Life Imitates Art and Visa Versa

A few bloggers and other media folk have noticed that this presidential campaign seems to strangley follow the last two seasons of NBC's The West Wing, where a fictional presidential campaign took place. According to Slate, the similarities of the character Matt Santos, an idealistic Latino congressman from Texas and Senator Barak Obama is not by accident. Check out this video from Slate to learn more.


I feel the need to go to a store and buy those last two seasons.

The Brain- Dead Republicans

It's been nearly seven months since the bridge collapse here in Minnesota. Right or wrong, it has become a symbol of our crumbling transportation infastructure.

For several years, transportation has been a burning issue. We were slow to light rail transit, and our freeways, built when the Twin Cities was a much smaller metro area, are full. Governor Tim Pawlenty (a potential VP candidate for John McCain), has taken a strong "no new taxes" pledge to the delight of hard core conservatives. Of course, a government has to do things like maintain roads, so Mr. Pawlenty has decided to use bonding bills to pay for some improvements, which is basically putting things on a credit card to pay someday. The Democrats, with the help of a few Republicans, crafted a bill that would raise the gas tax by five cents (something that hasn't been done in twenty years) , add to the sales tax in the metro area to pay for transit and raise license fees for new cars. The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but was overidden by the House.

The result for the dissident Republicans was that they were punished, losing leading leadership positions and quite possibily facing intra-party challenges.

I share this because it is part of the problem with the Republican party these days: it can't tolerate independence. The party of the man that once said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor," seems more interested in making sure everyone toes the line to what they think is party orthodoxy.

Of course, it is important to have some sense of ideological cohesion. Ideology gives some framework to a political party. But ideology should be loose fitting lest it be a straight jacket.

And the analogy of a straight jacket makes some sense: those who seek purity tend to stop thinking. You don't have to use your brain if all you do is adhere to party tenets all the time.

This is why John McCain is still not loved by the hard core conservatives: he's willing to think for himself. He is definitely conservative, but in a democracy where one works with others who don't share the same views, he works with Democrats to get legislation passed. Things get done, but he angers the hard core because he isn't upholding the party line.

To me, such thinking is proof of a party in decline, a party turned in on itself. Punishing heretics might make one feel good, but after a while people start falling away. That's what has been happening to the GOP for years. People get tired of being called "RINOs" and traitors and walk away. I know a fair number of people who have left the GOP because of such narrow thinking.

Frankly, it's way past time for a Republican Reformation. There need to be new ideas to fit the times. But it might take losing this year and in 2010 and in 2012 for the GOP to see it needs to become the party of ideas again.

Myers-Briggs: The Presidential Edition

Emily Yoffee has an article up about the personalities of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain. If you've ever done Myers-Briggs, you will understand it.

For the record my personality type is INTJ.

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.

McCain's Decent Conservatism

As I was coming home tonight, I listened to some of John McCain's victory speech after winning today's Potomac Primaries. I found the speech interesting, because it seems to offer a window into John McCain's philosophy and character. I could be totally wrong, but he seems to offer a more decent and civil conservatism that is far different from the stuff we are used to hearing.

He does go after the Democrats, but he seems to express what is wrong with their ideas instead of saying that they are evil. He expresses a desire for small government, stating that government isn't the answer to every problem, but without all the anti-government rhetoric. He is willing to listen to those who disagree with him.

There is no talk about "family values" or other hot button issues.

This is a face of the GOP that I think many people would like to see; a party that is dedicated to small and efficient government, one that is strong on defense and willing to work with the opposition for the common good. This is a message that can reach across party lines and attract independents.

McCain is far from perfect. His more tempered brand of conservatism might be too little too late after eight years of a disastrous Republican presidency. But at least for tonight, I saw a Republican and conservative that I could be proud of.

McCain, the American Sarkozy?

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, offers up a very good reason why John McCain could win in November and it's because he is appealing to independents and Democrats. That might seem strange, since Obama-fever, but Fund explains:

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain's favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.

The self professed establishment of the GOP, the Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys think that to win it is important to be as right wing as one can be. They don't seem so concerned of the fact that they only represent a small faction of electorate.

