The End Of An Era

Welcome to 2017! As a part of my "goals" for this year, I'm going to try to write a bit more on here. Nothing outrageous; this blog will still not be a "daily" blog like some I follow, nor even a "weekly" blog, like others. But I am going to try to head out, from time to time, into the world of sharing my thoughts and view points on this world we live in. I also promise that most of my posts will be rather small, at least compared to the five to ten thousand word tomes that I published prior to the end of 2016. Not all subjects require the attention that Trump's victory in the US Presidential Election did, and not all subjects captivate me emotionally like the Cubs World Series win did. So you're safe in that regard.

Today, I'm going to reflect a bit on the impending end of the Obama administration, I think. But wherever this post ends, I'm going to start here, with a quote from Chuck Klosterman's most recent book, "But What If We're Wrong?": 

"History is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining." ~ Klosterman, pg. 91

Now mull that line over, and then compare it to another cliche take on history:

"History is written by the victors." ~ Winston Churchill 

Many people probably know the second quote, but I would imagine that the vast majority of people under the age of 40 who know the quote wouldn't know who to attribute it to. Churchill is widely considered right in his take, and certainly the evidence post World War II would indicate that he was right. History texts the world over portray the rise of Totalitarianism in Europe, the rise of Imperial Japan, and the ultimate fall of Nazi Germany, Japan and the Axis nations in a relatively consistent way. They all were power hungry, gained power, wanted more, marginalized (and murdered) people because they weren't "like" them, and ultimately their evil led them to a point of conflict with the Allies, who overtook them and restored the "right" world order. Which is Democracy if you read Western texts. And is probably not exactly Democracy if you read current Russian texts, and assuredly not Democracy if you read Chinese texts. So we get the point; the USA, Western Europe, the (then) USSR, and China prevailed. They not only got to dictate the terms of surrender, but also how things would be remembered moving forward.

This is an especially important concept now, as it relates to World War II. We are at the end of the World War II era. It was years ago that we ended the World War II era actively; George H.W. Bush was the last prominent American leader who served in the war, and his term ended twenty four years ago. Now, we are heading towards the final steps of this era, as that Greatest Generation passes on, and leaves the world to the ensuing generations. The Vietnam generation never got a conclusion the way that the prior generation did; the war in Vietnam "ended," and Saigon fell. Depending on what objectives you believe the US was after we either won, or lost, or neither. But nobody left that era feeling the way (I imagine) we collectively did after V-E and V-J day. The post Cold War generation felt good for awhile, but 9-11-01 brought a collective understanding that in a Uni-Polar world there are far more difficult things to deal with than a Soviet USSR. We are now nearing sixteen years in our longest war, the "War on Terror," understanding that it is a war we cannot win (at least through conventional means), but cannot afford to lose. 

So what happens to history when there are no victors? In a sense, I am arguing that the last big piece of major geopolitical history was written in the immediate aftermath of World War II. That history has been seventy one years in the writing, and as the last of the generation who fought in that war and lived in that depression pass on, we will continue to learn from that history. Honestly, we will continue to modify it to teach us the lessons we feel are important at the time, and to make it fit with our active world view. But we, the Western world, feel confident in ourselves as the "victors" of World War II. There are different view points on that war, but none that carry much weight around the world. It is settled, at least for the near term. 

The last seventy one years are not so settled. And that leads me to my thoughts last night as I watched President Obama's farewell address, all the while contemplating what the next four years will be like under a man who is (nearly) unquestionably considered the most unqualified person to hold the office of the Presidency in modern times. And that, ultimately, leads me to the first quote, from Klosterman. History may be written by the victors, and there is no guarantee that the victor's history is accurate, but at least it is somewhat definitive and agreed upon. In the modern age, history is never written, but it is defined. And Klosterman's point is frighteningly right: it is often defined by people who don't know or understand what it is they are defining. 

This matters quite a bit in this day and age. People are quick to jump to conclusions, and are slow to consider that they may have received bad information, so long as that bad information fits their worldview. We live in an age where whatever it is that makes you comfortable, and that you believe to be true, you can find it somewhere. You can find a website that will make you feel confident in your beliefs, no matter how out of mainstream they might be. You can find a news channel that feeds you the same viewpoints you have, all under the guise of "news." And you can find support to demonize people, institutions, and positions that are different than your viewpoints of the world. 

I often hear from people who cannot seem to STAND President Obama. In fact, I would argue that Barack Obama is the most controversial President ever. I don't think that is a function of his actual administration; rather, I firmly believe that it is a direct function of a fully realized 24 hour "news" cycle, always looking for ratings, always looking for controversy to drive those ratings, and, above all, always looking to stir up the people who identify most closely with the view points that the "news" media is presenting. We have fully arrived in an era when the top journalistic institutions of the past century and a half are considered "fake" news. Many people do not believe in the journalistic integrity of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal. They view all three publications as a part of the "liberal media," ignoring the very real difference between the news rooms in those agencies and their editorial boards (which, in and of themselves, vary drastically in terms of political ideology). Many people seemingly don't even understand the difference between an editorial piece and a news piece. Instead, they turn to MSNBC, if they are "liberal," or, more frequently, to Fox News (if they are conservative). If Fox News isn't extreme enough in their viewpoints (which is scary enough), they turn to Drudge Report, Breitbart, or whatever is sent to them via Facebook. When they hear that about "fake news," which permeates (and, indeed, makes up) Drudge, Breitbart and the "news" stories that fill up their Facebook feed, these are the people who agree there is fake news, and then point to the Associated Press as an example. Simply put, these individuals believe in the world as they see it, and anything (news, academia, research) that doesn't fit that world view is instantly discredited. 

These are the people who cannot stand President Obama, and who say they cannot wait for his last day. These people often times will agree that Trump isn't perfect, but "at least he isn't as bad as Obama." Here's the key: ask those people to name five things that Obama or his administration has done that has made their lives worse in the last eight years. They will very quickly jump to the Affordable Care Act (they'll call it "Obamacare" because it fuels their dislike more). They might name the Iran nuclear deal. They may talk about taxes. They will struggle mightily to name five things. And they will know almost nothing about the things they do say. If you try to drill down (for instance, "what about the ACA has made things worse for you?") they will deflect and change the subject, or they will spout a Sean Hannity talking point. They will just know in their heart that Obama did it, and it made their life worse. If you try to engage these people in conversations about these things they will quickly try to deflect from the subject, or call you a "liberal," with the same tone they would have if they were calling you the queen mother word. And, if you know anything at all about any of the subjects they bring up, you'll leave shaking your head, wondering how we got to a point as society when feelings and gut instinct became more important and more real than evidence and intelligence. 

Donald Trump is the end result of this new age of "understanding." Trump feeds people lies, constantly, and many of them know it. But he gives them hope. That hope is very simple, based on many of my conversations with Trump supporters. They hope that he will take them back to a better day. It's right there in his campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. People who jumped on board with that can't tell you what the Obama Administration did to make America not great. They just know it isn't great. And so they look the other way when he blatantly attacks the press, like he did in today's press conference. They will nod in agreement when he says that The National Enquirer is "real news" and CNN or The New York Times is "fake news." They look the other way when he uses his position, as he already has, to benefit his family, and to benefit his business. They look the other way when he says that he is going to "attack Wall Street," and then puts multiple senior executives from Goldman Sachs into his administration. They, inexplicably, cheer his statement and then don't hold him accountable when he doesn't follow through.

I cannot help but believe that a large part of this is racist in nature, as it relates to Obama, sexist in nature, as it related to Clinton, and xenophobic, homophobic, racist and sexist (among other things, I'm sure) as it relates to everyone from John Kasich, Jeb Bush and to the left politically. I cannot prove these beliefs on a large scale, but it is nearly the only hypothesis that makes some level of sense to me. And, if there is any level of truth to that hypothesis, then Trump is a better option, simply because he's a white male. And, if that is the case, it becomes truly scary because it means that an incompetent (at best), self-centered (at worst) man is about to lead our country wherever he wants. And, if the media tries to call him on it, people will just say it's the "liberal media" saying it, and point to their Facebook news feed for proof. 

