Doing a poll dance

The polls are interesting. President Obama still has a fairly high overall approval rating, at around 60 percent as of this writing, but his numbers are slipping when it comes to specifics. I’m reminded of Ronald Reagan’s poll numbers, which overall were high even as most people disagreed with his position on specific issues.

But pollsters aren’t stupid. They’re not going to ask questions that people aren’t equipped to answer. And they certainly can’t ask essay questions, which is a shame. I like essay questions, because I like to explain why I think the way I do.

So if I were asked who’s to blame for the lack of progress with the economy, jobs, health-care reform, and energy, I would want to say “Conservatives,” even though that probably wouldn’t be a choice.

I doubt if any question would be framed that way, though. It would probably be something simplistically stupid like, “Is President Obama doing a good job with the (insert one of the above)? And the choices of response would be “yes, no, or no opinion.” Dumb.

“Who’s to blame…” is a better question to ask — and the correct answer would indeed be “conservatives.” Why not Obama? Well because he has the right ideas, but he’s a little handcuffed by conservatives. So why not Republicans? Well, because conservatism isn’t the proprietary domain of the Republican party. It’s the %&#!* Blue-Dog Democrats who hold the key to the handcuffs, those so-called Democrats who represent conservative districts or states and have to promote themselves as “fiscal conservatives” in order to get elected.

Politics, we’re told, is the art of compromise — and that’s often true. But sometimes it isn’t. Obama made promises for sweeping change, and voters bought into that. Many new Democrats won seats on that platform, yet some of those may as well have run as Republicans. They are getting in the way of desperately needed change — and the have one unfortunate trait in common with their Republican colleagues: a terrible lack of foresight.

It’s easy to take a poll about the president. It’s much harder to create a poll that asks people to think. But you can’t think without information — and that’s what often slips through most people’s mental cracks.

Conservatives count on that.

I need help here

I have trouble understanding the concept of “independent voter.” These are the people that each side tries to corral come election time, the ones who could go either way. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me how people who call themselves independent can vote for George Bush one time and Barack Obama the next. The only answer I can come up with on my own is that “independents” have no philosophical belief system.

One doesn’t need to be an astute political analyst to realize that John McCain and Barack Obama are about as different as tortoises and hares. We knew up front what each stood for. We knew how each would govern, how each would handle the pressing issues we face as a nation. We knew, for example, simply because of his conservative credentials, that McCain would continue to support the traditional Republican free-market approach to health care, whereas Obama would want to come at it from another direction. We know that, on social issues, McCain differs little from most other conservatives. This is their brand.

So how can someone waiver between points of view that are so opposite? Do people listen to campaign rhetoric and say, well he’s right, but so is he, and then close their eyes and flip a coin?

I honestly don’t know what the answer is.

The results of some hard thinking

It still amazes me that there are those out there who think the last eight years have been pretty good and we should have more of the same. But there are, and among those who don’t there are a lot of short memories to go around. Me, well… I hold a grudge — and while the Constitution prevents George Bush from running again, he’s been aided and abetted by the other Republicans in government.

A lot of us are concerned about the Democrats self-destructing come convention time, somehow turning off the independents and sending them McCain’s way. Those would be the ones with short memories. We have a mess to clean up right now, and another Republican administration isn’t going to go far in the fixing department.

Neither Obama nor Clinton were my top choices, and to be honest I favor neither over the other. I’m of the mind that either would be better than any Republican. What I want is a ticket that will bring in a few more senators and representatives with it, enough in both houses prove a real mandate for change.

With that in mind, I suggest that Clinton and Obama make a deal… end the primaries and declare a ticket, real soon. It would show unity and in my mind put the interests of the country above politics. In other words, a Clinton/Obama ticket — almost a shoo-in (barring more closet bigots than we realize). They would then campaign against Republicans all the way to election day, and they should succeed.

With a successful administration, Obama would be positioned to be the natural Democratic presidential candidate in 2016. He’d be older, wiser, and more experienced.

This is what we’re stuck with, but as they say… when someone hands you lemons, make lemonade.

It’s the stupid economy?

With the economy overtaking all other issues in the primaries, the Republican candidates are fighting to wear the Reagan mantle. I wouldn’t care if voters remembered that with the “trickle-down theory” of Reaganomics, very little actually trickled down to those who needed it most. The reality was, the upper middle class was a kind of sponge, with everything reaching that level going no further. It was a periond when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, a trend that continues today despite an intervening Democratic administration in the person of Bill Clinton, when the sponge was not removed but thinned a bit.

The belief that wealth will trickle down to the lowest classes is false. It never has, and it never will. The wealthy are greedy, and they do everything in their power to hang on to as much of it as possible. They have a disproportionate amount of influence over elected officials who are supposed to belong to all of us, and thanks to tax cuts and tax loopholes they do not pay their fair share of taxes.

