Grand Plans, Part 2

In a press conference yesterday the President expounded on his thoughts regarding the current status of US immigration laws. He believes we need illegal immigrants to come to this nation to “do the jobs that Americans just won’t do.”

This is a rather interesting position for a President who used to be on the “front line” of immigration. The President, using his experience as governor of Texas as a guide, believes he has a firm grasp of what is needed in immigration reform. He truly believes he is doing the right thing by instructing the INS to look the other way regarding allowing immigrants, undocumented to work low-paying or demeaning jobs here in the land of opportunity. Immigrants taking jobs paying significantly higher than those in their homelands, but lower than a legal worker would be paid, and certainly without benefits demanded by most American workers.

The President spoke warmly of how these immigrants enter our borders looking for opportunity. Hoping to find jobs that will enable them to put food on the table, to help those they have left behind in their native lands. He believes this is truly win-win. The immigrants get what they want, and the Americans employing them get what they want too. Benard Kerik’s recent nanny problems have brought this problem to the forefront.

Most intriguing are the apologists who think hiring an illegal nanny is no big deal. It happened to several of the potential nominees from the Clinton days, and again to President Bush. The London Times “American Soup” column talked about the issue and how hard it was to find a good nanny, especially if you hire a legal one. Why is it that those with the most money and potential to distort the government are the ones who decide they are above the law? If the President does not believe these issues are important he should work hard to truly reform immigration and employment law.

Will this happen? Unlikely. More likely is that the President and his rich and powerful friends will continue to ignore the law and “lucky” immigrants will continue to suffer lower wages and worse treatment than their legal counterparts. Thank God he’s a compassionate conservative.

Grand Plans, Part 1

In a press conference today the President gave a broad outline of what he views are the changes coming to social security. He wants people to be able to privatize a small percentage of their social security savings. He also wants to reassure current social security recipients that there will be “no change in their check.” Eloquent words or at least the most you can expect from this President.

Here are some of the facts regarding the Social Security System. The current fiscal surplus is invested by mandate in Treasury bonds. These bonds in turn help underwrite a vast portion of the existing federal debt. The Social Security Administration currently is the single largest holder of federal debt, accounting holding more than 60% of the government debts. The interest paid on the debt helps pay for COLA’s for the current social security recipients.

Under the current plan for retirees the SSA will go bankrupt in 2042. This seems like a long event horizon, 35 years in fact. What to do to help keep the system solvent? The President wants to privatize part of the system. At its face this seems sensible. But what exactly does it do to help meet the projected shortfall? Nothing. The individuals who opt for private investment will individually reap the profits or potential losses of such a move. This means that even though the overall amount of money within the system may increase, the increase in funding will be specifically earmarked for those individuals who took the risk. It would not benefit all those within the system. Those people who lose money in the private market should not be bailed out by those who did not.

What to do. Unfortunately, we must make hard choices. Sacrifices are required, and if we are not going to ask them of the current retirees already dependent upon their monthly checks, we must ask it of those planning their future retirement. If we allow individuals to privatize part of their Social Security savings they must do so knowing that they are only trying to help ensure the system’s solvency, and garnering themselves only what they had already counted upon.

Other options are seemingly harsh, but given life expectancy rates continue to climb it would not be unreasonable to continue to raise the retirement age at the same rate. Another even less attractive alternative given the current federal budget deficits would be for the government to set aside additional and future revenues to meet the projected shortfalls. Certainly not an attractive alternative, but possibly one that might have to happen as it is the least painful alternative available to risk-adverse politicians.

We have to do something to save Social Security, and while some do not believe that the President must act now, acting today will lessen the pain we will undoubtedly face in the future.

Values

Let’s try some word association. Republicans – values = religion, hard work, respect. Democrats – values = religious extremism, hatred, morals. Small wonder Democrats cringe when they hear or see the word. Recently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was successful in their attempt to regain Billy Tauzin’s LA-3 district seat. The day following volunteers read the Sunday paper, mainly to see how the “liberal” media would cover the victory. One volunteer was literally appalled that the local newspaper had a section in the Sunday edition labeled “values.”

What was so objectionable about values? Why has the party become so abhorrent of values? What was also interesting about the campaign is that the party leaders seem to think something of values. What was the pitch we made to prospective voters regarding the candidate’s stand on the issues? He supported traditional Southeast Louisiana values. Admittedly a number of volunteers were shocked to learn that the candidate was not only pro-life but also pro-gun. They didn’t have a problem with his being pro-protectionist in trade stance. It’s becoming more and more interesting deciding what rank-and-file Democrats believe, and harder and harder to determine what values we Democrats do stand for.

Democrats have always had a hard time on trade issues, though it appeared that President Clinton had turned the party around on the issue. Free and fair trade is good for everyone, eventually. Protectionism only hurts our economy, temporarily staving off the inevitable. Free trade allows for goods imported into America more cheaply, and also ensures that American products are cheaper in overseas markets. This creates more jobs for Americans and those struggling overseas. Free trade allows goods to be cheaper for those struggling in America, and those struggling overseas. Isn’t the Democratic Party in favor of these ideals? Of course they are. But they feel beholden to the unions which provide them with nearly unflinching support. Perhaps, though it is time to reevaluate their support. Has their help won the party any national elections, and in fact they may have lost them. Obviously working class union workers do not vote solely for their union’s backed candidates.

We need to determine what issues truly are important to the voters. Issues we can support and take the national lead. And probably more importantly we need to stop waffling. Once we pick an issue we must take a stand on it, regardless of polling numbers. Americans respect politicians who speak their mind and lead the nation, not follow opinion polls. Americans have little use for leaders who cannot determine what issues they believe in and what they support. Trying to be all things to all people all the time only convinces them we are disingenuous to all. Americans have never respected politicians who lie to them; they only respect politicians who try to lead them.

With all politics being local, congressional races will always bring the party candidates who do not conform to a national norm. As the Republicans used to, we must be willing to tolerate candidates who have views differing from the party’s stated position. While allowing some dissent, it is important for the party’s leaders to maintain party discipline on major issues. Members must adhere to a core set of values, be they moral or others. Values are what the party stands for, now we must determine just what those values are.

Help Wanted

Wanted: Individual to fill vacancy as CFO of large corporation. Applicant must have significant work experience. They must be willing to blindly implement policies outlined by company chairman and CEO. Successful candidate must be well versed in economic theory and modern business practices. Acceptance of position will require individual to pass rigorous questioning by representatives of company’s stockholders.

