Colin McEnroe in the Hartford Courant (Hartford, CT, Lieberman's home state) ponits out that Lieberman has broken with his party, not only by campaigning for its presidential opponent but by engaging in "loathsome fear-mongering against the man he once begged to come and save him."
What he's referring to is that, when Lieberman was losing the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, he tried to get Obama to come and campaign for him. Obama did not -- but then neither did he work against him. He just didn't get involved trying to save a man whose position on the Iraq war he strongly opposed who was about to be defeated by a strong anti-war candidate.
The party owes him nothing. He turned against it when he ran as an independent against his party's nominee for senator from CT in 2006, he turned against it when he endorsed McCain, and he sealed his fate when he joined the negative smear campaign against our next president.
If Harry Reid and the Democrats don't show him the door, then they are indeed spineless and short-sighted. His vote is not worth the message of letting him do this without consequences. Let him stay in the caucus if he wants to; but take away his committee and, I would say, his seniority.
It is grimly ironic, as McEnroe points out, because of the seniority system in the Senate, this mealymouthed turncoat chairs one of the prestigious committees (Homeland Security), while Hillary Clinton does not chair a committee at all.
Ralph
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Election fraud in Alaska?
Something is wrong with the vote in Alaska.
First, the total vote was surprisingly low, less than in 2004, despite a 12.4% increase in their August primaries, which were before Gov. Palin was put on the ticket.
Either people stayed home rather than vote for "the most popular governor in America," or something happened to some of the ballots.
Now, add to that the fact that apparently Senator Ted Stevens has won his race for reelection, despite having been convicted of felonies connected to political corruption and despite the fact that a poll taken by respected Research 2000 showed his opponent (Begich) leading by 22% points just days before the election.
Another respected national pollster, Rasumssen, who also predicted a solid win for Begich, correctly predicted every other senate race in the country within the margin of error in its latest poll -- except this one in Alaska.
Supporting the question about fraud even further, Representative Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also predicted to lose by multiple pollsters. He also pulled off a surprise "win."
I don't care if the people of Alaska found out they didn't like their governor so much after all and decided to stay home. But it seems, if anything, that would have reduced the vote for other Republicans as well, not increased it for Stevens and Young.
Something's rotten in the state of Alaska.
Ralph
First, the total vote was surprisingly low, less than in 2004, despite a 12.4% increase in their August primaries, which were before Gov. Palin was put on the ticket.
Either people stayed home rather than vote for "the most popular governor in America," or something happened to some of the ballots.
Now, add to that the fact that apparently Senator Ted Stevens has won his race for reelection, despite having been convicted of felonies connected to political corruption and despite the fact that a poll taken by respected Research 2000 showed his opponent (Begich) leading by 22% points just days before the election.
Another respected national pollster, Rasumssen, who also predicted a solid win for Begich, correctly predicted every other senate race in the country within the margin of error in its latest poll -- except this one in Alaska.
Supporting the question about fraud even further, Representative Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also predicted to lose by multiple pollsters. He also pulled off a surprise "win."
I don't care if the people of Alaska found out they didn't like their governor so much after all and decided to stay home. But it seems, if anything, that would have reduced the vote for other Republicans as well, not increased it for Stevens and Young.
Something's rotten in the state of Alaska.
Ralph
No Way, HolyJoe
This farce, wherein HolyJoe Lieberman thinks he is in a position to negotiate whether he keeps his chairmanship of a major committee as part of the Democratic caucus, is in fact . . . a farce.
HolyJoe not only endorsed McCain, which could possibly be forgiven as a kind gesture to a good friend; but he campaigned actively for him and would have gladly accepted the VP nomination, if offered. Worse, he repeatedly said unforgiveable things about Barak Obama -- guestioning his readiness (while presumably thinking Sarah Palin was ready), questioning his solidarity with Israel, questioning his patriotism, and revving up the Bill Ayers smear.
Now he turns around and starts saying nice things about Obama's victory. No, HolyJoe, you don't get to get away with that hypocrisy.
HolyJoe told Harry Reid that he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus but that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable." Well, I say lettting him keep it is unacceptable. I have signed a couple of petitions on it. If you have the chance, I urge you to do so.
Forget the Senate 'gentleman's club' atmosphere; forget letting him apologize and move on, as Evan Bayh suggests. Kick the mealymouth, sorry ass out of there !!!
Ralph
HolyJoe not only endorsed McCain, which could possibly be forgiven as a kind gesture to a good friend; but he campaigned actively for him and would have gladly accepted the VP nomination, if offered. Worse, he repeatedly said unforgiveable things about Barak Obama -- guestioning his readiness (while presumably thinking Sarah Palin was ready), questioning his solidarity with Israel, questioning his patriotism, and revving up the Bill Ayers smear.
Now he turns around and starts saying nice things about Obama's victory. No, HolyJoe, you don't get to get away with that hypocrisy.
HolyJoe told Harry Reid that he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus but that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable." Well, I say lettting him keep it is unacceptable. I have signed a couple of petitions on it. If you have the chance, I urge you to do so.
Forget the Senate 'gentleman's club' atmosphere; forget letting him apologize and move on, as Evan Bayh suggests. Kick the mealymouth, sorry ass out of there !!!
Ralph
Afterthoughts #2
Drew Westen, Emory psychology professor, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, informal advisor to the Obama campaign, and friend of mine, has a concise summary of why Obama won: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html
He says that McCain was saddled from the start with 3 strikes against him: an unpopular president, an economic downturn, and an unpopular war, none of which he could really distance himself from because of his 90% support for Bush's policies.
But he also credits Obama with many positive factors that led to his win. He has an extraordinary ability to organize people and motivate them to participate. Like Bill Clinton, he has "both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win. And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."
Another comment from Drew: "What Democrats learned from this election is that if their candidate thinks like a professor but inspires like a preacher, they can have their cake and eat it, too."
Ralph
He says that McCain was saddled from the start with 3 strikes against him: an unpopular president, an economic downturn, and an unpopular war, none of which he could really distance himself from because of his 90% support for Bush's policies.
