Sarah Palin the populist has become Sarah Palin the free trader. In a wide-ranging and well-received speech in Hong Kong, Palin supported a more Libertarian free-market approach, slamming the recent imposition of tariffs on Chinese tires by the Obama Administration.

Palin spoke at a closed-door investor forum organized by CLSA in which no media representatives were allowed. While attendees were reportedly impressed with her preparation and command of the facts, Palin only took pre-approved questions.

The New York Times reported:

“The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.

“She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “She brought up both those names.”…

Melvin Goodé, a regional marketing consultant, thought Mrs. Palin chose Hong Kong because, he said, it was “a place where things happen and where freedom can be expanded upon.”…

Mr. Goodé, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday.

“And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that,” he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as “our president,” with the emphasis on “our.”

Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.

“They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”

Edward here. Notice how the NY Times story mentions only one attendee’s race. What does Goodé’s being Black have to do with this story? The writer, Mark McDonald, should be condemned for inserting this language as he is obviously trying to spin the story, suggesting that even a black pro-Obama supporter thought well of Palin’s performance. If he’s going to spin it that way, then just say it directly. The way he words it is cringe-worthy.

This speech and others to come should be seen not only as a way for her to earn shed loads of cash, but as a way to position herself to lead the Republican party ahead of the 2012 Presidential election.  It seems that she is re-casting herself as a libertarian to do so. She has already come out against healthcare, positioning her opposition to Obama’s plan as libertarian. Attendees of the CLSA speech report that she spoke about this subject in Hong Kong as well.  However, she also took on the tire tariffs issue, rejecting an inviting populist take on the issue in favor of more free-market rhetoric (for more on the issue see my post “Murder-Suicide in Chimerica”).

Not everyone was impressed.

“She started the speech with the Alaskan fishing industry, which I think is a safe topic for her,” said Suyeon An of RCM Asia Pacific Ltd, who left before Palin stopped talking. “She was avoiding the important economic issues. She tried to talk some about Hong Kong in general, but it was nothing specific. It was a very safe speech, boring I have to say.”

Related posts:

• The Obama as terrorist theme gains traction among some
• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

Tonight we saw a brilliant performance from Barack Obama. It was Obama at his best, using his command of the English language to inspire and connect on a grand stage as only few politicians can. For sceptics like myself, he surprised. For his base, he reaffirmed. For his adversaries he reached out with an open hand but with the credible threat of a clenched fist.  Obama delivered the goods.

And judging from the initial reactions of the American public, I am not alone in this assessment.

• Polls saw a monster jump of 14% in support for his plan.
• The progressives gave him a B.
• Andrew Sullivan called the speech masterful.
• FiveThirtyEight gave it a stand-up triple rating.
• James Fallows called it a first-rate speech.

More reactions here via Andrew Sullivan.

Look, I have said I see this in stark terms. No other advanced society would permit tens of millions of its citizens to live without insurance against a basic 21st century need, which healthcare clearly is.  No other advanced society sees thousands of its workers bankrupted due to health issues. Forget about the politics and posturing. This issue goes to the very core of who we are as a nation and our values as a society.

That was also the message Obama delivered.

Here are some of the basic points the President covered:

1. Obama wants an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. The present basic healthcare system will remain. For the majority of Americans, this means there will be no change of doctor or insurance provider.
2. He is strongly in favour of a public option to promote competition and reduce cost.
3. Obama is advocating coverage mandates for everyone like for car insurance.
4. He wants to ban pre-existing condition dropped coverage.
5. The President wants to ban yearly and lifetime spend caps.

A few other thoughts:

• From my perspective, the most important thing Obama did was stay true to his conciliatory self while still somehow projecting the willingness to show the iron fist. He said “I will not waste time” with those playing political games. Misrepresent and we will call you out. My favourite line was when he called Sarah Palin out, saying “it is a lie plain and simple.” Apparently, Obama has learned when to talk tough.
• Obama did an excellent job of throwing enough red meat to progressives while covering all the bases on fiscal responsibility to make it difficult to criticize the outline he gave. He gave lip service to his change agent status by quipping “I will not accept the status quo.”  I suspect the only potentially effective points of attack will be on the lack of specifics or on the feasibility of cost cuts.
• Obama’s line about illegal immigrants caused a bit of an uproar. I don’t have a view here, but it was one of the more negatively received lines – there were boos to the reaction.  See the CNN coverage here.
• Obama threw a bone regarding malpractice insurance into the fray. Smart move.  This was more of a political ploy than a plan to actually do anything, in my opinion. But, it did cover that flank, if just.
• The Republicans overreached.  Sensing a populist backlash against Obama, they really miscalculated in the school lunch speech brouhaha. These missteps were furthered during the speech.  The lack of civility by members of Congress was cringe-worthy. They often refused to stand and clap and one even heckled. This will cost the Republicans politically.  See the picture on Andrew Sullivan’s site.
• The choice of venue was important.  It certainly worked well for Obama, lending him a statesman-like aura and putting him in a large speaking venue where he excels.  It was like a state of the union address with Congress rising to its feet and clapping in orchestrated approval. The contrast to the Republican rebuttal, done from some non-descript room, was enormous.
• The Republican rebuttal was flat. Charles Boustany spoke mostly about costs and the evils of government-run healthcare. It rang hollow because the President’s speech covered those bases fairly well. Boustany was at his best when he gave his four specific proposals on what to do to reform healthcare. He was at his worst in trying to label the President’s plan as government-run healthcare, a claim that seemed at odds with the facts. Yes, he was at a huge disadvantage because of venue. But I’m sorry, he was just not a good public speaker.
• There was some ‘class warfare’ rhetoric which I found distasteful and it also sounds like the plan will be paid for in part through taxes on the wealthy. Moreover, I am no liberal and the big defense of liberalism and big government at the end was a turn-off for me personally. Others will like him for taking a stand. It will certainly help brand him as far left of center.
• The Ted Kennedy story he told was a clear political prop that I felt was somewhat risky. But, it was generally well done.  I liked the ” character of our country” phrase.
• The speech did go on for maybe 5 or 10 minutes too long.

Fallows sums it best:

There will come a time when Barack Obama cannot pull himself out of pinch with a big speech. And obviously we don’t know how this debate will turn out yet. But he hasn’t fallen short on the big-speech front yet. More tomorrow.

Let’s see what kind of legislation comes of this.  If I get video, I will post.  Feel free to comment.

Full text of speech here.

