm, kinetic action), by Victor Davis Hanson ("President Obama’s Ten Libyan Paradoxes"
here.) Hanson - a historian and classicist does a great job of illustrating the pickle that we (the US & NATO) are now in.

There aren't many favorable possible outcomes, and the likelihood of them occurring are very small. Consider the top-level possible outcomes:

1. MQ (Moammar Quadaffi) is deposed. A democratic secular government results.
2. MQ is deposed. An Islamic theocracy results.
3. MQ stays in power across all of Libya.
4. Libya splits - MQ continues to rule western Libya.
5. Total chaos.

The fact that only one outcome is truly favorable isn't what bothers me - these scenarios are not easy to control, nor is it easy to define a win. What bothers me is that Obama's strategy has left us exposed to all possible outcomes while pulling off the rare feat of both dirtying our hands with the military action and tying our hands beyond it.

I just can't see many (any) scenarios where we don't escalate anti-MQ activities in the event that MQ hangs on.

I'm also bothered by the context and precedent of the US intervention. Is Obama saying that we should have intervened during the Prague Spring in 1968 (a popular uprising against a dictator who used a modern military on protesters)? If Obama were the King or PM of the UK in 1861, would he have declared a "no sail zone" around the Union states at the beginning of the Civil War? (i.e. aid rebels by neutering the technological & military advantage of the status quo government.)

As for the context, the Obama rationale is to act in Libya to avoid a Rwanda-level genocide. This is of course plausible, but reacting in response to the worst case scenario rather than the most likely or most desired outcome is very poor governance.

Libya itself is small potatoes in the geopolitical world, so what happens on the ground there isn't something to stress about until US actions reach the level of Iraq (boots on the ground.) However, we SHOULD be worried about how other global powers might play this situation. What if China, in a bid to undermine US credibility, negotiated a peace agreement in Libya whereby the rebels get the east of Libya, while MQ gets Tripoli and the west?

This would of course stop (or postpone) the bloodshed, but would leave an enormous amount of egg on Obama's face as the outcome would deliver the necessary peace but directly in contrast to Obama's assertion that MQ "has to go" in order for peace. What happens the next time Obama (or any future US president) asserts that a regime or nation must change behavior?

No way I'm missing the next revolution.

Congratulations, Egypt! You've done something amazing and wonderful and we all look forward to your future as a vibrant democracy. (Not so sure about the vibrant part. Per capita GDP is ~ $2,700, and the government employs 39% of the workforce. Can a young democracy make the hard changes in spending required to grow?)

Egypt has also served to reinvigorate our appreciation of liberty.


Liberty lacks in appreciation for many reasons, but happily the overall international trend is very positive. We can add Egypt to the list of "color" revolutions just in this last decade, joining the Ukraine, Yugoslavia (Serbia), Georgia, Lebanon, and Tunisia in regime change. Iraq (purple) and Iran (green) are also cited as color revolutions. I don't think this long term trend has been considered much in the US.

What these countries also have in common - along with the former Eastern Bloc in the late '80's/early '90s - is that they are revolutions that I only saw on TV.

I was in college when the Berlin Wall fell (Oct 1989?). I remember a fellow student @ W&L who, realizing the monumental importance of the event (and the fun of partying with reuniting Germans), quickly booked a plane ticket to Germany, and witnessed history for a few days before returning back to campus.

I didn't have then the means, the appreciation or even the passport to do something similar, but the idea of doing so has stuck with me through all of the revolutions since. When the protests started in Egypt, I realized that I had the resources to just hop on a plane to go experience history, but made too many excuses not to go. ("What, take a week off? I can't.....)

How cool would it be to be in Cairo right now? After seeing the events unfold in Egypt, I'm more motivated than ever to witness the next revolution in person. When the next one breaks, I'm going!*

(If you're a friend who might be interested in joining me when the time comes, let's talk. I also want to hear from any friends who might have already witnessed history in this way. (Tom D?))

Only an expensive plane ticket and skipping out on some ongoing US obligations (like a job or family) are remotely good excuses not to go.

As for the plane ticket, I've got >200,000 frequent flyer miles, and even if I have to spend some cash, what good is it for if not to partake in events like a revolution?

As for obligations, I think we all overstate the importance of our day-to-day obligations. There aren't too many jobs that can't do without you for a week, and we all have too many events or connections that we overvalue. (I think I could safely skip a UVa football or basketball home game.)

So, I'm going to the next one. Hold me to it.

Here's my short list of exciting possibilities for the location of the next 'color revolution':

Belarus
Burma
China
Cuba
Iran
Russia
Syria
Venezuela
and a couple of piddly African (Zimbabwe?) and Middle Eastern countries.

My guess is that I'll be traveling to Minsk, Belarus next. (Which is exciting because it is already on my "wanna go there list.") Unfortunately, I don't see the big ones (China, Russia, or Cuba) revolting soon. But we can hope.

* I reserve the right to skip piddly revolutions (Yemen?) and revolutions in sparsely populated, uninteresting countries (Algeria?)