Here's what I believe about President Obama. I believe that he, like all Presidents before him, was imperfect for the job, a job which with each passing year becomes increasingly complex and increasingly impossible. I believe he is a good man, with good morals, and by all evidence is a great husband and a great father. I believe that he tried the best he could, and did some things well, and others not as well. I believe there are many things he wishes he could undo, and a lot of things that he wishes he could do more of. I believe that he is relieved to leave the office, and as terrified as the majority of Americans are about what is to come. I didn't agree with all of what he did, or all of what he stands for, but I have respect for the man, and appreciated his efforts to serve the country to the best of his ability. I felt a lot better about our country and our future with him and his administration at the wheel than I do with 1/20/17 bearing down on us. I felt a lot better with George W. Bush and his administration too, lest you think I'm a "bleeding heart liberal." If you cannot see the possible disaster that Trump is poised to bring, regardless of who you voted for, I don't know what to tell you. We just must live in different dimensions of the Universe (although, if you blindly believe in Trump you probably outright do not believe in the possibilities of different dimensions ... but I digress). 

We live in an era where the people who define what is functionally considered "true" regarding nearly everything ... global warming ... the Iranian nuclear program ... the efficacy of The Affordable Care Act ... are people who are ignorant to actual research, actual evidence, actual facts. That is how we end up with a megalomaniac like Donald Trump as our President, while the same people who cheer Trump demonize a President, in Obama, who led the country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, gave over twenty million more Americans health insurance, and led the military in executing a mission to kill the man who masterminded the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Those people accept Obama as damn near evil, and look at Trump and celebrate him. 

"History is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining." Indeed. 

The Creation of the Unwinnable Presidency

So here he finds himself, going to the American public this Tuesday night to make the case for taking military action in Syria. The Civil War in Syria, which this July went over 100,000 deaths, has been a non-existent topic in the national debate for much of the time it has been raging on. On August 21st, however, footage began to pour out showing civilians dying, apparently the victims of chemical weapons strikes. The US government quickly began to place the blame on the Syrian leadership, including Syrian President al-Assad. The Syrian government had been collecting chemical weapons for years, and had even (allegedly) used the weapons (admittedly, in much smaller doses) already during this conflict.

Today, in an interview with Charlie Rose, Assad not only denied that he was behind the chemical weapons strikes, but also indicated that the evidence that chemical weapons were used was not irrefutable. Assad's administration, hedging their bets, has also indicated that if the weapons were used it was the rebel forces which used them. Into this mess walks President Obama.

He tried and failed to build an international consensus that taking military action against the Assad regime would be prudent. In fact, he ended up with so little support that he is now going to Congress to get approval to take these measures, although he could very easily take action without Congressional approval should the administration deem it necessary for American security. Once it became obvious that the House of Representatives (at least) would be unlikely to back the military action, Obama was left no other option but to go to the well one more time and take his case to the American people.

We have allowed the creation of an unwinnable Presidency in this country. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of if a military strike in Syria is justifiable (let alone if it would be beneficial), let's look at this equation from a strictly political standpoint. There are a number of possible actions that the USA could take in Syria:

1. Do nothing, stay out of the conflict entirely
2. Make small, "behind the scenes" moves designed to influence the outcome of the conflict (ie arm the rebels, send supplies, etc), but make no overt actions
3. Denounce the violence on the international stage and take action to damage Syria economically (sanctions, embargo, etc) or militarily (more directly arming the rebels or influencing those supplying Syria with arms not to do so)
4. Take limited military action, such as enforcing a no-fly zone (ideally risking no lives on either side from US action)
5. Take more involved military action such as cruise missile strikes (risking lives on the Syrian side, including the risk of innocent civilian deaths)
6. Take additional military action such as air strikes (risking lives on both sides)
7. Engage in a limited "boots on the ground" campaign (perhaps to train the rebels or to secure chemical weapons supplies)
8. Engage in a broad "boots on the ground" campaign (highest risk of loss of life on the US side)

All of these actions carry with them a certain amount of risk, even doing nothing (case in point: Nazi Germany). At the present time the USA is pretty firmly sitting in option three, but is looking to take steps to move towards option five or six. Now, for the political no-win situation the President finds himself in. Suppose that Obama looked at the information indicating that their were chemical weapons used, and did nothing. Why, he's a do-nothing President who is soft on terrorism and doesn't stand up for innocent victims of a dictator. Suppose that he make the case for limited military action. Why, now he's a President who only takes half-measures and who is putting the US into situations where we shouldn't be. It's easy to see how he found himself here: "Dubya" used every bit of international trust when it comes to these things, and China and Russia gain a great deal by creating a "powerless" super-power. Make no mistake, the Republicans will decry Obama now for wanting to take military action, but in 2014 will turn around and either a) criticize him for not doing enough, or b) for doing too much.

A no win situation through and through. I feel for anyone who takes on this job. I wonder if he ever looks at it and says "only three years left..."? I can't help but imagine he does. 

2012 NFL Week Picks - Week 9 PLUS The Presidential Election

The NFL season hits the midway point, and usually I'd do a retrospective on the preseason picks, tout what I was right on, explain away what I was not so right on, but this year we have an election next Tuesday. And, I think I speak for everyone when I say: THANK GOD the endless barrage of campaign commercials, emails and news releases is about to be over. Republican, Democrat, or anywhere in between I don't know how anyone can feel anything but disgusted with this process after this year.

That said, this week I'll strive to intertwine my football picks with some insight about the presidential election, and then a straightforward pick. First, let's look at how I'm doing through 8 weeks with my picks:

Last week against the spread: 9-5
Last week straight up: 13-1

Season against the spread: 66-49-3
Season straight up: 79-39

In short, I continue to have my best year both against the spread and straight up. You'd expect to do better straight up than against the spread, if only because Vegas would be losing big if it was as easy (or easier) to pick winners against the spread as straight up. That said, the lines have seemed much easier to pick this year than in years past. On to this week's picks:

Thursday Night Game:

Chiefs (+7.5) over San Diego (Chargers straight up)

Okay, we already know that I split on this one because the game happened. Have I mentioned that Thursday night football absolutely, positively sucks yet? Seriously, can we get rid of the NFL "braintrust" who thought this was a good idea yet? My logic behind the (failed) decision to take KC plus the points? As bad as KC is, Norv Turner has a tendency to keep games closer than they should be. He is an awful coach, and I don't even feel a little bit bad about losing the pick against the spread. I can't ever take the Norv Turners as more than a TD favorite.

As far as the Presidential Election goes, Missouri, the "Bell-weather" state, is no longer a swing state. I was there earlier this year, and let me tell you, that state is as reliably Republican as California is Democrat. It's so conservative that there is an outside chance that Akin wins the Senate election after having an honest conversation about how he believes a woman's body can reject semen when being raped if it's "true rape." Yeah, that happened this year, and believe it or not, thanks to a moron hailing from my state it wasn't even the most ridiculous rape comment of the election by a Republican Candidate. 

Sunday Early Games

Denver (-4) over Cincinnati 

Now here's two states that are actual swing states. Before I discuss Colorado and Ohio, let's look at these teams. On the one hand we have a Bengals team that has been hot then cold. They have appeared easy to score on, but intermittently able to score with the best of them. On the other side of the field we have a Broncos team that has lost to the Falcons, the Texans and the Patriots. You know, three of the best teams in the NFL (we think).

