Kartik's world

CNBC is Dangerous

2009-03-16T09:54:00.000-04:00

My colleague Scott Gaillard penned a very instructive piece about Jim Cramer the other day. I agree with his sentiments entirely on Cramer. But I want to thank Jon Stewart for his willingness to take on this fight: for several years now I have complained about CNBC outward bias to anyone who was interested in listening. I had even said to many that I believe CNBC to be a bigger threat to progressive causes than Fox News. This was often met with laughter or a simple, "you're crazy" from whomever I was speaking to.

Here is why:

CNBC is a network of the intelligentsia. The average CNBC viewer unlike the average FOX News viewer has the resources and the capability to shape opinion. CNBC is also a network staffed by intelligent, sometimes witty people unlike FOX which is staffed by talking heads and glorified news readers who parrot the same arguments over and over. Perhaps most importantly FOX talks about divisive social issues which have little bearing on our everyday life while CNBC talks about basic economics and the markets which affect everything we do regularly.

CNBC has popular show hosts like Cramer, and Mario Bartiromo whose job it appears is simply to pump up the market and the profits of the Wall Street tycoons that patron the network. Rick Santelli's outburst at President Obama a few weeks ago was far from an isolated incident, but just the letting out of entitlement CNBC's personalities have towards protecting lenders, investors and corporations from what they perceive as the heavy hand of Government.

Cramer is actually much more likable and objective than the average CNBC host on after 11 am ET. Bartiromo pushes anything that may help pump the market upwards while Larry Kudlow advocates cutting taxes almost every day. The Afternoon show "Power Lunch" features a round table discussion which inevitably leads to taxes and government spending and interference in the economy.

Jack Welch, the former head of GE which owns NBC Universal, and thus CNBC is a very market driven conservative. Welch is given credit for turning GE around but also likely had his impact on CNBC's editorial content. Prior to the launch of FOX Business Channel, The Wall Street Journal signed a long term partnership with CNBC and their editorial content seems to make its way into the minds of CNBC's personalities.

CNBC unlike rival Business network, Bloomberg News is determined to pump up certain stock or commodity prices quickly to ensure profits for certain investors and viewers. Using an entertaining backdrop, and knowledgeable anchors the network's personalities all make rational arguments for why certain investments are stronger than others.

That's not to say all of CNBC is bad. The very objective and credible David Faber as well as the worldly Erin Burnett, and cynical Mark Haines anchor the morning program which tends to be more focused on long term trends than short term profits. But the rest of the network with few exceptions have become the chattering bug for the capitalist class. Faber especially seems more concerned about objective journalism than simply protecting Wall Street investors.

While FOX News may speak for red state America, CNBC speaks for those Wall Street and anti Tax crusaders who want President Obama or any liberal to fail. The network unlike FOX uses intelligent arguments made by exceptional people, not parroted arguments made by college dropouts to make its case.

Jon Stewart has learned what I have known for years: CNBC is the TV network which represents the biggest threat to the progressive movement in the America.

Iraq: The British Should Have Led the Coalition

2009-02-23T16:11:00.002-05:00

The Iraq War was a complete debacle from the beginning of the insurgency in May 2003 until mid 2007. The United States and its civilian planners were completely out of their depth in understanding the causes of the insurgency and how to combat it. While Afghanistan and Pakistan were the central fronts in the war on terror, Iraq in the Rumsfeld/Bremer years became a dangerous sideshow.

But one must ask the question. Why was Baghdad so dangerous while Basra, Iraq’s second largest city was relatively speaking calm? Simple: The British occupied Basra, the Americans Baghdad.

The United Kingdom is a mature country with a mature understanding of diplomacy, war, and economics. The United States on the other hand is a highly reactionary country that gets caught up in the moment and the quest for vengeance. Even when the US has had mature leadership in the form of Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon, the unsophisticated whims of domestic politics have always undermined their greater goals.

Additionally, thanks to years of combating the terrorist Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Belfast and even on the streets and in the train stations of London itself, the British understand how to stamp out an insurgency and how not to alienate a local population. The British patrolled the streets of Basra on foot working with the locals to stamp out any Shiite groups that were working with Iran or with Moktada al-Sadr. It is also worth mentioning that British troops are generally more disciplined than American troops in urban settings.

By contrast, Paul Bremer alienated the local population and shut down the Shiites leading paper, Al-Hawza whose editors had actually welcomed the US led overthrow of Saddam Hussien. Americans patrolled in Humvees and armored tanks setting up the look of an armed occupation, or even worse a war for conquest.

Of course nobody knows more about wars of conquest than the British. A Hundred Years ago the British Empire was the largest in human history, and had been more or less conquered through disgraceful means. So the British knew if you are “liberating” a population how to appear: it’s distinctly different than if you are “conquering” a nation.

Tony Blair may have alienated many on the left in the UK and US but he remained a credible worldwide voice and an inspirational figure throughout his Premiership. Had Blair taken the public worldwide lead instead of the bombastic, unrefined George W. Bush, world opinion towards the US led invasion of Iraq probably would have been different.

Blair could have been the spokesperson while his Government did the military planning in consultation with the Americans. Troops commitments did not need to change from either ally: in fact had it been done the British way, aka the right way, less troops may have been needed and less causalities would have ensued.

In the forthcoming, almost inevitable conflict with either Iran or the Taliban, President Obama would be wise to consult with the British about strategy and public relations. The world hopes that the west will not have to militarily disarm Iran, but in all honesty time is not on our sides.

While diplomacy may eventually work with Iran, it will never work with the Taliban. Winning the war in Afghanistan and helping Pakistan stabilize itself while keeping India from lashing out militarily at Pakistan or the Taliban is now the key. India may believe they have the right to strike at Pakistan due to the almost constant threat of terrorism on Indian soil. Perhaps India is right: but an Indian attack on Pakistan could launch us into the biggest armed conflict since World War II, and it is incumbent on all parties to diffuse the situation.

If the US and UK are forced to engage in another massive military conflict, allowing the UK to leverage its immense soft power and formulate the military strategy would be a good idea.

The Adams Dynasty: A Historical Look

2008-12-29T10:40:00.007-05:00

John Adams has now been immortalized for a new generation by an HBO series based on the revisionist work of David McCullough. Adams, the temperamental founding father who was least suited to leadership now become a cult hero of sorts to younger fans of history who are unaware of Adams shortcomings thanks to McCullough's glossing over of these realities in his work. While the HBO series shows some of Adams troubles it still does a poor job of conveying his insecurities and ineffectiveness while in high office.

Richard Brookhiser is a conservative commentator and historian who wrote an insightful work on the Adams family, America's First Dynasty, a few years ago. I've always been dubious about reading anything written by Brookhiser. A longtime writer and editor for the National Review, his writing and commentary has always been at the extreme right of American political discourse. His biography of Alexander Hamilton, while well researched and written was tremendously biased towards Hamilton who modern day conservatives have tried to claim as one of their own. His denunciations of Jefferson are equally biased because modern day liberals claim Jefferson, although a strong argument can be made that with the current Northeastern/urban elitist emphasis of the Democratic Party, Hamilton should be claimed by liberals and since the GOP's emphasis has drifted south and to small town America, Jefferson should be the Conservative hero.