Fund notes that only McCain can make inroads into the so-called "Blue States" and also hold the "Red States."

Fund then makes the case that McCain is the American version of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President. His predecessor, Jacques Chircac was very unpopular and the Socialist candidate was offering change. Here is what Fund says:

In some ways Mr. McCain resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the French conservative who won last year's presidential election even though the retiring president, Jacques Chirac, was unpopular and a member of his own party. "Like Sarko, who was of Chirac's party but not of Chirac, America's swing voters have intuited over the years that there is little love lost between McCain and George Bush," says the blog Race42008.

Mr. Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of French voters that he represented real change that would improve conditions, while his socialist rival, Segolene Royal, represented risky change that could make matters worse. That is precisely the challenge Mr. McCain faces this year against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

I tend agree with the viewpoint. Of course, anything can happen, but McCain has a better shot at the White House because he appeals to people beyond the Republican base.

In short, it comes down to doing the math.

If Romney won the nomination, you would have probably have an energized base, but that's it. Independents would not vote for him and neither would Democrats. The GOP is too weak at this point to rely only on the hard right. McCain still has an allure with independents and Democrats and could swing them over to the GOP.

Why do people like Rush Limbuagh not see this?

Maybe because they are too busy listening to the sound of their own voice.

Or flunked math.

Romney:To Thine Ownself Be True

Howard Fineman has an excellent piece on the folly that was Mitt Romney's campaign.

The thing is, if he had ran as the fiscal conservative , social moderate that he did in the past, he might have been a contender. I certainly would have considered him.

But his willingness to throw gays under the bus in order to get the GOP nomination made him untouchable for me and probably for many other moderates who might have liked his managerial experience.

But he gave up trying to woo moderates and independents and instead decided to run for President of the Republican party instead of the United States.

Last December, I visited the Sloan Museum in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. There was an exhibit on the struggle to get a fair housing ordinance passed, a law that would outlaw racist practices that kept blacks from living in predominantly white areas. Demonstations took place on the lawn of city hall. In one photo, then Michigan Governor George Romney, Mitt's dad, was chatting with the Mayor of Flint. He was in favor of the fair housing ordinance and spoke in support.

Goerge Romney had courage. He was a popular governor and reminds us of a time when Republicans stood for fairness.

I have to think that somewhere out there George Romney has to be disspointed at his son's lack of courage.

Why I Don't Like Romney

Gay rights, tax cuts, gun control: Over and over in this campaign, Romney’s convenient changes of heart—whether in his actual policy positions or just in the way he talks about issues—have been well-documented. On literally every subject in which he was vulnerable to criticism from conservatives, Romney shifted his attitudes before entering the campaign, meaning he has never been in position—as McCain has often been—to have to defend an unpopular view.

And he authored a brand new chapter last night, proclaiming that Ronald Reagan would “absolutely” endorse him if the former President were still alive. Of course, when Reagan actually was alive, Romney was running around Massachusetts assuring voters that “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
-from the New York Observer

The funny thing is conservative blowhards are condeming McCain for his unorthodox views and yet Romney, who seemed to have a Damascus Road experience and became a social conservative gets a pass.

Romney's willingness to say anything to please the base and to never defend a position is nothing short of pure cowardice in my view. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon. That I have no problem with. It's his integrity or lack thereof, that I have a problem with.

It's a shame, because before his many flip-flops when he was still a moderate, I would have considered him.

Walk, Don't Run to the Exits

I think most of us know that at some point in the very near future, the US will start drawing down troops in Iraq. Come March we will have been in Iraq for five years. Five years.

We know that any draw down won't happen under the current President. Unlike his father, who was able to go to war and bring the troops home, the son hasn't or won't find an exit strategy for our troops.

The unknown is how we get out. Will we have a gradual withdrawl of troops, or will it be immediate? And what will be the political costs back home?

Jonathan Rauch has a good article that talks about the how best to leave Iraq. His concern is what happens if, as it is exceedingly possible, the Dems take the White House and hold on to Congress:

Then the Democrats will have a decision to make: Withdraw as quickly as possible, on party-line congressional votes? Or withdraw more slowly, at a pace that can command sizable support among Republicans—say, a majority or near-majority of them?