But he also credits Obama with many positive factors that led to his win. He has an extraordinary ability to organize people and motivate them to participate. Like Bill Clinton, he has "both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win. And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."
Another comment from Drew: "What Democrats learned from this election is that if their candidate thinks like a professor but inspires like a preacher, they can have their cake and eat it, too."
Ralph
Afterthoughts #1
As I just wrote in my comment on Richard's post, before cutting back to weekly postings, I will post some "afterthoughts" over the weekend. Here on this 3rd post-election day, my feelings about it still haven't coalesced into a coherent whole. Rather than wait until they do, I'm going to jot down some disparate thoughts, and we'll see about some grand summary later.
1. Starting with what I just read online, Obama's agenda for today: meeting with his transition team of economic advisers, holding his first news conference as President-elect, getting his first national security briefing, returning numerous protocol congratulatory messages, all the while confering privately with potential appointees. But this busy day began with his attending parent-teacher meetings with Michelle at their children's school.
What a guy !! We've had presidents with young children before, but I don't remember any who were so obviously involved in their children's lives. The photo of JohnJohn Kennedy crawling out from under his father's desk in the Oval Office became iconic, and the Kennedy's were noted for family events. But pictures of Barak with his daughters show a degree of authentic joy with them that's rare. And he routinely answered questions about the rigors of campaigning by saying the hardest thing was not having more time to be at home with his daughters. That is only one of the many things I admire about this man, but this is definitely one of them.
2. Where are Bill and Hillary? Since the election, I saw nothing in the media about them or their reactions. Of course it must have been a bittersweet moment for them. and they did better to stay out of sight rather than have that picked over. Hillary has spoken to the press today, saying she called Obama to congratulate him and praising his choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
3. Speaking of the Emanuel appointment, his former boss in the Clinton White House, Leon Panette, said he is "the perfect SOB for the job." I take this as a signal that Obama plans to run a tight ship and to get things done, to use tough negotiating tactics with Congress and to ride herd on the White House staff. Having someone like Rahm, for whom this comes naturally, will free Obama to attend to policy issues and be the diplomat. They'll be a great good cop/bad cop pair.
4. Good for Campbell Brown for calling the McCain staff on their hypocrisy as they go after Sarah Palin. Not that I'm any fan of Palin, but their scapegoating of her is overboard. Here's what Campbell said:
Ralph
1. Starting with what I just read online, Obama's agenda for today: meeting with his transition team of economic advisers, holding his first news conference as President-elect, getting his first national security briefing, returning numerous protocol congratulatory messages, all the while confering privately with potential appointees. But this busy day began with his attending parent-teacher meetings with Michelle at their children's school.
What a guy !! We've had presidents with young children before, but I don't remember any who were so obviously involved in their children's lives. The photo of JohnJohn Kennedy crawling out from under his father's desk in the Oval Office became iconic, and the Kennedy's were noted for family events. But pictures of Barak with his daughters show a degree of authentic joy with them that's rare. And he routinely answered questions about the rigors of campaigning by saying the hardest thing was not having more time to be at home with his daughters. That is only one of the many things I admire about this man, but this is definitely one of them.
2. Where are Bill and Hillary? Since the election, I saw nothing in the media about them or their reactions. Of course it must have been a bittersweet moment for them. and they did better to stay out of sight rather than have that picked over. Hillary has spoken to the press today, saying she called Obama to congratulate him and praising his choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
3. Speaking of the Emanuel appointment, his former boss in the Clinton White House, Leon Panette, said he is "the perfect SOB for the job." I take this as a signal that Obama plans to run a tight ship and to get things done, to use tough negotiating tactics with Congress and to ride herd on the White House staff. Having someone like Rahm, for whom this comes naturally, will free Obama to attend to policy issues and be the diplomat. They'll be a great good cop/bad cop pair.
4. Good for Campbell Brown for calling the McCain staff on their hypocrisy as they go after Sarah Palin. Not that I'm any fan of Palin, but their scapegoating of her is overboard. Here's what Campbell said:
You are the ones who supposedly vetted her, and then told the American people she was qualified for the job. You are the ones who after meeting her a couple of times, told us she was ready to be just one heartbeat away from the Presidency. If even half of what you say NOW is true, then boy, did you try to sell the American people a bill of goods.I would only add that, as he said himself in his gracious concession speech Tuesday night, John McCain is the one ultimately responsible.
Ralph
Reduced Posting, and Interactive Analysis
The NY Times has an excellent analysis page on the 2008 election. Not only is there a chart broken down by various demographic categories, you can compare the results, category by category, to previous elections going back to Reagan.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Perhaps the most important lesson candidates might learn from this election is that the old notion that you begin with a base of white voters, then add minorities to bolster your totals, is no longer necessary. A successful presidential candidate can build a base of African-American, Latino, and Asian voters, and use white voters to supplement that.
This should lead to a greater emphasis on inclusive elections and policies. If the Republicans continue to focus on rural, white fundamentalists, they will fail to adapt to the demographic realities of this country. That 'base' is not large enough to win a national election, and because their beliefs are so narrow and rigid you cannot build an inclusive platform around them.
It may get ugly in the South, as this group of voters feel their power threatened, but Obama's election should provide an impetus to move our country forward into an era of tolerance, accommodation and emphasis on shared goals.
As for this blog - I spoke with Ralph yesterday, and we have decided to cut back our posting. We will post on every Monday. Of course, we also leave open the option of posting more frequently, as the urge to spout off hits us. And if anyone feels the need to comment on something we haven't discussed, notify us by talking about it in a comment to the most recent post and we will respond.
But for now, look for our new posts to appear weekly, on Mondays.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Perhaps the most important lesson candidates might learn from this election is that the old notion that you begin with a base of white voters, then add minorities to bolster your totals, is no longer necessary. A successful presidential candidate can build a base of African-American, Latino, and Asian voters, and use white voters to supplement that.
This should lead to a greater emphasis on inclusive elections and policies. If the Republicans continue to focus on rural, white fundamentalists, they will fail to adapt to the demographic realities of this country. That 'base' is not large enough to win a national election, and because their beliefs are so narrow and rigid you cannot build an inclusive platform around them.
