The Obama Health Care Speech: One Republican's View

I heard most the President's speech tonight over the radio. Here are some of what I thought were highlights and what I thought.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

I don't have a problem with this provision. I've long believed that denying someone insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or using the horrible practice of recission should be against the law.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

He makes a nod to the co-op idea and to the idea that market forces should bring prices down. He includes subsidies for those who can't purchase health care and seems to back a catastrophic insurance scheme that was devised by his 2008 opponent, John McCain. Smart move there. All in all, there are things for someone like me to love.

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Hmmm...this I don't get. If we have consumer protections and regulation (good), and we have companies competing and bringing down prices (also good), and we have subsidies to help those who can't afford the premiums (really good), then why do we need a "public option?" It just seems like the answer to a question no one is asking.

That said, I do like that he is looking to make it be funded not by taxes, but by premiums.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public - and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment - it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money - an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Another hmmm moment. Other than the tax on so-called "Cadillac" plans, I don't see how tackling the old monster of "waste, fraud and abuse" is going to not make this plan a budget buster.

As for his partisan dig at Republicans for leaving a big deficit? Well, it was partisan, but it was also true. Moving on...

Finally, many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

I think this is a worthwhile idea and it throws something to the GOP. Will the Republicans take it? I don't know.

All in all, it was a good speech and he did put some more flesh on the bones of his plan. My problems with it is that he still has not really given a reasonable explaination as to why we need a public option and has not really tackled how to best pay for this plan in a way that won't bust the already busted budget. He also has not taken on the idea of junking the idea of employer-provided insurance, something that doesn't work in this age of employment mobility. My guess is that killing employer provided care would mean taking on labor, one the building blocks of the Democratic coalition.

The question remains if he can get Democrats to agree on this, and if Republicans are willing to step up and work on the plan.

I've said it before, but I think we need health care reform. The question remains if Obama's plan is a plan that will work.

...But It Bends Towards Justice

I haven't said a lot about was has been going on in Iran, mostly because other folks are doing a better job of it than I am.

But in regards to how the President is handling the crisis...I do think Obama is doing the right things right now and playing it as carefully as one can. This has upset some on the right, but you won't get any criticism from me. The relationship between Iran and the United States has always been a delicate one, and if the President appears too strong, he could hurt the protest movement and empower the leadership. This crisis has to be settled by those on the streets. Justice has to come from them, not from Washington.

The President's words on the bloody events of today are important to hear:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The last paragraph is the most important. He quotes King and reminds the Iranian government that they can run, but in the end, they can't hide. Injustice will not last forever. As the prophet Amos said, justice will flow like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.

The next few days and weeks could be very dark for the people of Iran. But in the end, the moral arc will bend towards justice for the people of Iran.

Keeping Them Honest

One of the more controversial aspects of President Obama's health care plan is the inclusion of a "public option" run by the government. The reason to have such an option mixed in with private plans, is to keep the private insurers honest.

I've always found this an odd assertion: that the only way to keep the private plans running well and playing fair is to have a government-run plan. Isn't regulation a better way of keeping the private plans honest?

For Republicans and moderate or conservative Democrats, the mention of a public plan makes them nervous. There are fears that a public-plan will under cut private plans in price and effectively run those insurers out of business, leaving a defacto single-payer system in the United States.

Such a prospect is fine with liberal Democrats who have no love for the current system. The liberal base of the Democratic Party has long championed single-payer ala Canada, and Obama might be sneaking it in through the back door.

Clive Crook has a good article in the Financial Times about the prospect of a single-payer system in the US. Even though I am not a fan of single-payer, Crook does a good job of showing its benefits which are appealing:

In my view, there are worse things than Medicare for all – and the present system might be one of them. Medicare for all would give the US truly universal coverage and better control of costs. It would preserve choice of doctor and hospital, and private insurance for supplementary services could co-exist for those who wanted it. The demise of employer-provided plans would make labour more mobile and relieve workers of the worry that losing their job means losing their health insurance.

So a health care system based on Medicare could control costs, provide choice, and make health care more portable. All good things.

So, what are the down sides? Crook continues:

A less obvious objection is that a healthy private insurance market is worth preserving. The seething hatred many Democrats – and many other Americans of no fixed ideology – feel for private health insurers ignores the value they bring – and the extra value they could add if their incentives were better designed and their customers had the information they needed to make intelligent choices.

If competition is a good thing, competition among insurance providers is a good thing too. Yes, abolishing it reduces one kind of lump-sum administrative overhead, which is all some Democrats seem to care about. But it also abolishes pressures for innovation and other kinds of cost reduction. In other industries, competition pays for itself in spite of the apparent waste of marketing and other forms of duplicated effort. Healthcare is different – but not that different. At the very least, one should pause before shutting competition down.

So, a single-payer system could impede innovation which could also slow cutting costs. Not so good. Crook goes on to note that the whole "keeping them honest" line would mean that the public plan would have to play hardball: using its might to force down payments and make the market less competative.

In the end, I think that if the President want to keep the private insurers honest, then he should as Crook argues, favor a regulated private system, something I support. If they really think the government should be running the show, they should just say so and give good reasons why such a route is better.

Outsourcing Gay Rights

A dear friend of mine who happens to also be a gay moderate Republican, thought that the upside of Obama would be that some social issues like gay rights would actually gain ground. As the past few months have passed, I have to wonder what my friend is thinking now.

The New York Times has a very strong editorial taking the President to task for not doing enough on the subject of gay rights. The Justice Department supported keeping the Defense of Marriage Act in place using reasoning that one would not expect to hear from a Democrat.