As for the states of Colorado and Ohio, both states are heavily in play right now. Romney and Obama are both directing major resources to both states, and Ohio is likely to be the state that keeps us up the longest waiting for the votes to trickle in. If Romney doesn't take Colorado Obama will be on his way to a big victory. The odds on pick here is that Romney takes Colorado by a slim margin, but that Obama takes Ohio by 2-3%. If Obama does take Ohio the road becomes very difficult for Romney, and as such you'll see major hail mary attempts in that state (more on that to come)

Baltimore (-4) over Cleveland

I have a hunch that this will be a bounce back game for the beat up Ravens, although it should be mentioned that Weeden has been better than expected. Continuing with Ohio, I find it interesting that Romney is running ads about Chrysler taking  jobs overseas, which Chrysler execs are quick to discount. That's the type of Hail Mary ads you should be happy to be avoiding if you live in a non-swing state that's being (comparatively) ignored. Don't get me wrong, we are getting plenty of ads here in Hoosier land, but nothing compared with what's blasting Ohio.

Green Bay (-10) over Arizona

Wisconsin is supposedly a swing state. It's not. The dirty secret is that Paul Ryan isn't nearly as popular across the state as Romney would like you to believe. He's a Congressman; therefore, he needs to be popular in a small part of the state. He's not a Senator or Governor. Expect Obama to take Wisconsin by 4-5% and Romney to take Arizona going away. Oh, the game? I see a fifth straight loss for the Cardinals, and the Pack continuing to come on.

Chicago (-3.5) over Tennessee

I can't believe this spread is this low. But, again, after doing everything they could to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory last week and falling just short, the Bears may be who we have known them to be through the Lovie era: a maddeningly inconsistent team on offense buttressed by a all world defense and special teams. I hope that Cutler isn't hurt, but I suspect he is. Winning this game is essential given the remaining 8 games on the schedule, none of which could be considered a gimmy. As for the election, Illinois is solid blue, Tennessee solid red.

Indianapolis (+3) over Miami

The winner of this game is solidly in the drivers seat for a playoff appearance. While Miami has the far superior defense, I'll take Luck at home getting points. As for the election, the state of Indiana inexplicably went blue in 2008, which was pretty much the only shock of the night for me. Let's just say that I won't be shocked again: the state is back to being it's crazy conservative self. When you look at the stretch of blue you'll see on election night from the north east, through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, Indiana will stand out.

Florida? The bane of the 2000 election will be less exciting this time. Due to a continued jobs and housing crisis you can put this state in Romney's ledger pretty easy. If Florida doesn't swing to Romney by 4-5% you can expect a long night for him. If, however, Florida does go to the GOP candidate quickly and decisively it might be an indicator that state polls have been off for the last few months. Florida should go to Romney, but how easily and quickly it does will go a long way to telling us what kind of night it will be.

Washington (-3) over Carolina

Remember last year when Cam Newton was the next big thing? Now the only reason you hear about him in the news is to debate if it's racist to compare him to Vince Young. Reality is RGIII is the hot new thing, and I think Washington takes this game going away. Obama's biggest win of the night will almost certainly be in the District of Columbia. North Carolina, much like Indiana, will go back to the right after a brief flirtation with the left in the last election.

Detroit (-5) over Jacksonville

This game should be an easy win for Detroit, who needs to find some offensive rhythm and maintain it for a few weeks. We've already covered Florida in the election, so a quick look at Michigan. Will the prodigal son, Romney, come back to take the state? In a word, no.

Houston (-10) over Buffalo

I don't like any lines that are in the double digits this year, but I also think Houston is good and Buffalo is not. I can only hope for a huge game from CJ Spiller for my fantasy team. In the election TX is dead red and NY all blue, so I'll simply say that all those on the East coast are in my prayers.

Sunday Late Games

Oakland (-1) over Tampa

Florida, as we've covered, is for Romney. For the purposes of this game, consider only that the loss of Nicks at guard for the Bucs will hurt the running game quite a bit. This line seems too low, so I'll go with the home team. I do feel like I'm taking too many favorites.

Minnesota (+4) over Seattle

Seattle is 3-0 at home and 1-4 on the road. Minnesota is 4-1 at home and 1-2 on the road. This game is in Seattle. I'll take the Vikings to cover and a final score of Seattle 27 Minnesota 24. As for the election, both these states will go blue, in spite of Romney's campaign suddenly talking about Minnesota being in play.

Pittsburgh (+3) over NY Giants

I'd feel better about this if it wasn't for the emotion of the Giants playing in the Meadowlands. But I think that this is the game where Pittsburgh either announces itself as the contender they've been for years, or starts to quietly fade away. Big Ben is playing great and they need a signature win. As mentioned before, PA will go blue, don't listen to what Romney/Ryan are saying.

Sunday Night Game

Atlanta (+4) over Dallas

As I speak, Notre Dame is trying an improbable comeback. For this game, let me say that Atlanta will lose, and probably more than once. Picking the game they'll drop is the big  challenge. This spread reflects too much money on Dallas. I like Atlanta to cover going away. Just like Romney wins going away in Georgia and Dallas.

Monday Night Game

Philadelphia (+3) over New Orleans

As much as I hate to admit it, this is the game Philly needs and New Orleans is cursed as can be this year. The penultimate game of the Michael Vick era, and it happens in New Orleans on the Monday night after Hurricane Sandy decimates the East coast. I like the points, and this gives me four dogs in a row to end. Also, Louisiana goes to Romney easy.

The Presidential Election

Obama 281 to Romney 257

That's my prediction for the final score. How did I get there? Well, here's how the election will break down friends:

Alabama - Romney - 9
Alaska - Romney - 3
Arizona - Romney - 11
Arkansas - Romney - 6
California - Obama - 55
Colorado - Romney - 9
Connecticut - Obama - 7
Delaware - Obama - 3
D.C. - Obama - 3
Florida - Romney - 29
Georgia - Romney - 16
Hawaii - Obama - 4
Idaho - Romney - 4
Illinois - Obama - 20
Indiana - Romney -  11
Iowa - Obama - 6
Kansas - Romney - 6
Kentucky - Romney - 8
Louisiana - Romney - 8
Maine - Obama - 4
Maryland - Obama - 10
Massachusetts - Obama - 11
Michigan - Obama - 16
Minnesota - Obama - 10
Mississippi - Romney - 6
Missouri - Romney - 10
Montana - Romney - 3
Nebraska - Romney - 5
Nevada - Obama - 6
New Hampshire - Obama - 4
New Jersey -  Obama - 14
New Mexico - Obama - 5
New York - Obama - 29
North Carolina - Romney - 15
North Dakota - Romney - 3
Ohio - Obama - 18
Oklahoma - Romney - 7
Oregon - Obama - 7
Pennsylvania - Obama - 20
Rhode Island - Obama - 4
South Carolina - Romney - 9
South Dakota - Romney - 3
Tennessee - Romney -11
Texas - Romney - 38
Utah - Romney - 6
Vermont - Obama - 3
Virginia - Romney - 13
Washington - Obama - 12
West Virginia - Romney - 5
Wisconsin - Obama - 10
Wyoming - Romney - 3


Even if Romney takes Florida, Colorado and Virginia Obama will win the election. I want to stress that I think Florida will go to Romney, but Colorado and Virginia are both toss ups in the definition of the word. Other "swing states" are much more leaning towards Obama. In other words, Obama is the odds on favorites. Enjoy your election drinking games. I'll break it down the night of if I'm so inspired. If not, at least when I make my picks next week there will be no more adds to annoy us.

The First Presidential Debate: A Running Diary

Well, with an interesting presidential election looming (see my previous picks column for a break down of why it's interesting), how could I not do a live blog with my blow by blow reaction? After watching some pre-debate coverage on Fox News and MSNBC I finally settled on CNN to watch the debate, largely due to Wolf Blitzer's awesome beard. Man do I miss Tim Russert.