You may see this ad in your local papers soon. Undoubtedly headhunters are already crisscrossing the nation, talking to potential applicants. And what is the job? It appears that the Administration wants to reorder its economic team, starting with the Treasury Secretary and eventually a new Federal Reserve chair. See story in the Washington Post.

I want to apply, for certainly my knowledge of economic theory is just weak enough to warrant consideration. It is hard not to be sarcastic here. However, who would want the job. Admittedly there is a great deal of power and prestige along with a relatively meager government paycheck. You will have the world looking to you for economic guidance, almost as if you were godlike.

Power alone is not enough of a motivation. The President hopes to accomplish many economic feats in his second term. The President envisions sweeping changes to the IRS and American’s sacred retirement plan – Social Security. The chance to defeat every American’s worst government enemy and save its beloved retirement system is a challenge to appeal to only the best and brightest.

But with all jobs there is a downside. You don’t get to follow your own ideas and plans to accomplish these unbelievable goals. You have to do the impossible. You have to balance the federal budget while lowering taxes. You must do this with an economy that is just coming into a growth period. Congress ties your hands, as it is almost impossible to envision a cut in federal spending. The only way to accomplish the balancing act would be to raise revenue by growing the economy by a rate higher than the tax cuts and existing deficits. The plan is only a pipedream, once called “voodoo economics” by a politician trying to debunk the theory.

Privatizing social security is equally daunting. Established as a safety net the agency protects American’s without retirement savings. Currently millions of Americans rely of their monthly checks. Saving the system will take a great deal of work. Unfortunately if will likely cause a great deal of pain during the process. The Administration envisions allowing individuals to divest “their” retirement funds into private stocks and bonds. It sounds like a great idea. What happens to the investments currently held? What are those investments? Ironically enough, the Social Security Administration holds Treasury bonds. The bonds finance our burgeoning budget deficit. Allowing divestiture from these bonds would force the Treasury to raise interest rates to attract other investors. It would be folly to believe the free market would replace government investors unless the rates matched rates found on the open market.

This is a catch-22. The government needs the money to finance its debts. It cannot raise the rates paid on these bonds without drastically increasing the national debt. The more capital the federal government must borrow the higher interest rates will climb as the money supply contracts.

The task facing the next Treasury Secretary will be great, but the one they must accomplish is standing up to the President and his advisors. The new secretary must follow sound economic principals in order to keep the American economy stable and protect those who have retired.

Gossed Wrong

I have a secret, and I’m certain you do too. The CIA wants to know it. Well, at least they used to. Apparently secret stealing was the mission of the CIA. Not any more. Stealing of course is amoral, and the current Administration would be loath to commit any amoral acts. So, that must be why the new CIA director, Porter Goss has instructed employees via email that the new mission of the agency is to support the Administration and its policies.

National security concerns alleviated. The terrorist threat level lowered. It is comforting to know that the new mission of the CIA is simply administrative support for White House policies and theories. This is troubling. Trouble compounded by the departure of five high-ranking agency officials. This includes two members running the agency’s covert operations division.

Republican spinmeisters have valiantly argued that past overhauls of the agency have caused similar departures. It is merely a clashing of cultures, the nation’s spymasters refusing to buckle under to Republican committee staffers now directing them. John Deutsch assumed control of the CIA during the second Clinton term, and departures soon followed. Deutsch brought with him staff from the defense department. Similar departures occurred in previous administrations as well.

It is not the departures themselves that are troubling, but the new mission of the CIA. The mission of the CIA is to gather and analyze intelligence. The new mission would not have stopped the intelligence failures highlighted by the tragedies of 9/11. The old mission appears to have been lost in a fog. The new director has referred to the agency as a secret stealer. This appears to miss the mark as well.

The nation has many tools for intelligence gathering. To be sure, the post-9/11 hiring spree has added many needed tools to the agencies assets. It is also true the number of human intelligence gatherers is insufficient, especially in the Middle East and Asia. Once this issued is rectified the agency will be able to accomplish what its mission should be.

The new mission of the CIA should be information analysis and policy recommendation. The agency should be a voice of truth and information. The Bush Administration, or any future administration, should never ask the agency to twist its finding to fit a political policy. The Administration should set its policies based on untainted analysis.

Information abounds in today’s world. Simple computer manipulation readily reveals many secrets. Brave souls hiding in dark corners uncover others. Finding the secrets isn’t as hard as it once was. The impediment is deciding where the secrets lead. Intelligence officers have a duty to make that determination. They have the most direct and complete access to the information. They should be guiding the Administration. The Administration would be wise to follow their professional guides. Intelligence officers giving the wrong advice did not cause the mistakes of 9/11; it was the advice not getting to those who could act on it.

Everyone hires experts to do a job. Those that hire them have an obligation to listen. If they do not want to listen they should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by hiring them. Otherwise listen to them.

Rising Tide

A rising tide lifts all ships. This phrase is certainly true, given two important qualifications: all the ships are seaworthy, and rest within the same sea. The statement is rising to the forefront as many have recently argued the globe and its people are getting richer.

New York Times columnist David Brooks points to the number of people who are living in extreme poverty has declined significantly over the past decade. He notes the rapid economic growth of one of the globe’s poorest nations, China, as evidence of declining global poverty. Certainly this economic behemoth is growing, and quite rapidly. But, economic growth rate among one of the world’s poorest and largest nations is no real surprise. A decade ago the average Chinese person earned less than a $1 a day. Even a doubling of those earnings would still be abject poverty. Additionally, one wonders how these statistics are measured. Are people really climbing out of poverty? Or is it more likely that the number of extremely rich people have grown? Is the gap between the rich and the poor even greater now than it was a decade ago? The most likely answer is yes.

Is the tide rising everywhere? Yes. But the current is sweeping many under. Another interesting bit of news is the growing US trade gap and the ballooning federal budget deficit. Many in the Administration point to the numbers and claim alternating theories – either they don’t matter or they are signs of great economic growth and power. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Reagan Administration saddled the United States with the very same problem in the late 80’s. Economic growth started to sputter and interest rates were starting to rise. Fortunately, President George H. Bush did the responsible thing and raised taxes. Over the following decade the deficits shrank, the American economy rebounded, and the growth benefited the entire nation. The recently reelected President Bush with his “mandate” must now show the economic courage of his father and curtail deficit spending.

