Warren Peace

The furor surrounding Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugeration is perfectly understandable, but misplaced.
Groups that supported Obama's presidential bid could be forgiven for feeling a bit slighted when he chose the anti-gay rights Warren to give religious greetings for the historic event. I, in fact, find little to like about Warren's politics.
But if the Obama administration is going to live up to its promise to change the way politics is conducted in Washington, it's one hell of a good start. Does anyone seriously believe that having Warren give the invocation is any indication that Obama does not support gay rights issues?
In fact, the choice is a perfect way to signal Americans that polarizing politics is out. Those who supported Obama during the campaign should not feel slighted. Those who did not have good reason to feel Obama's promise for change was more than just campaign rhetoric.
And that alone will go a long way towards healing the wounds a half-century of partisan wrangling has produced.

Razing Arizona

Stop me if you've heard this one before.
An Arizona Republican senator runs for President and gets trounced, leading to internal bickering and backbiting that seems to guarantee the party is headed for entrenched backbencher status.
While that may seem to describe the current state of political affairs given Barrack Obama's electoral landslide over Republican John McCain, longtime GOP faithful could be excused for having a certain sense of deja vu.
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson crushed the bid of Sen. Barry Goldwater, of Arizona that had many debating the demise of the Grand Old Party. But within four years - thanks in a large measure to the Vietnam War and, to a smaller degree, the third-party candidacy of George Wallace - Nixon retook the White House for Republicans, ushering in a generation of GOP domination of the Oval Office, with the exception of the Watergate-fueled one term presidency of Jimmy Carter.
Obama's win did not approach Johnson's landslide, but was convincing. Although he "only" won by about 8 million votes out of 125 million cast (Johnson beat Goldwater by 16 million votes with only 70 million cast) Obama piled up a convincing 365-173 electoral victory (giving McCain Missouri's 11 electoral votes, though that state has yet to be officially declared).
Four years is several lifetimes in politics, as witnessed by the period between Johnson's 1964 drubbing of Goldwater to 1968's Nixonian comback. Then witness the tectonic change from 1972 - when Nixon piled up a 520-17 electoral victory over Democrat George McGovern, winning by 18 million votes - to 1974, when Nixon was forced to resign from office in disgrace after the Watergatge coverup.
So all those Republicans beating themselves up right now over the future direction of the party need only look backwards to see what "could be" again.

Winning is everything

Desperate times call for desperate measures.
And with national polls unaimously and dramatically indicating that the electorate is moving in droves towards Democratic candidate Barrack Obama, the John McCain campaign has begun to resemble the Titanic in its last throes.
Earlier this year McCain vowed to run a clean campaign on the issues. And you know something? I believe he meant it - at the time. But with his poll numbers plummeting and time running out I am sure McCain's political strategy team convinced him that the only way to reverse this trend is to go negative.
So we get Sarah Palin trotting out the sorry line that Obama was palling around with terrorists, as if Obama was in the room 40 years ago when Bill Ayers was plotting against the government as a member of the renegade Weathermen. Never mind that, as has been reported ad nauseum, the two served together on some education study panels and Ayers did throw a fundraiser for Obama during his first state legisaltive run, but there has been no evidence the two ever tipped any Iron City beers together.
We get Cindy McCain saying it sent chills through her when she found out Obama voted against funding for the Iraq War when her son was over there. Never mind that Obama's vote was against a bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Never mind that Sen. McCain also voted against legislation funding the war because it DID have a withdrawal timetable in it. Never mind that when the vote occured Cindy McCain probably didn't know Barrack Obama from Jack Reed.
We get the local pols introducing McCain at local rallies referring to Obama by emphasizing the candidate's middle name "Barrack Hussein Obama" as if that is the clinching evidence that he's a Muslim. Never mind that it has been well-documented that Obama is and always has been a Christian.
What is more disturbing about these campaign rallies is the audience response. Written and filmed accounts indicate the audience is stirred into a hateful frenzy, calling Obama "a bum," "a terrorist," and, at one Florida rally, an exhortation to "kill him."
Yeah, this is real presidential. This is bringing the country together.
Righteously indignant McCain supporters are going to boil over that it's a legitimate discussion of character. That these tactics (or is it a strategy?) are important to show the true measure of the man. And, of course, at the same time, they will dismiss their candidate's actions, as part of the Keating Five, in the S&L loan crisis.
They will say, "Obama does it, too." But the Democrats didn't raise the Keating Five issue - although it's a legitimate issue of McCain's legislative record - until after the GOP raised the Ayers issue. And no Democrats are using similar perjorative terms to describe the Republican candidate. You don't see bloodlust permeating the crowds at Democratic rallies.
No, this is the sad, sad show of a campaign that feels its chances of winning slip-sliding away and is willing to literally do and say anything to get that brass ring. And it unfairly tarnishes the patriotism of a respected man. Is this really how John McCain wants to be remembered after his inspirational military service and nearly three decades of public service?
When you're willing to call a presidential candidate dangerous your appeal is to those even below the lowest common demoninator. And who knows where that will lead?

