Clinton or Obama

I'm probably going to caucus for Hillary tonight. Obama is an amazing inspiration but I worry about his ability to lead and I worry about his having the ability to actually get things done.

Having said that, this video, done by some of Obama's friends in Hollywood, is really well done.

Defining a compassionate conservative

Indicted legislator needs pr help

Terri Hodge, a state legislator from Dallas has been indicted by the feds in a bribery and extortion scheme involving the building of low-income housing. Her supporters rallied around her by crowing about what a great advocate for prisoners' rights she's been over the years.

Talk about a self-serving politician. At least she'll have friends in the pokey.

I hate home owners associations

I'd never thought about home owners associations until we bought our first house in Austin. We'd gone through financing, inspection, resolution of inspection issues and were at closing when one of the documents we had to sign if we wanted our house was the document selling our soul to the local home owners association.

Now my guess is that when originally conceived, home owners associations were probably a fairly harmless little thing. But not today. Today, home owner associations are bureaucratic, red-tape manufacturers with the power to fine you and prevent you from selling your house if you don't conform to their rules. I can't believe anyone who believes in private property rights or individual freedoms actually thinks these things are a good idea.

The worst thing about home owners associations are the nattering ninnies who run them. These people have far too much time on their hands and appear to be, in my opinion, not the brightest bulb in the set of lights. Let me give you an example.

We just got our HOA Newsletter. It appears to have been mostly written by a man named Erik. One of the articles Erik wrote was about the horrible problem of people parking their cars on the street overnight. He wanted to remind people that the HOA Board is now enforcing a rule that says no cars may be left on the street overnight. He also detailed the reason for the rule.

"Parking on the streets is considered unsightly and hurts our property values."
and
"Cars parked on the street block the view of drivers, placing people at significant safety risk, especially children running or biking from the sidewalk."

So I'm now to believe that my property value is going down because there are potential buyers scouting my sleepy little neighborhood in my sleepy little suburb at 2:00 AM? That's silly. I'm sure that 100% of the people scouting my neighborhood for a house are doing so during daylight or evening hours when parking on the street is allowed!

And while I understand that cars parked on the street may block some views and be a hazard to children I'd argue that the bigger hazard to the kid walking or on a bike are the parents at home who are letting that kid walk and/or bike at 3:00 AM.

I would rather pay taxes to the federal government than pay my HOA dues.

Something nice to say about the Bush Administration

Those of you who have perused previous posts clearly understand that I'm not a big fan of the policies of the current administration. And while the nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, may have some scary ideas about executive power, he did offer up the following opinion which in my mind makes him at least interesting.

Seems one beer maker was running an ad criticizing Coors for making beer that sucks. Coors filed suit in an effort to try to get the ad campaign stopped. (As an aside, I wonder if Coors supports so-called tort reform efforts because there are too many frivolous lawsuits. Seriously, if all those companies and individuals that support tort reform would stop filing silly suits they probably wouldn't have any reason to want tort reform in the first place.) But let's get back to the case at hand. Coors is feeling bad because they've been criticized in an ad campaign by a rival, they sue to stop the campaign.

Judge Michael Mukasey tosses out the suit by saying, according to the New York Times,

"De gustibus cerevesiae non scit lex"

I don't know Latin but the Times translated the phrase this way,

"…the law takes no account of taste in weak beer."

Finally, someone in the Bush administration takes a stand I can believe in.

I'll enjoy it while I can.

Running for President without a brain or any common sense.

And some people think our current President is dumb. Read this quote from brand new Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson as reported by the New York Daily News.

SIOUX CITY, Iowa - Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

"They said, 'You gotta quit smoking,'" Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

But Thompson's tale of a smokers' revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

"I don't know what that was about," said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

The problem with Larry Craig

So right-wing Senator Larry Craig of Idaho gets busted soliciting sex in a Minneapolis Airport bathroom. The political pundits go nuts, cable news has a story to beat to death and the Republican party forces the Senator to announce he will resign.

There is absolutely no reason Larry Craig should resign.

Is the guy a hypocrite? Yes.

Is the guy a liar? Yes.

Did he break the law? I doubt it. I can't believe that toe tapping constitutes lewd behavior.

Did he want to break the law and exhibit improper public behavior? Sure looks like it.

Are those reasons not to vote for him? Yes.