Because Democrats are all for gay rights, correct?

As a gay Republican who has had to withstand the many slings and arrows of gay Democrats, it would be easy for me to make fun of this development. But the fact that gay rights are being impeded, makes it hard to laugh. Actually, one wants to cry.

In some way though, the gay community has no one to blame for this than ourselves. For years the rhetoric has been to let the Democrats take care of securing gay rights. So, gays have voted for Democrats and the result has been...well not much.

I'm not saying that the Republicans would do a better job- I'd have to be on drugs to say that looking at the current state of the GOP. But I am saying that if gay Americans want to be treated as full and equal citizens, then we are going to fight for them ourselves and not outsource it to the Democrats.

If gay Democrats are upset at Obama's performance so far (and many are) then now is time to pressure the White House to stop acting like cowards. It's time for gay couples to be treated as equals by Uncle Sam and for men and women to be able to serve their country in our military without fear of being discharged for being honest. If a nation like Israel, hardly a wimpy nation, can have gays serving openly in their military, then so can we.

It's way past the time that the gay community starts hittin' the streets to demand equality and not simply be told to be patient.

A Matter of Degrees

Atlantic Magazine coorespondent, Conor Clarke has a bit of fun at the expense of conservatives who are crying "socialism." He points to a pie chart that shows what industries have been nationalized and what still remains in private hands.

Bloggers Justin Gardner and Pete Abel have chimed in accounting about the silliness of such conservatives.

Now, I do think that Republicans have been too quick to use the word socialism to all things tied to the Democrats. (Of course, some liberals tend to tie the word fascist to all things Republican, but that's another story.) I also think that screaming "socialist" tends to discredit what I think are real issues, such as if it is a good idea for the federal government to nationalize a car company. (Chris Bowers at Open Left calls what happened at GM socialism.)

Now Clarke does say show that some on the right are having a serious discussion on Obama's take on the American economy, but it seems to be done with a short shrift.

I feel that is a shame. While nationalizing a few banks and a former auto giant doesn't mean we are becoming the new Soviets, such moves should be questioned. What does it mean that we now own a car company? How will that save General Motors and bolster the economy in the Midwest? Is there an "exit strategy" to get the government out after a certain time? Why was it necessary to become the majority shareholder of GM? Will all this money be put to good use, or will GM end up like British Leyland?

It's one thing to regulate an industry, or to give a company a loan, ala Chrysler in 1979. It's another to basically have Uncle Sam start making cars. This is new territory for the United States. No, it's not necessarily socialism, but it does harken to some of the tactics used by Western European democracies with varying success.

Clarke and other seem to believe we aren't on a slippery slope. I don't know if we are sliding towards a worker's paradise, but how can Clarke be so sure? What if the GM takeover sets a precedent? What happens if another company heads into trouble? Will the government know how to hold back?

I don't have the answers for this. I'm not saying we are becoming socialist, but I don't know where we are heading. What I do think is that we should have an honest discussion about it, without being viewed as crazies or without resorting to screaming "socialist" all the time. This is not something that should be trivialized.

So, Where are the New Republicans?

Ross Douthat has a good post today about Obama and the Center-Left. He notes that conservatives were happy with some of the Clintonite picks he made in the cabinet. However, as policy started coming out, those same conservatives (myself included) were not as happy.

So what happened? Douthat posed three solutions and it is the third one that makes the most sense:

But there's a third answer as well - which is that the smart center-left, embodied by Larry Summers as much as anyone, has moved steadily leftward over the last ten years, as part of a broader Bush-era rapprochement between the Democratic Party's moderate and liberal factions. On health care, the environment, income inequality and other fronts, figures like Summers are closer to their erstwhile lefty antagonists than they used to be, sharing common ground even when they don't have identical policy preferences. Thus the Obama team can include many of the same people who worked for Bill Clinton in 1998 or so, and still produce a more leftward-tilting policy agenda than the second-term Clinton White House - because the people in question don't have the same priorities they did a decade ago.

I think this is correct. What many conservatives (again, myself included) forgot is that the so-called New Democrats ala Bill Clinton, came about because the Dems had lost the presidency several times and were losing key voting blocks. The Republicans were ascendant, so the New Democrats decided to steer the party where the country was at that time.

These days you don't hear much about the New Democrats and they have for the most part, dissapeared. That's mostly because as the Bush Administration drifted ever so rightward, that caused the moderates and liberals in the Democratic party to seek common ground and move leftward. As the GOP faltered, there was no need for the New Deomcrats on a social or economic front, so we have what we have today: former Clintonistas who are more left of center than a decade ago.

But Douthat notes that something else has changed, besides the Dems-the nation:

American public opinion has moved leftward with the Clintonites, and under the influence of the same trends and events - from the mounting health-care crisis to the post-Clinton return of wage stagnation to the current financial debacle. And this is what's missing from the conservative attacks on Obama's radicalism - a recognition that the political landscape has shifted dramatically since the days when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were struggling over the American center, and that in the absence of a conservatism that's responsive to the changing situation, yesterday's radicalism can start to look a lot like today's common sense.

Let's face it, the ideas being proposed by Obama are hardly new: they are old liberal chesnuts that have been sitting on a shelf somewhere for the last 30 years. But the fact that the nation is moving leftward and more importantly, the fact the the GOP doesn't seem interested in engaging in debate on this, means that everything old is new again.

