So, there has been a little bit of talk about who John Kerry will select as his running mate... no wait, there's been quite a bit of talk. Even today, Matt Drudge (whose journalistic ethics are at best non-existant) claims that Hillary Clinton will be the surpise pick for VP. Guess what, Matt? It's not gonna happen!

All of this Hillary talk serves one purpose and one purpose alone: rallying the uber-right wingers. Whenever the Clinton-haters hear her name, they froth at the mouth and seem to be willing to do anything to stop her. With such ardent feelings, Drudge most likely thinks that he can drum up a little more support to stop the President's declining approval #'s. I'll tell you something, though, Matt: It's not gonna happen!

So, Jonathan, who will be the Democrat's Vice Presidential nominee, then???

If there was one person who I wanted to be the Presidential nominee for the Dems, it was General Wesley Clark. I worked hard campaigning for him, running the campaign on my campus, working on the LA-wide campaign, and heading to Arizona for the statewide primary on February 3. It was all for naught, though. John Kerry outflanked him in Iowa, so that was it for Wes Clark... or was it?

Probably it was.

Clark certainly would be a good fit for a Kerry ticket, especially because Iraq and the mishandling of the War on Terror are becoming the central tenets of Kerry's campaign. Clark is probably the best VP candidate, save General Anthony Zinni, to attack the Bush camp on National Security (maybe Joe Biden or Chuck Hagel are up there, too). However, if the primaries showed us anything, they showed us that you have to be an experienced candidate to do well on the national level. For this reason, primarily, Wes Clark will also not be selected.

Joe Biden would also be a good VP candidate. His bad hairplugs aside, the main defect holding him back is the same problem that plagued him 16 years ago--plagarism (he copied a speech on the Senate floor). So I guess by my logic, Biden is also out. So, who are we left with?

I'm going to go ahead and skip John Edwards, solely because I don't believe in my heart that he has any chance at being picked. Save for 1980 and 1960, when George H. W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson were selected, respectively, no close contender for the nomination has been selected as a running mate in modern history--it just doesn't happen. What is more, John Kerry does not want to be shown up in the election (it's bad to have someone who looks just a little bit better up there). One final note on Edwards; there would be a very short news cycle if Edwards were selected. That is to say, the media would have little to report that they had not previously reported, so the story would not be interesting. Accordingly, an Edwards selection would be anti-climactic, rather than surpising, and the news media love surpises.

There is one candidate who has been talked about to some extent who I think is just about the best selection Kerry could make. He has gubernatorial and congressional experience, and he was among the three or four finalists for Gore's running mate. No, I'm not talking about Bill Richardson.



Indiana's own Evan Bayh is just about as good a Vice Presidential candidate as the Democrats could offer in any election (this is why Gore nearly chose him). A moderate from a heavily red state, he nevertheless claims higher than 70% approval ratings. Being a middle American, his soft-spoken centrist moderation will resound well in states like Iowa and Missouri. Addidionally, his appearance on the ballot beside Kerry will undoubtedly help the Massachusetts Senator's shot at winning the battleground state this election, Ohio, as Bayh governed the neighboring state.

As Governor of Indiana, he served well, leading his state to prosperous times. He's been in the Senate as long as John Edwards (and they're equally attractive), so his Executive experience puts him ahead of his Southern compatriot. These are technical notes, though, that only matter to a small degree.

In elections, spin is extremely important, and the candidate who is best able to use the media generally wins. It is for this reason that it is important for Kerry to choose a candidate that commands the media's attention for at least a few days (and hopefully a week). If Kerry selects a VP nominee who will keep the Democrats in the news for one or two news cycles (positive news, hopefully), this will certainly boost Kerry's image and create added excitement heading into the convention. Evan Bayh is exactly the man to accomplish this.

Bayh is a fresh, if handsome, face in the party. Because he is unknown by most Americans, the media will be able to run long biographical stories on him (because the public already knows Edwards, Gephardt and others, they can't do this for them). What is more, Bayh's biography is impeccable.



Any biograpical stories on Evan Bayh will remind Americans about his beloved father, Birch Bayh. Indiana's well respected liberal Senator for nearly twenty years, Birch Bayh was a leading voice in America for many years.

Clearly, evoking Birch Bayh's memory would only add to the public's positive views of Bayh the Younger. Combined with his centrism, strength on National Security (he sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee), good looks and background as a Governor and Senator, Evan Bayh is the perfect Vice Presidential candidate (at least as I see it).

So, will Kerry select:

• Hillary? No way.
  
• John Edwards? Probably not.
  
• Wes Clark? I wish, but it will not happen.
  
• Joe Biden? I don't really think so.
  
• Chuck Hagel? He is a Republican.

No, if Kerry really wants to win, he won't choose Hillary, Edwards, or Gephardt... he should select Evan Bayh!

As business groups begin running ads against Tom Daschle, I think this is a good time to post some thoughts I jotted down on another blog about the Democratic Minority a few months ago. Here goes...



When Daschle assumed Senate leadership in 1995 following the retirement of Senator Mitchell (Maine), Congressional Democrats were in shambles. The Republican Right's "Contract with America" devestated the Dems in the midterms and we lost control of both Houses for the first time in 40 years. Suffice to say, it would not be an easy task for any Senator to lead the new minority party.
However, in the face of such adversity, Senator Daschle rallied the troops and ensured that President Clinton would be able to govern to at least some extent. He wholeheartedly supported the President during the budget showdown in '95 and pushed Clinton's agenda at all times.

Over the course of his nearly 10 years at leading his party in the Senate, Daschle brought the Democrats back into the majority against odds in the Republican's favor. Although the Dems lost in 2002, it should be noted that had it not been for the untimely death of Senator Wellstone and the horribly hateful Chambliss ad in Georgia comparing Cleland to Saddam and Osama the Democrats would have retained control of the Senate. As a result, I truly believe that Tom Daschle should be commended rather than be attacked.

On a more individual note, I think that Senator Daschle represents exactly what is good about the Democratic Party. He is a soft-spoken moderate from a Red state who puts the good of America above petty partisanship. While the Republicans take every opportunity to knock off anyone who does not tow the party line on all issues (i.e. the right-wing attempt to defeat Senator Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania senatorial primary), the Democratic Party is a so-called "Big Tent" party, welcoming people of all ideologies and of all backgrounds.

Most Democrats believe that the world is not black and white, but rather that each issue is complicated and must be carefully deliberated and thought out. This means not only being respectful of all opinions but addidionally listening to all sides of an issue and compromising instead of shrieking far-out ideology. Tom Daschle is the epitome of such a belief system.

There are many other reasons why he is a good leader and why it is important that he succeed his quest for reelection. I can talk about some of them a little later, but for now, this should suffice.

It's been a while since I've written a strictly personal entry--too long, probably--and most of you, I'm sure, are getting a little tired of my pontificating on the news and politics. So, here goes...

Last week was great. Over at America Abroad Media, we were making all of the final preparations for our first ever television program. A co-production with CNN-Turk, "America and Turkey: The Road Ahead" was a two-hour long, in depth discussion about US-Turkish relations. Filmed live via satellite in Istanbul and Washington, the program brought together distinguished panelists and university students from both countries. It was pretty interesting, to say the least (I'll get to the show in a minute).

