![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Say, is this Lollapalooza?
Anyhow, I got downtown, and after getting dinner and an aborted attempt to meet up with a friend, I headed over to the park to get into the rally. It was a total mob scene. Having said that, the police did a really good job of keeping things orderly. Basically what they'd do is block a group of people for like 10 minutes, then let them go to the next waiting point where the next group of cops were blocking. So there was a lot of standing and waiting, but you always got a sense of progress and things moved pretty well.
The whole time we were waiting in line people were giving updates. You'd hear random cheers from the crowd as various states were announced. The big early one was Pennsylvania, and when I heard that I knew the night would end well. Ohio was announced about 12 times while waiting in line, but I'm pretty sure it didn't get called til I was almost through security.
The Main Event
Finally I got in past security. I was in the last group to get into the main crowd area so I timed it well. I went and got something to drink and a slice of pizza and then found a good spot to stand and watch the big screen. In the distance I could see where the stage was but I was pretty far back. Then I waited.
CNN was on the big screen and they'd show what was happening there, occasionally playing music instead of making us sit through CNN's commercials. As we waited, the states started to roll in. A few would get announced for McCain and we'd boo, and then Obama would win one an we'd cheer. Then there was the moment. THE moment.
Wolf was talking about how the votes from the west coast would be coming in shortly. Then about a minute before California's polls closed, Virginia was announced. That meant that California's votes would end it. Then the countdown timer came up on CNN's screen, counting down to when California's votes rolled in.
10...
9...
And the crowd starts shouting along.
8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
Then the graphic comes up and it says Barack Obama is going to be our next president and the crowd goes ballistic. Dancing and cheering and crying and it was completely amazing to be there. Yes, I cried a bit, but I'm a softy, I won't pretend otherwise. Seeing Jesse Jackson on the screen was particularly touching. This has been a loooooong time coming.
McCain did his concession speech. Crowd booed a bit here and there, but mostly we were letting it go. Then Obama gave his acceptance speech. Honestly I don't remember much about it. I was just over the moon that this moment was even happening.
Anyhow, I'll post more later, but that's the gist of it. Glad I was there to see it :)
"Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first,” Palin said. “So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first."
- Ads in swing states do not work - While both sides are ultimately obligated to run ads to avoid being drowned out by their opponent's message, the end result is nothing but noise. I have seen TONS of ads while I've been here in Colorado. Some for McCain, some for Obama and many for local races. If you were a voter who wasn't sure who you wanted to vote for, you'd never be able to draw a conclusion from these ads. Furthermore the sheer volume of ads makes you hate politics. You just want them to shut up and go away and for the race to be over.
- All politicians are assumed to be liars - There's a deep cynicism in the public after years of seeing all these BS political ads and getting a lot of crooks elected. So the immediate assumption of any voter is either that both candidates are full of crap or, if they've made their selection, that only the other candidate is full of crap. So once again, ads don't work.
- Even smart people can be dumb - I was at dinner at my brother's wedding and had somebody who I otherwise respect and thought was a smart person talk about the "muslim" candidate. Needless to say we ended that conversation quickly before blood was shed.
- Framing is everything - One of the objections I heard to Obama was that people didn't want socialized medicine. When I told them that what we'd actually likely get was Medicare for everybody that was something appealing. They talked of the scary stories of socialized medicine problems in Canada and the UK, but when you can put it in terms that they can identify with (i.e. Medicare), then they can get beyond the fear.
What is lost in this debate is that maybe, just maybe, it's good to spend a few million on studying crab sex. My guess would be that this is related to the crab fishing industry in Alaska. Learning more about their breeding might be helpful in some way to the crab industry. I don't know for sure, but I do know that nobody discussing this issue knows either. We all heard about the millions studying cow farts but understanding cow farts is actually critical to studying global warming since it's a LOT of methane
There is value in pure scientific research. This has always been somewhat ripe for earmark abuse as congress critters will try to get the funding for the science in their districts. In the end though, is the result a bad thing? It is important to make sure that the research being done is valid and useful, but that requires staffers on the hill who know something about the science and can make informed decisions. You cannot tell from a one sentence description of any of those earmarks whether it was a good idea or not.
