Government Shutdown - What That Was REALLY About

So the standoff over Obamacare, the functioning of the Federal government and the debt ceiling is now over. Or, at least until January, at which time we may go through this all over again.

And the point of all that was...?

Seriously, who got what out of that saga?

Do mainstream Republicans benefit? No. Do Democrats or Obama himself "win" with this whole thing. Not really. The American public? Certainly not.

And, could the radical minority of Republicans in the House (Tea Party) really have expected the Senate and Obama to roll over on Obamacare? Not credibly or realistically.

Indeed, my belief is Tea Party Republicans never actually thought Obama and the Democrats would cave. Sure, they might have hoped they would, but that was not the goal of the Tea Party-fueled crisis this time around.

Rather, I think the Tea Party had distinct goals of their own on this action. Holding funding of the Federal government and debt ceiling hostage in an attempt to de-fund or neuter the already passed and Supreme Court reviewed Affordable Healthcare Act did four things quite nicely for the Tea Party - all related to electoral politics and power within the party. And that's why I think we saw what we did over the last month.

So well were the following things accomplished, I think they have to be considered as primary goals...

1. Establish renewed visibility for the Tea Party and a radical-right pecking order going into 2014 and 2016 elections. Had you ever heard of Ted Cruz before five weeks ago? How about some of the other Tea Partiers who got their mugs on the news? Me either. But, now the Tea Party is on everybody's mind and those interested in running the Republicans as far to the right as they possibly can now have a handful of nationally known leaders who will, without a doubt, be in line for House Speaker or running for President in upcoming elections.

2. Ferret out RINOs. One thing Tea Party Republicans hate more than Democrats are politicians they view as "Republicans In Name Only" or RINOs. The Tea Party definition of "Republican" is extremely conservative, so what most the rest of us think of Republicans would be too liberal for them. By pressing the issue they way they did over the last month, the Tea Party conference forced Republicans to take sides. Are you with the Tea Party or are you not?

And why do that? Well, midterm elections are coming up in 2014 and the well funded Tea Party leaders want to find out who to target in the primaries to try and unseat RINOs and get their own "Republicans" in office.  And if shutting down the government and threatening the world economy is how they had to do that political dirty work, that's just fine with the Tea Party.

3. Make a point to the "true believers." There's nothing like grandstanding to make a point to the constituents back home. In this case, the Tea Party Republicans have focused on a law they view as an abomination and affront to "liberty," the Affordable Healthcare Act. By drawing attention to themselves as champions against the law, they assure their constituents back home in their districts are 100 percent sure they are as right wing as they are. By extension, they offer themselves up nationally as an "alternative" certainly to Democrats but also mainstream Republicans. Personally, I think that's radically delusional, irresponsible and foolhardy too. But that's the mindset of the Tea Party.

4. Frustrate Obama and the Ds at all costs. The one unifying goal among Republicans of all stripes since the moment Obama was elected president in 2008 has been to obstruct, frustrate and undermine his and the Democrats agenda at all costs. And there is no more a fervent group against Obama than the Tea Party. So their actions over the last month are just a continuation of this very consistent strategy by conservatives. If Obama is for something, oppose it. If Obama is against something, support it. Stymie, delay, filibuster...do whatever it takes to slow down, alter or stop legislation or policy by the White House. Through these tactics, the Republicans are attempting to make themselves appear to be a strong alternative to Democrats come election time. Why vote Democrat if nothing ever gets done? Get it?

So there you go. Four clear objectives accomplished by the Tea Party over the past few weeks.

And all of this is bad enough as a shallow, narcissistic and detached operation by small men and women with huge egos and ambition. But if that's all that it was, you'd just shake your head and move on. But the real tragedy here is that the shut down of the government and brinkmanship over the debt ceiling  over Obamacare has impacted millions of Americans in a negative way - paychecks missed, benefits on hold, access to services cut off, access to public land eliminated and more. And, on the debt ceiling issue, you have the rest of the world watching this and becoming increasingly concerned over our financial situation and increasing dysfunction in government.

What Is Fueling Possible Government Shut Down?

OK, so it looks like the federal government is going to shut down Tuesday because of the inability for Congress and the President to agree on passing legislation to keep the federal government operational and the related linkage by Republicans of de-funding the healthcare reform act passed in 2010.

But what is fueling this development?

Is it a principled argument by Republicans for reducing the deficit? Hardly. Republicans are the least credible party on that issue. Remember the 1980s and the 2000s? Right. Is it really a desire to kill the healthcare reform act? Maybe, but that I think is a tactic for the bigger reason.

