Wasted Opportunity

Curt Schilling retired from baseball last week. His career spanned 20 years. He played with the Baltimore Orioles from 1988 to 1990; Houston Astros in 1991; Philadelphia Phillies from 1992 to 2000. He was traded on July 25, 2000 to the Arizona Diamondbacks. He pitched for the Diamondbacks from 2000 to 2003. In November 2003, he was traded to the Boston Red Sox. He played with the Red Sox from 2004 to 2007. Curt Schilling was unable to participate in the 2008 season due to an injury.

It is customary to debate whether a recently retired baseball player is worthy of being inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling was considered a big game pitcher. He participated in 12 postseason series, including three World Series. He won eleven postseason games, and lost only two. His World Series won/loss record in 4-1, with a 2.06 earned run average (ERA).

In his twenty-year career, Curt Schilling won 216 games, lost 146. He made more than 30 starts seven times in his career. His winning percentage was 59.7% and ERA was 3.45. He won more than 20 games three times, and won 15 to 19 games five times. In 12 years, Curt Schilling won less than 14 games in a year.

Curt Schilling struck out 3116 batters, ranking 15th on the all time strikeout list. He struck out over 200 batters five times. In three of those seasons, he struck out over 300 batters.

An average Curt Schilling season would consist of 21 games started, 10 wins and 7 losses, and 155 strikeouts. These are not Hall of Fame numbers.

Tom Glavine’s baseball career closely parallels Curt Schilling’s career. He started pitching for the Atlanta Braves in 1987. Glavine does not throw as hard as Schilling, but in 22 seasons he won 305 games, lost 203, and has a 3.54 ERA.

Tom Glavine won more than 20 games five times. He started more than 30 games 17 times. He won the Cy Young award twice. Schilling never won the award.

Glavine has not been as successful as Schilling in the postseason. Glavine was on one World Series championship team. Schilling was on three championship teams. Glavine’s postseason record is 6 wins, 10 losses, but his World Series record is 4-3.

An 11-2 postseason record is not a sufficient enough achievement to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Curt Schilling’s ability to win big games is admirable. Red Sox fans will never forget Schilling’s performance in game six of the 2004 American League Championship Series against the New York Yankees – forever known in baseball lore as the “bloody sock game.”

But Curt Schilling had the ability to be a dominant regular season pitcher. He could throw as hard as Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson. It is ironic that in the steroid era Curt Schilling was not durable.

He earned over $114 million in salary, but if Curt Schilling were honest with himself, he would realize he squandered an opportunity to become one of the great pitchers of his generation.

The Illusion of Change

In the wake of the outrage over the lavish Wall Street bonuses, the House of Representatives passed a tax bill designed to punish extravagant executives.

The government wants to tax 90% of the income from the bonuses of companies that received “at least $5 billion in bailout money,” retroactive to January 1, 2009.[i]

The retroactive tax is intended for the bonuses of “traders, executives and bankers” who earned more than $250,000.[ii]

“Employees at 11 institutions – including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase” are the focus of the legislation.[iii]

The Senate’s version of the bill seeks to tax bonuses from companies that received $100 million in bailout funds.[iv]

American International Group (AIG) instigated the public outrage when it was disclosed that $165 million in bonuses were distributed to 418 of their employees – including “$33.6 million for 52 people who left the failed insurance conglomerate.”[v]

In addition, AIG paid more than $1 million in bonuses to 73 employees who created the financial instruments that caused AIG’s financial crisis.[vi]

The United States government owns almost 80% of AIG because the troubled conglomerate “has received nearly $200 billion in federal bailout funds.”[vii]

President Obama supported the effort to recoup the bonuses. The President wants “Congress to deliver a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”[viii]

AIG executives argued the bonuses were necessary to keep their gifted employees. In addition, AIG did not want to renege on a contract. The beleaguered company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. Also, AIG wanted to avoid lawsuits from disgruntled employees.

Former President Bush left an indelible mark on the political culture in the United States. The current AIG bonuses fiasco combines two of his worst features, his poor reading habits and disdain for the Constitution.

Article 1; section 9 of the United States Constitution states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

An ex post facto law "is passed after an action in order to retroactively change the legal treatment of the action to the disadvantage of the actor.”[ix]

Furthermore, Congress cannot pass laws directed at a group of individuals.

Congress wants to enact a law taxing income after Congress has considered the income to be unfairly earned. The United States government wants to punish federal bailout recipients because the government did not have the foresight, or courage, to insert regulations in the initial federal bailout legislation prohibiting the use of bailout funds for bonuses.

The government is about to engage in a legislative process that could ultimately be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Ignorance cannot be the reason Congress and the President are wasting their time pursuing this potentially futile attempt at retroactively restoring justice and fairness.

Enacting laws is their vocation. Our government must know this tax law is potentially unconstitutional. Otherwise, we have elected fools to govern us.

Sometimes politicians are nothing more than carnival barkers. The government’s response to the furor over the bonuses is their way to appease the public. It is an illusion to distract us from their incompetence and greed.

“Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” said Jesses Unruh, the former Speaker of California’s Assembly.

Politicians are as greedy as Wall Street executives because the latter contribute to the political campaigns of the former.

Taxing executive bonuses is a charade to cover up the collusion between Wall Street, the government and the mainstream media.

The federal government issued $700 billion to troubled financial institutions. The Obama administration passed a landmark $800 billion stimulus package to stimulate the national economy. There is $1.5 trillion that is not circulating in the economy. Someone is hoarding money for a special occasion.

It will be interesting to witness, in the midst of a depressed economy, how much money financial institutions contribute towards political campaigns in 2010.


[i] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[iii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[v] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[vi] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[vii] Jackie Calmes and Louise Story, “Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses, New York Times, March 18, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and David Herszenhorn, “House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts,” New York Times, March 20, 2009.
[ix] Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, West Publishing Company, 1996, page 245.

The Lunatic Is On The Air

Syd Barrett was the founder; lead singer and lyricist of the seminal British rock group Pink Floyd. According to Pink Floyd mythology, Syd Barrett took a hit of LSD, went on a psychedelic trip and never returned to sanity.

Syd Barrett’s abuse of LSD affected his ability to perform. He acted unpredictably and erratically on stage, once playing one note throughout an entire performance. During another concert, he detuned his guitar to the delight of the audience. Sometimes, he stood on stage in a catatonic state. During a video recording of the Pat Boone Show, he refused to lip sync the song “See Emily Play.”

Currently, another man who uses a microphone for a living is exhibiting erratic behavior. He also had a drug problem. The drug abuse may have affected his ability to think lucidly.

He is not an artist. He talks for a living. From the liberal political spectrum, he spews nonsense.

In October 2003, Rush Limbaugh admitted to his listeners on his widely syndicated talk show that he was addicted to the pain killer medication Oxycontin. Sadly, Rush Limbaugh went on an opiate induced trip and lost his sanity.

In January 2009, he was asked to produce a 400-word essay to an American publication indicating his hopes for President Obama. He offered a four-word reply. “I hope he fails.”[i]

According to his drug induced brain-damaged mind, Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail because “liberalism is the problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?”[ii]

Rush Limbaugh’s mind was damaged due to abusing Oxicontin. He is unable to comprehend reality.

President George Bush was president for eight years. The Republican Party controlled the executive, legislative and judicial branches of American government for six of those eight years.

The Republicans had a firm grasp of the presidency from 1968 to 2008. But liberalism was the problem according to Mr. Limbaugh.

Liberalism ignored the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,” Osama Bin Laden and the terrorist network Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.

Liberalism launched a preemptive war against Iraq based on the false assumption Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Liberalism deregulated the bank and finance industries, which led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Maybe Mr. Limbaugh is having a withdrawal-induced flashback to 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson initiated the Great Society programs. Conservatives loathe the Great Society programs as much as they loathe the New Deal.

It is not just Rush Limbaugh rooting against President Obama that makes me question his sanity. It’s Mr. Limbaugh’s solution that concerns me.