Bailing out on America

So, the House of Representatives failed to get the job done Monday. And now its time to engage in the great American sport of finger-pointing.
Make no mistake. It wasn't a party-line vote. Democrats and Republicans alike bailed on the plan. But it's always fun to watch the hysteria after something like this. And, as usual, you can trust Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to inject some humor into it all.
In remarks before the vote Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blamed the economic policies of the Bush administration for the mess. Some Republicans said it was that partisan blast - Imagine! Partisan broadsides during an election year! - that prompted some to vote against the plan.
With his sharp wit, Frank burst that bubble.
"Somebody hurt my feelings so I'll punish the country," Frank said in a derisive blast at those Republicans.
Just as bad, many lawmakers fearing a voter backlash in an election year - Democrats and Republicans alike - ran for cover. Not exactly profiles in courage.
And then there's John McCain. Feeling his presidential chances slip sliding away, the Republican nominee was quick to blame the "partisan attacks" of Barrack Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress.
Never mind that it was run-and-gun McCain who tried to hijack the issue into the presidential race when he "suspended" his campaign to work on the deal. Turned out to be one of those bad "tactics" - or was that a bad strategy? Anyway the Pander Bear tried to play white knight by calling for the presidential confab on the bailout plan, which, according to reports, was extremely and unusually divisive. Then he tried to rally fellow Republicans around the bailout - another bad tactic apparently.
And when all this fails and it looks like McCain is going to take another political hit, he rushes to blame Obama, who, unlike his Republican opponent, has maintained a measured approach to the issue.
I don't like the idea that we all have to help clean up the mess left behind by the Needy Greedy Dirt Band, but the mess has got to be cleaned up. Once it is then we can go after those that caused it. But the economy is tanking and, before it gets out of control, it's got to be stabilized. The credit market is already feeling the pinch and Joe Sixpack will feel it soon enough if he can't get a home or car loan or a home equity loan or the interest rates on those loans go through the roof.
If you find out your child has driven your car on to the edge of a cliff and it's teetering, about ready to plunge over, it's probably better to rescue the car first and then sort out the blame later.

Desperation samba

Well, so much for John "Pander Bear" McCain's vow to distance himself from the history of Republican attack campaigning.
In a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook, the McCain camp has been vigorously attacking Democratic candidate Barrack Obama for cancelling a visit to wounded troops in Germany. The McCain version is that Obama did so because base officials refused to allow reporters to accompany him on the visit. The Obama camp has denied that, but how is a voter to know who's telling the truth here?
Well, now comes a Washington Post report http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter that, in fact, base commanders were uncomfortable with Obama foreign policy advisor, retired Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, accompanying the candidate. Gration's presence might make it seem like a campaign event, the commanders felt.
There is no evidence that Obama cancelled the event because reporters could not accompany him.
But, confronted with this evidence, the McCain camp remains unapologetic. Seems like a sign of desperation to me.

Gays in the military

You know, I'm beginning to think that don't-ask-don't-tell should be a policy for the ignorant. But, then again, if you're ignorant it stands to reason you don't know you're ignorant, so you wouldn't be asking and how could you tell?
Well, it's pretty easy for most people to tell and it's apparent that some of the military establishment simply refuses to leave the past on the issue of gays and lesbians serving their country.
Recently a study panel made up of four retired military officers, including one who worked with President Clinton on implementing the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, determined that the presence of gays and lesbians in the service would not detract from the military's ability to do its job. Apparently the panel found no loss of discipline within the British and Israeli armed forces although gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in both.
But the military establishment may be on to something when they insist it is different in America. Methinks the difference is that there is more intolerance here.
I can recall the debate leading up to the 1995 enactment of the Rhode Island law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of housing, credit, employment and public accomodations. The law simply said you can't refuse to rent or sell a house, deny credit, refuse to hire or refuse to allow someone in a restaurant or public museum simply because of their sexual orientation. But if you listened to that debate you'd have thought passage of the law was going to be the death knell of our society. Now, 13 years later, I can't say as I've ever heard of one complaint about that law and, despite the best intentions of the Bush administration to put us on the road to economic ruin, our society seems to be faring well.
I recall writing a column before the law passed saying, in time, people would look back and say "What was all the fuss about?" I think that has pretty much come to pass. My guess is that eventually the American military establishment will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century - although it might take until the 22nd century for that to happen - and realize that any able bodied man or woman who wants to serve their country should be allowed to do it no matter their sexual orientation.
Forcing them to keep their orientation secret only plays into the intolerance and hatred of those who seek to keep them under the establishment's thumb. I, for one, choose to be on the side of inclusion and against bigotry.

Only we know what's good for you

The Bush administration is intent on going out feet kicking. The audacity of their recent stance regarding withdrawal from Iraq is nearly unmatched.
Now even though a great many people in our own country would like to see some sort of withdrawal timetable, it's understandable that the Bushies continue their tunnel-vision thinking on the issue. It is their contention that a timetable would enable the insurgents, who would then bide their time and jump out of the bushes (no pun intended) once American forces left town. That's debateable, but at least they're being consistent.
But it's unconscionable when they refuse to comply with the Iraqi government request for some type of timetable. The Iraqis have insisted they will not sign any agreement about the future use of US troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for withdrawal. The Americans insist that issue is not on the table. That's funny. I read that both the Iraqi prime minister and the national security advisor had raised the issue.
Apparently the Bush administration chooses to treat the Iraqi government as some sort of unruly child who doesn't really know what's good for them.
I was under the impression that the war was, in part (although maybe just in small part) to set up a democratic government there. Now that the country does have its own government in place, apparently we don't care what they think.
But, again, that is just the Bush administration being consistent.