As always, I write the time stamp and what my thoughts are. Tonight's debate was supposed to focus on domestic politics, and we'll see how well Jim Lehr does holding to that. The general consensus seems to be that Romney needs to do a great job and win this debate going away to get the momentum he's been searching for. The Democrats seem to be saying that they believe the race is too close to call in spite of polling momentum going their way. Not bad to play dead and hope that increases your chance to see voter turnout up. Personally, I think that this debate hinges on if Romney can attack Obama without seeming like he's attacking Obama. Romney is the superior debater historically, but he can be knocked off kilter when his opponent manages to counter his rebuttals and attack lines while moving the point of conversation. Without further delay, here we go:

8:57pm - Little mentioned but potentially huge fact: Obama hasn't debated since 2008, whereas Romney debated somewhere north of 20 times in the Republican Primary alone. At least it felt that way. Fact check...Wikipedia says twenty on the head.

9:01pm - I feel like there should be A) Gambling odds for inane things like "over under 45.5 times the phrase 'middle class' is mentioned tonight" and B) a drinking game where you drink every time something like that is said. Wolf Blitzer tells me that Obama won the coin toss to go first, and Romney gets to go last. Doesn't it feel like Obama should have deferred to the last response? Is that even allowed? Actually, who am I kidding: as a Bears fan Obama probably is going to wait to get to the podium, look around confused, then call a time out.

9:04pm - Obama in the blue tie, Romney in red. I feel like if I was in this debate I'd wear the other guy's color just to screw with them. Economy starts with a question on jobs... and we're off. Romney is writing notes on Obama wishing Michele a happy 20th anniversary.  One minute in and Obama is still setting up his answer. He ended up settling on setting up the paradigm that Romney thinks it's all about tax cuts, and whereas he described a diversified approach centered on education.

9:07pm - Romney hit well with joke about Obama spending his anniversary with him, then goes right into multiple stories from American people. Strong start by Romney, quickly describing a dichotomy between not only he and Obama, but quickly countering Obama's claim that his approach is top down. Still, after two minutes he didn't really get into any policy specifics. He did, however, hit Obama by claiming his approach is "trickle down" government. Did he just hit Reagan's legacy?

9:10pm - Obama counters by talking more about education. Seems dangerously close to pandering to the hall (at a University) rather than going for the viewers at home. He then transitions into talking about tax code, then energy. Obama's attempt seems to be to go after Romney on the tax issue while saying "I'm the authority on education and energy." First mention of the deficit tonight. First hit on Romney's tax plan from Obama.

9:12pm - Romney gives a rebuttal that says that high income people will not get a break under him... then uses Biden's terminology that the middle class is "crushed" twice. Anyone want to be that there will be a commercial showing Romney and Biden back to back saying the middle class is being "crushed" soon?

9:15pm - So Romney was asked to ask the president a question, then went on a multi-minute rant. He did say "by the way, I like coal." I want Obama to say "I love lamp" pretty bad here. At any rate, Romney went way long and didn't ask a question. It sounds to me like Romney is describing a tax plan that does little but shuffle the chips around at best: cut taxes, eliminate exemptions, deficit gone? Doesn't add up. Obama counters by saying that he did what he said he would: cut taxes for the middle class. Obama's going intellectual with his response, which makes him sound like Kerry/Gore ... not the contrast he wants.

9:18pm - Romney says that Obama is misrepresenting ... but doesn't explain how. Then he calls Obama a liar without saying it directly. Romney promises he will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. Obama comes right back at Romney saying he ran on a tax plan for eighteen months, and now is saying his "big bold idea is never mind." He then comes back with "it's math. It's arithmetic."  I really get the feel, only eighteen minutes in, that these guys don't really like each other. Obama brings up Clinton first, and tells the American people he wants to go back to the tax rates that encouraged Clinton era growth.

9:22pm - Obama goes for a Trump joke that seems to miss. At the present time Romney doesn't look nearly as comfortable as Obama. Jim Lehr tries to get things back on track and Romney talks over him quite a bit. Romney hits Obama on his tax plan hurting small businesses more; he also mentions Bowls-Simpson first. Obama goes right back at the tax issue, speaking right to the American people.

9:25pm - Obama ties Romney's approach to Bush directly for the first time. He then directly ties his approach to Clinton. So there you have it: A third Bush term, or a fourth Clinton term. I'm glad we could simplify this. Lehr still has not gotten them off the first subject, he tries again, and Romney talks over it again. Romney keeps saying "that's not my plan" and then says his plan is not like anything that's been done before.

9:27pm - we finally move to the second segment, this one on the deficit. Romney articulates three options to cut the deficit. Romney than says that he likes Big Bird, but will stop the subsidy for PBS. Basically, he'll cut taxes to grow the economy, then cut programs. Obama's responds by going back to Bush and illustrating the state of the deficit and how it got here. A major strength here, and Obama gets on his wheel horse. I'm not sure how he can own an issue that he's struggled so much with, but he does. Obama does great explaining his balanced approach and then contrasting Romney as unbalanced.

9:32pm - Finally we get some back and forth ... might see the gloves come off a bit. Romney says that he has his own plan and it's not Simpson-Bowls, but that Obama should have grabbed on to Simpson Bowls. If I remember correctly the House shot that plan down. Romney slams taxes again "you raise taxes, you kill jobs." Obama looks annoyed, not a great thing for him. Romney states emphatically that he has ruled out increasing revenue entirely. Romney keeps talking over Lehr.

9:35pm - Obama now goes after the oil industry tax rates. I'm confused: what happened to the talk about the deficit. Use of Exon Mobile as a straw man by Obama here. Obama says he wants to do the same thing with closing loopholes that Romney says he wants to do, only he can actually say what he wants to do, not just that he will do it. Obama's first use of an "everyday American" story to four by Romney.

9:37pm - Twix break... mmmm..... Twix ....

9:39pm - Romney confronts Obama for lying a second time (again, without saying it directly). Obama is the first person to mention Reagan. We've moved on to Social Security. Obama goes to his grandmother to set up his argument. I'm shocked that Obama says "you don't need a major structural change to make sure social security is there for the future." Absolutely shocked.

9:43pm - Romney goes right after Obama on the Medicare cuts, saying he'd put the money right back in. Well, not exactly right after: he was on different chain of thinking then suddenly remembered he was supposed to be against "Obamacare" and switched course. Obama tries to get some footing by going after Romney's voucher program, but he stumbles out of the corner trying to establish this point. Obama then embraces the "Obamacare" term and illustrates why a repeal would increase cost on seniors.

9:48pm - Neither candidate has had an "ah ha" moment yet. I'd be inclined to say Romney is winning on logic, but Obama is winning in terms of presentation. Romney seems edgy and aggressive. In terms of speaking time Obama has opened a small lead over Romney. In other news, I kinda wish this was a foreign policy debate. I'm starting to think that I should start work on my NFL picks this week.

9:53pm - "Does anybody out there think that the problem we've had was due to too much regulation on wall street?" Obama scores there. Romney comes swinging back. I'm on to salt water taffy.

9:58pm - Moving to health care. First time we've heard the term Affordable Care Act. Romney opens up by talking about the cost of health care, then says that "Obamacare" is adding to cost. For the record, "Obamacare" hasn't had a negative impact on my company's bottom line. Interesting the Romney never smiles with his teeth. He just looks tight and uncomfortable.

10:00pm - Obama goes in to the positives of the ACA. Lehr is trying to hold the line, but failing. Can we send him out to pasture? I miss Tim Russert. Text in from my mother noting that Romney's been too aggressive. Obama looks much more comfortable on stage than Romney.

10:07pm - Romney blatantly lies about his "plan" by stating his plan covers pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26. He says these were already staples of the private market. If he thinks that he's out to lunch. He's also all but saying "death panel" repeatedly.

10:10pm - Obama goes through a number of things that Romney has promised tonight but outlines how he hasn't said anything about how he's going to do it. Romney barrels over Jim Lehr to get a response he didn't have the right to according to debate rules.

10:14pm - Jim Lehr has been pretty much worthless tonight. Now we are on to the role of government. Obama's first response is to keep American's safe and to create frameworks to help people to succeed. He then illustrates how past instances of the government investing have led to dividends.

10:17pm - Romney goes back to the constitution, thereby not answering the question. Obama continues to stretch out his time advantage. Now talking about student loans.

