Arizona's First Political Blog

E-mail Anonymous Mike at zonitics4-at-yahoo.com

By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.

 
Under the Bus

I have been asked by my friends of opposite political persuasion of my opinion of the initial Obama cabinet picks. I have to say that so far so good, not perfect but the best that could be hoped for given that my side lost the election. Serious men and women who will take their job seriously. As far as picking Senator Clinton I find the selection foolish for the President-elect but that's a matter for another day.

I had often wondered which person a President Obama would be. Would he be the leftist New Party candidate who spoke glowingly of redistribution, had a positivist view of liberty, and wanted a piece of Joe the Plumber's pie? Would he be a moderate, DLC-type of Democrat? Would be be true to his Chicago roots and do whatever was necessary to further himself?

I didn't know before the election and my guess is neither did anyone else. Disgusting that it worked out that way given that the man was on the campaign trail for 20 months but take it up with the media. Hey don't blame Obama because if you can get away with being an engima wrapped up in a handsome smile then more power to it

Now the people who thought they knew Obama were the progressives and the Kos kids who thought the election of Obama would usher in a new era of peace, happiness, and the end of capitalism. Surprise... Obama's economic and national security picks aren't too far off from those who sat in Bush's cabinet over the last few years. So add the wild-eyed progressives, for now, to those who got thrown under Obama's electoral assault vehicle.

Before we all get giddy about this moderate-tint to the Obama presidency and for us Republicans an escape from the Obapocalypse, keep in mind that this isn't the first time the man has thrown people under the bus. What do you call a man who acts one way during the sales pitch and another after you buy the product? As Wretchard might say, we may rub our hands with glee as the man shoves the knife into the back of campaign promises without realizing that if he treats his supporters this way what will he do to those who are not?

Sit back, have a beer, and keep an eye on the appointments and policy. It's going to be wild.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:31 PM

 
Ode to Pie

Before I was married, I took no small measure of pride in my cooking. Perhaps my efforts were not worthy of mention in a Michelin Guide of Chandler fine dining, but it was a source of self-satisfaction.

Since those days, I have lost my grip on the kitchen. My wife, fueled by inspiration from The Food Network and a sense of innovation worthy of a mad scientist, has launched continued assaults on my culinary domain. Over the past few years, I have suffered continued defeats to the point where my rout is almost complete in that I have been laregely exiled outside to the grill. Make no mistake, one can do wonders with a simple Weber; however such a device lacks both the necessary electrical outlets and space for cutting boards.

I am left with only one redoubt in the kitchen, one reminder left of what had been. However much like the Byzantine Empire relegated to the city of Constantinople awash in a sea of Turks, my one island is very beautiful and in its magnificence almost equals all that was lost...

... that island is pie.

During the Thanksgiving-to-Christmas stretch of holidays, when guests arrive for summer pool party, when the wife throws a gathering for her prayer group... then I'm summoned back into the kitchen to perform pie. Yesterday I served up a blackberry crumble with ginger and cardamom; the fruit soaked overnight in cassis. I added a pumpkin with some cream cheese and a bit of Bailey's mixed in.

It's all fun now but when Christmas finally comes and passes and pie no longer needed, my kitchen talents will again be placed into hibernation, to sleep and perchance to dream.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:56 AM

 
The Lost Cause

Man you wait a day or two to do a blog post and events over-take it....

From The Republic's Political Insider:

Burns said he's fairly confident there will be agreement on some level of cuts. That could set the Legislature up for a special session the second week of December...

Burns also confirmed that Napolitano told him she intends to stay in the governor's seat until if and when she is confirmed as secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration. That could mean lawmakers will get a state of the state address from Napolitano on Jan. 12, as well as a budget plan for 2009-10.

I found that encouraging and for the Governor, honorable.

If you have been reading the papers and blogs, you notice that there is a great deal of Democratic angst about what will happen when Napolitano leaves for Washington and Brewer gets the 9th Floor; a veritable budgetary Armageddon where our normally dry rivers will run with the blood of a thousand cut programs and the innocents such as all-day kindergarten programs will tossed into the fire as the Republican barbarian hordes do their pagan small-government dance at Capitol.

Democrats are already being maudlin about what could have been if only the good Governor Napolitano would stay. Why we could have had a Golden Age as those cuts never would have happened and we would be on our way to a utopia (East Valley excluded) that would make us Arizonans proud whenever we travelled to the East coast.

The thing is... the cuts are going to happen whether Governor Napolitano stays or not. The only question is how the blame is going to get spun.

$1.2 billion this current fiscal year and counting, $2 to $3 billion for next year; out of a total budget of about $10.5 billion. Cash reserves gone, accounting gimmicks used up, with only the promise of spending cuts and/or tax increases to come. Out of that budget, about 1/3 is voter-protected (give or take depending on how you look at it) which means you could have to make those cuts out of only say... $6.5 billion. Ouch babe.

My fear was that Napolitano would skip town before being confirmed as a cabinet officer; that means confirmed before having to come up with a proposal for dealing with the 2 big budget deficits. After all she consistently underestimated the problem for the last 2 budgets, so why would this be any different? If she left town without a proposal then the Democrats could spin any massive budget cuts as the fault of the heartless Republicans and use it as a campaign issue for the 2010 gubernatorial.

Now if Napolitano has her own budget proposals, they will have to be chock-full of budget cuts. Maybe not to the level of what Senate President-elect Bob Burns would like or that approaches the level of real solutions, but it should take some of the fuel out of any latter Democrat attempts to lay the ensuing budgetary blood bath at the feet of the Republicans.

If this goes down like that article intimates it will, then I say good for Governor Napolitano.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:33 AM

 
For a Few Movies More... The Top 5

My top 5 war movies in reverse order with some commentary about those which missed the cut and those movies that have yet to be made.

5: Ran: Okay so it's really King Lear and maybe it stuck with me because it was the first Kurosawa movie I ever saw and I was just blown away about it... but the battle scenes are shot and scored in a way that have left me speechless by their power. You feel instantly transported to feudal Japan.

4: Where Eagles Dare: The best WW II adventure movie... Kelly's Heroes was ruined by the goofiness of Donald Sutherland, trying to bring a touch of hippie madness to the 1940s. Dirty Dozen might have made it but Telly Savales with a southern accent? That's just the start of the problems.

No problems here... a plot with twists and turns, Richard Burton playing yet again a hard-boiled British vet, and with both he and Eastwood mowing down Nazis with an everlasting supply of submachine gun ammo. Not to mention one of the great war movie of all time.

3: Black Hawk Down: This should be #2, but for reasons that will become clear I want to treat #1 and #2 together. The critics lambasted the movie for its wooden characters and that's true. It's also true that there are some awful American accents... Jason Isaacs?

On the plus side, the movie is beautifully edited and scored. As you follow the flow of the movie... from hubris, to Stoicism, to finally acceptance... you see how the movie was put together in post-production to bring forth themes that make it stand larger than a botched afternoon mission in Somalia.

After you see the movie once or twice, make sure to listen Hans Zimmer's soundtrack and you can pick out those themes, and the virtues, from the extended tracks.

If you want to read the book before you watch, go ahead, but be forewarned the movie does take liberty with it. However by reading it, you gain appreciation for the character of the men that composed the Delta Force unit stationed there. I am pretty sure Eric Bana didn't get an Oscar nomination for his depiction of a Delta non-com but I think he perfectly captured those men in Mark Bowden's book.