Just win, baby

This is why Republicans are so successful nationally. As a group they are definitely of the Al Davis school of thinking. The Oakland Raiders head honcho is credited with coining the phrase "Just win, baby," when asked why he took so many chances on players other organizations had cut loose because of their wayward ways.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have their primary squabbles, but usually close ranks once that battle has been fought. Witness the Reagan-Bush battle in 1980 or the Bush-McCain tussle in 2000. Republican voters know that, in their world, whoever wins that primary will be preferable to the Democratic candidate.
Democrats, for some reason, aren't as successful in patching up their differences. Apparently they are too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of political races. Witness the ongoing enmity between Obama and Clinton supporters. Sure there were some rough patches during that bruising primary. Each side did what it thought best to win. That battle has been fought and it's over. Now is the time for Democratic voters to look at the battle ahead. The only question should be: How does Obama win in November?
One way not to win is to keep fighting the primary battle. A New York Times article today portrayed many Democratic supporters as whining, grudge-holding babies. When one Obama supporter was asked about donating to help Clinton retire her debt one said, "Not a penny for that woman or her husband." Another said, "Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Sen. Obama?"
Well, one reason might be to help win in November. If they think Clinton dumped on their candidate wait until they see what Republicans have in store for them this fall. Helping restore harmony will heal wounds and help attain the ultimate goal - the White House.
Clinton supporters are no better, crying sexism as the reason their candidate lost, and threatening to jump to the McCain camp. Besides being a crock, the charge only perpetuates the antagonism between the two camps and increases the liklihood of another four years of Republican White House rule and 30 to 40 years or conservative dogma eminating from the Supreme Court.
And if there ever was an election where tDemocrats need to take a tip from the Al Davis playbook it's this year.

Poker face

Lately I've been thinking about poker and face-to-face diplomacy with enemy states.
I mean, if I'm getting ready to sit down at the poker table with some friends, I sure as hell am not going to say: "Look, I'm only playing a hand if I have a clear winner. Don't worry about me bluffing."
In effect, that's what John "Pander Bear" McCain is saying when he says he will not meet with the heads of enemy governments. Republicans - and even some conservative Democrats - have been shaking their heads over Barrack Obama's position that he would be willing to sit down, without preconditions, with the heads of enemy states like Iran or excommunicated natons like Cuba.
In an OpEd piece in Sunday's Boston Globe Mark Oppenheimer made an excellent point: once you set preconditions you're saying, "I won't play unless I've already won."
How does one reach any kind of accord with a nation unless there is some kind of meeting of the minds? Does that mean we get everything we want? Those that even think that's possible are stuck in some kind of time warp, romanticizing about the "perfect" outcome of World War II.
Talking does not mean capitulating.
Anyway, I don't think our foreign image can get much worse than it is right now after eight years of the vaunted Bush Doctrine.
The globe is a much smaller planet than it was 60 years, or even 30 years ago. We can no longer dictate our policies to the world. Might no longer makes right. While we do have to remain strong and be willing to defend ourselves from enemies, we no longer have the luxury to ignore our foes or potential foes unless we stack the deck first. I think the days of enemies squaring off against one another on the field of battle, clearly identified by their different uniforms, are relegated to the history books.
Besides, it's not such a radical idea to talk to the enemy. Even the God of Presidential Hawks Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev.
Obama is not saying he's going to be a patsy for these charlatans. He's not saying they will dictate the rules of the game. All he's saying is he won't rule out sitting with them at some point if both sides can mutually agree to the rules and place.
And, to me, that's good poker playing.

It ain't over til it's over, but now it's over

If Tuesday night's developments were any barometer, the presidential race may be over pretty quickly.
In delivering his first speech after sewing up the Democratic nomination Obama flexed his oratorical muscles before an energetic crowd of more than 20,000 in the arena that Republicans are scheduled to coronate John McCain later this summer. Meanwhile, McCain's advisors apparently thought he could go toe-to-toe with Obama on the stump by setting the Pander Bear up before a crowd of his own supporters.
Unfortunately for McCain he actually had to speak. It was one of the more brutal political addresses I have witnessed in some time. Not as bad as former Gov. Lincoln Almond, but close.
Unlike Obama's crowd - which was adoring and wild - the Republican afficonadoes appeared to be barely awake and missed several obvious applause lines.
Then, in an even bigger head scratcher, the McCain campaign challenged Obama to a series of town hall meetings/debates across the country. Obama's campaign couldn't say yes fast enough.
Every time Obama and McCain stand next to each other Obama wins. Obama's ability to inspire people with his speech will only look better compared to McCain's wooden style.
Obama's biggest challenge may be in smoothing over the frayed feelings of Hillary Clinton supporters. But, as I've said before, it's hard to believe that those labelling themselves feminists can support McCain over Obama given the tenuous makeup of the Supreme Court. Giving McCain the ability to replace Justice John Paul Stevens would be a disaster of biblical proportions for all the issues Clinton supporters hold dear.
A lot was made of Clinton's refusal to concede Tuesday night. But I think she did the right thing for party unity. Her supporters were still in campaign mode and a concession speech would have exacerbated any ill will they felt towards Obama.
On Wednesday Clinton gave a clearer indication of her role in the upcoming election. Following Obama in a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs group, Clinton was quoted as saying, "Let me be very clear. I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
First, Clinton obviously defended Obama in an area he is considered vulnerable because of his stance that he would hold diplomatic talks with Iran, Israel's enemy.
Second, her use of the terms: "will be a good friend to Israel" was an indication that she has conceded the nomination. She just isn't doing it formally yet for political reasons. And I don't believe it's so she can secure the VP nomination. That kind of policitcal blackmail would not ingratiate one with the party's nominee. And, as ambtious as Clinton might be, I don't think she's crass enough to believe it's in her best interests to do so. No, I just think she's easing her supporters - at least those with wounded pride - back under the party's umbrella.