“I am a guy on the radio and I am not, by any means, an official leader of the Republican Party,” Mr. Limbaugh said during a January 2009 broadcast. “I‘m a conservative. The official leaders of the Republican Party are fighting over who their ultimate leader is going to be—hint, hint, it‘s Sarah Palin.”[iii]

Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail. He wants current Alaska Governor and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to lead the Republican Party to victory in 2012.

Mr. Limbaugh believes Governor Palin can solve the problems unresolved by President Obama.

Imagine if a man stood on a soapbox on any street corner of any American city and said he hoped President Obama fails. Furthermore, he argues Sarah Palin is the only person who is capable of leading the United States through these difficult times.

The speaker would be dismissed. Pedestrians would assume the speaker was crazy or high on drugs. Rush Limbaugh lost his mind because he abused Oxycontin. “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind,” to quote former Vice President Dan Quayle.

Rush Limbaugh is a millionaire because he broadcasts his opinions. He is white. He is conservative. He is rich, but the Republican Party is making a mistake taking directions from his opinions.

Does the Republican Party really want to take advice from a former junkie?

The Republican Party will not survive if they continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The GOP cannot sustain itself as a party that caters only to southern whites who are against abortion, against civil rights, and against gun control.

Although it would be ironic if the Republican Party became extinct. Conservatives do not believe in evolution. Republicans would become a Darwinian casualty, facing extinction because they were unable to adapt to a changing political environment.

[i] “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/09.
[ii] “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/16/09.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 1/30/09.

Can't Spell Worst Without W.

The Bush presidency was not a total abject failure. He did manage one notable accomplishment. President Bush had the unenviable challenge of explaining in five words or less why the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 and he managed to exceed expectations. He used four words. Al Qaeda attacked us because “they hate our freedom.” Only a creative genius could manage to explain a catastrophe and at the same time fit the explanation on a bumper sticker.

“As the years passed most Americans were able to return to life as much as it had been before Nine-Eleven,” President Bush said in his last presidential address to the country. “But I never did. Every morning, I received a brief on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.”[i]

This was a “tell.” President Bush was subliminally admitting he did not read the August 6, 2001, Presidential daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” He certainly did not act on the threat.

He was on vacation in Crawford, Texas at the time. The ominous memo did not interrupt his vacation. Meetings were not held. Law enforcement agencies were not alerted. The Federal Aviation Administration was not warned. The country was not aware of the threat to national security.

President Bush displayed terrible leadership instincts. He was unable to prioritize. An emergency was placed on his lap and he did nothing.

In contrast, President Bush interrupted his vacation on March 21, 2005, flew from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to Washington DC, to sign bill S.686 into law - the“Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Protection Bill.”

Terri Schiavo was a Florida resident who collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990 after experiencing respiratory and cardiac arrest. Mrs. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage. She was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for several years.

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, wanted to remove the feeding tube that kept his wife alive, thus ending her life. Mrs. Schiavo’s parents objected. The matter was taken to the Florida courts. The state court was about to rule in Mr. Schiavo’s favor.

Republicans in the United States Senate intervened with bill S.686. The purpose of the bill was to transfer jurisdiction from the Florida state courts to the federal courts. President Bush interrupted his vacation to sign bill S.686 into law.

In August 2001, President Bush was notified the country was about to be attacked and did nothing, but in March 2005 President Bush interrupted his vacation to interject himself into a family dispute. President Bush failure to prioritize is just one example of his failure as president.

Failing to act on the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief led to other failures. Once lives were lost, President Bush began to overcompensate, to overreact. President Bush established the “Preemptive War Doctrine,” also known to everyone, except Governor Sarah Palin, as the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine is as simple as the bearer of the doctrine’s name. Attack a country before it attacks you. Do not wait for a country to become an actual threat. President Bush launched an attack on a sovereign country based on a hypothetical threat.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. His regime murdered thousands of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The war with Iran lasted eight years. Saddam Hussein also invaded Kuwait in 1990. In 2002, Saddam Hussein became a threat to world peace.

The Bush administration argued Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was a threat to world peace because he was evil. Vice President Cheney argued Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. If Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, then he could conceivably furnish Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda was a threat to the United States; therefore Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. The hypothetical threat had to be resolved.

The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, but weapons of mass destruction were never found. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda never existed.

President Bush attributed the absence of weapons of mass destruction to poor intelligence. It is more likely that President Bush could not tell the difference between good intelligence and bad intelligence.

For example, Vice President Cheney hyped CIA intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein purchased aluminum tubes. The aluminum tubes could be used as “rotors that spin at extraordinarily high speeds in gas centrifuges that turn uranium into highly enriched uranium – the material needed for a nuclear weapon.”[ii]

Except that the Department of Energy concluded the aluminum tubes did not meet the specifications required for centrifuges. Instead, the aluminum tubes met the specifications for rockets.

The Bush Administration did not allow facts to get in the way of their propaganda. The Mainstream Media cooperated with the Bush Administration. A unnecessary war was launched against a sovereign country that was not a threat to the United States.

A president is a like a football coach. A good coach could identify the abilities of his players, and put his players in the best position to succeed.

It was bad enough President Bush initiated a war against Iraq. His poor judgment was exacerbated by the lack of preparation when the United States military actually invaded Iraq.

President Bush wanted to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States. He wanted to overthrow the Iraqi regime and replace it with a pro western liberal democracy.

Did he place the troops in a position to succeed? No, he did not. He invaded a sovereign country that was not a threat to the United States. Iraq disintegrated into a violent, sectarian civil war. American soldiers were caught in the middle of warring factions.

Did President Bush use sufficient number of troops to accomplish the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power, then protecting Iraq from chaos? No, he did not.

President Bush liked to say that he listened to the generals, except for four-star army general Eric Sinseki who testified before Congress and said that several thousand soldiers would be needed to invade and secure Iraq.

The logic behind the numbers was to compare Iraq, in size and population, with another territory. Iraq is the size of California with a population of 24 million. If you need 150,000 law enforcement personnel in California, a territory that is not facing disruption, then the number of soldiers needed to secure Iraq would have to be four to five times greater than in California because Iraqi society would be greatly disrupted.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disagreed. He thought the mission could be accomplished with one hundred thousand troops. President Bush listened to Rumsfeld instead of a four-star general.

Were the troops given the equipment needed for the mission to succeed? No, they were not. For example, the vehicles used in the Iraq War did not have enough armor to protect the soldiers. Soldiers had to use scrap metal to secure their vehicles.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was criticized, but his answer was that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you need.”

Using the football analogy, President Bush put five football players on the field, without pads and helmets, to play against eleven fully equipped players.

President Bush put American troops in a difficult position where success was dubious, did not send enough troops to secure Iraq, and he did not give the troops the equipment needed to succeed.

President Bush’s overreaction to the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was not limited to the invasion of Iraq. Our laws regarding torture were also compromised.

President Bush became too sensitive. He was given information and did not act on it; therefore he needed more information to prevent another attack. In his simplistic world, the best way to obtain more information was to beat it out someone. Torturing people was necessary in order to prevent another attack.

In addition, the Bush Administration eavesdropped on telephone calls, and monitored emails without probable cause, without warrants. The legal process was a nuisance, preventing President Bush from protecting America.

The Bush Administration proudly proclaimed that the United States, at the expense of civil liberties, was not attacked – since September 11, 2001.

President Bush’s two terms were eventful. The United States lost the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack in 2001, a natural disaster incapacitated New Orleans in 2005, and an economic meltdown in 2008. President Bush failed to respond to each of these calamities.

The Bush Administration went on a publicity tour to defend its legacy. The Bush legacy can be described with one word – sloth.

President Bush was a lazy administrator. He prided himself on not reading. He delegated authority, trusting staff to make sound judgments.

We may never know the identity of the person who initially read the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, but history will reflect President Bush failed to act when the United States was threatened.

President Bush believed torture was the best way to obtain valuable intelligence. Obtaining warrants was an annoyance. Finding a target to investigate took too much time. Instead, the government spied on everyone.