No, I think the answer for the impasse is: Republican electoral politics.

Sure, the Rs want to embarrass, stymie and obstruct Obama as much as possible to weaken him. It's been quite clear since 2008 that they will oppose anything he wants or decides no matter what. But that's not what I'm talking about. After all, Obama cannot be elected again.

Who can?

Congressmen and women.

Right now, the Republicans own the majority in the House of Representatives. That party also has a small but highly active and influential core of true right wing believers. Teach creation in schools, no gun laws whatsoever, anti-abortion in all instances, anti-gay rights, no taxes (literally) and on and on. These are the things the group hold dear and focus their zealotry.

You may have heard of this group. They're called "The Tea Party," and they are strong enough, dedicated enough and organized and mobilized enough to target and defeat Republicans who do not toe their extreme line. This is particularly true in mid-term elections when popular turnout is lower - elections such as what are coming up in 2014.

Think about it. The current Rs in the House are all up for re-election in 2014. They know the Tea Party has the ability to target them next year by running negative ads, fielding a challenger and turning out in droves come election day. So, they do NOT want to be seen as "weak" against Obama or "caving" on any of the hard core believer issues. Rather, they are compelled to orchestrate a very public act of defiance. They literally fear for their seats, and that's enough to puff out their chests and hold the economy hostage by refusing to deal with the President or the Senate.

And they've picked the elimination of the healthcare reform law passed in 2010 as an issue to go to battle with..to make dang sure the Tea Party is paying attention.

To be clear, the Republicans in the House have made a strategic decision that they'd rather crash the economy through government shut down than risk losing their seats next year by dealing with the Democrats to move forward on economic issues.

In the end, the Republican Party is captive to the Tea Party and therefore the US government and our economy are too.

Its a short term play by the Rs, but I think either a government shut down or a defunded Obamacare law will cost the Republicans a longer term price by alienating even more people and limiting their long term electoral potential.

Post Election Thoughts

Here are a few "day after" thoughts on the national election results...

Republicans

• You lost the Presidential race and you need to move on. Sure, it was close in the popular vote, but you lost that and - more important - were clubbed in the electoral college. Your team has won a lot in the past (Reagan, both Bushes, Congressional majorities for the most part over the last 20 years)...but not now. Obama is the President. He is not a foreigner, a socialist, a communist or the anti-Christ. Cleanse yourself of that baggage. He is the twice elected President of the USA. Accept and move on.
• You need to re-think how you approach national races. Your strategy of trying to win by maximizing voter turnout in areas you have an advantage (rural/suburban, white, male, older) in hopes that this counterbalances turnout in the cities and among minorities and women? It failed. It might have worked in 2000 or 2004, but the nation is changing demographically. It's becoming a more ethnically diverse and accepting place. Doubling down on right wing policies that appeal to middle age white guys in the countryside ain't cutting it and won't going forward. Reinvent your party and have a shot. Don't and really risk not seeing the White House for quite a while.
• You need to legitimately work with Democrats to get things done rather than instantly go back to the "party of no" mode to spite Obama and try and set up a R win in 2016. You need to re-define your idea of compromise as something other than demanding the Democrats coming over to do what you want or "no deal." The nation is tired of all that and you are not serving the citizenry by doing that.

Democrats

• Go play the lottery right now. Why? You just got REALLY LUCKY. Recognize that Obama's victory is not some sort of massive mandate for his leadership and ideas. You should not gloat. 
• It's time to get specific. A lot of Obama's campaign - and many Congressional candidates too - was more about not electing the opposition (and wow, the Rs sure put up candidates that were easy to target that way). You did not really run on a clear vision with specific ideas for the next few years. You need to get specific. Set a few clear goals and work to get them done. 
• You too need to work with the Rs. You need to try and work with conservatives to achieve your clear goals. That should be your default first move. It's the right thing to do and will likely result in more things getting done. But...you also need to know how to put pressure on the Republicans if or when they revert to simply obstructing everything you want to do. Figure out what will motivate them and exploit that. 

Ladies and Gentlemen...Bill Clinton

I thought Bill Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic Party's national nominating convention delivered the goods in terms of why a) the Romney Ryan ticket is clearly the wrong choice (the primary mission of his speech) and b) why Obama is the superior choice...which Obama himself will expound upon tonight.