Just to stir the pot a bit: besides the Egyptians themselves (winners) and other Middle East regimes (losers), who are the other winners and losers:

Winners:

George W. Bush - I'm still not a fan, but maybe he was on to something in the Middle East.

Israel - they are rightfully nervous with the change as Mubarak - in spite of his other faults - represented stability in a region short on it. I still think that over the long term, Israel will be safer with a democracy as a neighbor that a dictator.


The west's security/war on Jihad - what if - sensing domestic opportunity - the jihadists shift their attention from the Great Satan (us) to their local monarchs, dictators, and oppressors? Could (for example) al qaieda shift effort from trying to strike at the west (London bombings, etc.) to trying to dethrone the House of Saud?

Losers:

Obama foreign policy - I thought the Obama administration struck the right tone during the 18 days of protests in Egypt, but Egypt still represents a faulty policy, and underscores the failure of supporting the Iranians in revolt in 2009.

Remember, Obama chose Egypt as the place to deliver his initial entreaties to Islam just after taking office in 2009. His message - as I recall - was basically "We're not as bad as the last 8 years have made you think, and I want to work with you." Noble thoughts, but they can't begin to compare with more directed foreign policies by prior American leaders. (Think Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.") (Sure, Obama's Cairo speech wasn't the setting to crank up the rhetoric, but Obama's accomodative speech and his policy in the Middle East over the last 2 years are similar.)

Obama missed a chance when the Iranian people protested in 2009. The administration took a position of non-interference in order to establish a new relationship with the crazy people running Iran. I definitely believe that a full-blown revolution in Iran faltered in 2009 because of a lack of public support by the USA due to intentional diplomatic insouciance. (Not the first time that this has happened - GW Bush left the Iraqi Kurds hanging when they tried to revolt against Saddam Hussein following the first Gulf War.)

The lesson here is that when we identify 100% bad regimes (such as Iran, or the Soviet Union), public accommodation in any form is to dilute our foreign policy goals and diminish US values. (In essence, we tacitly support and play down to the level of the regime.)


Along those lines: The US' ability to learn lessons and adapt foreign policies. We have a really bad habit of tolerating anti-democratic allies. While the outcome in Egypt in 2011 is far more positive than Iran in 1979 (much more like Ferdinand Marcos & the Philippines in the late '80's), we still made the same mistake: holding our nose and backing a bad guy because of short-term geopolitical considerations.

Sometimes this makes sense when small progress can be seen over time, as in South Korea, where the US backed a military-led government, as the country "matured" into the vibrant democracy it is today. However, Mubarak never liberalized at all over 30 years. (He kept emergency laws in place all 30 years.)

The good news is that there aren't too many other current examples of the US tolerating local dictators in order to support US geopolitical interests. All I can think of are the countries neighboring Afghanistan - the former Soviet "-stans," and Pakistan. (Where the government is less dictatorial than dysfunctional.)

Tim Gallagher pardoned by Obama!

More here.

OK, so it's really not me - I'm not 58, don't live in Texas, and don't have a cocaine conviction, but it was fun to write the headline.

This came up when I was doing a routine check of how traffic arrives at my blog. I saw that someone in Holland came to my site after a search on "Timmy Gallagher Obama." My first thought was the my insightful political commentary must carry alot of weight in Europe (ha!), but a quick search revealed the news of Obama's pardon.


This story also reminded me of the time the DMV mixed my records up with another Tim Gallagher. It was quite a shock to learn that I had warrants out for me in states that I've never been to!

(while the DMV episode wasn't fun, it beats the heck out of identity theft.)

Obama in Charlottesville: thoughts and observations

Background: Obama was in Charlottesville to support incumbent Representative Democrat Tom Perriello in his re-election campaign against Robert Hurt in Virginia’s 5^th District (VA-5). Perriello came to office in 2008, riding Obama’s coattails to beat a long time Republican incumbent by~ 700 votes. Since the 2008 election pundits on both sides have recognized that the VA-5 race 2010 is a key battleground, testing both the approval of Obama’s policies, and seeing if a normally Republican district had undergone a long-term change. Polls suggest that Perriello trails Hurt by 6-10%, with Obama’s visit testing his ability to impact the race.

(Author’s background: I’m an independent voter, leaning Libertarian (i.e. towards economic conservatism and mildly liberal social policies, though abhorring progressivism.) I voted for Perriello in 2008, but will be voting for Hurt in 2010. See the bottom of this post for my voting rationale.)

-Obama gave a very good, positive speech, heavy on the change theme, definitely exciting his base and the crowd. Discussion of the Obama administration’s accomplishments/achievements/initiatives were surprisingly light. I didn’t feel like he was trying to sell any new or old programs, but rather to appeal to people with his vision. My guess is that this is Obama’s comfort zone, and what the crowd really wanted to hear, rather than a pitch for expanded infrastructure investment (for example).

Quick observations:

-He spoke for a solid half-hour off of a telepromptr.