In short, can they not do what the Republicans did with the initial invasion: make it a partisan issue? Rauch explains one possible way the Democrats could handle leaving Iraq:

In 2009, a Democratic president might say something like this: “Every year of this administration, America will reduce its troop strength in Iraq. The downward path is nonnegotiable and ironclad. But the pace is not. If Iraqis try sincerely and strenuously to keep their country together, or if they decentralize enough to keep the peace, and if they produce results, we will help them, including militarily. If not, we’ll pull out much faster.” This is not unlike what Joe Biden has said, both as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a Democratic presidential candidate. It implies a faster withdrawal than Bush Republicans prefer, but a slower one than dovish Democrats demand. And my guess is that many, if not most, Republicans would go for it.

Republican hard-liners, of course, might prefer demagoguery. But grown-up Republicans would recognize that withdrawal is inevitable; they would want to be relevant; they would feel battered by the election results, and tired of incurring the public’s wrath; they would face intense pressure not to sabotage a new commander in chief who could claim the public mandate.

A Democratic President could be face with a wonderful opportunity: to help bring the nation together after 8 years of fierce partisanship. It wouldn't be something everyone would want, but it would be a way to leave carefully, which is not what we did going into Iraq.

Of course, the problem is going to be the Hard Left. They want out of Iraq yesterday and don't really care much about the consequences. A Democratic President might be made to feel that he or she owes their win to the MoveOn crowd which sees Iraq in partisan terms. If a Dem President did that, Rauch thinks the results would be disasterous, not simply for the Democrats, but for the nation as a whole:

So far in the primary campaign, Democratic presidential candidates have had a hard time keeping the door open for any American forces to stay in Iraq. If the Democrats sweep the board this year, doves will say that the public has spoken and wants change. Why in the world should they pace the withdrawal from Iraq at a rate that suits the losing party?

Yet if the Democrats were to rush for the exit with Republicans unified against them, they would be blamed by Republicans for whatever subsequent disasters befell Iraq and, for that matter, the whole disaster-prone Middle East. For years, they would face charges of having “cut and run,” which could reinvigorate the debilitating stereotype of Democratic weakness. On the other hand, a policy with significant two-party support would be less contentious, more sustainable, and thus more likely to succeed. Running the whole government, Democrats would need to care about succeeding.

Ruach concludes that any President is going to have find a way to leave Iraq and leave our country intact. Would a President Obama that has spoken about unity, be willing to work with Republicans on a pull out that will do the least harm in Iraq and help bring the country together? What would a President Clinton do?

I have no idea, but I do think we need to think long and hard about how to best leave. As I've said before, it was a mistake to rush in; it will be a mistake to rush out.

McCain and the Future of the GOP

The GOP is in trouble.

Yeah, I know, what's new? Aside from stating the obvious, the GOP is not the "party of tomorrow." It hasn't been for a long time. It has been so focused on trying to raise Ronald Reagan from the dead, that it has forgotten that times have changed.

Take tax cuts. When Reagan came into office in the 80s, the tax rates were crazy. Over time, they have come down considerably. The fact is, Republicans were sucessful. The problem is, conservatives started seeing tax cuts as the answer to all that ails us. But times have changed. People are no longer worried about Washington grabbing more and more money from us, they are concerned about health care and rising gas prices- and they know a simple tax cut isn't going to solve it.

Then there is the shrinking GOP base. Reagan was willing to open the door to a whole bunch of people who had never thought about being Republican. Not many changed, but I would gather that his message attracted many an independent and Democrat which is why he served two terms. Today, the party seems to think the GOP can win on the backs of the religious right and the Club for Growth crowd. The rise of "Tancredoism" has alienated Hispanic voters. If elections are won and lost by creating coalitions, then the GOP is making sure it won't win the next few elections.

The GOP needs to change. It has to provide an competent asnswer to pressing issues and so far, they haven't bothered to do that, except a few people...among them, John McCain.