Here is the video:

Related posts:

• What real comprehensive healthcare reform looks like
• The purpose of health care reform
• Insurance companies’ secret files on your house
• Palin: Asia speech re-casts her as Libertarian and slams Obama on China
• Obama and health care: Wasting political capital

This is a bombshell from the political world. I believe that means Al Franken will make Obama filibuster-proof. Obviously, this is very bad news for Republicans. I suspect that the deal is that Rendell and Casey will pull out ALL the stops to get Specter re-elected too.

Confirmed that Sen Specter will become a Democrat (but he is still against EFCA as noted in his statement).

The GOP is dead in the the blue states for the foreseeable future.

I am with Kos, I see the Maine senators potentially switching now as well. They will have no legislative power anymore, so why stay with the GOP in a state where it will be easier to get elected as a Dem?

More from Daily Kos here.

Related posts:

• US: Democrats looking at a filibuster proof Senate majority
• Pledged Delegate Fiasco
• Congress does need to act on the Economic Patriot Act
• Sotomayor looks unassailable right now
• The 3 a.m. moment – McCain blows it

Talking about how he will fare against Barack Obama in the upcoming third and last U.S. Presidential Debate, John McCain said:

“We’re going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we’re going to be going out 24/7.
-Huffington Post

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• John McCain: candidate profile
• McCain takes center stage
• Obama wins debate
• Quote of the day: “That One”

The YouTube video below is gaining a wide audience on the Internet. It shows an Ohio blogger interviewing some McCain-Palin supporters after a speech and rally by Sarah Palin in that state earlier this week.

The blogger’s question to attendees of the rally is fairly straightforward: “Do you think Barack Obama is a terrorist?”

Watch the video to see the answers.

Related posts
Is Barack Obama palling around with Terrorists?

Related posts:

• Obama gets 75,000 at a rally
• Obama Girl is back
• Palin: Asia speech re-casts her as Libertarian and slams Obama on China
• Obama to re-authorise three provisions of Patriot Act
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

Check out Jon Stewart’s take on this.

Related posts:

• SNL skewers Barack Obama
• Barack Obama ushers in a new era in America
• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Barack Obama: Great story about his mother

In the Vice-Presidential debate, Sarah Palin, in one of her few unscripted moments, gave wholehearted support for Dick Cheney’s dangerous expansion of Vice Presidential power. Joe Biden vigourosly disagreed, calling Cheney “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.” I have to agree with Biden.

Obviously, George Bush has been the most unpopular President in the United States since Presidential polling began. However, it is Dick Cheney, his Vice President, who is responsible for many of the disastrous policy mistakes that has discredited the United States Presidency around the globe. Barton Gellman has written an interesting book, Angler: The Shadow Presidency of Dick Cheney, that chronicles how Cheney is responsible for much of what ails America, in foreign policy and domestically.

When he leaves Washington, we must be clear that no U.S. Vice President should ever be allowed to exercise the degree of power as has Cheney.

The Vice Presidential debate comments are in the video below:

Book Review

Unquestionably, Dick Cheney has been the most influential vice-president in U.S. history. Especially after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he took a remarkably expansive view of the ill-defined powers of his office. He energetically enlarged his own role relative to that of the president, and the power of the White House relative to that of other branches of government. It was nothing less than a constitutional revolution. Angler (the title comes from Cheney’s Secret Service codename) is the best account so far of the vice-president’s drive for “power without limit”. It is an absorbing if depressing book.

Barton Gellman bases his narrative on a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles that he and Jo Becker (now with The New York Times) wrote for The Washington Post last year. He draws on the reporting of other journalists too. Readers familiar with the original articles in The Post, and steeped in recent books by Jane Mayer (The Dark Side), Jack Goldsmith (The Terror Presidency), Bob Woodward (too many to mention), and others, will find no striking new disclosures. But they will find, in one place, a remarkable tale extremely well told.

Cheney emerges as a difficult man to like and one who prides himself on the fact. Yet he is not the one-dimensional monster of popular lore, a tyrant for all seasons, driven by lust for power for its own sake. He “served the country with devotion, at some cost to himself”, Gellman writes. He “suffered eight cardiac events in eight years. He relinquished millions of dollars in stock options and income forgone. The author found no evidence of self-dealing … involving Halliburton or anything else.” In Cheney’s mind, the administration he co-led overthrew not the constitution but one contested – and, after 9/11, suicidal – interpretation of the constitution. He believed that the country was in mortal danger and did what he deemed necessary.

From the beginning he was a shrewd manipulator of the people around him, no respecter of custom or precedent, and a believer in the maxim “personnel is policy”. Cheney had served as President Ford’s chief of staff and the first President Bush’s defence secretary. As vice-president, there was little he did not already know about Washington power politics and the importance of putting the right ally in the right place. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the third member of the new ruling triumvirate, was an old and trusted friend. Hired as the vice-president’s lawyer, David Addington became the main architect of the new constitution.

Cheney’s relationship with Bush was solid. He had been the head of Bush’s vice-presidential search committee. Bush chose him without interviewing anybody else. They had an understanding and the pattern was set. The president was content to lean on his deputy. Cheney could not have appointed a better boss – better even than having the top job himself, since that involved a lot of useless ceremonial and pandering to public opinion.

To talk of Cheney as co-president is scarcely an exaggeration, the book shows – especially during the first term. After 2004, and what was almost a mass exodus from the Justice Department over torture, secret surveillance and presidential prerogatives, Bush was a little less trusting of Cheney’s judgment and began paying more attention to other advisers. Still, reading Angler one often feels that at crucial moments Bush even chose to be the junior partner.

In an interview this year, Cheney was asked what he thought of the fact that most Americans, according to polls, believed the Iraq war was a mistake. “So?” he replied. The interviewer pressed on: “You don’t care what people think?” Cheney said: “Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the civil war. He never would have succeeded … ”

Yes, says the author, Lincoln ploughed on when doing so was unpopular. But that was not all. “He rallied the people and won them over … It was not mere force of will that distinguished Lincoln, but successful leadership of a public nearing despair.” Cheney saw no need to bring the country along. That was not his idea of leadership and it is why his remorseless drive for presidential power has left the presidency so enfeebled.

Clive Crook is the FT’s chief Washington commentator

Sources
Out of the shadows – FT
VP Debate: Biden – “Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.” – Crooks and Liars

Related posts:

• Bush: ever the opportunist, lifts oil drilling ban
• The less optimistic view of Treasury’s handling of the crisis
• Are NATO expansion plans smart?
• The experience canard
• Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP

This has to be one of the most anticipated U.S. Vice Presidential debates in the last quarter century. It is as big as Bush – Ferraro and Gore – Quayle – Stockdale. I certainly will be watching.