There is, of course, earmark abuse. The bridge to nowhere seems a pretty clear cut case of that. But the truth is that the majority of earmarks are actually for useful things. Furthermore, in the grand scheme of our government's budget, they are a drop in the bucket. If you want to start digging into waste and abuse, go pick apart the Pentagon budget. See how many high value no-bid contracts you can dig up and how many endless research projects we dump billions of dollars into. I'm in favor of a strong military, but we waste scads of money there because people are too spooked to look weak on defense and go after those dollars.
- There was an NFL game that conclude a few minutes before McCain's speech. So it's likely many people who watched were just watching the football game and happened to tune in to that.
- For the Obama speech there was an effort to organize house parties and various get togethers to watch it. Personally I watched it at a Drinking Liberally gathering. That was 40 people or so watching that wouldn't be accounted for in a normal rating number.
- These ratings numbers do not include peopel who watched online. Given Obama's demographics it's likely he had many people watching his speech online that don't count in those numbers. Hell I know some people who watched it that don't even own TV's.
That picture is apparently a picture of Walter Reed Middle School. Now you might be thinking, "why did they put a picture up of a middle school during a section of McCain's speech where he was talking about his military service?" The reason seems to be that somebody did a search for an image to use, typed in "Walter Reed," and grabbed the first nice photo that popped up without making sure that it was Walter Reed hospital.
FAIL.
Fittingly our George W. Bush chew toy as portrayed in the LJ Icon above has just finally been torn open by Moly. Good dog :)
UPDATE: McCain is a POW. Who knew?
I picked a random excerpt from Palin's speech and had plenty to pick apart:
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor’s personal chef - although I’ve got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
The reason the previous Governor lost was largely because he was one of the most corrupt and spend thrift governors in the United States. He had a private jet that was useless for getting around more remote parts of Alaska because it couldn't land on rough air strips. He had a personal chef. He was bad news. That she got into office and dropped all the things that got the other guy booted from office isn't illustrative of some greater interest in reform.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works. Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
You know why they have a surplus? OIL! They make a lot of revenue from royalties derrived from the oil industry. High demand means lots of money in the State of Alaska's pockets. In fact, she raised the royalty rates on oil drilling in Alaska which is how she's got that huge budget to work with. Effectively it's like Obama's windfall profits tax idea.
Let me put this another way. Because you were paying out the ass to fill up your car's gas tank, Palin was able to balance the budget in Alaska. I don't begrudge her this, but this is hardly some genius of governance, she just raised taxes and happened to have a revenue source she could tax without pissing off voters.
As for her use of the veto, as you might imagine, it was to cut out various social programs. Things like helping teen mothers, etc. Wouldn't want to have any of that now would we?
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
She suspended that tax because she didn't need it because she was taxing the oil companies. As for the earmarks, she just asked for another $200 million in earmarks and was in favor of the bridge to nowhere plan put together by Senator Ted "The Tubes" Stevens. Did I mention she ran his 527? Did I mention he's been indicted for corruption?
Republicans get elected because they fight dirty and they dress up their poor plans for governance to make it sound good in speeches. They want to cut your taxes, but oh wait, that means actually going into debt and cutting programs that are actually valuable. They talk about homeland security, using it as a cudgel against Democrats, all the while starting needless wars, draining our resources, and destroying our credibility around the world.
This is what they do. This is what she'd do if she ever got into the big chair. She'd come into office without a clue about how the world really works, she'd make a bunch of flowery speeches, and then proceed to make George W. Bush look like Thomas Freaking Jefferson. She'd run our economy into the toilet, risk war with countries needlessly, and she'd make sure to put the Christ back in our governance... you know, where it NEVER was ever in the history of this country?
Please, DONATE to Obama's campaign. We can't afford to have these lunatics running the assylum for another 4 years.
