Karl Rove’s Poison Pill

Tonight when Karl Rove makes his New Year’s resolution, I’m betting it has something to do with helping Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination. Rove’s suggestion of her inevitability has been picked up like a mantra by the GOP, Rove’s surrogates and even many in the media. Rove knows there is only one way for the Republicans to win the Whitehouse in 2008 and that is to divide the country.

Let’s face it. This country is roughly 1/3 conservative, 1/3 liberal and 1/3 moderate. It’s the middle 1/3 who choose a president. A Clinton nomination would be so polarizing; there is no way that the moderate middle will cross over to vote for her. Of course, the Republicans could also nominate a polarizing person, increasing the likelihood of a third-way political party led by Bloomberg and company.

As an independent voter in Iowa I’ve got a ringside seat to the fight for the presidency and I have to tell you it’s pretty ugly. I have supported Republican candidates in the past – before they decided that torture is a moral right; habeas corpus is an inconvenient legal technicality; and that they have the right to declare anyone they choose to be an enemy combatant. At the same time, as a moderate voter, I can’t see myself supporting Hillary Clinton for president.

So, now the choice for the Democratic Party is clear:

• There’s a divisive Hillary Clinton nomination.
  
• There is battlin’ John Edwards. I think he’s an amazingly good man. I supported him early on, but he’s run a take-no-prisoners campaign, and that’s not what it takes to unite the country. Sorry, John.
  
• And there’s the one candidate who stands for uniting red states and blue states – Barack Obama. Obama is the middle way. He is the one who can win my vote.
  

Failure by Filibuster

It’s the end of the year and a good time to take stock of what we’ve accomplished over the last year. What were you hoping the Democratically-controlled Senate would have accomplished in 2007?

• Addressing global warming and energy independence?
  
• Universal healthcare?
  
• Closing the income gap?

If you had your heart set on any of these priorities, you must feel mightily disappointed. You might wonder why Congress didn’t do more. Well, the answer can be found in a simple set of numbers - 49, 51, 60, 62, 110, 134, 1973, and 2008.

There are currently 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to override a filibuster (technically, vote for cloture), which the Republicans used an unprecedented 62 times to block all business in the Senate. In fact the 110th Congress is on a record-setting trajectory to force a cloture vote 134 times, the most since the cloture option was implemented in 1973. Well, there’s a cure for that – vote your priorities in 2008.

The graph below, from an article published by the Campaign for America’s Future, puts the blame squarely where it belongs on the shoulders of the Republicans and their strategy of Block and Blame.




According to Block and Blame: The Conservative Strategy of Obstruction in the 110th Congress, “So far in just the first session of the 110th Congress, Republicans have required cloture votes against filibusters 62 times. The Republicans are on pace to force 134 cloture votes, more than double the recent historical average…”

Did you get that? The Republicans are using the power of the filibuster to choke the legislative process. Republicans promised to end gridlock and instead they delivered roadblocks. They promised bipartisan cooperation. Instead they gave us partisan obstructionism

Call it what you will – Roadblock Republicans, The Grand Obstruction Party, Failure by Filibuster – but in the end it’s the American people who pay the price for party politics.

We might have been let down by the Senate’s performance in 2007, but in 2008, it’s payback time. Vote for a president who represents your priorities and give him or her a Senate who will represent you, not party politics.

Score: Republicans 1, People negative 59.1 billion

It's interesting to watch the debate on the Alternative Minimum Tax…and by “interesting” I mean the same kind of detached dread that one must feel if one is awake in an operating room as one’s right hand is amputated.

In 2006 the freshly minted Congress, in an act of sanity restored the "pay-go." That’s the simple premise that if we are going to authorize spending money, we’ve got to figure out what we’re not going to spend somewhere else.

Spending money is about choices. This is a simple fact of life that you and I have to live by every day. If I buy the new iPod 16Gig Touch (at nearly $400), I am not going to go buy a new laptop this month…or groceries either, but that’s another story. In economics it’s known as opportunity cost. There are only so many resources to go around, and if we spend those resources in one place, we’ve got to figure out where we are not going to spend money.

Here are the sad facts that no one seems to be willing to say out loud. As I write these words, the US federal deficit is $9,176,331,074,081.58 ($9.2 trillion), and it continues to rise by over $1.5 billion per day. Oh, I forgot to add, if you include unfunded Social Security, Medicaid and other empty government promises, the actual debt is more like $59.1 trillion. Since there are 303,818,150 US citizens, that means that every man, woman, boy and girl you know owes $194,524.26. For a family of four, that means you owe $778,097.03 over and above the taxes you’re already paying.

Go find someone you love, look them in the eye and explain how you’re going to repay the $194,524.26 you owe. With all of the talk by the Republicans about “tax and spend” Democrats, it’s interesting that they are perfectly willing to be “deficit and spend” Republicans. And by “interesting,” I mean…well you know.

OK, so now we understand the situation. Perhaps that explains why the House of Representative insists that, to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the money has to come from somewhere. No more deficit and spend.

But in the Senate, where the Republicans have used the power of the filibuster to block all business, a compromise was reached that fixes the AMT, but further runs up the debt. The House is stuck between their promise of fiscal responsibility and a hand grenade with the pin pulled. In the end the House will have no choice but to cave on this issue and fix the AMT without offsetting funds.

So, the Republicans are going to win the spin war. They’re going to make it look like the Democrats are the ones who are holding up your tax break while the deficit rises uncontrollably. Score that one, Republicans 1, the people 0…or more correctly, a negative $59.1 billion.