It may get ugly in the South, as this group of voters feel their power threatened, but Obama's election should provide an impetus to move our country forward into an era of tolerance, accommodation and emphasis on shared goals.
As for this blog - I spoke with Ralph yesterday, and we have decided to cut back our posting. We will post on every Monday. Of course, we also leave open the option of posting more frequently, as the urge to spout off hits us. And if anyone feels the need to comment on something we haven't discussed, notify us by talking about it in a comment to the most recent post and we will respond.
But for now, look for our new posts to appear weekly, on Mondays.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wrapping up the numbers
I haven't yet found the right words to say what I feel about this historic election of Barak Obama, so I'll put that off a bit longer.
Just a few more words about polls. Now that North Carolina is officially called for Obama (thanks, Richard; you did good), it brings his electoral count to 364. Now, for all I've made of the great polling analysis outfits, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight, there is one other measure of how the campaigns are going that is very simple.
It's called InTrade, and it's based on the idea that you get more accurate predictions if people "vote" with their pocket books. People actually place bets on who they think will win. Not who they want to win, but who they're willing to bet money on. Just like at the race track.
There are several of them, but InTrade does it state by state. Then they add up the electoral votes of the candidates by who is leading in each state betting pool.
The Obama/McCain split has been pretty consistent, with a few deviations from time to time, since last summer when I began following it.
And guess what that magic number for Obama has been for most of the past 3 months: 364
So, unless Missour's final count turns out to go for Obama, which looks unlikely, InTrade would have to take the prize for absolute accuracy. If it goes for Obama, then he would have 375, just 3 short of the 378 that George Will predicted and that everyone thought was way too high.
Ralph
Just a few more words about polls. Now that North Carolina is officially called for Obama (thanks, Richard; you did good), it brings his electoral count to 364. Now, for all I've made of the great polling analysis outfits, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight, there is one other measure of how the campaigns are going that is very simple.
It's called InTrade, and it's based on the idea that you get more accurate predictions if people "vote" with their pocket books. People actually place bets on who they think will win. Not who they want to win, but who they're willing to bet money on. Just like at the race track.
There are several of them, but InTrade does it state by state. Then they add up the electoral votes of the candidates by who is leading in each state betting pool.
The Obama/McCain split has been pretty consistent, with a few deviations from time to time, since last summer when I began following it.
And guess what that magic number for Obama has been for most of the past 3 months: 364
So, unless Missour's final count turns out to go for Obama, which looks unlikely, InTrade would have to take the prize for absolute accuracy. If it goes for Obama, then he would have 375, just 3 short of the 378 that George Will predicted and that everyone thought was way too high.
Ralph
Fox News Points Out How Scary It Was
I know it's post-election, but Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron revealed information that makes it clear the choice of Palin was an outrageously dangerous one that could have put the entire country at risk if McCain had been elected. No matter who you voted for, no one should ever, ever nominate someone whose ignorance is so extreme.
According to Fox News - Fox, the right wing lap dog -
The McCain people felt Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency"
Partly because
Palin didn't understand Africa was a continent, or a series of countries. She thought it was 1 country in itself. She actually asked her aides if South Africa wasn't just a part of the country of Africa.
She had no idea which countries were in NAFTA(the US, Canada, and Mexico - DUH!). She couldn't name the countries in North America.
She was totally unfamiliar with basic conservative philosophical positions, like American exceptionalism.
She had "real problems" with basic civics, governmental structures, municipal/state/federal governmental responsibilities.
McCain wouldn't even let her go on O'Reilly - according to O'Reilly - unless McCain was sitting beside her to bail her out should her ignorance get her in trouble.
She refused preparation help for the Couric interview, then blamed her staff when she self-destructed.
Again according to both O'Reilly and Fox News' Cameron, Palin cracked under the pressure of the campaign. She threw tantrums, screaming and throwing things, when she viewed negative press clippings. She cracked over the 'pressure' or bad press? God forbid what would happen if she had a real crisis to deal with.
She was so angry and nasty towards her staff she reduced them to tears.
One of the stories the McCain camp tells now to show how Palin was clueless, is of the time the campaign went to her hotel room to pick her up and she greeted them at the door wrapped in a towel, having just stepped out of the shower.
She was a shopaholic who would go out and buy clothes even after the McCain campaign provided her with that $150,000 wardrobe. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.
This isn't about clothing, it's about deceit. Just like hiding her emails.
To McCain's credit he did not know about this. Aides knew he'd be pissed at the clothes shopping, so they kept that information from him. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin and vetoed her request to speak at his concession speech.
Remember, the sources for this information - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the McCain campaign. Not the 'liberal media'.
But this was beyond selecting an incompetent running mate. This was about making a crass political decision that willingly put the country at risk merely for political gain.
According to Fox News - Fox, the right wing lap dog -
The McCain people felt Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency"
Partly because
Palin didn't understand Africa was a continent, or a series of countries. She thought it was 1 country in itself. She actually asked her aides if South Africa wasn't just a part of the country of Africa.
She had no idea which countries were in NAFTA(the US, Canada, and Mexico - DUH!). She couldn't name the countries in North America.
She was totally unfamiliar with basic conservative philosophical positions, like American exceptionalism.
She had "real problems" with basic civics, governmental structures, municipal/state/federal governmental responsibilities.
McCain wouldn't even let her go on O'Reilly - according to O'Reilly - unless McCain was sitting beside her to bail her out should her ignorance get her in trouble.
She refused preparation help for the Couric interview, then blamed her staff when she self-destructed.
Again according to both O'Reilly and Fox News' Cameron, Palin cracked under the pressure of the campaign. She threw tantrums, screaming and throwing things, when she viewed negative press clippings. She cracked over the 'pressure' or bad press? God forbid what would happen if she had a real crisis to deal with.
She was so angry and nasty towards her staff she reduced them to tears.
One of the stories the McCain camp tells now to show how Palin was clueless, is of the time the campaign went to her hotel room to pick her up and she greeted them at the door wrapped in a towel, having just stepped out of the shower.
She was a shopaholic who would go out and buy clothes even after the McCain campaign provided her with that $150,000 wardrobe. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.