My reservations about Brookhiser aside, his work on the Adams family is a must read. Unlike McCullough and HBO he does not gloss over John Adams obvious flaws. He also puts Adams actions in the proper context of someone who was partriotic to a fault but also vain and insecure. The book then continues to cover the career of Adams son John Quincy Adams. Putting a great emphasis on the younger Adams experience abroad, he demonstrates how J.Q. Adams was more practical and ultimately more effective as a politician than his father.

The work then continues to focus on Charles Francis Adams and his son Henry Adams. Four generations of Adams are covered in the book, with the constant theme of dynasty and the evolution of America. I am a fan of Henry Adams who was perhaps the best historian the United States has ever produced. Henry Adams like his grandfather and father (but unlike his great grandfather, the second president) was shaped by experiences abroad at a young age and was thus able to put American policies in its proper international context. Henry Adams favorite subject was non other than his great grandfather's great rival, Thomas Jefferson.

Gary Wills, who ironically taught Brookhiser at Yale is a liberal historian. But Wills draws a similar conclusion about Henry Adams in his recent work, Henry Adams and the Making of America. Wills spends a great deal of time in the book describing Henry Adams fascination with the South and with Jefferson in particular. Wills also picks apart areas of the history where he disagrees with Henry Adams, most notably on Jefferson's embargo act and on the treason trial of Aaron Burr. Wills is among the group of historians who in the last ten years have subtly tried to rehabilitate the image of Aaron Burr. Wills engaged in similar defenses of Burr in his recent study of Jefferson, something not apparent in his earlier books about Jefferson.

Both Brookhiser and Wills books are must reads for anyone interested in American History. They are easy reads which give a quick overview of important historical figures while drawing some important and valid conclusions.

Clinton's Conflicts Worrying in the Context of History

2008-12-19T16:20:00.017-05:00

All Americans should take note, not just those with partisan motivations on the right. Former President's Bill Clinton whose wife has been nominated to be the new Secretary of State has numerous conflicts of interest that could affect American foreign policy adversely.

Their is no precedence for this in American history. Some previous Secretaries of State have had pre-disposed biases towards foreign nations and thus did not serve in the position well. Thomas Jefferson was a notorious Francophile whose bias towards the French Revolution put him on a collision course with President George Washington and his closest confidante Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury. James Monroe's similar bias towards the French precluded the Madison administration from truly staying neutral in the Napoleonic Wars and as Henry Adams correctly surmised in his masterpiece History, this had a clear bearing on our Declaration of War on Great Britain in 1812.

It's no small irony Henry Adams close friend John Hay became perhaps the model Secretary of State in American history. Hay was not predisposed towards any great power and had come of age as Lincoln's private secretary during the Civil War. Hay helped position the US as an arbitrator of disputes and ultimately as a defender of liberty despite the disgraceful American actions in the Philippines.

Today we have a situation where a former President has sought individual fame and perhaps self realization by cozening up to interests abroad. This former President's wife has been nominated for Secretary of State. This is the same President who broke countless Campaign Finance rules in his 1996 re-election campaign by taking money from foreign interests and even allegedly involving his administration in a quid pro quo to use American forces militarily based on receiving campaign funds.

While I do not believe President Bill Clinton compromised American security with his illegal fund raising he certainly allowed access to the White House for arms dealers and in the case of James Riady and the Lippo Group, may have been close to giving the Chinese Intelligence service unfathomable access to American officials. Clinton did not want to help the Chinese. He wanted to help himself raise money: once again the Clinton's ambition to raise money and keep power met national security head on and the power of ambition won. In other words, we as Americans should be thankful Riady, Charlie Trie, and John Huang among others were caught before national security was in fact compromised.

But this is the problem. Clinton's need to be admired and to raise money now for his Global Initiative could compromise his wife's work as Secretary of State. According to Bloomberg News, "Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Brunei all contributed between $1 million and $5 million, as did the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office. An Irish government aid program gave at least $500,000."

The first four nations on that list are all oil producing states who firstly would probably like to see the price of oil stabilized with American cooperation and would love to see the US continue its dependence on petroleum, be it domestic or foreign. Taiwan is a nation the US does not even diplomatically recognize and one of President Bush's few accomplishments in office has been the remarkable fusion of American and Chinese interests he has helped to create. Should Hillary Clinton show any deference to Taiwan in the future, America's most strategic partnership abroad with the world's other great power could be threatened.

Bill Clinton has never exercised proper discretion since becoming a national political figure in 1988. That year he rambled on at the Democratic convention even as the red lights were buzzing to try and get him to stop speaking. Since then he has had an unknown number of affairs with women, and skirted the law many times. He has has absolutely no reservations about taking money for whatever cause promotes him personally from anybody willing to contribute. This is very dangerous with America's foreign policy hanging in the balance.

We can only hope Hillary Clinton has the proper discretion to avoid being influenced by her husbands numerous conflicts of interest that could undermine American security abroad. I have no problem with Senator Clinton personally, but her husband the former President who helped to polarize America in the 1990s needs to be kept as far away from President Obama and his national security team as possible.

Indian Hypocrisy

2008-12-03T09:56:00.001-05:00

The western world's eyes were glued on Mumbai last week as Islamic terrorists took over strategic locations within the city and held many of them for several days. Post incident analysis in the west has focused on radical Islam, but not on India's own role in fostering these radicals. Additionally little emphasis has been put on the hypocrisy of many leaders in India who have attacked the west for imperialism and yet conduct its own imperialistic policies in its region.

Many an Indian commentator and political leader have attacked the United States wars in the Middle East, the Balkans and Vietnam as signs of western imperialism. This issue is certainly up for debate, but it should be noted the United States has not tried to blatantly conquer or hold territory since the unfortunate war in the Philippines in the late 1800s.

Yet India's policies in Kashmir can be called nothing but imperialism. The area north of Jammu what I consider Kashmir proper is 95% Muslim and 4% Hindu. (This area excludes Jammu which should remain in India and has not seen much of the insurgency.) India itself is 83% Hindu 11% Muslim and 2% Christian. A typical Indian including most members of my family will retort that Kashmir has always been part of India and then give some convoluted explanation of the 1947 partition. The reality is Kashmir was often part of Muslim kingdoms in India and happened to have a Hindu maharajah who acceded to India in 1947 probably against the wishes of his population.

Whatever the legal case is, the results have been disastrous. Just like American engagement in the Middle East, Indian efforts to quell dissent and separatism in Kashmir have helped to radicalize a generation of young Muslims not only in India but also in Pakistan and Afghanistan. India prides itself on being the world's largest democracy. But this Democracy ends when you arrive in Muslim majority Kashmir where elections are often suspended or fixed. Since the Kashmiri insurgency began in 1989, 47,000 Kashmiris have died. This is a startling number for an area under military occupation, much like the shocking numbers coming from Iraq under American occupation. (a chief difference though is that the US has actually kept its word about when elections would be held in Iraq: India has not in Kashmir.)