In fact, I think it was the best articulation of the situation I've seen yet - done in human terms, in a folksy and engaging way - but cutting and effective on the issues that really matter. Also, I liked how Clinton (and therefore the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party) embraced the economy as the central issue in the campaign instead of running away from it or offering up other issues (foreign policy for example) as the key thing to focus on. No, Bill clearly wanted to engage and discuss the economy and squarely lay out what's worked, what hasn't and the differences between the two candidates and parties.

To my ear, the most effective lines of argument issued by Clinton were those painting the stark contrast between what the other party represents and would bring to the White House, regardless of what one things of Obama. Specifically, I heard Clinton say:

• Romney/Ryan are offering the exact same economic ideas that got us into the mess in the first place...massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations; major deregulation of finance, energy and other industries; deletion of healthcare reform laws and a big increases in defense spending all at the same time. This policy is a proven failure. It produced massive budget deficits and a major recession by the end of the 1980s and we all know what happened when the Rs enacted this policy when they ran the government in the 2000s. Why? The arithmetic simply does not - and never has - added up.
• Romney/Ryan literally represent the Republican "zero tolerance" political philosophy of obstruct, say no and do not compromise...and that's not only bad politics, but more importantly it's bad economic policy. Related, the cynical strategy the Rs adopted five minutes after Obama was inaugurated in 2009 was to pin their mess on him, refuse to cooperate with him and, ultimately, hope the American public would literally forget that they ran the county into the ground from 2001 to 2008.
• Romney/Ryan embody the immoral "I got mine, you're on your own...good luck" philosophy that isolates, divides and subjugates virtually everyone in society save the already rich and powerful.
• Romney/Ryan are less than honest on the campaign trail. More than most politicians (of both parties) who "fudge" the truth and spin for effect, R/R go out of their way to just make stuff up. For example, Clinton pointed out how R/R have taken Obama's response to the requests by a number of governors (mostly Republican) to waive certain Federal welfare policy requirements so that those governors could enact even more effective "back to work" programs and suddenly turned it into "Obama wants to give welfare money to people without requiring them to work." Just not true.  

While Bill brought up other ironies, bad ideas and dishonesty foisted by Romeny/Ryan, I think these were the key "anti-R/R" points he effectively made to anyone out there who may be undecided - dishonest, obstructionist lackeys for the super rich and big corporations who offer nothing more than the failed ideas of the past.

By comparison to that, I thought the other part of Clinton's speech was equally good in terms of setting up Obama as the guy to keep on the job:

• Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and has done a good job - despite Republican obstructions - to stem the bleeding and get the economy on at least a balanced footing.
• Obama - despite how the Rs have treated him - still is dedicated to true bipartisan solutions that work for most if not all Americans. Now, I personally think this is what cost Obama the 2010 mid-term elections as he did not understand that the Rs were not under any circumstances work with him...and therefore they could run (and win Congressional seats) on the assertion that Obama and the Ds were not leading us out of the poor economy. But in any case, in his appeal the center of American voters, Clinton did a good job in painting Obama as a fair guy wanting to work with anyone for solutions.
• Obama (and Democrats) belief in investing in education, infrastructure, corporate innovation and new forms of energy is a superior set of priorities that will pay dividends in the form of jobs and an expanding middle class.
• Obama's priorities and record are about opening up opportunity, not limiting them. This is in stark contrast with the Rs.

The summary points here, to me, seemed to be that yes, yes we are better off four years later under Obama than we where following the eight years of W. Sure, there's still work to do, but things are turning around and we should stay on this trajectory with Obama.

In all, the speech was a master work by a great orator. Clinton effectively attacked the Republicans and set the table for Obama himself to lay out his plans tonight. To me, it's a clear and obvious choice which way to vote this fall...and I did not need Bill Clinton's talk last night to convince me. But, to the degree there are some "likely voters" out there who are still undecided and who saw the speech...I say that Bill did a great job in trying to convince them what to do.

GOP Welches on Budget Deal, But Why?

The GOP has decided to renege on one of the tenets of the budget agreement they made with the President.

Remember that whole debt ceiling fiasco last year? Right, the one in which a deal was struck that said that a small number of selected Rs and Ds (a "Super Committee") would work together to find $1.2 trillion in debt reduction by a certain deadline, and if they could not then automatic cuts would go into affect. Those automatic cuts would be big across many of the sectors of government spending - including the Department of Defense. This was the agreement. Predictably, the Super Committee failed to come to an agreement - primarily because the Rs refused to consider even one penny of tax increases to help balance the budget. Therefore, the consequential automatic cuts are now scheduled for January of next year.