The speech that Rush Limbaugh gave a few weeks ago at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference was not that surprising- I mean that's the stuff Limbuagh has been pushing for years. Nevertheless, what was disturbing was what he had to say in response to those within the GOP calling for change:

Now let's talk about the conservative movement as it were. We, ladies and gentlemen, have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating. This wasn't a landslide victory, 52 to, what, 46. Fifty-eight million people voted against Obama. There would have been more if we would have had a conservative nominee. [Applause] I don't mean that -- I mean that in an instructive way, as a lead-in to what I'm talking about here. No humiliating defeat here. I can't -- sometimes I get livid and angry. We do have an organizational problem. We have a challenge. We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.

His belief, which is shared by others, is that there is nothing wrong with conservatism, that it does not need to change, and that those who question that are elitists.

No doubt, there were many a liberal saying that circa 1988. They believed that nothing was wrong with liberalism and that it didn't have to change with the times.

That worked out well.

So, the question that needs to be asked today is where are the New Republicans? Where are the people who are interested in trying to make the GOP and conservatism viable for the current age?

Rush and others are betting that people will not go for Obama's plans. That well might be the case...in time. But in the midst of a crisis, people want answers and if the only person around is giving bad answers, then they will take them.

How Do You Say 'Google' In French?

I like France.

My partner and I went to Paris last year. It was my partner's third trip to France and my second. I love the old buildings, the cathedrals, the food and just the life of the City of Lights. I know that we will go back to Paris again, and maybe see even more of France.

While I love going to France, I don't want to be France.

The land of wine, champagne, Citroen and the Effiel Tower seems to be on the tip on many tounges as of late. In the wake of the first Obama budget, France seems to keep coming up. France has become a way of talking about European-style social democracy, where government has a large role in the economy. Why France and not say, Sweden, I don't know. Many of my liberal friends seem long for a goverment that offers care from womb-to-tomb.

For many of us in the center or the center-right, we look at the President's budget with some trepidation. Of course, we need to find a way to deal with health care in the United States. Government needs to find ways to help solve this and other issues. But having a role doesn't always mean running the whole show.

Roger Cohen wrote in the New York Times that he fears the United States might become like our Gaullist neighbors and in his mind is not a good idea:

I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery.

Americans, at least in their imaginations, have always lived at the new frontier; French frontiers have not shifted much in centuries.

Churn is the American way. Companies are born, rise, fall and die. Others come along to replace them. The country’s remarkable capacity for innovation, for reinvention, is tied to its acceptance of failure. Or always has been. Without failure, the culture of risk fades. Without risk, creativity withers. Save the zombies and you sabotage the vital.

If America loses sight of these truths, it will cease to be itself.

Clive Crook, a British expat, has written an extensive essay on his own fears that we might become like France. He agrees with Cohen that adopting a Euro-style social welfare system, could be done- but it would mean sacrificing who we are as Americans.

To put it mildly, I admire this country's instinctive suspicion of concentrated state power, its anti-collectivism, its veneration of the individual spirit and individual enterprise. At different times and in different ways, Democrats and Republicans alike have been at war with aspects of that mind-set, but as an admiring foreigner, I am here to tell you that this culture survives, that the American exception is alive and well, and that it is more than likely the secret of this country's awesome success...

This promised transformation is not a move into unexplored territory, after all. The policies that Obama is proposing have all been tried elsewhere. Ideas that look bold and new in this country are old hat across the Atlantic. And we know something about how well they work.

A strong case can be made for many of Obama's proposals, taken one at a time. I admire his ambition to mend the country's failing, unjust, and needlessly expensive health care system. I also applaud his focus on raising the incomes of the working poor, through tax cuts and wage subsidies (such as his "make work pay" tax credits). But trade-offs need to be faced. A good hard look at Europe makes this plain.

Bigger government requires higher taxes -- in the end, for most taxpayers and not just the rich. Europe shows that tax systems tilted too far against high earners stifle the incentives that spur economic growth. Welfare systems that are more generous and have fewer strings tend to raise unemployment. Stricter regulation can and does retard innovation. Stronger unions can raise unemployment and, in the aggregate, lower incomes.

America is not a perfect society. I am not one of those conservatives that like to talk about the United States being the greatest country on earth and then ignore some glaring problems like health care. But I also think that what is so great about this country is that we are a dynamic culture. We have always been a nation of strivers. Yes, the recent crisis shows that there are some negative effects at times, but on the whole, it has made America a world leader. As I am wont to saying, there is a reason that we don't see a French version of Google, or a German version of Apple. Because of the high taxation and strict regulation, there is less room for entrepeneurs. Yes, European societies tend to be "safe" in that there are generous government policies, but there is little room for innovation.

I agree with Crook that such changes have a chance to shape American character for good or for ill. I am not arguing that no changes need to be made. After the whole mortgage problems, there is need for greater regulation. There is need for reform of the unemployment system or definitely health care. But it seems to me that instead of looking to Europe for the answer, shouldn't we be looking here in America?

Like I said, I like France, but I don't want to live there.

Voter's Remorse

I should have known better.

For those of you who have been following me, most of you know that I grudingly voted for Obama last November. It was a ticket-spittling vote: voted for Obama and then voted GOP down the line. I noted that I was going to cast my vote with some trepidation:

While I am supporting Obama, it is with trepidation. I worry that once in office he will veer too far to the Left, pleasing the Democratic base. I can only hope that with so much support from independents and Republicans, that he will realize that he has to govern from the center or face a backlash in 2010.

Well, it seems like my fears have been confirmed. It started with the Stimulus Bill that I thought was too stuffed with pork to do any real good. Now it comes in the form of Obama's proposed budget.