President Bush’s failure to read or act on the August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief is just one example of his failure as president of the United States. This specific failure led to other failures.

Suppose the Bush Administration succeeded in disrupting the September 11, 2001 attack. Preemptive war might not have been compulsory. President Bush would not have had an excuse to invade Iraq. Civil liberties would remain intact. The imperial presidency would not have weakened our democracy.

Hopefully, the real legacy of George Bush will be the rejection of another late bloomer.

Hopefully, Americans will reject an individual who is not qualified to be president regardless of how amiable that person is.

Hopefully, intelligence will matter. Someone who never demonstrated practical intelligence in the past will not suddenly become intelligent once elected president.

Hopefully, Americans will be suspicious when the vice presidential candidate is clearly more qualified than the presidential candidate.

Unfortunately, the real Bush legacy will be the belief that if someone as incapable as George W. Bush could be president of the United States, then I can be president of the United States.

I guess we will find out the true meaning of the Bush legacy when Governor Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012.


[i] Text “President Bush’s Last Televised Address,” New York Times, January 15, 2009.
[ii] Michael Isikoff and David Corn, “Hubris,” Crown Publishers, New York, 2006, page 37-38.

Caution: Objects May Appear Closer Than They Are

In 1948, public opinion polls predicted Republican challenger Thomas Dewey would defeat incumbent President Harry Truman in a landslide. Pollsters stopped their research two weeks prior to the election believing President Truman would not win the election.

Pollsters failed to record the shift in opinion polls in the last two weeks of the 1948 presidential campaign. President Truman defied expectations. He won an improbable victory. Will history repeat itself in 2008?

Most opinion polls indicate Senator Obama will win the presidential campaign. But opinion polls are not an exact science.

Even exit polls are unreliable. Six percent of early voters in Ohio told pollsters they did not know whom they voted for.

Opinion polls are random samples of a representative population. Information gathered from polls is used to project results.

For example, Senator Obama leads Senator McCain in Iowa 53% to 41%. This does not mean Senator Obama will get 53% of the total votes in Iowa.

Opinion polls may not reflect the true nature of the voting public. An African American is the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. Polls may not reflect racist tendencies of voters.

Every poll has a margin of error. The average voter will ignore the margin of error while studying opinion polls.

Using the Iowa example. Suppose the margin of error is 3.5%. If you adjust the polls to reflect the margin of error, then Senator Obama may lead Senator McCain 49.5% to 44.5%. An original twelve point lead is reduced to five points.

Furthermore, the average voter ignores the number of undecided voters in an opinion poll. Undecided voters have to make up there minds sooner or later.

In Iowa, 7% of the voters are undecided. Suppose 7 out of 10 undecided voters decide in favor of Senator McCain. Senator Obama could win the state 51% to 49%. An original 12 point margin is reduced to 2 points.

Senator McCain could win the election if you adjust the polls to reflect the margin of error, and adjust the number of undecided voters.

Senator Obama is leading in the following states: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

Except for Pennsylvania, every state has consistently voted for the Republican candidate.

Virginia has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1968.

North Carolina and Colorado voted once for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1968.

Florida voted twice for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1968.

I applied the following formula to opinion polls cited at www.fivethirtyeight.com.

I subtracted 3.5% margin of error from Senator Obama’s lead, then added 3.5% to Senator McCain’s total.

I added 70% of the undecided voters to Senator McCain’s total, and added 30% to Senator Obama’s total.

The 70% figure will include people who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is black.

Furthermore, undecided voters tend to vote based on name recognition. Undecided voters will feel more comfortable voting for Senator McCain because he is more familiar.

In addition, Senator Obama has been running for president since February 2007. He has a huge financial advantage over Senator McCain. Mr. Obama has used millions of dollars in advertising. It is unlikely the majority of undecided voters will decide to vote for Senator Obama at the last minute.

I decided not to assign a percentage to the number of voters who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. It is impossible to know how many Americans will use race as a factor in their decision. Assigning a percentage would be arbitrary. It could not be supported by factual evidence.

Also, I will not use the Bradley Effect in these calculations. The Bradley Effect is named after Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American candidate for governor of California. He lost the gubernatorial race even though most opinion polls and exit polls predicted victory for the Democratic candidate.

Assigning a percentage to the number of voters who theoretically lied to pollsters could not be supported by evidence.

In New Hampshire, Senator Obama leads Senator McCain 53% to 40%. Seven percent are undecided. After adjusting the poll to reflect the margin of error and undecided voters, Senator Obama continues to lead Senator McCain 51.6% to 48.4%.

In Pennsylvania, Senator Obama leads 52% to 42%. Six percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Mr. Obama continues to lead 50.3% to 49.7%.

In Virginia, Senator Obama leads 51% to 44%. Five percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Senator McCain leads Mr. Obama 51% to 49%.

In North Carolina, Senator Obama leads 48% to 46%. Six percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Senator McCain leads 53.7% to 46.3%.

In Florida, Senator Obama leads 48% to 45%. Seven percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Senator McCain leads 53.4% to 46.6%.

In Ohio, Senator Obama leads 50% to 44%. Six percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Senator McCain leads 51.7% to 48.3%.

In Iowa, Senator Obama leads 53% to 41%. Seven percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Senator Obama continues to lead 51.6% to 49.4%.

In Colorado, Senator Obama leads 51% to 44%. Five percent are undecided. After the adjustment, McCain leads 51% to 49%.

In New Mexico, Obama leads 54% to 44%. Two percent are undecided. After the adjustment, Obama continues to lead 51.1% to 48.9%.

In Nevada, Obama leads 50% to 43%. Seven percent are undecided. After the adjustment, McCain leads 51.4% to 48.6%.

Senator Obama loses the lead in 6 states using these calculations. Furthermore, Mr. Obama’s margin for victory in four projected states is reduced.

If Senator Obama loses 6 out these 10 states, then he could lose the election to Senator McCain. Based on the adjusted calculations, the Electoral College projection could be 274 for Senator McCain and 264 for Senator Obama.

These projections do not take into account the thousands of voters who will be purged, or provisional ballots not counted, or tabulation errors.

Most voters who are purged from the rolls tend to vote for the Democratic candidate.

In 2004, about one million provisional ballots were discarded and never counted. “In 2004, 1,389,231 ballots were never counted.”[i]

Senator Obama’s supporters can be optimistic, but the last two presidential elections have demonstrated elections are very unpredictable.

Senator Obama, an African American presidential candidate, is depending on historically Republican leaning states to provide the margin of victory in the presidential election.

If I had to guess on the outcome of the election, based on the adjusted opinion polls, then I would reluctantly predict Senator McCain will be the next president of the United States.


[i] Greg Palst and Robert Kennedy Jr., “Steal Back Your Vote,” The Nation, October 27, 2008.

Obama for President

Senator McCain’s campaign staff did not want to run a presidential campaign based on the issues. Instead, they wanted to focus on character believing a Vietnam veteran war hero would defeat a suspicious candidate like Senator Barack Obama.

The McCain campaign insinuated Senator Obama associates with domestic terrorists, supports infanticide, and is a socialist.

Character is an important issue. Senator McCain’s staff is correct. However, Mr. McCain failed the character test. Mr. Obama has demonstrated superior character, and that is why I will vote for Senator Obama on Election Day.

Issues are not important. Campaign promises do not matter. Once elected, presidents are unable or refuse to act on promises made during a presidential campaign. For example, in 1993, with a Democratic congress, President Clinton failed to enact the national single payer health care plan.

Instead of focusing on issues, I try to find the candidate’s tell. A “tell” is a subtle behavior trait that gives me a clue about an individual’s mindset.

Senator Obama set out to run a different type of presidential campaign. He wanted to rise above petty bickering and personal attacks. Mr. Obama often said, “We can disagree on issues without being disagreeable.”