This isn't about clothing, it's about deceit. Just like hiding her emails.
To McCain's credit he did not know about this. Aides knew he'd be pissed at the clothes shopping, so they kept that information from him. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin and vetoed her request to speak at his concession speech.
Remember, the sources for this information - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the McCain campaign. Not the 'liberal media'.
But this was beyond selecting an incompetent running mate. This was about making a crass political decision that willingly put the country at risk merely for political gain.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The morning after
Hey, Richard. You're right, of course, your states came through and mine didn't. Thanks for that.
What a sweet morning after . . . although I have to admit, I'm a little slow getting going this morning. With sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion from standing for 8 hours as a poll watcher, and emotional exhaustion from 21 months of this . . . I'm a little numb.
I haven't quite assimilated winning into my emotional DNA.
Back to winners/losers: As of 10AM, it's looking like our GA senatorial candidate Jim Martin may force a run-off with Saxby Chambliss. With a Libertarian candidate taking a few 3.4%, Chambliss is leading with only 49.9% with 96% counted. It turns out they still had a lot of absentee ballots to count when we all went to bed last night. It's rumored that they are mainly in Fulton County, which went big for Obama. Now that would be huge and almost make up for not taking the state for Obama. In fact, moreso, because Obama's got more than enough EV's -- and he could use another conversion from R to D in the senate.
Also, here are my bragging rights, Richard. I couldn't deliver the whole state; but my current county of residence, Fulton -- as well as my home town county, Washington -- went big for Obama. And this is in Bible belt, semi-rural, middle Georgia. So, there !!
Ralph
PS: Not to rub it in, but my numbers guru was right on the money in almost every race -- Obama popular vote 52.3 to 46.4% (+ 5.9% and Nate predicted 6.0%. No Bradley effect.). And it includes a 1.0% win in NC and a 3.7% loss in GA. A few not-quite-on misses: He had predicted a 1.5% win for McCain in IN, and he underestimated Obama's surprisingly big win in NV. And Missouri is still too clase to call, and he gave it to Obama with 0.1%.
What a sweet morning after . . . although I have to admit, I'm a little slow getting going this morning. With sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion from standing for 8 hours as a poll watcher, and emotional exhaustion from 21 months of this . . . I'm a little numb.
I haven't quite assimilated winning into my emotional DNA.
Back to winners/losers: As of 10AM, it's looking like our GA senatorial candidate Jim Martin may force a run-off with Saxby Chambliss. With a Libertarian candidate taking a few 3.4%, Chambliss is leading with only 49.9% with 96% counted. It turns out they still had a lot of absentee ballots to count when we all went to bed last night. It's rumored that they are mainly in Fulton County, which went big for Obama. Now that would be huge and almost make up for not taking the state for Obama. In fact, moreso, because Obama's got more than enough EV's -- and he could use another conversion from R to D in the senate.
Also, here are my bragging rights, Richard. I couldn't deliver the whole state; but my current county of residence, Fulton -- as well as my home town county, Washington -- went big for Obama. And this is in Bible belt, semi-rural, middle Georgia. So, there !!
Ralph
PS: Not to rub it in, but my numbers guru was right on the money in almost every race -- Obama popular vote 52.3 to 46.4% (+ 5.9% and Nate predicted 6.0%. No Bradley effect.). And it includes a 1.0% win in NC and a 3.7% loss in GA. A few not-quite-on misses: He had predicted a 1.5% win for McCain in IN, and he underestimated Obama's surprisingly big win in NV. And Missouri is still too clase to call, and he gave it to Obama with 0.1%.
Hey Ralph, My People Came Through
Hey Ralph, I noticed on the election map that the states I lived in came in big for Obama. Massachusetts 65%, Washington 58%, Pennsylviania 55%, and it even looks like he'll win North Carolina with 50%.
What happened in Georgia? You failed to deliver the 'Cracker State' for our candidate.
I hope you do better next time or we're just going to have to put you out to pasture.
richard
What happened in Georgia? You failed to deliver the 'Cracker State' for our candidate.
I hope you do better next time or we're just going to have to put you out to pasture.
richard
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Voter Intimidation Already
I received this eyewitness report from a person manning the polls in Virginia.
I showed up for my first shift handing out ballots and showing the flag
at about 8:50 and left at 10:15. Voting at that hour was very light,
but many federal workers showed up before the doors opened at 6:00 AM,
and through the first hour the line was out the door. By 8, I'm told,
waiting was zero or just a few minutes. This is typical of this
precinct, no matter what the total voters are. There will be another
pulse, probably larger, between around 4:30 or 5:00 PM and closing time
at 7:00pm.
The precinct offered two ways to vote: touch screen and optical scan.
We urged all Dems to choose the paper ballot optically scanned as that's
a far more secure way to do things.
We did have some trouble. There were 4-6 Democratic workers, including
an outside lawyer plus an inside watcher and inside lawyer. The
Republicans sent one middle-aged woman with a hard looking face. She
approached every voter and offered a Republican sample ballot. If the
voter turned her down & said he/she wanted to vote Democratic, the GOPer
got mad and began haranguing the Democrat. We took names and phone
numbers. the 7 year old son of one such victim began to cry when the
GOPer said that she was very upset, very frightened for the boy if Obama
won.
Finally the chief precinct worker came out and looked. Then the
school's security officer chatted with the gal who was told she could
hand out ballots and chat but could not intimidate. She asked if she
could walk further away from the voting place and continue. "No. Not
on school property."
When she wouldn't take that for an answer the school principal sent for
the County's police. When I left two officers were reading her the riot
act and demanding that she either quit voter suppression, or they would
remove her from the site. But shortly after I left to get some rest
before going back in the PM.
So anyway, voter suppression tactics are not limited to lower class and
black neighborhoods. The median income in Great Falls, VA is pushing
hard on $75K, maybe higher. Our lawyer said that 4 years ago at the
same polling place there had been genuine suppression going on inside
the polling place by Republican poll watchers.