America is suffering for a drastically low national savings rate. Interest rates are so low that personal borrowing is near record highs. Borrowing by the federal government is also approaching record highs again.

Where does America get the money to satiate its capital hunger? China and Japan are the principal nations running a trade surplus with the US, and lending America the capital needed to finance our economy. Chinese Yuan is tied to the dollar, and therefore unlikely for the US to easily erase its economic deficit with the Chinese.

Fortunately the Chinese are also heavily dependant upon the US consumer market for its exports and therefore are unlikely to stop investing in American dollars or dump the dollars they currently hold. However, Alan Greenspan recently argued that America must do something about its twin deficits before the rest of the world determines other nations hold a greater return on investment.

The United States must reverse its current gluttonous behavior in order to raise all ships. While the poor do benefit from cheap imported goods from across the globe, they will bear the burden in the long run the bill for deficit spending comes due. Without action now the rising tide may also sink all ships.

Thanks

Thanksgiving is a holiday designed for the whole nation to give thanks. As a nation we owe our thanks to many. First and foremost are the servicemen and women dispersed around the globe. Not only those serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also those who protect us away from the battles – stationed in peacekeeping missions on half of America and NATO. These women and men are willing to put their lives at stake in order to ensure America’s freedoms and values. They work tirelessly to protect us, and many people across the globe who cannot protect themselves.

Thanks to our nation’s founders, for establishing a government which governs by majority, but also ensures there is not tyranny of the majority. They had the wisdom to guarantee the rights of minority voices within the very government they established. Leaders oppressed by their own government worked assiduously to guard against it within their new government. Today, we are free to criticize our government without fear of reprisals. The government protects vociferous opposition to all aspects of its policies and practices. We are thankful for the variety of opinions voiced and the opportunity to voice them, both red and blue.

Today we spend time with friends and family. Loved ones we may only get to see on special occasions. They love and support us, sometimes without our knowledge. They are there defending us, supporting us regardless. We thank our families for understanding and accepting us, even when we support “moral values” or oppose them. Friends and family are there for you always, not just on the holidays, but it is the holidays that we let them know how much we appreciate their love and support.

We are thankful for the bounty our nation enjoys. The homes that we live in, with home ownership at record levels. Though there are thousands of homeless in our nation, today we are thankful for our fortune not to be among them. We also thank the countless giving people who donate their time and money to help these souls, today and everyday. We thank them for their efforts and commitment, for working to try to end the homelessness in our great nation.

The food we find before us on this day and all others. Thankful for the nation’s farmers making the bounty possible. They work from dawn to dusk to provide the nation with food. They produce enough not only for our own people, but also for many others around the world. Farming is a thankless job but today we thank all of those who perform this greatly needed service.

Thank you to those in the medical profession. Holidays, though observed, do not mean a day of rest for nurses and doctors in our nation. We give them thanks for offering care to those in need everyday, especially when others are home celebrating with their families.

Thank you to everyone who give of themselves so that other may lead a better life.

Feigned Dissent

One of the first things learned in politics is not everything is as it seems. With a mere week remaining before Congress set to adjourn for their election, Speaker of House Dennis Hastert made a ridiculous promise. He told 9/11 widows that he would guarantee that the House would pass the bill that would have reformed the United States intelligence agency. Why in the world did the Speaker make such an unrealistic promise?

Admittedly the widows did manage to accidentally run into the Speaker, and he probably felt obligated to try to please these “lobbyists.” But why lie? He knew that the floor schedule was already full and there was absolutely no chance to pass the legislation before the election recess. Is it possible he knew the bill had no future regardless of his empty promise?

The President made the passage of the bill and its reforms a part of his campaign. Voters elected him for his “moral values” and his war on terrorism. Sen. Kerry earned higher support from voters in all other categories. Obviously this was an issue of great importance to both the American people and the President.

Following the bill’s defeat in the lame-duck session of the House, stories now leak out the President’s own Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly helped torpedo the bill. How probable is it, a high-ranking member of the President’s cabinet would stab his boss in the back? The same person, who orchestrated the President’s war in Iraq, is now selling out. It is likely. More likely is that the President and Republican leadership only paid lip service to the bill.

Official Washington always resists change. Change foisted upon them by those out of power is most objectionable. The 9/11 Commission while composed of politicians; it did not have a mission aside from protecting our nation. The committee members were charged with finding problems within the nation’s national security and attempting to find solutions. These people were in the twilight of their political careers. Their final responsibility is to ensure their recommendations are followed. They have the political capitol required to fulfill this promise. They must do it now. The American people know those in power cannot fulfill their thoughtless promises made regarding our national security.

In the Dark

Many things happen in the dark of the night. The monsters come out of the closet. The break-ins many fear often happen after the sun sets. And, apparently that is when the House Republicans want to sneak into your tax returns.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005 contained language which would have directed the IRS to show individual tax returns to officials representing the Appropriations Committee upon demand. That’s right, on a late Saturday night; a lame-duck session of the House decided politicians and their agents could read anyone’s tax returns. One can only imagine what the Republican Party leaders had planned for that information.

At first glance we imagine targeting large donors Democratic like George Soros. However, not only are Mr. Soros’ donations already public knowledge, but also he has the unlimited resources to protect himself against any government persecution. The little donors are the ones who need to fear. Those people who may have made enemies of the appropriators would certainly have been targets. It could also be people who finished with higher grade point averages in school, people who got the contract on the house they were trying to buy. Life would have been very interesting.

Fortunately for all Americans the Senate, the sole surviving voice of reason within the federal government, saw this language. When questioned, the House leaders stated the language was merely a standard oversight provision. So the House passed it without further question. Not hard given most Members were out of town, it was a weekend and night had already come. It is unlikely to have gone unnoticed during the cold light of day.

When the bill came to the Senate, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) took issue with the House “oversight” language. The House managers stated the language had been available for more than a week; if the Senate had a problem with it they should have said something earlier, before finalizing the conference report. Now, after the Senate has unanimously struck the language from the bill, the House Appropriation’s Subcommittee Chairman with oversight of the IRS, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) is now claiming no knowledge of the language. The New York Times covered the issue in today’s paper.

Are the Republican Members of the House committee simply too busy and uninvolved to actually read their own legislation? Are they covering their attempt to raid the cookie jar? The potential answers are disturbing. A single political party now controls government. Americans need to be ever more vigilant.