#1 and #2: Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan Okay I know Band of Brothers is a miniseries and not a movie but bear with me here.

Saving Private Ryan will probably get the #1 slot. It really did change not only how war movies are made but most importantly what viewers expected from war movies. When you watch the first 20+ minutes as Tom Hanks' company storms Omaha Beach keep in mind that military censors blocked from the papers all but the most saccharine types of pictures; there was a famous picture of 2 dead GIs rolling in the New Guinea surf covered with maggots that was blocked. WW II movies came a long way from the Sands of Iwo Jima.

The reason I put the two films together is because of two men; Captain Miller and Major Winters. You know the first character, that's the Ranger captain played by Tom Hanks. The second character is Band of Brothers and is real-life.

This is a case where you will first need to read the book Band of Brothers to gain appreciation for Winters. The popular historian Stephen Ambrose sat down with WW II veterans of Easy Company, 101st Airborne and wrote what amounted to a unit history stretching from their formation in 1942 through the end of the war. Winters, who started out as a platoon commander and rose by war's end to be battalion XO, stands out in Ambrose's book for 3 reasons.

The first was his assault on a German battery position at Brecourt Manor on D-Day when he led a hodgepodge group of only 13 paratroopers. The attack was a complete success, Winters was awarded the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, and the assault is still taught as a classic example of small group infantry tactics at West Point.

The second happened soon after D-Day when Winters' unit assaulted the town of Carentan. In the initial phase of the assault, hidden machine guns pinned down a large part of Winters' unit on an access road creating the possibility of a debacle. Winters stood up in full view of the German gunners and kicked and cursed his men to continue the assault; which they did.

The third is toward the end of the book in the present day when Winters and Ambrose were walking by the Winters' house in Pennsylvania. Ambrose noticed an injured duck and suggested to Winters since the duck was doomed to be killed by a predator anyway, that Winters should kill and freeze the animal for his own use. To which Winters replied with shock and dismay, saying that he could never do such a thing.

The first two reasons are depicted in the first two hours of the mini-series and while the film takes alot of liberties with the book, the assaults on Brecourt Manor and Carentan are both true-to-life and breathtaking. In the assault on Carentan you see Winters from the perspective of the German gunners, standing in the clear and kicking his men laying in the safety of the ditches. In the assault on Brecourt Manor, the footage shows the translation of classic infantry tactics (Winters read widely on the subject) into the reality of a brutal combat assault. In both reasons brought to life through masterful film-making, you understand what an elite American infantry officer both looks and acts like.

Note many US combat units in WW II were assigned redundant platoon officers because lieutenants were killed in such abundance. After watching Winters in the Carentan episode, I now know why.

The third reason comes out in the later episode "Crossroads" where Winters surprises a company of SS troopers; in the opening moments of the battle, Winters surprises and coldly shoots an unarmed and young German soldier. The act haunts Winters through the rest of the episode.

At this point it's useful to bring in Saving Private Ryan, who does Winters resemble? Yep... Hanks' Captain Miller, the mild-mannered Pennsylvania boy turned into a coolly-efficient killer. After the war as we can see from the story of the injured duck, Winters seems to revert to the man he was before the war. We don't know about his conscience or his dreams at night, but that day with Ambrose he seems miles away from the killer who shot down the young unarmed trooper or stood up in a hailstorm of gunfire to lead his men to take a town and kill Germans.

In the scene where his small squad is on the point of killing one another over letting a German prisoner go, Captain Miller reveals to his men what he was before the war, a school teacher. He wondered if his wife will even recognize him when he gets home. We know, from watching his nerves fray and hands shake, that in a sense he can never go back.

It's not a coincidence that Ambrose was involved in both films; a common theme throughout his long work of histories and biographies was common American men and women selected to do uncommon things.

Both films tell two stories.... the first is the murderous nature of life as an American combatant in the European Theater of Operations. By the February 1945, most front-line units had suffered a horrific rate of casualties and there was a dire need for trained infantrymen. Second, was the fact that the people who had to fight those murderous battles were citizen soldiers, plucked from their teaching jobs or life on the farm, to fight a war and to hopefully return to that same life afterwards. After seeing war, after being a hero and a successful infantry officer in history's greatest war, after seeing Paris... Winters returned home; Miller did not.

Some movies that didn't make the cut....

Patton, I go back and forth on this. Maybe I should make room for a pretty good character story about one of America's greatest warrior who wasn't cut out for peace. A good depiction of Patton's 3rd Army can be found in Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle.

Gettysburg. The dialogue is awful, forced; the story-line forced. However it almost makes the list if only for its depiction of Pickett's Charge which is magnificent. One of the items on my bucket list is to go to the battlefield and walk that ground.

When We Were Soldiers. Good movie but the end ruins it for me. Not only is ending wrong and hackneyed but it ends too soon. More on that in a bit.

Movies that should be made...

Afghanistan. Where to begin? A movie about the opening months from the perspective of CIA operations officer and special warfare NCO leading perhaps through Tora Bora? Operation Anaconda, the March 2002 assault into the Shahi-Kot Valley? Story based on the recent assault on the forward combat base? Operation Red Wing when 16 SEALs and special warfare personnel were killed trying to rescue one lone SEAL?

Iraq. The November 2004 assault on Fallujah from the perspective of a Marine or soldier? The story of the Punishers in Mosul, as depicted by Michael Yon? As with Afghanistan, the material here is rich and varied and open to all viewpoints.

Ia Drang. The problem with the movie "When We Were Soldiers..." was that it only dealt with the first part of the book. After the initial battles, American units marched out to other landing zones in order to leave the area before B-52 strikes on the battlefield. On the way, while strung out in column, the Americans were attacked and nearly crushed by Viet Cong and NVA units. Read the book and you find it to be an amazing story. One of the amazing characters is the guy who's on the cover of the book as well someone I've mentioned before, Rick Rescorla. Heck... why not make a movie on "Heart of a Soldier"
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:55 PM

 
War! What's It Good For? Movies....

Four months ago at some bloggerama involving beer, the topic came up about favorite war movies. I put the theme in the deep freeze and decided to take out and defrost in order to avoid a discussion of politics (but I do appreciate the SecTres pick.) I guess we call it "Zonitics: Weekend Edition" or something.

Anyway I'll list my top 10 war movies and give you the reasons for it. You may agree, but you probably won't. If you think the topic is weird then hey move on and come back Sunday... in the mean time why don't you go read Tedski freak out about the coming Brewapocalypse and then come back and tell me who is being freaky. That's how we fly here, throwing some link love to other Arizona bloggers.

I'll go through the picks in reverse order and get through the 5 today and then the next 5 tomorrow. The reason is that I have some commentary and let's face it these posts are long enough anyway.

10. A Bridge Too Far. The story about the ill-fated Operation Market Garden and based ont he book from Corneillus Ryan. One of the last of the great ensemble war movies: James Caan, Robert Redford, Elliot Gould, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, and a young Anthony Hopkins. Also a watershed movie in how it looked at WW II, contrast it with another film based on a Ryan book The Longest Day which was filmed 15 years earlier; the latter is a gung-ho movie that could have been shot during the war itself for homefront purposes while the former has a grim, bitter take.