Partial as I am to Barack Obama, I was not anticipating Joe Biden as his running mate. However, I sense that it was a good choice and the two make a good team.

John McCain surprised everyone in picking Sarah Palin for his running mate, and, despite a left-wing freakout, I thought she deserved the benefit of the doubt. Recently, it has become obvious even to me that she is not well-prepared and knowledgeable about many issues of substance on the national agenda. That is disappointing.

But, for what it’s worth, here are two CBS Evening News clips of Katie Couric asking both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to explain their views.

Enjoy tonight’s debate.

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Katie Couric: What newspapers do YOU read?
• Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP
• The SNL version of the Palin-Biden debate

Mark Thoma has a thoughtful post on the news swirling around the Sarah Palin pick as VP candidate for the GOP. His point is that the Dems risk looking condescending and elitist toward small town America in their attacks on Palin and had better be careful.

Here is what Thoma has to say:

When you grow up in a small or mid-sized town, over time you come to realize that people from bigger towns, in general, have a condescending attitude about how and where you grew up. I think it starts to really dawn on you in junior high and high school as you begin interact with kids from bigger cities, and college certainly reinforces this feeling.

You couldn’t possibly be up on the latest cool trends, be as sophisticated, be as savvy, etc., as they are because you grew up out in the sticks.

People who live in these areas are not, however, fools. They think that the people who think this way – the city boys – lack even the basics of common sense, and certainly aren’t as rugged and tough as the country boys. They’d be lost outside the city. And they don’t think these people have anything to brag about in their own lives, not in a relative sense. They have their share of kids out of wedlock, divorces, drug use, whatever. They have absolutely no reason to feel superior to the rest of America, but yet they do. Or that’s how it feels anyway.

This is the feeling Sarah Palin wants to tap into. I haven’t seen the speech as I write this, but I’m guessing it will appeal to this emotion. That’s what the elitism charge is all about, to remind people in these areas that these people think they are better than they are, they look down upon their way of life. (same with the appeal to the devout church-going constituency, I think it’s the lack of respect they feel for their beliefs that is being exploited by the Right’s framing of the issues).

So Democrats have to be very careful not to stoke this emotion as they try and dissuade people from voting the McCain-Palin ticket (assuming it comes to be, which I assume it will). Any hint of condescension for this way of life and the traditions that come along with it will be tapped into and mined to the Republicans advantage.

Kids out of wedlock, divorce, crazy family members, affairs, that’s part of life, and trying to exploit any of that is a mistake. Making a big deal about being from a small town and using that to argue about credentials won’t work. If you grew up outside of a major city, you’re used to being thought of in that way, and they resent it. The target audience for the Palin selection doesn’t think politicians, academics, elites, etc. have any common sense about the world. You hear that over and over, the “anyone with common sense would know” type argument. They want no part of cities and the values they perceive to exist there, that way of life is very alien to them (what’s a community organizer?) They think their way of life is just fine, truth be told better even, the values, the quality of life, all of it, and any suggestion to the contrary will be met with resistance.

I fear that people crafting responses to the Palin selection do not understand this emotion, the lack of respect that people in these areas feel for their lifestyle, their intelligence, their way of life, etc. Attempts to bring down Palin that stoke these emotions will actually bring great sympathy.

Here’s another way of expressing what I’m trying to say.

Learning how to dress a deer in the field is something that happens on a hunting trip with your father, grandfather, uncle, maybe a few of their friends. It’s a family time, a time to bond as “men”, and it’s a tradition that has passed from father to son for as long as you can remember (my mom’s family helped to settle the area of California where I grew up). It’s partly men drinking and telling stories around the fire, partly the serious business of hunting (where alcohol is strictly forbidden). But most importantly it’s a family tradition, something that passes from father to son. You bring deer jerky to school to share with your friends as a symbol that you bagged a deer, that kind of thing. It’s embedded in the culture.

When we make fun of knowing how to field-dress a moose, we are also making fun of the family traditions behind it, and we send the wrong message to this constituency. Sarah Palin will appeal to this group, as well as to all the women who had to stay home while their brothers got to go with dad on these trips. She opens doors for their hopes too.

All I’m saying is that as we frame the response to her, we should do our best to understand the nature of the appeal she is making so as to avoid strategies that may backfire. The group they are appealing to doesn’t want Washington’s money, though that never hurts, they want respect. I think it’s that simple, and responses that don’t give this constituency the respect they believe they are due will likely be counterproductive.

I haven’t spent much time in really big cities, three and a half yeas in San Diego pretty much does it (and that was two different times that were years apart), and I’m a long way from living in a really small town like where I grew up. I live in a somewhat larger area now, around 200,000 total I think, maybe a bit less, but I’ve noticed that once you get outside of the University area and connect with the people who were born and raised here, the values aren’t much different from the small-town values I grew up around, the cultural distance is much closer than it is to, say, Portland or Seattle. I think there is a fairly large constituency here, large enough to pay attention to – it’s not just a bunch of small town folk whose collective numbers are of little relevance to the outcome of the election – and paying more attention to, and showing more respect for, the cultural values and traditions this group holds could make a big difference.

But I’m biased, and you can take or leave what I have to say. San Diego was great, I learned to surf when I was there a few years ago and that was really cool, but a life of crowded freeways never quite felt like home.

Source
Small Towns and Big Time Politics, Economist’s View

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Brian Williams: “I’m A Maverick, And I May Not Answer The Questions Tonight”
• Katie Couric: What newspapers do YOU read?
• Palin: a tidbit I received from a friend by a Wasilla resident (update)

Independents like myself who support Barack Obama and Democrats are busy trying to tear down John McCain’s surprise pick for Vice President. They say she is less qualified than many other potential candidates that McCain could have selected. I would tend to agree. But, that’s neither here nor there. The question is whether she can help McCain win the presidency. And on that score she looks like a good gamble. Let me explain why?

Personality and confirmation bias

Before I go into why Palin is a good pick, I would like to admit that I am no fan of George Bush or his Republican party. In fact, I support Barack Obama — so this puts me into the anti-Palin camp. Yet, as a contrarian, I often like to argue the other side just to highlight the deficits in my own argument and to keep myself from falling into a confirmation bias trap. We need to think about the strategic implications of the Palin pick strictly on the merits, not based on our own biased preconceptions.