I've supported McCain in the past, and then fell out of "love" with him for some of his social stands. But as time went on, I have come to seem him, not only as the one who can be a credible candidate for President, but one that could help expand the GOP and being about needed change in the party. As one writer notes, McCain seems to be the only GOP candidate that is courting Independents, while the others try to please the ever-shrinking GOP base.

The Republican party isn't headed for extinction, but if it doesn't really take on economic issues, if it doesn't care about expanding it's base, we can get used to Democratic dominance for quite some time.

"Yes We Can"

In the summer of 1980 I, along with my very Democratic mother watched the Republican National Convention which was being held nearby Detroit. I remember hearing the nomination speech given by Ronald Reagan. His words were stirring-stirring enough to have my mother reacting positively. She never voted for Reagan, but I can say that on that summer evening nearly 30 years ago, my mother was moved by this Republican's words.

I am wondering if we are seeing this again. I will admit, I have knocked Barak Obama. And I've been called on it. I do wonder if he is too green for the job. After dealing with a President with little experience, I am a bit hesitant to give another person with a thin resume a shot at the job.

However, there is something different about Obama. He has a charisma that is infectious and can move this moderate Republican in a way no Democrat has. I just listened to the Senator's speech in New Hampshire tonight and he made me feel like my Mom did all those years ago.

Some have said that Obama doesn't simply want to win: he wants to change the nation if not the world. I'm beginning to believe them. I also think he wants people to come along regardless of who they are. Andrew Sullivan is also noticing the Reagan-Obama connection:

Reagan was the cutting edge of the last realignment in American politics. With a good-natured, civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their own party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his own party.

He didn’t aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he try for a polarising 51% strategy, as George W Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate, in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.

He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their own government. Reagan shocked America’s elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.

You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.

He is particularly attractive to those on the American right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration’s version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Jimmy Carter’s liberalism.

I don't know if Obama has that reach; but it's looking damn close.

I think what sets this guy apart from Clinton's caution, or Edward's anger is that he is, like Reagan very optimistic about America. Like it or not, we Americans are an incredibly hopeful people, and when someone taps into our hopes, you can expect that person will win handily.

Another rap against Obama, one that I have used myself is that his record isn't that "independent." I think Alan Stewart Carl sums it up best:

A trip to the Obama website is the kind of in-depth-to-the-point-of-tedium experience you expect from any wonky Democratic website. There are plans upon plans upon plans. The Democrats, even with all their sub-species, are essentially the party that believes in the efficacy of national government. There isn’t a problem in the world that can’t be solved through federal power, and Obama’s policies do not deviate from that predilection.

Of course, a tendency towards statism does not mean Obama isn’t an independent at heart. After all, without evidence that he is deceiving us, we must assume the senator is sincere in his desire to bridge the political divides. Still, the vast majority of his policies are tried-and-true Democratic initiatives...

All the candidates talk about reforming government, but Obama’s website is the most passionate and most specific about changing the way government works. He has numerous governmental transparency initiatives which would illuminate the flow of money through our system. He wants political contributions documented and shared. He wants citizens to be able to see where federal dollars end up and who directed them there. Simply put, he wants accountability through transparency and he would use Internet technology to ensure anyone and everyone can see the money flow.

If you can categorize “independents” at all (a tricky task to be sure), you’d probably give them two qualifications. 1) a preference for new ideas that come from outside the usual party politics; and 2) a desire to reform politics and government as usual. Obama really doesn’t appeal to the first but he’s right in line on the second. Add to that his stated commitment to reinstating PAYGO, and I can see why independents are responding to his message.

It’s not that Obama is overflowing with new ideas, it’s that he’s promising responsibility at a level not offered or at least not accentuated by any other Democrat. In effect, he's saying: we’re going to do this the right way rather than continuing the closed-doors, backroom handshake system. After eight years of Bush’s hyper-secrecy and the previous eight years of Clinton’s equivocations, the promise of a new era of government disclosure and responsibility is truly alluring.