10:22pm - And here comes the blow on Romney's statement that people should just borrow from their parents to go to school. Obama's not scoring well on this topic, and Romney AGAIN calls Obama a liar without doing so directly. The lack of political acumen shocks me. Romney goes after the green energy campaigns again. It's amazing to me that he could be so short sighted on energy.

10:25pm - Getting close to the wrap up point, and Lehr did such a poor job that they missed an entire topic. He finishes up on partisan gridlock. Romney gives a pretty nondescript answer. Obama has a tougher standard with this question to hit. He responds that he will meet with anyone as long as the goal is helping further the opportunities of the American people. Obama manages to get a Bin Laden references in as well. He finishes up with nearly a  minute advantage in speaking time, but it felt like Romney was the person refusing to stop talking most of the time tonight. Good job by Obama in that regard.

10:28pm - Obama stumbles out of the gate on his closing statement. He has had a hard time with transitions tonight. He didn't really go anwhere, but Romney goes right to the core and hits his talking points without any issue. A strong finish by Romney, who wanted to go last exactly for this reason.

Final Verdict: Romney did a great job staying on topic and Obama never took him out of his comfort zone. From a standpoint of actual academic topics the debate was nearly a draw, with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. Obama didn't really go after Romney much at all, nothing about any of the major attack points. Obama clearly looked more comfortable however, and if JFK v Nixon tells us anything, its that the person who looks more presidential sometimes takes a big advantage.

2012 NFL Picks Week 4 ***Plus Presidential Polls***

Well, the combination of a poor performance by the Bears offense (albeit with another great defensive/special teams performance), plus my fantasy team continuing to crap the bed from a team that looked great on paper to one that can't function (thanks to my boss, a life long Bills fan for jinxing CJ Spiller for me), plus the awful officiating culminating in the officials blowing the Sunday and Monday night games ... yeah, I'm borderline out on the NFL until the real officials are back. Which, incidentally, looks like it might be soon. Or not. Really, who the hell knows?  (If you didn't take the time to follow those links, ESPN right now says "Deal between NFL, Refs very close" while Sports Illustrated says "NFL, Referees still not close to a deal." I LOVE headlines and the 24 hour a day news cycle.)

So, with that said, I thought I'd take a look at the shocking reality that is becoming this presidential election cycle. If you've read my political breakdowns here before, you know that I looked at the Republican Primary season from a "who is most likely to win" schema. I will view the general election the same way. That said, some general pointers from history indicate that:

- Presidents with economies in recession don't win re-election.
- A President with an economy this poor hasn't won re-election since FDR
- Barack Obama is the President.

Pretty simple, right? The economy has continued an uber slow recovery, barely creeping along at times. The housing market continues to be in shambles. The Congress hasn't accomplished a thing since the midterm elections split the House and the Senate in 2010. Historically, this election would look like 1976, 1980, or 1992. In each of those elections a weak incumbent, hamstrung by issues, faded quickly and ended up being defeated. 1980 (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 (Clinton over H.W. Bush) are particularly pertinent examples. To wit:

- With Carter, the nation's unemployment rate sat at 7.5% when he took office in 1977. It went steadily down, getting under 6% through much of 1979, but in 1980, an election year, the rate went back up into the 7.2-7.8% rate. Carter also faced a major crisis in the Middle East (the Iranian Hostage situation) and high energy (read: GAS) costs. Keep in mind: unemployment actually exploded under Reagan's first term , eventually going over 10% for ten concurrent months between September 1982 and June of 1983. It started declining at that point, however, and by November of 1984 (election time) the rate was at a much more comfortable 7.4%. You know, .1% less than it was when high unemployment helped to undo Carter in 1980. The message, as always? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas unemployment was heading in the wrong direction for Carter, Reagan could argue that things were headed in the right direction. Incidentally, they were proven "right" as unemployment continued to plummet during Ronnie's 2nd term, down to sub 6% his entire last year. 

- With Bush, he took over a stable economy that held under 6% unemployment his entire first year. But then those evil economic forces started to creep in and the unemployment rate slowly started creeping up. By 1992 the rate climbed back over 7% (October 1991 to be exact) and stayed over 7% throughout 1992. Although H.W.'s foreign policy was generally (and honestly still is) something to be commended, the economic difficulty brought in Clinton, who saw unemployment rates that Reagan could only dream of, seeing 42 straight months under 5% (and even some months under 4%) to end out his term. During the "Dubya" administration rates held fairly steady, until the end where rates made it to 7% by the time he left office.

Now, if rates over 7% indicate a candidate's doom, Obama's rates above 8% (after three years sitting between 9-10%) should spell certain doom. Of course, if it were that easy, Mitt Romney should be celebrating right now. Right? After all, both Reagan and Clinton were able to breath pretty easy. However, look at the polls right now, and you find a different reality. Every set of polling data that comes out looks better and better for Obama, worse and worse for Romney. Today's Quinnipiac poll shockingly shows Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS in three major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. And while this poll shows the largest margins of all polls, it continues the absolute trend among polls moving towards Obama. I won't take the time to break them all down here, but this link gives you a break down of each and every reputable poll. The question, simply put, isn't IF Obama is in the lead, but HOW MUCH is Obama in the lead. Honestly, the more this continues trend this way the more the question becomes: does Romney even have a punchers chance?

So, why is Obama bucking history? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I do know this: Romney needs an unbelievable debate performance, starting next Wednesday, to have even a wing and a prayer of salvaging this thing. Needless to say, I'll try to clear out my schedule to live blog the debate next week. It sure as hell interests me more than the NFL's crappy replacement officials and my awful fantasy football team.

On to the picks:

Last week against the spread: 9-6-1
Last week straight up:8-8

Season against the spread: 25-21-2
Season straight up: 25-23

Thursday Night Game

Baltimore (-13) over Cleveland - Moral of the story: I fully believe Baltimore can blow this line and win by one or two ... but I still can't bet on Cleveland.

Sunday Early Games

Atlanta (-8) over Carolina - Moral of the story: after last week's game against San Diego, is this line high enough?

New England (-5) over Buffalo - no (good) RBs healthy in Buffalo, New England can't lose three in a row... can they?

Minnesota (+5) over Detroit - Moral of the story: I just have a hunch, particularly if Stafford is out.

San Diego (-1) over Kansas City - Moral of the story: I still don't believe in Romeo.

St. Louis (+3) over Seattle - Moral of the story: Bad karma for last week's replacement ref job over Green Bay.

San Francisco (-5) over NY Jets - Moral of the story: Revis out for the year is a huge blow. No offense, struggling defense, and I bet San Fran comes to play.

Tennessee (+13) over Houston - Moral of the story: Houston continues to play like a Super Bowl contender, but this line just feels to high. I'll take Houston to win the game, however.

Sunday Late Games

Denver (-7) over Oakland - Moral of the story: Oakland is confusing me, but I think Peyton is due for a semi-Peyton game.

Arizona (-6) over Miami - Moral of the story: Fool me once, shame on Arizona. Fool me three times (and counting) ...

Cincinnati (-3) over Jacksonville - Moral of the story: I am not glad I ended up with Chris Johnson instead of MJD on my fantasy roster.

Green Bay (-8) over New Orleans - Moral of the story: Good karma for the game on Monday.

Washington (+3) over Tampa Bay - Moral of the story: RGIII can move the pocket; Josh Freeman can't seem to get things done. That said, I need to watch this closely because with all the injuries in Washington I might be missing the bus here.

Sunday Night Game

NY Giants (+1) over Philadelphia - Moral of the story: I'm getting close to out on Philly

Monday Night Game

Chicago (+4) over Dallas - Moral of the story: Both offensive lines are ... offensive. I think the extra time off helps Chicago, and I want this very badly for my Uncle.

Until next time, Thursday night football sucks. Replacement refs suck more!