-1 mention of Iraq, no mention of Afghanistan, no mention of terrorism (odd, given the news of the day (Yemen)).

-There was zero name calling and almost no jabs aimed at “the other party.” No Republicans were named in the speech (though he did make a reference to the Minority Leader). A couple of references were made to ‘special interests.’

-Obama listed several reasons why the US is in the dumps economically, but I do not believe he named any of the actual, substantive causes. (Fannie Mae…….) Several times he made reference how the economic crisis was due to Republican policies. Almost as many times Obama pointedly stated that there would have been a second Great Depression if he hadn’t taken the necessary steps. (Like TARP, though that word was definitely not used.)

-Side note: Obama used first-person personal pronouns exclusively – “I avoided another Great Depression,” and “I put into effect a $2,500 tuition tax credit.” I can’t recall when he referred to “We,” or “our efforts.” Some would like the fact that he's taking ownership of the issues and outcomes, while some would say that this is another example of the cult of the presidency.

-No mention of the payback and financial return of the bank bailout. I guess that issue is nuclear.

-Obama definitely did NOT directly tie the 2010 election to his. As in “a vote for Tom is a vote for me.” This message was present, though unstated.

-There was a bit of demagoguery aimed at insurance companies, banks, and big business. Whatever makes you feel better, buddy………

-There was repeated of mention of the need to vote for Perriello to continue the change started in 2008, but the change was largely abstract, and there was never really any allusion to a tangible outcome or benefit for voters or America. (As an counterexample, it could have been “In 2011, we want to change _______, and we need Tom’s vote to make the change happen.”) To me, this is equivalent to a salesman making a pitch, but never asking for the business. It might also be an either an indication that the Obama administration doesn’t really have any idea of where to go to next, or an admission that the agenda is likely to change with the new Congress, and it might not be Obama’s agenda to write.

-On the other hand, Perriello, who preceded the President, sounded like Santa Claus handing out gifts from a goody bag, the repeated theme being “I helped bring 1,800 green jobs to Charlottesville…. I got a $2,500 tuition tax credit approved, which is now being used by X# of people in our district……” His argument was basically vote for me and you’ll all get more goodies worth more in value than what you’re giving up in taxes. (Not hard when the Federal government spends ~35% more than tax revenue taken in.)

-Estimated attendance at the event by the Cville Fire Marshal: 9,000 in the pavilion, 3,000 outside (where I was). I don’t think Fire Marshals are selected for their math skills, as these are pretty badly inflated –various websites and press releases list the capacity of the Pavilion at (alternatively) 900, 1,100, or 3,500 people. I’d say of those figures, 3,500 is most reasonable, though a bit high. If you get rid of aisles, and pack people in, I could see it getting to ~5,000 people inside.  I was in the first 20 feet of the area outside the Pavilion, and had the sense that there were a lot of people behind me, but because of the dark and the narrowness of the Downtown Mall, I couldn’t estimate what that total was, though based on  how easy my post-rally walk from Downtown Mall was, I can’t believe there were 3,000 people outside the Pavilion, nor 12,000 people alongside or behind me overall.

-My spot for the rally was just a few feet away from the Free Speech Wall on the Downtown Mall – pretty close in. Nonetheless, I never actually saw the President as I was still ~800 feet away from the stage. Luckily, the sound system was turned up for Obama’s speech, so the event was still electrifying.

-Security was nowhere near as prominent as I expected. Sure, there were Uniformed Secret Service to go along with city and county police, as well as plain clothes Secret Service traveling with the President, but security personnel and procedures did not seem out of line with the event. After the speech I waited around to see the Presidential motorcade which was very exciting, but not as overwhelming as I guessed. The whole entourage returning to the Charlottesville airport was ~7 cars, including State Police. I always had assumed that Presidents traveled with a long tail (everything from a physician to guys carrying briefcases with nuclear launch codes), but it looked more like a family outing – albeit one with armored Chevy Suburbans and a police escort.

A few other surprises to me:

-I stood in a pack of several hundred people and at the peak of pre-speech anticipation, I heard a few feet away from me a tiny dog yapping his brains out. Who brings a dog to a political rally, and who puts that dog on the ground in the forest of  attendees?

-The Uniformed Secret Service agents looked only slightly more alert and physically imposing than shopping mall rent-a-cops.

-I never saw a protester of any variety, and never even saw campaign signs of any flavor. A few people wore Perriello stickers, but that’s it.

-Having Air Force One fly overhead is undeniably cool. We didn't get the real 747 AF One but rather a twin-engine 757 or 767. Glad I didn't go to the airport (my other choice) expecting to see the big bird, and miss this event.

The crowd was enthusiastic and impressive in its’ commitment. Some started queuing in the morning (Obama went on around 8pm).  I talked with some folks who as of 7pm had been in line for 1.5 hours and they not only didn’t have a prayer of getting in, I wouldn’t be surprised if they never even got within sight of the Pavilion (if they stayed in line.) My guess is that is if you weren’t in line 3.5 hours before the event, you weren’t getting in.

The biggest roar was in support of the healthcare bill.