My job over the last week was to get an audience for the program. Though we had sent out invitations to just about the entire city and all of the Turkish organizations (i.e. the Ataturk Society, the American-Turkish Council, etc.), we needed to make sure there was a decent studio audience. To make matters more interesting, the studio--located at George Washington University; also the home of CNN's "Crossfire"--seats about 250, so only a few dozen people in the audience would have looked pretty weak. As a result of all of this, I spent the better part of three days calling the offices of all 100 Senators and about 50-75 Congressmen to personally invite their interns (because there are so many of them and so little work, their offices are always happy to send them to events like this). Some offices, like those of Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), and Representative John Spratt (D-SC) sent just about all of their interns to the program.

In the end, we got about 140 people in the crowd (about double what we had initially hoped for), 50-60 of whom were interns on the hill. Although I don't get to see a lot of the fruits of my labor here at America Abroad (researching a program months away, one can get overwelmed), it was particularly gratifying to see that my work had paid off. It was also nice to hear all of the compliments I received from co-workers on getting such a large and interested crowd.

The program (on Thursday) went off well with very few glitches, as far as I could tell. The taping was slightly delayed due to the bombings in Istanbul and Ankara, but other than that, things ran pretty smoothly. Marvin Kalb--who you might remember from his days on CBS News and NBC's "Meet the Press"--moderated the program spectacularly. It was really nice to see a journalist at the top of his game. Although I thought I liked Tim Russert, after seeing our program first-hand, I'd really love to see "Meet the Press" back under the guidance of Kalb.



The guests for the program were also outstanding. The students from George Washington, Harvard and Princeton really shined, and the panelists were top notch. They included: Embassador Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), former-Rep. Steven Solarz (D-NY), Philip Gordon of Brookings and Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute.

Overall, I was really proud to be a part of this.

The next day, Friday, I went to New York to see family, which was nice. I ate a little delicatessen food at 2nd Avenue Deli (probably the best Kosher deli in the city), went on an NBC studio tour, and went to my favorite museum--the Museum of Television and Radio. While there, I watched an episode of "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" (you've got to love a young Bob Denver [later Gilligan] as Maynard G. Krebs), the episode of "Laugh-In" when Richard Nixon said "sock it to me" (I'm told this was a really big event), and and episode of "Your Show of Shows" with Sid Caesar.

I guess, as you can tell, life's going pretty well then. I'll head back to Oregon for a family reunion this weekend, which I'll surely tell you about later, but until then, it'll be back to politics here at Basie! G'night.

A lot of talk has occurred lately on the state of the American political system, and lord knows that I have written just about enough on the fact that the divide between Americans is becoming too bitter. Nevertheless, let me write just a little bit more.

A few months ago, during the Illinois Republican senatorial primary, rumors began flying that there was something really juicy in front-runner Jack Ryan's background. Specifically, it was insinuated that there was some not so becoming information contained within the sealed documents regarding his divorce from uber-babe and actress Jeri Lynn Ryan. The mainstream media chose not to report on the subject at the time as it was all based on rumor and conjecture.



Last week, though, it became apparent that the rumors were true. The court documents, now unsealed, showed that Jack Ryan had attempted to take his wife to exhibitionist sex clubs on numerous occassions, much to her chagrin. Although he tried to weather the storm, he was forced to drop out, leaving Illinois Republicans without a candidate... for now.

Although I think that Ryan's opponent in the election, Barack Obama, would probably have won regardless of the scandal (the polling showed Obama with a huge lead), this event clearly helps the Democrats in the state. The state Republican Party is in shambles as their senatorial candidate dropped out of the race, former governors have disgraced them, the Democrats have won the states electoral votes for three straight elections, and the Democrats retook the governor's mansion for the first time in nearly two decades. In all, it's not a good time to be a Republican in the state.

When I discussed this issue with my brother-in-law over the weekend, he gave me a bit of good insight. Although the partisan side of me reveled in the fact that yet another hypocritical Republican was toiling over a sex scandal--that it served them right because of what they did to Clinton--my brother-in-law helped me realize that my rational side was not quite as happy about this prospect.

It's one thing if a candidate or politician is forced to resign because he forced himself on a woman (or a woman onto a man) or abused a child sexually--events the public has every right to know about--but its something entirely different if the action is between two consenting adults. What is more, if the event occurs between a husband and wife, its even more ridiculous to become public knowledge. Even more, if it is merely something a man wanted to do or fantasized about doing with his wife, we as a public have no right to know about this.

I'm not going to go into some rant about Jefferson, Hamilton, FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton, but I think its just about time to let some of these people have private lives. When we as a society use every opportunity to cut down our leaders, we make people not want to give their lives to service, and this is clearly not a good thing. Maybe my grandfather only speaks with nostalgia when he compares the time when he grew up--with leaders like Roosevelt and Churchill who were respected by all--with today, a time when one cannot name even one great leader of any country in the world; however, I think he has a point.

So what am I getting at here? I guess what I'm trying to say is that a balance is necessary in our culture, and especially in our media. It is important for the media to be skeptical of our politicians at all times, always willing to check if their claims are true. However, it is also important that we once again let our leaders have personal lives. Though I don't think Jack Ryan, for example, would have been a good leader regardless of his ideology (with which I don't generally agree), he should at least have had the chance to run. What he tried to do, or even wanted to do, with his then-wife is none of my business.

I just wanted to pass on this fact that I just found, and I'll try to analyze it later tonight. (I'm at work right now, so I need to keep it short)

In our nation's history, only two Presidents have not had the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. One was William Henry Harrison, who died a mere month into his administration.



The only other President not to be able to appoint any justices was Jimmy Carter.



Now as you might remember, Carter came to the White House immediately after eight years of Nixon and Ford, during which time 5(!) justices were appointed in about five years (just to give you a comparison, Clinton only appointed 2 justices over his eight years). More clearly, Nixon and Ford were essentially able to appoint an entire court (five justices can push anything through). As a result of this, and the fact that the other four justices were relatively young, Carter was unable to appoint any justices.

Coincidentally (or not), this iteration of Bush has yet to appoint a justice. It makes you think, no?

[editor's note: I'll analyze this a bit tonight, and hopefully get to the second post I wanted to write last night]

So I went to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 the other night. In fact, I went to see it when it opened to the public. That's right... Friday morning at midnight at the Georgetown Loews theater.

The place was packed, as were the other three or four showings immediately following each 5 minutes or so. I guess I wasn't too surprised, then, when the movie grossed more in one weekend than any other previous documentary (I'm talking one weekend versus the entire period of showing). Pretty amazing, no?

Now to the movie. I must say that it was pretty entertaining. Save for the fact that I had to sit through about 35 minutes of ads (the "12:01" showing didn't actually bgin until around 12:40). In fact, had the movie not started so late (and thus ended so late, leaving me only 4 1/2 hours of sleep), I would have few complaints.