I’ve long been an advocate of the “trickle-up theory,” and I sure would like to hear a candidate bring it up. The theory is simple: give the poor more money. A lot more. Make them unpoor. Raise the mimimum wage still more. Bring everyone above the poverty line. Enable everyone to afford to pay taxes, but keep tax rates much lower for those below a certain reasonable level. The poor will then have more money to spend, and they will spend it… and that money will trickle up. The poor are not executives or stockholders, but the money they spend enriches those who are. So give the poor more money and they will make those at the top wealthier. And then, raise tax rates on those above a certain reasonable income level, and close loopholes. The treasury will thrive. Problems will be fixed. And if the rich don’t like it, screw them. They will still be wealthy, perhaps just as wealthy as they were before, since their increased tax burden might be offset by the added income from all the new money the poor are spending.

But even if they take a slight hit, so what. It’s time for all good wealthy Americans — most of whom are God-fearing Christians — to give greed a rest.

Those astonishing conservatives

I guess I’m a little stunned when I hear conservative Republicans being interviewed as their state ramps up for a primary, how they talk about the most important characteristics a candidate might have, their positions on crucial issues like abortion, things like that. I guess what stuns me most is how some of them insist how the party must stick to these core principles if they hope to win, because it worked for them in the past, George Bush’s election and reelection cited as evidence.

Well wait a minute here. In eight years George Bush has run the country into the ground. You’re proud of this guy? Why aren’t you embarrassed, too ashamed to come out of the house, too chagrined to face a microphone?

The values voters in this country are overlooking the most important value of all — a strong democracy. This is a value that should matter to everyone, conservative and liberal alike. We can only ensure this with a chief executive who’s committed to the preservation of our democracy, one who understands all the factors involved in keeping it strong. Abortion, or freedom of choice, is not one of these factors. Neither is gay marriage or guns for everyone. I’m talking more about honoring the Constitution. I’m talking about a quality education for all. I’m talking about a health care system that is blind to everything but a person’s needs. I’m talking about pursuing policies that benefit not only Americans but all people of the world, and the world itself. I’m talking about setting an example that gives our claim as leader of the free world some credibility.

Too little too late

In an effort to salvage his legacy, George Bush is finally engaged in the Middle East peace process. With any luck, he’ll have the two sides back to where they were when he took office by the time his term expires.

It will be more difficult for him to achieve anything meaningful, considering how he’s squandered American credibility in the last seven years. Already word from the Middle East is that both sides are thinking about who will next lead the United States come January 2009. They’ve learned the hard way — the US cannot be counted on to carry over foreign policy from one administration to the next.

Remember: when Bush took office, US Middle East policy changed course. The US ceased to be a broker of peace in the region. Bush essentially told Israeli PM Sharon to do what he wanted, which caused renewed inflammation between the two sides. The policy remained through the next presidential cycle, and has only now been revisited.

Which brings us to the reason. Bush isn’t running for office. Therefore, he has no votes to court. Considering his dismal record, and the way history will view him, this is his last best hope to be remembered as something other than a total failure. Won’t work here though… I will continue to believe that his change of policy was motivated by domestic politics, and that it may have been a contributing factor to the terrorists’ decision to attack us on 9/11.

Our flawed electoral process

I’m thinking of a scenario where we arrive at the Democratic convention with no candidate having enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, with delegates digging in for the best deal, with the possibility of a deadlock looming. In steps Al Gore , who wins the nomination by acclamation, without having spent a penny.

This sounds great to me, and to those who cry foul (perhaps the losers), to those who say Gore didn’t drag his ass around the country for over a year eating rubber chicken, I say sure he did… in 2000, when he was robbed of victory.

But there’s still something wrong with this picture. Consider all those millions of dollars spent during the primaries, and for what? What will we have to show for it? Nothing.

There is only so much money in the econosphere, and never mind where it came from. When money is spent, it’s supposed to buy something useful. What’s useful about campaign advertising? And, when money is spent, it’s supposed to juice the economy. How is this spending juicing the economy? True, in the overall scheme of things, the multi-millions being spent on campaigns might be a drop in the bucket, but one thing can be said for sure — all this spending does not assure that the best person will win. And that, folks, should be the desired goal.

What this spending does assure, however, is that whomever is elected will be beholden to people other than the voters. Take Hillary, for example. She’s getting money from the insurance industry. Which means whatever health-care plan she comes up with, insurance companies will be part of the plan. You can bank on it. There’s no way she’s going to push for a universal, single-payer health insurance plan when she’s accepting money from the very companies that such a plan would do away with.

We’ve staked our future on a flawed electoral process. It’s been this way for a long time, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we’re all losing out because of it. Would we be facing a climate crisis now if the system wasn’t flawed? Maybe not, if elected officials hadn’t been purchased by big oil and coal companies. Maybe, when the alarm was first sounded, our leaders would have done what they were supposed to do — lead.

The new patriotism?