I noticed from conversations around me that a good percentage of the attendees were from out of the area - maybe 20-30% of the crowd around me based on questions about where the good restaurants were, or overheard cellphone conversations. With such a high out-of-area presence, one might wonder how effective the rally was for Perriello in VA-5. I guess we’ll find out this Tuesday.

My voting rationale: IMHO, Perriello has done a good job servicing the district, and has certainly put his all towards the job. He’s the rare Democrat in 2010 running on the Obama record, which his voting supported, instead of trying to run from it, to Tom’s credit.

But this means that the VA-5 election is a referendum on Obama’s Presidency, which I am frankly very, very disappointed in, in just about every dimension. (I’ll save my analysis & opinion of the Obama administration for another post.)

Perriello is also an underwhelming character. As a progressive he has all of the solutions for everything but too naïve and ineffective to realize that most of the solutions are either impractical and uneconomic, driven by special interests, or ideas selected for their appearance rather than their effectiveness. He voted in step with his party on all of the major issues, and there’s every indication that when he didn’t, it was with the blessing of the Speaker & Majority Whip.

Perriello’s peer in shortcomings is his opponent, Robert Hurt. I’d like to provide a strong list of Hurt’s positives, but instead I’d say that he is generally underwhelming, and too blindly partisan. His main attribute: that he isn’t Tom Perriello.

Obama:business::oil:water

One thing about the Obama administration that has torqued me up is the negative attitude towards business - in just 10 months, he's railed about the evil insurance industry and the horrible bankers, taken aim at credit card companies, promoted an anti-industry cap and trade policy, nationalized the car industry, and demonized the pharmaceutical and hospital industries while he tries to remake 1/6th of the US economy.

But now, it all makes sense to me after seeing some recent analysis from JP Morgan. Check out this graphic from JP Morgan showing the %age of cabinet officers with private sector experience since the Teddy Roosevelt administration.

(full explanation here. (American Enterprise blog.))

This is troublesome on 3 levels:

1) There's no business expertise around Obama to provide real world advice or context for the challenge of getting the economy going. (In fact, this may be why all of the White House rhetoric is around "jobs" and not "economic growth." While jobs and economic growth are often synonymous, the difference is that dictators and deficit-spending politicians can create jobs out of thin air by fiat, but can't make an economy grow without good ideas and expereinced managers to make them happen.)

Without real-world experience to advise Obama, count on more programs that are selected because they sound good politically or test well in focus groups, but don't do a darn net thing economically, like cash for clunkers or the proposed employee hiring tax credit.

2) You are who you surround yourself with. Seeing that only a fraction of people around Obama have ever held a real job makes me think that he's surrounded by sycophants, lifelong politicians, and issues-oriented hangers-on. Prior to their cabinet positions, these people specialized in 1 thing: getting elected. This is great if you're up for re-election in 2012, but truly terrible for the those of us who aren't. These aren't the folks who will make the best decisions for America, but will ultimately make decisions that are best for them and their political career, because it is what they have been doing for decades.

3) This is more evidence that Obama highly values the political elite ruling class, and undervalues the working class. Case in point: Obama made 3 different nominations for the Secretary of Commerce (Bill Richardson (fmr gov of NM), Sen Judd Gregg, and ultimately Gary Locke (fmr gov of WA). You'd think that the at least one of the three nominees for COMMERCE of all positions would come from the business world - either immediately, or recently, but no, all three are career politicians. Based on the composition of Obama's leadership team, when it comes time to talk about stimulus ideas, do you think he's going to hear the best ideas, or the best politically motivated ideas? Will we get the ideas that make our economy better, or the ones that get us in the best shape in late 2012, when Obama stands for re-election?


Since winning the election a year ago, I haven't posted anything critical of Obama. There's some things that Obama has done that I've liked and others that I haven't, but I fervently hope that he is generally successful. With the approach to date, and the roster of talent that we see, I don't think it likely - he'll be made vulnerable by plainly liberal policies and undone by a poor economy. I hope even the most strident Obama advocate would agree that the Obama administration would be more effective with more people on his team who have worked in the real world, and less reliance on career political class and unicorn chasers.

2 bonus points on the '08 election

I've been wondering now for several months: with all of the macro indicators pointing towards Obama and the Democrats, why does Obama support such liberal economic policies? I think the election was won by Obama (or whoever was to be the Democrats' candidate) before it even started. Running against Bush, a bad economy, and a war is a dream scenario, one where any candidate could have channeled Bill Clinton by making a balanced budget a priority.

Instead, Obama's seeks to expand spending by $4.3 TRILLION, and the rest of his economic policies are also an abrupt departure from centrist policies, such as raising the cap on social security taxes, which hasn't changed in decades. (Not to mention the redistributionist tax policies.)

Obama has good lines in his election ads - "most people will pay lower taxes," but every policy analysis that i've read says otherwise.

I disagree with the Obama policies, but my point here isn't whether his policies are good or bad - I'm asking why with such a favorable election setting did Obama adopt such radical (and bad) economic policies?


