Stimulation

Those who love political sword fights should keep their eyes on the coming battle over who controls the flood of federal stimulus money soon to be washing ashore here in the Biggest Little State in the Union.
While the state constitution clearly makes the General Assembly the appropriating authority for state spending, this infusion of special federal aid is a unique situation. Gov. Donald L. Carcieri is moving forward under the assumption his office will be doling out stimulus money that does not come with strings attached. He recently established a three-person Office of Economic Recovery and Reinvestment to oversee the distribution.
But legislative leaders do not plan to go quietly into the night. Their position could be summed up thusly: the governor can propose spending, but the system of checks and balances requires legislative oversight.
Stay tuned.

You can't make me.....

In 20 years of covering state politics I have run into all kinds of personalities. And you can be sure there is no lack of ego under the Statehouse dome.
Elected officials often depend on the media to alert their constituents what they're doing. And, of course, they also would rather we not report on some things they don't want their constituents to know they're doing.
But last Tuesday I had an unprecedented run in with a local lawmaker, one that caught me totally by surprise.
As I have for every one of the 20 state-of-the-state speeches I've covered, I sought reaction to the speech from Newport County legislators. Logistically it can be difficult trying to round up 11 local lawmakers after the speech when they all probably want to start their trip back to the county. So before the speech begins I try to touch base with as many as I can to remind them I'd like to get their take on the speech.
I always try to be balanced for the story, making sure I talk to both Republicans and Democrats. This year, unlike years past, Newport County has only one Republican legislator, Rep. John J. Loughlin II, R-Tiverton, so I thought it important to make sure I was able to talk to him.
Before the speech I approached Loughlin at his desk and said I needed to get his reaction after the speech. Loughlin immediately - and, I thought, jokingly - expressed disbelief that I would want to talk to him since I hadn't thought it important to report that he had been elected whip of the Republican minority caucus. I retorted that I didn't think it was important - intending to joke back with him.
In fact, I didn't think it important. The whip's job is to know the pulse of the caucus, find out how members might vote on any particular issue. Now let's see ... Loughlin obviously knows his own mind so that means he has the task of keeping tabs on the other five members of the caucus. Sounds tough.
In the same vein, I didn't feel it important to note that Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr., D-Bristol, who also represents part of Portsmouth, was elected a Deputy Majority Leader. Those are political posts that just aren't that interesting to readers.
Anyway, Loughlin continued, holding a sheaf of papers, copies of articles in other newspapers. "The Pawtucket Times talked to me. The Warwick Beacon talked to me. The Kent County Daily Times talked to me. But no Newport Daily News."
Now I wasn't sure if he were joking or not and the speech was getting ready to start so I walked away. After the speech, Loughlin was walking out of the chamber as part of the governor's official escort party and I tapped him on his way by me, reminding him I wanted to speak to him and he just said, "I'm escorting. I'm escorting."
After I talked to some Democrats, who made it a point to talk to me before they left, I went searching for Loughlin and found him coming out of the House Minority office on the first floor of the Statehouse. I called out to him, saying I still needed to talk to him.
"I dont' have time. I'm leaving," Loughlin said.
"I'll walk out with you. We can talk on the way," I replied.
Loughlin insisted he didn't have time. Now I was suspicious. I asked him what was going on and he said nothing. So I tried to talk to him again, as we were walking along a corridor. He kept saying he didn't have time to talk. I tried once more asking him what the story was. "No story," he replied.
Finally he said in a saracastic tone, "It was a great speech." When I asked for more details he once again refused. I said, "Fine, John. Have it your way."
His reply: "Have it my way? No, have it your way."
Loughlin, who I have not had problems with before acted like a petulant child. I can only guess what his concerns were, but he obviously irked I didn't report on his whip election. I do know he has, in the past, expressed disagreement with opinions I've expressed in my columns, but never in a confrontational way.
I thought John Loughlin was bigger than that. I hope he was just having a bad day.

Local appointments

Gov. Donald L. Carcieri submitted his first appointments of the legislative session last week and two Newport County residents were among the group.
The governor reappointed Dr. Ronald J. Onorato, of Newport, to the Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission and Nancy Kolman Ventrone, of Jamestown, to the Commissioni for Human Rights.
In addtion, Speaker of the House William J. Murphy, D-West Warwick, appointed rookie Rep. Deborah L. Ruggiero, D-Jamestown, to the newly-created legislative commission that will study the potential uses of Rhode Island ports.

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.