The Sound of Inevitability

If you believe the mainstream media, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, all the other candidates should just fold their tent and go home. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of a scene from the movie The Matrix. In the scene I’m thinking of, Agent Smith is holding our hero Neo in front of an oncoming train.

Agent Smith: "You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson..."

Neo: "My name... is Neo."

And with that Neo jumps away, leaving Agent Smith in front of the train. I’m just guessing here, but I’d say that it didn’t turn out like Agent Smith had expected it to.

Elections also have a funny way of not turning out the way that everyone thought they would. Just ask Howard Dean. In the Fall of 2003 he was on the front cover of Time Magazine…and Newsweek…and several other magazines.

A few short months later, he was only famous for two things – a rebel yell and the biggest implosion of a promising politician in several years.

The press seems to have decided that Hillary Clinton can’t be stopped. Her election to the presidency seems to be “inevitable.” That might fit someone’s desire for an easy to understand election process, but it doesn’t match the facts.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has raised a total of $78.6 million, slightly less than Barack Obama’s $78.9 million, but there is one very important distinction that no one is talking about. Did you know that $10 million of the $78.6 million that Hillary has raised came from Hillary Rodham Clinton, via Friends of Hillary? It seems that no one loves Hillary as much as Hillary loves Hillary. So, if you look at the facts, Hillary has not raised more than Barack. She has raised less money.

But really when it comes right down to it, does it matter who has raised $78.6 million and who has raised $78.9 million? Several candidates have raised plenty of money to remain viable including John Edwards, Mitt Romney (who has loaned his campaign $17.3 million), Rudi Giuliani, John McCain and Bill Richardson. If a candidate has a 16 lb. sledge hammer or a 12 lb. sledge hammer, who cares? They have a big enough tool (some would argue weapon) to compete in the primaries.

So, don’t believe it when you read that the election of Hillary Clinton is inevitable. It's not even true that the election of a Democrat to the White House is assured. When it comes to elections, nothing is predictable. No amount of money could make a candidate inevitable.

What exactly is a "conversation," anyway?

Barack Obama looked right at me and said, “I want to have a conversation.” This might have been a heart-stopping moment for any political junkie, but of course, he was also looking at 2,500 other people packed into the gymnasium at Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, IA.

It's a nice sentiment to think that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be in my living room for a "conversation" - a two-way give and take - asking real questions and getting short answers. But as far as I can see, that's just not going to happen.

The term “rock star” candidate has been used excessively to describe Senator Obama. That’s shorthand for someone who can pack a large venue and still appeal to the crowd. When it comes to the music of politics, there are accessible candidates like Tom Vilsack and John Edwards, and then there are "stadium bands," like Hillary and Obama.

Since people are being fast and loose with their comparisons of Senator Obama, comparing him to John F. Kennedy, let’s try another analogy, the Rolling Stones. Hey, if he’s a rock star, then this might not be a bad comparison. The Rolling Stones have rabid fans, the same as Senator Obama. They can pack a stadium anywhere in the world, anytime they wish. At this point, Senator Obama can do the same. The challenge for both the Rolling Stones and Senator Obama is, just because it works in the stadium, does not mean it will work in your living room.

The Rolling Stones have been able to bring their large stadium show to more intimate settings, for example playing the Aragon Ball Room in Chicago in 2002. More importantly, the Stones have infiltrated our most intimate moments by being the soundtrack to our lives. We hear certain songs and we connect.

Senator Obama is trying the same thing with his web site, which by the way is very well done. I can go onto Senator Obama’s web site and use social networking tools similar to Facebook and MySpace, but that does not really connect me with Senator Obama. It might connect me with other fans of Senator Obama, but not with Obama himself. With the bus loads of journalists, the satellite trucks and the rabid fans, it is hard to see how Senator Obama will be able to make it to anyone’s living room. So, here’s a suggestion.

The answer to the “rock star” challenge might be as old as Socrates. If candidates like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are serious about a “conversation,” then let’s have more sincere and sustained question and answer time. I’m sure the people at Kennedy High School would have stayed late into the night asking questions and listening to the answers.

Steve Sovern did an admirable job of being the gracious host of the event in Cedar Rapids, and as such pitched the Senator some nice softballs. The five questions from the audience were well worded, showing a sophisticated level of political understanding. But Senator Obama's answers were so verbose there was little time for the pretense of a conversation.

If candidates are sincere about having a conversation, then let’s have a conversation. As the people on the campaign stops, let’s do our homework and ask great questions. Candidates, answer the question and then shut up. That gives us time for more questions. Here in the heartland, that’s what a real conversation looks like.

How the Cookie Crumbles

As anyone who has read my postings know, I like to write about all kinds of issues, but every now and then someone says is so well that I can't improve on what they said. In the category of "I couldn't have said it better myself," click here to see an excellent explanation of how the federal budget works using Oreo Cookies as an example.

Join Me in Des Moines!

I'm inviting you to join me in Des Moines, Iowa on December 28th at 4:30 PM to watch John Edwards on the first stop of his candidacy for presidency.

WHERE: Iowa Historical Building, 600 East Locust, Des Moines

WHEN: Thursday, December 28th 4:30pm

For tickets go to http://www.johnedwardseven
ts.com. This event is free and open to the public.

Also check out http://www.iowaforedwards.
com/.

Here is the video of John Edwards announcing his plans.

Governor Tom Vilsack's Announcement Speech

If you're curious about Tom Vilsack and would like to meet this little-known candidate, take a look at his speech in which he announces his run for the presidency.

http://cultureshift.com/Video/Vilsack.wmv