Could the Polling Data Be Wrong?

Written by: Alan Willis on Nov 3, 2008 3:37 PM EST

Linked to campaigns: Obama for America

Recently, the following claim was made by a reputable news source (the Daily Mail of Durban, South Africa):

Facing almost universally bad news in opinion polls, McCain's campaign hopes for an upset that would rank as one of the most dramatic eleventh-hour turnarounds in American political history.

Such an outcome would cast deep doubts over the methodology of pollsters and expose much of the US journalistic establishment to ridicule.

What it should do-if this were to happen--is to open widespread investigations into voter fraud and voting machine problems... not to ridicule well established, scientifically verifiable polling methods and data.

Why Not Romney; Why Not Huckabee

Written by: Alan Willis on Aug 29, 2008 2:07 PM EDT

Linked to campaigns: Obama for America

Almost as soon as Obama named his vice-presidential choice (a person well qualified to hold the job of VP and reliable for holding the job of President should something disastrous befall Obama) McCain attacked with ads asking "Why not Clinton." Other people may have wondered why Obama selected Biden over Clinton, but no one could question--realistically--Biden's qualifications.

If Obama really decided against Hillary Clinton because she questioned some of his positions in the primaries, would the exact same question apply to why McCain refused to select Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee? Clearly, it would. So, Senator McCain, why not Romney? Why not Huckabee? Is that you didn't pick Romney because he highlighted your ignorance about the economy? Did you not pick Huckabee because he through your inconsistencies into sharp relief? (However much I disagree with Governor Huckabee on almost every point, he has demonstrated both consistency and integrity).

But the question is even bigger. Joe Biden is qualified to be VP. Joe Biden could--if needed--fill the office of President. Gov. Palin? I don't think so... and I would suspect that a even a number of normally Republicans voters would feel the same way.

How much difference will it make? It would seem to be the worst VP choice since... well, ok, it's not been that long since Dan Quayle. 

I realize people tend to vote the top of the ticket, not the bottom. Head to head, Obama is clearly the better choice than McCain. Biden is clearly the better choice than Palin. Biden, indeed, would be a far better choice than McCain.

Irony, Hypocrisy, and the Republican view of the Constitution

Written by: Alan Willis on Aug 17, 2008 10:24 AM EDT

As much as I love irony, I hate hypocrisy.  Hence, I have a particular love-hate relationship with the Republican views of the Constitution.

I find the irony in the pontifications about Roe v. Wade. In the name of "strict construction" these so-called conservatives (reactionaries, really) decry the Supreme Court's "discovery" of the right to privacy. The right to privacy, they assure us, is not spelled out in the Constitution. They've scoured the Constitution, they assure us, and cannot find that particular right. So, therefore, it must not exist and the Supreme Court must not be allowed to decide cases based on that right.

In their scouring, the "strict construction" adherents apparently missed something I'd like to call the 9th Amendment. Rarely do they discuss the 9th Amendment and for good reason. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A strict construction of the Constitution then must absolutely admit that there are rights garuanteed to the people of the United States that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself. Hence, a "strict construction" argument against the right to privacy based on its not being in the Constitution is, well, internally contradictory.

Moreover, it is quite clear that the logical foundation for a right to privacy lies in the clearly specified protection from unwarranted searches and siezures.

And here is the hypocrisy. While claiming a "strict construction" view to denounce the right to privace established in Griswold v. Connecticut and extended in Roe v. Wade, the same contingent of reactionaries praise the president for taking "necessary" actions to violate the entirety of the 4th Amendment, a fair portion of the 5th and of the 6th, and quite a lot of the 1st Amendments as well.

A last point of hypocrisy, these "Constitutional Conservatives" enjoy accusing the Supreme Court--and other Courts--of legislating from the bench. John McCain said this last night. The founders, it is true, did nto clearly spell out the duties of the "least dangerous banch." They did, however, spell out the duties and responsibilties of the president to execute the laws passed by the Congress. Where have John McCain and the other "Constitutional Conservatives" been every time (and there have been hundred of times!) President Bush has issued a signing statement announcing what section of the laws he will or will not enforce? Every time President Bush issues a non-reviewable order to the beaucracy to act in ways in direct contradiction with their ordained duties (as with the recent contraception equals abortion issue, which clearly violates Griswold)? Where are these supposed strict constructionalists on President Bush's legislating from the Oval Office? (Let's be fair to Bob Barr--this is why he is running on a 3rd party ticket. I don't agree with Barr on much at all, but he does not suffer the hypocrisy of his fellow conservatives, like John McCain).

You Get Your Schools for Free... so some think

Written by: Alan Willis on Aug 16, 2008 11:55 PM EDT

Linked to campaigns: Obama for America

Following the forum hosted by Rick Warren, an anonymous commentator on Netscape wrote:

Obama just said, that "if we believe in good schools, ect...." then we need a way to pay for them...so then he goes on to say, that he is going to raise taxes. Great. with the gas prices, food prices...and now....taxes! why do we work two jobs? to pay government?