From far away, it looks good. As David Brooks notes, it spends money in some needed areas like the environment and health care. It's when you look closer that you see how bad it is and it plays to Obama's progressive base leaving moderates in the dust. Brooks notes:

There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.

So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.

For true-blue liberals, this is the ultimate wet dream. This what Paul Krugman, the liberal economist for the New York Times said on Friday:

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

Like Brooks though, this wasn't what I signed up for. I had hoped that maybe, just maybe, Obama would govern more center-left. Yes, he would govern with some leftist tendencies, but seeing the amount of moderates, independents and Republicans who voted for him, he would have governed more to the center than to the left.

Yeah, that was a silly hope. As Brooks notes:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Back during the elections, I was somewhat suspicious of Obama's talk of bipartisanship and new politics. After all, John McCain, the GOP challenger had a real history of reaching out to Democrats and angering fellow Republicans by not being the good conservative soldier. But Obama had no proof of his willingness to compromise other than his words. As McCain tacked rightward during the campaign, it left his message of being able to bridge the partisan divide in tatters and many moderates looked to Obama and gave him the benefit of the doubt despite his voting record. Now, we are seeing that those doubts were real.

Part of his budget are good and I don't have much of problem with. I don't have a problem with letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy since I never thought that was a good idea. But capping the amount that can be deducted by the upper income as charitable contributions seems somewhat mean.

Also, financiing this only one class is also misguided. My problem with many on the Left is that for all the talk about "being in this together" and of "shared interests" when it comes to paying for government, they seem to think that only the rich should pay. Again, I'm not opposed to having the rich pay more in taxes, but if we want more government services, I think we all have to pitch in some way.

Finally, this loads a lot of deficit on the government. Now, yes, the Republicans went nuts and ran up the deficit. But that doesn't mean that because the GOP lost its drive to be responsible, that this gives the Democrats a green light to spend, spend, spend. The Obama administration thinks that as the economy recovers, the deficit will become a thing of the past. But if this crisis is so dire, isn't a little rosy to think that it will end quickly?

What I am learning from this experience is that those of us that call ourselves moderates are not very politically savvy. We are swayed by soothing words. George W. Bush also campaigned as a moderate and talked about being a "uniter, not a divider." Once in office, he governed from the hard right. Barack Obama talked about being post-partisan. So far, we haven't seen that.

Just because someone talks about bridging the partisan divide, that doesn't mean that one will govern as a moderate. Moderates love to listen to words, but the fact is politics is about special interest groups asserting influence. It has been progressive Democrats that have worked hard to get Obama elected. It was the Christian Right that worked to get Bush in the White House. When you have a group doing all it can for a candidate, they expect payback and they get it.

Moderates don't really like the who party appratus and all the pleasing of specific interest groups. They don't get that to exert influence, you have to get involved in the work of democracy to get your candidate elected. If you want a moderate candidate, you have to put some skin in the game. We moderates don't want to do that.

So, we listen to words. Politicians know this. They need to get some moderate voters to win, so they will say what they need in order to win. Bush did this and I think Obama is doing this as well.

All of this has made me think that it is even more important to stay in the GOP and fight the good moderate fight. But that means getting busy and not simply listen to nice sounding words. I need to work for candidates who will adhere to a more moderate message.

In the end, I need to always listen to my gut. Don't trust the nice sounding words.

The Real Work of Bipartisanship

"Bipartisan" has become the word of the day in political life. Actually, I don't think its hold has ever left us. There is something among Americans that we want to see people put aside partisan differences and work together.

Presidential candidates love to talk about how they will come to Washington and create a new environment where people will work together and things will get done.

When George W. Bush became President in 2001, he talked about being a "uniter, not a divider." He said he wanted to bring a new spirit to our political life, citing his time was governor of Texas, where he worked with Democrats to pass meaningful legislation. He came to Washington with a jovial mood and even took to calling people by nicknames. One example of this was his calling the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone "Pablo."

But we all know what happened. The President as well the GOP, which then held both houses in Congress, pretty much ran over the Democrats. Bipartisanship got lost pretty fast.

Now, we have a new President who has talked about creating a new kind of politics. So far, though, all is not well among the parties in Washington. President Obama has placed three Republicans in his cabinet, he has met with GOP leaders and even invited some to the White House. What does he get in return? Well, House Republicans voted en masse against the Stimulus Bill. In the Senate, only three Republicans voted the stimulus package, and not without cutting some money from the bill.

Democrats and Obama admirers are quite upset about this. Here President Obama has done so much for Republicans and this is how they treats him.

But the problem here, in my view, is the President Obama is making the same mistake that President Bush made: trying gun for the look and symbolism of bipartisanship, but not really getting at the hard work of bipartianship.

To really be bipartisan means having to find a way to work out a bill in light of the fact that you are dealing with two political parties with very different ideas of how governments should be run. It means that both sides have to learn to give up some cherished ideas and projects to reach a deal. There is a reason they say that making law is like making sausage; it's not pretty.

In a recent opinion piece, Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun Times notes that Obama was basically trying to do bipartisanship on the cheap. He notes:

Obama has been good on the symbols of reaching across party lines, saying he wanted to hear Republican ideas for stimulus, inviting GOP lawmakers to the White House and traveling to Capitol Hill to meet with the entire Republican House caucus.

But Obama didn't walk the talk. He outsourced the writing of the stimulus bill to the hyper-partisan House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with predictable results. When members of the GOP House caucus complained they were being frozen out of the writing of the bill, he did nothing to persuade Pelosi to include Republican thinking.