Along the same lines, I'm seeing that Obama is projected to win 52-46, which is a nice, solid, no-doubt win, and notable for the margin of victory when compared to the last two elections (and really the last 3 out of 4 have been very close.)

However, I'm stunned that the margin isn't much greater. (And maybe it will be tomorrow.) With the dismal opinion polls of Bush and the Republicans, an economic crisis, several thousand Americans killed in foreign wars, and terrible, unpopular policies in place anywhere you look (from No Child Left Behind to stem cell research), why isn't the margin of victory likely to be larger?

The answer, I believe, is that the Democrats still represent dismal, fringe policies driven by dismal, fringe people.

In my lifetime, the Democrats did best when governing from the center, as embodied by Bill Clinton's adoption of centrist policies such as NAFTA, a balanced budget, and welfare reform. (This agenda was really set by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, but credit Clinton for abandoning left-ish roots to jump on a good, centrist thing.)

Today, we've got Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shelving centrist opportunities like the Columbia free trade pact, and pursuing a very liberal agenda.

Perhaps the Democrats will take the relatively small margin of victory for what it is and make the changes necessary to govern from the center, but I suspect they won't. Instead, I expect to hear later this week what a mandate for Democratic policies was delivered on Election day, and then I expect to see exactly what happened between 1992 and 1994 - the Democrats focused on very liberal policy priorities with little chance of success (like the Hilary Clinton-led heath care plan, and endorsing gays in the military). Between these new policies, and the efforts to overturn Reagan-era decisions and reward key constituents, the Democrats quickly fell out of touch, and were absolutely murdered in the 1994 mid-term elections.

All of the signs point to a repeat, with obviously liberal policies lined up that will naturally offend a good portion of the population. Just like Clinton's campaign promise that his first official act would be to permit gays to serve openly in the military, Obama is promising to enable partial birth abortions. (Or something like that - I really don't pay much attention to reproductive rights. Nevertheless, I understand that such a change would be a very liberal one.)

Following the abortion change, we'll be seeing the Employee Free Choice Act, a new law to overturn decades of Union/management practices to facilitate greater union representation.

Following this script, you'll see a big gain for the Republicans in the 2010 elections, unless Obama tunes out his fringe constituents and very liberal nature and rushes towards the center.

I endorse........

Well, nobody. Sort of (see below).

But first a bit of background: I'm a libertarian centrist living in Virginia. I voted for Obama in the Virginia primary, and thought enough about McCain to go to a campaign rally of his in 2000.

I generally believe that people and markets are capable of amazing things when left to flourish, and that most government initiatives - while well intentioned - typically impinge on liberty, are too expensive and poorly run, and fail to deliver desired results.

(For some examples relevant to these lessons, watch the series of quick vids starting here.)

I believe in flat taxes, school choice, and liberalizing rules, such as in allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. I dislike farm subsidies, anything that expands the government's powers, and I can tell you from having seen socialized health care first hand that a future where government plays a bigger role in health care is not a future that I want to live in.

With rare exception, I tend to view politicians not as left or right, but as tenured political class, or not. I think many of America's problems are explained not by the policy of one of our two parties, but by entrenched interests. My bias is to "throw the bums out," and, unfortunately, I won't be surprised when Congressional financial regulators like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd do NOT lose their seats on the relevant Oversight committees.

With that as a backdrop, I would describe our 2 choices for President at equally bad.

One candidate is a creature of his party, an old-school machine politician. The other sees an increasing role for the state in every aspect of our lives, from energy policy to national service.

(If you can't tell which candidate is which, you might begin to see another point).

One candidate is pushing a divisive policy to make the majority of America band together to take advantage of a disadvantaged class of people. The other candidate is in a disadvantaged class of people - old folks.

One candidate actively intends to redistribute wealth for no purpose but "fairness" (in his eyes at least). The other thinks we need only continue the Bush tax cuts.

One candidate is actively against free trade. The other candidate is against free election financing.

Both candidates agree on a cap and trade system to help fight global warming. I don't see any way that this turns out any better than Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - another government program to push policy-driven spending off of the government's books.

I could go on, but frankly it is too depressing.

Current polls suggest that Obama will win this election, probably winning the national vote 52-46. If the race is more competitive, Virginia (where I live) will be a swing state, and it is possible then that I might cast a deciding vote, so though I am underwhelmed by both candidates, I need to hold my nose and choose one of these two. To do that, I've made the following list of pluses and minuses for each candidate:

Obama:
Positive:
-his election would start a new chapter in race relations, and inspire many
-an ability to give a good speech
-the courage to have spoken out against the war in Iraq
-a good brand image, and
-the respect of the world may enable him to set a better foreign policy course

Negatives:
-terrible economic policies, most have which have been stale for oh, 70 years.
-strong statist tendencies (have you seen a government program that he doesn't endorse expanding?)
-a definite lack of any non-political experience. In other words, he's a professional politician. He knows how to read an opinion poll, but doesn't know how to lead.
-Joe Biden as VP/potential Prez. All of the liberalism and party control, none of the dynamism of Obama.
-Congress is controlled by his party. (I like divided government - it forces centrist policies (ask Bill Clinton), and generally spends less.)
-this is not a dealbreaker, but I am deeply troubled by Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright - not just the association, but the "cover-up" so to speak. How does somebody attend approximately 500 services and become so inspired as to donate $500/month to Wright's church expect us to believe that there isn't a philosophical link between Obama and Wright?