Desperate Housewives

Not exactly politics, but Desperate Housewives appears to be a new bellwether for determining the direction of America. Moral values? Forget about it! Columnists suggest we have found new moral compass. ABC’s new show is the hottest hit on TV, following only CSI in the national ratings.

The intriguing aspect of the show is the moral values followed by the “housewives.” Admittedly one of the wives isn’t a paragon of virtue. Eva Longoria is cheating on her absentee husband. No one pretends this is moral behavior. No one believes this is appropriate. The other wives have their own problems. Motherhood overwhelms Felicity Huffman’s Lynette Scavo and has resorted to stealing prescription drugs. Teri Hatcher’s character Susan Mayer accidentally burned down a rival friend’s house. Bree Van De Kamp, played by Marcia Cross, is a “Stepford” wife who will undoubtedly go to any length to keep her crumbling family together.

What makes these wives so watchable? Is it their above average beauty? This is a compelling factor among the large male audience, but what about the female viewers? There must be some substance there. Does the show appeal to the rapidly growing number of Americans who aspire to be voyeurs? It is quite possible that the show strikes a nerve. Americans either believe this is the standard of behavior of their neighbors or they want it to be.

Right or wrong, and they are probably right; they want to see people with problems. They want to see people struggle. They want to see people come together and overcome their problems. America’s political parties might learn something from this. Even though the American people barely favor one party over the other, they would certainly appreciate government coming together and overcoming their collective problems.

A Classic Double

Web surfing is extremely enlightening. The variety of opinions voiced in America is astounding. The width and breathe of ignorance being spouted is also overwhelming.

A columnist for the Chicago Tribune, John Kass, ranted about Tom DeLay and Bill Clinton. Not exactly a pair most people would lump into the same category. Mr. Kass delimitates between the behavior of the two men. He argues President Clinton’s elicit sex acts are impeachable offenses, while Mr. DeLay’s election tampering is pardonable. Our nation has sunk to a new moral low when trying to fix elections is not the most reprehensible crime in a democracy. If we were a totalitarian regime where only a single candidate is on the ballot maybe he would be correct.

Liberal racism and Condi Rice was an equally intriguing subject. Having never believed Ms. Rice was a capable foreign policy expert I wondered if this article spoke to me. Nope. Didn’t apply, and maybe more fortunately it contained little evidence and even less analytical thought. The blog’s author, a part-time contributor to the paragon of news virtue – Fox News Channel. She accused the “left” of hating it when a person of color rises in the world and has an intellect and independent thought. I will concur that Dr. Rice is an extremely intelligent woman, but not the right person to steer our national security and foreign policy. Most intriguing was the amount of hatred written on the site. Not thoughtful criticism, simply lowbrow name-calling. Additionally the site contains a link for even more through discussion of the topic by media darling Rush Limbaugh. Hate spews from the site prohibiting me from linking to the site.

Also there has been a spate of commentary on the Desperate Housewives opening to Monday Night Football. The opening was not only salacious, but also not in keeping with the nature of football. Thank God skimpy outfits worn by team cheerleaders are exempt from consideration. The NFL’s condemnation reeks of hypocrisy. You will here no complaints regarding the cheerleaders and how they help sell the NFL’s product, but instead righteous indignation when someone else does the same thing. Personally I enjoy both programs, and agree with Globe columnist Ellen Goodman. Her op-ed supporting the show was on target.

And speaking of hatred and anger have you seen any sports highlights? How about those Pacers? Frankly I think the game should have been pay-per-view. Admittedly the fights were mismatches but so to have been the recent bouts brought to America by Don King and others. Fans and players mixing it up, what provoked the incident? A hard foul, fan taunting and throw objects. Post incident interviews drew interesting comments from some players, stating they felt fans were disrespecting them. An interesting thought. Whenever someone talks “smack” about their opponent it is hard to look behind the words to find the motivation. When was the last time someone taunted the Expos? Growing up I never said a bad word about the repeatedly hapless Cubs. Losers don’t provoke anger. Winners motivate fans on both sides. It may be hard for athletes to accept, and even harder to understand during the heat of the moment, but generally there is an underlying respect and jealously behind even the most hateful words.

Moral ascendancy should have an impact upon the nation beyond the ballot box. Morals should extend into personal behavior. Morals should broaden to include public behavior. The religious leaders who preached from their pulpits about the repugnancy of gay marriage and abortion need to broaden their horizons. A return to roots of religion. Love and acceptance, tolerance and understanding must be preached. Hatred should be condemned not preached. Acceptance of intolerance and hate is a classic double standard that must be ended.

We must teach. Enlightenment will always champion over ignorance. Thoughtfully spoken and written words will eventually topple even the mightiest physical opponent. The whole nation needs to take a long hard look at itself and find the true center. A nation founded by those fleeing intolerance should not become one of intolerance

Frankenstein Republicans?

Where have all the Republicans gone? The Republicans I knew when I was in college were fiscally responsible. This isn’t true of the party today. Today’s Republicans are the worst combination of the parties from the recent past. They have assumed prominent parts of other parties. They have kept the laissez-faire business attitudes of the party from the 80’s. They assumed the pork barrel spendthrift nature of the House Democrats from the same decade. They incorporated the foreign policy interventionism of the Kennedy years. They made prominent the right-wing religious factor that was long dormant within the Party.

LA Times columnist Patt Morrison wants to know where are the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans? The Party cast aside that part when assembling today’s monster. The party no longer cares about issues like deficit spending, environment or even global public opinion. The Republicans Morrison writes of and the ones I knew are apparently extinct. Left long dead when the Party assumed its role as leader in writing the federal budget.

Writing more seems pointless. Those who would listen have died. Those left behind have no sense of history or responsibility.

Resurgent Insurgents

The offensive in Falluja is a success. US forces have killed over 1000 insurgents. There is a small problem, winning the battle may have cost the war. Experts project there are roughly 10,000 armed insurgents in Iraq, or possibly twice as many when factoring in their supporters. And that is the fundamental problem; we are no longer fighting a defined enemy. And, if we must reduce Iraqi cities to rubble to win, we will lose. For each death we cause we will spawn at least two to take their place.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Dartmouth history professors Daryl G. Press and Benjamin Valentino point out how great a task awaits America as it strives to replace the government it toppled. They reference the numerous failed attempts by other military overlords – France and the US in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, and the British in Malaysia. Furthermore, they note that only extremely oppressive regimes, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq suppressed insurgents successfully.