The outcome was a bill long on the big-government spending liberals like and short on the kind of investor- and consumer-friendly tax cuts that conservatives want. Rather than serving as a focused strategy of stimulating the economy, the bill unleashed eight years of pent-up Democratic ambitions to expand government. It didn't get a single GOP vote, and 11 fiscally minded Democrats refused to sign on to it.

Now, the GOP are not victims here. And, of course, elections do have consequences. But the thing here is that Obama could have used his chief of staff, Rham Emmanuel to work with congressional Republicans to hammer out a deal. No, it would not be the GOP wish list of tax cuts all the time, but it might have included more conservative ideas that would have brought more Republicans on board.

But instead, Obama let Nancy Pelosi do the heavy lifting. Pelosi has made it known that she isn't interested in working with the GOP and the President should have known that.

Of course, bipartisanship is a two-way street. If the winners have to learn not to be so haughty, then the losers, in this case the Republicans, have to understand that they are not in the driver's seat. That doesn't mean accepting everything that the majority party puts in front of them, but it does mean that they won't get everything they want because of their status.

President Obama, like President Bush before him, has decided to use symbolism as bipartisanship. But such a tactic fools no one and just sours the relationship even more.

Maybe the best, if imperfect example, of bipartisanship has been what the three moderate GOP Senators have done in regards to the Stimulus Bill. Realizing that they aren't the party in charge anymore, they worked with moderate Democrats to work out something that was at least a bit more palatable. In my opinion, the bill is still too bloated, but it is at least not as bad as it was before.

But the thing is, that took hard work. No nice meetings or getting together to watch football. It was probably doing a lot of talking and talking and talking. And it got people cheesed off. Conservative activists see Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter as traitors, liberal activists think they have done "violence" to the bill. But that's politics: in a nation of 300 millions with differing visions of governing you can't please anyone.

I wonder what would have happened if Obama worked with the GOP leaders in the House and Senate to workout a deal. There would have been a lot of yelling, but I think that in the end, there might have been a bill that more Republicans could swallow.

I can only hope that this is not a sign of things to come with the President. I hope that in the future, Obama will be willing to get his hands dirty to work out a deal with the opposition and save the football for another time.

Ideas Have Consequences: The Closing of Guantanamo

Someone in the Obama Administration has to be thinking this was just bad timing:

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterintelligence official.

To have this come out the same day that Obama ordered Gitmo to be closed in a year's time is not good. But it does highlight the problem that Obama faces. Yes, closing Gitmo is a good idea, but what do you do with the people who are there? Not all of these people are simply people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's not a secret that Guantanamo has sullied the reputation of America. But the other side of that coin is that there are people who do seek to do harm. The question remains how to close the camp without sending people back to their homeland to do ill.

Maybe that's why Obama wants a year to do this.

Rev. Rick Who?

You remember that many in the gay community were making a stink about President Obama selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation today because of his support for Proposition 8 in California. Prop 8 declared marriage a union between man and woman which would effectively bar same-sex marriage which was declared legal by the California Supremes in June. (I wasn't among those upset over the selection.)

Well, those in the gay community who were upset at the choice can see that Obama means his support for gay rights in pixels and bytes. Marc Ambinder took a gander at the newly revamped White House website which included this:

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots
in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

• Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment
  Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment
  laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President
  Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and
  privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to
  repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that
  the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of
  marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other
  legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist
  a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted
  against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of
  the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we
  need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military
  service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.
  Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of
  dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual
  orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
• Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure
  adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual
  orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home,
  whether the parents are gay or not.
• Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President
  Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
• Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.
  

Yes, it's just words on a website, but I think this is telling. Most pols would not be so willing to say on a public website their support for gay rights. So, maybe this guy will do something to further the rights of people like me who happen to love someone of the same sex.

We can hope.

Lift Every Voice and Sing

Well, it has happened- what seemed only the stuff of movies has become reality: we have an African American president. As President Obama said, it was only six decades ago that his father would not have been served at a DC restaurant, and today, his son took the oath office to the highest position in the land.

It measures what kind of country we are that an African American President took the oath of office in a building made partially by slave labor and will reside in a house that was also made by slaves.

The Rev. Joseph Lowry's prayer was great and had words of hope as well as a word of warning: to not forget where we have come from. He started his benediction with the last verse of the what has been called the "Black National Anthem;" "Lift Every Voice and Sing:"

God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, Our God, where we met Thee;
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand.
True to our God,
True to our native land

We have come a long way. The Dream that Dr. King talked about hasn't been fulfilled simply because Obama has become President. However, it does say something more mighty: that the Dream is alive, that it thrives. We shall overcome, we have overcome and we will overcome.

Rev. King's Amazing Prediction

Maybe it's fitting that on Martin Luther King Day the BBC has released an interview from 1964 where the civil rights leader predicted that America would see an African American president in less than 40 years.

Okay, he was a few years off, but not by much. What is amazing is that King believed it was possible to see a black man become the Commander in Chief in only a few decades. Nevermind that the Civil Rights Act was just past and the Voting Rights Act was a year from being signed. Nevermind that most people probably thought a black president was only the stuff of wild fantasies. Rev. King believed, he had a dream.

And tomorrow, we get to see his prediction come true.

Warren, Prayer and "Unity"

I know that as a gay man I should be joining like everyone else in condemning President-elect Obama in selecting Rick Warren to give a prayer at the inaugeration since he vigorously supported Prop 8 which banned same sex marriage in California, but I'm not.