Obama is a liberal Democrat, there is no question. But what is interesting is that he doesn't use his ideology to exclude or belittle people. It is who is, and he will no doubt enact liberal policies. However, he also seems interested in getting all Americans on board, regardless of who they are. Reagan was a conservative Republican, but his rhetoric made people feel that they were included in his vision for America.

Maybe as centrists we need to stop expecting some "Centrist Messiah" who will split the difference, but instead look for someone who has a vision. Reagan had this and it seems like Obama does as well.

I'm a McCain man, but I do have respect for the Senator from Illinois.

Attack of the Moderates: This Time It's For Real?

Consider me somewhat of a curmudgeon, especially when it comes to politics these days. I used to believe that if moderates got active, things would change.

Five years of being involved in moderate Republican groups trying to get people interested and involved have tempered my idealism and made me somewhat bitter.

So, when I perused Jeremy Dibbell's blog (nice to see him posting again)today talking about a potential third party bid, I was a bit skeptical.

I still am, but I also think there is something to this.

David Broder reports in today's Washington Post, that Michael Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York who left the GOP this past summer and is now and independent is gathering a list of moderates in both parties in Oklahoma on January 7th. At first glance, this reminded me of Unity '08, the movement that is backed by old politicos that want to create a unity ticket for President. I've been leery of that movement since it seems to have no other goal than to have everybody place nice. There isn't any there there.

However, as Broder reports, this movement has some heft because of the names it carries. On the GOP side, we have people like former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman and former Senator John Danforth who co-lead the Republican Leadership Council; Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; former Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa; former Senator and Defense Secretary William Cohen and Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and the granddaughter of Ike.

On the Dems, we have former Senators Sam Nunn, David Boren, Chuck Robb and Bob Graham.

These aren't second string political players from the 70s, but politicians who were recently in power and have continued to have a role in public affairs.

Does this have any staying power? I don't know. Again, we have seen movements like this before, but this one has some heavy star power. What I have a problem believing is seeing Bloomberg as the candidate. I don't know, but he doesn't seem the type that could propel a centrist movement. I think at this time, we want a healer who can bring people together, but we also want someone that is a bit more charismatic than Bloomberg is. We need a leader, and he seems to much like a manager.

That said, there is someone in that group that could be a great consensus candidate and could rouse passions for a unity government: Chuck Hagel.

Hagel has the fire in belly and this would be a second chance to go after the prize after basically turning it down in March. Hagel could get enough support from Republicans, Democrats and Independents to make this movement an attractive option.

Here are what some others say:

From PoliGazette:

What many American moderates have hoped for - for years now - could very well happen: it seems that Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg has teamed up with moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. This group of people - who are in contact with Unity08 - has talked to several Republican and Democratic leaders, basically telling them, according to Broder at least, that if the Democrats and Republicans don’t nominate someone who reaches across the aisle, they’ll prepare an independent run.

Is that scary for both Republicans and Democrats?

Yes.

Bloomberg is a billionaire. If he starts spending his own money on a massive third party campaign he’ll pose a threat to the nominees of both parties. He could, as Americans call it, be a “spoiler.” A spoiler for who? Who knows. Could be for both in theory. In other words, Republicans and Democrats would rather not take the risk. Not only that, R’s and D’s also realize that if both parties nominate extremes (say Edwards and Huckabee) many Americans will consider voting for a third party candidate.

Especially if this third party candidate is backed by several prominent politicians from both parties and has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend for his campaign.

From Moderate Voice:

The American political process — if you include the way campaigns are run, negative campaigning, the tone of talk radio and some aspects of the blogosphere — may have disgusted enough people so that a candidate who doesn’t have the same predictable reactions, whose utterances don’t elicited the all-knowing smug wink and nod from those TV analyst talking heads and isn’t out of a politico cookie-cutter could have REAL appeal.

It looked like it could happen for Ross Perot in 1992, until he withdrew and jabbered about Republican operatives planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. By the time time Perot got in again, he had irretrievably lost Big Mo.

If Bloomberg does get in, many Americans open to a new option will be holding their breath — hoping he doesn’t have an engaged daughter.

At this point, I am still not holding my breath. This could just crash and burn. But it is worth keeping an eye. It would be nice to see a true centrist revolution take off.