I showed up for my first shift handing out ballots and showing the flag
at about 8:50 and left at 10:15. Voting at that hour was very light,
but many federal workers showed up before the doors opened at 6:00 AM,
and through the first hour the line was out the door. By 8, I'm told,
waiting was zero or just a few minutes. This is typical of this
precinct, no matter what the total voters are. There will be another
pulse, probably larger, between around 4:30 or 5:00 PM and closing time
at 7:00pm.
The precinct offered two ways to vote: touch screen and optical scan.
We urged all Dems to choose the paper ballot optically scanned as that's
a far more secure way to do things.
We did have some trouble. There were 4-6 Democratic workers, including
an outside lawyer plus an inside watcher and inside lawyer. The
Republicans sent one middle-aged woman with a hard looking face. She
approached every voter and offered a Republican sample ballot. If the
voter turned her down & said he/she wanted to vote Democratic, the GOPer
got mad and began haranguing the Democrat. We took names and phone
numbers. the 7 year old son of one such victim began to cry when the
GOPer said that she was very upset, very frightened for the boy if Obama
won.
Finally the chief precinct worker came out and looked. Then the
school's security officer chatted with the gal who was told she could
hand out ballots and chat but could not intimidate. She asked if she
could walk further away from the voting place and continue. "No. Not
on school property."
When she wouldn't take that for an answer the school principal sent for
the County's police. When I left two officers were reading her the riot
act and demanding that she either quit voter suppression, or they would
remove her from the site. But shortly after I left to get some rest
before going back in the PM.
So anyway, voter suppression tactics are not limited to lower class and
black neighborhoods. The median income in Great Falls, VA is pushing
hard on $75K, maybe higher. Our lawyer said that 4 years ago at the
same polling place there had been genuine suppression going on inside
the polling place by Republican poll watchers.
Documented Voter Fraud
Okay, let's not get paranoid but already voters in West Virginia, Texas and Tennessee have talked about computerized voting machines trying to flip their votes to the candidate they didn't vote for. Yesterday Mike Connell, the Republican IT guru who created Ohio's 2004 election result network, was deposed in relation to a lawsuit looking into vote fraud in the 2004 presidential election.
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#071808a
And Princeton University reports that the voting machines used in New Jersey and elsewhere can be hacked into in 7 minutes by anyone with "basic computer knowledge".
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9118204
What does this mean? I guess, if there are surprises, we need to all be vigilant and persistent and follow up to make sure all allegations of vote fraud are investigated.
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#071808a
And Princeton University reports that the voting machines used in New Jersey and elsewhere can be hacked into in 7 minutes by anyone with "basic computer knowledge".
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9118204
What does this mean? I guess, if there are surprises, we need to all be vigilant and persistent and follow up to make sure all allegations of vote fraud are investigated.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama's wunderkinds
Much has been said about the young people who are such a vital part of the Obama campaign -- not just in supplying enthusiasm and willingness to work all hours, but the brains and organizational ability.
Sean Quinn, the FiveThirtyEight associate who has been making the national tour of campaign sites, finally reported on Georgia. Even with the "skeletal staff" left behind when the national campaign decided they needed to relocate some to more competitive states back in September, the Georgia operation still has 33 offices and 175 stanging locations in the state, more than 4 times as much as any prior Democratic campaign.
Communications Director Caroline Adelman "credited wunderkind field operator Alex Lofton, now in Ohio, with setting up the infrastructure before he was considered too valuable not to have in a more competitive state. He opened up all the offices, he trained all the kids, did conference calls twice a day," Adelman explained.
"He was 23 and doing things in a way twice his age couldn't accomplish." Such are Obama's young brilliant organizers the campaign's great underwritten story. . . . "Really, in Georgia, that's all we needed," Adelman said. "The rest of it was neighbor to neighbor. People needed to see people in their own neighborhood" talking about Barack Obama. "
Now THAT is community organizing, you Republican snobs !!!
Ralph
Sean Quinn, the FiveThirtyEight associate who has been making the national tour of campaign sites, finally reported on Georgia. Even with the "skeletal staff" left behind when the national campaign decided they needed to relocate some to more competitive states back in September, the Georgia operation still has 33 offices and 175 stanging locations in the state, more than 4 times as much as any prior Democratic campaign.
Communications Director Caroline Adelman "credited wunderkind field operator Alex Lofton, now in Ohio, with setting up the infrastructure before he was considered too valuable not to have in a more competitive state. He opened up all the offices, he trained all the kids, did conference calls twice a day," Adelman explained.
"He was 23 and doing things in a way twice his age couldn't accomplish." Such are Obama's young brilliant organizers the campaign's great underwritten story. . . . "Really, in Georgia, that's all we needed," Adelman said. "The rest of it was neighbor to neighbor. People needed to see people in their own neighborhood" talking about Barack Obama. "
Now THAT is community organizing, you Republican snobs !!!
Ralph
The last, final, end of game 'poll talk'
Just think -- after tomorrow, you won't be bombarded with my poll obsessions any more. I didn't used to think much of them either until I encountered the super-brainy guys who crunch numbers and also analyze the numbers they crunch at RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight.
So, here goes -- last round.
New tracking polls reported by RCP today show Obama edging up another notch, with 14 polls taken over the past 5 days averaging out at 7.3%. The more recent ones, done just yesterday and today, are even higher: 7%, 8%, and 9%. Two of those are related to the conservative organizations WallStreetJournal and FOX News.
Late tightening, with uncommitteds moving to McCain, doesn't seem to be happening. The marginal tightening in some battle-ground states, where McCain is making a last ditch stand, seems offset by Obama also picking up more. He is now at 50 to 55% in 13 of those 14 polls. If you're over 50%, you can only lose if a lot of those voters desert you.
Meanwhile, over at 538, here's Nate Silver's final take: Barak Obama is on the verge of a victory, perhaps a decisive victory. In the electoral vote race, Nate predicts Obama will take all the states Kerry won in 2008, holding on to Philadelphia, where Obama retains a +8% despite McCain's late push there. He also predicts that he is almost certain to take Iowa and New Mexico, which will give him 264 of the 270 needed to win.