I don't agree with Warren's views on this of course, but I'm not convinced that this is a fight we need to pick. Why? Well, I agree with Steven Waldman, Warren has done a lot to highlight and try to solve issues like global poverty and AIDS. He is trying to get other evangelical ministers to not focus so exclusively on gay marriage and abortion and really focus on "the least of these." He's still a social conservative, but he is one that takes the Biblical concern for the poor seriously. I can't ignore that and I think that is something that needs to be lifted up. The more people who are involved in try to solve poverty, the better and I don't care what their background is when dealing with an issue like poverty.

Second, many gays and lesbians seem to forget that Obama was about bringing people together. Let's go back to that speech that made him a household name in 2004:

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Now, politicians always talk about "bringing the country together" and then govern as a pure partisan. While I still have my doubts, I think Obama really means what he says. I think he really wants unity, to find some way to get beyond the petty partisan bickering and towards some true American consensus.

Many who are now angry at the Warren selection talked a good talk about coming together and unity. But unity for them meant being in totally agreement. In essence, it meant politics as usual, except with a liberal face instead of a conservative one.

The fact is, the guy is living what he said four years ago. He is trying to build bridges, not create new chasms.

I don't agree with Warren on same sex marriage. However, his work has shown that while he might not appease some gays and liberal interest groups on this one issue, he is not a James Dobson.

Besides, we gay folk need to pick our battles and not go after everyone who supported Prop 8. Objecting to a guy that goes to the Third World and feed sick kids makes us, not Warren look bad. Gays need to be about making the case for gay marriage, not acting as some kind of 'star chamber' for those who disagree with us.

I'm not saying we can't criticize Warren or any other person for their role. But lets show a bit of class, shall we?

A More Perfect Union

It's hard for me to hold back tears right now. Philosophically, I am a conservative and a Republican, so some level it is sad to see the GOP lose so dramatically.

But I am also an African American. My father grew up in the Jim Crow South, and I've faced my share of racism and discrimination. Tonight, as my partner Daniel and I heard now President-elect Obama speak, I started to shed tears and that says a lot, since I don't cry that often.

I'm crying because something unimagninable happened tonight. Something I had never dream would happen anytime in the near future. A man that has skin like mine, was elected the President of a country that only a generation ago gave its former slaves full civil rights.

Maybe the most telling thing tonight as I watched the returns come in was to see when Iowa was called for Obama. The news person circled the statistic that revealed the percentage of African Americans living in the state that started Obama down this road: 2 percent. A state with 2 percent of African Americans was able to vote decisively for an African American. We may still have a long way to go, but we have really come a mighty long way.

In the coming weeks and months, the task of governing will begin. President-elect Obama will face a nation with a lot of troubles and the GOP has to begin the hard task of rebuilding again.

But for tonight, I will celebrate and wish Obama the best. I will also thank God to live in a country where a skinny kid with a funny name can become President.

And I will probably shed a few more tears.

Madelyn Dunham

This is pretty heartbreaking, regardless of your political persuasion.

Understanding An Obamacon

Since I am now one of those "Obamacons," I wanted to ask a question to those who are questioning those who would jump ship and vote for someone that is so opposite of our views.

Daniel Larison can understand why people are upset:

the most credible pro-Obama argument that can be made is that the GOP must be held accountable and Obama is not McCain, but I still don’t think that is a persuasive case for casting a vote for Obama, much less urging others to do likewise. You have to believe strongly that a McCain Presidency would be an intolerable disaster for our country, but for the most part the people who are most inclined to believe this about him are not the ones going over to Obama. Many have hedged their Obama endorsement with paeans to the “old” McCain whom they once liked and their alleged Obama endorsements are filled with disappointment that McCain has let them down, as if to say, “I can’t believe you’re making me do this.” Pretty clearly, the Obamacon phenomenon is on the whole not really an endorsement of Obama or anything he proposes to do, which is why most of the endorsements coming from the right cannot withstand much scrutiny. That’s the whole point: the Republican ticket is so unappealing to these people that they will vote for its defeat in full knowledge that there is little or nothing to say on behalf of the man they’re electing. That is how complete Republican failure now is. Imagine how much worse it might have been had the Democrats nominated another “centrist” Southerner.

But he also thinks we are kidding ourselves:

Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities. It is also a failure of imagination to the extent that Obamacons sometimes rhetorically ask, “How much worse could it get?” It could get much, much worse, and Obama endorsers have put themselves in the odd position of taking on some responsibility for what is to come while having absolutely zero influence, but if it doesn’t bother them I can’t get very worked up about it.

In fact, we might be. We could be electing a very liberal president with a liberal Congress that will basically leave Obamacons high and dry. But I think instead of saying that we are setting ourselves up for a heartbreak, one should be asking why are people defecting. To put it another way, instead of mocking the people who jump off the ship, the GOP and the conservative movement should be asking why the ship is sinking. Larison aludes to this in his last paragraph:

Far more important in the aftermath than coming up with new and amusing ways to mock the Obama endorsers is an effort to understand and remedy the profound failures that made this phenomenon possible before a major realignment does occur.

Right now, that question is not being asked. That's understandable, since the leadership of the GOP is probably in denial right now. However, after Tuesday, bloggers, writers and GOP leaders need to ask what has happened to Good Ship GOP and how to best right the ship. (Pun intended.)

The truth is, people having been jumping ship long before McCain ran for President. There have been many Republicans that have been disgusted with how the GOP has run the country over the last few years. But the leadership has ignored those voices. So, the people decided to answer in a way that people would understand: by not voting for the Republican candidate and voting for the other party's candidate.

Is it silly? Maybe. I can say personally that my vote is less for Obama, than against the GOP. I don't know, how else can people send a message that things are not going right among conservatives?