Value system

Ever wondered what the term "traditional family values"(TFV) actually means? I have. Maybe it's written down somehwhere.
But those who espouse these TFVs may have a point. I mean, take the case of Vito J. Fossella, a congressman from New York City, that infamous den of inequity. Fossella was arrested in Virginia recently for drunken driving. His blood alcohol level was measured at .17, more than double the state's legal limit of .08.
Fossella apparently told police he was on the way to take his sick daughter to the hospital. But, within a week, a spokesman for Fossella told members of the media the congressman was on his way to "visit friends."
Both statements were apparently correct. Fossella was on the way to see his mistress, with whom he had a 3-year-old daughter. This obviously came as a shock to his current wife, with whom he has a son.
So do we really want people like Fossella representing us in Congress?
Well, let's see.
Fossella is ... gasp! ... a conservative Republican, a strong supporter of President Bush, who voted to impeach former President Clinton for his TFV violation, who the New York Times reported "created an image ... as the embodiment of traditional family values."
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge here. Maybe they are the traditional values of his family.
But cheap shots aside, I think this really shows that temptation is not a partisan issue and those who put themselves up before the world as guardians of our moral compass better make damn sure their own compass is working.

Sour grapes

I am tired of hearing Clinton supporters railing about how sexism is at the root of their candidate's travails. It's almost as if the only possible reason Obama could be beating Clinton is because she's a woman.
Get over yourselves. She made a colossal strategic blunder in her campaign of inevitability and now is paying that price. Are there some voters who won't vote for her because of her gender? You bet your sweet bippy. Just as there are those who are voting FOR her because of her gender. And just like there are people voting for or against Obama because of his race.
Before we go any farther let me get this out front. From the beginning of this race I made it clear to those who asked me that I could support any one of the three Democratic frontrunners. I had no favorite. After John Edwards dropped out, I still took the position that either Democratic candidate would be far superior to another Republican. And I still believe that.
But after watching the campaign, I believe Obama is the superior candidate. I don't expect those who have gone to the wall for Clinton to agree with me. Too bad. If the Obama campaign were to implode and Clinton became the nominee, I would vote for her.
But when I see Clinton supporters quoted as saying they'll jump ship to John "Pander Bear" McCain before they'll vote for Obama, I see a whole bowl full of sour grapes.
I only have two words for those Clintonistas who will cuddle up to the Pander Bear: Supreme Court.
The delicate balance for causes near and dear to those who profess to support Clinton would be upset if McCain were elected. John Paul Stevens, the most liberal justice on the high court, is 88 years old and probably won't make it through another presidential term. My suspicion is that he probably held out as long as he did in the hopes a Democrat might be elected. (I know he was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford, but Ford was carrying out a delicate balancing act of his own, trying to calm the country down after the hugely divisive Watergate scandal.)
So if Clinton supporters desert the party in droves and help elect McCain, it'll be on their heads when McCain beefs up the conservative majority on the court - one that will probably last the rest of our lifetimes.

It's all over but the shouting

It seems clear that Barrack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. Well, to almost everyone.
Hillary Clinton is pushing ahead despite the overwhelming odds against her. Clinton has her own reasons for keeping on keeping on. Whatever those reasons are, one thing is certain: Hillary Clinton is no political neophyte and can read the proverbial writing on the wall as anyone.
Maybe it's as simple as wanting something so bad you can't believe there isn't SOME way to get it. At this point it would take a virtual tsunami on a level exceeding the Rev. Wright to swamp Obama's growing advantage.
The real question now is: How can Democrats extricate themselves from this unsettling dilemma and emerge without shooting themselves in the foot?
It just goes to show you how unpredictable politics can be. Six months ago not even the most savvy political junkie could have predicted the current state of affairs. At the time McCain was an afterthought and Obama wasn't even high enough in the polls to rate underdog status.
That just proves that six months is two or three lifetimes in politics. And the election is still six months away.

Poor, poor pitiful me...

An interesting tidbit picked up this morning. The federal poverty threshhold, which details who is eligible for various federal benefits and programs, is $21,200 (not sure if that's gross or net) for a family of four. Let that roll around on your tongue for a while.
Poverty level? That barely pays the rent and food bill, never mind utilities, clothes for the kids and gas for the car. Or maybe that assumes anyone that poor can't afford a car, in which case they'll probably have to take a bus to work, but that ain't free either.
So when the state says they are cutting off benefits - say, child care benefits so people can continue to work - to anyone making 150 percent of the federal poverty level, that establishes the cutoff point at $31,800 for a family of four.
And you think you've got it tough.

Figure the odds....