But wait. This week, Republicans in the House decided that, you know, well...we're not going to go along with the defense part. In fact, we're going to introduce legislation to exempt defense spending from any cuts.
People, the defense budget is one of the biggest (and some estimate the single largest area) of spending the Federal government does. Any serious debt reduction would have to include some reductions to defense expenditures. It's that simple.

So, why would supposedly budget and debt conscious fiscal conservatives now want to now go back on their pledge and exempt one of the largest area of spending form any debt reduction?

I'll offer some ideas:

1. By exempting defense, that means cutting even more on domestic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and others - programs that Republicans have quite literally been trying to reduce or get rid of since the 1940s. A little "bait and switch" is no big deal to conservatives when they feel they have a substantial shot at realizing a generational goal. To me...this is the reason.
2. No politician, in particular conservatives, want to be on record as sanctioning defense cuts in an election year. Sure, the actual cuts wouldn't take place until Jan. 1, 2013, but they are being discussed now...during an election cycle.
3. Similarly, the GOP may want to try and paint Obama as "soft on defense," by being "in favor of defense cuts" during an election year - even though those cuts were part of the deal between Obama and the Rs.
4. While many Democrats are "in bed" with defense contractors (jobs in their districts, big campaign donations), Republicans tend to do better by the "military-industrial complex" and they may not want to be seen to be favoring cuts to the very companies that fund their campaigns.

Finally, I'll offer this as a criticism for the President:

In case you hadn't noticed over the last three years and three months you have been in office, the Republicans play HARD BALL. That means they will do anything to get what they want, including going back directly on something they said they would do. And they'll do it with a smile on their face and try to make it look like it's your fault. Hard ball. This is who you are dealing with. They are not a party of compromise or "working together" to do right by the American people. No, they are not. They want what they want and they will do what it takes to get it. The end.

And for all that, you sir, have by my estimation been extremely naive in your time in office. While you've been trying to forge coalitions, the GOP has been trying to find ways to proverbially "crack your skull" politically, damage you and make you unelectable in 2012. And they've been doing it since November 2008.

I'll put it one last way...you think LBJ or FDR would take the crap Boehner, McConnell and their buddies are doling out? Hell no they wouldn't and neither should you. That's why if you get a second term, you should definitely wake up to this so you can face reality and get some things done.

Rs Demonstrate Savvy Negotiating Tactics With Budget Proposal

With the short term Federal budget crisis averted last week, attention in DC will now turn to longer term solutions for the spectacular budget deficit this country has.

And as this debate starts, here's something to ponder...

While the proposal from the Republicans to cut out $6 trillion in spending, together with more tax breaks for the wealthy is WAY, WAY off the deep end of reasonable, it will accomplish one thing even if none of it is exactly adopted. And what is that? It moves the debate over what to cut, what not to cut and what to offer as tax policy radically to the right.

By staking out a position so far on one side, conservatives can "negotiate" away a lot of their official plan, but still end up with what they want - spending cuts or elimination of big domestic programs (but not defense) and big tax cuts for the wealth and corporations. I'll save judgement on how effective that economic recipe will be for the economy (although I think you already know), and just say that I think that's what's going on here. That's what the Rs are up to with this radical initial proposal.

What should the Democrats do? Well, with the White House and Senate in their control, my humble opinion is they should simply say, "No, we reject out of hand what you are proposing. It is a non-starter. The provisions you are proposing have been proven again and again as failures. Try again. And oh by the way, here is our plan." And that plan better be sound, good and promoted big time to the American public. That would at least attempt to cut off the "move the debate to the right" strategy of the Rs and re-establish the debate somewhere near the real middle of the political and economic spectrum.


What will the actually Democrats do? Well, if recent history is any guide, they'll play the game. They'll try to chisel away some of the elements of this Republican plan so they are not as bad as initially proposed, but in the end they'll sign off on legalisation that is very, very conservative.

What If You Threw A Super Majority And No One Showed Up?

I've been pondering the U.S. Senate seat win by Republican Scott Brown earlier this week. His victory means that Senate Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof, talk-to-the-hand "super majority" in that legislative body. This has, as I'm sure you've seen, caused quite a stir in the media about what this will mean for Obama's agenda and Congress generally.

I've been asking myself - what's surprising about this development? And, what does it mean?

To me, it's not surprising that the people of Massachusetts would elect a Republican - even to Kennedy's old seat. Despite the perception of it being a "liberal" state, the populous there has certainly elected Republican governors (remember Mitt Romney?) and Senators before.