Will it work? I don't know. Having the GOP lose Congress in 2006 didn't do much to help the GOP understand that it has a problem and that it needs to change.

I don't really want a liberal mandate. But the conservative movement is in such a shambles, maybe it needs to have a "time out" before it can assume leadership again.

Why I'm (Grudgingly) Supporting Obama

One more rat is leaving the ship...

This is not the easiest post for me to write. I am at heart, a moderate Republican, a conservative. I have been involved with the party and have supported GOP candidates. I'm not looking forward to the coming Democratic tsunami that's coming. I have many liberal friends and I'm married to one, but that doesn't mean I always agree with them- which is why I am a Republican.

I also like John McCain. McCain has been a committed conservative and a reformer. He has been a leader when it comes things like climate change and immigration at a time when many in the party seem to put their heads in the sand at such issues. He also has a long history of reaching accross the isle and working with his ideological opposite in order to get things done. When he uses the slogan, "Country First" in his campaign, I know it speaks to his willingness to put his love of country over simple partisanship.

I want to vote for John McCain, I really do. I've given money to his campaign, I supported him in the Caucuses. But in recent days, I have found that I just can't pull the level for Mr. McCain. Not this time.

Running for President is basically a two-year job interview. We get to see how these people react during the interview and we make up our mind as to who can best do the job. For a long time, I thought the best person would be McCain, with his experience and knowledge especially on issues like foreign policy. But over time, McCain has made some mistakes and Mr. Obama has played a better hand that has made me think this guy could at least do a good job as President, even if he is a Democrat.

So, what has made me look at the young Senator and bypass someone that I consider an American hero? There are a few, that I have mentioned before, but I will repeat them again:

Sarah Palin. I've said it before, but I will repeat it again: she is just not ready. McCain made a lot of mistakes in this campaign, but picking the Alaskan governor was among the worst. She might fire the imagination of the true believers, but she has lost the moderates in the GOP and independents. McCain might have thought picking this "maverick" would have picked up some votes among independents and women, but as well have seen, her red meat rhetoric has turned many people off. She is now making forays into support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and has even had trouble saying that abortion clinic bombers are terrrorists, bring the stinging rebuke of conservative blogger Rick Moran of being a "moral coward." McCain just didn't do proper vetting of Palin and will end up costing him the White House and it also might permanently damage his reputation.

The Financial Bailout. When McCain said that he was suspending his campaign in late September to take part in negotiations in the financial "bailout" package, I thought this was a noble idea: signature McCain putting country first. It turned out to be a disaster. As the New York times has shown, he hardly said anything as the House GOP was balking. There is also no record of him working with Democrats on the package. McCain has a storied history of working accross the isle to get things done. He could have done that here; working to bring both sides together. And yet, what he did was nothing but show. When the package failed a few days later, it was McCain who had egg on his face, while Obama looked cool under pressure. If McCain could fail this test, then what would happen as President?

Lack of Policy. Yes, McCain is a hero. Yes, he is a maverick. But the decision to run soley on biography when the GOP brand was in the toilet was a mistake. He could have gone the route of French President Sarkozy who also had to run against a very unpopular predecessor and against a rock-star Socialist rival. But he chose not to. He could have ran as he tried to in 2000 as a different kind of Republican that could salvage the party and lead in a new direction. But that would require new ideas and new policies. He offered very little, which allowed the Democrats to tar him as Bush II. I have yet to read the Times piece about the campaign, but reports say that for the most part, McCain and his campaign were about repackaging and repackaging McCain and not concerned with proposing new ideas and new ways to jump start the GOP and move it towards the wide center.

Not tending towards his base. McCain had a base-among moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats and independents. He could have ran on this base and created a new GOP coalition for the 21st century. But instead, he ran on the old Christian Right base which tends to skew old and male. Yes, I know that some of the commentators would say that this was suicide. But since we are now seeing political suicide happen, one has to ask, it is more important to widen the base, create a movement, or rely on the same old, same old? The reason that moderates like Colin Powell, William Weld, Arne Carlson and several others are jumping ship is because McCain failed to cultivate a relationship with his "base." So, like a person spurned by their lover, they find another with flowers and open arms.

The debates. Actually, it was the second and third debates. I remember being 11 years old and watching the 1980 debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the picture of cool, while Carter seemed off his game. Fast forward 28 years later, and it is Obama that shows a sense of maturity that looked presidential, while McCain seemd unsure of himself and trying to please too many people. A telling moment in the third debate, was when the subject of abortion was brought up. McCain seemed to not know which message to bring up. He shared that he had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg,a liberal who supports abortion rights, and then try to shore up his pro-life bona fides. He wanted to show he was willing to be the maverick and also be the loyal Republican on the same issue. It didn't work. I'm not saying one can't be pro-life and vote for a pro-choice judge, it's just that he didn't come off as confident. Perception is reality and McCain didn't come off as presidential during the debates, but came off as petty and small-something I thought I'd never say about John McCain.

While I am supporting Obama, it is with trepidation. I worry that once in office he will veer too far to the Left, pleasing the Democratic base. I can only hope that with so much support from independents and Republicans, that he will realize that he has to govern from the center or face a backlash in 2010.

As David Brooks said, John McCain would have made an awesome president. He is and will always be a hero to me. But he became a prisioner of a GOP that seems blind to seeing that it needs to become a movement again, reaching towards the center- instead of a party of resentment and exclusion.

So, with sadness and hope, I will vote for Obama. Hoping the Illinois Senator will listen to the center and sad at what might have been with John McCain.