Well of course it's grim because the battle was one we lost (sorry for the spoiler) but I couldn't see this filim being made in 1962; people weren't ready for it, it wasn't what they expected for a WW II film.

The other reason I picked the film is because of some of the great characters. You'll notice a theme in my picks in that they are often based on or related to some book or movie and that also there are great characters involved. In this case it's Hopkins' character; Lt. Colonel John Frost who led the doomed 2nd Battalion that was trapped at Arnhem Bridge. Read the book first and you get the impression that this was a man who should have been born 60 years earlier, perhaps to stand shoulder to shoulder with Gordon at Khartoum or to fight river pirates in China. Years after the battle, Frost is at the Bridge with the author and the old man looks south as if searching for XXX Corps but instead he shakes his fist and yells "Do you call that fighting?"

That's the man Hopkins brings to life.

9. Das Boot: A movie that perfectly captures the rottenness of life as a WW II German submariner: boredom, terror, and stinky conditions

8. Full Metal Jacket: In his 1985 book "War", Gwynne Dyer takes a chapter to discuss the US Marine Corps. Remember this is your typical 1985 anti-war book that assumes we are going to incinerate ourselves in a nuclear holacaust for re-electing Reagan. However Dyer casts an approving eye on the Marines for the simple reason that they are honest about what they do; they train men to survive combat and to ensure their enemies do not.

I think about that every time I see the first half of the movie as it deals with the experiences of a training platoon as it undergoes basic training with a sadistic DI. The thing about "sadistic" is that the DI, played by Lee Ermey, was training the young men for Viet Nam. You don't have to admire Ermey's character for what he did but it does help to appreciate what he was trying to do, train young men to survive a brutal and sadistic environment.

The other part of the movie I found memorable was the combat. The entire film was shot in Britain and that meant recreating elements of the Battle of Hue, South Vietnam in an old abandoned gas works located in Greater London. It gave some of the shots an almost theatrical look as if instead of sprawling urban combat this was in fact a tragedy taking place on a stage.

7. The Wild Geese: No deep reasons, it's a straight adventure movie about a group of mercenaries who go on a mission to Africa and have to fight their way out. One of those ensemble casts: Roger Moore, Hardy Kruger, Richard Burton, Richard Harris.... you sort of wish they did The Dogs of War this well.

6. Master and Commander: Russell Crowe is the spitting image of what a 18th Century British frigate commander should look like; reckless, dashing, and just a bit too intense. He dominates the movie through his portrayal of the twin obessions of duty and a French frigate

More later.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:18 PM

 
Smell You Later

With news that Governor Napolitano has been offered Homeland Security, I guess we'll find out whether she'll choose an outer-tier cabinet position or whether she'll do what the local Democrats hope for and stay to keep the Republicans out of the 9th Floor.

My guess is that she'll waving from a jet plane saying "Smell you later!"

On one hand if you are a national Democrat it could be worse... Obama could have selected Richard Clarke marking yet another Clintonista appointment. Of course if you are a national Democrat, Obama could have made a better selection.

Let's see about Governor Napolitano's cred...

Knowledgeable about international terrorists? Nope

Experience in busting local extremist groups up to no good? Nope

Demonstrated ability to get disparate and unwieldy bureaucracies to work together combined with ability to work with the legislature and all levels of government? Janet "The Screamer" Napolitano?

Hey but she's governor of a border state, that counts for something right? Well it does if you equate homeland security with defending the border against illegal immigration which I don't remember being an Obama campaign focus. Anyway let's look at her record on illegal immigration/border control:

Sent National Guard to the border? Yes, after the Republican-Legislature forced her hand

Supported building fence? Janet "15 foot ladder" Napolitano? I think not

Showed initiative in solving border issues using local resources? She's well-known for her local policy of "illiegal immigration is a federal issue."

In fact we may want to send her congratulatory telegrams with that slogan embossed on the front. Funny how life turns out.

Yeah sweet pick
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:34 AM

 
Beyond Barneydome

We're two weeks after the election and let's see how the Obapocalypse is faring for the Republicans...

Hope and Change front: Clintonistas populate the White House staff and AG's office. Good thing Hillary didn't win because then Clintonistas would populate the.... oh never mind.

Kinder, gentler foreign policy: looks like the guy who did such a good job prosecuting the Iraq War is going to come back to the same post. That Clinton person? The one that voted for that Iraq War? The one that said she would "...totally obliterate Iran"? Leading candidate for State. Good thing McCain because otherwise he would just re-appoint that guy at Defense and lead a more bellicose foreign policy in regards to Iran...

Next thing you'll tell me is that the President-elect will nominate for Treasury someone who wants a strong dollar policy... well one can hope.

Turning to Congress and the auto bailout.

I have a theory. Look come January, everyone knows that the Democrats will give the Big 3 what they want as far as a bailout, but the auto makers say they'll go under before then. To top it, it seems they haven't even fully tapped into the loans approved back in September, why the Bush Administration wants to speed up in lieu of approving a larger bail out. So why the rush to steamroll the larger bailout before Obama takes over? Come January the Democrats will be even more entrenched in power...

My theory is political cover. We're going through the same mechanics as we did during September and early October when the topic was the financial industry and Speaker Pelosi said whe wanted 100 Republican votes but then refused to whip her own caucus. The bailout as currently constructed stinks: it leaves in place the management that drove the companies into ground, it keeps in place the union contracts and cost structure that has made the Big 3 uncompetitive, and the only pro quid pro is to build more efficient cars which their competitors have been doing for years.

It's like it hasn't occured to the Big 3 to build those cars, they just have the management and cost structure which have stopped them from doing it in a way that would make these companies profitable. You can build all the hybrids and green cars you want but if they aren't better or cost less than Toyota or Honda then they wouldn't sell.

So we're going to throw money at an industry without asking that industry to make the changes necessary to be profitable. We'll just assume that now their wallets are full of taxpayer cash that by magic their management will become smart, their cost structure competitive, and that they will build the cars that everyone wants to buy. Of course that won't work and the Big 3 will be back, perhaps in a year or two, asking for more money and then the crap will really hit the fan. When that crap hits the fan, the Democrats will want to have the Bush Administration's fingerprints on the first bailout because then they can say... "We all know the Bush was a fascist war-mongering idiot in the pockets of Big Oil who wants to break unions and throw little Timmy O'Toole down the well (or something like that), you cannot expect him to get have gotten this right. Now that he's gone, we'll do better on the next $50 billion bailout"

Rinse and repeat.

So here's my solution.

Let's have a cage match... we can build Thunderdome right on the Mall and have Speaker Pelosi lord over it like Tina Turner. For every industry wanting a bailout there will only be enough money for a certain fraction of the companies asking. To get the moolah, the CEOs will have to enter Thunderdome (let's call it Barneydome) and then have a fight to the death. So for the Big 3, only 2 of them are getting the cash with the money going to the comapanies whose CEOs survive. Schumer, Frank, and Reid can all chant "Three men enter, two men leave"

Not fair? I mean the Ford CEO looks like a big wimp. Okay we'll expand the teams to include the C-level executives for each company and they can fight it out like the brawl in "Anchorman."

Think about it... it will be fun and at least we'll get something approaching surivial of the fittest. Look it's either that or mass executions.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:05 PM

 
Laughing All the Way

It looks Eric Holder and not Napolitano will be Attorney General.