A large part of my argument actually has to do with confirmation bias in American politics — most people decide fairly quickly whether they like a national political candidate, based not on issues and agenda, but mostly on personality and cultural appeal. We tend to come to an assessment very quickly — within several television ‘encounters’ and then we filter new facts in or out based on that assessment, hardening our initial impression with time. The crux of my argument is that most people will make a choice about Sarah Palin based on her first few television appearances and then will filter all subsequent encounters with her using confirmation bias. This is the single most important reason that she must make an immediate positive first impression in her speech tonight and why the GOP must define her early — well before the debates. Democrats, who are already biased against the Republican party cannot look at this pick with any objectivity.

Sarah Palin is not Dan Quayle. She is photogenic, looks good on television, is a good public speaker and is very personable in person by all accounts. I’m not expecting any Potatoe gaffes. As a result, you have to ask: How many Hillary supporters will support her? My answer: potentially, a lot more than one might think. Are the issues Hillary was advocating of the greatest importance to her supporters or the person she represents? This is unclear. But, John McCain has certainly put these voters up for grabs by selecting a well-spoken and telegenic female running mate. And remember, George W. Bush is famous for not even knowing the names of key world leaders in 1999, but he later ‘outperformed’ Gore in the debates. I reckon he did not actually outperform Gore on substance; rather, he had already been framed as a ‘good guy’ and a man of the people. This contrasted well with Gore stylistically. Substance matters less than we think.

That was style; now for substance.

Winning the battleground states

The United States is a country, which has been fairly evenly divided over the last generation between Democrats and Republicans, especially in the last two Presidential elections. Because of the electoral college system, this even division has made a few key swing states exceedingly important in presidential politics. States like Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will decide this election. So, the question any national politician must ask is: how do I get enough votes in these states to beat my opponent?

The first key to the battleground states is stealing the limelight. After a very good showing by the Democrats in Denver, John McCain has taken the spotlight off of the Dems and Barack Obama, preventing a significant post-convention bounce.

Conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan says:

McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his co-pilot was the biggest gamble in presidential history. As of now, it is paying off, big-time.

The sensational selection in Dayton, Ohio, stepped all over the big story from Denver — Barack Obama’s powerful address to 85,000 cheering folks in Mile High Stadium, and 35 million nationally, a speech that vaulted him from a 2-point deficit early in the week to an 8-point margin. Barack had never before reached 49 percent against McCain.

As the Democrats were being rudely stepped on, however, Palin ignited an explosion of enthusiasm among conservatives, Evangelicals, traditional Catholics, gun owners and Right to Lifers not seen in decades.

By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008.
-Johnny’s Got A New Girl, Patrick Buchanan

The second key is to play to the battleground states way of seeing the world. There are three things to worry about here: social issues, money issues, and foreign policy. All of the battleground states tilt toward a moderate-conservative frame of social and foreign policy issues, while the western states like Nevada and Colorado are more progressive socially. In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made a calculation that he can bring out the base — galvanize more conservatives than the moderates and independents he loses. To be sure, this is a risky bet because in winning conservatives, he gets one vote (they are likely to stay at home and NOT vote for Obama), while in losing an independent he likely loses two votes (he loses their vote and Obama would gain a vote). However, if you remember the Kentucky Democratic primary, many of those voters would never vote for Obama, but would be willing to vote for a conservative woman. In states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, personality, race and Palin’s gender may matter more than the issues.

The third key is to control the agenda. McCain was easily seen as another George W. Bush in disguise, something sure to lose him the election. The Economist makes had a damning assessment of McCain here in last week’s issue:

Two months remain before the election, more than enough time for Mr McCain to allay some of these worries. He needs to spend less time reassuring evangelicals that he agrees with them about abortion and gay marriage, and more time having another look at his tax plans. The old John McCain attacked Mr Bush for his tax cuts, which he said were unaffordable. The new John McCain not only wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but wants to add to them by virtually eliminating estate tax (something that would benefit a tiny number of very rich families, like his own). He also proposes to slash corporation tax. People on middle incomes would see little benefit. Independent analysts agree that Mr McCain’s plans would increase an already huge deficit.

Hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax cuts, more talk about religion and abortion: all this sounds too much like Bush Three, the label the Democrats are trying to hang around the Republican’s neck. We preferred McCain One.
-The Economist

By stirring things up with the media frenzy over his VP pick and satisfying the conservatives in the Republican party, McCain has time to himself move to the center and pick up support amongst independents. The Obama campaign has become distracted by attacking Sarah Palin. They could end up looking petty and mean-spirited Moreover, they are focusing on the wrong target
and risk losing if they continue to do so.

Downsides to Palin

There are many downsides to this risky choice by McCain. However, I am going to gloss over these fairly quickly as this is meant to be a provocative pro-Palin story.

• The Palin pick highlights McCain age instead of detracting from it. After all, had he picked Mitt Romney, most people would have felt fairly comfortable that the Vice President was up to the task, if he were to die in office, even if they did not like Romney. The same cannot be said with Palin.
• Palin was obviously not vetted well. There are a number of stories coming out that demonstrate that McCain made his selection in haste. This says more about McCain’s style of decision-making than Palin. She could be great. But, McCain’s rush decision cannot leave one feeling he is a thorough and thoughtful individual. And she could be Thomas Eagleton in drag.

Conclusion
Democrats are calling Sarah Palin the next Tom Eagleton. Call McCain’s decision risky, cynical, or reckless — call it whatever you want. The fact remains that there are many positives to his pick of Sarah Palin — it could send him straight to the White House. This is something the Democrats would be advised to keep in mind if they want to beat McCain in November.

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

In the US, the Republican National Convention has begun and as we prepare to watch the presumptive Republican nominee for President, it bears noting a little background into his character and past.

One reputable source of background material has been the BBC. They have released part one of a two-part audio documentary series timed for the conventions called “The Presidential Contenders,” profiling Barack Obama and John McCain. I listened to part one on Obama and profiled it last week. This week, it’s McCain’s turn. The audio documentary gives a forthright, unhyped portrayal of McCain in his earlier years, especially during his rise from former POW to congressman and Senator.

About his leadership style, a buddy from Arizona said this:

“John is still the rambunctious guy he always was. He goes against the grain — is defiant sometimes. And I love that in my president.”

His fellow Arizona Senator, Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat who served from 1977-1995 and another member of the Keating Five, said the following about him:

“I found him to be a very temperamental person who has difficulties with anyone who disagrees with him…. I just came to the conclusion that this guy was really not very stable in my judgment.”