No, that's not unusual.

And, it's not surprising that Brown seemed to get a cushy ride by the media desperate for an "upset" storyline to help them cover "a controversy." No, seen that before too.

What's surprising - and a growing concern to me - is how this win by Brown seems to reveal a backlash against Democratic party governance. The Ds are in the rare position of having the citizenry of the nation in 2008 vote them a large majority in the House, a super majority of 60 seats in the Senate and, oh by the way, the Presidency. These advantages were bestowed on them on the notion they would bring change to the nation in sore need of it after eight long years of rule by the other side. And, what have the Democats done with that? Not much. Here we are one year in and no legislation has been passed on healthcare reform, significant financial market reform, investment in job creation, substantial change in foreign policy, a new energy policy or other meaningful "change we can believe in."

And speaking of that phrase, I'm becoming a bit disappointed in President Obama. I know he was handed a horrible economy and overall situation courtesy of the Bush team, but given the set up in Congress, I'm not seeing the leadership I thought we'd have out of him. Certainly, he's a far better alternative than McCain would have been, but still. Call me impatient, but what do you think LBJ or FDR would do (and did) with Congressional majorities in their first year in office? Or, how about W (OK...Cheney) or Reagan with the Rs running Congress? Action. Good or bad, like it or not - action. That's what would happen.

So, seriously, I have to ask another question, "What if you threw a super majority and nobody showed up?"

What would that mean? Among the answers you might find are: a squandered opportunity, gains by the opposition (starting with what we saw this week) as the public gets fed up...and ultimately, inaction and a government and nation in stasis at the exact moment it should be changing. All of that seems to me to be the case now. It seems to be increasingly clear that if Obama and the Ds aren't going to get it done with all the advantages they have - even with 59 seats instead of 60 in the Senate - it isn't going to happen. Not with the parties and mindsets we have in DC now.

Why? There are probably any number of reasons. I don't claim to be an expert or know them all. But, one that seems so obvious to me...that explains why a party that talks change, runs on it, even wins big time on the premise that it will deliver it, but then does nothing to effect it...is that big business, finance, pharma and key special interests have locked up the Democrats just as they have the Republicans. That influence means action to better society generally is outweighed by action (or, more aptly inaction) that beneifts business and special interests.

Going slow or even turning the clock backwards suits the nature of most Republicans as they are mostly conservatives after all. That's their bread and butter. Conversely, most Democrats and/or liberals are supposedly "progressive," and seek to change things. This seems to have come to a trickle so their version of inaction sticks out like a sore thumb - or, perhaps, rings like an alarm bell.

Look, despite the biggest financial and jobs crisis since the Great Depression having been brought upon us by the religion of "free markets" and deregulation championed by conservatives, there has been no meaningful counterbalance to that crisis in my mind. Sure, banks and car makers were bailed out with tax dollars, but unemployment is still high and hindering recovery, and the middle class still shrinking. (I did see that Goldman Sachs recorded big revenue last quarter and is giving out bonuses that are 47% higher than last year, however.) And, despite healthcare costs skyrocketing and threatening the financial and actual well being of millions of Americans, we don't have a meaningful change in our system yet. We're still in Iraq, we're still lagging the modern world in education. I could go on, but I think you get it.

No, the super majority party thrown by the electorate in 2008 has been ill attended and therefore I fear the opportunities have been missed. 2010 election campaigns are upon us and that also does not bode well for action this year. Expect an ticked off public to elect more Republican such as we witnessed this week by Brown. But, on the other hand...what's the difference if that comes to pass given the inaction happening anyway?

In the end, I am prepared to be impressed. I am prepared to take back what I've said above. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. I want action. I want to see us change. I want to write a blog post in January 2011 saying, "Boy, I really had it wrong back there in 2010. My bad...glad to see healthcare reform, job creation, a lower deficit, financial market reform, etc."

But, as of Jan. 22, 2010, count me as increasingly dubious that happening.

Hey, at least the goverment is hard at work to pass legislation to limit the volume of TV commercials. That may be what I need to settle for as change I can believe in.

Admiring the Conservative Approach

In my last couple posts on political topics, I've definitely called out what I feel are some shortcomings of the conservative position to healthcare reform - if not politics generally.