Ethanol is the “in” thing — so much so that the United Nations is worried that worldwide food production might suffer in the rush to produce fuel crops. But in the US at least, it’s become unwise to debunk the ethanol myth, and those who do risk being branded as anti-enviroment — or, worse, unpatriotic.

While biofuels may indeed have a role in the current crisis that can be characterized as both environmental and geopolitical, they are not the answer to the looming oil shortage. They will not provide us with the independence from foreign oil we seek. They will not guarantee our national security, something that’s already being trotted out in defense of agricultural fuels.

Yes, they are renewable, but there’s not enough arable land in the US to plant enough corn — or any other crop, for that matter — to replace all the petroleum we use. In addition, the process of converting corn to energy requires… energy, from fertilizers to transportation to the conversion process itself. In short, it winds up to be not very efficient.

What’s happening, though, with the encouragement of this administration — and, yes, this Congress — is that farmers are all excited about corn. They see it as the new oil. Without restriction, many farmers are switching to corn in hopes of the riches they will reap.

Okay, not all farmers are excited. Corn is being diverted from feed to ethanol production and ranchers, for example, are complaining that as the supply of feed crops diminishes, costs rise. And their costs, of course, are passed along to consumers.

In fact, in the end, all rising costs and other hardships created by this rush to ethanol will be passed along to consumers, who might even begin to see shortages of many foods in the not too distant future.

Yes we need energy, but we can’t eat it. Nor can those starving in third-world nations, many of whom find their only hope for survival in the surplus food produced by the United States. As we divert grains to fuel, there simply won’t be any surplus.

Once again, the solutions to the parallel problems of energy shortages, global warming and national security involve a comprehensive energy plan, one that leans heavily on solar, wind and other natural phenomena that can be tapped. Add public transit and sustainable communities to that mix, and come up with a way to sequester carbon emissions and perhaps even remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and we’re talking about a plan — with biofuels only a footnote.

Meanwhile, let’s not call someone unpatriotic just because they see the flaws in ethanol.

America the illogical

Logic says that the United States will not only elect a Democratic president in 2008, it will expand the Democratic majority in the House and send a clear Democratic majority to the Senate. Logic says this because not only have the Republicans, lead by George Bush, made such a mess of things, they’ve shown that they do not have the real interests of Americans at heart.

But Americans don’t seem to vote logically. They choose candidates the way an amateur handicapper might choose a horse — because it has a cute name, or because they like the colors of its stable. I remind everyone of the 2000 election, in which George Bush received “won” enough electoral votes to win the election. Granted, he didn’t win the popular vote, and granted the Florida electoral votes might have been stolen, but it was still close, and an awful lot of votes for a boob.

However, he did get a majority in 2004, this after four years of evidence of just how big a boob he was. It was almost as if voters thought being a boob was cute.

When does religion matter?

Some of the pundits on MSNBC have been wondering why we’re even having a conversation about the religion of the various candidates for president, particularly the Republican wannabee nominees. The Founding Fathers, after all, made certain there would be no religious litmus test for office, and made the separation of church and state one of the key elements of our fledgling democracy.

And for the most part, I agree. However, Republican Mike Huckabee, a former governor from Arkansas who also happens to be an ordained Baptist minister, changed the substance of the conversation when in the course of his expounding on his religious qualities he stated that he interprets the Bible literally and believes in the biblical account of creation. In other words, he doesn’t believe in evolution.

Here’s the thing, Mike — evolution isn’t a faith, it isn’t a philosophy, it isn’t even a theory any more. It’s science. Inescapably so. So saying you don’t believe in evolution is like saying you don’t believe the earth is round, something we figured out a long time ago.

This is important because the presidency is a multi-faceted job. While a president doesn’t have to be an expert on everything, he or she has to be able to understand when something is a good or a bad idea, has to have the sense to choose capable advisers, and has to be able to make good judgements that will affect the direction of the nation into the future — and these days, presidents have a science advisor. So who would Huckabee pick — someone who shared his belief in creationism? What kind of a science advisor would that be?

In a president’s cabinet we have a Department of Education, and here again… would Huckabee choose a secretary who believed in Creationism, and perhaps be sympathetic to conservative school districts whose parents want their children taught creationism as science?

I really don’t care what religion my president practices — or whether he or she even has a faith — as long as it doesn’t get in the way sound judgement. And while it may be unfair to predict that Huckabee’s belief in the Bible’s account of creation will someday affect some aspect of public policy, the possibility is there. Personally, I find it stunning that in this day and age someone can dismiss the credible science of evolution, and indeed many devout Christians can reconcile their faith and biblical stories with science and reality. After all, if God did indeed create us all, I’m sure it wasn’t with the intention that we remain ignorant.

Ultimately the conversation about religion in politics is most troubling because the importance we accord our candidates’ religion restricts our choices. It’s made it all but impossible for many qualified men and women to serve, simply because they may not even be religious. In fact, as much as we revere men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, neither would pass the religious test we submit our candidates to these days. What a loss that would be.