McCain:
Positives:
-former military officer means he has had to lead people before.
-he's been a maverick over the years, indicating that he won't always make a decision based on party policy.
-Sarah Palin. I'm not completely sold on her, but I believer to be a charismatic, principled leader. Don't judge her on the pundit commentary - watch her in action.
-the result of his election would be divided government.
-His economic policies are less worse than Obama.

Negatives:
-he's 72 years old. As I've learned all too well from experience, at this age, you can't rely on clear decision making. There's too much going on in the world today which makes me wonder if a 72 year old can keep straight all of the facts needed to make a decision on a particular policy. (I am not saying that 72 year-olds aren't functional, just that they're not suited for the office of President.)
-he's right out of the Big Government Republican wing of his party - he likes to regulate, and likes "national greatness" policies.
-No bold ideas at all, except for the idea to push health care onto the individual instead of tying this to a job.


I really, really can't get excited about either of these candidates. I might have been enthusiastic about McCain if he were 10 years younger, and not following Bush. I could have stayed interested in Obama if his economic policies weren't on the socialist fringe. (Yes, they're way out there, and yes, they are socialist. Redistributing wealth and increased central planning (see the health care policy) does make one a socialist.)

In the end, I have decided the economy matters most and that John McCain stinks less, mostly because the Democrat-controlled Congress would keep him in check, while a Democratic Congress might hand Obama a blank one.

Also, having paid way too much attention to the election this year, Obama's charm has worn off on me, and I now see him for what he is - a classic Chicago politician with a strong liberal bias. I suspect that over time, less people will be excited by Obama, unless he very quickly governs to the center. (See also Clinton, Bill.)

So, consider this a very, very tepid endorsement of John McCain.

(I'm not voting until after work tomorrow, so there's still time to change my mind - leave me a message to set me straight.)

Vice Presidential choices out of left field

Anyone notice how as the conventions approach, the buzz around most mainstream VP candidates has lessned?

I'd say that buzz around Kaine, Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, and Sebelius has quieted. One possible interpretation is that none of these folks are "the" choice. who knows, but it is always more fun to talk about more dramatic choices

Here's three dramatic choices that would make sense (I am mentioning them basically so I can say "I told you so" on the off-chance either is selected.)

Mark Warner: Virginia is a must-win state for Obama, and there's no one who could deliver Virginia like Warner. Warner, though, is a shoe-in for the Senate this year from Virginia - why take a chance on losing?

One reason that Warner is such a shoe-in is that Mark Warner is very popular from his time as Governor. The other explanation is that his opponent, Jim Gilmore, is running a campaign that is, at best, still-born.

My guess here is that Warner could clinch Virginia (and the presidency) for Obama, and that the Dems' 2nd choice (or 3rd, or 4th, or even Doug Wilder) could still beat Gilmore.

General David Petreaus. I don't know Petreaus' politics, but it is clear that he is ambitious, and a climber. He'd be an asset to either the Obama OR McCain campaign. He would provide immense credibility as VP, and whatever position on Iraq that he promotes would instantly have the high ground.

Obama needs someone like Petreaus more than McCain, who already has military cred, but I think Petreaus would still be a good fit for McCain as well.

For many of the same reasons, I could see Obama selecting the less qualified, more political version of Petreaus, Wesley Clark.

Meg Whitman Already a McCain surrogate, and a strategic advisor, Whitman would bring business and economic savvy and managerial credibility. She's one of the few "rock star" CEOs. She'd be an exciting choice, and a great political move for McCain.

Much like Wesley Clark is a shadow of Petreaus, Carly Fiorina could provide the same outline as Whitman, except she's less successful, less talented, and less credible. (But more of a spotlight hound.)

I'm juiced about an Obama-Warner ticket vs. a McCain-Whitman ticket. But don't listen to me - 12 months ago I thought the election would be Gore vs. Powell.

If you read only one article today (Obamanomics)

A prominent economist runs the numbers on Obama's economic policies. Verdict: not even remotely good.

I really like Obama's newness, breath of fresh air, and some of his policies, such as getting the US out of Iraq. I really want to vote Obama (and did in the primary), but his policies for business and the economy completely negate the positives.

(I'm indirectly saying that the economy is a more important issue than Iraq. To me, it is not even close.)

I hoped - and keep hoping - that Obama will seek more mainstream policies and tilt towards the center, if not the right. I really thought his positions would moderate after the primaries, but he is obstinate in pursuing higher taxes, protectionism, and increased regulation.