Why a country of over one billion people feels the need to control an area of less than 6,000,000 people whose ethnic makeup is not compatible with the rest of the country is mind boggling for the neutral observer. This comes at a time when the BJP, an extremist Hindu nationalist party has incredible powers of persuasion over the Indian media. The BJP who was in power nationally from 1998-2004 have made helped to turn a previously secular democracy into a religious semi-theocracy that marginalizes Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians as "un-Indian." The always secular Congress party has been forced to abandon its Nehruite tradition of tolerance and cow tow to the lowest common denomonator in Indian politics. The leadership of Sonia Gandhi put Congress back in power in 2004, but since the party has been unable to control the winds of intolerance the BJP ushered in the 1990s and are likely to lose the next national election which must be held before May.

India's selfish and irresponsible actions have been exploited by Pakistan, the world's largest supporter of international terrorism. Pakistan, which has always been a rogue state, even when supported by the United States during the Cold War is now the center of international terrorism as it has been since the mid 1990s. The Pakistani Government exists to a large extent in name only as successive leaders have shown an inability or an unwillingness to actually reign in terrorism and disparate factions within the country supporting terrorism. Pakistan is not a nation: it is a hodgepodge of different groups thrown into a nation-state without a distinct identity. Instead of attempting to forge a national identity as Tito did in Yugoslavia, Pakistan's leadership has for sixty years decided to use India and at times Russia/Soviet Union as the enemy to rally the populace. I hear concerns about Pakistan becoming a failed state in the west: it's always been a failed state. The country exists in name only and at this point serves little purpose unless some strong man with a greater will than Pervez Musharaf comes to power.

The actions of India are not under the western microscope the way they should be. When Israel engages in less aggressive actions in the occupied West Bank, half of the west is up in arms. But the Arab-Israeli dispute has less impact on international terrorism than does the Indo-Pakistani dispute. Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden used the Kashmir dispute and targeted India long before Israel or the United States were his targets. Israel and the US were always in the crossfire from Hamas and Hezbollah, but neither group has the logistic capability to pull off large terrorist attacks globally as do the terrorist groups radicalized in South Asia.

India's behavior needs to change. The United States needs to deliver this message loud and clear. Pakistan's behavior will not change, and thus the state needs to be worked around and marginalized as we move forward in a very dangerous time.

A Public Works New Deal Needed

2008-11-28T09:39:00.002-05:00

America's transportation infrastructure is crumbling. Bridges much like the one in Minnesota that collapsed in 2007 teeter on the edge of failure. Roads are more and more congested and Mass Transit isn't working the way it should.

Barack Obama has an opportunity when he takes office. He can make rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure a priority and also put millions of Americans to work on repairing bridges, building roads and other public works projects. President Clinton had a similar idea but it was sidetracked by Democratic Congressional Appropriators who were not going to be bossed around by someone who had barely received 43% of the national popular vote in a moderate turnout election. Now Obama having received close to 53% in a huge turnout election has the onus and less entrenched appropriators to deal with to try and push this agenda.

Under the GOP, widening and rebuilding interstate highways between cities that ran through rural areas were often a priority. Pushing funding for new interstates in the South was also a priority. (intrestingly though Florida, a key swing state has gotten less federalhighway money per capita than any other southern state as it did under the Democrats leaving the state and local governments to build and manage highways with little or no federal help.) Under the Democrats repairing urban roads and pushing urban mass transit must be a priority.

I'll have some specific proposals for highway and bridge funding as we approach the swearing in of the new congress in January.

Florida Election History: Discrimination is Nothing New

2008-11-11T09:13:00.011-05:00

This past Tuesday, Florida voters sent a historic message by electing Barack Obama statewide. At the same time worrying signs were apparent in Florida's election results which reminded us of Florida's dubious history. Areas of the original Florida or what many in our state's capitol refer to as the "real Florida" voted for John McCain by much bigger margins than they had supported George W. Bush. The only counties in the state where McCain won by a much bigger margin than Bush were west of Tallahassee: in an area traditionally very Jeffersonian and Segregationist. Counties such as Liberty, Calhoun and Jackson had actually given Democrat Bill McBride substantial victories over Jeb Bush in 2002. McBride got only 43% statewide when compared to Obama's 51% yet these formerly segregationist counties showed many whites willing to vote for a weak and possibly unqualified Democratic candidate for Governor were unwilling to vote for a winning African-American candidate for President. Many elected Democrats in the state legislature had felt focusing on this area of the state was more important than focusing on the I-4 corridor in the early part of this decade. That can explain why in 2002 McBride was routed in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Orange and Volusia counties, urban Central Florida areas Obama carried in 2008 by a large margin. The 2008 results should show beyond a reasonable doubt as did the 2002 results, that these counties don't matter in Florida elections if you can win along the I-4 corridor.

Statewide however, Amendment 2, an effort by far right conservatives to legislate the definition of marriage into the Florida Constitution was passed statewide with 62.5% of the vote. The same conservatives who decry judges who "legislate from the bench" like the great Earl Warren or Thurgood Marshall are willing to attack moral codes and legislation to the state's constitution. This once again demonstrates the rampant hypocrisy of most conservatives. But we digress: the issue here is that Amendment 2 continues Florida's pattern of discrimination. A pattern we saw rise up in the 1970s when Anita Bryant came to Florida to protest Dade County's then revolutionary gay rights statute.

Bryant's campaign came just a few short years after George Wallace carried 66 of Florida's 67 counties in the Florida Democratic Primary. Wallace running on a campaign opposing school busing and using code words which meant "I'll keep the blacks in their place." was a hit statewide. The northern elite media who had many friends and perhaps family that lived in Florida had mischarecterized the state as being "less Southern than Northern" in the lead up to the primary. Thus primary night, a shock ran through liberal precincts of the North when Florida decisively made Wallace the victor.

Florida is a state that had more per capita lynchings than any other in the 1910s and 1920s, even though Mississippi had a Governor James K. Vardamann that openly advocated the murder of blacks. The Rosewood Massacre outside Orlando took place in this period of time as well. The state around the same time elected a Governor, Sidney Catts whose entire platform was based on discrimination, particularly against Catholics who were populating Northern cities and may move South. Despite being part of the previously "solid south" for the Democratic Party, Florida cast its electoral votes in 1928 for Herbert Hoover against Catholic Al Smith. The same thing happened in 1960 when Richard Nixon carried his only southern state running against the Catholic John Kennedy. When the Democrats nominated a die in the wool segregationist like Woodrow Wilson, the state's voters proudly cast their ballots for the party that ruled the south. But when a northern liberal like Adlai Stevenson or worse yet a Catholic like Al Smith was nominated by the party that dominated the state, Floridians crossed over and voted Republican.