They failed to provide a blueprint for successful military conquest. Nevertheless, we are there now and must find an endgame. How does a nation end the uprisings? How do we provide viable alternative to those willing to risk their lives in order remove American forces?

America must act quickly, making good on the promise of a better and freer Iraq. We must make good on our promise of elections. We have to make good on the rebuilding of the nation. We must provide alternatives for the disenfranchised to express themselves. People who have a voice in their government and choice in their life do not choose to kill themselves and others. The people in Iraq must believe the life under American military oversight is better than death.

The Iraqi people are not yearning for a return to the iron fist of Saddam. But incorporated within their national psyche is hate and distrust of the US. We must establish a basis for the people of Iraq to trust the American led occupation and no longer fear us. We need to act quickly and not squander the opportunity afforded us. Military victories may be necessary, but they are unlikely to win the hearts of the people. Changing attitudes and beliefs are the key to permanent victory.

Shocking! Simply Shocking!

“Shocking! Simply shocking to find gambling going on here! I order this establishment closed until further notice.” Taken out of context the statement would lead the uninformed to assume the character speaking is a proponent of law and order. Nothing could be further from the truth. The line uttered by the famously corrupt Captain Renault, before accepting his kickback for allowing said gambling. Today news sources, including both The Washington Post and The New York Times, are reporting the Republican Party is considering a rule change to allow indicted party leaders to continue to hold leadership positions.

Yes, the moral voters have spoken and they chose a party where one of the top leaders may soon face numerous indictments regarding state election fraud. Mr. Tom Delay is currently under investigation by state authorities directing illegal campaign contributions to state legislatures. These races allowed Mr. Delay to then gerrymander new congressional districts within the state. In turn, he helped defeat four incumbent Democrats and enabled the Republican Party to gain seats in the House during the recent election. Alas, all might be for naught. A federal court has recently ruled the new districts illegal and directed a lower court to redraw the districts before the next election.

The rule originated to embarrass another Texas politician, Jim Wright. Then-Speaker Wright was under investigation for accepting illegal contributions via book deals. The party of “moral values” adopted the rule rightly because they were in the minority and never envisioned the possibility they too would have the chance to be equally corrupt. It now appears as if two of the men instrumental in the downfall of Speaker Wright will have sacrificed themselves on the rules they helped implement.

I am not arguing that the Republican Party should revoke their rule regarding ethics and governance. Instead, both parties should adopt and enforce the rule on all their elected officials. The parties argue political motivation may lead to bogus indictments. Cases regarding election fraud deserve special attention. If innocent of the pending indictment the official would be cleared and able to resume their former post. If guilty the official should have stepped down regardless.

As things were in Casablanca, they are in Washington today. Corruption exists everywhere and our officials should guard against it. Enforce ethics rules uniformly, without regard for party leadership. The appearance of impropriety must be avoided.

Four Horses?

Colin Powell is stepping down. Our nation should mourn this loss. Critics may say Powell was unable to accomplish much during his tenor as Secretary of State. His term was not about what was accomplished but instead what was not.

Imagine the current Bush foreign policy team minus Powell. Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld, better known as the three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Where would we be without him there to rein the others in? One might imagine there would be US ground forces dispersed throughout the world, and undoubtedly the France would have been a prime target for “regime change.” Many may have imagined Powell would have ridden the “white horse” but chaffed the Administration by instead wearing a white hat.

Ms. Rice appears to be the best candidate for the job. This is frightening and sad. Just a few years ago the right wing of the Republican Party was trending isolationist. Isolationism certainly runs counter to the strong business interests that run the Party on a day-to-day basis. These experts are rightly eliminated from consideration. Where does that leave the Party? Nowhere. The Party has slim pickings when it comes to foreign policy experts. Even Rumsfeld is a throwback from Administrations past.

This is my problem with Rice. She is tragically stuck in the past. She admitted to underestimating the threat of terrorism because her focus was on the former Soviet republics. Even casual observers of foreign relations realized the next area of global concern for national security was not going to come from this region. The threat from the former Soviets was terrorists acquiring nuclear material. The Administration has done an excellent job in curtailing the spread of nuclear materials from those states. The Department of Energy was responsible for this task.

The world trembles at the thought of Dr. Rice running the nation’s foreign policy unchecked. The Senate should inform her during her confirmation they will not allow the nation to run amuck during the second term. The Senate must emphasize the importance diplomacy as Secretary of State. The Secretary should not simply threaten those who oppose our nation’s view of the world. The Secretary must now learn to effectively reign in the warmongers within the Administration. We must now act in a conciliatory nature to the rest of the world. Establishing peace and prosperity requires a global commitment from all nations, not just our closest allies. Outreach to those nations who have opposed our view of the world is essential to achieve our foreign policy goals.

The confirmation process will be quick but the Senate must ensure the incoming Secretary understand the full responsibility of the position. It is to the President, but it is also to the nation as well as the rest of the world. It is the Senate’s responsibility to ensure the Secretary does not mount the fourth horse.

Stadium Magic?

Today brought a bevy of interesting areas to explore. And my favorite topic has little to do with politics, but instead education and urban planning. NYC is contemplating luring the Jet back to the city, in the form of a $1.5 billion stadium. Government sources expect to commit $700 to the project all the while city schools struggle for funding.

My sister, the brain of the family and I have argued repeatedly about this issue Predictably, this debate rages here in DC as the city fight to find an appropriate site for the Expos to call home. Opponents have many fine examples of wasted public dollars on stadiums. Not all public financing is a debacle, certainly some of it is.

Many of these follies are in the form of football areas. And, though I know that insulting the sport is liable to incur the wrath of many Washingtonians, football stadiums should never benefit from public financing. Football stadiums sit empty too often. Maximum home games being 12, if the team makes the playoffs every year and has home-field advantage. Throw in a few rock concerts each year and you might use 20 times a year. I concede I am not an expert on stadium usage issues and maybe I’m wrong. However, if my assumptions are correct, NYC officials may reap roughly $300 million in generated tax revenues over a 30-year average life span of a new stadium.

Now there is a $400 million gap for public officials to recoup. Recapturing revenue is possible in development of nearby under/undeveloped land. The proposed NYC Jet stadium located in Manhattan will preclude this. The land though possibly under utilized will never rise high enough to generate enough revenues to meet the shortfall.