However, I want to give conservatives and Republicans their due. While currently in the political minority, there is much to be admired about their approach to getting things done. Whether its planned out in advance, organic in nature or some of both - it doesn't matter. They kick ass. By comparison, your average liberal or Democrat is lazy, unmotivated and full of long-winded messages that are lost on listeners the moment they start.

So, with no irony or malice here are four things I like about the conservative and Republican approach:

Passion

Oh yes, conservatives are passionate. When one of them is debating an issue, there is no f-ing doubt they believe what they're saying and think the opposition is plain wrong. This conviction is seen not just in elected officials, but indeed everyday people such as those attending the recent town halls on healthcare reform. Passion translates as credibility - even if the facts don't back up what's being said.

By comparison, liberals and Democrats try the "explain" things and "reason" things out with "facts" or "data." If there's one thing I've learned in my years doing PR work it is this: emotion trumps facts EVERY TIME. Actually, emotion takes fact out behind the woodshed and completely kicks its ass. Always. So, guess who wins most arguments?

Organized

I'm not sure how it gets done, but Republicans and conservatives seem so much more organized than their liberal and Democratic adversaries. They're at all the right places at all the right times with all the right talk points and all the right props and numbers of people to make an impact. Boom, there you go. Organization brings a political message and perspective to bear right when and where it's needed - in person, online, on the phones, over e-mail. This is a major advantage over liberals who seem to think, again, that facts, reason and logic mean certainly that people must agree with them so they don't do much. How lame is that?

Action-oriented

This might be part of being organized, but conservatives and Republicans seem more willing to get off their ass and do something - march, protest, write, call, attend precinct meetings. Whatever. They're willing to do it in more numbers than liberals or Democrats. Actions speak louder than words. Enough said.

On-Message

This one I am sure is not organic. Rather, I'm pretty sure that there is a way that the "talk points" on different issues are rolled out systematically to conservative operatives and talking heads - and then by extension the general public. None the less, it's admirable.

Quick, what's the Republican take on healthcare reform? It's socialized medicine where the government will be in control of your care - including deciding when you live or die. You know it because you've heard it a million times. OK quick, what's the Democrats message on reform? Uhh, well, uhh, care costs too much and not enough people have access so we need to...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I think you get the point.

And what is the big upshot of being passionate, organized, on-message and action oriented? You get to win most debates and have more influence on how things get done. My opinion is that healthcare reform will be significantly watered down if not derailed completely by this approach. You know that I think this will mean bad things for the country, especially for the very people protesting against reform, but in any case my bet is that we'll see the very admirable approach of conservatives pay off for them.

And for those out there who might say, "yeah, if Republicans are so great at this how come they lost the '08 election?" I would say this...they lost because they had a very flawed incumbent (Bush), weak candidates (McCain, Palin), and a bad economy courtesy of their running of the government. All the organization and passion could not overcome that when put up against a more compelling and - at least for the election time frame - on-message candidate. Frankly, I'd rather my party be passionate, organized, action-oriented and on-message and take my lumps every once and a while than have to rely on a "super candidate" (Bill Clinton, Obama) and a bad economy just to squeak out an election win every now and again.

Fraud About Fraud

In the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections there were - to say the least - major questions about voters being turned away at the polls and purging of voters off the voter roles in key states...all of it conveniently occurring in districts likely to vote Democratic and in key battleground states (Florida and Ohio) run by Republican administrations. Hmmm. Guess who ended up winning those states? Right. Bush.

Conservatives do this in key districts because lower turnout favors their candidates, and if they can manage to get the "right" type of voter from their perspective to not have their vote counted (i.e. minorities) they stand an even better chance of winning. Problem is, this is pretty un-American and definitely not "country first" behavior. More KKK-like behavior. And, as a kicker...these incidents were not investigated because, guess again...who do you think runs those districts and states? Right again. Republicans. So, they don't investigate "their own." This was especially true in 2000 as Bush's brother was the governor of Florida.

Anyway, in 2000, 2004 and ever since, conservative groups have tried to "muddy the waters" to help minimize their pretty obvious disruption of elections by asserting that Democrats have systematically have perpetrated voter fraud by trying to get bogus voters registered so more votes can be cast for Democratic candidates. As in, hey, they're doing crazy stuff too!

Mind you, there have been no findings of "voter fraud" in places charged by conservatives. But hey, little things like facts don't stop "true believer" conservatives. And, the few among the American public who actually do pay attention to news and politics are unclear on exactly what's happening and just kinda give up trying to figure out who is to blame...or they feel good enough to blame the other party.