A few reasons to laugh on this one:

1) Those Democrats who were voting for Obama over Clinton in the interest of "hope and change" have to be delighted to see the guy who was Bill Clinton's deputy AG and green-lighted the Marc Rich pardon.

2) While Napolitano is still in the running for other cabinet posts, AG was the big one. Plus she's a lower-tier candidate for Education and Homeland Secretary, what sort of cred would she bring to either? All day kindergarten? Having the Legislature push her into sending the National Guard to the border?

3) I find the idea that she wouldn't go to Washington for anything less than AG because a Republican would replace her to be window dressing. So she won't leave the 9th Floor in the hands of the Republicans who could undo her legacy.... unless she got a really good job? Huh?

With a chance to turn the Legislature Democratic how much time did she spend in Arizona supporting the local races versus going national campaigning for Obama? To say you aren't going to leave the Democrats here in Arizona in the lurch for "anything less" is like a guy leaving the girl he just seduced after he told he would love her forever because he has "...an important meeting in the morning."

Trust me, if she got a lower-tier cabinet post she will go because as she will state at her teary-eyed news conference before she departs for the capital "When the President-elect calls you to serve your country..."

4) If she doesn't get any cabinet appointment, I hope that Senator Bruns will send her a condolence card attached to the latest JLBC fiscal highlight with a note for her to call him.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:53 PM

 
Team of Rivals

I knew I should have sworn off cable news, but just when I thought I was out....

One of the current spins surrounding the possible nomination of Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State is "Team of Rivals." This is a direct references to the recent Doris Kearns Goodwin's book of the same title which dealt with President Lincoln's incorporation into the cabinet of his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination.

The common theme between 1860 and 2008 is supposedly that a little presidential diplomacy is necessary to strengthen intra-party coalitions. Leave aside that essentially diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" until you find a rock (France is still looking for one); there are things which don't match up.

Let's start with the fact that between his election and inauguration, Lincoln watched the country break apart and slide toward war; times were tough and the last thing Lincoln and the Republicans needed were intra-party disputes. Second at the time of Lincoln's inauguration, the last three presidents had failed to secure their party's nomination. Third, Lincoln's position within the Republican Party, while a successful nominee, wasn't as the consensus candidate entering his convention and instead depended on his four rivals (the four he brought into the cabinet) beating on each other during the first ballot.

Which of these factors is similar to what Obama is facing tofay? A secession crisis sliding into civil war? Previous presidents unable to achieve renomination let alone re-election? Shaky nomination? Maybe that but how much did that come up in October? A Clinto appoitnement would at best a calculated risk to defang any potential rival for a contested nomination for 2012, by brining her into the cabinet it would either make her a team player or tar her with the indelible brush of Obama.

However there are dangers to the strategy. Let's look at Lincoln's rivals:

Senator Cameron and Representative Bates tenure in the cabinet had both headed to oblivion; the former due to corruption scandals in the War Department which resulted in his resignation and the latter became irrelevant due to the demands of the war.

Salmon Chase was appointed to the Treasury and from there never shed his ambotion to replace Lincoln for the 1864 election and constantly schemed. In fact only his indispenability in maintaining the nation's finances during the Civil War kept from his being purged earlier than he was.

The only high note in all of this was William Seward who was appointed as Scretary of State but who early on tried to usurp Lincoln's authority by becoming de facto prime minsiter of the administration. He later formed a fast friendship with Lincoln, becoming his loyal confidant, largely based on his admiration of skills as a war leader.

So the historical precedent that people want Obama to follow in appointing Clinton as Secretary of State rests on the results of Lincoln following a similar path in that of the four rivals he selected: one was cashiered for corruption, one tried to constantly submarine his administration, one became a historical non-entity, and the best one also tried to undermine but later came to admire his abilities in leading the most murderous war this country ever fought.

Yeah a perfect parallel for Obama to follow. Taking bitter rivals into your cabinet is a last resort, not a first option.

What do I think will happen? Obama will learn from his mistake about the vice presidency and lead Clinton on about her being a serious candidate for Secretary of State in order to show her supporters that he is treating her with respect. Meanwhile he'll find reason to scuttle the proposed nomination, through proxies of course, due to her husband's various business dealings
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:00 AM

 
Choice

I had a neat post about Obama and Christianity but I'll save that for another day.

Instead I want to look at choice. I think the average person when presented with a choice will think that the most important thing to do is to gather all the information needed to make the correct decision. Instead I think the most important thing is to make sure you are framing the choice correctly.

Alot of ink has been spilled in the field of rational actor theory on single-shot vs. supergames. The distinction is simple and is often described in introductory political science classes.

A single-shot game (or interaction) is a game that is played only once. You meet a guy on the street, he offers to sell you a apple, you agree and make the transaction, and then part company never to see each other again. A supergame is a game played time and again; you have a purchasing contract with a fruit vendor from whom you buy fruit on a daily basis. In the single-shot game, the seller may not mind off-loading on you a worm-ridden apple because he'll never see you again while in the supergame the fruit vendor knows that your satisfaction will dictate whether there are any future transactions.

Now let's look at the Arizona budget. The Governor's approach has two interlocking elements. The first is to low-ball the projected deficit: she did it for FY2008, for the original FY2009 budget, and for the current size of the hole in the FY2009 budget. One of the great communications from her office is an October 1st document from OSPB which outlines the pessmistic case for the FY2009 deficit as $800 million and then come back 5 weeks later and agree that the budget gap is actually at least $1.2 billion. Ooops.

The second element is to treat each problematic budget year separately; in short to treat each fiscal year is a single-shot game. The public reason is that recovery is just around the corner; revenue will recover in Spring 2008, for FY2009 revenue will increase 6.1%.... The two elements inter-lock because it allows her to push the idea that spending can be maintained on the current year budget because revenue will increase for next year's budget; all we have to do is get through this little rough spot.

Contrast that with viewing budgeting as a supergame. When the solution was devised for the FY2008 budget back in April, the basic outlines for the FY2009 were already clear. How much money should be borrowed through school financing and accounting tricks versus how much should be cut for FY2008 should have been based on the realization that several lean years were ahead. Spending cuts deferred were just that, deferred with compounded interest and not avoided. However the Governor was allowed to push the idea that recovery was around the corner.

So as we near a special session to deal with the FY2009 budget hole, which exists because of Democratic can kicking back in June, 6.1% revenue growth!, let's please look at the solutions through the prism of this being a multi-year problem. Arizona is heavily dependent on the housing market and the surplus inventories of housing may not clear until 2011. JLBC is not projecting revenue growth until 2011. To top it, the national economy is sliding into recession. So we're looking not just at FY2009, but also FY2010 and 2011 as well.

Let's get a number on how much we're in the hole for the next 3 years and then come up with the 3 scenarios ranging from optimistic to pessmistic of how large that number may be. Then let's find ways of attacking that number over that time period. We find there is simply not enough money to cut from the 55% of the budget that the Legislature can touch... what happens after that is anyone's guess but at least we would be working in the light.

Single shot games are for con artists, supergames are for leaders.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:59 PM

 
City of Obama

I read with amusement Vox's link to the recent cover of New York Magazine with the lede of:

In New York, reverence for Barack Obama has long been approaching the level of worship, and last week’s spontaneous eruption over his election had the feel of an ecstatic religious celebration. But the peculiar thing about this faith is that it is rooted in a belief above all in reason—and underlying all the excitement on the streets was the wonder of what it might be like to belong to a reality-based nation again.