Jobs are often an excellent argument for the financing initiatives. When the current stadium or stadium site is within easy commuting distance job gains from moving the stadium are negligible. When transporting a team from a distant state job gains are much greater, but the government revenue gain by these jobs is still relatively slight. There might be an additional gain of $5 million, not much of an impact spread out over 30 years.

However, there is a much greater impact when the usage for the sites is significantly higher, such as basketball/hockey areas or baseball stadiums. Both sports, when the NHL resumes playing, would have ten times more home games and significantly more revenue generated by these events. The evidence for this argument is clear with two shining examples – Jacobs Field in Cleveland and the MCI Center in Washington, DC. Both stadiums helped revitalize cities areas in sharp decline. Jacobs Field became the cornerstone to the redevelopment of the entire downtown Cleveland area, including a new areas for football, basketball and the building of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The MCI Center is even more impressive. The area south of Chinatown was desolate. You did not walk the streets alone at night. Dozens of building had lain empty for years, and with the crash of the real estate market in the late 80’s it did not appear the DC market would make a quick rebound. The area changed this. The downtown area became hip. Stores, offices and restaurants quickly sprung up.

Opponents often argue that the revenues would be better spent on education, as is the current case in the Times article. My sister and her fellow supporter also make this argument. Alas, this is sheer fantasy. Funding for public stadiums would never go to school systems. It is a sad statement but undeniably true. Proof is evident, if the government officials actually wanted to better fund their school systems it would happen regardless of any financing matters for arenas. Unfortunately public education is entirely unsexy. Officials rarely fall all other themselves to fund education better. Instead, they always find other public projects in greater need of funding. Even with limited revenues in the public coffers, stadiums do not deter from funding of education.

There are no hard and fast rules for public financing, but merely guidelines, which lawmakers should follow when deciding to commit public revenues to build. Under certain circumstances stadiums should receive public financing with restrictions and obligations for arena owners to commit resources to education.

Control of Guns

Today Nicolas Kristof states in his New York Times op-ed column that gun control possibly cost Sen. Kerry the election. And maybe the time has come for the party to abandon gun control as unobtainable. Focus on gun safety issues as the best way to curb gun deaths in America.

His argument certainly has merit. He points to automobile deaths and subsequent safety gains as the model. Seat belt laws, air bags, and host of other technological advances have lead to dramatic decreases in auto related deaths. Gun control would benefit from similar initiatives. Gunlocks, enhanced gun safeties, and more education about securing guns from children are all excellent ideas to curb guns deaths. And then we could just forget about gun ownership since senseless gun deaths would be on the decline.

There are just minor flaws in Mr. Kristof’s theories, gun owners didn’t vote for Kerry because of concerns regarding gun ownership and that safety issues alone account for a majority of the gun deaths in America. Gun owners were not terrified of Mr. Kerry taking their weapons. Gun owners in the critical regions for the party to wrest from Republican control actually gave President Bush a smaller share of their vote. Non-gun owners increased the share of their vote they gave the President. So, it appears that Sen. Kerry rather meek position on gun control correctly cost him votes. But it was not because he was too stringent on the issue, but instead too soft. A strong stance on all gun ownership may have won him the election.

Safety issues along will not end senseless gun deaths. Gun owners are five times more likely to be shot by their own gun than by a criminal. Violent gun deaths are committed in the heat of the moment and victims are well known by their assailants. Gunlocks, new safety mechanisms, or gun safes will not curtail these crimes. The only way to stop them is to curtail gun ownership.

The Democratic Party has not yet lost an election nationwide because of its stance on guns. A majority of Americans favor gun control laws. A majority of Americans supported the Brady Bill. A majority of Americans are dismayed in the defeat of the assault weapons ban. We should not back down on gun control; we should be more serious about it. Stop trying to compromise on the issue. Non-gun owners do not respect the candidates when they straddle the issue, allowing certain weapons and not others. This is a moral value issue we can win. Killing people with guns is not a moral value, and as the party must start making its own moral campaign we could certainly start here.

Implementation of Mr. Kristof’s suggestions is important. We should not stop there. Gun control is a winnable issue and we need to use if more effectively.

Moral Values Myth?

In today’s Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer argues quite coherently that it was not moral values which won Bush the election. He argues intelligently the category of moral values encompasses many issues – which he believes are abortion, gay marriage, and most interestingly Hollywood’s corrupting influence on America. And, since these issues are all lumped together he wants the other issues combined too. And then “moral issues” does not finish first, but instead last.

The two other groups he wants to combine and compare are economic policy – including jobs, taxes and health care, and foreign policy issues – defined as terrorism and Iraq. Of course this argument made a great deal of sense. Upon checking the statistics Mr. Krauthammer’s math adds up, it wasn’t moral issues but foreign policy that weighed most heavily on voter’s minds.

But further examination showed a major flaw in his argument. The groupings of issues he wanted showed great splits in each subcategory. The foreign policy grouping was the main issue for 34% of the voters nationwide. But of those voters, the 15% who thought Iraq was the main issue, 73% voted for Kerry. The 19% who believe terrorism was the deciding factor gave President Bush 86% of their votes. We find the same problems within the economic grouping. Mr. Kerry won by large margins in the topics of jobs, education and health care. Mr. Bush won in only taxes. Another grouping split.

Under moral values, which were left undefined, 22% of the voters said were their primary reason for voting. These voters gave 80% of their vote to President Bush. When all factors are weighted together the President gained the largest number of votes from voters who claimed moral values as their most important issue. Mr. Krauthammer would like to break moral values down into smaller categories, but unlike issues of foreign and economic policy, there would not be a great division among those voters. Voters who believe gay marriage, abortion or Hollywood’s moral decay would all invariably vote the same way. There is no great divide. All these issues appeal to the same grouping of people. If pollsters had a reasonable expectation to see splits on these issues they certainly would have included them in the poll. This is not the case.

Additional research showed that two of the large swing states – FL and OH showed results remarkably similar to the national results, with terrorism rating higher in FL for the President.

The more remarkable statistic is that Bush increased his voting share among several Democratic stronghold groups – including Blacks and people of Jewish faith. Following the 2000 election no one who have predicted the President would actually capture a greater share of their vote. A closer examination shows that of people who attend religious services weekly or more often gave the President a greater share of the vote than those who attended less frequently.