He then has the relative ease of picking up 6 more votes from among the "in play" states, in several of which he has a significant lead: CO, VA, NV, OH, FL, NC, MO, and IN. Taking NV or NM at 5 each would give him a tie, while taking any one of the others alsone would give him more than 270 and the election. Or the combination of any two would give him the win with votes to spare.
In contrast, Nate says:
I rest my case. Let's all try to get some sleep tonight. We may be up late tomorrow night.
Ralph
So, here goes -- last round.
New tracking polls reported by RCP today show Obama edging up another notch, with 14 polls taken over the past 5 days averaging out at 7.3%. The more recent ones, done just yesterday and today, are even higher: 7%, 8%, and 9%. Two of those are related to the conservative organizations WallStreetJournal and FOX News.
Late tightening, with uncommitteds moving to McCain, doesn't seem to be happening. The marginal tightening in some battle-ground states, where McCain is making a last ditch stand, seems offset by Obama also picking up more. He is now at 50 to 55% in 13 of those 14 polls. If you're over 50%, you can only lose if a lot of those voters desert you.
Meanwhile, over at 538, here's Nate Silver's final take: Barak Obama is on the verge of a victory, perhaps a decisive victory. In the electoral vote race, Nate predicts Obama will take all the states Kerry won in 2008, holding on to Philadelphia, where Obama retains a +8% despite McCain's late push there. He also predicts that he is almost certain to take Iowa and New Mexico, which will give him 264 of the 270 needed to win.
He then has the relative ease of picking up 6 more votes from among the "in play" states, in several of which he has a significant lead: CO, VA, NV, OH, FL, NC, MO, and IN. Taking NV or NM at 5 each would give him a tie, while taking any one of the others alsone would give him more than 270 and the election. Or the combination of any two would give him the win with votes to spare.
In contrast, Nate says:
Winning any one of them may be fairly difficult for John McCain, but winning all of them at once, as John McCain probably must do, is nearly impossible. . . . McCain's chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or "Shy Tory" Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters.I saw an analysis of polling with and without cellphone calls, and the data suggest that including exclusive cellphone users increases Obama's vote by about 2%.
However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama's support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.
McCain's chances of victory are estimated at 1.9 percent, their lowest total of the year.
I rest my case. Let's all try to get some sleep tonight. We may be up late tomorrow night.
Ralph
Palin - Hopefully for the Last Time
It's gotten to the point where I don't even know what to say about Palin anymore. Should I point out that she attended a rally in Florida where there was not 1 sign featuring John McCain's name?
Or stick with her stunning statement that we're at war with both Iraq and Iran?
Or rail, again, about her claiming anyone who points out the negativity of her comments is violating her First Amendment rights - but it's okay for her to be negative and spout lies about her opponent?
Or how about her response to a question, at a recent rally, asking her why there was not a single minority at the rally and what she could do about that. After flubbing around a bit, she spouted "The Constitution preaches..." Then immediately pointed to Todd and said how "We have to live with it every day," i.e. being a minority? I guess?
Now the internet is rife with rumors once again, people offering suggestions as to why Palin won't release her medical records. Maybe she had an abortion one person writes. Maybe she's manic depressive, writes another. Maybe Trig really isn't her baby.
The simple response to these sorts of rumors is to say it's unfair to offer such speculations about any candidate. You might also say, Well, she deserves it. Her entire campaign is based on unsubstantiated rumors and innuendos she spews forth about Obama. What goes around, comes around
For me all the rumors, and stories about her idiotic remarks, or falling for a prank by 2 guys whose French accents were so bad a 6-year-old could have spotted it - those obscure what is really the most serious issue I see with Palin. Her utter disregard for any sort of transparency in her public life.
For someone who claims to be a 'reformer', Palin has been particularly cryptic about her past life and her governance. We don't have any records of her 6 years trying to get a Bachelor's degree. She stonewalled the investigation into Troopergate, which ultimately found she had abused the power of her office. All her work emails were sent to a private account so she could avoid legitimate scrutiny. She refused to release her medical records, then said she would, then never released them. She wouldn't talk to the press at all, then only in tightly controlled circumstances.
If you conduct your life as a public figure with such blatant disregard for openness and honesty, then you get what you deserve.
I could go on. But the point is, here is Sarah Palin is at the beginning of what is threatening to be a political career that will last through my lifetime, and from the start she has conducted herself politically with such secrecy and disregard for the public's right to know that it borders on paranoia.
The simplest way to end rumors about her medical records is to release them. The same with questions about impropriety in her handling of official Alaskan governmental business - release the emails. Questions of her intelligence? Stand before a battery of microphones, unscripted, and take questions for an hour, just like every other candidate.
Bush was caricatured by the left as a buffoon. And what did that get us? He was elected twice, and left us an economy in shambles, a useless war, and lack of respect for the US around the world. Instead of focusing on his fractured syntax, maybe if we had focused more on his ideas we might have been able to prevent him from being elected.
Let's not make the same mistake with Palin. Yes, she comes across as uneducated, willfully ignorant, and ditzy.
But her most important, and dangerous, quality is her desire for secrecy and unaccountability. That's nothing to laugh at.
Or stick with her stunning statement that we're at war with both Iraq and Iran?
Or rail, again, about her claiming anyone who points out the negativity of her comments is violating her First Amendment rights - but it's okay for her to be negative and spout lies about her opponent?
Or how about her response to a question, at a recent rally, asking her why there was not a single minority at the rally and what she could do about that. After flubbing around a bit, she spouted "The Constitution preaches..." Then immediately pointed to Todd and said how "We have to live with it every day," i.e. being a minority? I guess?
Now the internet is rife with rumors once again, people offering suggestions as to why Palin won't release her medical records. Maybe she had an abortion one person writes. Maybe she's manic depressive, writes another. Maybe Trig really isn't her baby.
The simple response to these sorts of rumors is to say it's unfair to offer such speculations about any candidate. You might also say, Well, she deserves it. Her entire campaign is based on unsubstantiated rumors and innuendos she spews forth about Obama. What goes around, comes around
For me all the rumors, and stories about her idiotic remarks, or falling for a prank by 2 guys whose French accents were so bad a 6-year-old could have spotted it - those obscure what is really the most serious issue I see with Palin. Her utter disregard for any sort of transparency in her public life.