UPDATE: I got clarification on what she did with oil revenues. She renegotiated the deal so that they got a cut based on the profits of the oil companies. That's good for them for now and why they have a surplus. But if profits drop, Alaska will be up a creek.
Now, he picks Sarah Palin. If you were going to reinvent Bush as an even more extreme even less qualified candidate you would have Palin. She's clearly vindictive. She's clearly the kind of religious zealot that I've always feared getting into power. This isn't the sort of person who let's somebody like Monica Goodling act as a lower level functionary in the justice department. This is the sort of person who makes Monica Goodling the attorney general because she's answering the God question the right way.
McCain cannot win this. If he wins this and doesn't manage to remain functional for another 4 years, we are up shit creek.
To give you an idea of how concerned I am, I am actually now going to ask you to help out the Obama campaign. Yeah I know, lame, right? Seriously, I've set up a fundraising page on Obama's website and if you find Sarah Palin as disturbing as I do, I would really appreciate you sending a couple bucks his way.
DONATE NOW
But anyhow, I wanted to give my prediction of where this race is at after the conventions are done. My expectation is that Obama will get a sizeable bump out of the polls. Then McCain will get a bump, but not nearly to the same degree. The result will have Obama up by 5-8 points in the national polling when this is done.
Invariably the talking heads will suggest that this is indicative of Obama's campaign failing. That he should be up by 10-15 points. That he needs to declare that McCain eats people's babies, etc. Then we'll go into the debates. Obama will hold his ground and have a respectable performance and McCain will probably do likewise unless he has a serious senior moment. So after the debates I predict that the lead remains roughly in that 5-8 percent range until election day.
That's assuming there are no major gaffes by either side. The numbers will fluctuate with the various news cycles, etc, but I expect Obama to retain a solid but not decisive lead til the election.
Let's see if I'm right.
So while McCain doesn't increase anybody's taxes, unless you make over $110K/year, you'll be doing better under Obama than you'd do under McCain. Furthermore, under McCain's plan, we'd add a lot more to the debt. If you're wealthy, I don't blame you for voting for McCain, but otherwise...
Compare this to McCain who has gone beyond making simple statements about what he'd do as President, but is actively inserting himself into our government's foreign policy. He's having daily consultations with Shakashvili. He is sending his own envoys in the from of Senators Graham and Lieberman. This is, not only presumptuous, it's actually potentially dangerous.
If McCain confuses the signals we're sending to Russia and Georgia, it could have the effect of actually worsening the situation. His position on the crisis has been markedly more hawkish than that of the Bush administration, and he's making them look even less in control of the situation than they already were. Obama, on the other hand, has done the right thing, made a political statement about his feelings on the matter, but largely kept his nose out of it.
I hope to God that this doesn't somehow boost McCain, creating the impression of him being an effective determined leader. He really should start putting country first and get back to campaigning rather than trying to run our foreign policy. John, one incompetent President at a time please.
The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day by 2030. We use about 20 million barrels per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage by 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%.So Republicans propose a solution that provides 1% more gasoline, and then poke fun at a solution that would ultimately reduce pollution and provide 3-7% improvement. The truth is that if we're going to solve a lot of the problems we're facing right now, we need to get beyond quick fix election-centric proposals and think of real world solutions. Tire pressure gauges may not be sexy, but it actually makes a real world difference.
It drives me nuts because factual reality is in complete opposition to 98% of what they are saying. Of what I said above, the only obvious point is that he's struggling with white working class men, but fail to mention that he's doing a lot better with them than Kerry or Gore did. In fact, on pretty much every measure, Obama is way ahead of where Kerry ever was, and, most critically, he's ahead of where McCain is now, and by fairly large margins.
McCain, in the mean time, is still being given credit for lots of knowledge and wisdom on foreign policy while he is continuously staing contradictory positions and misstating facts. He's given credit as a maverick who's stepping away from the old politics, while he's overtly lying about Obama on his ads. The irony in this is that the pundits will then go on to talk about how Obama's doing better in the press because he's covered more, with out pointing out that all that coverage is largely negative in some fashion.