This may seem like a remarkable set of coincidences but chances are they are not. While Florida took one giant step forward with the victory of Barack Obama in the state, we are reminded of Florida's not so proud history with the passage of Amendment 2 and the votes of many North Florida counties against Obama.

The Post Clinton South: More Democratic, Less Polarized

2008-11-06T14:18:00.005-05:00

Bill Clinton was more successful than most post civil rights Democratic Presidential nominees winning five former Confederate states each time he ran for President. However Clinton's unpopularity in the rest of the South led to unprecedented losses for the Democrats in the region from US Senate right down to local offices. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, Republicans controlled the US House delegations from each former Confederate state other than Mississippi and Texas. Now as Barack Obama prepares to enter the White House, Democrats control the House delegations in Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia (pending a recount in the 5th district.) Democrats have also picked up seats in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama since Clinton left office.

Much of this has to do with the Democrats refocusing on kitchen table issues and dumping polarizing personal politics of the Clinton years. While the South remains one of the two most conservative regions in the country (the Mountain West being the other) a focus on economics can win over enough Southern voters to help maintain Democratic majorities in the House. President Clinton's divisive social agenda: gays in the military, banning assault weapons, funding abortion providers abroad, and of course his opposition to the ban on partial birth abortion turned the South against the Democrats. Not that Clinton should have abandoned his views on those issues, but the volume with which Clinton's White House pushed those social items to gain support for the President among Northeast elites made it very easy for the South to turn against his party.

Race is often cited as a simple reason why the South has turned Republican. No doubt that race has been a factor, but even as late as 1992 the Democrats controlled the majority of congressional seats in the former confederacy. Race was an issue, but not the only issue for Southern white voters. After being wiped out in the 1990s and early 200s the positive message of the nation's first major party African American Presidential nominee has helped elect more Democrats from the South to Congress since the 1992 Election. Obama in fact ran ahead of white Democratic nominees from 2000 and 2004 in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Only in post Katrina ravaged Louisiana, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas did Obama run worse than Gore and Kerry.

Obama's positive message on economics and unity can play well in the South. Unlike President Clinton, Obama shows no signs of polarizing the nation and thumbing his noses at those who did not support his election. The South may have been lost for a generation of Democrats after Civil Rights, but it seems slowly the South is coming home to its ancestral party.

Moving Past the Clintons

2008-11-05T09:37:00.015-05:00

Senator Barack Obama's historic victory Tuesday ushers in a new era of post partisan and potential post racial politics throughout much of America. Obama's sweeping victory and uplifting campaign stands in direct contrast to the most recent Democrat to occupy the White House, whose wife Obama defeated to win the Democratic nomination. This also creates a new opportunity for the Democratic Party to create a Governing majority. The fact that this comes so quickly after the Party's fortunes had ebbed to its lowest point since before the New Deal and talk of a long term GOP domination of electoral politics outside the Northeast was prevalent is all the more remarkable.

Regardless of what Democratic activists may claim the emergence of Bill and Hillary Clinton on the national stage was a near fatal blow for the Democrats as a national majority party. During Bill Clinton's tenure as President, the Democrats lost over 65 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 15 Governor's chairs. Only in 2006, with the election of many new Democratic Congressional candidates and Governors did the party begun to recover its national footing. In 2008, with Hillary Clinton safely out of the picture, American voters cast the majority of their ballots in Governors races, Congressional races, Senate races and the Presidency for Democrats for the first time since 1964. Also, for the first time since 1964, a Democratic Presidential nominee garnered more than 50.2% of the national vote last night as well.

While Clinton backers continue to claim to this day that President Clinton was not responsible for the catastrophic Democratic losses in Congress in 1994 and the subsequent failure to regain either House or Senate during the remainder of his tenure, it is very difficult to intellectually defend this view. The reality is that Democratic members of the House in particular and to a lesser extent the Senate had made themselves immune to the whims of voters in Presidential Politics. When Nixon routed McGovern in 1972 the Democrats lost seats but continued to hold a comfortable Congressional majority. In 1984 when Reagan defeated Monday by 20 points, the Democrats actually picked up a Senate seat and continued to hold a comfortable House majority.

This all changed with President Bill Clinton. His partisanship knew no bounds the first two years in office and the new President's inability to even deal with his own party's leadership in Congress delivered disastrous results. The first GOP Congressional majorities in forty years were ushered into power not as a reaction to Congress but as a reaction to the ideological bent and governing ineptitude of President Clinton.

Instead of taking the fight to the GOP Congress, President Clinton felt compelled to defend his relevance to the Washington Press Corps, declaring one famous March 1995 afternoon that "the constitution makes me relevant." Hardly the sort of statement you would expect from the leader of the free world. Eventually Clinton picked small battles with the GOP but on big ticket items like welfare reform, Free Trade and the GOP Budget he made deals with the new Congressional leadership, often times far to the right of the Democratic mainstream.

This left Democrats completely rudderless and in many ways devoid of an identifying set of principles to run elections on. Clinton's desire for self promotion and self preservation made it appear to many media observers at the time that he was running in tandem with the GOP leadership. So complete was Clinton's shift away from Democratic principles that Minority Leader Richard Gephardt gave the closing speech on the House floor against the Presidents 1997 Budget. Clinton's over indulgence in illegal campaign fund raising in 1996 also had the affect of denying the part an opportunity to retake the House just when the generic congressional polls had broken in favor of a Democratic takeover.

After impeachment Clinton continued his previous pattern or deal cutting and ideological meandering that left his Vice President, Al Gore searching for a new set of ideas to run on in 2000. Critics have claimed Gore's campaign lacked focus and a clear message: while I agree with that assessment I cannot help but place a good amount of the blame on President Clinton himself. Congressional Democrats had the same problem and until the unifying posture of opposition to the Iraq War became a rallying cry in 2006, the Democrats were often times fighting battles on the turf where Clinton had taken them. These battles often served as virtual re-enactments of Custer's last stand.

Barack Obama's victory not only gives hope to millions of American citizens. It gives hope to longtime Democratic operatives like myself that the Clinton era is officially and finally dead in party politics.

House Race Ratings: Nov 4

2008-11-04T06:07:00.005-05:00

As the polls prepare to open and Senator John McCain appears much more poised to close out a heroic upset electoral college win than just two days ago, let's go over our final Congressional ratings. McCain has in this analysts estimation about a 30% chance of winning the Presidency up from about 5% a week ago. He's closing in the right states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) and has taken the lead in several red states (Missouri, North Carolina) even though the national poll movement is not strong enough to carry Republicans to victory in Congress. Chances are Obama still wins the Presidency although it is no longer a slam dunk to quote George Tennent and could very well be a cliffhanger. I personally will be working the polls all day long for Democratic Candidates in Florida and will not update this during the day.