I'll leave the gory details to the article in today's WSJ editorial "Obamanomics is a recipe for recession," but suffice to say, it's an economic policy akin to shifting from 5th gear to reverse. (Or, given today's economy, from 2nd gear to reverse. No, we're not in recession, I'll probably expound on this in another post.) After reading the article, you'll see that everyone's taxes will be rising. This is certainly not a plan that only affects "the rich."

In addition to the economic points in the article, I'm also dismayed by the philosophy underlying the proposals. I have yet to see Obama offer the rationale that suggests these policies will grow the economy more than current policy. All I ever hear as rationale for rolling back NAFTA or the tax increases is "fairness," and occasionally admissions that the additional tax revenue is necessary to pay for expanded government programs.

Select quotes from the article:

On NAFTA, after a litany of statistics: "it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment"

In summary: "History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression."

Oh, this is scary (Obama policy)

Sen. Obama announced a plan to funnel $25B in low-interest loans to US automakers. Yes, the automakers are in sad shape, and yes, thousands of voters (errr....jobs) are in jeopardy, but this is just a downright bad idea, and more importantly, if this is representative of Obama's administration, we would be taking a seriously wrong turn towards national industrial policy, and state primacy over commerce.

My objection isn't the amount of money involved - through leverage, the cost of the $25B program is only $4B, which really isn't much money in government terms (though, keep in mind, the combined market cap of Ford & GM is only $18B - maybe the government should just buy these two companies?)

What really irks me are two things:

1) the activist notion of the Obama policy that government can and should influence business outcomes. There's a plethora of evidence that government activism is at best a zero-sum exercise. (Which reminds me: why should we want the governement to provide healthcare?) Why would business ever benefit from the participation (read: invasion) of government? How can politicizing commerce be a positive?

Worse, this smacks of industrial policy - in a nutshell, the notion that government can/should pick commercial winners. This was most readily used by Japan during the 1980's, and for a while, pundits thought it might be "Japan Inc.'s" secret to success. Suffice to say, the last ~15 years of Japanese recession have debunked industrial policy as value-creating.

2) that political policies should enforce the status quo. The current crisis - and resulting Obama auto loans - are the latest chapter in a 30+ year long decline of the US auto industry. The problems in the auto industry run deep. They are structural, and based on 30 years of history, not on the verge of being solved. The Obama loans are bandaids, and would likely just prolong the problems of the industry.

There are few industries beyond the auto industry in such dire need for change, and while the loans could fund the development of a few new models, the loans would just continue the status quo. This is quite odd for someone who's political message is change.

Project the Obama policy forward, and before you know it, there'll be another industry in bad shape, and in line for loans and federal oversight. (My early guess here is the pharmaceutical industry.) Eventually, government participation reduces business performance to mean, and ultimate business success or failure has more to do with the discretion of the government, and less about innovation and hard work.

Hell freezes over and Tim becomes a Clinton supporter?

Tell me what you think of the realization that I had in the last month: as much as it pains me to suggest this, the best thing that can happen for someone of my political leanings (conservative libertarian), and, I'd argue, the country as a whole, is Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. (Which, I believe leads to her winning in the general election.)

Why? Because I'm hoping that the Democratic party spurning Obama in spite of the vote & delegate advantages would splinter the monolithic African-American voting block. I think the implicit message in an HRC-nomination that the Democratic party isn't any more favorable to African-Americans than the Republicans would allow these voters to consider other options, facilitating both a more diverse Republican party, and perhaps a viable third party.

But more important than party politics, spurned African-American voters could break the logjam on issues that I believe we need to move on to make a better America. African-Americans have been voting for the status quo and against change to their own detriment. (Ironic, eh?) Best example: school choice. I really think the biggest beneficiaries of increased school choice will be the least advantaged students, but African-American voting in support of the traditional Democrat lobbies (in this case, teacher's unions) sustains the status quo. Plenty of polls show that core African-American issues/stances actually match up well with Republican policies, but since buying into the Great Society, African-Americans have been solidly, and perhaps blindly Democrats.


(Counter-interpretation: Party elders (Dean, Pelosi, etc.) realize the long-term stakes, and that's why Obama will be the nominee.)

Great Barack quote from a rally yesterday

"I'm not running for president because of some long-held ambition, and I'm not running because I think it's my turn." - Sen. Barack Obama.


I'm not sure who my candidate is for the fall, but I'm still firmly a member of the ABC Club - Anybody But Clinton!

Clinton, McCain, or Obama - who's the official candidate of CogentPassion?

A friend of mine asked me who I'm endorsing for President. I answered that I haven't endorsed anybody yet, and that even if I supported someone, I'm definitely not important enough to call it an endorsement.

Anyway....

I supported McCain in 2000, and I think in retrospect, we probably would have been better off with him (or, virtually anybody else!) I really didn't like at the time how the party lined up behind Bush. If you recall, there really wasn't much of a Republican primary, as Bush Jr. leveraged family and party connections to lock up the nomination without any serious debate. I wonder if McCain would have selected Jeb Bush as VP. Would have been a good combination.