Critics complained that Senator Obama was running his presidential campaign like a classroom exercise. He was not angry enough. He was not tough enough. He was mockingly called Obambi by the media.

Senator Obama refused to be baited into a negative campaign during the contested Democratic presidential primaries. He was tough when he needed to be, but he refused to engage in the same type of negative, divisive campaign tactics Senator Clinton used.

In the general election campaign, Senator Obama has not hesitated to acknowledge Senator McCain’s service as a Vietnam War veteran and contributions as a senator. Often, he has admonished members of the audience for booing the mentioning of Senator McCain.

During the presidential campaign, Senator Obama displayed restraint. Another candidate, Mayor Giuliani, would have erupted in anger at being accused of associating with domestic terrorists.

Mr. Obama did not raise his voice, or argue with Senator McCain over the issue of consorting with domestic terrorists during the third presidential debate. He calmly explained his tenuous connection with Bill Ayers. He calmly expressed his disappointment with Mr. McCain.

In the first presidential debate, Senator Obama agreed with Senator McCain on several issues. The media stated it was a mistake, but Mr. Obama demonstrated the importance of civility in a presidential campaign. Senator Obama does not believe it is a mortal sin to agree with an opponent.

In the general election campaign, Senator Obama managed to avoid several traps. When the media reported Governor Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter was pregnant, Senator Obama declared Mrs. Palin’s family issues should not be exploited for political purposes.

During the third presidential debate, Senator Obama was asked if Governor Palin was qualified to be president. Mr. Obama said it was an issue for the voters to decide, but Mr. Obama acknowledged Governor Palin’s selection excited the base of the Republican Party.

Strategically, Senator Obama has run a smart campaign. Senator Clinton wanted to secure the nomination by February. She was not prepared to campaign for the nomination after February. To defeat Senator Clinton, Mr. Obama understood he needed to run a fifty state campaign.

Senator Obama was able to transition smoothly from a primary campaign strategy into a fifty state general election strategy after he secured the nomination. Mr. Obama is campaigning in states that previous Democratic nominees ignored.

Senator Obama’s general election campaign is very disciplined. He is communicating the same message without deviation – we cannot afford four more years of Republican rule.

Senator Obama’s selection of a running mate reflects his good judgment and self-assurance. During the Democratic presidential debates, Senator Biden was asked if he thought Mr. Obama was ready to be president. With Mr. Obama by his side, Mr. Biden answered no; he was not ready to be president.

A lesser person, someone with a temper who holds a grudge, would have condemned Senator Biden to political purgatory. Mr. Obama proved he was not a petty man. He was not afraid of selecting someone who was critical of him.

Senator Obama is a gentleman. He is efficient, calm, organized, smart and disciplined.

In contrast, Senator McCain has run a terrible presidential campaign. Unstructured and undisciplined, Mr. McCain is trying to win the presidency by destroying Senator Obama’s character.

Mr. McCain had the unique opportunity of conducting a presidential campaign based on the issues. Mr. Obama would not have run the same type of campaign President Bush ran in 2000.

The Bush campaign derailed Senator McCain’s nomination with a smear campaign in South Carolina, insinuating Mr. McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock.

Mr. McCain could have engaged Mr. Obama in a spirited contest over ideas. Which political philosophy is best for governing, conservative or liberal, free market or protectionist, more regulation or less?

Mr. McCain could have conducted a clean presidential campaign. Instead, Mr. McCain decided to run a negative campaign using distortions, falsehoods, rumor and innuendo.

Instead, the McCain campaign has conducted a dishonest campaign, not just accusing Senator Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” During the campaign, Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama wants to establish a state run health care plan. Not true.

Senator McCain argues Mr. Obama should not be elected president because he will raise taxes and will increase spending.

Mr. McCain said Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on individuals with incomes below $42,000 per year. Not true.

Mr. Obama made a comment about Mr. McCain’s economic plan. He said it was like putting lipstick on a pig. Mr. McCain accused Senator Obama insulting Governor Palin by calling her a pig. Not true.

The McCain campaign accused Senator Obama of interfering with an active investigation in Alaska. Governor Palin was accused of firing a state employee for personal reasons.

In the third debate, Senator McCain accused Senator Obama of being directly involved with ACORN, an organization under investigation for submitting fraudulent voter registration forms. Not true.

Senator McCain has exhibited dishonesty about energy issues. Mr. McCain argues we should be drilling for oil in the United States. The result will be reduced gas prices. Also, we will import less oil from the Middle East.

Experts disagree with Senator McCain. Drilling for oil will not reduce current gas prices. It will take 10 years for oil drilled in the United States to reach consumers.

Senator McCain argues drilling for oil will have a psychological effect on gas prices. Oil companies will reduce gas prices in the present because in the future we will import less oil from the Middle East.

Senator McCain argues he has better judgment that Senator Obama. It is difficult to discern whether someone as dishonest as Mr. McCain possesses good, sound judgment.

In fact, Senator McCain’s judgment is questionable at best. Mr. McCain is regarded as experienced in foreign affairs. During the campaign, Senator McCain, on more than one occasion, said Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending terrorists back to Iraq. Once, on camera, Senator Lieberman corrected Senator McCain.

Iran is predominantly Shia. Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi sect that believes Shia are heretics and should be put to death. It is unlikely Iran is training its enemies to fight the United States.

Senator McCain boosts he is a maverick, someone who is independent, who will speak truth to power. The United States needed a maverick in late 2002.

The Bush Administration was determined to launch a war against Iraq. With dubious evidence, President Bush argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace. The United States needed someone to stop President Bush from invading Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd argued against the Iraq War resolution.

The self-proclaimed maverick agreed with the Bush Administration’s assessment. In fact, during an interview with David Lettermen, Senator McCain claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the anthrax attacks in the United States.

During a speech in mid September, Senator McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The stock market plunged later in the day.

Senator McCain attempted to extricate himself from the gaffe by redefining the term fundamentals to mean the American workforce was the most productive in the world.

Senator McCain used poor judgment in declaring a strong economy. In addition, he was being dishonest when he redefined “fundamentals of the economy.”

Senator McCain’s poor judgment is most obvious in the selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. His first choice for vice president was Senator Joe Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman was a Democrat, but is currently an independent. Mr. McCain’s campaign staff argued selecting Senator Lieberman would cause dissention within the Republican Party.

Senator McCain’s second choice was former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Mr. Ridge was rejected because of his pro-choice position on abortion. Mr. McCain’s campaign staff did not want to alienate the Conservative Christians and the Right Wing who are vehemently opposed to abortion.

I do not believe Governor Palin was Senator McCain’s choice for vice president. He only met her once, “in February at a governors’ convention in Washington… The second time was at his Sedona, Arizona ranch on August 28, just four days before the GOP convention.”[i]

Conservatives never trusted Senator McCain. Mr. McCain needed to appease the Right Wing of the Republican Party even after a successful primary campaign. The Palin selection was like an arranged marriage. He needed an anti abortion, conservative, Christian on the ticket.

Governor Palin saw an opportunity to serve as vice president. As the vice president, she would be the favorite to secure the Republican presidential nomination in the future.

In selecting Governor Palin, Mr. McCain nullified his strongest argument against Senator Obama. Mr. Obama’s political opponents argued he was inexperienced. However, Senator McCain selected a vice presidential nominee with less experience than Mr. Obama.

The McCain campaign attempted to enhance Governor Palin’s political resume by arguing Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave Mrs. Palin foreign policy experience. Also, Governor Palin is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is an oil producing state; therefore Governor Palin is an expert on energy issues. Energy policy is also a foreign policy and national security issue because the United States imports oil from the Middle East. Governor Palin has executive experience, having served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and two years as Governor.

Senator McCain constantly displays poor judgment, and is intellectually dishonest. Governor Palin is not prepared to be president of the United States.

The difference between Senator Obama and Governor Palin is that the former has been running for president since February 2007. Voters and the media have fully vetted Mr. Obama. Governor Palin is unknown. It is highly unlikely her candidacy would have survived the same grueling process Mr. Obama had to endure.