Having read Kevin Phillips' most recent work, "American Dynasty", which like "House of Bush, House of Saud" deals with the Bush family's longstanding ties with the Saudi royal family, I was familiar with most of the charges laid out in the movie. However, most Americans are not, so it's good that they are going in droves to see the movie. Although the movie is obviously slanted and biased, and I think Moore is at times a bit unfair (I can't think of a specific moment in this movie, but his unnecessary attacks on Alzheimer's patient Charlton Heston in his last movie comes to mind), I'm glad a number of Americans are going to see the movie. It might not change many minds, but even if it changes a few, that's important.

I guess the way that I feel about the movie is that it is cathartic; that is to say it provides good release for those of us with pent up aggression. In the words of Tony Soprano, "it's like taking a shit." Let me put it a little more softly. A lot of Democrats are fed up with this administration, and many even feel that the election was stolen three and a half years ago. For these people, going to this movie will:

a) Get them motivated for the November election
b) Help them channel their aggression into positive actions, such as grassroots organizing.

It is primarily for these two reasons that I think this movie was a success.

Now to why I have mixed feelings.

When people say that there is little to no difference between Hannity, O'Reilly or Coulter and Moore, I think that there is some truth to that. WHOA!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! (You're probably thinking to yourself right now, "this guy is some right wing nut in disguise, or even worse, a DLC Democrat) Before you pass judgement, let me flush out my thoughts.

I know I didn't complain about him when he was working to help Wes Clark win the nomination (sadly, neither Mike nor I could assure the General of victory); however, I'm seeing a little more clearly now. Although I think Moore takes a little less creative license with his use of facts than his three right-wing adversaries, in the end, his tactics are little different. He clearly is not out to change minds, but rather to rally support around his cause (a valid form of political action... it's certainly important to get out your base). What is more, he is really good at what he does.

There are downsides to this type of politicking, though. When demagogues on each side of the aisle (I think there are more on the Right than on the Left) drive their supporters into a frenzy during which time they are completely radicalized, unable to accept compromise, the schism between Americans grows increasingly wide. Obviously (or perhaps not obviously enough), this is not a good thing. Right now, America needs more coming together and less partisan rancour, and Michael Moore is not trying to accomplish that.

There is a reason why American's elected George W. Bush in 2000. Although, as Jon Stewart said tonight, he was lying when he claimed to be a "compassionate conservative", a "uniter, not a divider", Americans really wanted a President that would transcend partisan politics to fight to make the country a better place. Citizens gave the President the benefit of doubt on numerous occasions, and almost all Americans rallied around their President after the horrible attacks of 9/11; however, the President chose on almost every occasion to be partisan, if possible, and ideological always, rather than attempting to unite the country. That is why he is a failure in many minds.

While Moore certainly makes a convincing argument, I think the nation needs a leader that is willing to turn away from the bitter partisanship on both sides. I don't know if John Kerry is the man to do it (I do hope he is), but I think he should be supported in his attempts to move towards the center rather than chastised. The more any politician can do to ease partisan strife in this country, the better.

I'll end on this note of hopefulness. My state, the wonderful state of Oregon, saw one of the dirtiest and most spiteful campaigns ever in the winter of 1995-96 as then-Congressman Ron Wyden (D) and then-state Senator Gordon Smith (R) battled to take over the seat previously held by Bob Packwood. About two weeks before the campaign ended, Wyden went on the air and said that he would stop all of his negative ads; this move won him the very close election.

After Gordon Smith won Oregon's other seat (held by retiring Senator Mark Hatfield, one of my great political role models) ten months later, many pundits thought that Wyden and Smith would continue their grudge while together in the Senate. Many believed that the rancour of the campaign would sour any possible relationship the state's two Senator's could share.

Before Smith was sworn in, though, Ron went to his office, one-on-one, and had a heart-to-heart with his Republican colleague. The two realized that regardless of partisan affiliation or ideology, it was in the state of Oregon's, and indeed the nation's, best interest for the two of them to work together. In the past seven and a half years, the two have become living proof that bitter partisanship can be overcome.

Whoever wins the Presidential election--and I'm clearly hoping that it will be Kerry--I hope that he is willing to put away partisanship for the next four years to make sure that America's best interest, not the interest of the party or the ideology, is served.

Before I get started on the best show on television, I just wan to let you know that I realize I've been slacking in my duties. With the Turkey TV show and my trip to the NYC, I've been a little busy. I'll give you at least one more post tonight and hopefully two more. Here goes...

On Friday, for the first time in years (perhaps ever), I watched Larry King Live. Personally, I think King is a tool who never asks tough questions (though to be fair, most on Cable news--save perhaps Chris Matthews--are equally crappy). However, I tuned in because one of the nation's most important men was on: Jon Stewart. He is truly brilliant, both on the set of the Daily Show, and off (as he showed Friday night). If only people outside of my generation also watched him...



Tonight, Jon Stewart was purely brilliant, as he always is; the past two weeks or so, however, he has been as good as I've ever seen him. He cuts through the BS that the mainstream media filters out and lays it down straight for his viewers. I don't know if it was him (or perhaps watching "Rocky" right before on AMC), but I was on my feet by the end of the show (and I wasn't even in the audience).

Jon's interview with Terry McAuliffe was spectacular, to say the least. Jon was right on the money when he asked if the Democrats (a) had a message and (b) would follow through with it if elected; it was his preface, though, that made the question. He said that four years ago, the Republicans were brilliant with their compassionate conservatism, but they were just "lying!" McAuliffe was right on target when he laid out the Dems' agenda.

I also particularly enjoyed McAuliffe's answer to Stewart's VP question: a John Kerry-Jon Stewart ticket! I know he was pandering to a degree, but if there is one man who really speaks to my generation, a generation that hasn't really been active in politics before, it's clearly Jon Stewart. Stewart pretty much said he would not run for elective office during his King interview last week, but if he ever ran (perhaps for Chuck Schumer's seat after the Senator defeats Giuliani for NY Gov in two years), he would demolish any competition. All I can say is Jon Stewart in 2012.

Sorry I didn't end up posting yesterday. Things were hectic with the taping of the television program and all (I think it went pretty well). I ended up seeing the midnight showing of Farenheit 9/11 last night, so I'll talk about that a little later. First, this little tidbit.

Last night in Hollywood, a big event raised $5 million for John Kerry and the DNC. Billy Crystal hosted the event and was generally funny. Here's an example:

Crystal said when he met Kerry, his first impression was, "could be Ed
Muskie's stunt man."

I don't know... tell me what you think.

Tomorrow is a really big day.

Tomorrow America Abroad Media, the organization at which I am interning this summer, will film its first ever television program. A co-production with CNN-Turk that will also be broadcast on al Hurra, the American owned Arabic network, the two-hour program will examine all facets of the complex relationship the United States shares with Turkey. A number of members of Congress, the Administration and academe will discuss many issues with their counterparts in Istanbul (the program will be recorded live from Washington and Istanbul). It'll be interesting.

I've been working pretty hard on researching for the program, but this week my task was getting an audience to fill CNN's "Crossfire" Studio. I called just about every Senator and another 50-75 Representatives to send their interns, and luckily, a good number have RSVP'ed. I think there should be nice turnout.