The Long Hard Road

As the days go by, and as we steadily move towards the official start of the 2012 election cycle, the numbers keep coming in. One thing you realize studying political science is that the numbers are the constant, unending aspect of domestic politics. We always want the latest, greatest poll, and we want to know exactly right now how people are feeling about candidate x. So we poll people on this, we poll them on that, we give them hypothetical matchups to decide from, and somewhere in the midst of all the numbers we find trends that we try to extrapolate into bigger picture meaning. And so the numbers keep coming in, and in this case they keep confounding me.

I've been saying for quite some time now that there is almost no chance that this country will have anyone besides Barack Obama in office after the next election. I still believe that my statement, and the logic behind it, is mostly true. But the evidence keeps coming in, and it is starting, ever so slightly, to push this situation into more of a coin flip, a horse race if you will. For those of you unfamiliar with poker terms, a horse race is a situation where you get your money in with almost even odds. Pocket 8s against Ace-King, for example. Until recently it appeared to me that unless something drastically bad happened Obama would be much safer than 50/50. That was quite the statement, given the historical nature of the struggling economy, which typically drags incumbents down.

I felt that this was true do to the fact that the Republican Primary field was generally uninspiring or even downright scary. None of that has changed. The Republican field is perhaps even more uninspiring today than it was three months ago, and every day that we move closer to the election their is less of a chance that the mysterious "candidate x" will rush into the race, make the Republican ladies swoon and the men well with pride. As I've said: there isn't anyone out there. And that has made Obama much safer than he should have been, given all the other complicating factors.

Still, a few things have shifted that are making this road look less and less certain. First, every issue has become a knock down, drag out political fight. It seems that nothing gets done in Washington these days with bi-partisan support, and it has begun to seem like there aren't even fundamental principles that these sides can agree on. The debt deal is a great example of this: Republicans rushed to politicize the issue, not because they were against it, but because they could and they felt it would help them in the next election cycle. And the sad thing is, were the roles reversed, I have complete faith the Democrats would have done the same thing. But, unlike an issue like abortion or gay marriage, issues we are used to being highly politicized, this was our nation's credit ... and default. The brazen nature with which the full faith and credit of the United States became a political toy appalled me.

But should it have? This is the same nation in which the greatest national tragedy of our time, September 11th, became the penultimate political toy of our time. Bush used it to define who loved America and who didn't, and then used that differentiation to win elections for he and his like minded colleagues, and then used their combined political capital to push through a wide variety of economic legislation that deregulated everything to the point that our fiscal system has been on the brink of collapse for half a decade now. And, because you have to play by the rules of the game, Obama was able to use 9/11 in a different way to defeat Hillary in the primaries, and to run an extremely effective campaign against George W. Bush ... thereby defeating John McCain ... who tried, but failed, to implement Bush's playbook ... which was based on 9/11. If our nation being at war ... our nation being attacked ... could be turned into a political issue, why should it shock me that the debt crisis was played the same. The rules of the game, right?

And so this brings me back to Barack. What to make of him? It's possible that he is just a dreamer with big ideas and soaring rhetoric, but without the necessary gusto to make things happen. It's possible that he's a centrist at heart who (operating under the rules of the game) ran to the left to beat Hillary, and now is being criticized for not pursuing a truly liberal agenda. It's possible that he just doesn't have the requisite experience to be President, but truthfully who does, and when was the last time someone seemed to have it in their first term? Maybe Nixon, who was corrupt but an effective politician well before winning the Presidency? Or maybe before that. Truman? Who knows?

But no matter the reason, Obama seems to be slipping in the one area he cannot afford to struggle with: his base. Politico reports that all signs indicate that the President's approval ratings are slipping from coast to coast in the bluest of blue states. Polls are just that, but it seems highly unlikely that he could be slipping across all these states and not have it be an indicator of some real issues in his brand and within his base. The article rightly asserts that the President need not worry about losing these Democratic strongholds ... I think New York and California will be safe ... but it questions what these numbers will mean for Obama in swing states. It's a valid question, and it deserves some analysis.

The good news for Obama is that the far left differs from the religious right in one major aspect, and it is the basis of Karl Rove's theory on winning elections (and, seeing as how he was two for two with Dubya, you can't really knock it or disprove it). Rove speculated, and polls and interviews have backed up, that the religious right is the most solidly Republican part of the country. He also postulated that there was almost no way for a Democrat to win their votes, which has also proven true. He furthermore acknowledged that there was not really a third party likely to split their votes off, like the Green Party had for the far left. They don't identify with the Libertarians too much, and last time I checked there wasn't much of a fascist party in the USA. But the real secret to Rove's theory (keep in mind this was pre-Tea Party) was that the religious right felt it had two options to choose from, even if it only had one party. They would vote Republican ... or they would stay home. While it's possible that this equation has changed some with the onset of the Tea Party (although I still don't believe they are a factor), Rove put it simply: fight for the religious right, win their votes, and win the Presidency. You cannot lose if you win the religious right. H.W. Bush didn't listen, refused to capitulate to the theory ... and lost to Clinton. Dubya bought it hook, line and sinker ... and won twice.


But for a candidate such as McCain, not readily identified with the religious right's values and aims, it was much more difficult to win, and he didn't. The good news in the polls for Obama is that the far left is much less likely to stay home, and the memory of Ralph Nader being blamed for Al Gore losing in 2000 is fresh enough that the party base is unlikely to stray too far. So if the fear isn't that he will lose the votes, what is the fear? Simply put, Obama has a tougher road to travel the more upset his base gets because he will have to spend more time appeasing them. And, by extension, less time running to the middle. Obama's ticket to reelection was always playing to the middle, and trying to convince independents that he was the good guy who was hamstrung by a liberal congress, then a non-negotiable conservative congress. "It's them, not me" if you will. And he can do that ... could have done that... so long as his own base was able to buy the argument.

Now, as we see subtle signs that his own base is saying "I'm not so sure anymore," Obama will be forced to run back to the left. As we established earlier, he doesn't have to do this so much to ensure their votes. He has to do this, instead, to ensure their money. No matter who he runs against, unless it's Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama will have to raise more money than ever before. Romney has strong business ties and will raise a ton. Perry has the good old boy network, and will raise a ton. Obama will need every penny to compete with the onslaught of ads he will be running against. He will need it so that he can level the playing field, and try to control the message.

The good news is that the liberal base hasn't decided it wants a primary fight yet, and as long as they avoid that colossal mistake they have the upper hand. But that grasp is fading, and based on the numbers we are seeing it is fading fast. Rick Perry's entrance into the race has actually been to the detriment of Obama as it has done two things team Obama did not want to see happen: it has marginalized Bachmann and solidified support around Romney. Perry is a powder keg waiting to explode, and when it does it will spew molten crazy all over. If that happens early enough then Bachmann can get back into the race; too late, and it will scare people right to Mitt. That's why you see Bachmann and Paul going after Perry as aggressively as they have been: they know it's now or never. Bachmann seemed incredibly strong in Iowa only a few weeks ago, but now it seems like the state is Perry's to lose. Iowa likes to buck the front runner, but it also likes to pick someone it thinks can be a winner. Bachmann was the obvious choice on the former point, but Perry fits both qualifications better. Unless Perry melts down, or we get concrete evidence that he is, in fact, stupid (as a number of articles have hinted at), he continues to make a three team race into a two team race. And it sets Romney up in the same position Obama was in 2008: he has to pander to his base just enough to split it, but can run to the middle in the Primary season as the moderate who can win, and he can build an independent base in doing so. I've said all along that Romney was the Republican with the best chance of taking down Obama ... and just when Barack is at his weakest point yet, things are turning in a positive way for Mitt. Needless to say, the long road to reelection continues to get harder for Mr. Obama.

A Perspective On Obama and Palestine

Sorry to keep dropping links on you, but this is an interesting perspective on Obama's recent actions vis a vi Palestine. It's not too long; check it out.

Look closely...