I'll Take "Boring"

It's been a while since I've posted something vaguely political- I've been taking a break from writing directly about politics, and I've been spending more time writing about that other topic you don't talk about at parties: religion.

But something from a fellow blogger that has been also lying low has offered a post that has made me decide to come back to poliblogging, if only for a short time.

In that post, Alan Stewart Carl poo-poos the Des Moines Register's endorsement of Hilary Clinton and John McCain. The title of his post makes clear how he feel. Clinton and McCain "lack excitement." On McCain, he has this to say:

The Republicans should at least give us a race interesting enough to end in someone other than McCain. Or Giuliani. Those two have done a heck of a job obfuscating their moderate instincts while crushing their once-formidable integrity under months of transparent pandering. They might still lead national polls (Giuliani) and win establishment approvals (McCain) but I think the Republican Party will end up with someone else.

There are a few things here that bug me about his assessment of McCain. I would agree that McCain has on several occasions pandered on various issues (ie: tax cuts, intelligent design, etc.), but he has also stood his ground on several issues such as climate change and torture. And while he has wavered on immigration, he has not degenerated into the name calling that other candidates have done.

This is what the Register says:

Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.

In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform while watching his poll standings plunge. Some other Republican candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity. McCain has worked on the issue for seven years and sponsored bills to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He's also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America's image abroad by closing the Guantanamo prison and beginning judicial proceedings for detainees.

Is McCain perfect? No. I don't agree with his stands on gay marriage and have condemned him for it. But just as my gay liberal friends are not one-issue voters, neither am I. I want someone who also cares about the environment and is a national security hawk without going sacrificing civil liberties or damaging our image abroad. Out of all the GOP candidates, McCain stands out.

As for the Dems, well if I have to have a Democrat for President, I would rather have Clinton over Obama. It's not that Obama isn't a good politician, he is probably one of the best rhetoriticians out there. But you have to do more than move the people with words, you have to do it with action and I worry that he doesn't have the experience to really be President...yet.

Finally, the final words of Alan's post are some what troubling in my view:

I hope some excitement comes out of this insanely long election season. I have no horse as of yet, so I’m hoping some drama illuminates these carefully guarded candidates. Even if that doesn’t help me come to a decision, it’ll at least be more entertaining than the kind of election The Des Moines Register recommends.

Alan uses the words, "excitement" and "entertaining" in the last paragraph. Okay, the candidates aren't going to set the world on fire, but last I checked, I was voting for President of the United States, not the best singer on an episode of "American Idol." I am not as interested in wanting an "exciting" candidate as much as I do, a pragmatic and experienced candidate. I think it is a common feeling among centrists that we want some one that is bigger-than-life. I supported Ralph Nader in 2000 in the belief that he would shake up the system. I went with Howard Dean four years later for the same reason. Both were exciting, but in the end, they couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag.

In 2008, I am not looking for hero. I am not looking for someone that will entertain me. I want someone that will look at global warming, or work on health care, or immigration reform. McCain isn't exciting, but I think he can do that.

A (Bipartisan) Solution to SCHIP?

I haven't commented much on the who SCHIP battle, but I am beginning to think that this issue is being played for pure politics on both sides of the debate. For the Dems, this is an opportunity to paint the President and the Republicans as heartless thugs that hate children, and the President and the GOP can run around crying "socialized medicine" at charges that this program is doing more than helping the working poor and that a Canadian-style single-payer system is just around the corner if SCHIP passes.

It seems that there is a way to make sure that the SCHIP does give the children of working poor parents and also insures those kids who parents make above the cut off and yet still need help. Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation notes that there was a bipartisan agreement introduced early in the year that would preserve SCHIP's mission to help those just above the poverty line, and give tax credits for those not eligible for SCHIP so that the parents can buy insurance.

It's a workable solution that could solve the problem, but I doubt either side would go for it: it would give away an issue to club the other side with in next year's election.

Hillary's Foreign Policy

I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton, but if we have to have a Dem as President come 2009, I would rather have her than any of the other candidates.