I have to be up at--ughh--7:00 tomorrow morning for this monumentous event, so this brief and lighthearted post will have to satiate your desire for my writing for the evening. I'll try to get you some real analysis tomorrow--hopefully 2 pieces--because I will once again be heading up to New York for the weekend to see family.

Anyhoo, wish me and everyone at America Abroad luck!

G'night

So while I was in New York, I went to Sam's Comedy Club with my family. It was rough! Most of the acts were horrible, if not downright offensive; many of the "comedians"--and I use the term lightly--just started badmouthing the audience. It wasn't a good scene.

There were a couple of good acts, though. One of them was a writer for Air America Radio; his material really rocked. The other act that really went well was a young Iranian comedian from the LA area. Although I didn't reckognize him at first, after hearing his bio and his credits, I realized where I knew him from.



Any fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm (a.k.a. "The Larry David Show" [the Seinfeld guy]) who saw the Season II finale should have noticed this fine comedian when he played the Sikh Air Conditioning repairman. Maz Jobrani's acting on the show was quite good, and we were all really impressed by his standup. I guess this makes him my latest celebrity sighting.

-----

PS

I wanted to mention that I had another spectacular sighting a few months ago--the last time I was in the NYC. In March, I was walking to visit my big sis who works at Martha Stewart (who I saw at the office) when I saw none other than Alan Cumming.



It took me a little while for me to explain who he is...



(No, not Paul Reubens a.k.a. Pee Wee Herman)

I guess that's why I like being on the East Coast sometimes: I get to see a lot of celebrities (though I have seen Jane Curtain and Sean Astin in Portland, among others).

Although I'm no Charlie Cook or Stu Rothenberg (two of the nation's top non-partisan pollsters and poll-analyzers), I'm going to attempt to do a little bit of analysis here. Here goes.

In today's ABC/Washington Post poll, there are a number of interesting trends to be seen. The first, and some might argue most important trend is that Bush and Kerry are nearly tied when it comes to the issue of Terrorism. Only two months ago, the American public favored the incumbent on his handling of Terror by 20 points over his challenger; today, that lead has all but disappeared.

Many people were surprised that the Richard Clarke charges did not stick immediately to the President; many Democrats feared that the President would be "Teflon" on this issue, like Ronald Reagan was on many. No matter what people threw at him--that he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, that he cared too much about Iraq and not enough about al Qaeda, etc.--on the issue of defending America against terrorists, the American public strongly favored the President.

I think it is becoming evident that these charges did not merely drip off of the President like grease on a Teflon pan. Rather, it appears as though the American public began to mull the issue of terror a few months ago when the attacks from Clarke, Paul O'Neill and others became public but still had faith in the President. With these charges in the back of their minds always, though, the started to listen more carefully to the 9/11 Commission, and when the Commission began refuting some of the Administration's most questionable claims, people took note.

The tipping point for me, as I believe it was for many Americans, was when it became apparent that not only had we relied too heavily on Ahmed Chalabi for prewar intelligence, the former Iraqi exile was actually in cahoots with Iran. When news reports finally became public implicating Chalabi in truly horrible acts--passing on vital intelligence information to the enemy--the American public had had enough. People were no longer willing to give the President the benefit of doubt.

The second issue is directly tied into this issue. The general public views the President as resolute and sure; to this end, they see him as a leader who is willing to stick by his policies. This positive trait also carries a negative, though.

By thirteen points, Americans view John Kerry as the more honest and trustworthy candidate. This is striking, to say the least. Although the public likes the fact that Bush generally will stick to his convictions, they are increasingly unhappy with the President's tendency to place convictions above fact. Although there have been numerous occasions when this trait has become evident--miscalculation the real cost of his Prescription Drug plan by $150 billion, claiming Iraq possessed WMD--the moment when this charge truly stuck to the President occurred last week, I believe, when is claim that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda was refuted by the 9/11 Commission staff. When asked why he continues to assert that al Qaeda had ties to Iraq after the Commission had essentially disproved this theory, he answered that he does this because there is a link. The American people are getting fed up with this type of mentality, and this fact is apparent in the polling.

The last point that I wanted to note is the so-called "Reagan bounce" that was seen in some polls putting Bush well ahead of Kerry. Although this undoubtedly occurred in the short run, in the long run, the "bounce" is actually hurting the President.

While I'm no Reagan fan--I think he was an above average President, not much more--and certainly would not have voted for him, he was one of our nation's most beloved Presidents, especially while he served. Though he was the man liberals loved to hate, he was not nearly as divisive of a figure as many make him out to have been (his affection for liberal House Speaker Tip O'Neill underscores this point). The fact that he won 49 states in 1984 is a testament to the fact that he drew support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Bush would clearly like to portray himself as a continuation of Ronald Reagan's legacy--in effect Reagan's third term--and the President was momentarily successful in this aim. During the week of the remembrance for Reagan, Bush hoped to gain electoral favor through people's remembrance of Reagan. I believe this strategy has backfired, though.

After a week of remembering Reagan and region's legacy, Bush is looking a lot worse in comparison. Bush is a much more divisive figure than Reagan--certainly even more than Clinton ever was--and is much more ideological. I think Ron Reagan, Jr. put it well when he offered a subtle attack on the Administration's opposition to Stem Cell research during his father's funeral. The more people think about Reagan--the more they reminisce--the more they will realize that this President continues to fail to meet any or expectations. This is also evident in the poll, as Kerry takes a significant 53-45 lead.

Once again, my thoughts are a little jumbled, so sorry. I'll pay a little more attention when I'm writing next time. Until then, a bid you adieu and a good evening.

I know it's been a few days since my last post, but I'm going to try to get back on track so all of you wonderful people can keep on reading the words I'm writing.

On Friday I took the train up to New York for Fathers' Day weekend, which was lovely, of course. It was a real treat to get to spend time with family and get away from the awful, muggy swamp known as DC. I wont bore you all with the details, but I'll just say I had a great time.

I'll get back to a little more frenetic pace of posting soon, hopefully. I'll even try to do a little analysis tonight before I head off to bed. So stay tuned...

Today the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the series of debates that will take place this fall leading up to the Presidential Election. This is really exciting news for junkies like myself as it gives us a small glimpse into how the race might look in five months.

The Commission has agreed upon what is essentially a series of four debates to take place over the course of two weeks. All four of the debates will be located in swing states, the handful of states expected to decide the upcoming election.

The first debate, which will be held at the University of Miami in Florida on September 30, will have the standard format of debates of years past, and will focus primarily on domestic policy.

The second debate, to be held at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio on October 5, will be a Vice Presidential debate. This debate will come exactly 16 years after the classic matchup between Senators Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen (to the day). Of course, everyone recalls when Bentsen memorably said, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."



Washington University in Saint Louis will hold the third debate of the season on October 8. The Gallup Organization will select an audience of undecided voters to participate in this town hall meeting in which the voters will ask the questions. (This is the second presidential debate.