He struggled to live up to the family “tough guy” reputation and he didn’t excel in schoolwork. But, he was strong-willed, social and personable. These character traits and a sense of opportunism moved him forward in his political career. His problematic temper and his lack of forethought regarding the consequences of his behavior are also covered with many on-the-record quotes from those who knew him as a POW, in the Senate, and in private life in Arizona.

The overall picture? McCain is a down-to-earth, practical and outgoing but opportunistic character with a very strong will and a sense of duty and personal honor as core to his sense of self. His extreme ambition has made him often seem opportunistic or disloyal, while his disregard for consequences and him explosive temper have earned him a reputation as a volatile person.

In this biography, his personal character traits seem remarkably similar to George W. Bush’s, both in their positives and negatives.

I highly recommend listening to this mp3 recording. It clocks in at just over 20 minutes. Click below to listen and judge for yourself.

Source:

DocArchive: The Presidential Contenders – Part Two

Related post
Barack Obama: candidate profile

Related posts:

• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• McCain takes center stage
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

John McCain made a surprise choice in choosing Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, for his running mate. While this is a risky choice, it definitely balances the ticket.

Below is a snippet of the story at the Wall Street Journal. This will be an interesting election.

Sen. John McCain picked first-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, adding a little-known but reform-minded woman to his ticket. At a rally in Dayton, Ohio, he said she has “strong principles, a fighting spirit and deep compassion,” and praised her record of fighting corruption.

“She’s exactly what this country needs to help me fight …the same old Washington politics of me first and country second,” he told the raucus crowd.

Gov. Palin thus became the first woman named to a spot on a Republican ticket. “I am honored,” she said as she stood by a beaming Gov. McCain in her first few seconds in the national spotlight.

The move is the most dramatic in a series of efforts to appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters still disappointed that she didn’t capture the Democratic nomination. Gov. Palin also reinforces Sen. McCain’s reformer image. She took on her state’s political establishment that had been rocked by an FBI corruption investigation.

It’s an untraditional pick, given that reliably Republican Alaska has never been a battleground state in the past, though Barack Obama has tried to put it into play. She’s much less well known that other candidates who were believed to be on Sen. McCain’s short list.

“She’s not from these parts and she’s not from Washington but when you get to know her you’re going to be as impressed as I am,” he said.

The pick was not problem free, though. Democrats immediately pounced on her thin resume, which runs the risk of undercutting a central attack by Sen. McCain against Sen. Obama: That he isn’t ready to serve as president. The ability of Sen. McCain’s vice president to step into the top job is seen as particularly important given his age: He turns 72 today and would be the oldest person ever to enter the White House.

Sources
Sarah Palin, Wikipedia
McCain Taps Gov. Sarah Palin As Presidential Running Mate, WSJ

Related posts:

• Quote of the day: John McCain
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well
• Spam E-mail on John McCain’s running mate
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight

Just hours after Barack Obama picked Joe Biden for his running in the U.S. presidential elections (more on that soon), I got a hilarious spam e-mail with a subject line that really tempted me to open it:

McCain picks Paris Hilton as running mate

Spammer ingenuity.

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• The other Mrs. McCain
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well

This past week, I attended an Investment luncheon to hear Greg Valliere, the chief political strategist with the Stanford Washington Research Group. He had a number of important things to say regarding the economic implications of political decision-making in Washington and of this year’s U.S. presidential election. I agree with most of his analysis and will write the rest of this blog entry from his vantage point. Where I disagree or have a specific point to make, I will preface my comments accordingly.

His three big themes were:

• There has been a dramatic rise in the size of government, especially in regulatory agencies
• Taxes are going to rise — in particular capital gains taxes
• The election in November has big implications on investment strategy

[First, in the interest of full disclosure, I will briefly say where I stand on the political and economic spectrum. I consider myself to be a pro-free market Libertarian. I believe in a lightly regulated free-market economy with regulation as a check on market power. On politics, my Libertarian views make me closest to Ron Paul, Barack Obama and Mike Gravel of all the U.S. Presidential nominees. I admit to being partial to Barack Obama and feel he would make the best U.S. President.]

Current Economic Situation
According to Valliere, we have just witnessed one of the biggest increases in the size of government in modern U.S. history. Now, I’m not talking about the increases due to the War on Terror — that’s been going on for nearly seven years now — but rather what’s happening right now. And it’s all because of the subprime crisis.

Basically, the U.S. Federal Reserve simply was caught asleep at the switch and was not aware of how important the subprime sector was and the potential for contagion in other asset markets. Now, we have a full blown crisis on our hands and the Fed has done what it can to contain the damage by lowering interest rates to 2%, by lending to investment banks, by taking on questionable collateral in exchange for rock-solid treasurys, and by bailing out Bear Stearns.

But, now the Fed is done. Interest rates are not going any lower because the Fed is constrained by rising inflation. They are also worried about the Dollar. Their next move — and this won’t be for another 10-11 months at least — will be up. That said, all the risks are to the downside in the economy.

My comment: what I take from these statements is that the Fed wishes it could do more given the downside risks to economic growth. But, it is constrained by the low dollar and rising inflation, especially with prices at the pump where inflation has its most visible and problematic manifestation. That means that, as much as the Fed wishes it could support the economy, it simply cannot and will not. This is not good for stock market investments, especially in cyclical companies. One needs to be as defensive as possible (consumer staples, TIPS, cash).

Valliere called the Fed an “activist Fed.” But felt this was a good thing generally. The Fed generally acted appropriately including its machinations in the JP Morgan- Bear Stearns shotgun wedding. He did not see the Bear Stearns deal as a ‘bailout,’ saying that if you thought it was a bailout, you’d have to ask Bear Stearns investors what they thought (having lost 90% of their money).

Big Government
So, with that as a backdrop, we can get into Valliere’s macro issues. The first example of big government is the housing bailout measures put forth by Chris Dodd. The pure politics of the issue means this bill will not be vetoed. This is the first example of how the subprime crisis is leading to big government.

My comment: The politics of it all means no sane politician would be caught vetoing a bill that gives millions of Americans relief on a key election issue with an election only six months away. George W. Bush may be a lame duck but he’s cares enough not to sacrifice the Republican’s chances in November by vetoing a bill that will aid millions and being seen as hard-hearted. And the tax rebate checks, while a drop in the bucket in terms of the stimulus the U.S. economy needs and likely to have no effect on the economy at $150 billion in a $14 trillion economy, will have a substantial impact on the size of the federal budget deficit. This is another sign that the subprime crisis has ushered in an era of big government.