Clinton has released her foreign policy document and it seems to hit all the right themes: blending a democratic belief in civil and human rights with strong sense of security and toughness. Someone once commented that the first female president would have to be a "tough guy," and Senator Clinton seems to be showing that.

This doesn't mean I'm going to vote for her, but I do think that of all the Democrats she is the one who will steer path away from the Bush shipwreck and yet is not beholden to the Ron Paul-Dennis Kucinich view of the world that seems to dominate the Dems.

Another Ron Paul Post

GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, apparently thinks that the US is to big and strong to be attacked ever again. In an interview with the Washington Post, he argues that he could never see a reason to launch a military action or start a war.

Now I frankly don't think we should be initiating wars, I never was for the war against Iraq because we had no solid reason to attack a country that seemed to mean us no harm. But Paul's argument against using military action is just plain off:

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said in the interview. "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

Huh? What planet is he on? The fact is, a terrorist group was able to attack us, not with any high tech weapons, but with simple airplanes filled with fuel. A group or rouge government could sneak a bomb or wreak havoc in many ways. In our very interconnected world, America can no longer think that an ocean can protect us.

Listen, I think the Bush foriegn policy of shooting first and asking questions later has been a disaster. We had no business going into Iraq, I said that five years ago, and I will say it now. I think that the Bushies have used September 11th to whip people into accepting the erosion of our civil liberties. I am wary of GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani who tend to want to continue the same path Bush has taken on foreign affairs. I want a candidate that isn't afraid to use diplomacy on the world stage instead of military action, which should be a last resort.

That said, Ron Paul is living in a dream world if he thinks that we are so powerful that no one will dare touch us. There are people out there that do mean us harm. That is the world we live in, not the world as we would like it to be. What I want is candidate that is willing to use the olive branch of diplomacy, but is also willing to use the spear if diplomacy fails.

The problem with many Iraq/War on Terror critics is that they assume that there is no real threat out there. For me, the issue isn't that there is or isn't a threat, but how to best fight that threat. The Bush Administration has done a poor job, but Ron Paul isn't a whole lot better. Seeing bogeymen on every corner is bad policy, but so is seeing life through rose colored glasses.

A Letter to Senator McCain

I decided to write a letter to John McCain for not showing up at last night's debate on African American issues. Here it is:

Dear Senator McCain,

My name is Dennis Sanders. I am an African American who lives in Minnesota. I have joked that my New Deal Democrat parents gave birth to an "Eisenhower Republican."

I am writing because I am very dismayed that you did not show up at the recent debate focusing on African American issues. I do not understand why you chose not to attend this forum which would have given you an opportunity to introduce yourself to the African American community.

I have always respected you for standing up for your values, even when they weren't popular. You were willing to support the President's immigration plan, when other Republicans were trying to be as anti-immigrant as possible.
As a survivor of torture, you have stood against our nation allow "coercive techniques." As a gay man, I don't agree with you on some issues, but I have respected you because of your service to this country and because of your bravery.

So with all that, I can't understand why you chose not to at least listen to African Americans. Yes, the vast majority vote Democrat, but we are interested in what ALL the candidates for the nation's highest office have to say. You missed an opportunity to hear what are the pressing concerns an important American constituency. I do not believe that you are bigoted, but your choosing to miss this important debate does not bode well for you or the other candidates who chose to miss the event. You are giving the impression that you don't care about 12 percent of the population. That, Senator, is wrong and no "scheduling conflict" can excuse it.

These are not good times for the GOP. We are losing people left and right because the party has stopped seeing the need of expanding the base. The party needs to expand, not contact. The America of the 21st century is one that is multi-cultural and Republicans and conservatives have to stop pretending that this is not the case.

Senator McCain, I do hope that you will consider meeting with African Americans and present your case to why you should be President. You are NOT running for the head of the Republican party, but as the head of a nation of 300 million people who are of every color and hue.

Thank you for your time.

Dennis Sanders
Minneapolis, MN

GOP Mayor Favors Gay Marriage

My partner Daniel and I. I'm the black guy. :)

As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage — than anyone else — simply because of their sexual orientation. . . .
.
I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff.