The comfort though is that, really, nobody's paying attention. Sure, us political junkies are, but we're already aligned. Nobody's who's following the finer points of these discussions is undecided. In the mean time, while all these pundits blather and do their damndest to undermine Obama's campaign he maintains comfortable leads in all the polls.
So I'll gnash my teeth and continue to want to throw bricks through my ipod into various studios around the nation in the mean time and hope nobody notices these gasbags.
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders.Obama:
Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.If you look at what both of them are saying, the only real difference is in the time line. McCain wants us out by 2013, and Obama wants us out by 2010. McCain says Obama is surrendering and losing the war and that he, McCain, wants to win it. Okay, so riddle me this, Batman: what exactly is the point in time where you shift from being a surrender monkey to being victorious? Is it, perhaps, May of 2011? Or September of 2012? How long do we have to wait to win?
In the end though, this all points back to the inherent vagueness of McCain's position. Giving a definite timetable of when we're planning to leave is surrendering to our enemies, but he favors 2013, but it's not definite. He doesn't want a permanent presence in Iraq, he just wants us to be there for an indefinite period of time. He's also said that if it could work like Korea, with a presence, not under fire, for years to come the public would be fine with it. But then went on to say that model wouldn't work because of the nature of the middle east.
The thing that McCain can't quite seem to be honest about is that he has no idea when we'd get our troops out. That the goals he suggests are part of a victory are totally beyond the control of Bush, McCain, or any other person in the United States. That, ultimately, whether Iraq had a functioning Democracy, violent militias, etc, is up to the Iraqis, not us. A plan that's, in essence, "we'll leave when the Iraqis decide to get their shit together," seems a recipe for indefinite occupation, not a plan for departure in 2013.
Being able to achieve a 5-10% lead in a polarized environment like this is actually pretty damn impressive. That it isn't larger says nothing negative about Obama's campaign, but rather the state of politics in our country. If we didn't live in a world where people are moving to live near people like themselves, watching news tailored to their views, and browsing websites that further reinforce their existing views, maybe Obama would do better.
I say that of course recognizing that I live in Chicago, listen primarily to the Young Turks, and spend most of my news gathering time reading DailyKos, Talking Points Memo, etc. However, I do read Andrew Sullivan to keep me a little bit grounded in reality and every so often take a spin by a mainstream news site to find out what white girl is missing or what celebrity is smoking crack, shooting up steroids, or getting married/divorced.
For perspective, I gave $475 to Obama's campaign over several months. I was kind of shocked to find that out, but the FEC records are all on-line and readily searchable. So no sense keeping that information private. In June though I didn't donate a dime to him. This is mostly because of how he voted on FISA.
Look, I get that Obama is better than McCain. Duh. But when I'm looking at my budget, and looking at a spineless Democrat claiming that we have to sell out the 4th amendment to save us from terrorists, I can't say I'm real eager to cut another check. They had that contest where you could donate $5 and get back stage passes to the DNC convention. Did I donate even $5? Nope. Every time I thought to go do it I felt a little sick about the whole thing. A little bit used. A little too taken for granted.
I'm thinking that in the future, I may put my support behind Dan Seals instead. My money will have far more impact in his campaign and I know how he'd have voted on FISA. There's plenty of good smart candidates for me to back this year, so why throw my money away on Obama?
Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.The faith based initiatives concept that Bush came up with was a TERRIBLE idea. First of all, there's the critical point about churches having the ability to take federal dollars, then discriminate based on religious faith. But there's also the issue that this tends to have a certain amount of religious favoritism. Try getting those federal dollars as a pagan organization and I'll be surprised if you get very far.
I see no reason to discriminate against religious organizations getting federal dollars to support charitable work, but to specifically emphasize it seems dangerous in the long run. It blurs the separation between church and state and we very likely end up with federal aid being used to subsidize proselytizing.
UPDATE: Obama is giving a speech on this today and it seems his position is mischaracterized. Here's what Obama will be saying today.
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."Which, so far as I gather, is a return to the way things worked before Bush got involved. Kudos!