In selecting Governor Palin, Senator McCain pandered to the Right Wing of the Republican Party. He did not exhibit independence. His ambition to become the next president of the United States has clouded his judgment.

Conventional wisdom dictates that a candidate should attract voters from the base of the political party during the primaries. The winning candidate needs to attract independents and moderates after the nomination is secured.

Instead of attracting independents and moderates, Senator McCain has used time and resources to appease the conservatives in the Republican Party. Mr. McCain appeasement is a sign of insecurity. Maybe he believes conservatives will not vote for him on Election Day. That is the reason he continues to use campaign themes only conservatives would appreciate and understand.

Senator McCain does not like Barack Obama. This antipathy was on display during the presidential debates. Mr. McCain never looked at Mr. Obama during the first presidential debate, not even when they shook hands at the end of the debate. In the second debate, Mr. McCain referred to Senator Obama as “that one.”

There is wisdom in gangster movies. Michael Corleone warns his protégé about his temper in The Godfather III. “Never hate your enemies,” Mr. Corleone said. “It affects your judgment.”

Uncontrolled anger is a sign of weakness. It would be difficult for Mr. McCain to negotiate with out allies as well as our enemies if he is unable to control his anger.

In an interview, Mr. McCain said he would not speak with the prime minister from Spain. Mr. McCain may be holding a grudge against the Spanish government because the prime minister removed his troops from Iraq. Spain is a NATO ally.

Senator McCain has poor reading habits. During the current economic crisis, Senator McCain suspended his campaign in September in order to provide leadership in Congress regarding a proposed bailout package for financial institutions.

In an interview, Senator McCain admitted he did not read the Paulson bailout plan. Mr. McCain did not find the time to read a plan that was two and a half pages long.

During an economic disaster, Mr. McCain did not read a document containing the possible solution to the crisis.

President Bush also does not read. During his vacation in August 2001, he was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), “Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States.” The PDB was a page and a half long.

President Bush did not interrupt his vacation. He did not having any meetings to discuss the implications of the PDB. I believe President Bush never read the PDB. Instead, someone was probably assigned to read it, and then report to the president. A month later 19 hijackers attacked from the United States.

We cannot accept a president who does not read important documents.

I once thought I could accept Mr. McCain as president of the United States. Dishonesty, insecurity, poor judgment, and anger. These are not qualities I am looking for in a president.

The next president of the United States will inherit two wars, a weakened economy and a divided country. Divided not just ideologically, but racially as well. There will be parts of our country that will not accept a black man as president, even if he is successful.

Senator McCain has contributed to the division in our country. He should not be rewarded with the presidency.

The United States could remain divided after the election. However, other nations will respect the United States if we elect Mr. Obama. Our collective sin of racism is common knowledge. Electing Mr. Obama president would send a message to other nations that we are willing move forward as a country. Senator Obama’s candidacy represents our collective growth and maturity.

The American empire is in danger of deteriorating. We cannot sustain military superiority during a period of economic decline. We can no longer bully the rest of the world. If the United States has reached a level of parity with Europe, Russia, China and India, then we will need a president who will be able to see our allies and adversaries as equals. We need a president who understands the need to coexist in order to survive.

Senator McCain does not have the judgment, or the temperament to lead our country in this new era. Mr. Obama does.

Senator Obama displayed foresight during the presidential campaign. He seemed to understand that the country wanted unity, not division, problem solving instead of finger pointing.

If you listen to his speeches, Senator Obama blames President Bush for all of our problems, but he does not blame the Republican Party. Mr. Obama understands he will need moderate Republicans in order to implement his agenda.

In contrast, Mr. McCain and Governor Palin thrive in dividing the country in two. Small towns represent what is good about America, implying big cities are against America.

The Republicans mocked Senator Obama experience as a community organizer during the Republican National Convention. As a community organizer, Mr. Obama tried to bring different, competing groups together to solve problems in the community. He tried to reach consensus among competing interest groups.

Senator Obama’s experience as a community organizer represents his approach to governing. As president, he will use his this approach to governing to solve the multiple problems facing the United States. He understands the Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on solutions. He will reach out to Republicans. He will try to build consensus. He will put the country first, ahead of ideology.

Mr. Obama has run an honorable presidential campaign. He has earned the respect of voters in the United States and people throughout the world. Mr. Obama will usher a new era of hope and opportunity for millions of people. On November 4, I will proudly cast my vote for Senator Barack Hussein Obama.


[i] Kathleen Parker, “Something About Sarah,” Washington Post, October 24, 2008.

The Miseducation of the American Voter

Governor Sarah Palin is referencing a New York Times article in her attacks on Senator Barack Obama. Governor Palin argues Mr. Obama has been “palling around with terrorists.”

“Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” was written by Scott Shane. The article was poorly written. The article appears to imply a connection between Senator Obama and former Weathermen radical William Ayers.

Governor Palin is dishonest in her argument. She is merely reciting the talking point of the day. Or, maybe she did not carefully read the article.

Mr. Shane reports Mr. Ayers met Mr. Obama at a lunchtime meeting regarding school reform in 1995. He was no longer the 60’s radical who founded the Weathermen. At the time, Mr. Ayers was an education professor in Chicago.

Mr. Shane explains Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama’s careers overlapped. In the sixth paragraph Mr. Shane wrote, “But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers…”[i]

Buried deeper in the article, Mr. Shane wrote, “Since 2002, there is little evidence of their relationship.”[ii]

Mr. Shane implies Senator Obama “has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers.”[iii]

The seventh paragraph includes the standard campaign denial stating, “The Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate.”[iv]

Mr. Shane’s article is unclear. He should have started with the following lead: “During the Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton argued there was a link between Mr. Obama and 60’s Weathermen radical William Ayers.

“Senator McCain’s campaign also expressed concerns over Mr. Obama’s possible involvement with domestic terrorists.

“Conservative talk show hosts have expressed outrage over Mr. Obama’s possible association with radical groups.

“However, after a careful investigation, it can be concluded that there is no formal relationship between Senator Obama and Mr. William Ayers. Any relationship between both individuals is casual at best.”

From that point, Mr. Shane should have described the history of the Obama – Ayers relationship, which he did starting on page three of the article (the downloaded format).

Mr. Ayers was instrumental in winning a $50 million grant from Walter H. Annenberg, a billionaire philanthropist and former United Kingdom ambassador under President Nixon.[v]

“In March 1995, Mr. Obama became the chairman of the six member board that oversaw the distribution of the grants in Chicago.” Contrary to right wing speculation, Mr. Ayers was not involved in the appointment.[vi]

It was Ms Deborah Leff, president of the Chicago based Joyce Foundation, who suggested Mr. Obama “would make a good board chairman.” Also present at the lunch meeting was “Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation.” Mr. Ayers was not at that meeting.[vii]

From 1995 to 2000, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers attended six board meetings. Mr. Ayers briefed the board members on school issues.[viii]

In 1995, Mr. Ayers hosted a gathering in his townhouse. State Senator Alice J. Palmer was planning to run for Congress. Ms Palmer introduced Mr. Obama as her “chosen successor” at this gathering.[ix]

In 1997, during an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama offered praise to “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” a book written by Mr. Ayers.[x]

In 2001, Mr. Ayers contributed $200 to State Senator Obama’s re-election campaign.[xi]

From 2000 to 2002, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers attendance overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, “a Chicago Charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer…”[xii]

That is the nature of the relationship between Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama. In conclusion, there is no formal or close relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers.

Perhaps if Mr. Shane’s article were clearly written, then Governor Palin would not be using it as source in her campaign speeches.

But if the article were written clearly, then the Republican Party would have accused the New York Times of being apologists for domestic terrorists, and supporting Senator Obama.

Maybe the article was poorly written on purpose as a preemptive defense against bias, to protect the New York Times from attacks by the Republican Party.

The relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers has been in the public domain since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity adopted the mission of exposing a connection between Senator Obama and William Ayers. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain willingly joined the crusade.