The biggest change, according to Valliere, is in regulation. There will be a marked increase in Government regulation regardless of who’s in power in 2009. First, U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s regulatory proposal is “dead on arrival.” In this economic environment, much more is desired. Congressman Barney Frank will have the biggest say on this issue and he wants much more regulation and “punishment.”

My comment: This means that the de-regulation era has effectively ended. Big mergers will be eyed suspiciously. The cost of doing business will increase as red tape and regulation increases. All of this is bad for anyone looking to make a boatload of money based on capital gains in a new bull market. I happen to think that the pendulum does need to shift substantially away from de-regulation, but this will certainly mean an end to inflated asset prices in the capital markets.

As far as regulation goes, I predict a ’super-regulator’ is in the offing a la the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This bout of big government is going to produce a federal agency akin to DHS because people are going to want to see an all-powerful federal agency formed that can effectively keep the capitalist wolves at bay when they overreach. This is a transformation that I view with some dread because I believe that, while de-regulation had swung way too far, big government is a problem, not a solution.

Valliere finished his big government theme by mentioning the enormous increase in the federal budget deficit for FY 2008. We are going from about $160 billion to $500 billion in ONE year. This is truly remarkable and his testimony to the size of the government increase.

So, that’s Valliere’s theme #1: the subprime crisis workout means big government regardless of who is in power.

Taxes
Theme #2 is taxes. Valliere said that even John McCain will not be able to withstand an invigorated Democratic congress. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. This means that unless some legislation is proposed, voted for by congress, signed by the new President and enacted, all of those tax cuts will expire. This gives the Democrats in general, and Charlie Rangel in particular, a lot of leverage.

First, the Top Rate on ordinary income is definitely going higher. 35% may go to it’s pre-Bush level of 39.6% McCain may have to accept a compromise at 37-38%.

Second, capital gains is a big story. If Obama wins, they are going from the current 15% to the mid-20s. And then you’ve got Dividends, which were taxed at the rate of ordinary income before the Bush tax cut and are now taxed at 15%. That’s a huge difference. Valliere does not see the rate shooting up to 39.6% but it will go up substantially as well.

Interestingly, a subject where Valliere was clear was on these tax changes being retroactive. Even if the new President gets legislation through congress quickly, we’re talking June before a comprehensive new tax bill is signed, sealed and delivered. But, this bill may well be retroactive to January 1, 2009 if it is Barack Obama as President. Retroactive bills have been done before, so this is not a novel idea. Any way you look at it 15% is history.

My comment: I agree that capital gains taxes are going up. First, Obama is on record in the last ABC debate as having said that he would raise the capital gains tax to at least 20% (where it was under Clinton, after he lowered it) if not 28% (where it was when Clinton came to the White House in 1992). McCain will be forced by a Democratic Congress to accept a deal of some sort. Remember, the Democrats have huge leverage here because these cuts are automatically going to lapse in 2010. So, absent new legislation, starting in 2010, the capital gains rate will be 20% and the dividend rate 39.6%.

As for the equity of this, that’s a whole second discussion. I feel it is equitable to somewhat equalize capital gains, ordinary income and dividend tax rates because it gives people fewer opportunities for tax arbitrage. Having widely different rates is discriminatory because it allows individuals who can earn their money through one channel to receive a vastly different effective tax rate than others earning income through different channels. The best equitable solution is a flatter rate structure near 25-30% that is tax neutral. Deficit spending is not something to be proud of, so any tax rate cuts must be accompanied by spending cuts.

The most important implication of these developments is it will mean a selling torrent in November and December as people look to lock in gains. If people expect a capital gains tax increase that is retroactive to January 1, 2009 to go into effect, they will lock in capital gains before that date. This is a guarantee. So, I see Valliere’s assessment as very troubling for the stock market come year end 2008.

Valliere also addressed the Estate Tax as well. He said that the federal government was simply not going to abandon the estate tax. He sees a rate of 35-40% with a high exemption as the likely outcome.

My comment: Estate taxes are not about revenue but equity. Estate taxes are not huge money makers for the Treasury. However, the concept of capital gains being passed between generations leads to fears of consolidating wealth and power and is alien to the American psyche. Americans will not stand for a tax policy without estate taxes on principle alone.

The AMT is a huge tax generator. According to Valliere, it’s worth $900 billion over 10 years. Therefore, given the size of the deficit, he does not see its being abolished anytime soon. More likely, it will be phased out over time.

The third rail of politics is social security and medicare. We fund social security through payroll taxes. These taxes are limited to the first $100,000 of income.

My comment: That’s not going to cut it, as the structural generational changes in the U.S. mean that social security will be in deficit soon. People are living longer and having fewer children. So that means the country is getting older.

Obama is a brave politician according to Valliere for addressing this issue. With Obama as President, he sees the payroll taxes being assessed on income up to $200,000.

My comment: we have the lowest effective tax rates on individuals in the OECD. Don’t believe anyone who implies that America is overtaxed as Valliere did. A gentlemen of 80+ in the room hit back at Valliere, implying that we get a good deal and he was proud to be an American.

The last tax issue is corporate taxes. They are going down. Even Charlie Rangel wants 31%. McCain wants 25%.

My comment: The UK is suffering a rash of corporate defections because of high corporate tax rates. There is a lot of talk in the British press about companies leaving or threatening to leave the UK as a result. The point being — we are in a global corporate world where companies can choose their base for taxation. There is a solid point in being competitive on corporate tax rates.

Politics
Valliere admits to being partial to Hillary Rodham Clinton. He thought she would be the next President and is on record as having said so in ‘07. He felt she would be the strongest President amongst the candidates. However, during his whole speech, he never mentioned her,nly referring to McCain. [I assume he did this because people inside the beltway all believe she has no shot at being nominated.] He chalked up her problems to:

• Bill Clinton, his gaffes and surprisingly poor campaigning skill
• Her positioning as an inevitability nominee
• Internal campaign problems
• Barack Obama’s being “adroit”
• Obama’s winning “a lot of states where nobody lives.”

Valliere said that he imagines someone high within the Democratic apparatus close to Clinton will pull her aside and ask her to quit after the primaries. He mentioned Rahm Emanuel, James Carville and Ed Rendell as the ones most likely to take on this role. He imagines they will tell her it is in her best interest to quit gracefully because she has three jobs to contend for:

1. Senate Majority Leader- Harry Reid is unpopular
2. Governor of New York. Spitzer and Patterson have not been stellar.
3. Nominee for 2012

He believes she will bow out gracefully by mid-June and that everyone will be singing “Cumbaya” at the Democratic Convention come August.