Faith rooted in a belief of reason? Ecstatic religious-like celebration over an election?

Where to begin?

About 400 AD with Augustine of Hippo

Augustine was one of the first to try and integrate the rationality of the Ancient Greeks with the faith and revealed word of Christianity, so I feel he would have much to say about our times. The Greeks, starting with Pythagoras and continuing through Plato, trumpeted the rationality as a tool for discovering truth. Augustine in turn accepted the validity of the Greeks in that their rationality could be used as a tool to fight fanaticism, but found their world view lacking in the larger theological truths.

For a Christian, to ascend in truth one must at some point turn to faith and strive for the ability to know an immaterial God. For Augustine, while one couldn't perceive God, one could come to know him because the individual could conceive of him through the use of faith. In defining this perspective, Augustine provided a strong intellectual foundation for the early church, one on which today's Christian apologists construct their own arguments.

Now I'll admit that "faith ... rooted in ... above all in reason"smacks of the anti-clerical elements of the French Revolution. Even more distressing their supposedly unique and superior linkage of faith and reason, is as such is culturally illiterate. You get the feeling that the writer uses the laden terms of Western Civilization much like a child would use a sword and with about the same result.

I try not to cherry-pick articles to make larger points, but it's hard to top this piece as a neat summation of the cultural contradictions and national self-loathing (and it is self-loathing) of those who have treated the election of Senator Obama as a transcendental, as opposed to historical, moment.

You wonder if people like the writer, as they pass the chruches and cathedrals of their city, wonder if the religion contained therein would have anything to say about their feelings over the last 2 weeks
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:41 PM

 
Mayor with Hands Out

It started with the financial industry, continued through the auto industry, and now it looks like state and local politicians want some federal monetary love.

Now I'm a resident of both Phoenix and Arizona so perhaps I should just avert my gaze as my mayor and governor are out trying to get money out of Washington. Well, outside of any feelings of shame over handouts, I'm also a federal taxpayer; let's hear it for James Madison and shared sovereignty.

A quick point to be paid here...

The argument against the financial and auto industry bailouts is that they leave the existing management and shareholders in place; the same clowns who got a number of these firms in trouble will receive the federal money and continue to operate these companies. Focusing on the auto industry, the problem is compounded because the fundamentals of the Big 3 are left unchanged by the bailout and it's likely that after the auto makers burn through the money they will be back on the edge of the abyss; afterall if they went Chapter 11 at least they would have a chance to reorganize.

So why is it any different than with the states and cities?

States like California and New York, and I'll assume the cities as well, spent the recent gushers of tax revenue like drunken sailors. Both Phoenix and Arizona dramatically increased spending in the years leading up to the current fiscal crisis. In fact as evidenced that the growth in tax revenue far exceeded the growth in personal income, that revenue gusher was probably based on one-time money. However my state and city government spent the money like it would keep on like that forever, which was a bad decision, and now they want help.

Sounds alot like the auto and financial industry.

Where the states and cities differ is that not only do they have the power to cut their spending, but also to raise revenue through taxes. Both are politicaly painful and will probably mean the political kiss of death for more than one politician, but both haven't really been tried on a level necessary to meet the crisis on hand and since when should federal dollars be used to keep local politicians afloat?

The other issue is that any city and state bailout, just like the one proposed for the auto industry, leaves the same people and the same basic fiscal structure in place that got these governments in trouble in the first place. At least when a country has to go to the IMF for a bailout, there are "austerity" measures which are imposed.

So what will the feds ask in return for the bailout or is it considered rude to even ask?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:23 PM

 
Speed for Your State

Over the last month or so, you've probably noticed around town the photo radar sites going up along the highways as part of the Governor's plan to raise state revenue. Controversial at the best of times, these new sites are even more so because speeders will only be assessed a fee and not points on their license. It really is just about the money and not safety.

Make of it what you will. Actually I'm surprised they went up as fast as they did, if only MVD worked as fast.

Other bloggers have speculated that if the photo radar sites don't make their mark, that is catch enough speeders, the Governor will direct that the system be gained by lowering the 10 mph buffer over the speed limit. From my personal experience, I think it's worse than that.

I have noticed that for all fixed sites, that there is ample signage indicating to passing motorists that they are nearing an enforcement zone, in some cases there are two sets of signs. The other day while on SR-51, every car around me was braking a good 1/2 mile before the cameras so I have real doubts that the cameras are going to clear anywhere close to the projected $90 million.

I guess they could take the signs down, but whatever the legality of that everyone would still know where the fixed sites are so that won't do it.

Here's my suggestion to keep revenue flowing in... start placing items along the highway in front of the cameras that will cause drivers to speed up. Some ideas would include:

1) Based on the number of people who run red lights, put traffic lights that are continually going from green to yellow. I bet a number of drivers will just floor it out of some Pavlovian reaction.

2) Put up a sign announcing a school crossing zone

3) Put up billboards of Joe Arpaio in a bikini

The $180+ you'll pay for tripping the cameras would be a small price to pay to escape the sight of that.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:34 PM

 
In the Cross Hairs

Nothing like taking advantage of a tragedy to push an agenda...

This morning, PETA sent an urgent letter to Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano urging her to push for legislation that would ban hunting by anyone under the age of 18. PETA's letter comes in the wake of allegations that an 8-year-old boy intentionally shot and killed his father, St. Johns resident Vincent Romero, and Romero's friend Timothy Romans on November 5. The boy had previously hunted prairie dogs with his father.

Oh dear where to begin... because we all know it's a short distance from plunking prairie dogs with a .22 to shooting up your classmates. I kid of course, but apparently not PETA (emphasis below is mine):

We should be teaching our children kindness and respect, not that it is fine to harm and kill others simply because they are different....

...Experts agree that it is the severity of the behavior--not the species of the victim--that matters. FBI interviews with murderers showed that 36 percent had tortured and killed animals as children and 46 percent had done so as adolescents. Cruelty to animals is common in the violent histories of our nation's serial killers and school shooters.

I love the use of "others" and "species" to put humans and animals on the same plane. No seriously, I grew up in an area where hunting was an excused absence from school. Lot of classmates were out during the first day of gun season and then on doe day, only to show up at lunch with tasty venison sandwiches. Come to think of it alot of those kids went into the military out of high school, more than a few into the Marines. I am sure that will be the subject of another PETA press release.

I mean they have a point here, because today's hunters could grow up to do unspeakable things like.... become governor of Alaska or run for vice president on the GOP ticket. Today's hunters are tomorrow's war criminals.

There are some who would like to see PETA go away. I say nonsense because having PETA around makes it far easier for us to flush the idiots out into the open... just like flushing quail

Dick Cheney would understand
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:40 PM

 
Musical Chairs

Governor Napolitano, after spending the past few months out on the national trail campaigning for Obama, somehow found time from her day job as member of the Obama transition team to call for a special session of the Legislature to deal with the FY2009 budget crisis.

I know what you are saying; we've heard all of this before. However let's look at it from a political angle.

JLBC is projecting a FY2009 deficit of $1 billion+, expect that to go up. They are also projecting, depending on the assumptions used a FY2010 deficit of $2 to $3 billion.