For someone who claims to be a 'reformer', Palin has been particularly cryptic about her past life and her governance. We don't have any records of her 6 years trying to get a Bachelor's degree. She stonewalled the investigation into Troopergate, which ultimately found she had abused the power of her office. All her work emails were sent to a private account so she could avoid legitimate scrutiny. She refused to release her medical records, then said she would, then never released them. She wouldn't talk to the press at all, then only in tightly controlled circumstances.
If you conduct your life as a public figure with such blatant disregard for openness and honesty, then you get what you deserve.
I could go on. But the point is, here is Sarah Palin is at the beginning of what is threatening to be a political career that will last through my lifetime, and from the start she has conducted herself politically with such secrecy and disregard for the public's right to know that it borders on paranoia.
The simplest way to end rumors about her medical records is to release them. The same with questions about impropriety in her handling of official Alaskan governmental business - release the emails. Questions of her intelligence? Stand before a battery of microphones, unscripted, and take questions for an hour, just like every other candidate.
Bush was caricatured by the left as a buffoon. And what did that get us? He was elected twice, and left us an economy in shambles, a useless war, and lack of respect for the US around the world. Instead of focusing on his fractured syntax, maybe if we had focused more on his ideas we might have been able to prevent him from being elected.
Let's not make the same mistake with Palin. Yes, she comes across as uneducated, willfully ignorant, and ditzy.
But her most important, and dangerous, quality is her desire for secrecy and unaccountability. That's nothing to laugh at.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Last pre-election day
The long, long trek is almost over.
For what they're worth, the polls have favored Obama for the past month and seem to be edging up even more for him here at the end, with several now giving him double digits, and the best of the weighted average tracking polls showing him up by about 7.0% with incremental daily trends toward him.
There are not enough uncommitted voters at this point to make the difference. The only nightmare is, as Richard keeps reminding us, whether people are lying to pollsters and how much effect Republican dirty tricks (voter intimidation, voter challenges, and machine tampering) will have.
The other huge factor now is the get-out-the-vote organization. This is the unrecognized secret weapon that has been operating for weeks and will be totally unleashed now. My favorite numbers cruncher, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, has also had a colleague, Sean Quinn, who has travelled the states with a photographer visiting some 50 cities to look at the Obama and McCain campaign offices around the country.
For the full story, go to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/big-empty.html
Typical of what they found is that the McCain offices were sparsely occupied by one or two volunteers, sometimes making calls, sometimes chatting, and that their offices would close at 5pm and remain closed on weekends. In contrast, the Obama offices would be bustling with dozens of staff and volunteers open all hours, and full of "explosive energy."
I can add from personal experience here in Atlanta that I get sometimes half a dozen emails a day from various local Obama volunteers, inviting me to parties to help make phone calls or to other volunteer activities, rallies, get-out-the-vote drives, etc.
Quinn has been reporting on this tour incrementally, but now he has a summarizing article at the above link. His conclusion is:
The Democratic establishment scoffed at Howard Dean's plan to organize in all 50 states. The scoffing stopped with Hillary's defeat, largely by Obama's strategy of running in every state. Then McCain and Palin sneered at Obama's community organizer work. But this 50-state strategy and this organizing the electorate like a community may well prove to be what turns a good lead into a landslide election and a mandate to change our government down to its roots.
McCain and Palin are about to find out what community organizing is all about.
Ralph
For what they're worth, the polls have favored Obama for the past month and seem to be edging up even more for him here at the end, with several now giving him double digits, and the best of the weighted average tracking polls showing him up by about 7.0% with incremental daily trends toward him.
There are not enough uncommitted voters at this point to make the difference. The only nightmare is, as Richard keeps reminding us, whether people are lying to pollsters and how much effect Republican dirty tricks (voter intimidation, voter challenges, and machine tampering) will have.
The other huge factor now is the get-out-the-vote organization. This is the unrecognized secret weapon that has been operating for weeks and will be totally unleashed now. My favorite numbers cruncher, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, has also had a colleague, Sean Quinn, who has travelled the states with a photographer visiting some 50 cities to look at the Obama and McCain campaign offices around the country.
For the full story, go to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/big-empty.html
Typical of what they found is that the McCain offices were sparsely occupied by one or two volunteers, sometimes making calls, sometimes chatting, and that their offices would close at 5pm and remain closed on weekends. In contrast, the Obama offices would be bustling with dozens of staff and volunteers open all hours, and full of "explosive energy."
I can add from personal experience here in Atlanta that I get sometimes half a dozen emails a day from various local Obama volunteers, inviting me to parties to help make phone calls or to other volunteer activities, rallies, get-out-the-vote drives, etc.
Quinn has been reporting on this tour incrementally, but now he has a summarizing article at the above link. His conclusion is:
These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country. Jon Tester's 2006 Senate race in Montana had more volunteers -- by a mile -- than John McCain's 2006 presidential campaign.
The Democratic establishment scoffed at Howard Dean's plan to organize in all 50 states. The scoffing stopped with Hillary's defeat, largely by Obama's strategy of running in every state. Then McCain and Palin sneered at Obama's community organizer work. But this 50-state strategy and this organizing the electorate like a community may well prove to be what turns a good lead into a landslide election and a mandate to change our government down to its roots.
McCain and Palin are about to find out what community organizing is all about.
Ralph
Obama, the incumbent . . . ? ?
SC SenatorLindsey Graham, McCain acolyte and chief spinner, has often sounded hysterical and unhinged when he gets going on TV talk shows. But does anyone have a clue as to what he meant this morning on Face the Nation when he said this?
I didn't see it, just saw the quote on TPM. Let's see: George Bush is the incumbent president; John McCain hates to admit it now, but he is of the same party, voted with him 90+% of the time, and wants to conintue most of his same policies, especially on taxes and our various wars. On top of that, McCain has been in Congress for 28 years, Obama for less than 3.
So how is Obama the incumbent? Explain it to me, Lindsey. Or have we reached the super-silly season, where the losing side will "just say things" without thought or shame?