There must be an explanation for the high voter turnout, and the exit polls do not show a great divide on the other issues. The President did not improve his share among voters who were described as Democrats. He did do slightly better among Republicans and marginally better (1%) by independents. So, where and why did the President improve? He lost great shares of voters on issues from Iraq, economy/jobs, health care, and education. Leaving only two issues showing change from the prior election to drive voters to the polls for the President – terrorism and moral values.

Moral values may not have been the single determining factor in the election, but it did have a greater impact than any other single issue or even issue grouping. Moral values is not a myth issue, it helped the President to victory. Mr. Krauthammer would have been better served by actually examining the poll results further.

If you wish to see the complete exit poll results, with the ability to break poll down by states, click here.

Blue In a Landslide?

In today's New York Times Frank Rich argues that it was "Blue" values that won in the election. Or at the very least will be aptly protected by the "conservative" right of the Bush Addministration. He aptly points to probably one of the most boorish and disgusting purveyors of low brow culture, the News Corporation and Bush backer Ruppert Murdoch. While he notes that Fox News Channel is extremely conservative the remainder of the media empire is as crude and vulgar as any.

He continues by noting that many of the media executives were all supporting Bush during the election. Interestingly enough the "liberal" media is controlled by Republicans. And, with his friends running those corporations Bush is not likely to push and real conservative agenda.

All I can say is I hope Mr. Rich is correct.

Right for Workers?

The news yesterday carried a story regarding a potential rift within America’s largest union organization, the AFL-CIO. What is at issue is the money the organization is dedicating to increase its membership. Union membership is currently at 13% of the workforce down from 35% during the 50’s. The unions facing inordinate pressure from employers who are cutting pension benefits and health care costs.

The head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is gravely concerned about membership. He believes the AFL-CIO should dedicate $25 million to fund membership drives, and specifically to target the nation’s largest corporation, Wal-Mart. What is more intriguing is no one is addressing the real reason why unions are shrinking. It is not because the work force has shrunk. It is not because employees have unlimited rights everywhere in the United States. In fact, in right-to-work states employees certainly could use the protection afforded by unions. It is because workers today do not believe the unions deliver any real benefit.

Having had the pleasure of working with a large union workforce I have seen firsthand the problems with unions in America today. And, unfortunately it seems that leadership is completely fixated on membership and the dues it generates. Once union members move to the corporate side of the union they distance themselves from the very people they are charged with protecting. The union becomes just like any other business with focus on improving the bottom line. And their principal product is membership. This does not explain why leadership spends more time devising ways to increase membership than strengthening their existing membership.

But, that issue aside, the reason unions are dwindling in membership is they no longer fight the right battles. As an employer representative in dealing with our union I found the union cared little to nothing about their members. They did nothing to fight for their members who were excellent employees. The union spent a majority of their time and effort in protecting the worst employees. Poor employees were excellently protected be the union. This protection usually came in the form of hearings regarding terminations. The union reps would usually make half-hearted defenses and the employee would remain terminated. The remainder of the employees gained nothing from the union. All the wonderful benefits the union garnered the employees were granted by the company to their non-union employees as well. This may not be the case in areas where workers’ rights are not strongly protected by the local government.

I developed a poor opinion of the union while an employer representative and it deteriorated over time. Unfortunately the union members often disliked and distrusted the union even more than I did. They felt they gained nothing from their monthly dues. The union made little effort to communicate with the membership regarding the services they provided. The only time the union communicated with the membership was when dues were to be increased. The membership, including some of the shop stewards, had no idea what benefits they were receiving in exchange for their higher dues.

If unions what to really do something about their shrinking membership they need to give employees a reason to join. Unions must convince potential members they actually will gain from union membership and protection. When most employers offer health insurance, employees are not going to be overly motivated to trust a union to make their choices for them. Unions must shed their image of lethargy and disinterest. They must find a way to bring real benefits to the majority of their members who are excellent employees. Unless the unions accomplish this soon they will need the $25 million not for membership drives, but instead for their farewell party.

Unity

During the near decade of Republican rule of the House, the occasional lack of party unity and focus among House Democrats has been disturbing. When broached on the subject, many Democrats do not believe this issue is a problem. Instead they extol the virtues of the Democratic Party, expounding on the ideals of a modern democracy by allowing dissenting views. But mention the name Sen. Zell Miller to them and they forget all about the right of dissent, they want his head on a pike.

Prior to Miller’s apparent defection the last time a Senate Democrat stayed within the party and stepped far out of line was David Boren. At issue was President Clinton’s energy bill. It had passed the House along party lines and headed to the Senate where the Democrats held a slim majority. The White House had worked hard for the bill and needed 100% party support in order to pass the bill. But Sen. Boren refused to back the bill without several poison pill provisions and it died. The loss cost the President valuable political capital. White House staffers pledged to make Boren pay for his disloyalty. Sen. Boren resigned his seat shortly after this event. He is probably the only one who knows if this event played a part in his decision to retire. If he was not going to support the party on important legislation he did the honorable thing in resigning his seat.

In the House with its current makeup, unity is harder to establish and enforce. Significant differences are evident as party members represent both large metropolitan areas, and rural farming communities. With greater numbers comes greater difference of opinion. The Democratic Party allowed dissenting opinions during their long reign in the House, provided they still held the votes necessary to pass legislation. This is the root of the current problem, too many Members remember their behavior during the majority years, and do not know how to properly act as a minority party. When Members in a minority party fail to unite together they lose what little influence they may have. The Republican Party has maintained its strong unity, exacerbating this problem. They still have some Members who remember their minority day, and also in part due to their party nominating and electing more homogeneous Members. With fewer defections by the majority party, the minority needs even greater unity.

Unity goes beyond just voting the party line. It also means Members and staffers not make comments to reporters badmouthing members of the party. The leadership and its members should ensure any dissension of opinions be kept private. This would limit the ability of the opposition to drive wedges in the party, and ultimately strengthen the party’s bargaining position with the majority.

A democratic society guarantees you the right to voice your opinion. Compromise is the true key to democracy. All parties should meet in the middle ground, and once the party has arrived at a compromise position the members of party should support it. A unified voice is a voice best heard.

The Monkeys

The monkeys are back, but where is Scopes? The New York Times is running a story today in their education section about an impending court battle regarding the teaching of evolution in a Cobb County, GA school district. The school district has placed stickers in their biology textbooks stating that evolution is a “theory.” Creationists in the district just want equal footing for “creationism” arguing that evolution is purely disputed science and therefore should not be taught as a scientific fact.