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)

TOSS UP

FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
NE-1 (Terry)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

House Race Ratings: Nov 3

2008-11-03T11:59:00.007-05:00

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)

TOSS UP

FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

The Conservative QB Club

2008-11-03T09:39:00.015-05:00

I've theorized for many years that Football players and fans represent the more conservative elements in American society: If you want to understand red America go to a College Football game on Saturday or if you want to understand purple America go to an NFL game. This is in contrast to College Basketball and the NBA where the players and fans tend to lean to the left with some very notable exceptions (Bob Knight anyone?).

This year as with almost every Presidential or Congressional cycles current and former NFL Quarterbacks are making their voice known in the political process. Almost in unison these stars are stumping for John McCain and local Republican candidates. Let's start with John Elway a longtime Republican whose presence on the campaign trail has helped John McCain close the gap in Colorado. Brady Quinn has been dispatched in Ohio, and Indiana states where he has played NFL and College football. Troy Aikman is hitting the trail for McCain. In the recent past Jim Kelly, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw, Mark Brunnel, Matt Hasslebeck, Jim Harbaugh, Chris Weinke and of course the former Congressmen Jack Kemp and JC Watts have all openly stumped for GOP candidates.

The sheer number of former QBs and other former football stars that have run for office like Steve Largent, Peter Boulware and others has to be attributed to a combination of financial considerations as to the violent ruggedness of Football as opposed to the soulful individualism of Basketball. For years Basketball players have tended to lean left. Bill Bradley and Tom McMillen went to Congress as liberal Democrats, and currently Kevin Johnson is running for Mayor of Sacramento on a very liberal platform. National Championship coaches Bill Self and Rick Pitino have stumped for Democrats previously in the red states they coach in and the great Dean Smith was perhaps the most liberal minded and politically charged Basketball coach of all. Other former NBA players like the late Dave DeBusschere, Walt Frazier, Julius Erving, Phil Jackson, Ernie Grunfeld and even Michael Jordan, have stumped for Democrats. This year Alonzo Mourning, and LeBron James lead the legion of NBA players for Democrats.

The Football/Basketball divide can even be found among fans from my experiences. While crossover fans come from both political parties and all ideological stripes, fans who openly prefer one sport to the other tend to fall into the Conservative category if Football fans or the Liberal category if Basketball fans.

The Democrats have had successes wooing a single former QB to its ranks. Heath Shuler, the runner up for the 1993 Heisman Trophy and classic NFL failure was elected to Congress as a Democrat in 2006. Shuler is very conservative on social issues in the QB/Football mold even preferring not to campaign on Sundays and taking the typical conservative line on abortion, guns and gay rights. However, Shuler is an economic populist putting his view on financial issues and Government spending at direct odds with his Quarterback club brethren, and making him fit comfortably on the Democratic left on economics. Perhaps his fellow QBs even mutter the terms "socialist" and "tax ans spend liberal" to discuss Shuler who has clearly deviated from the standard NFL QB position.

Can McCain ride the popularity of NFL QBs and Football fans in general to an Election 2008 victory? Likely not, but it's interesting to note for all the Hollywood bashing Republicans do, that they have their own arsenal of celebrities lining up to play the attack dog role for Conservative ideals.

House Race Ratings: Nov 1

2008-11-01T17:23:00.001-04:00

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)

TOSS UP

FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

House Race Ratings: Oct 31

2008-10-31T10:31:00.002-04:00

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)

TOSS UP

NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

House Race Ratings

2008-10-30T13:48:00.008-04:00

For the last five days before Election 2008 I have decided to mimic Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook the best way I can: by producing my own ratings for each strongly contested House race in the nation using the most recent public poll data as well as my long standing knowledge of these districts which in most cases goes back to the early 1990s. Also factored in are historical trends. I will produce these lists daily until the election.

Here are the ratings for Thursday October 30th

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)

LEANS GOP

PA 11 (Kanjorski)
TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh)
NY 26 (Reynolds)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)

TOSS UP

MN 6 (Bachman)
FL 8 (Keller)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

For daily updates please visit kartiksworld.blogspot.com

Will the South Sink Obama? (And what the term Socialism means in the South)

2008-10-28T23:37:00.001-04:00

Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Democrats have won exactly three Presidential elections. In the seven losing Democratic campaigns, Democratic nominees have only once carried a a single southern state (I define Southern states as former Confederate states. So in other words Kentucky and Oklahoma are not Southern states by my definition): Hubert Humphrey carried President Johnson's home state of Texas in 1968 and Jimmy Carter carried his own home state of Georgia in 1980. In the three victorious Democratic campaigns, the party has carried a grand total of 20 Southern states. In fact the Democrats have carried every single state in the South in a victorious Presidential election since 1968 with the exception of Virginia, traditionally the most reactionary rim south state which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.

Barrack Obama is my choice for President. I have editorialized at length during the primary how limited I believed Senator Hillary Clinton was a national candidate. I correctly foretasted that Senator Obama would be much more competitive in the interior western states as well as in Midwestern populist states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa than the cookie cutter Democrat with baggage that Clinton is. I however appear to have been wrong in believing Obama's ability to transcend race and regional appeal would make him attractive in the South. Sadly this is not all Obama's fault nor due to Southern voters being left to their own devices. They are being manipulated.

Surprisingly Obama currently leads by a big margin in Virginia, increasingly suburban and less reactionary than it once was. But Obama is not even slightly competitive in rim/border South states like Arkansas and Tennessee which have a much greater progressive tradition than the deep south. Obama looks to have a slight shot of carrying North Carolina on election day but is not polling well in Louisiana, a state Bill Clinton carried twice or Georgia which Clinton carried in 1992 and lost by a single point in 1996. It is also highly likely inspite of the current polls that Obama will not carry Florida.

Obviously the National Democratic Party is too toxic right now in the Deep South to seriously entertain thoughts of competing in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi. However, Obama's poor poll numbers in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana are to me very worrying. In fact in the case of Tennessee and Louisiana it is possible Michael Dukakis ended up with a better percentage of the votes than Obama will. That's flat out unacceptable for a new kind of Democrat, but perhaps this owes itself more to John McCain's race baiting.

Much of this is not Obama's fault. Southern whites of course vote based on race more often than any other white voters in the nation. Moreover, the national media which is made almost entirely of elites in New York and Washington who look down upon the South, have not picked up on the use of code words by John McCain. Calling Obama a socialist is like throwing red meat to white southerners. "Socialist" in Southern political lingo means "for the blacks." Southern whites fear Government programs and interference will help poor blacks: that's why code words like welfare and crime are often used also in Southern campaigns. Some examples of the socialist terminology:

In 1964 when Hayden Burns was running against Robert King High in the Democratic Primary for Florida Governor, Burns from Jacksonville attacked High from Miami as a "socilaist." His justification? High supported civil rights for African-Americans. Burns won the primary.
In 1966 George Wallace accussed Alabama Attorney General Richmond Flowers of "bringing socialism to Alabama." Flowers crime? Enforcing federal civil rights laws that protected blacks.Flowers got the ultimate revenge sending his son, future Olympian Richmond Flowers Jr. to the University of Tennessee to play Football. The younger Flowers became the Alabama Crimson Tide's biggest nemesis for the next few seasons.
In 1964 Strom Thurmond in his speech leaving the Democratic Party accused President Lyndon Johnson was "moving the country towards a socialist dictatorship." Johnson had just signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1967 John Bell Williams was elected Governor of Mississippi as a Democrat despite attacking the National Party as a " Soviet Style Socialist Party." Williams would become a loyalist to Richard Nixon years later.