The final debate of the season will occur on Wednesday, October 13 on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe. This debate, like the first, will be formal; however, the focus of the evening will be on foreign rather than domestic policy.

-----------------

Now for a little bit of analysis (which is a little harder than merely restating a press release in my own words).

I think that this will be the most significant set of debates in more than twenty years as the nation has not faced such clear alternatives since the election of 1980. Aside from the stark differences between this year's candidates, I think that it is good to look a little deeper into the similarities between this year and 1980.

In 1980, the polls showed a tight race throughout the campaign with neither candidate able to pull away. Although President Carter's approval ratings hit enemic levels through the summer and fall, dipping into the low 30s, public apprehension about Ronald Reagan kept the race close. It was not until the campaign's single debate--held on the Thursday before the Tuesday election--that the race broke. Aided by their questionable possession of President Carter's debate notes, the Reagan team was at their best. The Gipper performed well--not spectacular by any means--but OK was good enough for the American people. Seeing that Reagan was indeed a viable candidate, the electorate swung over the weekend and Reagan claimed a massive victory.

Clearly, we are seeing a similar situation 24 years later. Though I wont touch on the situation in the Middle East and its similarities to 1980 at this juncture, suffice to say that failure to significantly resolve the problems in Iraq could truly hurt Bush in November.

I think the more important issue to look at is public perception of John Kerry. As I've noted in previous posts, people have pretty strong feelings either way about the President now after three and a half years in office. People's impressions of Kerry are less firm today, though. The President took to the airwaves for the last three months attempting to portray his competitor as a Massachusetts Liberal who's weak on National Defense, an extremely negative tactic that has not significantly driven up the negatives on Kerry. What is more, despite the fact that the campaign seems to be in full throttle earlier than any previous campaign, many people are tuning out so their choice will not truly be made until the fall. As a result, the aforementioned series of debates will be extremely important.

Though many thought that John Edwards was the star debator of the Democratic Primary season, John Kerry is no slouch. In 1996, Kerry was engaged in a fierce battle for reelection against the extremely popular Republican Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld. It appeared as though Weld would sail to election (he was leading by 8 points in one Boston Herald poll) until Kerry proved himself in a series of eight debates. Kerry, a champion debator in prep school and at Yale, demolished Weld point by point and ended up being reelected, much to the chagrin of the state's Republicans.

If John F. Kerry can repeat his 1996 debate performance--and all indications say he will--this race could break decisively in his favor on October 13, if not even earlier after the September 30 debate. Kerry might need such a strong debate performance to prove to the many Americans who loathe the thought of four more years of Bush but are not so "gung-ho" on Kerry that he is indeed a viable alternative. Although he wont have Bush's debate notes like Reagan had Carter's, Kerry's strengths as a debator could give him the additional support to put him ahead in the key swing states, and thus deliver him the election.

The only problem is that neither campaign has agreed to the proposal yet, so maybe Kerry wont get the opportunity afterall...

Click for link


On Monday, Vice President Cheney went ahead and attempted to restate the claim that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda. Although many Americans still believe that Saddam has his hands in the 9/11 attacks, Cheney should have known better than to make such a silly claim. Saddam was a horrible person and one of the worst tyrants in recent memory. There is no doubt that he was an avid supporter of destabilizing terrorism around the world, particularly aimed at Israel and the US.

I, like many Americans, thought that his removal from power would be cause in and of itself. Although I think Bush's team has miserably implemented the war and especially its aftermath, I separate the decision to go to war (good) from the amount of success in rebuilding the country (not so much). However, the current Administration, in dire straights, is once again trying to lie to the American people to strenghthen its case for war. What the administration does not understand is that regardless of of the (arguably) sound reasoning behind going to war, they cannot improve people's perceptions of the rebuilding process by misleading the nation with faulty intelligence.

Luckily, we as Americans appointed a commission to look into 9/11, and luckily we staffed it with competent people like Lee Hamilton, Richard Ben Veniste and Bob Kerrey. Today, the 9/11 Commission debunked the Bush Administration's false claim that Saddam had deep ties with al Qaeda. They went even further, though, showing that Saddam was not allied with al Qaeda, and that in fact he had rebuffed them.

This is an important point that many Americans unfortunately are unable to grasp. Many Americans believe that all Muslims are Arabs, and that all Arabs are Fundamentalist. Using this logic, it would thus make sense that many would believe that Saddam and Osama, two Muslims who hated America with a passion, would be in cahoots. However, not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Fundamentalist. In fact, Saddam's secularist brand of quasi-socialism would have most certainly been anathema to a radical Wahabbi like bin Laden. Moreover, though Saddam certainly supported terrorism, he did not want to strengthen al Qaeda for fear that it may take over Saudi Arabia in time.

This, in a nutshell, is what the Commission was trying to get at. Sometimes I wish we had an Administration that was willing to listen to reason and fact, especially from a body as bipartisan as the 9/11 Commission...

A hearty Mazel Tov to Pistons' head coach Larry Brown (center) and his older brother Herb, an assistant coach (top right), as well as Bill Davidson, the Pistons' owner. More soon.

A picture says a thousand words, but in the case of Bill Clinton, there's nothing like seeing him speak (RealPlayer reqd.)

So, as I prepare to drift off to bed on this humid June night, I'll give a few brief thoughts to the man who was president for eight years of my life.

It should come as no surprise that he ended his term with the highest approval rating of any President than Eisenhower (yes, even higher than Reagan). Just about everyone I know loved him. Had it not been for his admitted faults, he certainly would have left with even higher ratings.

As much as I thought his moderation on policy and his willingness to compromise with Republicans were two signatures of his administration, as I watch him speak this one more time, I cannot help but compare him to our current leader, if only on speaking ability. I'm not talking about eloquence (George W.'s "I can hear YOU" at Ground Zero was one of the most eloquent moment's in our nation's history) or even complexity of speech.

When the current President scoffs at a question with his casual smirk, it makes me think that he truly believes he is better than me. Maybe it's just me, but I think he is one of the most elitist presidents we've ever had. Though his cocksure-ness may play well in bastions of Southern conservatism, it just doesn't sit well with me, a person who believes that in today's world of black and white there should still be room for a nuanced grey.

On the other hand, when I watch Clinton, I really get the feeling that he's talking to me, and me alone. I know that sounds quaint at best, but I truly feel that way. Above all, he seems to care. Some people think that it's all a big act from Bill, that he's just a great politician. Even so, isn't it more comforting to have a President who does all he can to pretend that he cares than one who does all he can to pretend he doesn't?

Yesterday (Sunday) morning, I was doing my weekly grocery shopping. As it so happens, the closest supermarket to me is the Safeway under the Watergate building. While in the pasta aisle, my friend asked me which politician was in the market, because he had seen some secret servicemen. I turned to look, and right in front of me stood none other than our National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.



I smiled and nodded at her, a courtesy she obliged me with in return. Perhaps I would have said something to her, but as I was wearing one of my Wes Clark shirts ("All Patriot, No Act"), I thought it would not be appropriate at the juncture.