I find this to be indicative of one of the greatest “mental lapses” that plagues much of the American electorate, and one that has contributed substantially to Republican electoral success—and policy disasters—since Reagan.

It represents those people who somehow believe that schools, and other government services, are free. Here in Michigan, the rate of school budget increase is far behind the rate of inflation. That means, our schools cannot maintain their current levels, much less improve. I have no doubt that the person who wrote the comment believes that we should have good schools. He or she also, apparently, believes that schools don’t cost money to operate. He or she apparently believes that schools don’t have electric bills, heating bills, that they clean themselves and that teachers should work for free. He or she apparently believes science equipment is free and textbooks cost nothing. Similarly, apparently roads pave themselves. Firefighting equipment must simply appear from nowhere.

We must combat this idea. We must demonstrate that people can get value for their tax dollars. But to do that, the government has to provide value for tax dollars. The Republicans have provided skyrocketing defense budgets and tax cuts for the rich while destroying those things which give most Americans value for the tax dollars. The Republicans have launched a war which greatly benefits Big Oil (and the Vice President’s “former” company).

Obama stands for the policies which will bring value for tax dollars: health care, education, energy and infrastructure.

Tom Ridge and the resurfacing abortion issue

Written by: Alan Willis on Aug 15, 2008 10:05 PM EDT

John McCain is in trouble with the religious right—this time for suggesting that he might consider Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania as his running mate. Ridge is unacceptable to the religious right because he fails the supposed anti-abortion test.

Facts suggest, however, that the right wing of the Republican party fails that test most dramatically, rhetoric notwithstanding. First, let me make a point regarding the basis of this discussion: even those of us who are adamantly “pro-choice” must admit that an abortion is a traumatic and tragic event, no matter the circumstances. What the Republicans fail to understand is simply this: declaring abortion illegal is an irresponsible way of addressing the problem at hand. A much more responsible way is to follow the example of those nations which have the lowest reported abortion rates in the world: Belgium and The Netherlands where abortions are legal. Instead, the right seems to want to solve the problem in the way Chile has, by declaring it illegal. Unfortunately, Chile has one of the highest reported abortion rates in the world.

Read more

The "Other" Issues

Written by: Alan Willis on Jul 31, 2008 8:01 PM EDT

Linked to campaigns: Obama for America

    Reading newspapers and watching news could easily lead the public to believe the most critical issues come down to the economy and the war.

    Of course, these are signifcant issues, but here I'd like to bring up an issue which I think needs to be brought more broadly to the attention of the voting public. The Bush Administration has acquired for itself dictatorial powers to negate laws duely passed by Congress. Bush has done this through the use of signing statements in which he has repeatedly announced how he will or will not enforce a law passed by Congress, leeway the Constituion simply does not give to a president.

    Despite the peculiar fact that Bush used hundreds of signing statements to negate Congressional legislation passed by the Republican controlled Congress of the first six years of his presidency. Where was the maverick John McCain in protesting this violation of the Constitution--and of basic conservative postion of limited government for which the Republican party supposedly stands. Apparently, he stood right in line with the dramatic and dictatorial power grab by the Bush administration; hence, there is no reason to expect better from John McCain.

    What is clear is that the vast majority of American have no sense that such a thing as a signing statement even exists, much less how Bush has used it to undermine democracy and to thwart Congress--even the Republican controlled Congress of his first six years in office.

    We need to make this an issue; we need to make sure people know what is happening to their Constitution.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

religion matters--to both parties

Written by: Alan Willis on May 21, 2008 9:16 PM EDT

The Brookings Institute reprinted a finding of the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, to wit:

The bottom line is simple: if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will have to work hard to improve his standing among white Catholics. If he does not, even states that Democrats count on—such as Pennsylvania—may be up for grabs this November.

This could be true, but...what about the Republicans?

If John McCain is the nominee--and it's almost impossible to imagine otherwise at this point--he will face significant difficulties with the Religious Right, a mainstay of the Republican Party.  So, what solidly Red States could swing? Mississippi and South Carolina, for staters. Mississippi and South Carolina? How? In both states (and in other Southern states) the Religious Right makes up a signifcant part of the Republican base.  Consider the recent special election in Mississippi's 1st Congressional District, which went to the Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, turning a seat that had been Republican for over a decade.  And, statewide, one must consider the role of race in a contest between McCain and Obama.  Obama has won the African American vote at an astounding rate, and both Mississippi and South Carolina have a large percentage of African American voters.

So, what does all this mean about swing states and safe states.  It means this: don't plan on it. It could very well turn out that safe states swing in ways no one would have imagined four years ago.

Clinton Wants Michigan Delegates Counted?!?

Written by: Alan Willis on May 8, 2008 12:21 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Michigan Democracy for America

A Recent article included the following post-North Carolina/Indiana thought:

Clinton said later that she would be sending a letter to Obama and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean expressing her belief that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations is a civil rights and voting rights issue.