Let's look at some other facts. We're already into FY2009 and the slip-shod budget the Democrats put together last June (proposed by the Governor and passed with unanimous Democrats support along with a few Republican defectors) tried to bridge the gap by using up most of the remaining cash reserves, accounting tricks like K-12 rollover, and financing. The budget ended up blowing up because that budget fix relied on an unrealistic rate of revenue of growth; everyone knew that the deal was unworkable and that this special session was coming.

So in dealing with the new FY2009 gap, all the previous tricks are all used up. So we're back to either budget cuts or tax hikes. The problem with budget cuts is that nearly half the $11 billion budget is untouchable because of ballot initiatives, so do you take a 20% whack out of prisons? Universities? Now move on to FY2010 and the necssary cuts get even larger.

Don't want to do cuts of that magnitude? Then either raise taxes or propose a ballot initiative to open up K-12 and ACCHS. It all comes down to money and just like robbing banks, you can only cut where the money is.

Oh I guess there is another way and that is to securitize the Lottery and the tobacco settlement to try to get through FY2009. The problem is that Arizona is currently spending about $2 billion more than it takes in, to liquidate assets to prop up spending does nothing to close that gap and only postpones the day of reckoning.

Hey it took 8 months longer than I thought but now fiscal blood is going to be on the floor (or the wall, depending on your metaphor)

So the music is going to stop and politically speaking who's going to be left standing?

Governor Napolitano? Nope... because the worst-kept secret in Arizona is that she doesn't want to be governor anymore and has been working for the past 9 months to get a job in an Obama Administration. Her appointment, whether to AG or Homeland Security, should come well before Christmas or in other words well before a budget deal on FY2009 is reached. From her DC office, Napolitano can watch as it's Governor Jan Brewer's name that goes on the budget cuts and/or tax hikes.

The Democrats in the Legislature? Nope... not only are they still in minority but their numbers have actually shrunk. They can sit back and let the Republicans try to figure it out. If the Republicans ask for some bipartisan cover on the necessary budget wet work that needs to be done, the Dems can point to the original FY2009 budget that was passed on almost straight party-line votes.

No, it's going to be the Republicans who will take the blame for cleaning up the budget mess and Napolitano's can kicking. The Republicans who will be blamed for the large cuts in state agencies or proposed tax increases, Republicans who will be blamed for trying to close that $2 billion structural deficit.

Hope you had a nice break from the end of the 2008 Election because the 2010 gubernatorial election has just begun.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:48 AM

 
Auto Industry Bailout

I'm trying to follow the details here and I'm a bit mystified... now let's leave aside the fact that we're bailing out yet another industry and just move to the details.

First we are going to throw another $50 billion at Detroit to help the Big 3 transition to making more energy-efficient cars because if we don't do that they'll go bankrupt.

The thing about bankruptcy is that it is a vital part of "creative destruction." Companies that undergo reorganization as opposed to liquidation are put on sounder footing. If the company does liquidate then the remaining productive assets liberated from the corpse of bad management and are then able to be picked up by more talented companies and put to better use. Yes in either case the stockholders are wiped out, but if poorly run companies are left to go under then perhaps stockholders and management would be put on notice.

Second, the companies at which we'll throw money at will keep the same management, outrageous labor contracts, and clunky distribution system that helped get it into trouble the first place. The failure to produce desirable products is a symptom of poor management, after all it's not like those products aren't being produced by other companies.

Third, the money will be primarily directed at the Big 3; the domestic plants of foreign auto makers don't seem to be having quite the same problems with either poor management or in creating a desirable product that consumers want to buy.

To sum it up, we're going to throw alot of taxpayer money at companies that are in trouble because they have been run into the ground by poor management and outrageous labor contracts, but then not insist that those contracts and management be changed. So what exactly will the taxpayer money accomplish?

If we are going down this route then at the very least, for the sake of honest advertising, GM should have to change its name to Leyland.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:08 AM

 
The End.... Again

Closing up the election port-mortem....

Last night I received a surprise call from my good friend Thomas, who to his eternal benefit is slowly transforming into a Tar Heel. We talked a bit about the election and reflecting on Thomas' experience on Capitol Hill I remarked on how I could empathize with Democrats and how they felt over the past week because I was in the almost exact same position when the Republicans took Congress.

Okay not quite the same because Clinton was in the White House but he was tottering. We just took over both houses for the first time in forty years and did so not just because out of voter disgust with the Democrats but also because we had an explicit conservative manifesto for transforming Washington. None of that Obama waffling and vague "hope" and "change", nope we laid it all out in the Contract with America and still won.

How well did that work? Of the 95 major programs that the Contract had promised to eliminate, by 2000 those budgets had increased by 13%. Ask a Democrat how fast you got from "Cannot Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" to scaling back your agenda to mollify the bond markets and how much longer was it until Clinton signed on for welfare reform.

Oh one final thing, this time on the death of the Republican Party. The first time I came across that phrase was when I was digging around in the library doing research and came across a newspaper column from 1974. Since that time I have read similar articles written in 1988 and 1992. Maybe this time the doomsayers will be right, after all even Krugman gets it right in his columns every now and then. Then on the other hand I seem to remember quite a few columns over the last 25 years regarding the imminent death of the Democratic Party as well.

Once again... everyone have a beer or gin or whatever your drink of choice is and calm down. Please oh please stop writing op-ed pieces like this in which the writer seems to think Obama is reliving the Kennedy Administration, from New Frontier and Camelot all the way to martyrdom. The good man hasn't been president-elect for more than a week.

My word.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:32 PM

 
Free Beer for Democrats

Reminder I will be at Sonoran Brewing Company, 322 E. Camelback in Phoenix, at 3:00 PM today. Come on by and join me for a beer. If you are a Democrat I'll pick up your beer tab... if you are a Republican I'll cry in your beer.

I'll be there until least 4:00 PM.

For ID purposes I'll be the guy in the blue shirt with martinis printed on it.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:06 AM

 
Events Dear Boy

I discussed earlier in the week the things that could stop the Democratic juggernaut, or if you like the new era of hope and change, come January. I mentioned the phenomena of events and I thought I would elaborate here.

The title is taken from a quote from Harold Macmillan who assumed the British premiership and was asked what could derail his government. Supermac should know; his predecessor lasted less than 2 years in the job due to the Suez Crisis. John McCain could have told you about events. His campaign was cruising along on a massive post-convention surge until the Lehman Brothers/AIG crises triggered the financial meltdown that in large part doomed his candidacy.

Somewhere Obama or perhaps the Democrats as a whole have a plan for "hope" and "change." Let's say they can overcome all the other obstacles that I listed and are able to transform their electoral coalition into a governing one. Then, even after all of that, they are still at the mercy of events that could come as suddenly as Lehman Brothers.

There could be a scandal in the Administration; even if the President is squeaky clean it doesn't mean all his people are. People could emerge from Obama's past, what if the good Reverend Wright makes another public appearance or if Rezko's continued pre-sentence singing is suddenly heard in Washington. Probable? I doubt it but you get the idea, every administration seems to be tripped up by such things.

Additional financial shocks beyond the control of an Obama Administration, say on Wall Street or even in other parts of the world, could extend or deepen the recession forcing the Democrats to shelve plans for additional spending or anti-business measures.