This was particularly exciting for me as:

a) Though I generally don't agree with her, she certainly has earned my respect through her years of national service
b) Though I think she hasn't been a particularly apt NSA, she still is charged with defending me and my love ones.
c) She's the frikkin' NSA.

Two and a half weeks ago--a Saturday morning, to be exact--I was attending services in Georgetown when one of my favorite Senators, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, arrived.



We prayed together and I briefly spoke to him later about a mutual acquaintance. Two weeks later (this past Saturday), I saw him again at services. This time I had a nice talk with his stepson Ethan, a good friend of my brother's in college.

This was particularly exciting for me as:

a) Joe Lieberman is a fellow member of "the tribe"
b) I totally respect his moderation
c) He's one of the nation's most powerful Democratic Senators
d) He was (almost) the nation's Vice President

Two and a half weeks ago--a Friday night, to be exact--I was walking near duPont Circle with a couple of my friends when I had my first celebrity/politician sighting of the summer. As I crossed the road, I saw one of the most beloved liberals in the nation, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts.



This was particularly exciting for me as:

a) Barney Frank is a fellow member of "the tribe"
b) I totally respect his progressive stances, especially on Gay Rights
c) He's one of the nation's most powerful Democratic Congressmen
d) He was my first sighting.

(This is the first in a series of posts)

I know I'm a nerd, especially when it comes to seeing celebrities.

I'll give you an example. One day, about eight or ten years ago, I was in a bathroom in Los Angeles International Airport when I saw a disheveled and disoriented Nick Nolte in a bright yellow jump suit.


(think this but add dark glasses and the bright yellow jump suit)

I was similarly excited when I flew from LA to San Fransisco accross from actress Elizabeth Pena.



The people who really excite me, though, are politicians. Although I love seeing B-list stars like Pena, I become giddy as a schoolgirl when I see my favorite celebrity politicians.

As a result, in a series of posts over the summer, I'll list the people I see.

This summer--odd as it may sound--I'm living in a sorority house on the campus of George Washington University (I say "odd" because, of course, I'm no lady). One of my fellow denizens is a very nice girl who happens to be interning at the Republican National Committee.

The other day--maybe it was even today--we were engaged in a rather unlively debate about our predictions on the presidential campaign. This girl told me that she believed that the economic picture, ever improving, will aide Bush in his reelection. Her second--and more dubious--point was that the situation in Iraq will rapidly improve after June 30 to the point that Iraq will no longer prominently figure into the campaign. I'll look at these two points separately.

I think that her first point has some merit. The economy is picking up right now and there are even some signs of modest job growth. The stock market is up and many investors are happy. Nevertheless, it would behoove President Bush to keep a mindful eye not only on the economy itself over the coming months but also people's perception of the state of the economy.

Though jobs are certainly a lagging indicator of the market, people's perception of and confidence in the market lag even further. One need only hearken back to 1992 to see this pattern. Though the economy was well out of recession by October of that year, people still had the recession of the spring and summer on their minds when they punched their ballots in November. As a result, Bush 41 was handily defeated by William Jefferson Clinton.

With the market beginning to pickup now (about five months before the election--it is conceivable that people's perception of the economy--now at startlingly low levels--will even out once again. If no catastrophic event occurs in the interceding months to curtail growth of the economy, surely people's confidence in President Bush's ability to oversee the US economy will increase. However, this is not a given.

With the situation in the Saudi Arabia tenuous at best, oil prices could further rise. Even at their current levels--twice what they were not long ago--they are sure to increase inflation. With the dollar also weaker than it has been in years, the overall price level very well might increase. As a result, we could see inflation setting in within the next five months before the election. This is a problem that could cause the President more grief than mere public perception.

The other point made by my housemate was that she believed that the situation in Iraq will improve to such an extent after June 30 that it will not inhibit Bush's opportunity for reelection. I think this point is much more suspect.

News from Iraq just today shows that resistance is still strong among some communities in the country. While some naysayers--mostly neocons and the less intelligent pundits--claim that the so-called liberal media is skewing the news from Iraq, it is important to still understand that anti-American sentiment does not only reside within pseudo-al Qaeda cells and former-Saddam loyalists within the country. When the reality that the Americans will be ceding little control or sovreignty to the Iraqis after June 30 sets in, the Iraqis will not be happy. Although we may think that they are stupid, it is preposterous to think that they will not realize that the Americans are still in control. As a result, it is also a great misconception that the situation will rapidly improve. Clearly, June 30 is no panacea, regardless of the spin the Administration is attempting to lay down.

With the situation in Iraq still bad in five months, any improvement in the economy could prove meaningless. Look at Johnson in 1968. The economy was great (though it would soon balloon into inflationary times), but the situation in Vietnam made it impossible for either him or his deputy Humphrey to win.

Now hold on, I'm sure you're saying. This is no Vietnam. You're right! It isn't!!! But, support for the war is waning quickly (check out the LA Times poll), just as it was in 1968, and apprehensions about chaos in Iraq--not to mention American boys and girls returning in caskets--could once again override public feelings about the economy. So maybe my housemate isn't so correct after all...

I think some people misunderstood my post from yesterday. Frankly, from some of the comments I received, it appears as though a number of my critics didn't even read my post. I'll try and restate this all in other terms.

Today, I've been thinking about the honorable Senator from Connecticut, Joeseph Lieberman. Although he is the man that liberals love to hate--God forbid there be a hawkish moderate within the Democratic party--I think he is another example of the type of centrism that I believe is necessary for healing our political process. Though in an ideal world, my more ideological side would tell me to scream at his sometimes conservative actions (yes, a part of me wishes all of the Senators were a little more progressive), I think Joe is on the right track a lot of the time. If liberals expect any progress, they will need the help of moderates and conservatives (I cannot imagine there being 60 true liberals in the Senate any time soon); to get this help, they too must be willing to cross the aisle like Senator Lieberman.

At this point I'll also go back to my short discussion on Arlen Specter, a moderate, but from the Republican Party. Now do I think that the state of Pennsylvania deserves Democratic representation in the United States Senate? Certainly. Do I think that Spector has at times been a poor Senator? Of course. Would I like to see a Democrat like Joe Hoeffel replace him? That's where it gets a little trickier.

Joe Hoeffel is a great Conressman and would make an even better Senator. The people of Pennsylvania would be well served to elect him, and the nation as a whole would benefit. What is more, there is little I could ask for that would please me more than a Democratic Senate. Then why, one might ask, am I not wholeheartedly a Hoeffel supporter?

The fact is that it will be an uphill battle for the Democrats to regain the Senate. With so many southern seats to defend, the non-partisan Charlie Cook Report gives the Republicans a 60% shot at retaining control of the body. With this in mind--along with the fact that Spector is leading Hoeffel by a large margin in the polls right now--I don't necessarily think it's the best idea to fight for Spector's defeat. Why do I write this?

Arlen Specter is slated to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January if reelected (and Republicans retain the Senate); if he loses, though, and the Republicans still hold the Senate (which Cook predicts), the Committee goes to the uber-conservative Jon Kyl, a truly scary thought. When I think of the Judiciary Committee in the hands of the pro choice, Spector, I don't worry too much; although he might back some bad nominees, he wont allow a radical anti-lifer to take a seat on the Supreme Court. A Jon Kyl chairmanship, even with a Kerry Presidency, would be a disaster for Women's rights, among other things. He is very, very conservative, to say the least.