John McCain has been an honorable man in the past. But being from Arizona a state that was largely settled by Southerners and that has the reputation of being the most reactionary and perhaps the most racist state since the 1960s (which is why McCain voted against the MLK Holiday while many Southern Conservatives voted for it) McCain knows what he is saying and is being done to provoke a specific reaction from the South. This appeal is likely to work. I do not expect Obama to carry Florida or North Carolina, and I firmly believe Virginia could also fall to McCain thanks to this naked race baiting. Arizona Republicans used race to achieve local political goals. McCain voted against several Civil Rights acts that even former Segregationists John Stennis and Robert Byrd openly supported. McCain allies Fife Symington and Evan Meachem prevented Arizona from honoring the MLK holiday even after its passage and lost the state revenue and business over this racially charged stand. McCain stood with the Arizona GOP during this period.

Senator McCain has now added to his legacy as a typical Arizona Republican by race baiting his way to a potential Presidential victory. For someone who served his country so honorably in the past it is a sad way to conduct what could be his last campaign.

Congressional Races Galore

2008-10-27T10:02:00.000-04:00

As a student of Congressional politics (I've worked in Washington DC in the House and obsesses over the body so much that I have every Almanac of American Politics since it was first published in the early 1970s) Florida has been a boring place to be through the years. Since the past 1980 census redistricting, Florida has had close races here and there. The 1988 race where longtime incumbent Bill Chappell was knocked off, the 1994 open seat race for Jim Bacchus old seat and the 2000 Shaw/Bloom race. But for the most part, Florida has been a bore. Sitting in Florida election night working on localized races has meant watching the TV ticker or the computer to find out what trends were developing in Congressional races nationally. However, 2008 has changed that.

Florida is the battleground in the US House. Florida has become what Ohio, Pennsylvania and even in recent times Texas or Illinois has become: a test as to whether a congressional election is actually a wave election. For example in 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected he found himself embroiled in a campaign fund raising scandal which turned a potential Democratic rout, into a Republican year in everything but the Presidential race. (The Dems actually picked up House seats but almost all were against fluke GOP winners from two years earlier: almost every close race cut towards the GOP that year.) Now in 2008, Florida will test whether or not this is truly a wave election.

Here are the congressional races to watch in Florida:

Incumbent Republican Tom Feeney vs Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)

Feeney drew his own district as State House Speaker in the 2000-2002 term which included redistricting. However, the district was always only marginally Republican. With the incumbent the sitting House meber most closely linked to Jack Abramoff, this should be a Democratic pickup in a year like this.

Incumbent Republican Ric Keller vs Alan Grayson (FL-8)

The Democrats should have picked up this seat in 2000, but did not. Keller has been a survivor and the district is more Republican than it was before redistricting now encompassing parts of Lake and Marion counties. Grayson can self finance and this should be a close race.

Incumbent Republican Vern Buchanan vs Christine Jennings (FL-13)

Buchanan was fortunate to beat Jennings in 2006 but he's performed well by all indications in this campaign and in his brief house tenure and should hang on in this Sarasota based district.

Incumbent Republican Lincoln Diaz Balart vs Raul Martinez (FL-21)

Martinez is the strongest possible challenger the Democrats could have fielded in this solid Republican district. Will Cuban-Americans bound to support Senator McCain split their tickets? Polling indicates enough may for Martinez to pull the upset.

Incumbent Republican Mario Diaz Balart vs Joe Garcia (FL-25)

If you are looking for a potential Freshman who could emerge as a Congressional Leader it is Joe Garcia who is already connected in Washington. However Diaz Balart could hang on here thanks to the portion of the district in Collier County. Still this district is on the whole less Republican than District 21.

Should Al Qaeda Hope for a McCain Victory?

2008-10-24T21:04:00.009-04:00

John McCain projects an image of a military veteran who supported the Iraq war. But for multiple reasons, the leadership of Al Qaeda must be hoping for a McCain victory on November 4th. John McCain is an American hero. He has done more over a lifetime to earn the Presidency than Barack Obama. No one whether you support Obama or McCain can objectively dispute otherwise. (Here in Florida, exit polls recorded in 1998, that 93% felt Buddy McKay had done more to earn the Governorship than Jeb Bush, but of course Bush won 55%-45%.)

However McCain has several liabilities at this time which will empower Al Qaeda. Foremost among these is McCain unwillingness to use American forces to cross the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and crush Bin Laden and his deputies in tribal controlled areas of Pakistan. In the second debate McCain claimed Obama's declarations that he'd chase down Al Qaeda in Pakistan unilaterally showed Obama's naivety. In fact it showed McCain despite supporting virtual unilateral action in Iraq, in violation of Iraq's sovereignty was naive enough to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan who currently harbour terrorists that killed over 3,000 Americans.

I am with Obama on this. The United States has gotten past the point where we need to ask Pakistan's permission to attack Al Qaeada. For seven years the Pakistani authorities have assured President Bush they were chasing Al Qaeda and for seven years they have failed. Under McCain's naive strategy the US would be at the mercy of Pakistani authorities who are responsive first and foremost to an anti-American, pro Islamist public.

McCain's support of the sideshow in Iraq helped Al Qaeda recruit terrorists who hate America at an alarming rate. Yet McCain's continued emphasis on "winning the war in Iraq" and discussions of Iran seem to ignore the fact that those who perpetrated the greatest crime on humanity on September 11th 2001 are still at large. Those terrorists whose very survival threatens America are not important to John McCain. By persecuting the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda has grown stronger and American interests have been compromised. McCain's lack of decisiveness in the economic crisis of this month also demonstrated a potential lack of strong Presidential action should terrorists strike America. This we cannot afford.

A McCain victory would likely result in the United States allowing Al Qaeda more time to regroup in the mountains of Northwestern Pakistan. With a McCain victory comes more time for terrorists to plot attacks on the United States and a less defensible homeland since we will have tied up many of the most essential troops in the Iraqi war a sideshow in the global war on terror. The central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. John McCain wants to tread carefully in that region while Barack Obama wants to kill the terrorists. If you were in Al Qaeda's shoes wouldn't you be hoping for a McCain victory?

Bush's Legacy: Coddling Dictators

2008-10-23T11:09:00.001-04:00

For all the machismo that George W. Bush's administration conducted his foreign policy with, the lasting legacy of the Bush years could be the coddling of dangerous dictators. President Bush and his administrations foreign policy team have now been responsible for taking two very dangerous nations, Libya and North Korea of the list of state sponsors of terrorism. This list which includes Cuba and Iran still, has been used for many years as a political tool more than an actual list of state sponsors of terrorism. For example Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Tunisia (who for years "hosted" the PLO) were never on the list.