I got some flak for my "Obama and Bush are strikingly similar" comments a few posts back. I'll pass this link along to show you the thoughts of a professor who I took a class with in Bloomington, but nonetheless I'd encourage you to look at Bush's Medicare Part D, then look at Obamacare, and tell me the difference. This blog post not only seconds that, but it also shows how conspiracy theorists can and will jump all over this crap. Gotta love silly conspiracy theorists... as well as the people the suck in.

2012: An Early Handicapping

"We've been sitting on the fence for far too long..."

Okay, so this is a lyric from the legendary musical "Jesus Christ Superstar," but it also has relevance when connected with my shocking silence on the 2012 presidential race. Do you realize it's only seventeen months before the election? I haven't told you what's going to happen yet! You won't know who to vote for if you want to vote for a winner! Ah!!!!!


...



....


............. don't worry friends. I'm here to help you. In fact, let's break down the candidates, as they stand right now. You can thank me later.

Democrats

Barack Obama (incumbent ... in case you've been in a coma since election night 2008)

The Pros: he's the incumbent, although as Jimmy Carter famously showed us in 1980, that doesn't stop your own party from trying to off you. So the fact that Obama looks strong enough to avoid the ghost of Ted Kennedy trying to usurp him is a good start. Beyond that, the economy appears to be slowly, but steadily improving. We won in Iraq (kind of). We are winning in Afghanistan (I think). We finally put Osama bin Laden in check mate (unless you believe the same people who believe Obama isn't an American citizen ... in which case I can't help you). The biggest advantage our current president has is that he is, well, presidential. That only matters when you look at the field of people who will be challenging him ... but trust me, it will matter in this race. His last poll numbers indicated that 30% of Americans will absolutely vote for him, 38% will absolutely not vote for him, and the rest are up in the air. While it is always true that a good number of these "undecided" folks just like to pretend they are undecided, and in fact already know they will or won't vote for Barack (cut to my father silently nodding), it still is interesting information.

The Cons: Where to start? How about with the fact that his economic policy is virtually identical to Dubya's in every way. Don't believe me? Look at this list:

• Keep taxes down in a way which helps the rich disproportionally - CHECK
• Bail out any and every corrupt or poorly run business which is going under - CHECK
• Pass massive healthcare legislation without cutting elsewhere (Bush's prescription drug benefit, Obama's Obamacare, which would have been better if it was actually Obamacare and not so much the Pelosicare that it turned out to be) - BIG **** CHECK
• Look the other way while our national debt skyrockets - CHECK
• Ignore the fact that our welfare system is broken - CHECK

Honestly, I could go on and on. I swear to the spirit in the sky that I was told we were electing a crazed liberal socialist who would turn our country into the USSR circa 1980, and that he was replacing a neo-conservative who would have made fascists blush. And they're the same damn person?!?!?!?!?

My head hurts...

Anyway, couple Obama's less than impressive economic policy with a foreign policy that I would argue has been solid, but which will be distorted by the right on the following points:

• Not releasing Bin Laden's photo
• Not handling Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East right
• Israeli lobby. Need I say more?
• Europe's deterioration as an ally
• The border (just wait; it'll be an issue again)
• The Russians
• The Chinese
  
• Damn near everybody short of the Canadians and Australians
  

... and you'll end up with an incumbent who, on paper, should be vulnerable. For my next trick, I'll show you if that's an actual reality.

Republicans

Straight from Politico.com's "Candidate Hub"

Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota

The Pros: He looks young, which will help him when he is contrasted to el presidente. Just tell John McCain this doesn't matter. Today he was in Washington, DC, at the Cato Institute giving a speech entitled "What Washington can learn from Minnesota." I bet he thinks that Washington can learn paw-lenty from Minnesota. Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, he also "tweeted" that we should remember that the 10th amendment still works, and that he would "block grant" medicaid funds to the states for their dispersal. Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with this statement. As for actual pros beyond his youthful look, he just released a book, which always helps, and he ran the state of Minnesota competently (from what I can tell) for two terms. Still, his big promise was to balance the budget, a task which he will tell you he accomplished

The Cons: ... and I regret to inform you he did not. Well, he did, in the short term. But he left the state $4.4 billion short for the next two years by rearranging things so that he could say he balanced the budget. Man, that changed from a pro to a con quick. He better hope Obama doesn't have anyone on his staff who can type his name into a google search. Also, he better hope Obama decides not to debate him. Because this man is, in the word's of a good Irishman I know, "a dry shite" That said, he's the odds on favorite to take the nomination because the two most likely nominees (Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels) decided that they would rather A) keep making half a million dollars from Fox (Huckabee) or B) not get divorced for a second time from the same lady (Daniels). What, too soon for the divorce jokes? Well, maybe if Daniels hadn't been such a train wreck for the state of Indiana I'd reconsider.

Sarah Palin - Former Governor of Alaska (briefly); Bristol's mother (famously); Alaskan Bear Hunter (I think ... Palin's Alaska, right?)

The Pros: As Jon Stewart can tell you, it's been a long few years since Dubya departed. Comedy works best when we have a fearless leader who specializes in unintentional comedy. Dubya did. Obama doesn't. Palin? Oh. My. Gawd. If somehow she decides to declare I will be forced to vote in the primaries this year, just on the wing and a prayer she gets the nomination. Then I will have to TIVO every comedy show every night. Sarah Palin is the very definition of unintentional comedy.

The Cons: Let's see ... train wreck as a VP candidate? Check. Left only term as Governor early for no clear reason, but we think it was to hawk a book and make money at Fox News? Check. Has a reality TV show? Check. Can't name one Supreme Court decision, even though she's a far right conservative who you'd think would be screaming out "ROE V WADE" in her sleep? Check. Let's just say that if Vegas was laying odds, I'd slam the line on "stays at Fox News, a la Huckabee." Although if the Republican primary produces someone semi-liberal, it's possible the "tea party" would beg her to run on their ticket. So we might win either way. Oh, her twitter account? "Tumultuous world gotcha' flummoxed? Divert w/tuning 2 unifying, sweet competition; Dancing w/the Stars TEAM BALLAS competes in finals tonite" That's an exact quote. She writes like she speaks.

- John Huntsman (former Ambassador to China for Obama)
- Ron Paul (last real libertarian left in the country; congressman from Tejas)
- John Bolton (crazy person ... that's his official title, right?)
- Rick Santorum (I got really excited for the 3.7 seconds I thought this was former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez ... the got sad. He's a former senator from Pennsylvania)
- Herman Cain (owner of Godfather's Pizza)
- Buddy Roemer (um... who?)
- Gary Johnson (Willie Nelson dropped his endorsement ... not a good sign)
- Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey who probably couldn't even carry his own state)

I've lumped this group together because none of them are real candidates. But many of them will be entertaining between now and when they all fall out of the race. Which will be anywhere from next week to the South Carolina Primary. Except for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. I could totally see those two running it out to the very end, then sitting down for pizza and a beer.

Mitt Romney - Former Governor of Massachusetts; 2008 Republican Primary Candidate; Mormon

The Pros: the one candidate in this crowded, underwhelming field who could do what you have to do to win the election: run to the middle and win the independent vote. He has knowledge on business, on health care, and the experience of running a campaign before. He also has really, really awesome hair. Mitch Daniels might have pulled out of the race because he was intimidated by Romney's hair.

The Cons: Um ... he's a Mormon. Which I have absolutely no problem with, but unfortunately for Mitt, the vast majority of Republican Primary voters are hard core evangelical Christians. Which means they do have a problem with it. He's also just a tad bit on the slimy side, and he has the stink of getting dominated last time around by McCain to wear off. Let me paint you a picture: somehow the primary voters get it right, want to give Obama the biggest run for his money possible, and they nominate Mitt. The "Tea Party," up in arms over a "Massachusetts Liberal" who is a "no good Mormon" being the party nominee, convinces Sarah Palin to run for president, with our next "candidate" as her vice presidential nominee ... leading to the following vote break down: Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Palin 8% - Mickey Mouse .0043% - Nader .0000001%

Seem far fetched? It's not. Especially when you get that extra strong dose of crazy to be the VP nominee. America? Are you ready for some....