Is that a reason to resign your US Senate seat? Never. They'd all have to resign. Every single senator.

But you don't force a Senator to resign because he is struggling with dealing with the idea that he is at least bi-sexual and maybe gay. I spent six months working with the gay community in Portland, Oregon, and was shocked to learn what a rough thing it can be to come to terms with the idea that one is not straight. Then, to make matters worse, you have to announce it to your family and friends. The process is so brutal that the rate of suicide among gay teens is four times that of straight teens.

There is no glee in the downfall of Larry Craig.

I think the worst behavior in this case was committed by the Idaho Statesman. In a long story detailing years of rumors and innuendo about Senator Craig's sexuality, the Statesman included this bit of absolute proof Senator Craig must be gay,

Craig also took piano lessons in high school and was in the high school choir.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

And that's what's wrong with this entire situation. If this story were about improper conduct in a public facility it would be one thing. It's not. It is about America's hang up with sexuality. A hang up that makes otherwise intelligent writers and editors point to interest in music as proof of homosexuality. Our unwillingness to have open, honest conversations about what it means to be gay, straight, bi and / or transgendered allows for the perpetuation of ridiculous stereotypes that are harmful to everyone.

That is why I believe there is no joy in the downfall of Larry Craig.

Does Bush Rock?

My friend Anne has this thing for George W. Bush. I can't figure out why, but she does. She recently posted this list of his accomplishments on her blog in response to my being a bit critical of the President.

The question is, are these really accomplishments? If you were President, would you aim to achieve as much, more than or less than President Bush?

A Double Dose of Passion

Jen Lemen is a blogger who recently wrote about meeting Elizabeth Edwards. The post is a bit over the top but the passion is real and an interesting read.

“I worry about you,” I said, surprised at how emotional I felt putting these thoughts into words. “I know your cancer is back and that you have these little children. I want to be so supportive of what you’re doing, but at the same time I don’t want to participate in something that would diminish this time in your family’s life–your time is so precious.”

It feels shocking now to recount this. Who am I to worry about Elizabeth Edwards or to get myself worked up into some form of motherhood grief over the thought of being ill or leaving little children behind, but the whole thing just gets me. One of my greatest fears is orphaning my children. I feel so deeply how much they need me, how much their hearts would be split in two without me.

She turned to me with so much fire in her blue eyes..."

Read the entire post here.

Sometimes, good things happen in Wisconsin

I love this story. According to the Janesville Gazette, two professors at Concordia Univeristy plan to launch a joint, bi-partisan, challenge to Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner together.

Political scientist Jeff Walz, 40 will run as a Democrat. Historian James Burkee, 39, will run as a Republican.

The two men will publish a document that lays out the ground rules for their campaign. It will include a pledge to avoid personal attacks and not accept money from special interest groups.

Walz and Burkee say they disagree on many things but want to show district voters what they believe campaigns ought to look like.

If, by some chance, Burkee manages to win his primary challenge, the two have pledged to travel the district and debate every day between the primary and general elections.

What's not to love about this story? It is too bad they aren't challenging someone a bit more vulnerable. I wonder if they'll have any staff or consultants and if so if they will hire them jointly. That could be really interesting. Could you imagine joint television commercials?

Actually, you could save a lot of money under this model because you wouldn't need nearly as much staff or as many consultants.

I wonder if it will work.

Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson

I've gotten some feedback regarding my Obama post from the other day AND I watched the entire CNN - YouTube debate last night.

A couple of people took me to task saying that I mis-represnted Obama's position and that Obama thinks it's better for UN forces to deal with genocide than US forces and that he would not stand by twiddling his thumbs.

OK. Maybe I got a little carried away in my language as it applies to Obama. I still think he's wrong. When genocide happens, the United States shouldn't wait for someone else to act. The United States should lead and lead by example.

And that leads me to my next point, I thought Joe Biden was great at last night's debate. He was forceful and acted like a leader -- a bit of a goofy leader -- but a leader. Joe said we need boots on the ground in Darfur. The other candidates largely passed the buck to the UN or others, although Clinton deserves some credit for outlining how she would use US forces in the region.

I thought Biden and Richardson won the debate. Clinton and Edwards tied for second with Obama coming in next.