The decision a few years back to take Libya off the list and to normalize relations was shocking. Yet the mainstream American media, so fundamentally misinformed about global politics allowed this to pass without any criticism. They accepted the Administrations tired line that the action against Iraq scared Libya and that Mummar al Qaddafi was somehow a changed man. The reality is Libya has been responsible for more terrorism directly aimed at American citizens than any nation on earth, with Qaddafi pulling the trigger.

The Achile Lauro hijacking where American citizen Leon Klinghoffer was murdered
The hijacking of a Pan Am plan in Karachi
The bobing of a TWA flight in Athens
The murder of two American serviceman in a Berlin discotech
The Pan Am 103 bombing
The first World Trade Center bombing.

Conservatives often times state you can deal with terrorists. John McCain and his campaign have labeled Barack Obama's plans to talk to Iran, et al as dangerous. Let me state as an Obama supporter I'm not in love with these plans. Terrorists are dangerous and talking directly to them is a risky idea. Making deals with them is even worse as the Bush administration has done with Libya and is doing currently with North Korea.But Iran is a more stable and legitimate government than North Korea's or Libya. Iran has existing democratic institutions and has acted at many times more responsibly on the global scene despite the bravado of their current powerless president than Libya or North Korea. Iran is after all on fairly good terms with the U.K., Germany France, Russia and China. For years the US has gone at Iran alone, unlike Libya and North Korea who were until Bush's actions essentially boxed in.

North Korea's record of despotism and support for terrorism is arguably unmatched on the planet. Yet the decisive unilateral actions Bush supported against a tin pot dictator who posed no threat to the US in Saddam Hussien have not been even tried with North Korea. Instead Bush hid behind the Chinese, who national growth has been accelerated by his Presidency (as has India's and both nations posses a long term threat to our economic and political interests globally.) and tried for multilateral talks. Now Bush and his Secretary of State Condelezza Rice have given North Korea approval of their bad behavior with defacto recognition of their nuclear program and a removal of the nation from the list of terrorist nations.

We need a President who will stand up for America, not for Libya, North Korea, India or China. George W. Bush. We entered the Bush years as a preeminent nation on the planet. We had the goodwill of those across the globe and could have spread our empire through our culture and corporations abroad. Instead we resorted to unwise military adventurism in Iraq, an inconsequential nation and when that went badly panicked and made deal with dangerous dictators. Our empire is in taters: the American brand so to speak has never been less marketable. Ben Franklin and John Quincy Adams, two legendary diplomats who projected American weakness into power in the courts of European rules should be rolling over in their graves. The Bush years have been a disaster and the next President would be hard pressed to do worse.

P.S. The initial opening between Libya and west may have been when Qaddafi gave the British Government information about the IRA which he had armed for years. While Qaddafi cooperated when he needed to keep power, the fact that he so closely sponsored DOMESTIC terrorists in the UK should have given both the American and British governments pause about dealings with him.

Election Coverage

2008-10-22T17:46:00.002-04:00

Beginning Monday October 27th we will have daily blurbs on election related happenings in Florida. Not just the Presidential race, but Congressional and State Legislative races as well. Please check back beginning Monday for updates.

South Florida Expressways Never Built: Part I

2008-10-14T10:51:00.001-04:00

In the 1960s, Broward County was growing rapidly a bedroom community to already congested and urban Dade County, Florida's only true Metro area at the time. Dade County also was facing a huge traffic crisis. Interstate 95 began being built through the area in 1958 with the portion from SR 84 southward to the current I-195 (which was routed as I-95 for a time) being worked on. In 1962 the Palmetto Bypass was opened. At the time the road now known as the Palmetto Expressway was a rural beltway the circled Miami. The state had incredible foresight to build this road. The completion of the Palmetto Expressway and I-95 through Dade and portions of Broward led planners to propose many new roads. Some like SR 836/Dolphin Expressway, and SR 874 now known as the Don Shula Expressway got built in the 1960s and 1970s. However many more were never built and could have been useful in this day and age of congestion.

Included in the never built roads we will feature in the near future on this site are:

The proposed Miami Beach to West Dade, Hialeah Expressway
The original proposal for the University Freeway which was later rerouted and scaled back as the Sawgrass Expressway
The Sheridan Expressway
The Snake Creek Expressway
Le June Expressway
Rock Island Exrpessway
Interama Expressway
Miami International Airport Spur (to run along 20th or 14th street NW)
Cypress Creek Freeway

If anyone has memories at all about these expressways that were never built and the political battles that surrounded them please email me at kkfla737@yahoo.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Negro President by Gary Wills

2008-10-02T21:24:00.001-04:00

Gary Wills is among my favorites historians. As a left leaning thinker at Northwestern University he doesn't write the same sort of uncritical books about our founding fathers as Joseph Ellis, Gordon Wood and most notably David McCullough have written. He also doesn't simply trash all the figures in American History the way the likes of Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn do. Simply put, he's an objective contemporary historian.

The Negro President is largely about Jefferson. That much you could guess. However it is not about Sally Hemmings: her name is mentioned scarcely if at all in the book. The title is a reference to Thomas Jefferson's election as President in 1800 over John Adams based on the 3/5 vote rule in slave states. Basically African American Slaves while held in bondage in the South we counted a 3/5 a person in the census which gave several Southern states undue extra electoral votes and threw the election to Jefferson.

The book is a fascinating overview of the power of slaveholders in American politics. While Thomas Jefferson professed an egalitarian ideology largely for political reasons he never strayed far from the line of the slaveholders. This included his successful attempts to aid those trying to put down the Haitian Revolution and his open advocacy of the planter class in the West Indies. Jefferson claimed to be a revolutionary and someone who detested royalty and aristocracy but as Wills convincingly argues, Jefferson's foremost concern was the maintenance of slave power.

Most of the Federalists who opposed Jefferson were against Slavery. John Adams and his wife Abigal opposed slavery, but Mr. Adams never made much of a public stand around it. Alexander Hamilton was anti-slavery but was more interested in successfully building American commerce (partly as a bulkwurk against slave holding South) and cozying up to the British. The real anti slavery leader among the Federalists was Timothy Pickering, who took consistent principled stands against the power of the South and slaveholders throughout his career as Secretary of State and in the Congress. Wills work allows us to rediscover a lost heroic figure of the early years of the American Republic: Timothy Pickering.

Pickering is the other major character in the book and is cast as the Federalist "anti-Jefferson." Up until his death in 1829 Pickering led the resistance to Slavery in Washington, and his legacy was fulfilled by Charles Sumner, William Lloyd Garrison and others. Another interesting side note about Wills book is that he does not take the knee jerk historical view of Aaron Burr. Burr, Wills points out was well within his rights to pursue the Presidency in 1800 and 1801 when the Electoral College was deadlocked and that Burr in fact took some very principled stands with the obvious exception of his duel with Hamilton. Wills theorizes that Burr's Western adventure which led to his trial on treason offended Jefferson not because it threatened the union but because it threatened slaveholders in the areas that are now Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Burr after all was himself strongly opposed to slavery.