Now, this election year conservatives are doing it again but smarter. Instead of just their own voter suppression activities along with assertions of voter fraud, conservatives are now proactively planting voter fraud cases to set up the possibility of contesting close elections in battleground states later. 

A good overview of what's happening now is here. 

And here.

The idea for them is to raise the question of voter fraud in key districts of key states that are expected to be close on election day. In my opinion, to get all this going I think conservative groups may be actually manufacturing and submitting the false forms that are submitted to liberal voter registration groups. 

At any rate, if certain state races for president do turn out to be close, they can go back and say, "see, it's voter fraud by Democratic-leaning organizations" and make their legal and political case that certain large blocks of votes are not counted...or are at least taken out of the official tally while they are questioned or examined. In a close election, that could very conceivably give them room to declare victory in those districts and states.

And if the election is close but they are denied none the less, conservatives can again use the "muddy the waters" strategy to shuck the blame again.

So, how about this...how about we not make this a close election?

Obama Needs to Act Now - Or Lose

Somebody needs to get to Obama, look him in the eye and tell him...

The election will be won or lost RIGHT NOW - in the next two weeks. Not Nov. 4.

The Republican convention effectively wiped out Obama's voice in this election and re-directed the discourse from a referendum on failed leadership of McCain, Bush and the Republicans and the need for fundamental change to "isn't Sara Palin great and you know...John McCain was a POW."

Seriously, Obama should have a "change policy of the week" for the next six weeks and harp on those sequentially in key states where it's close right now and in the media...culminating in the first debate where he can re-harp on these ideas and challenge McCain for having none. During the next few weeks, he should also have Biden, Clinton (both of them), Howard Dean and other prominent Democrats go aggressively negative on McCain/Palin's record.

That needs to happen now or the race will slip away. We've seen this movie before. Without direct, timely and aggressive action, at best this race will end up being a nail biter on election day. And we all know what happens when there is a nail biter of an election.

Ammo for those election conversations

Sometime in the next 7-8 weeks, you will be in a conversation about the Presidential election. You'll be asked "Who are you voting for?" Or, it may be more like, "What do you think of Obama?" Or, "What do you think of McCain?" Perhaps you will be the one doing the questioning. 

Because the average, everyday American only pays attention to who is running and related issues...but usually only who is running...until the fall in any election year, you'll be talking to people who are pretty uninformed. Despite good intentions, they'll probably be judging the candidates on vague perceptions and the last TV ad they saw.

For those of you interested in not continuing down the complete road to ruin we've been put on by the Republicans over the greater part of the last thirty years, it's in all of our interests for you to try and sway the "undecided" or "soft McCain" voters between now and November.  The good news here is, the truth works in every situation.

Therefore, below are some tips for talking with people who are considering voting for McCain in 2008. Remember, there are always going to be people who will NEVER change their mind, no matter how bad things get under Republican rule. They loves them some Republicans and they are not voting against them. 

No, these ideas are not for conversing with that type of person, but rather those who are wavering or have yet to decide. Also to keep in mind, it's unrealistic to think you'll change someone's mind right there on the spot. Rather, give them something to think about. Finally, talking with undecided voters or those who may change is more effectively done in an easy-going tone rather than an argumentative or strident one.

Combating the case for McCain

If someone you're talking to says they are leaning towards voting for McCain or want to vote for him but have yet to make up their minds, the thing to do is look them in the eye and... 

You ask: "Why?" 

Then, sit back and see what they answer before saying anything more.

If their answer is something negative about Obama, here are some comebacks that I think can be effective to helping whomever you're talking to reconsider.

If they say: "I just think Obama is too inexperienced."

Then you say: Obama is a U.S. Senator, but you're right he is not a long-time Washington insider. I actually think that's a good thing now because we need someone who is not so entrenched in DC politics or beholden to so many special interests. On the other hand, McCain has been in the U.S. government for 26 years. Do you really want someone with that many attachments to lobbyists and special interests running things? 

If they say: "I think Obama is all about himself" or "Obama is too flashy and shallow."

Then you say: It's true that Obama is a really good speaker, but unlike McCain he has laid out many specifics of what change under his administration would mean and why those changes are needed to make our country stronger in key areas where we're hurting. Don't you want somebody as President who is both smart, can articulate what needs to be done and has the nation's interest at heart?

If they say: "I'm afraid Obama is too liberal - he'll raise my taxes and make government bigger."