I thought the most remarkable moment of the debate happened when John Edwards was asked about gay marriage. You really could see him struggle with the question. He says he's against it but I think he's mostly confused and conflicted. It was almost painful to watch.

The best question of the night came from these two guys.




Finally, beacause Anne asked, I'm supporting Edwards. My second choice is Clinton and then it is either Obama or Richardson, I'm not sure which.

Obama is wrong

Senator Obama says that the U.S. military shouldn't be used to stop genocide.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now - where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife - which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

I think he's wrong. And I'm not sure I want a President who is willing to stand by and watch genocide happen.

And what's up with the "which we haven't done" portion of his quote? Is he really going to base his foreign policy decisions on things that the current administration has or hasn't done? I thought part of the rationale for Obama's candidacy was that of change.

As the world's last remaining superpower I think stopping genocide ought to be a high priority for our country. Obama says if stopping genocide is a priority then we would need to be engaged in the Congo and in Sudan. I don't see anything wrong with being engaged in those countries.

I have no interest in supporting Obama in the primary.

Lady Bird Johnson, 1912 - 2007

"I sometimes look back and almost say to myself: 'Gee, was that really me? Did it all happen to me?' It was a wonderful life. It took vigor and forbearance and a lot of elasticity. But it was an absolutely wonderful life."

To read more please visit the Austin American-Statesman.

Hillary Hits a Home Run

You may or may not know but Hillary Clinton has had a poll up on her website asking her supporters to pick a theme song for her campaign. People could vote for one of the choices the campaign made available or they could write in their own choice.

They announced the winner today with this video, a spoof on the final episode of the Sopranos. I think this is great.

The Federal Budget

This is a cool graph that shows where money is spent in the federal budget. Click on the link not the picture.

A Great Fundraising Appeal

Here's the deal. I think John Edwards is running a smart, issues-focused campaign. And he's not just offering platitudes when he talks issues. He's got some very detailed proposals. I think you ought to support him and you can donate to him by clicking here.

Having said that, I think Barack Obama offered up the most creative and compelling fundraising appeal of the year so far.

Here's a guy that's got them talking in New Hampshire and Iowa about how campaigns have entered a new era where the top tier candidates are no longer able to do hundreds of small, intimate gatherings with real folks because of the crush of the candidates' celebrity. How do you fight that image, the image of high rollers buying access with their contributions and still raise some money?

You invite a few small donors to an intimate dinner. Not only that but this appeal has a lottery type feel as well where people have a chance to win something. I would think a lot of people might find that "chance to win" a compelling hook.

I think this appeal is brilliant. My wife is supporting Obama. Here's the e-mail she got earlier this week.

--- "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com"
wrote:

> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 13:54:52 -0400
> To:
> From: "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com"
>
> Subject: Dinner with Barack?
>
> Make a donation in the next week and you could have dinner with
> Barack:
>
> https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive
>
> Dear ,
>
> Most political fundraisers are hosted by lobbyists and filled with
> representatives of special interests.
>
> But our campaign is different.
>
> Our funding comes from a movement of Americans giving whatever they
> can afford, even $5, and Barack wants to sit down with supporters like
> you.
>
> In the next week, four donors will be selected for a new kind of
> fundraising dinner. If you make a donation in any amount between now
> and 11:59 pm EDT on Wednesday, June 13, you could join Barack and
> three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five.
>
> Two seats will be reserved for people like you who have given before
> and decide to make another donation during this special drive. Will
> you renew your generous support and take a chance at having dinner
> with Barack?
>
> https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive
>
> Our movement is changing the way campaigns are funded. We're not
> taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action
> committees.
>
> More than 100,000 individual donors have demonstrated that this choice
> is about more than an election. It's about each of us having a
> personal stake in the future of American politics.
>
> The dinner for five is an opportunity for you to sit down with Barack
> and your fellow supporters and talk about what matters to you.
>
> Get the kind of treatment other politicians reserve for special
> interests. Make a donation in the next week, and you could share your
> story and your ideas with Barack in person:
>
> https://donate.barackobama.com/dinnerforfive
>
> With every single donation, we're building a movement to change
> American politics. And this is just the beginning.
>
> Thanks for your support,
> David
>
> David Plouffe
> Campaign Manager
> Obama for America>

I'm impressed. What a great way to frame yourself as a populist.