Obviously, Senator Clinton knows that Michigan--my state--voted for her; but Clinton, and all of us, are equally aware that Senator Obama played by the rules and withdrew from the Michigan primary.  He was not on the ballot.  Essentially, Senator is asking to be rewarded for cheating.  And now she is calling a civil rights and voting rights issue.   Bot the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were designed to redress the grievances of those who had been cheated, not those who did the cheating.

I wish the Michigan Democratic Party had played by the rules.  In their insistance on being heard, they moved the primary date to before super-Tuesday in an obviously erroneous belief that the race for the Democtratic nomination would be settled by that day's voting.  If they had played by the rules, Michigan would have had a significant voice, much louder than the early voices, in determining the nominee. 

Giving Michigan's delegates to Clinton would be a serious error.  None of us who live in Michigan can honestly believe--given the patterns in other states--the she would have handily won a state with cities like Detroit, Flynt, and Saginaw, as the actual voting indicated.  It only so indicated because both of her major rivals--John Edwards and Barrack Obama--were not on the ballot.

Counting the Micighan delegates at this point benefits Senator Clinton, but it does not enfranchise the voters of Michigan who denied a fair chance to express their political will.

government handout, Republican style

Written by: Alan Willis on May 5, 2008 7:33 PM EDT

The government handouts are on their way to thousands of American’s mailboxes as I write.  No one wants to call the government handouts, so they are calling it, instead, a “tax rebate.”  But what is the difference?  Americans paid their taxes—some got refunds already, based on their personal income tax accounting—and now, out of that Americans are getting a “rebate” based on income level (a broad income level of $75,000 for an individual and $150,000 for jointly-filing married couples) and number of dependents.  It is being sent out because the government perceives, correctly one might add, that millions of Americans are struggling as a result of recent economic difficulties.

It is a government check being issued to Americans based on their economic qualifications for the program.  It is a government handout if ever there was one, and one the government cannot afford.

Let me note one thing here: I am a supporter of our welfare programs, and would support them more if they were more thorough and, especially, more comprehensive regarding healthcare.  But that is not the point.  The point is the conservatives are hailing what is essentially a one-time welfare check because it is being called a “tax rebate.”  In doing so, they are reinforcing the idea that Americans are overtaxed.  We are not, but we are decidedly underserved by our government.  Instead of a healthcare and well-funded schools we get perpetual and unwinnable wars; instead of an economic safety net we get no-bid contracts to the Vice-president’s oil company.

In my previous post on the tax rebate scheme, I wrote noted that the proposal was politically driven and had very little chance of stimulating the economy.  It will, however, further the Republican agenda of underminding the legitimacy of taxes and general and support the continued effort to relieve the rich of any tax "burden" whatsoever.

Republican Fiscal Irresponsibility

Written by: Alan Willis on Apr 10, 2008 12:20 AM EDT

Republicans, as has been noted on posts here, have long accused Democrats fiscal irresponsibility—the famous “tax and spend” Democrats. While other postings here have noted, accurately, that the annual budget deficits exploded under the Republican presidents and shrank (in fact, under Clinton they disappeared) under Democrats, a deeper analysis suggests something rather a bit more sinister is afoot.

True enough, Reagan ran on a platform calling for a “balanced budget” and produced the most unbalanced peace-time budgets in the nation’s history; his budget imbalances have been dwarfed by those of George W. Bush, but I’m sure that the current administration but these are not peace-time budgets, a point we will return to in a moment. Why would Reagan create such huge budget deficits after promising a balanced budgets. David Stockton, a key economic advisor in the early years of the Reagan administration noted that the Republicans engaged in a policy called “starving the beast” in which they hoped to run enormous deficits—primarily through military spending—in order to create a fiscal crisis in which the mass of Americans would call for drastic cut-backs in social spending.

The key to the Bush II administration's implementation of this policy was their ability to transform September 11 into a perpetual War on Terror. In a war, the military budget will remain—the logic goes—sacrosanct. Therefore, a perpetual war allows for drastic cutbacks in social spending and dramatic restructuring of the Federal budget while keeping the military budgets off-limits. This has worked out tremendously well for many of George W. Bush’s pet projects and the corporations of many of his advisors. The Cheney-Halliburton connection is well known. Donald Rumsfeld was long cozy with defense contractors before returning to “government service” (which, in this administration, has too often meant “self service”) in the Department of Defense.

To make matters worse (almost unimaginable, and yet somehow possible) the Republicans have sold a fair portion of the American population on the idea that private industry is better able to do several jobs the government used to do. Actually, by itself, this may not be untrue. But when applied to veterans hospitals it has been appallingly wrongheaded. Care has been subsumed under profit. But hospitals are only one aspect. The war itself is subcontracted to Private Military Corporations. On the “home front” research for counteracting biological warfare or terrorism done at the Center for Disease Control has been privatized as well; now for the same research the government not only pays the same scientists, but also the private company which handles their contracts, and makes a profit.

Unreasonable and blind allegiance to privatization and maintaining the “starving the beast” philosophy negate any Republican claim to fiscal responsibility. And, yet, the accusations will—of course—be leveled against Democrats, and in particular progressive Democrats who might just support social programs. We need to be ready with all the facts.