When the state has a floundering economy it shouldn't be using gambling as a lifeline.
But income and sales tax receipts are down. The only state revenue source showing any improvement is lottery revenue. That's why, with lawmakers facing extremely painful budget choices this year, they moved to expand hours of operation for Newport Grand and Twin River in Lincoln.
The House debate was rife with political sloganeering, pandering and head-scratching logic.
For instance, Rep. Deborah A. Fellela, D-Johnston, tried to amend the bill to raise the legal age for gamblers from 18 to 21. Fellela and those who sided with her seem to think that if you're between 18 and 20 you are too immature to handle slot machines. Maybe some are. But, then again, a lot of people older than 21 can't handle gambling either.
If you're 18 you are a legal adult, with all the attached rights and responsibilities, except a few. You can vote, but you can't drink. You can join the military, but, if Fellela had her way - she didn't; her amendment failed - you wouldn't be able to play slot machines. In Fellela's mind you're not mature enough to buy a lottery ticket, but you are old enough to go to the ACI if convicted of a crime.
Wonder how many Marines stationed in Iraq are between 18, 19 or 20.

Leaders sought to make the legislation more palatable to the rank and file by including a provision dedicating revenue - up to an estimated $14.1 million a year - from the expanded hours to state school aid.
Although it sounds nice, the provision is meaningless. Leaders admitted that it would not mean extra school aid. Absent a firm funding formula the General Assembly could still cut or increase state aid at its discretion. In theory, the legislature could cut out all state aid - except the $14.1 million included in the gambling bill.

Finally, Newport Reps. J. Russell Jackson and Steven J. Coaty were right on target when they claimed during the debate that the expanded hours bill was the first step toward bringing in full-fledged casinos to the two legal slot parlors.
You can be assured that when the one-year trial period ends next year, proponents will be back claiming success and pushing for around-the-clock gambling seven days a week. (The bill only allows 24-hour gambling on Fridays, Saturdays and the nights before holidays.)
At some future date, they'll be back again, calling for table games. Although that would require approval by voters, proponents will use the potential of losing revenue to Connecticut and Massachusetts, if they push ahead with casinos, to pistol whip the electorate.

The year after the legislature legalized slot machines, there was a major effort to repeal it. Sen Joseph McGair, D-Warwick, who had opposed VLTs during the previous year's debate, had the right read when asked about the potential for a repeal.
The battle was over, McGair said. Once the state was hooked on gambling revenue, it would never be able to give it up. Gambling proponents would continue to use the threat of lost aid to push through even more gambling, he said. And gambling interests would never give up, McGair pointed out. No matter how many times they got beat, they would be back with their deep pockets, keeping the pressure on their vastly underfunded opponents.
Opponents have won more than their share of battles at the polls. But, as McGair pointed out, they can only lose once.

The pot and the kettle

You can see more acts of sheer audacity during a presidential campaign than anywhere else. Take, for instance, John "Pander Bear" McCain calling Barrack Obama insensitive to the poor and out of touch on economic issues. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/28/mccain_calls_ill_senator_insensitive_to_poor_people/
This from a Republican who has done an about face on the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, he once opposed and who has admitted the economy is not his strong suit.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating. Can anyone point out the evidence that federal tax cuts in both the Reagan and Bush II administrations improved the economy? The facts suggest otherwise. In both cases the cuts and concurrent increased military spending caused an exploding federal deficit. Those deficits redirected federal revenue to pay off that debt. On the other hand the era of peace and prosperity in the 1990s happened during a Democratic administration.
McCain's charge that he would be more sensitive to the little guy and better able to manage the national economy just doesn't pass the laugh test.

Insanity

Albert Einstein once said the true definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So what are we to make of a story in today's Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/21/mccain_defends_proposal_on_tax_cut/ in which Republican presidential hopeful John "Pander Bear" McCain defends extending the Bush tax cuts as more important than reducing the record federal deficit?
Weren't the original Bush tax cuts supposed to stimulate the economy? That's funny. I haven't felt stimulated in the seven years since the tax cuts went into effect. And the national economy? Hmmm. You can judge for yourself.
This is nothing more than McCain pandering to the conservative Republican base, trying to marshall their forces before he has to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters in the national campaign.
Even a child learns that you can't keep sticking your hand in a hot flame without getting burned.

Gas pains

Lucas ... I mean John McCain fired off another economic volley recently. But nobody will confuse his aim with The Rifleman's.
Pandering to his Republican base, the Republican nominee called for a suspension of the 18.4-cent federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. It just shows that Pander Bear McCain was accurate when he said he had limited knowledge of the economy. But give the man his due. He sure knows his politics.
As a longtime lawmaker McCain understands the proposal is DOA. Even his GOP colleagues won't support it. That tax raises billions for important road and transporation projects that every legislative district in the country shares in. But proposing it makes him look good to the conservative Republicans who have been slow in warming to the Arizonan.
McCain touted it as an economic stimuli for the ailing economy, but the evidence doesn't support that. What evidence? Well, there's the massive tax cuts Bush pushed through. Weren't they supposed to stimulate the economy, which at the time was just emerging from an unprecedented period of growth? How can tax cut supporters maintain that fiction given our current fiscal state of affairs?
Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts.