I think my interest in McCain at the time was driven not by any particular McCain stance, but rather I thought he would make a good leader, which is still true. But, in the meantime, I've studied McCain a bunch since then, and I'm underwhelmed - not in a Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter "he's not a REAL Republican" sort of way. Instead, I'm really turned off by his expansive government/anti-Libertarian views. He hasn't met a problem that wouldn't be solved with more government or otherwise extend government management at the expense of market solutions or civil liberties. I think he'd continue many of Bush's policies, and looking forward, I see him extending government authority in the emerging environment and energy policy areas. (I'm OK with his approach to health care. I may be the only person in biotech that thinks legalizing drug reimportation and biogenerics might be a good idea.)

Oh, and I'm frightened by his professed lack of understanding of economic issues.

But, there's at least one scenario where I'd pull the lever for McCain: an election vs Hillary Clinton.

If I dislike McCain's views due to their heavy reliance on the government, I absolutely HATE the policies espoused by Hil. She really lost me in '93-'94 with her first attempt at health care reform. I'm not upset that she led the effort, or anything like that, but rather that her solution was a power-grab by the government. She's learned to use new terms, but her and her policy haven't changed. Consider her anti-free trade rhetoric, and her bottomless bag of government pablum (like the $5,000 baby bonds idea).

I'm also completely turned off by her distorted campaign rhetoric. 35 years of experience? Are those dog years? (Did you realize, btw, that Obama has more years of elective office than Hillary. Interesting that Obama doesn't really engage Clinton on the issue of experience.)

And, to be honest, I'd really like the Clintons to just go away. They embody a polarizing, cutthroat, unconstructive attitude, and I believe, held back America during the Clinton presidency. (Yes, many have fond memories of the Clinton presidency, but I find it very hard to identify any big and successful Clinton-driven initiatives or advances. The economy generally went well, and as a result government finances were good, but I'm not in the camp that says that whoever is in the White House has a big effect on the economy. The boom of the late '90's was driven by tech spending and increasing globalization, not because of any Clinton wizardry. Don't believe me? Read this great article @ US News.)

Which brings me to my current infatuation with Obama. He's a breath of fresh air, a new attitude, new voice, and a fresh start after 20 years of Bush-Clinton.

I'm a believer, and voted for him in the Virginia primary.

I really, really, really don't agree with many of his policies, but I believe that he'd get a bit more centrist once in office, and I think that he'd have a good, balanced conversation before enacting any of his most dramatic policy plans. (Unlike Clinton, who in her haste to enact her policies would look to steamroll opposition, eventually leading yet again to a polarized polity.)

However, it should be noted that there really aren't many policy differences between Clinton and Obama There is, though a tremendous difference in how each candidate would act on a daily basis. Clinton is first and foremost a manager, while Obama is a leader, and I'll take a leader over a manager for President. (Here's a bit more on the Clinton/Obama manager/leader differences.)


I haven't figured out with certainty what I'd do in a McCain/Obama clash. My current expectation would be to vote for Obama, but this could change pending further exposure to Obama, or if McCain selects a VP that gets me excited. (My favorite, and the guy that I've been touting as a Presidential candidate for several years is Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina. I've been a fan of his since his time in Congress as one of the "Contract With America" Congressmen.


In the end, my real preference would be to forgo choosing a candidate and instead vote for a result: gridlock resulting from one party holding Congress, and the other in the Oval Office. This result would limit the growth of the size of government, and defuse either party proposing wide-ranging and very wrong solutions for health care, energy, and the environment.

Thank you Iowa!

Thank you, Iowa, for your loud vote for change, and for validating a promising Presidential candidate in the Caucuses earlier this week. Your vote for Senator Obama anointed a dynamic candidate as a welcome agent of change, and in doing so, made a bold statement that makes me feel good about America (and the dynamic candidate isn't even someone I expect to vote for!)

With your selection of Senator Obama, you voted against the politics of the last ~15 years - confrontational, partisan, bitter, spin-filled, and largely vacant. You voted for someone who understands that the President should be a leader first, and a policy wonk second. You voted that good personal traits, charisma, and a positive vision trump "experience*," connections, and a slick political machine.

You didn't vote for someone who thinks they have the perfect resume for the job, because you know that President isn't a job to be applied for. You know that great Presidents aren't elected based on their resume (think Lincoln).

You weren't afraid to ignore the party machine - perhaps you were motivated to vote AGAINST the machine.
You weren't afraid to ignore the candidate managed by consultants and pollsters in favor of the genuine agent of change.
You weren't seduced by a disingenuine Washington-insider railing against lobbyists and corporate interests.

Because of your vote in the Caucuses, the primary is now less of a coronation, more of a contest to pick the better person, and happily less of a contest of dueling policies.



* Sen. Clinton loudly trumpets her experience, even saying she has 35 years of public service. (Anyone think working at a corporate law firm is public service?) But seriously, can anyone point to one significant success associated with Sen. Clinton? Feel free to list 'em in the comments section for my benefit.