Michele Bachmann - Congresswoman from Minnesota; succubus; sane compared with anyone

The Pros: There are none. Just google search this nut job and be terrified that anyone would vote her into office. Adolph Hitler would look center left when compared with the "Bach-Man." Not even unintentionally funny; rather, I believe she is intentionally scary. Very scary. But the "Tea Party" followers adore her. Which makes me terrified of them.

The Cons: Again, just google search her. Just don't let your kids. They might never sleep again.

Newt Gingrich - hypocrite extraordinaire; last person to successfully shut down the government

The Pros: He's a household name which means it would be very easy for him to get the vote of the 80% of Americans who don't actually pay attention to who the candidates are. He also helped Clinton (eventually) to balance the budget. And his name is "Newt," which has to count for something, right?

The Cons: Besides his awful performance on Meet the Press last week, there is the fact that he is an intsy bit racist (calling Obama a "food stamp president,"), and the fact that he's a complete hypocrite. You know, pushing for the US government to spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to convict Clinton of, essentially, infidelity, when he was actively cheating on his wife at the same time ... then blaming it on how much he loves his country. Look out world: patriotism leads to adultery. Just ask Newt.

Rudy Giuliani - Former New York Mayor; 2008 front runner who blew his nomination

The Pros: a "liberal" republican who has name recognition due to 9/11. Also, I'm not sure you know this, but the ten year anniversary is coming up. Which has got to help him rebuild his brand. Also, he can't possibly allow himself to be a non-factor for the first month like he did last time, right?

The Cons: anyone who runs as bad of a campaign as he did in 2008 shouldn't be allowed to run again. Not competing until Florida essentially lost him the race before he began running. It was comical.


So friends, there you have it. The list. As I touched on above, only Romney stands a chance against Obama, because he'd be able to compete with him for the independent votes, hold his own in the debates, and has the best track record of all the republican candidates. That said, it's tough to imagine the republican electorate being smart enough to nominate him. Anyone else will get slammed, and even if they pick Romney the Palin/Bachmann "Tea Party" counter isn't far fetched. All things told, then, here are my handicapping for the Republican Nomination, as well as the general election at this time:

Republican Nomination:

- Pawlenty - 30%
- Romney - 20%
- Christie - 5%
- Huntsman - 5%
- Gingrich - 3%
- Guliani - 3%
- Santorum -3%
- Palin - 1.5%
- Paul - 1.25%
- Bachman -.25%
- Other's named above - 1%
- Dark Horse not yet named - 27%

That's right ... only Pawlenty has a better chance than the group that hasn't even decided to run yet. That's how bad this field is. I should also note that I put Christie third, after not even talking about him earlier, based entirely on my mother's prediction. There you go mom. I'll give your insight some validation.

As for the general election, my crystal ball tells me there are three possibilities:

Obama 52% - Pawlenty 46%
Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Tea Party 8%
Obama 54% - Random Republican Scrub 44%

I suppose that a Jeb Bush (the good Bush) or someone of that ilk could change things up. But at this point I've not read, seen, or heard any indication that Obama won't do this year what Clinton did in 1996: wipe the floor with his opponent.

The Multi-Step Dance to War

As I am getting ready to leave for Chicago to go to a White Sox game (yuck!) I was looking over the New York Times, a habit which I developed while in school, and still follow. Today there were two headlines which grabbed my attention. The first was about Obama's news conference, scheduled for tonight, in which he is expected to articulate again his argument for health care reform. The Times argues that this fight over health care could be the "defining moment" of Obama's Presidency. I sincerely doubt that it will be the defining moment, as it is almost impossible to identify the defining moment of a President's term until quite a way down the road. Furthermore, when defining moments happen, they usually occur in the realm of foreign policy. Think about it:

-Dubya had 9-11 and Iraq as his defining moments (even if Katrina should be in there it won't be)
- Papa Bush had the 1st Gulf War
- Reagan had the fall of the USSR
- Carter had the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the US Embassy
- LBJ had Vietnam
- JFK had the Cuban Missile Crisis

In other words, in the post WWII era (A.K.A. the era of USA as "superpower") the majority of Presidents have been defined by a foreign policy issue. Even Nixon would likely would have been remembered for his trip to China and his Cold War diplomacy had he not been a paranoid idiot (see Watergate). Even going back to Truman's second term, Korea was his defining moment, so the trend holds. That leaves us with three post-WWII Presidents who are not easily defined by Foreign Policy issues (Eisenhower, Ford and Clinton), and a fourth who would have been if he wasn't so stupid (Nixon). Eisenhower's presidency was largely uneventful, except for the whole nuclear proliferation thing, so I suppose you could throw him in with the others. Ford pardoned Nixon ... that's pretty much his defining moment, I guess. It's hard to say what Clinton's defining moment would have been, but it's pretty easy to recognize that it is Monica. So, if you're keeping score at home, the post WWII presidency, starting it with Truman's second term, looks a little something like this:

- 11 Presidents
- 7 who are easily defined by a Foreign Policy moment (Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II)
- 1 who, after much thought, probably would be defined by Foreign Policy more than anything (Eisenhower)
- 1 who, if he wasn't an idiot, would have been defined by Foreign Policy and as a great diplomat (Nixon)
- 1 who didn't really do anything other than bail out his predecessor (Ford)
- 1 who couldn't keep it in his pants (Clinton)

And so, if you're a betting person, would you bet that health care reform will be the "defining moment" of Obama's presidency? I certainly wouldn't, and that brings me to the second article from the New York Times which caught my eye. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting to throw the idea out there that the US might be looking into extending a security blanket over the Middle East. In practical terms, this means that the US would guarantee the security of many (mostly Sunni) Arab nations in exchange for them helping us to counter the growing Iranian power and prestige in the Gulf. While the article is quick to note that Clinton did not mention fortifying these nations militarily, that is the logical end to this problem. If Iran continues to push forward, and if the Security Council remains split due to China and Russia's loyalties and economic investments in Iran, the next logical step (according to US history) would be for the US is to begin heavily backing other key players in the region. We've done it before, and it would not shock me to see us do it again.

If I was betting on what will become the defining moment for Obama, I'd take a long hard look here. The Iranian situation is not going to go away easily or quietly. The Supreme Leader has dug in for the battle, even in the face of the Clerical establishment splintering between the old guard and the reformist wing. Ahmadinejad will come out of this election cycle significantly weakened, but that will likely only embolden him to try to regain that power. He does not seem, to me, to be a player who will be content to simply hold the office. He is an all or nothing thinker, and will try to find the time to reassert himself. So long as Ahmadinejad has control of the Revolutionary Guard and the other key aspects of the Iranian military and government you can bet he will push forward with his nuclear ambitions. Khaminei seems to have made his bed with Ahmadinejad; he will seemingly choose to lay in it. Barring some internal upheaval, led by Rafsanjani (who alone might have the ability to move the Clerical establishment and the populace, and is seen on the left), the change we desire in Iran is unlikely to come from within.



To that end, the question for Obama will be can that change come from without. I sincerely doubt that anything positive will come from US meddling here, but we may not end up having choice. The Obama administrations has been treading very carefully along these lines, and that should continue. They cannot forget that the regimes we would be fortifying in the Gulf are, in almost every case, less democratic and more tyrannical than the regime we seek to dispose of in Tehran. Backing the Saudis, the Egyptians ... this might seem like the logical move, and it may very well be the best move. But we need to be well aware of the long term ramifications of our actions. Lest we forget, it has barely been twenty years since a war we sponsored to rid the world of the Mullahs ended.
We supported Saddam Hussien in that war, and less than twenty years after he failed to crush Iran we ended up sacrificing a great deal to discard him. The very monster we made (the picture above shows Saddam shaking hands with none other than Donald Rumsfeld). Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat the same mistakes; hopefully the Obama administration will continue to think long and hard before it takes any brash action towards the Iranians.