Silly political putty

This Democratic nomination campaign is getting sillier by the day.
In Sunday's Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi goes off on the Obama campaign -
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/06/fired_up_and_ready_for_a_nomination_battle/ - for being male dominated, including this passage:
"Earlier this year, (Mass. Senate President Therese) Murray, the first woman to hold the Senate president's post, chastised (U.S. Sen. Edward) Kennedy and other prominent men for abandoning Clinton to support Obama."
The underlying accusation is that they did so simply BECAUSE Obama was a man. Were it true - which is a bit of a stretch - how would that be any different than Murray, and other women mentioned in the story, supporting Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman. Can you say "double standard" boys and girls?
Then there's this whole non-story about the Clintons' income tax returns and whether making that much money disqualifies them from feeling the pain of the average American.
What hog wash.
Ask any Rhode Islander if they think having money made Claiborne Pell less empathetic to the little guy. It hasn't prevented Teddy Kennedy from builiding his legacy as perhaps the most influential U.S. senator EVER and one who constantly fought for those who were on the underside of the American economy.
Hillary Clinton is smart and ambitious and would be infinitely more attuned to the struggles of the average American than the Republican nominee. So, too, would Obama.
Finally, there's the whole Florida-Michigan primary mess. How can the party possibly seat the delegates as elected in the two primaries? Neither candidate campaigned there and Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. Both states went ahead with their primaries despite advance notice of the consequences. Now they would like to ignore those consequences. That'd be like telling your child he if he doesn't eat his supper he'll have to go to his room and then, when he doesn't eat, allowing him to go out and play.
The way out of the mess would be to seat the elected delegates but require both state's votes to be split down the middle for the first ballot, if the race is not already over.

Rollin' down the (wrong) track

So, according to a New York Times poll, 81 percent of people asked believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/04poll.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1207314700-ZhK/iMAbMJjKQ031IOCcRQ

What's surprising to me is that there are 19 percent who think everything is hunky dory. I'd bet some of the 19-percenters are those who are giddy over the tax climate in this country, where public officials frequently fall all over themselves to reduce taxes for those who already can afford vacation homes in the Hamptons.
This is what I firmly believe. I believe that the ultra-rich among us have much more longer term views of life than those who struggle week to week or even day to day. They know that the national climate fluctuates and that there will be periods - usually coinciding with a Republican administration - when the push will be on to cut taxes. So they take advantage of that climate while they can, knowing they can increase their holdings enough during those times to weather the storm once the winds of change blow the tax-cutters out of office.
As they might say, you can take it to the bank.

And this little piggie had roast beef....

A very interesting Reuters story in today's Boston Globe about pork barrel spending and how Republicans - the party that likes to make pork spending an issue - is leading the league in it.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/04/03/republicans_lead_in_pork_spending_watchdog_group_says/

And then, on the OpEd page Dan Payne has a column about why those supporting either Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton should think twice, and perhaps three times, before cuddling up to GOP nominee John McCain should their own candidate lose the nomination.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/03/so_you_want_to_be_a_mccain_democrat/

It seems to me that Obama retains the momentum in the race. He is picking up significant endorsements and appears to be gaining on Clinton in Pennsylvania polls, having narrowed her at-one-time 20-point lead to single digits with three weeks to go. It also seem as if those party leaders who haven't commited to either candidate are increasingly voicing fears that the campaign is becoming uncomfortably divisive and only helps McCain. Our own Sen. Jack Reed is one of those uncommitted delegates. Watch him closely. If he shows any sign of alligning himself with one of the two it'll also be a sign that the race is just about over.

Perception is reality

When it comes to public manipulation, Republicans have shown they have no equal.
How else can you explain their continued representation that they are the party of fiscal responsibility while those damned Democrats are miserable tax and spenders? But let's take a closer look.
It was Reagan who successfully molded this idea in the public's consciousness. And Uncle Ronnie proceeded to act on his mandate by pushing through tax cuts and, at the same time, increasing military spending. Although some often think of economics as a hopelessly complex affair, some of it is pretty simple: tax cuts = less money coming in; higher spending = more money going out. Add the two together at the same time and you get what, boys and girls? Deficits.
By the time Reagan was done reshaping our national economy he had tripled our national debt. Those who can recall the 1988 presidential election will remember that the deficit was practically THE issue. And, despite the fact that it was run up under a Republican administration, George Bush I was elected.
After Clinton was elected we actually had some surpluses and the Congressional Budget Office actually predicted record surpluses well into the future.
Enter George Bush II. Since 2000 the national debt has nearly doubled again, from $5 trillion to $9.4 trillion. One might ask how this was accomplished? Borrowing a page out of Uncle Ronnie's book, Bush pushed his tax cuts through the Republican-controlled Congress and increased spending with his war mentality.
Let's talk about those wars for a second. No American will quibble with Afghanistan. The perpertrators of 9/11 were hiding there and the Taliban government was giving them sanction. But the Iraq War is something else. Tune in to Channel 36 Thursday for Frontline's excellent dissection of "Bush's War." It's an eye opener, even if you already oppose the war.
So let's review. Republicans reduce taxes, increase spending, run up deficits and still have the audacity to claim the mantle of economic super heroes.
And you can bet your sweet bippy that McCain will be trotting out that tired dogma this fall, regardless of which Democrat runs against him.
And, you know what? The idea instilled by Reagan and conservative talk show hosts is so ingrained, Americans might just fall for it again.