More likely the events will come in the arena of foreign policy. The world is, after all, full of actors with their own agendas. This was demonstrated this week by Russia's decision to move Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad enclave supposedly in response to the proposed missile shield but more than likely as a way of driving a wedge into NATO. It was only a few months ago that Russia invaded Georgia and no doubt it still has further designs in its "near abroad." That's not to mention all the other hot spots.... Iraq, a nuclear and terror-enabled Iran, the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Afghanistan, Taiwan, North Korea, Venezuela... Keep in mind that a number of those countries depend on oil revenues for their stability and with the recent plunge in oil prices may slip into turmoil

A good deal of the Obama campaign appeal was a lower military posture in the world, a kinder and more huggable America. Also a number of domestic spending programs implicitly rely on dollars freed up from the defense budget and a winding down of the Iraq War.

So what happens when, not if, events don't go along with what the Democrats want? Do they change course or plunge straight ahead?

Remember part of the Democrats' collective history was the moment in 1993 when another Democratic president cut back an ambitious domestic program coupled with tax cuts out of fears of how the bond market would react. Some have vowed that never again would they trim back a transformational program for such crass and passing concerns, we shall see.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:41 AM

 
Chuck, Nancy, and Barney

The election is over and our side lost. So what should we do? How should we compose ourselves?

First before you read any further, go get a beer. I don't care if it's 7:30 AM in the morning or if you are reading this in the middle of class or you are at work- go get a beer. It will make you feel better because as we all know... beer has that kind of power.

First let's talk about you personally

1-A: Go get that McCain-Palin bumper sticker off the car. Nothing over the past 4 years said "loser" more than those idiots who kept their Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers on, so let's not repeat the mistake. Plus my Dad said that depending on the type of bumper, if you leave the sticker on too long you won't ever get it off. He got quoted in a bunch of newspaper on the subject in 2004, plus he has a PhD in Chemistry and is an expert in adhesives. So go get the bumper sticker off.... if not for your car, for your own piece of mind. We lost and we have other work to do; no sense in looking back.

1-B: Go congratulate an Obama supporter. You don't have to be insincere about it, do it just like you did after you lost a game in Little League; shake their hand, smile, say congratulations, and move on. Why do it? There are sorts of civic reasons to do it, but here I am talking about you- it's therapeutic. How many Democrats congratulated you after Bush won in 2000 and 2004? Exactly my point.

1-C When at home with you family, especially in front of the kids, make sure after January 20 to refer to Obama as "President Obama."

Why all of this? Because if you do the previous three steps, you are now light years beyond where many Democrats were after 2000 and 2004. We then had to listen to their insanity for the ensuing 8 years. Look even if the worst happens over the next 4 years, and it won't, it's better to die drunk than insane. So if you have any problems doing steps 1-A through 1-C above, go ahead and have another beer and repeat as many times as is necessary until you can do those steps.

Oh and if you any start acting like the Kos kids or other Democratic crazoids did over the past 8 years, I will personally whack you on the side of the head.

Okay I hope I have you in the proper frame of mind, even if you are slightly buzzed because now we need to plan out the next few months. Let's look at the following steps

2-A: Let's leave President-elect Obama out of this for now. A couple of reasons. First no one wants to hear your belly-aching; times are rough right now and many people would like to pat themselves on the back and enjoy the feeling of electing a black man president and yes it is a historical moment. So let's leave him out of this until he actually says or does something worthy of our contempt and then keep our contempt focused on what he says or does. Second, we don't have to drag our soon-to-be 44th president into this to score some points because...

2-B We can go after his cabinet and sub-cabinet appointments. There's talk that he may appoint Kerry as Secretary of State and RFK Jr. for EPA. The former we all know and the latter is nut-case Chavista; just imagine the confirmation hearings. Beyond the timeline of this post, into the summer the various sub-cabinet appointees will come up for their hearings and they will provide an even more target-rich environment

2-C: Congress. As I have written before, the leadership of the Congressional Democrats are dominated by liberals who have years of frustration built up in an agenda just raring to go come January. Card check and Fairness Doctrine? Cut the defense budget by 25%? Tap into the $700 billion to bail out the auto and airline industry or state budgets? That will play well in the country, if we can get the word out. Remember the Democrats now have to convert their electoral coalition into a governing coalition and any time if you are a Democrat and your Congressional leaders are Pelosi and Reid and with what looks to be 43 Republican votes in the Senate, you have to dread what's going to happen (Jim Wright and George Mitchell they are not.)

The point is President-elect Obama has the honeymoon, not his appointees or Congress. Allow the country to savor its historical moment, but don't roll over and play dead on policy. If President Obama says something objectionable, make note and call him on it but don't get personal; treat him like you would a President McCain. However we know the rough lines of attack and now we need to start mustering arguments and strategies, not belly-aching over a lost election and whether to open a can of whup-ass on David "human capital" Brooks or the squishiness of Peggy Noonan.

Fight for principles, fight hard, fight clean and fair.

There should be a 3-A, 3-B .... that would be a good old-fashioned debate about where the Republicans should go next but that can take place in parallel to the coming battle.

Oh you want a concrete first step? Get some people, young interns will do, and have them shadow the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank whether they go. Every other word out of their mouth offers instant motivation for any Republican

Oh you don't like beer? I find gin works just as well
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:17 AM

 
Catching the Car

Now that they occupy and control both House of Congress (not to mention within spittin' distance of 60 votes in the Senate), the Democrats are the dogs who now have caught the car. Now they have to decide what they want to do with it.

If I was a Democrat, I would be concerned.

Let's look beyond the momentary euphoria over the election of Senator Obama and look at what may transpire come January. We don't have to get into the deep and hidden motives of the President-elect to see the strains that will soon become evident among the Democrats.

First is divide between the White House and Congress. It bears repeating that we live in a republic with separate branches of government, not a parliamentary democracy where the legislature falls in line behind the executive, and there is a rich history of a newly elected presidents seeing their ambitious agendas run aground on Capitol Hill. To top it, the Congressional Democrats seized their majorities before Obama and if anything helped pave the way for him, not vice versa.

Second is the divide between the Democrats' liberal and moderate tendencies. Don't laugh about the latter because it's only through crafting appeals to centrists that the Democrats have the ability to win national elections. On the other hand, the leaders among the Congressional Democrats mostly come from fairly blue states or pretty safe seats; they can more safely indulge in liberal tendencies than a President Obama who has to build a national coalition. Put it this way, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi aren't going to lose their House seats because they are too liberal. In fact all indications are that the Congressional Democrats are going on a liberal bender come January seeing their control as a mandate for "transformation."

Now I think given these 2 divides and add in the fore-mentioned belief that the Congressional Democrats will provide a liberal motor to the agenda, you will see alot of over-reaching. I could be very wrong on this but my guess is that the Obama campaign was very aware of the center-right nature of the electorate which is why it ran on themes of change from President Bush, vague promises of solving the health care crisis, and middle-class tax cuts rather than say income redistribution and a single payer system. My guess is that they weren't too suprised that true-blue California voted to ban gay marriage. I think the Obama campaign knew that there was no mandate for large-scale liberal change, but that won't stop alot of people from trying.