· I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones — for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's wondrous adventures.

· And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.

-San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Those words come from a Republican mayor who has decided that gay and lesbian Americans deserve to be treated as equal before the law.

And he's a Republican.

Dale Carpenter continues:

Liberal toleration was sufficient to convince Americans (including their courts) to do away with stigmatizing and pointless sodomy laws. That's why the laws could be eliminated in a country in which the majority of the population still viewed homosexual acts as immoral. Doing so simply signaled tolerance. Liberal tolerance might even be enough to sustain support for civil unions.

But allowing gay marriage goes further because it affixes a stamp of approval. The most committed opponents of gay marriage understand this, and that's precisely why they oppose it. Maggie Gallagher once said that losing on gay marriage means "losing American civilization." Losing gay marriage for Gallagher and others means not just losing on some words in the family code or on some legal debate over how to define fundamental rights. It means losing a world-view. The advantage they have in public debate is that they address the moral questions that matter to people, while gay marriage supporters are trained to recite the oath to liberal tolerance: "The government should not legislate morality." That line worked with sodomy laws but it won't work with marriage. Americans understand marriage itself to "legislate morality," so arguing amorally for gay marriage is like arguing for touchdowns in a baseball game.

During the struggle against apartheid, Desmond Tutu is rumored to have said to some white policemen that they might as well join the fight against apartheid since they had already won. Tutu knew this system was crumbling and it would only be a matter of time.

The Religious Right's view of the world is also crumbling as more and more gay Americans come out and live lives that are, well, boring. This past weekend, I got married...to my partner Daniel. We had a wedding like any straight couple. I got to walk my mother and father down the isle, as did Daniel. We were joined by our close friends and family who celebrated with us. Maybe the most surprising was the prayer my 77-year-old father gave before we ate that thank God for this "celebration." For a man who a few years ago was somewhat homophobic, this is a big step forward.

The fact is, people are starting to see gay people as people. We own houses, pay bills and do everything that every other American does. And we also enter into long-term relationships and want to know that when bad things happen, we can visit each other in the hospital or tell each other how we want to be treated if we are very ill.

The war will be won by our side, so it's time that the James Dobson's of the world join our side.

The Incredible, Shrinking Republican Party

The Washington Post has an article today about how the current crop of GOP candidates are bothering not to show up at debates hosted by African Americans and Latinos, two important voting blocks. Part of it stems from the latest anti-immigration push among GOP activists and some extends from thinking it would be a waste of time because they would be booed off stage anyway.

This, along with ditching the debate on gay issues, underscore a big problem for the GOP: a party that is in denial and that is totally out of touch. Former Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp has it right when he says that if the GOP seems not to want Latinos or blacks to vote Republican.

My take on all of this goes a little like this:

I think what we are seeing is the fingerprints of Karl Rove. He was big on getting the base out to vote and that means getting white evangelicals to the voting booth. This is key, the Holy Grail. No longer are Republicans interested in expanding the GOP coalition ala Reagan, but in doing all they can to please the far right, even if it means losing the vote of independents and minorities. Gays, Latinos, and blacks need not apply. In a recent column, Ron Brownstein notes that the GOP candidates think that they problem with Bush is not that he was a good enough conservative and not that something might be wrong with conservatism itself.

The GOP is in some serious denial. They think that Bush is the problem, but they still think the key to victory is following Bush's guru and not bothering build a conservative coalition that would be made of people from all walks of life.

My own guess is that the GOP won't take on anyone else besides the far right until they get shellacked in 2008 and 2010. Maybe when they become a weak minority party will they decide to change their town and give up trying to please a rabid base.

I'm expecting the 2012 GOP convention to be held in a phone booth if the Republicans don't wake up.

Schwarzenegger and the Future of the GOP

The California Republican Party should be a right-of-center party that occupies the broad middle of California . That is a lush, green, abandoned political space. It can be ours.

That comes from a speech California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who gave a speech about the GOP. He was focused on the California GOP, but I think it applies to the GOP as a whole. I know there are a lot out there who think the GOP is done and will never change, but I think it just might.