During a telephone interview with “This Week” host on April 15, 2008, Mr. Hannity suggested George Stephanopoulos should ask Senator Obama to explain the nature of his relationship with Mr. Ayers during a presidential debate.

Mr. Stephanopoulos complied. During the April 16, 2008 Democratic presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama about, “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers – he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that, and, in fact, on 9-11, he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

“An early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[xiii]

It is worth repeating, Mr. Stephanopoulos said the Obama campaign admits Senator Obama and Mr. Ayers are friendly.

Senator Obama calmly explained that he served on a board in Chicago with Mr. Ayers, but was not “somebody who I exchanged ideas from a regular basis.” Senator Obama described Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

Mr. Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen conducted their domestic terrorist activities. Mr. Ayers was not a fugitive when he met Mr. Obama. He was not a convicted felon who was ostracized from society.

It is a story that will not die because the mainstream media continues to ignore the facts. The Mediacracy allows the McCain campaign to smear Senator Obama, and does not even attempt refute these baseless allegations. The mainstream media rationalization is that it is Mr. Obama’s responsibility to counter the charges.

The William Ayers controversy will not end after the election. If elected, the Republicans in Congress will demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the relationship between President Obama and Mr. Ayers, or with Tony Rezko, or with ACORN.

The Republican Party has proven they are unwilling to work with others. America will continue to falter because of their obstinacy.




[i] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[ii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[iii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[iv] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[v] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[vi] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[vii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[viii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[ix] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[x] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xi] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xiii] “Right Wing Radio Host Suggested Damn Good Question to Stephanopoulos Day Before Debate,” Media Matters for America, April 17, 2008.

Unsolicited Advice From A Stranger

“Better to remain silent and be thought as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,” President Lincoln said.

“Speak only when it improves the silence,” wrote Chris Matthews.[i]

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you… ,” is recited to alleged criminals every day by law enforcement personnel throughout the United States.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin cannot remain silent during the Vice Presidential debate. Everything she will say can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion by the pundit class.

Preparing for a debate is not like preparing for midterms in college. You either know the subject, or you don’t. Public policy cannot be learned in all night cram sessions.

Governor Palin is potentially facing the longest ninety minutes of her life if we prejudge her from the interviews with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and CBS News anchor Katie Couric.

Mr. Gibson asked Ms Palin about her insight into Russia. The governor said you could see Russia from Alaska.

Mr. Gibson wanted to know Mrs. Palin’s opinion of the Bush Doctrine. Governor Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

In the Couric interview, Governor Palin repeated the argument that Alaska’s proximity to Russia, and Canada gave her foreign policy experience.

Governor Palin’s inexperience, lack of knowledge about foreign and domestic affairs confirm she is unqualified to become the next vice president. A poor performance in the debate will strengthen the perception she is not ready to be vice president.

Governor Palin is facing potential embarrassment. To avoid embarrassment, she needs to remember particular rules.

Governor Palin should resist the temptation to say Alaska’s proximity to Russia’s automatically gives her foreign policy experience. It is a nonsensical argument. The sooner she forgets it, the better off she will be.

Furthermore, Governor Palin should concede Senator Biden is an expert in foreign policy. Senator Biden has more foreign policy experience than Governor Palin. She should avoid engaging Senator Biden over nuances in foreign policy because she will lose the argument.

However, if Governor Palin is forced to talk about foreign policy, then she should talk about it general terms. For example, “Senator McCain and I support democratic movements throughout the world. Hopefully these emerging democracies will share our values. These new democracies will be our allies in the war on terror.” It is the type of answer used in beauty pageants, but it could work with the public.

But Governor Palin should avoid talking about nation building. The war in Iraq has proven the United States cannot democratize a country through military action.

The war in Iraq could be a problem, but Governor Palin is immunized from the issue because Senator Biden voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. Mr. Biden could have problems trying to coherently explain his position on the war.

Governor Palin should not mention her opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Senator Biden or the debate moderator will inform the audience that her claim is not true. She cannot afford to spend the rest of the debate defending a statement that is not true.

Governor Palin should talk about small town values, how those values shaped her life, and how those values will help her lead the country.

She should avoid talking about specific policy initiatives because she is not a policy wonk. Public policy is a difficult subject to fake your way through.

In an interview, Ms Couric asked Mrs. Palin if she disagreed with any other Supreme Court decision besides Roe v Wade.

“Hmm. Well, let’s see. Of course, in the great history of America,” said Governor Palin. “There have been rulings that there’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe our best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but…”

“Can you think of any?,” Ms Couric asked.

“I would think of any, again, that could best be dealt with on a more local level, maybe I would take issue with,” said Governor Palin. “But, you know, as a mayor and then as a governor, and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, I wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things, but in supporting the law of the land, as it reads today.”[ii]

You find these answers in college essays, with the student hoping the professor did not notice the question was not answered.

Supreme Court decisions are studied in American history at the high school level. If she cannot remember what she studied in high school, then it is improbable she would learn trade policy, immigration policy, or foreign policy on short notice.

But if Mrs. Palin is forced to talk about policy, then she should talk about her opposition to flag burning, and support for the recitation of the “Pledge of Allegiance” in schools.

Governor Palin needs to avoid the constant repetition of the campaign’s talking points. Constant repetition will make her look insipid. She needs to be taken seriously as a candidate, but reciting talking points will undermine her credibility.

In the Couric interview, Governor Palin was asked if she supported the $700 billion bailout plan.

“I’m all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout,” said Governor Palin. “At the same time we know that inaction is not an option and as Senator McCain has said unless this nearly trillion-dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson’s proposal, really I don’t believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They’re not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind’s blowing? They’re waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson’s proposal.”[iii]

This response was pure gibberish. It was delivered with the intention of “appearing” to be familiar with an issue, but in reality Governor Palin does not understand the current economic crisis. Governor Palin will not be taken seriously as a vice presidential candidate if she talks gibberish for ninety minutes.

Governor Palin should avoid lumping different policies into one answer. The debate moderator will ask the governor about the current economic crisis.

In the presidential debate, Senator McCain avoided answering the question by focusing attention on the budget deficit and earmark spending, unrelated to the current economic crisis. He can get away with avoiding questions because he is a Washington insider.

Governor Palin cannot. Any answer that deviates from the original question will validate the notion that Governor Palin is not qualified to be vice president.

Governor Palin does not need to memorize names of foreign leaders, countries, and important dates in world history. The moderator, Gwen Ifill, is a journalist with integrity. She will not try to embarrass Governor Palin.

Finally, Governor Palin needs to keep her answers brief, and to the point. She needs to avoid long-winded answers. Let Senator Biden pontificate about policy. The more he talks, the greater the possibility he will make a mistake.

If Governor Palin can manage to navigate the debate without major mistakes, and Senator Biden blurts out a gaffe, then Mrs. Palin will be declared the winner of the debate.

The Mainstream Media is Senator McCain’s strongest asset. The media will follow the McCain campaign narrative about the hockey mom from Alaska who defeated the mighty Senator from Delaware.

Hard to believe? Media coverage of Senator Obama was negative 72% of the time after he secured the nomination.[iv]


[i] Christopher Matthews, Hardball (New York, 1988).
[ii] CBS News, October, 2008.
[iii] CBS News, September, 2008.
[iv] “Study Finds Obama Fairing Worse on TV News Than McCain,” Center for Media and Public Affairs 2008 Election News Watch Project, July, 2008.

Political Three Card Monte

The current presidential campaign reminds me of a game I see played everyday on street corners. Three Card Monte is promoted as a game of chance, but is really is a confidence scam.

A dealer places three cards on a cardboard box, usually the Jack of Spades, the Jack of Clubs, and the Queen of Hearts. The Queen of Hearts is the winning card.

The dealer shows the Queen of Hearts to the audience, quickly rearranges the cards on the surface of the cardboard box, and asks members of the audience to place a bet and guess the location of the Queen of Hearts.