Sorry, Senator McCain. I just can't pull the lever for you.

Colin, John and Me

I look up to Colin Powell.

He's a fellow black man that happens to be a moderate Republican like myself. When there was speculation back in the mid-90s that he might run for president, I was hopeful. Here was a black man who had a real shot at the White House. When he became Secretary of State under Bush, I was excited that we had our first African American Secretary of State, a black man sharing the world stage.

But it wasn't sheer racial pride that has made me an admire of the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was a moderate in his party. Save one other person, he was the head of a more moderate face of the party, one that was inclusive and spoke to our dreams and hopes and not simply our fears.

So, when Colin Powell decides to break with his party and support Barack Obama, that says something to me.

It's not as Rush Limbaugh says about a black guy supporting a black guy. What is says is how the GOP has lost centrists and independents that are key to helping the party win. If it were simply race, then Powell would have endorsed him long ago. No, this is about the dead end that the GOP, Colin Powell's party, MY party has reached- it has done everything to focus on the base and the result come November 4 is that it will for a time, be an undignified rump,having scared off everyone that could have made it a winning party.

When this election season began in January, I was pulling for John McCain. He was the only one that I wanted. When it was Minnesota's turn to vote, I supported him in the GOP caucus. I knew that he had a good environmental record and a solid history of reaching accross the isle. I knew he was a centrist conservative that could bring our nation together.

But he had to face the current GOP and that meant changing. I tired to hang on, knowing that this is what one has to do to get elected. The election is the silly season.

But what has soured me on McCain is what has soured Powell- the choice of a someone that isn't ready to be President. Maybe McCain thought he had to please his base. But in doing so, he scared off moderates and independents and even a few conservatives in the long run.

And maybe that shows one of the mistakes of the McCain campaign: he forgot to take care of HIS base: moderates and independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats that appealed to his way of governing. His focus on drilling, allowed Democrats to effectively paint him as against the environment when his record suggested otherwise. His willingness to focus on tax cuts, something he once opposed, again allowed his opponents to paint him as a big spender. Both moves frustrated his original supporters.

During the final debate, McCain said that he wasn't President Bush and that Senator Obama should not run against the President. One wonders, why didn't he say something like that six months ago? What if he proposed a new agenda, a new conservatism?

Like Mr. Powell, I still think McCain is a good person at heart. But he has not given people like Powell and myself a reason to support him. I think Powell's decision is something that is taking place among many Republicans tired of shenanigans of the last few years. Many of us hoped the Arizona Senator would chart a new course, but it didn't turn out the way we expected.

What Limbaugh and to some extent, McCain, miss is that moderates and independents are important to a party's success. The old strategy of the base plus one can't cut it.

Ronald Reagan showed us a conservatism that was inclusive and expansive. For some reason, his followers in the GOP have missed that message. In his 1977 speech called "The New Republican Party," Reagan had this to say:

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

McCain forgot to widen the base. Maybe he has been listening to his consultants or hemmed in by the far right, but it shows that we Republicans have forgotten what Reagan told us so long ago.

What I hope is that after this election, the seeds of a new Republican party is born. I still believe in the GOP and still think it can change for the better. Yeah, I know that makes me a fool, but I am a conservative and this is my home.

In the end, Colin Powell had to do what he had to do: stand on principle and be true to himself. I just wish that was something John McCain had done.

Will Obama Really Appeal to Centrists?

Barak Obama fascinates me.

He can give speeches like no one else in a long time. As I've said before, he reminds me a of many a black preacher I heard growing up. He's a black man that seems to appeal beyond African Americans to persons from various walks of life and states that have low concentrations of African Americans.

But he also troubles me.

Not in some sinister way, but in the way Centrist, including a few Republicans are falling in love with him. He seems to be picking up independents in the same way that John McCain is. In fact, the Illinois Senator is looked at in the same way as the Senator from Arizona, someone that can attract people from the other party. However, as far as I can tell, and I repeat, as I far as I know, while Mr. Obama's cross party appeal is big on style and short on substance, while Mr. McCain is the opposite.

Obama has one of the more liberal records in the Senate. In some case, that's not a big deal. McCain is far more conservative than people assume. What is different is that McCain has reached out to the other side at the risk of offending the GOP base. He was part of the "Gang of 14." He reached out to Sen. Ted Kennedy, liberal icon/archenemy to craft an immigration deal that brought the wrath of many on the hard right. Many in the base don't like him because time and time again he has gone his own way.

Froma Harrop explains:

He had the fiscal discipline to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the decency to complain that they unfairly favored the rich. He's OK on the environment, concerned over global warming and against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He supported tighter fuel-economy standards and opposes torture. John McCain is not an embarrassment.

Then there is Obama. David Brooks offers his record:

Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

Now, McCain could back away from his maverick persona as he has done on some occasions and that could spell trouble come November. But the thing is, McCain at least has a record of making his party's base mad for not always being the loyal solider. Obama hasn't done that.

In recent blog entry, my fellow blogger, Jeremy Dibbell wrote about seeing Obama in Boston. He really like the candidate and he explains what it was like to see the Senator:

Was it worth it? You bet. It's not every day that one has the opportunity to hear (and spottily see) the governor, two senators, a presidential candidate and 10,000 friends, all ready for a new kind of politics, a new way of doing things, and a new vision for America.

Maybe Jeremy sees something I don't, but it's hard to see how Obama will do things differently. Don't get me wrong; even though I am a Republican, I would like to believe Obama could bring about a politics of unity instead of one of division. But I do wonder if Obama is the centrist hope. His actions don't seem to live up to his words.