Third, the Senator being all things to all people. Last week, Mr. Obama was running for office promising the moon and the stars in order to get elected. This week he is the President-elect wondering how he's going to implement all of those promises. You see it every presidential election, alot of excitement between election night and the inaguration as the new administration provides not only fresh faces but the excitement and total vagueness of becoming. Then the new gang finally has to make decisions and the honeymoon begins to end. There are alot of people, alot of groups who are holding chits on the Obama Administration and they are going to start coming in... not only is there not enough political or financial capital to fulfill all those promises but many of those promsies are contradictory. More than a few of those groups holding chits are getting thrown under the bus.

Fourth, I think the media honeymoon will end. Once again I could be very wrong about this and the terrible bias the media showed this past election cycle may have fundamentally transformed its gestalt. However for several generations, the media has treasured its self-proclaimed role as an informal branch of government that speaks truth to power. Much like Congress, its members may share sympathies with the White House but it also likes its independence and I think the media will find some way of demonstrating that it is not a complete lap dog for the Obama Administration. I don't expect them to after the President himself or even the past campaign fraud issues, but perhaps taking down a cabinet officer or if there is serious blood in the water over getting the legislative agenda through, stories about the White House staff.

All the above issues deal with the normal problem of trying to transform an electoral coalition into a governing coalition. The basic mechanics are pretty straight-forward, how devestating it will all prove to an Obama Administration remains to be seen but expectations are so high and so out of whack that the phenomena looks more like a speculative bubble than anything I have seen in politics.

The fifth strain deserves its own post all together. Fifty years ago, when Harold Macmillan assumed the British premiership he was asked by a journalist what was most likely to blow his government off course and he said "Events dear boy, events."

More on that tomorrow, but for now if you are a Democrat enjoy this moment because this will be as good as it gets.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:32 PM

 
Congratulations

I would like to take this opportunity to make 3 announcements:

1) Congratulations to Senator Obama for his historic electoral win

2) I will be at Sonoran Brewing Company, 322 E. Camelback Phoenix, at 3:00 PM this Saturday. I'll be the 5'10" white guy, with brown hair and a blue shirt with martini glasses printed on it. I will be also buying the beer for any Democrat who shows up and wants to gloat. I'll be there until at least 4:00

3) I had trouble sleeping last night. My wife she found me this morning huddled in the corner muttering "Cannot sleep, Bob Lord will eat me" Thank goodness I'll never have to see his mug ever again.

That is all for today. All of us should sit back and reflect, I'll have more tomorrow.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:09 AM

 
Election Day

I have nothing to say today, but I will have plenty to say tomorrow

So between now and then..... have a hoot
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:07 AM

 
Robosaurus

Man I'm getting sick of these robo-calls, this time around they have my cell phone number and for each call I get that I don't recognize the number for I spend wondering if this is either the Governor asking me to vote for some state rep or that guy in Chicago who finally has those numbers I need.

The best robo-call was from State Rep Kyrsten Sinema on the gay marriage ballot question. I'll say this about Ms. Sinema, she's isn't shy. This time she asked me to again vote against the gay marriage ban and keep politics out of marriage.

I am confused.

First the ballot initiative, whatever its merits, would enshrine the ban as a constitutional amendment which would keep the politicians permanently away from the issue. Maybe I should just vote against it so we can keep the politicians out and the judges in.

Second, I seem to remember when this issue last came up in 2006 that Ms. Sinema and her allies spent alot of time trying to convince me to vote against that initiative because it banned things like domestic partnerships as well as gay marriage. Of course after that initiative was defeated, they all claimed that it was because Arizona didn't want to ban gay marriage.

My guess is that Ms. Sinema has read alot of Alinsky in her time.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:06 PM

 
What Can Obama Do for You?

I'm not going to go into the last-minute scuttlebutt about the campaign because if you start following that type of stuff you are going to twisted out of shape. If you are working on a campaign, keep working like your candidate is 10 points behind. If you haven't decided who you are going to vote for, turn off the TV and go out and have a beer - it will come to you; beer has that type of power.

I have said it before, this election is about Obama. It's been a rough 4 years and on top of it there is a definite nasty streak going on among the citizenry. When things like that happen then it's the other guys who get voted into office and that's what the good man from Illinois is counting on, listening to him on CNN today he was trying his hardest to convince people that he was really running against Bush and not McCain.

Anyway, if people are comfortable with him he wins, if they aren't then he probably doesn't. In that way it's alot like Reagan in 1980.

My question, especially for those moderates out there who are backing him, is that when you consider Obama do you really know the man and what he will do? I was going to provide you with a position-by-position list of all the things Obama has promised and then pose them with the probably consequences, but you know what? I found out I am unable to do it because the man's positions have shifted by the month, if not the week. Don't believe me? Check out the list from Campaign Spot or the video from Ham Nation.

This is just during this campaign run. Notice I don't even reach back to his positions on redistribution from his Illinois Senate days, his affiliation with the New Party ticket, or his support for expanded government powers through a reniterpretation of the Constitution.

So what is he? The most liberal presidential candidate since McGovern? After all he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and has all those past policy positions. Cynical and ruthless pol who merely tells the audience in front of them what they want to hear? Well that sort of contradicts "hope" and "change" and leaves you wondering when he's going to change his policy positions again.

Judgment? The man is a creature of the Chicago Machine. He has chosen to associate himself with some of the most odious characters in public life in order to advance his political career; from the fixer and convicted felon Tony Rezko to sitting in the congregation of the notorious race baiter Jeremiah Wright to a still unexplained relationship with a man (Ayers) who unapolegtically levied war against the very country and Constitution that Obama is wanting to protect.

So again, what is he? Ruthless and cynical pol who navigates through the political thicket changing his poisitions with lightning speed to meet the political realities of the minute and of his immediate audience or the most leftist political candidate since McGovern?

Well I guess you can still claim he's a political moderate just doing what it takes to get by in a center-right nation and a Democratic Party run by the Move-On/Kos crowd, having to swing between one position and another, doing what ever it takes to get elected so he can help the country. You can say that but I have to say that you are reaching.

So let me bring me up one final point, how will he deal with a Democratic Congress? The one that wants to implement one of the most anti-democratic reforms of the past 75 years through the imposition of Card Check? That wants to hamper free speech and the media through reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine? That wants to cut the defense budget by 25%? That wants to jack up taxes way beyond a simple lapsing of the Bush tax cuts? Say you think Obama is too moderate, too centrist to support those bills; do you think he would veto them or would he go along with some trimming around the edges? You think he would put a stop to them? When has he ever demonstrated that level of political courage? Paging Rahm Emmanuel....

Note that this is the tip of the iceberg, what is beyond dispute. Note that I haven't even gone into his relationship with ACORN, the intersting way in which his campaign finance system operates, the interesting views that the important women in his life (mother, wife) have about America, his relationship with a cast of other Chicago figures, his intresting views on American exceptionalism, his views on use of military force....

I know a little bit of history and I'm trying to think of another major presidential candidate of whom so little is known and has so little experience and I cannot think of one. Obama has often been compared to Lincoln, another politician from Illinois who had only a short state legislative and Congressional career to his name. However in 1860, everyone knew where Lincoln stood on the most important issue of the day and everyone knew that he was man of his word on that issue.

Compare that to Obama.

Is my view negative? Yes, but as I said this is an election that is a refrendum on Obama and there can only be two sides to the issue when you cast your vote; you're either for him or against him. You have been warned.

Now go have that beer.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:55 PM