Find the Queen and you win the amount you bet. If you guess wrong, then you lose your money.

The crew operating the con game consists of the dealer, shills who are pretending to play in order to draw in innocent victims, a lookout to alert the crew of approaching law enforcement, maybe an enforcer to protect the crew from a disgruntled loser, a distraction to divert the attention of the victim, and the victim known as the mark.

The dealer sets up a make shift table, usually a cardboard box. He makes his pitch to pedestrians. A shill agrees to play. The shill may win to demonstrate how easy the game is. Other shills will become involved in the action, encouraging the game further.

A mark decides it is an easy game to win, and will place a bet. The dealer may allow the mark to win a few bets, while the shills encourage the mark to increase the amount of money being wagered. Once sufficient money is staked, the dealer will use sleight of hand tricks to fool the mark. Or the crew may use shills to distract the mark, for example, a couple starts to argue just as the pot has peaked. Eventually the mark loses the money.

In the context of our presidential campaign, the dealer is the Republican Party. The shills are the Mainstream Media and the Pundit class. The distraction is Governor Sarah Palin. Voters are the mark. The Queen of Hearts are the issues. This is how this con game works.

The Republicans want to win this election, more than any other. The Bush Administration did not undermine the Constitution, did not create an imperial presidency just to turn it over to the Democrats, especially Senator Barack Obama.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney will leave behind dirty secrets, some of them criminal. The Republicans cannot risk the possibility of investigations, for example war profiteering, initiated by President Obama. The Bush Administration needs time, at least four years, for the crimes of the current administration to fade away.

The Republican Party understands it cannot win this election on the issues. The majority of Americans, 80%, believe the country is on the wrong track.

In this instance, the dealer needs to distract the voters, or the mark. Selecting Governor Palin was a brilliant tactical move.

Governor Palin is unknown to the general public, but her profile is appealing, especially to the Republican base. She is the mother of five children. Her oldest son is about to deployed to Iraq. Governor Palin is a member of the National Rifle Association. She is pro-life. She is a self-described hockey mom. Voters connect with the profile.

In selecting an unknown vice presidential candidate, the Republican Party insured it would take weeks for the Mainstream Media to fully vet Governor Palin. While the media researched Governor Palin’s past, the Republicans defined the image of Governor Palin as a maverick, Washington outsider who will help Senator McCain change the corrupt political culture of Washington.

The Palin narrative included her opposition to earmarks such as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” selling the state plane on E Bay, and firing the chef – because having a chef cooking meals for her family at taxpayer expense was extravagant.

The Republicans will argue, with a straight face, that Governor Palin has national security experience because she is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. In addition, Governor Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia.

The public was already infatuated with Governor Palin by the time the media exposed the Palin narrative as a fraud. She did not sell the state plane on E Bay.

Governor Palin did not fire the chef. The chef was transferred to another job title, but continued to cook meals for the governor’s family.

At first, Governor Palin was in favor of the “Bridge to Nowhere,” but changed her position after the bridge became a source of embarrassment. And Governor Palin does not mention the fact she kept the money for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” She used the funds for other infrastructure projects in Alaska.

During her term as governor, Mrs. Palin did not deploy the Alaskan National Guard. In her interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson, Governor Palin displayed a lack of knowledge in foreign affairs that would have derailed the career of any other political candidate.

But the tactic succeeded. The mark is not paying attention to the cards. Voters are paying attention to Governor Palin, the distraction.

Meanwhile, the dealer continues to move the cards, trying to conceal the Queen of Hearts from the voters. The election will be over by the time the mark makes an educated guess.

Where is Senator Obama and the Democratic Party in this con game. Mr. Obama is trying to warn the mark about the deception, but the shills, the Mediacracy and political pundits are drowning out the Democrats with background noise.

In the last 18 months, the Mainstream Media embraced the campaign narrative that Senator Obama was inexperienced, unknown, exotic, and risky.

Governor Palin is as inexperienced, unknown and risky as Mr. Obama, but the Mainstream Media is using a different standard with Governor Palin. She is a great story, the hockey mom who could be vice president.

The mark cannot hear the warnings because the shills have successfully drowned out the good Samaritans who are trying to interrupt the game.

Senator McCain’s judgment and positions are no longer issues in this presidential campaign. Instead, it is about people, who would the voters feel most comfortable with, the maverick POW and the hockey mom from Alaska, or the black couple from Chicago.

If you think issues matter in a presidential campaign, then remember George Bush and Dick Cheney defeated an incumbent party during a time of peace and prosperity.

Americans are placing their good faith in a Three Card Monte dealer who has its own agenda, and does the have the best interests of the country at heart. The mark is about to bet its future on random chance, but in games of chance the dealer usually wins, and the mark does not realize it’s been duped until the con game is over.

Deconstructing McCain

Senator John McCain proudly accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president. In his speech, Mr. McCain attempted to reintroduce himself to the public, and rationalize his candidacy.

It was the culmination of a long battle that started in the late 1990’s, was derailed by a smear campaign conducted by the campaign staff of current President Bush, and almost died prematurely last year as Senator McCain struggled to raise money, and convince a nation involved in two wars, and is in the mist of an economic catastrophe that the maverick had the answers to our problems.

It is unfair to pass judgment on Mr. McCain speech making ability. He is not an eloquent public speaker, and his inability to deliver a speech should not be held against him especially when he is running against one of the most eloquent speakers our country has ever produced – Senator Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Senator McCain has trouble reading from a teleprompter. This problem interferes with his ability to add emotion and build momentum during the speech. Mr. McCain would not be able to effectively convey the power of the Gettysburg address if he read it from a teleprompter. Delivering a speech is not his strength, therefore only the content of the speech will be evaluated.

The acceptance speech could be divided into three parts: the introduction, the middle, and the third act – the lessons he learned as a prisoner of war (POW).

The introduction was standard, thanking family and supporters. Mr. McCain welcomed Governor Palin to the ticket. Senator McCain warmly mentioned his opponent, “honoring Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.”[i]

In the third act, Mr. McCain spoke of the hardships he endured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. He was tortured for five years. It was poignant and sad.

Our government manufactured intelligence and lied to our country. We were at war against the Vietnamese people who at the time were not really a threat to the United States. History proved the infamous “Domino Theory” to be false, as well as every other rationalization for the war. Mr. McCain and thousands of other Vietnam War veterans suffered in vain over a mistake.

A good speech is not just eloquent, but is also well written. I will attempt to evaluate the middle part of the speech strictly using the text.

Mr. McCain deserves credit for admitting the Republican Party missed an opportunity when they controlled congress and the presidency. “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us,” said Mr. McCain. “We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government…”[ii]

However, once in power, the Republican Party resembled a crime family. They took advantage of their position in government to divide the spoils – mostly at the taxpayer’s expense.

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain’s speech included falsehoods, and distortions.

Senator McCain called for increased bipartisanship. “I’ve worked with members of both parties to fix the problems that need to be fixed,” said Mr. McCain. “That’s how I will govern as president.”[iii]

Senator McCain said he would work with and include Democrats and independents in his administration. “Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn’t think of them first, let’s use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let’s try sharing it.”[iv]

There can be no greater distortion than a Republican calling for bipartisanship. Senator McCain’s call for bipartisanship and mutual cooperation is disingenuous.

It reminded me Senator Clinton’s supporters demanding Senator Obama to select her as the vice presidential nominee for the sake of unifying the party, except that it was Senator Clinton who divided the Democratic Party during the primaries.

Rip Van Winkle would have been moved by Senator McCain’s call for unity and cooperation if he woke from his long nap on the final day of the Republican convention. Mr. McCain wants to unite a country that was divided by the Republican Party over the last 28 years. The Republicans have refused to cooperate with the Democrats.

The divisiveness started with Senator McCain’s political hero, President Ronald Reagan, who demonized liberals, practically associating them with communists. President Bush (The First) denigrated liberalism, mocking his opponent Mike Dukakis for being a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization devoted to protecting the Bill of Rights.