Ralph
On Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham just said "we've seen a tightening of the race [and] I really believe Obama is the virtual incumbent and if he's not at 50 percent in North Carolina he's not going to win."
I didn't see it, just saw the quote on TPM. Let's see: George Bush is the incumbent president; John McCain hates to admit it now, but he is of the same party, voted with him 90+% of the time, and wants to conintue most of his same policies, especially on taxes and our various wars. On top of that, McCain has been in Congress for 28 years, Obama for less than 3.
So how is Obama the incumbent? Explain it to me, Lindsey. Or have we reached the super-silly season, where the losing side will "just say things" without thought or shame?
Ralph
It's hard to remain cautious
Despite all the factors that should make this a Democratic landslide year, despite recent polls showing Obama leading by 3% to 13% (average of 6.3%), despite the electoral vote projections showing that a McCain victory would require him to win every single one of the tossup states and take Pennsylvania away from Obama's persistent, strong lead there -- despite all this we have to remember that it comes down to people actually going to the polls and voting for Obama.
OK. No problem. Obama's ground game, get-out-the-vote organization is going to swamp McCain's. He doesn't have the organization, the volunteers, or the money that Obama does. In addition, 25% of the registered voters already have voted, and Obama has already banked a sizeable majority of those votes.
McCain's campaign manager Davis was on TV this morning; but the best spin he could make is that McCain will win all the tossup states plus PA, that the polls are all wrong, and that the tide is turning toward McCain. But the evidence just isn't there.
It does not suggest an upset in the making when, in the last week, Arizona has been moved into the tossup category, forcing McCain to go home to campaign and use robocalls in his own state, and the leading newspaper in Tucson, the second largest city, has just endorsed Obama.
But my biggest reassurance came watching This Week With George Stephanopolis. Guests were George Will, Mark Halperin, Matthew Dowd, and Donna Brazille. They all agreed that at this late date, the few undecideds in the polls typically either don't vote or else split about even. That's bad news for McCain, because he would need them to break decisively for him.
Predictions of the electoral vote count ranged from 338 to 378 by the panelists. And who was the high 378? George Will, the sober, conservative, cautious one of the lot. What makes those numbers so impressive is that even the lowest prediction, Matthew Dowd's 338, is still 68 more votes than Obama needs to win. That's a whole bunch of the tossup states he doesn't have to win, and it could happen -- and probably will.
Will the fat lady please hurry up and sing? It's hard to keep up an appearance of caution and calm.
Ralph
OK. No problem. Obama's ground game, get-out-the-vote organization is going to swamp McCain's. He doesn't have the organization, the volunteers, or the money that Obama does. In addition, 25% of the registered voters already have voted, and Obama has already banked a sizeable majority of those votes.
McCain's campaign manager Davis was on TV this morning; but the best spin he could make is that McCain will win all the tossup states plus PA, that the polls are all wrong, and that the tide is turning toward McCain. But the evidence just isn't there.
It does not suggest an upset in the making when, in the last week, Arizona has been moved into the tossup category, forcing McCain to go home to campaign and use robocalls in his own state, and the leading newspaper in Tucson, the second largest city, has just endorsed Obama.
But my biggest reassurance came watching This Week With George Stephanopolis. Guests were George Will, Mark Halperin, Matthew Dowd, and Donna Brazille. They all agreed that at this late date, the few undecideds in the polls typically either don't vote or else split about even. That's bad news for McCain, because he would need them to break decisively for him.
Predictions of the electoral vote count ranged from 338 to 378 by the panelists. And who was the high 378? George Will, the sober, conservative, cautious one of the lot. What makes those numbers so impressive is that even the lowest prediction, Matthew Dowd's 338, is still 68 more votes than Obama needs to win. That's a whole bunch of the tossup states he doesn't have to win, and it could happen -- and probably will.
Will the fat lady please hurry up and sing? It's hard to keep up an appearance of caution and calm.
Ralph
What We Could Have Bought Instead of the Iraq War
Obama was right on the Iraq War, and no matter how hard Palin(who held a rally in Florida yesterday where not one sign mentioned McCain's name) talks about 'victory' or 'winning' we would have been better off if we hadn't ever embarked on that path.
On a simple level, Obama's proposal to provide a $4,000 tax credit for college students, in return for the students performing 100 hours of community service, will probably not come to pass because it would cost $10 billion - the same amount of money we are spending each month in Iraq.
But let's look at the larger picture. Everyone, right and left, admits the total cost of the war will reach 1 trillion dollars. That's $1,000,000,000,000. What could we have paid for with that money instead of the Iraq War?
It could have paid for every high school student in the US to have a free college education.
It could have paid for off every penny of credit card debt in the US.
It could have doubled the number of policemen in the country - for 32 years.
It could have purchased 16.6 million homes, housing 43 million Americans.
It could have literally paved the entire US highway system with 23.5 karat gold leaf.
It could have produced enough ethanol, solar, and other alternative energies to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
Or, we could have paid every single man, woman, and child in Iraq $36,000 not to fight us. And as the Bush administration points out, that's what they're doing now, and it's effective.
http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/
When I balance those things out, it's hard to make a case for this being a wise use of our money.
On a simple level, Obama's proposal to provide a $4,000 tax credit for college students, in return for the students performing 100 hours of community service, will probably not come to pass because it would cost $10 billion - the same amount of money we are spending each month in Iraq.
But let's look at the larger picture. Everyone, right and left, admits the total cost of the war will reach 1 trillion dollars. That's $1,000,000,000,000. What could we have paid for with that money instead of the Iraq War?
It could have paid for every high school student in the US to have a free college education.
It could have paid for off every penny of credit card debt in the US.
It could have doubled the number of policemen in the country - for 32 years.
It could have purchased 16.6 million homes, housing 43 million Americans.
It could have literally paved the entire US highway system with 23.5 karat gold leaf.
It could have produced enough ethanol, solar, and other alternative energies to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
Or, we could have paid every single man, woman, and child in Iraq $36,000 not to fight us. And as the Bush administration points out, that's what they're doing now, and it's effective.
http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/
When I balance those things out, it's hard to make a case for this being a wise use of our money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