Say goodnight, Jeff

Those who have read my weekly column in The Daily News will know I frequently have my issues with Gov. Carcieri. For the entire five-plus years of the Carcieri administration I have had frequent "discussions" with his spokesman Jeff Neal. We had a running debate for three years on the time-share legislation alone.
But I can tell you there was never a time that Jeff took our differences personally. He understood my job was to play devil's advocate to get the governor's position on issues I reported on. And I understood his job was to present the governor's position, and do it in the best possible light.
Since 1990 I have dealt with a series of gubernatorial press spokesmen and women. Some were tightly wound control freaks. Some acted like you were their best friend while giving you next to nothing. But I can honestly say I never have had a better working relationship with any of them than I have had with Jeff Neal.
Frequently he has to act as the administration's mouthpiece in its ongoing battle with the Democratically-controlled General Assembly. But that's what he was getting paid to do.
I can tell you I always felt like Jeff respected my job while, at the same time, realizing he was getting paid to do his own job. And I can respect that.
Last week Carcieri sent out a news release announcing Neal's imminent departure from state service. I'm going to miss our "discussions," while hoping against hope that it isn't creating a a new postion for Steve Kass, who was inexplicably moved recently from his $125,000 post as Neal's boss to public relations guru for the RI Emergency Management Agency. I say "inexplicably" not because it's hard to understand that he was moved OUT - because nobody could figure out exactly what he was doing - but that because as spokesman he will be earning much more than the RIEMA director himself.
The new PR person will have big shoes to fill.

Just win, baby

Whatever you think about Republicans, at least on the national stage, in general you have to give them one thing: they know HOW to win. The Boston Globe reports today ( //www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/)that Republicans, spurred on by Rushbo and his brethren, have taken to voting in Democratic primaries and caucuses in large numbers for Hillary Clinton with the belief that prolonging the Democratic race only helps them in November. Some also apparently believe that Clinton would be easier to beat in November than Barrack Obama.
Regardless of what you think about that strategy, it shows incredible smarts.
Just four months ago it would have been hard to imagine a way Democrats could find a way to lose themselves this election. Iraq, though quieter, is still largely unpopular. The economy is going down the tubes faster than Eliot Spitzer - well, maybe not THAT fast, but every day seems to bring more unsettling news. The business page of newspapers is beginning to look like the obituary page.
So how can Republicans sell themselves this year? They could say sometehing like: "Hey, we got us into this quagmire. Only we know the road out." Don't think that'd sell well, though.
No, the way they return to the White House this year (and pack the Supreme Court so it'll be Republican-dominated for the next 30 years) is to have the Democrats implode. Although they don't often need help, Republicans seem more than happy to play their part.

Pointing the fickle finger...

It was a moment that would have made folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter very proud.
At Monday night's forum on public access at CCRI in Warwick, a man in the audience became indignant when the panel would not address a question on illegal immigration in great detail. When moderator and Daily News executive editor Sheila Mullowney called on the legislative panel to give closing remarks it sent this man over the deep end.
He rose, yelling out his displeasure, saying the panel was more willing to talk about handicapped parking than illegal immigration. (The handicapped parking came up in discussion about making the legislative process more open - which obviously fit more in with the public access theme of the event than illegal immigration.)
The man walked up to the table of legislators (two from each party), shook hands with House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson and put his finger in the face of Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva Weed. "And you ..." he yelled at her. The rest was lost. Even Weed and Mullowney, who was sitting next to Weed, couldn't recall what he said.
The man then repeated his disgust, got into a shouting match with another spectator, who told him he was out of line, and finally left the room.
It was a perfect display of what people like Rushbo, O'Reilly and Coulter have spawned. It is now perfectly acceptable to act like a complete buffoon, disrupt an informational forum and publicly castigate lawmakers if they happen to have the temerity to disagree with your point of view or, in this case, not address it.
The first thing that needs to be said is that this man did nothing to help convince anyone 0f the legitimacy of his cause. Bomb throwers very rarely win people over to their way of thinking. The second is that when anyone goes off like this guy did they really weaken the credibility of anything else they may say in the future.
And this isn't limited to the right wing, although they perfected it first. Those on the left also like to attack the messenger personally if they disagree with the message.
I only hope that this is a swing of the pendulum and, eventually, people will tire of the histrionics and demand a debate on ideas and not personalities.

Smart is as smart does

Republicans at the Statehouse often like to portray themselves as the party of principle and majority party Democrats as the tools of special interests. But the GOP can be every bit as disingenuous as Democrats. It is a political trait rather than a partisan one.
Case in point: last week Republicans tried to have it both ways during a hearing on a package of election-related bills. Follow along.
Rep. Susan Story, R-Barrington, testified on her bill to ban straight party levers. Her point was that people are too easily confused by the levers. They don't understand their options. For instance, that they can vote for a candidate in another party even if they pull the straight party lever. Although she would never say the words out loud, what she meant was that people are not smart enough to understand their options.
A few bills down the agenda there was the Voter Iniative bill, which would allow citizens to circulate a petition to put an issue on the ballot without General Assembly approval. One criticism of the idea is that special interests would be able to come in, spread around their money and unfairly influence the vote. Now Republicans, who have been the primary sponsors of the bill, took a different view of voters. Now, because it supported their position, voters were too smart to be swayed by special interests.
Can't have it both ways. If voters are not smart enough to understand how to cast their vote how can they be too smart to resist the pull of special interests in a referendum campaign.
I think voters are smart enough to both resist special interests propaganda (the casino question is a perfect example) and understand how to vote. There are legitimate arguments to buttress the case for either of those two ideas. Trying to portray the relative smarts of voters - some are, some aren't - is not.