Having been taught in private Catholic schools I thought that maybe I could see their point of view. But Catholics don’t generally believe in the strict reading of the bible, and can readily accept God creating the universe and earth without having to actually accomplish this feat is the biblical timeline of six days.

The whole debate may seem like a minor point, seriously how important is the teaching of evolution? In the long run does it matter what people think about how man came into being? Is this really an earth shattering issue? Should we spend time and money debating it? The simple and obvious answer is no. This issue has little to no bearing on life today. However, let’s look beyond the obvious. Let’s look a little deeper. Look where this may lead. Sure education is a local issue, and maybe local people have a right to determine where and what their children learn. But where does it end. There are some in the United States who don’t believe the Holocaust happen. Do we allow them to attack stickers to history books stating that we only think the Holocaust is a theory? There are others who do not believe that all people are created equally. Do they get to edit copies of the Declaration of Independence so their children don’t have to learn that theory?

Is there ever been a better reason for a set of national standards for education? Do we need more reason? Other industrialized nations have national standards, why not us? Global competition is only getting heating up. America’s primary advantage has always been two things freedom of choice and thought, and a superior education system. These advantages are eroding now and it is time to stop while we can. Put the monkeys back where they belong.

The Uneducated

The American electorate often underestimated and even more often undersold. Political campaigns of the day spend their money on screaming a carefully selected group of slogans. Focus group tested thoughts. Quick sound bites designed to have the greatest possible impact in the shortest amount of time. Both parties do it, and it is to the determent of the process. My older sister drove this point home when we discussed the election today. She voted for Bush because Kerry “scared” her. When pressed for specifics she said that he “talked too much.” My baby sister noted that obviously the Bush attack ads had worked. Most of my family voted for Bush. And, what is sad too say is that with two politically active family members the remainder of the family has little to no interest in politics. The disinterested are highly susceptible to the attack ads. Not surprisingly the Bush ads seemed to be either more effective or prevalent and pervasive.

Along the misinformation lines, a study noted in the New York Times today showed that a number of voted who voted for the President help numerous beliefs that the Bush campaigned professed even though they were factually incorrect. Examples where that there were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. There were strong links from Saddam to Al Qaeda. Possibly the most astounding misconception of them all, the world supported and back the invasion of Iraq.

With ignorance working strongly in favor of the President and his party we must spend more time on education. But the time for the education if not during the short election cycle in the few months preceding the vote, we must start educating now. If we wait until the next election it will be too late. Special interest groups if they want to have a more profound effect on the election they need to educate their supporters, and others. This is probably what the Republicans did so effectively. They had their teams out educating their voters for the importance of the election, and their supporters turned out in large numbers. Educated voters are more motivated and more likely to continue to support their cause in the election and beyond.

Let’s get educated.

Religious Wrong?

Gary Hart has a very interesting op-ed in the New York Times today . He makes interesting points about the role of religion in politics. How the Christian conservatives may have gone to far in tauting beliefs and their role in selecting candidates. Instead, he feels religion should be a guide in your life, but the role of our government is secular. He also argues that if we are going to incorporate religion we should show more compassion and tolerance.

Interesting thoughts from a former potential presidential nominee. One wonders if he could have pulled an election out in the post-Clinton political environment. Of course it is too late now.

The issue that this article brings out is that our nation seems to be headed in the direction of a theocracy. And the Christian theocrats seem to have hatred for their Muslim counterparts. I could be wrong, but as I recall from my our religious education all religions teach tolerance, love and acceptance. Things religious fundamentalists seem to have forgotten. Maybe we should remind them?

The Road Map

Interesting junk mail today…a thank you from DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe. And he also wanted feedback to where I think the Democrat should head.

Our party clearly needs a road map, and one that includes more than just large metropolitan areas in it. Growing up in the heartland I’ve always had a little chip on my shoulder about how we (Midwesterns) were viewed by those on the coasts. Derision seemed to be most of it. This was something I noticed even more pronounced during my days as a lobbyist. Those inside the beltway, especially Democrats, were obsessed with “costal” thinking. I would always call my family and friends in the Midwest to get a true feeling of what average Americans were thinking. Except for my youngest siblings, most of my family has little time and less understanding of politics and its potential effect on their lives. And though many here in Washington may believe that they are unique, unfortunately they are not. Most American have little direct experience with the federal government, and the contact that they do have is generally in the form of their annual tax filing. So, there is no surprise why most Americans do not look kindly upon the federal government and those of us in Washington.

The party needs direction, but it first has to understand were they want to go. If they want a map back to the White House then there must be an understanding by the hardline, old school members of the party that the traditional northeastern liberal (personified brilliantly by Sen. Kerry) will not take us there. Instead, we are derailed not too far out of the station and never even make it across the Mississippi. Not only do we need a new map, but also we need to ensure we no longer take direction from either extreme. The Republican Party did a wonderful job of defining the Democrats in the election. And, unfortunately the left wing of the party saw no problem with the directions the Republicans gave us. They happily took the map and drove us off the cliff.

The party’s support for gay marriage and the fight with the Christian conservatives was certainly one of the obvious flash-point issues of the campaign. There was nothing wrong in the support of the issue. However, being defined by that and other issues hurt the party away from the coastline. We need to be the party of personal freedoms, regardless of what those freedoms are. Instead of defending ourselves on the issue of gay marriage we should have spent our efforts on how the Republicans want to have complete control over your bedroom, your sex life, what you read, what you watch. They want to curtail your personal freedoms. The best defense is no a witty response, it is to be on the attack. Stay on the attack. If they want to criticize our positions that is fine, but we must define ourselves first.

The direction of the party should be towards the center in the primary so we are best suited to run in the general election. But, we must also ensure that the candidate stands for something, isn’t vague on his or her stands on issues, and doesn’t try to pander to the voters and change their positions in a vain hope to court votes. Our next candidate and campaign must be about ideals, ideas and most importantly leadership. We want to follow people, but to have follower you must know where you are going and how you are going to get there. If we can only just find the map.

The Witches Are BACK!!!!

The following excerpt was sent to me from my sister, and it certainly helps put the current election results in perspective.

From a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor,
Philadelphia in 1798:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass
over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true
sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that
in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring
the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt . . .
If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience
till luck turns, & then we shall have an opportunity of winning back
the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
the stake. Better luck, therefore, to us all; and health, happiness,
& friendly salutations to yourself. "

Well said I think. If only Kerry has been from Salem, MA instead.