Rough days for Republicans

Things are rough for Republicans these days and no one sums up the state of the party than former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan. Noonan's column in today's Wall Street Journal includes the following tidbits.

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

How bad are things in the party? Well read this!

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?

Good question, Peggy. The answer is that they are Repbulicans and that is what Republicans do. Don't you watch Fox News? The Republican party has been so devoid of political ideology, policy ideas and ethical leaders for so long that all Republicans know how to do is to speak insultingly, with hostility of their opponents who are simply concerned citizens. Peggy, you really ought to stop your whining.

What happened to Republicans is that they got so caught up in their hatred of Government that they decided not to ever govern. Peggy, were you the one who wrote the Reagan line in his first inaugural address, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." Post-Reagan Republicans get elected so that they could have power and use that power to enrich themselves and their friends. They don't care about governing or good government. There is no vision for what government ought to be -- only a vision for what government ought not to be. As a result, the Republican party and its' leadership has become both ethically and ideologically corrupt.

Peggy Noonan did get the following right when she wrote of the current administration,

What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.

Hacks got the jobs in Iraq. Qualifications didn't matter. Hacks got the jobs in FEMA. Qualifications didn't matter. Hacks got the jobs in the Justice Department. Qualifications didn't matter.

Jimmy Carter never should have retracted his statement that the current Bush administration is the worst in history.

Family Values and Iran

One of my concerns when we chose our house in the Denver suburbs was that we'd be moving into an all white neighborhood and that my kids only exposure to people of color would be when we hired someone to do work on our house, mow our lawn or clean our house. That's the way it was in Texas.

Thankfully that hasn't been the case in Colorado.

Our neighborhood is remarkably diverse. One family includes both a mom and dad who grew up in Iran, met here in the United States, got married and started a family. They now have a high school age daughter and an elementary school age son. Every couple of years they try to go back to Iran for an extended trip to visit the (now) grandparents and other relatives.

Today was the day one of those trips began. Mom, daughter and son boarded a plane at noon mountain time to fly to Frankfurt and then on to Tehran. They plan on being gone for nine weeks. Their Dad had to stay home to work.

I'm not entirely sure how they are feeling about the trip but I am nervous for them.

Have you heard what the Iranian government is up to? They are holding some Iranian-Americans against their will. The Associated Press reported this way.

An Iranian-American academic who works at a Washington-based institute is being held in a notorious prison after being prohibited from leaving Iran for more than four months, the institute and her husband said Wednesday.
Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, was sent Tuesday to Evin prison after she arrived at Iran's Intelligence Ministry for questioning, the center said.

The article went on to say,

Other Iranian-Americans have also been prohibited from leaving Iran in recent months including journalist Parnaz Azima, who works for the U.S.-funded Radio Farda. Another American, former FBI agent Robert Levinson, disappeared in March after going to Iran's resort island of Kish, and his whereabouts are unknown. Tehran says it's continuing to investigate.

More details were provided about what has happened to Haleh Esfandiari,

The Wilson Center said three masked men holding knives threatened to kill Esfandiari, who was in Tehran visiting her 93-year-old mother, on Dec. 30 as she was on her way to the airport. They took her baggage, including her U.S. and Iranian passports, the center said. For several weeks, she was interrogated by authorities for up to eight hours a day, according to the center. Most of the questioning focused on the activities of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center. "Although Dr. Esfandiari went home every evening, the some 50 hours of questioning were unpleasant — to put it mildly — and not free from intimidation and threat," the center said.

Now it is very easy for me to sit here in Colorado and wonder if my neighbors should have simply stayed home. But they are going to see family and there really isn't much in the world that would keep me from wanting to see my family. What would you do? Your parents are getting older, so visits seem to be more valuable, you live 7,000 miles apart so visits don't happen all that often and you want your children to know and understand something of their heritage, you want them to understand something of the place where you grew up. What would you do?

I'd be nervous but I'd probably go.

And so, for the next nine weeks, I'll say a prayer for the safety of my neighbors, a prayer for those Americans already being held and a prayer for a more sane relationship between the United States and Iran.

Bring the troops home

I'm one of the few Democrats I know who thought invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was the right course of action to take. I didn't come to that conclusion because I agreed with the President. Instead, I've come to believe that America must lead the world in eliminating genocidal dictators. Our ouster of Saddam was the right thing to do – it just happened 15 years too late.