Party unity? What party unity?

Just got done watching Sens. Obama and Clinton interviews on CNN the morning after Clinton wins in Ohio and Texas blunt Obama's momentum. The difference in tone of the two interviews speaks volumes about the two campaigns.
Obama gave props to Clinton several times during the interview, saying she ran a good race, congratulating her on her wins, but, naturally, spun the results to put himself in the best light. The delegate count remained pretty much the same, he pointed out, and he had fought back from a pretty steep hole to make the races a lot closer than they were several weeks ago.
Obviously happy with the results Clinton portrayed her night as the first step towards overtaking Obama. But what should be unsettling for Democrats is that Clinton obviously believes that she has to go negative to overtake Obama.
She not only touted herself as being the superior candidate - what else would she say? - but at least twice touted Republican nominee John McCain as being a superior candidate to Obama. Not exactly putting party above self there.
So what does Clinton do if Obama should go on to win the nomination? Does she send signals to her supporters that they should desert the party and support McCain? You can be assured that McCain's camp will use Clinton's own words against Obama.
Even those who feel Obama does not have the credentials Clinton does have to admit that his message has attracted a slew of new voters to the party. And those not-yet-cynical voters may not take kindly to Clinton's tactics and decide sit the November election out if she becomes the nominee. That would not only hurt Democrats this year, but blunt the inroads Obama was able to make in building a new, younger Democratic base.
Yesterday I wrote that Democrats should not fear a prolonged primary with a caveat - as long as it remained civil. Clinton signaled this morning that she's out to win at all costs. And that cost may be steep for Democrats who hunger to put one of their own in the White House

Don't worry, be happy

It’s crunch time in the Democratic presidential nomination race. And the two campaigns are putting pedal to the metal in their efforts to generate any kind of news that might influence the outcome here in Little Rhody. Over the weekend I got eight emails from the Clinton campaign and four from the Obama campaign.
So what’s going to happen? A month ago you would have had to look pretty hard to find anyone that believed Obama had a legitimate chance to beat Clinton here. But doubts are creeping in. Obama continues to draw in much larger crowds than Clinton. He continues to outspend her on the airwaves. All the movement in this race is going his way. If there was another week before the primary I think he could actually sweep the four primaries scheduled for Tuesday. (For those not paying attention that would be Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.)
My gut tells me that his momentum is not enough to overcome Clinton's huge initial lead in our fair state, but it shouldn't be a blowout.
There's no way of gauging the political temperature in the other states, but reading news stories leads me to believe Obama has a better than even chance of taking Texas, but will fall just short in Ohio. Vermont is anybody's guess.
If that plays out, Clinton will have stopped Obama's 11 state winning streak, but not very convincingly. Although she will try to spin an Ohio victory as another New Hampshire comeback, the truth is that she will need something a bit more convincing to turn around the Obama momentum.
And Democrats who fret about Republicans having an advantage because McCain has the nomination sewed up really have nothing to worry about. As long as the Democratic nomination goes on - and remains civil - the party is inundated with positive publicity. McCain will have to scrap to get any attention as long as Clinton and Obama are center stage. Once the Democratic nomination is settled, the national race will probably go into hibernation until the conventions, so enjoy all the attention now.

Nader was heard, a discouraging word

Heeey Ralphie boy,
So you want to jump back into the presidential derby, huh? Well, I only have three words for you - George Walker Bush. Your spin that your campaign is meant to expand the political system beyond the two-party system is, on the surface, laudable. But every action has consequences. And the consequences of your action in 2000 was the aforementioned George Walker Bush. It's been said many times - and I'm sure you're aware of the numbers - but let's go over it one more time.
In the final sanctioned Florida vote George Bush beats Al Gore by 537 votes (out of 6 million votes cast). You scooped 97,000 votes in the Sunshine State. Any rational person would agree that you syphoned a large majority of your votes away from Democrats. Can you possibly deny that your presence on the ballot denied Gore Florida and, therefore, the presidency?
But don't dwell on Florida, because, let's face it, there was a lot more going on there than your candidacy. Let's talk about New Hampshire. Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes in the Granite State to scoop up the state's four electoral votes. More than 22,000 New Hampshire voters sidled up to your candidacy. Although not as clear cut as Florida, I feel comfortable saying that you probably cost Gore New Hampshire as well. And even discounting Florida, those four electoral votes would have put Gore over the top (270-267).
Would America be better if we had more than a two-party system? That's debateable. What is not debateable is the impact your candidacy has had on this country for the last seven years. Those are very, very real consequences.
Are we better off now than we were pre-Bush? How's the economy treating you? I though those tax cuts were supposed to spur economic growth?
Is the country safer now than it was back then? And while Americans can all agree on the need to go after terrorists who are hell-bent on attacking us, how's that hunt for Osama bin Laden going? More than 4,000 American military personnel have died in the war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction since we gave up our hunt for bin Laden.
You've been an outspoken spokesman against large corporations who take advantage of the average American. How's that worked out over the last seven years? Think the Bush-Cheney team has had anything to do with all this?
At one time you were a hero of sorts to John Q. Public, who only dreamt about going after big business. I think many of those who decided to make a statement by voting for you in 2000 have come to regret those words.
So why don't you just pack it up and head on home. Tough luck, Ralphie boy. Your time has come and gone.
Sincerely,
Joe Baker
former admirer