But current New York Times op Ed columnist William Kristol was the philosophical godfather of the current Republican ideological movement. In a zero sum game in which one party must win, and the other party must suffer a crushing defeat, Mr. Kristol believes “what matters most is offense, crushing your opponents, carrying the day.”[v]

Mr. Kristol opposed President Clinton on every policy matter except for NAFTA. According to Mr. Kristol, the goal of the Republican Party should not be to find common ground to produce solutions to the countries problems. Instead, the goal of the Republicans is to “Defeat the Democrats, no matter what the issue, no matter what the consequences.”[vi]

This philosophical tactic was used to defeat President Clinton’s health care plan. Passage of the Clinton health care plan in any form would be disastrous,” wrote Mr. Kristol in the Wall Street Journal. “There is no health care crisis.” According to Mr. Kristol, “If we are to negotiate with Democrats over health care reform, it must be on our terms, not theirs.”[vii]

For years, the Republican Party campaigned against welfare. President Reagan spoke of the mythical Welfare Queen who drove a Cadillac while receiving public benefits. Yet Mr. Kristol encouraged Republicans not cooperate with President Clinton’s plan to “end welfare as we know it.”[viii]

Mr. Kristol argued Republicans should not compromise with the president under any circumstances. “Republicans should not busy themselves seeking promising signs or areas of possible agreement in the president’s plan. Instead, we should make plain what this welfare proposal amounts to: marginal tinkering…,” wrote Mr. Kristol in a strategy memo.[ix]

Imagine that, Republicans against welfare reform. The Republicans call that a flip-flop.

In 2000, President Bush campaigned as a politician who had experience working with Democrats in the Texas legislature. In 2004, after defeating Senator Kerry in the presidential election, President Bush extended his hand to the defeated Democrats, indicating he would be willing to work with the opposition party – as long as they agreed with his policies. In his eight years as President, Mr. Bush has rarely practiced the art of bipartisanship.

In his acceptance speech, Senator McCain attributed his failing campaign to his support for the troop escalation in Iraq (The Surge). “I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq when it wasn’t a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I’d rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.”[x]

Furthermore, the line about preferring to lose an election instead of losing a war is a Republican Party talking point initiated by Senator McCain. The talking point was designed to question Senator Obama’s patriotism. Also, Mr. McCain argued Mr. Obama was more concerned with personal glory than winning the war on terror.

Mr. McCain was magnanimous and conciliatory towards his opponent in the first part of his acceptance speech. “A word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We’ll go at it over the next two months,” said Mr. McCain. “That’s the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other.”[xi]

The tone of the speech changed from magnanimity and conciliatory to cheap politics in the span of eight paragraphs.

Mr. McCain’s campaign was not in trouble because he believed our military needed to increase troop levels in Iraq. This is false. Except for Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates were in favor of the surge. In addition, the Democrats in the House and Senate caved in to President Bush’s demand for troop escalation.

It was his comprehensive immigration reform legislation, co sponsored with Senator Ted Kennedy that almost killed off his campaign. Mr. McCain changed his position on immigration, and would vote against a bill he authored.[xii]

Senator McCain abandoned bipartisanship during the current presidential campaign in order to salvage the nomination.

Senator McCain is a self-proclaimed maverick who speaks of putting the interests of the country first, but in this instance he placed personal ambition ahead of his principles.

Mr. McCain uttered a falsehood about Senator Obama’s tax proposals. He claimed Senator Obama will raise taxes. Even Fox News said Mr. McCain’s assertion is false. In his acceptance speech, Mr. Obama said he would lower the taxes of 95% of the people, and he would cut capital gains taxes.

Senator McCain boasted his health care plan “will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance.”[xiii]

According to Mr. McCain, Senator Obama’s health care plan “will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”[xiv]

Mr. McCain’s health plan is flawed because he does not account for people with preexisting medical conditions obtaining health insurance, and he wants to maintain a system dependent on HMO’s. He said a bureaucrat will stand in the way of a patient and medical treatment, but an HMO currently stands in the way of a patient and medical treatment. HMO’s will make every effort to deny coverage.

Senator Obama’s health care plan is also flawed because he wants to include HMO’s in his plan. While Mr. Obama is willing to offer alternatives to Americans who cannot afford health insurance, I believe adopting a single payer, national heath insurance plan is the only way to solve the health care crisis. Simply stated, you go to the doctor, the government pays the bill.

Mr. McCain said Senator Obama voted for “corporate welfare bill for oil companies.” Not true. In 2005, Mr. Obama supported an energy bill that raised taxes on oil companies, “by about $300 million.” Furthermore, Senator Obama said he would remove tax breaks for oil companies.[xv]

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is in favor of reducing corporate taxes, including oil companies.[xvi]

Senator McCain’s energy policy is a not really new. He wants to construct 45 new nuclear power plants throughout the United States.[xvii] Mr. McCain wants to use antiquated technology to solve the energy and global climate change crisis.

Mr. McCain made another false statement regarding oil. “We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much,” said Mr. McCain.[xviii]

In fact, the United States spent $536 billion on foreign oil in 2007 to all exporting nations, with “32% of U.S. oil imports from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.”[xix]

Senator McCain was right when he said developing new energy technologies would “create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.”[xx] Senator Obama made the same argument in his acceptance speech.

Republicans continually mock former Vice President Gore’s concerns for the environment. And the Republicans mock Senator Obama’s plan to solve global warming. In her acceptance speech on September 3rd, Governor Palin said of Mr. Obama, “What does he actually seek to accomplish after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?”[xxi]

Shouldn’t Senator McCain be mocked and ridiculed for saying in his acceptance speech, “We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.”[xxii]

Mr. McCain offered solutions to our problems. He promised eliminate earmarks, or pork barrel projects from the federal budget and would veto appropriation bills containing earmarks.

The budget deficit will be approximately $200 billion in 2009. Earmarks constitute $16.9 billion dollars of the federal budget.[xxiii] You cannot balance the federal budget by reducing expenses by 8.5%.

Senator McCain proposed changes in unemployment benefits. “Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s,” said Mr. McCain. “That’s going to change on my watch.”[xxiv] But he did not specify how.

Senator McCain offered a policy proposal that appears to be a federal program designed to subsidize the incomes of workers who lose their jobs, and forced to take lower paying new jobs. “For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we’ll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower-paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.”[xxv]

Isn’t that a new social welfare program, and aren’t Republicans against using tax revenue to finance social welfare programs? Interesting how the media did not report the potential creation of a new federal social welfare program.

There was a part of Mr. McCain’s speech that I thought was odd. “We believe everyone has something to contribute,” said Mr. McCain, “and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We’re all God’s children and we’re all Americans.”[xxvi]

In a country as diverse as ours, Senator McCain could only mention the descendants from the Mayflower and immigrants from Latin America? What about the dreams of African Americans, Asians and Jews? Makes you wonder if he envisions a country made up of white people and their Latin servants.

If you read and study the text of the speech, you will realize it was not Senator McCain’s finest effort. The constant applause and watching Mr. McCain struggle with the teleprompter serve as a distraction.

The speech is not memorable because it does not contain a vision of where Mr. McCain intends to lead our country. Talking about change, about fighting for the good cause, about victory without specific proposals, making false and misleading statements is empty rhetoric.




[i] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[ii] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[iii] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[iv] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[v] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[vi] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[vii] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[viii] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[ix] Jon Meacham, “The GOP’s Master Strategist,” The Washington Monthly, September 1, 1994.
[x] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xi] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xii] “McCain Would Rather Lose an Election Than Win a War,” The Washington Post, September 6, 2008.
[xiii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xiv] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xv] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xvi] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xvii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xviii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xix] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xx] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xxi] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xxii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xxiii] “Fact Checking McCain,” FactCheck.org, September 5, 2008.
[xxiv] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xxv] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.
[xxvi] Transcript: John McCain Speech, NPR, September 5, 2008.