Iraq was and is a killing field. Estimates are that Saddam executed more than 300,000 Iraqis during his reign. We let that happen. Presidents from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton lacked the moral fortitude to stand up to this murderer. It was more convenient for Americans to ignore what was happening on the other side of the globe than do what needed to be done and commit our military to getting rid of Saddam.

Unfortunately, the only President willing to take on Saddam is George W. Bush. While Bush should get a small amount of credit for getting rid of Saddam the fact is that Bush did it for the wrong reasons. And his management of the war effort has been absolutely incompetent.

America suffers today because the Republican leadership in Washington is more interested in the game of politics, gaining and keeping power, than in the art of leadership. George Bush, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert don't have a clue how to govern.

The leadership of the Republican Party consistently prioritizes partisan politics over public policy. As a result, our conduct of the war in Iraq has been a disaster. Tom Friedman has an excellent column on this subject in today's New York Times. Friedman writes,

One benchmark the Bush team has been urging the Iraqi government to meet is to rescind its broad “de-Baathification” program — the wholesale purging of Baathists after the fall of Saddam — which has alienated many Sunnis and hampered national reconciliation.

But while the Bush team has been lecturing the Iraqi Shiites to limit de-Baathification in Baghdad, it was carrying out its own de-Democratization in the Justice Department in Washington. We would feel that we had failed in Iraq if we read that Sunnis were being purged from Iraq’s Ministry of Justice by Shiite hard-liners loyal to Moktada al-Sadr — but the moral equivalent of that is exactly what the Bush administration was doing here. What kind of example does that set for Iraqis?

And this wasn’t only a Washington problem. Read Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s outstanding “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” which details the extent to which Americans recruited to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad were chosen, at times, for their loyalty toward Republicanism rather than expertise on Islamism. “Two C.P.A. staffers said that they were asked if they supported Roe v. Wade and if they had voted for George W. Bush,” he wrote.

But this degree of partisanship — loyalty over competence — was destructive in a much bigger way. It also deprived the Bush team of the support it needed when things in Iraq didn’t turn out to be as easy as it expected.

Only a united America could have the patience and fortitude to heal a divided Iraq — and we simply don’t have that today. Why? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney asked everyone to check their politics at the door when it came to Iraq, because victory there was so important — everyone but themselves. They argued that the war in Iraq was the central front of the central struggle of our age — an unusual war, a war against terrorism and the pathologies that produce it — but then they indulged in the most rancid politics as usual at home.

They actually thought they could unite Iraq, while dividing America.

As much as I would like our efforts in Iraq to succeed and as much as I would like to believe that we could leave Iraq united, free from terror and on the road to democracy, that just isn't going to happen. Why? Because George Bush and his advisors are incompetent. No matter what we do in Iraq, no matter how hard our troops fight and work to stabilize that country, we will lose because George Bush is President of the United States. It is time to end America's role in this disaster and bring the troops home. The Iraqi people ought to start praying for mercy. Things are going to get much worse for them. George Bush ought to start praying for forgiveness. He's responsible for the mess.

Send the Queen Home

I've read one article about the Queen of England's visit to the United States. I read it because I was interested in how the White House pulls off a big fancy dinner. I really have very little interest in the British royals. I find the entire idea of a monarchy to be absurd.

The article I read was in the NY Times on Saturday. In it, the reporter shared some dos and don'ts as to how people are to behave when hanging out with British Royalty.

Aides to Mrs. Bush shared a few dos and don’ts. The queen shall be addressed as “Your Majesty.” The prince is “Your Royal Highness.”

For women, curtsying is acceptable, but not required. One does not shake the queen’s hand unless the queen offers hers first.

And after Her Majesty finishes her meal, everyone’s meal is finished. (Not to worry, a senior official said of Mr. Bush: “He’s a really fast eater.”)

Will someone please tell the White House we won the Revolutionary War? We aren't royal subjects any more. We don't need to cow-tow to some pompous, old, over-paid, ribbon cutter. We certainly don't need to rush through our meal just so we can finish before the Queen and avoid her having to send us to bed without our dessert.

I'd feel a bit differently if the dinner were in London. But this dinner was in our house. I think it is time for England's Queen to respect our rules.