So once again, you might ask where I'm going with this. The point that I'm trying to make is that although we'd like for there to be a large Democratic Majority, particulary a liberal majority, this isn't going to happen any time soon (don't call me a naysayer--I'm just living in the world of reality). Moreover, a moderate, pro choice, pro labor Republican chairman is highly superior to a radical, anti choice, anti labor chairman. As a result, I think we should at least think of the possible consequences of a Spector loss before pouring money into Hoeffel's campaign.

Well, folks. It appears as though the dream ticket just isn't going to work out. It's a shame, though, because Americans both want and need an end to the bitter partisanship that is dividing the country, and this unique pairing, though not a panacea, could have helped to begin the healing process in the country.

The partisanship today is just about as bad as it's ever been. I think a lot of this comes from the fact that parties are now divided on ideological lines, unlike before when there was much more room for compromise. As Senator Arlen Specter said in an interview with The New Yorker for its April 12, 2004 issue,

"When I came to the Senate, we had a lot of members of the Wednesday Club"-a weekly gathering of Republican moderates. "You had Lowell Weicker, you had Bob Stafford, you had Bob Packwood, you had Mark Hatfield, you had [John] Chafee, you had John Danforth, you had Jim Jeffords, you had John Heinz. Now there are only a few of us. And it's important. When Joe Biden needs a co-sponsor, he comes to Arlen Specter. That kind of balance is really important for the country. It's more than the soul of the Republican Party; it's to have some balance within the Party and within the two-party system." It's this paucity of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, I believe, that it the main cause of a lot of the problems we are facing as a nation today.

When the current President ran as a "unifier, not a divider," many Americans embraced his candidacy in the hope that the relations inside the Congress and between the Exectutive and Legislative branches would improve. However, the President has chosen to rely solely on his base and his party for support, rarely if ever crossing the aisle for Democratic support. The situation has even become horrible within the Senate, a body that usually shied away from such rancour. Whereas former Republican Leaders Bob Dole and even Trent Lott tried to keep relations with the Democrats as friendly as possible, new Majority Leader Bill Frist has gone out of his way to create as much tension as possible, most notably during his 30-hour filibuster and his campaigning against Tom Daschle in South Dakota (no Senate leader had ever before campaigned against the other party's leader in his home state).

If there is any sign of hope now that Kerry-McCain appears to be finished (as if it could have ever happened in the first place), it is surprisingly coming from the country's "Left Coast." Although I thought the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger was a sham a few months ago and that he would become a ineffective leader of the world's sixth largest economy if elected, the "Governator" is creating a model of leadership that could begin to ease the partisan divide in this country.

Two recent articles--one in The Economist and the other on Salon.com--praise the California Governor as the model for bipartisanship. They are both worth noting.

Lexington writes in this week's edition of The Economist about Arnold's ability to work with members of the other party. In comparing the him to President Bush, Lexington writes,

"The big difference is in their practice of politics. Whereas both pledged in their election campaigns to 'reach across the aisle' to their Democratic opponents, it is only the governor who has followed through. Where Mr Bush clings to his ideological base, Mr Schwarzenegger not only has friends and relations who are Democrats but knows how to work with them, too."

The author is entirely correct in his hypothesis. What is more, he implies that the key to success in bridging relationships is actually trying to do it.

Salon similarly writes,

"He is also interested -- maybe genuinely, maybe out of necessity -- in reaching across the political aisle. While the Bush administration takes a 'you're with us or you're against us' approach to both foreign and domestic policy, Schwarzenegger has reached out -- sometimes with carrots, sometimes with sticks -- to interest groups and the Democrats who control the state Legislature."

...

"'Schwarzenegger is more like the real Reagan than the Reagan of legend,' says Jack Pitney, a former Republican National Committee staffer who is now a government professor at California's Claremont McKenna College. 'The real Reagan was a pragmatist and a compromiser in just the way Schwarzenegger is.'"

Although I didn't vote for him (I go to school in Cah-lee-four-knee-uh, but wasn't registered there at the time) I have to hand it to Arnold. He has been a great success, seeing astronomical approval ratings, and I believe this all stems from the fact that he ran as a moderate and he is also governing as a moderate. By crossing the aisle to work with Democrats, he is beginning the healing process in this nation. If only leaders on the national level could do the same thing...

----------------

So what am I trying to get at with this slightly jumbled post?

I think the key is that we need to begin moving back to the center as a nation, willing to elect moderates in both parties, but also liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Perhaps Arnold should be our model. Too bad the Constitution prohibits him from running for president...

It's just about time to get to the nitty-gritty. No more of this generalizing and biographizing (yes, I know this is not a word!).

Let's start off with the actual numbers from the Los Angeles Times poll. In a two-way matchup, John Kerry would defeat President Bush by a 51-44 margin; with Ralph Nader added to the mix, the race becomes 48-42-4. There are other numbers that are important, but I'll focus on these two sets in this post.

A number of national polls put the race at close to dead even, with both major candidates hovering around 43-45 percent. I think that this is a fairly accurate picture of where the race is right now; each side has about 40% of the country who will solidly vote in their camp with another 3-5% currently leaning towards them. A number of pundits--in fact the vast majority--extrapolate this information to hypothesize that this will be another 50-50 election. I think, however, that they are misreading these polls.

The 44% of voters who are now in the Bush camp are probably there to stay, as are the 44% solidly in the Kerry camp. However, it is foolish to believe that this is the same thing as 50-50. Because people's impressions of Bush are unlikely to change over the coming months, his 44% could realistically mean only 44% support in November (Yes, this could mean 56% for Kerry. Adding in the Nader factor could ciphon off even more votes(Although Nader may take a point or two from Kerry, the Times poll is correct in showing that he also takes the votes of dissaffected Republicans--those who would never vote for Kerry, but also don't want to vote for Bush). This might even imply a 54-42-4 margin for Kerry.

There are a number of historical precedents for this model. In 1980, Reagan won by a 51-41 margin over sitting President Jimmy Carter. This election also saw Independent John Anderson garnering nearly 7% of the vote and a Libertarian candidate, Ed Clark, getting more than 1%. Although some historians believe that Anderson took votes away from Carter, I think that it's more likely that these voters did not want to vote for Carter, but could not vote for Reagan, so they voted for Anderson in protest. The Libertarian vote also most likely took away from Reagan.

1992 is another perfect example. Bill Clinton defeated incumbent George H.W. Bush by a 43-37 margin, with Independent candidate H. Ross Perot receiving just shy of 19%. Again, some historians believe that the majority of Perot voters were dissaffected Republicans; however, I think that it is more likely that many would have voted for Clinton or not voted at all in 1992 had the race been between only the two candidates. This could have turned into an even greater landslide for Clinton than it actually was.