He sees the Democrats scoring significant victories in the Senate. They will get 4-5 seats, maybe 6. But, they will not hit the [filibuster-proof] magic number of 60. In the house, the Republicans are going to have huge problems. States of notable interest are VA, NH, MN, CO, NH, OR, and ME. All of these are at risk. The big problem is Republican retirements.

My comment: Two retirements are especially noteworthy. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) left early to get a cushy job because he knew what was coming for Republicans in 2008. So he left while the getting was good despite the fact that he left his seat prey to the Democrats, who took it in a special election. The same thing goes for Former House Speaker Tom Delay (R-TX).

Valliere says the Democrats will take at least 12 seats in the house giving them a 50-seat majority.

My comment: This is a big story because it means Democratic control of Congress will be strengthened.

Valliere also sees a lot of headwinds for McCain. But, he thinks you have to respect a man who condemns ethanol subsidies in Iowa and tells Michigan workers jobs are never coming back. His problems are:

• Age
• Temperament
• Health

Temperament: the Democrats will hit him on his ties with Phoenix developers and lobbyists. Both of these issues could cause a McCain volcanic eruption for which he is known [My comment: McCain has been known to drop the F-bomb on even Republican colleagues when hot under the collar].

Health: he has had melanomas 5 different times and you can see that one side of his face has been fully reconstructed. Therefore, his running mate selection is crucial. Mitt Romney has to be on the short list.

Overall, these are not fatal headwinds.

My comment: this seems a fair depiction. I would also say that McCain is vulnerable on his association with Bush policies, one of many reasons Condi Rice is a non-starter as VP. And he is vulnerable as a flip-flopper given his policy stance changes since his last run in 2000. Romney being seen a flip-flopper for tacking hard right as well could present problems with moderates and independent voters.

Biggest McCain problems are:

1. The economy may not come back. Valliere believes in a 2nd-half recovery. But, will it be enough, especially on jobs, to rescue McCain? In 1992, Bush I lost because it didn’t come back in time.
2. There’s the Bush Ball and Chain. He has the approval ratings of Nixon post-Watergate and Truman during the Korean War. The next elections led to huge change in both cases. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Columbia University president and former War hero who had never held national office became President after Truman in 1953. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer, became president.
3. History: since FDR. The pattern is 8 and out. People don’t like parties to be in power too long. The only exception is Bush I.

Obama’s problems:

1. He has not been fully vetted
2. “Harvard Disease”: this is a problem of Harvard turning out smart people who don’t seem to connect because they are seen as arrogant and condescending.

The wildcard is Iran. The U.S., Israel or both could strike before Bush II leaves office. From Israel’s national security point of view, would you rather have the threat of a nuclear enemy who wants to wipe you off the map eliminated during a Bush or an Obama administration?

Investment Themes

1. Freddie and Fannie will benefit from an Obama administration.
2. Big Pharma loses with Obama because of price controls.
3. Alternative energy wins with Obama (although McCain is also lukewarm on ethanol.
4. Tax breaks for oil & gas are out with Obama, so that’s a negative for big oil
5. Hospital Stocks will rally because of McCain
6. Defense: In a contrarian call, Valliere saw McCain as bad for Defense because he is a fiscal hawk with national security credibility. The national security vulnerabilities of Obama may cause him to be more liberal on defense spending.

My comment: all interesting ideas, but not necessarily ones I agree with 100%. I think Fannie and Freddie will fail or be nationalized. And I think McCain is good for defense.

Valliere’s ideas were well-constructed and his logic was internally consistent.

Related posts:

• Marc Faber: Obama’s not going to be good for the market
• Taxes, Taxes, Everywhere
• I probably can’t vote for McCain
• Are US corporations feeding at the trough of low taxes?
• Obama sees Bush behind weak dollar

Now that the Democratic race is almost over, John McCain has stopped getting a free ride. Almost overnight the attacks have begun and we will see whether his squeaky clean maverick image holds up to scrutiny. Today, the Washington Post and the UK newspaper the Guardian launched the first high profile probe into McCain’s business dealings with an article entitled, “Allegations of ranch deal threaten McCain’s clean image.” The Guardian article begins

Left to campaign under the radar as attention focuses on the Democratic race, the Republican John McCain yesterday faced renewed scrutiny of his ties to businesspeople and lobbyists during his years in the Senate.

The Washington Post reported that McCain pushed legislation through Congress for an Arizona housing development that benefited one of the senator’s main presidential fundraisers.

It was the second report this election season to raise questions about McCain’s reputation as a crusader against the influence of money in politics.

But the timing of the report could prove more critical to McCain, with Barack Obama so close to securing the Democratic nomination and eager to begin moving forward on the presidential contest.

-The Guardian

It is wholly apparent that John McCain has gotten a free ride. Now, we can see the damage caused by the long Democratic contest for Democrats. These allegations can now take center stage.

Welcome to the campaign, John.

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Great article on Presidential race losers
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Quote of the day: John McCain

Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic Monthly showed a chart suggesting a future re-alignment of voting patterns toward the Democratic party and away from the Republican party. His chart reinforces the idea that it is not naiveté on the part of young voters in supporting Obama’s Presidential candidacy, it is rather that there has been a marked shift within party politics for the Gen-Y voters.

This bodes well for Democrats if they can keep themselves from imploding in the run-up to the November election.

The interesting thing to note about Ambinder’s chart is it shows a gradual shift in party affiliation among 18-29 year olds in the 16 years from 1992-2008. It is not a wholesale shift that can be attributed solely to the Bush Administration or the War in Iraq. This is a real generational gap that bodes well for the future of the Democratic party.

My take on this is that the Republicans overreached after they gained control of the house in 1994. The Republican Party began to be dominated by social and foreign policy conservatives in a way that reduced their appeal amongst this next generation. Young fiscal conservatives and moderates had no where to go except the Democratic party.

Related posts:

• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character
• Mike Gravel switches parties

2008 is a year in which the Democrats should be able to win a Presidential election with one hand tied behind their backs. There is a stalled economy, a housing crisis, an unpopular war and an even more unpopular Republican President. All this speaks to a Democratic landslide come November. Yet, they seem to be imploding. Why?

I like to call it the Mitt vs. Hillary factor. Through Super Tuesday, we had two very close primary election contests on our hands. On the Republican side, it was a battle between Mitt Romney and John McCain. On the Democratic side, it was Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton.