Then you say: Hmm. That's odd. Obama has openly campaigned on lowering taxes on middle class Americans. He has talked about eliminating the tax cuts for the rich and big companies that Bush, McCain and the Republicans passed into law...so, that's what McCain uses to say Obama will raise taxes. But, that's pretty shifty and very deceiving. Don't you think eliminating the rich-guy tax cuts is a good thing when combined with tax relief for the most people? It will help with the budget deficit and put money into working people's pockets instead of just big business.

In terms of big government, all I can say is that the Republicans have pretty much run the show for the better part of the last 28 years (President 20 of the last 28 years, controlled Congress 1995-2006) and it's as big as it's ever been. McCain has been part of that and let it happen.

If they say: "I think Obama may be too weak on national security - he will cut and run against the terrorists."

Then you say: Remember, on 9/11 Republicans were in control of the Presidency, Congress, the Department of Defense and the city of New York...and we were successfully attacked that day despite clear warnings they received. And, those same Republicans...including John McCain...who controlled all branches of the government voted in favor of going to war in Iraq on what we now know was a decision based on false pretenses. No matter how you slice it, these things add up to bad judgement on national security by McCain and Republicans.

We can't afford to have people with such bad judgement leading our country any more. I'd much more trust Obama - who opposed the war in Iraq from the get go in favor of finding Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

If the person you're talking to chooses to answer the "why" question instead with something he or she finds attractive about McCain or Republicans, here are some good comebacks...

If they say: "I agree more with McCain's values. I think they're right for America"

Then you say: Really? Did you know that McCain left his first wife for his current wife, Cindy? They met in a bar and he began a relationship with Cindy while he was still married - ultimately leaving his wife for Cindy. Also, did you know that John McCain was one of five Senators implicated in the "Keating Five" savings and loan corruption scandal in the early 1990s for illegally aiding bank chairman Charles Keating when his institution was under Federal investigation? 

Did you know that in 1998 he during a Republican party dinner speech he said, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."? And, did you know that McCain voted against making the Martin Luther King holiday a holiday in Arizona in the 1980s? This is not the track record of morals and our country deserves better. It's also just more bad judgement by McCain. I think you should re-consider.

If they say: "McCain is a maverick and will shake things up."
Then you say: That's an attractive idea, but did you know that McCain voted with President Bush's agenda 90% of the time over the past eight years? Also, McCain is the leader of the very political party whose policies over the past eight years have directly delivered problems such as high unemployment, outsourced jobs, unaffordable healthcare, high food prices, a shrinking middle class and a failing educational system. Now, McCain is literally saying he will continue Bush policies on healthcare, the economy, corporate tax breaks, Iraq and education. I don't see how that adds up to a "maverick" of any kind. Who wants more of that? 

If they say: "I think McCain has the experience we need as leader."

Then you say: Yes, he has served in Washington, DC for a long, long time. Unfortunately, that experience has brought us high unemployment, high gas prices, outsourced jobs and a very unpopular and un-needed war. It seems like his experiences has all been in creating problems and not solving them. 

If they say: "McCain is a war hero...just the kind of person we need in the White House."

Then you say: No doubt McCain served his country bravely in war time. However, that's really doesn't mean anything when it comes to how someone will perform as President. We've had war heroes as President before that were really good (Theodor Roosevelt), really bad (Civil War General U.S. Grant) and somewhere in the middle (Dwight Eisenhower). So, war service is not an indicator. 

Regardless of service, seems to me that we'd want someone with good judgement who will only put soldiers in harms way as a last resort and with a specific aim. McCain voted for the Iraq war, Obama opposed the war. I think that speaks pretty loudly about judgement on how to lead the military.

If they say: "I like his pick of Sarah Palin. We need a woman in there."

Then you say: Sure, I agree that having a woman as VP or President would be great, but just like any man, don't you have to judge that person based on their credentials, their record and what they say they stand for? In the case of Palin, she is in favor of some extreme positions that probably aren't the best for the country. For example, she opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, she is in favor of teaching creationism in public schools, she is against stem cell research, and she believes the Iraq war is a mission sent from God. Also, her pastor has said that political opponents of George W. Bush will go to hell, and that "Jesus operates from a position of war mode."

But, in the end, Palin is not running for President - John McCain is. So, it's better to focus on he and Obama. That's who you're actually going to be voting for.

If they say: "I'm for/against issue X and I think McCain will be better on that."

You say: Hmmm. While single issue voting is certainly your right, isn't that really against the very slogan that McCain has right now - Country First? 

OK, enough. Good luck delivering the truth.

Later this week...presenting the case for Obama.