Looking at the 2004 election another way, let's look at the approval ratings for Reagan and Clinton at this point in their presidencies. Both were at around 55% approval, and both won reelection by wide margins. Now let's look at approval ratings for Jimmy Carter and Bush 41. Both were in the low 40s or high 30s at this point and both lost by wide margins; the current President is dangerously close to these levels.

So, what am I saying? Current polling indicates that at this rate, Bush will lose by a wide margin in November if all things remain constant. However, all things will not remain constant. People's impression of the economy is not of today's situation, but rather how things were six months ago (this holds today as well as generally over time [the economy was bad in June 1992, but good in November; people still thought it was bad, though, and voted Bush out of office]). Thus, if the economy is indeed picking up right now, Bush will fare better in five months. However, a deteriorating situation in Iraq could counteract this (the economy was good in 1968, but the situation in Vietnam prevented a run by Johnson).

I'll leave you for the time being with this note. There haven't been two close elections in a row since the end of the 19th century, so it's highly unlikely that the 2004 election will be as close as 2000. As a result, I believe the race will either be a big Bush win (which, according to history, probably wont happen) or a big Kerry win. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

For those of you concerned about the content of this blog so far (i.e. there has yet to be either news or commentary), worry not--I'm just getting started. I'd like for you to get to know me a little before I begin opining. It will start soon, though, so stay tuned.

After work yesterday, I attended the processional for Ronald Reagan along Constitution Avenue here in DC. I stood almost directly between the White House and the Washington Monument, a fitting location, I do believe. It was certainly a sight to see, one that I will not soon forget. Although I was not close enough to the action to be able to see the former first lady or more than a mere glimpse of the casket sitting on its horse-drawn cart; nonetheless, it was a truly inspiring moment. When the president's hurse passed me, it was quite moving.

As this is the first such event in 32 years--since the death of Harry Truman in 1972 (Nixon's ceremony was far less grand)--I feel quite lucky to have seen it. Of course, it will surely not be another 30 years until the next presidential passing (as Ford, Carter and Bush 41 are in their 80s or 90s), but nevertheless I am glad I got to see this event. I'm not particularly a fan of Reagan or his policies, nor do I revere him to the extent that I believe he should replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, but I feel excited to have participated in such an historical event.

Me 

Good question.

What is "Basie!"? Why did I choose the name? What am I trying to accomplish?

Basie! is a blog at which I will talk about a number of the pressing issues today. I will try to be both timely and thorough, but as a big fan of historical context, I will try to look at current events through a "big picture" lense. Though I am nominally a Democrat, I am nonetheless a moderate. I am middle of the road on most issues -- some I am to the right of center, others I'm to the left -- but I generally try to stick to the middle. I'm what I like to call a pragmatic progressive (or should it be progressive pragmatist?).

I'm a big fan of the Kid from Red Bank, New Jersey, Mr. Bill Basie. The Count was a jolly old fellow (have you ever met a rotund person whose not fun at heart?) who always swung. I am really into Jazz, and I think a lot of what the idiom is today is because of the forward thinking of the Count. So that's why this is "Basie!". (And I think it's catchy, no?).

The tougher question I saved for last. The short of it is that I want to have an historical record of my life, and more generally, my political and worldly views today (so I can look back in the future and laugh). I also want those who deem me important, for what reason I cannot imagine, to be able to keep up with me and what I'm doing.

On a larger scale, I think I have something to contribute to the world. Like Don Rumsfeld (and I paraphrase), I know that there are things that I don't know; I realize that although I think I know everything (doesn't everyone at my age?), I have yet to truly experience the world and all of its glory. As a result, I hope people can take some of my rants with a grain of salt. That being said, I think I have insight to offer the world. Hopefully, as time passes, others will come to enjoy that insight. I hope you enjoy this blog and feel free to comment on any post!

---

All original content contained on this site is protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of the author except as specified in this statement.

Permission is granted to quote content of any length, to reference, cite, link to, or otherwise use content, so long as you:
1) Refer to Basie! as the originator of the content.
2) Spell the name right. It's "Basie!".
3) Include a link to the original content on the Basie! website so that readers can easily navigate to this website.

You can contact the author of the "Basie!" website by sending e-mail to jonathanhsinger@yahoo.com.

Basie! is a private, personal website and is the product of the author as an individual. The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and no employer, other person, business or organization.

Articles, stories, etc. that are linked to from Basie! might be removed, rewritten, or otherwise altered by the original publisher and are not necessarily checked by Basie! after the day of publication of the link.

Posted by: Jonathan Singer / 11:03 PM | | Basie! Home

That's a good question. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Jonathan Singer, a senior at Pomona College in Claremont, California. I'm studying Politics (not "Government" or "Political Science") and have been writing here at Basie! since June 2004.

My political career began during the 2000 Presidential campaign when I volunteered for Al Gore in his Portland, Oregon campaign. During the summer of 2003, I interned in the reelection campaign of Oregon's Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, as well as his Portland Senate office. Back at school in the fall of 2003 and the winter of 2004, I organized and chaired the Wesley Clark for President campaign on my campus and was a member of the Los Angeles for Clark leadership team.

During the summer of 2004 I worked at America Abroad Media as a research assistant (a nice title for an unpaid intern). For those of you not familiar with the organization, AAM creates programs (predominantly radio, but also television) on American foreign policy and cross-cultural issues. You can hear the radio programs on various PRI/NPR stations and on their website.

Over the summer of 2005 I wrote for The Hill, a non-partisan, non-ideological newspaper that reports on the inner workings of Congress. I covered a number of beats, including the Media Sketch (for which I profile a major journalist like Chris Matthews, Bob Schieffer and others), campaigns, and anything and everything else (from telecommunications to lobbying against the estate tax).

When I'm not in DC or California, I live in Portland, Oregon (thus the coverage of Oregon politics on this site). Among my non-political activities are playing the acoustic bass, listening to jazz, hosting a radio program and announcing collegiate sporting events.

This site is profiled in separate articles here and here, and for those interested, here is my resume [Microsoft Word].

Articles I wrote for The Hill:

• Paul Hackett picks up endorsement
  
• LA-3 brief
  
• Bob Schieffer profile
  
• Chris Wallace profile
  
• Jim Martin profile
  
• IA-1 brief
  
• House reading clerk brief
  
• Jewish voters in FL-Sen. race
  
• Joe Klein profile
  
• Markey says Tomlinson should quit at CPB
  
• WV-Sen brief
  
• Randy "Duke" Cunningham's Saudi ties
  
• Review of new Barbara Boxer novel
  
• Chris Matthews profile
  
• GOP primary battle in VT-Sen race
  
• Pat DeWine's fundraising
  
• Digital television transition bill
  
• VT-Sen, WA-8 briefs

Contact me for more info.

Hello all and welcome to the summer edition of Basie, my Blog. I know I was sporadic at best in my first attempt at blogging, but I think it should go better this time. Check in from time to time to hear about what's happning here in Washington, DC and around the world. Stay tuned.

You can now search the archives of Basie! using Google technology... what a brave new world!

WWW http://basie.blogspot.com

Thank you for your interest in making a donation to support Basie! You can make your contribution online through PayPal by clicking the below link.