Romney’s Concession
After Super Tuesday, Mitt Rommney sensed he could only win at the cost of the Republican party and pulled out of the race, lending John McCain his support. This gave McCain a boost in a number of ways. It unified the party. It gave McCain more time to raise money. It gave McCain time away from a grueling campaign season to re-fuel for the general election. And it allowed McCain to focus on his Democratic opponents rather than his Republican colleagues. In conceding, Romney summed it up this way:

“Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”

Romney’s Reasoning

His concession speech made a few important points that I highlight in red.

First, he was fully aware that Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Gerald Ford at the 1976 Republican Convention cost the Republicans the White House that year. He does not want a repeat of that bloody internecine battle in 2008, using the War on Terror as a compelling reason why.

Second, he tries to lay testimony to his authenticity as a person by recalling his policy differences with John McCain, while demonstrating that he stands shoulder to shoulder with him against the Democrats. He means to say that he is an authentic person and not a flip-flopper. That’s why he battled hard against McCain. Yet he goes on to cite his similarities to McCain, especially on the War on Terror (not just Iraq — notice he cites Osama Bin Laden on purpose). These are much greater.

Third, he points to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats as the true common adversaries of the Republicans.

Fourth, he is a fighter who doesn’t bow out easily. But, he is a loyal, honorable man. He needs to stand aside for party and country.

Romney: Conclusions to Draw
I happen to think Mitt Romney is a flip flopper. I think he changed his positions on Abortion, national defense, health care and a ton of other issues to mollify the Republican base. He tacked right for political expediency.

Yet, his concession was brilliant. It demonstrates that he is truly loyal to his party. But, more than that, it re-casts him as an honorable and decent man to the Republican base, where some had seen him as a flip flopping Mormon in sheep’s clothing.

Romney could have soldiered on, looking to exploit McCain’s weaknesses (his consideration of joining the Kerry ‘04 ticket, his maverick anti-establishment tendencies, his alleged affair and alleged lack of family values, etc.). This would have fractured the Republican party and weakened McCain as a general election candidate.

If John McCain becomes President he owes it to Mitt Romney, pure and simple.

Hillary Clinton: By Comparison
Hillary Clinton’s campaign stands in marked contrast to Mitt Romney’s. She has stayed in the race against Barack Obama, attacking him in a way that weakens whoever becomes the Democratic presidential candidate.

My analysis of the four points I made regarding Romney’s concession applied to Clinton is as follows:

First, she should be aware of the damage Ted Kennedy did to the Democratic party in 1980 by contesting all the way to the convention. Like Romney, she has had ample opportunity to bow out, especially after the Potomac Primaries. Yet, she apparently is too self-interested to do so.

Second, Hillary Clinton, like Romney, has suffered from a perception that she is not entirely honest or forthcoming. Her campaigning has highlighted this fact, the Tuzla tale being the most egregious example of her misrepresentations. I hope she can soon demonstrate, as Romney has, that she has a moral core that rises above self-interest.

Third, she has often attacked her Democratic colleague Barack Obama, while in the same breath praising the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Her statements about McCain’s and her years of experience versus Obama’s lack thereof was chilling. From where I sit, such disloyalty immediately disqualifies her from the race; she lacks the personal qualities befitting a President.

Fourth, she is a fighter who does not bow out easily. That is very admirable as a quality for a potential President. Yet, the contrast to Romney’s decency in standing aside is striking.

A last note: having released her tax records, we realize that the Clinton’s made $109 million over a seven year period. They could well afford to finance much of their own campaign (as could John McCain, whose wife Cindy is estimated to be worth $300 million). Yet, they have not done so. This is yet another contrast to Mitt Romney.

Conclusion
Ultimately, I am left feeling a lot more positive about Romney, who I had considered a flip flopper with no moral compass. I am left feeling enmity toward Hillary Clinton that I never had before this election cycle.

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character

While I fully support Barack Obama’s presidential bid as the best opportunity for change, I respect former Democratic Presedential candidate Mike Gravel and his Libertarian viewpoints. As a Libertarian, I found it interesting that when I took the Select Smart survey to track how the individual candidates’ positions mirrored mine, Mike Gravel came out on top, followed by Ron Paul and then Barack Obama.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Mike Gravel has switched from the Democratic party to the Libertarian party. Gravel was a long shot candidate, who at 77, would have been the oldest President on inauguration (78 years old). In addition, he has a checkered financial past, having suffered both personal and corporate bankruptcies. by far.

Gravel was frustrated at his inability to take part in the Democratic primary debates in order to get his views heard. Ron Paul, a former Libertarian party member with similar views, benefited from his participation in the Republican primary debates. According to the Associated Press, Gravel defended his switch in an e-mail by saying:

“[the Democratic party] no longer represents my vision for our great country.”It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views.”

Related posts:

• Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Discount All Caucus Wins
• Geraldine Ferraro: what is she really saying?

As a Libertarian, I am definitely a fan of Ron Paul. It is sad that there is no mainstream party that is Liberal in the traditional sense of the word. Now, liberal means left-wing when I look at Liberal quite differently.

Anyway, there was an article from Time magazine a few days back that I just caught talking about Ron Paul and why he scares the Republicans. Read it yourself.

One quote in the article I want to take issue with is here:

“In some ways, Paul is a throwback to the frugal and isolationist wing of the old Republican Party, the fuddy-duddy GOP of Robert Taft and Calvin Coolidge.”

Isolationism is a red herring. Ron Paul may well be an isolationist, but that is a matter of opinion. Be skeptical when loaded words like “isolationist” are bandied about.

Another quote that begs skepticism is this:

“he is an extremist — partly in the Barry Goldwater extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice sense of the word, but also in the wacky let’s-relitigate-the-currency-debates-of-the-1820s sense of the word. The late William F. Buckley wanted conservatives to stand athwart history yelling stop; Paul seems to want to slam history into reverse. The guy genuinely wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and start circulating gold again.”

I have been following Paul for years and I know he wants abolish the Fed. Is that a bad thing? Irrespective, he is a political realist and is on record for saying that he does not want to make radical change from day one. Radical change may be his end goal, but he respects the need to work within the system to move our country in the right direction. Again be very skeptical when you see code words like “extremist” bandied about.

When I find a reference to his true position on how he would govern in moving toward these more radical changes over time, I will make an addendum to the post.

Related posts:

• Geraldine Ferraro: what is she really saying?
• The Audacity of Rhetoric
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight
• Quote of the day: “That One”
• Mike Gravel switches parties