This book is a great read and a refresher course on the Thomas Jefferson that most modern day historians avoid.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Conservative Hypocrisy: Confessions of a Liberal Operative

2008-09-02T09:06:00.005-04:00

I had originally believed Gov. Palin was a brilliant choice for VP: a game changer, or even a game closer as someone with experience in polling, I believe Sen. Obama due to his race is actually 5-7 points behind where he stands in the polls. Gov. Palin's win over Frank Murkowski in the primary and then Former Gov. Tony Knowles in the 2006 General were to me sure signs that she was an impressive vote getter, slaying two of the three biggest names in Alaska politics in one election cycle. (Many Democrats believed running Gov. Knowles again meant we'd walk back into the Governor's office) But now as ugly revelations about Gov. Palin's family have come to the surface more important questions have to be asked.

I have maintained for years that political conservatives actually represent the most socially decadent folks in the nation. Hiding behind religion and a moral crusade, it is conservative male politicians who consistently cheat on their wives, while pushing onerous legislation trying to keep Women in "their place." Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter having a child at 17 is a problem. Perhaps from a pure social perspective I am more conservative than most but I have a fundamental problem with children having children. Call me a prude but a family that would either turn a blind eye to such a problem or even worse encourage their child to get pregnant and then get married when it became politically convenient for the parents is not fit to be in a high public office or spotlight.

I've heard the talking heads discuss how these revelations should be off the table. I believe they should not be. I will admit my own failings in this regard: As a liberal operative knowing information about certain conservative candidates and families I choose not to politicize these issues. Once elected the candidates that defeated my clients advocated socially repressive legislation while living double lives. We've been forced as liberals to allow conservatives to promote a puritanical view of American society while themselves living lives in some ways as decadent than the rich and elite Roman society. What's worse is liberals don't get the same treatment from a media that often times is more interested in socializing with conservatives at cocktail parties and thus not losing their access to stories rather than being a fair and objective watchdog of the political class. Family problems are an issue: a legitimate issue as to how you live your life and how you will govern. When you run for public office you make the choice, and it is a choice to expose your family and your life to intense scrutiny. These issues should not be off the table and I personally regret my role in taking them off the table in some previous political campaigns. I've often said a potential President or Vice President should not be having affairs because that makes them susceptible to being duped by a foreign agent. I held this view with Bill Clinton whose affair with Monica Lewinsky was an issue for me and I hold this issue with anyone seeking the highest office in the land: They need to be held to a higher standard.

What's even more stomach turning for me is that Sarah Palin is anti-choice after giving birth to a child with downs syndrome. It a sad thing that someone blessed to have a child with a disability would advocate a point of view that takes the most important decision ever made by a family away from families and doctors and in the hands of government bureaucrats be they in Juneau or Washington. But at the same time Gov. Palin should be commended for trying to raise the child properly. But she should do this out of the public view.

John McCain's reputation as a Maverick helped him win the favor of a Washington press corp that is elitist and loves to hot nob with conservatives after hours. Now, they are giving him a pass on the most important decision he ever made. Did he properly interview Gov. Palin and did he have a formalized process for VP after sending out disinformation for the better part of two months? (including using the terminally ill Robert Nowak two months ago to claim he'd pick a VP early) Is having two westerners on a Presidential ticket for the first time ever something that represents the best interests of the American people? Is this a return to the John McCain pre circa 1996 when a knee jerk Arizona conservative advocated positions to the right of most of his Republican Senate colleagues? None of these questions have been asked, and all need to be answered.

Condolezza Rice Restores American Credibility

2008-08-23T12:22:00.001-04:00

After all the damage that an administration that Dr. Rice was an intregal part of between 2001 and 2004, most including myself had very low expectations for her tenure as Secretary of State.
After all Dr. Rice seemed to be more critical than any figure domestically to sell the war in Iraq a war I opposed openly before it began. (Unlike many cowardly Democrats who hide behind the "if I knew then what I know now mantra.). At the time I favored an attack on Iran instead since they represented the greatest threat to American security at the time. (I also favored reconciliation with Saddam Hussein and the possibility to using Saddam's Iraq to confront Iran) But following the military debacle in Iraq itr has now become impossible to formulate a successful military operation against the despotic regime in Tehran.

The cowboy rhetoric of one time moderate Don Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have now been replaced by the strong iron diplomacy of Dr. Rice. While mistakes have clearly been made in the handling of Vladimir Putin's Russia, the strong position on Human Rights carved out by George W. Bush on Tibet after five plus years of inaction, as well as the engagement of our Western European allies has gone miles towards restoring American credibility after being trashed in Bush's first term.

Now the United States is involved in many multi lateral diplomatic actions that were lacking in Bush's first term when Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief deputy Richard Armitage did not have the ear of the President. Rice's close personal relationship with Bush has helped to soften US rhetoric and actions when dealing within multilateral channels. All of this is ironic given Dr. Rice attacks on Bill Clinton's administration for using multilateral ism to project American power, for example in the Balkans. (A war that most Neo-Conservatives actually supported but Dr. Rice despite an alliance in the first Bush term is clearly not a Neo-Con)

American credibility will never be fuilly restored until Bush is out of office. But given the disastrous standing of the US in the world community a few years ago, Condolezza Rice's tenure has to be considered an unqualified success.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Putin: The Master of the new Energy Politics

2008-08-17T18:48:00.001-04:00

Vladimir Putin has restored Russian pride. A battered people after defeat in the Cold War and dismantling of an empire that spanned almost three centuries from the days of Catherine the Great to the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia is used to dominating its neighbors and has through many years of resettling managed to create significant ethnic Russian minorities in many nations surrounding its borders. Simply put, each of the other fourteen nations that were once Soviet Republic and much of Eastern Europe is seen as a Russian sphere of influence by the Kremlin.

NATO expansion which has antagonized the Russians in addition to the soft treatment this administration under the thumb of Russophile Condelezza Rice has brought us to the brink of a new cold war. But the war can never truly be cold, because these days the Russians have much more economic influence over Western Europe. In other words thanks to Gazprom, the former Yukos, and other Russian natural gas and petroleum companies, The Kremlin has more ability to influence events in the West than ever before. Gone are the days of clandestine cloak and dagger spy games: Today Putin can dare the west and use the ultimate weapon: not a the threat of a Nuclear holocaust, but instead he could threaten to cut off the Gas supply to the West.

This would have a devastating affect on the world economy. Coddling Putin has allowed Russian economic and military strength to assert itself. As I predicted three years ago on this website, Russia would represent the biggest threat to American interests both economic and political. the time has come for the West to get tough with Putin and to also accelerate the development of alternative sources of energy. What's even worse than depending on Saudi Arabia is depending on Russia to meet our energy needs.

Blogged with the Flock Browser