McCain

How Will The Next President Secure America?

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:09:17 -0700

In less than a month, American voters will decide on the person who will lead, and attempt to secure, our nation through the next four years. It will, of course, be either John McCain or Barack Obama. What sort of national security leadership will each of them provide? While both of these men are honorable people and, I believe, will do what they believe is best for our country, their experience and personality will lead them to different leadership styles.

McCain is known for being passionate, creative, impulsive and a bit hot tempered. His worldview has been tempered by his military experience and five-years in a Vietnamese prison. There he demonstrated a powerful resolve and a will to persevere in the most difficult circumstances.

His campaign rhetoric makes me believe that he sees the world in terms of friends and enemies. I would think the focus of his foreign policy would be to stand by those he sees as friends and directly confront those he sees as enemies. Witness his gung-ho support for Georgian President, Saakashvili, and palpable distaste for Russian Prime Minister, Putin. McCain would attempt, I believe, to build America’s prestige through the extension of our military power throughout the world. He would bring friends closer and isolate enemies further.

This style of leadership may well result in international confrontations and even military conflicts. This, it seems to me, would be a continuation of the hard-edged foreign policy we have seen for the past eight years. It has not worked particularly well and it seems unlikely that it will work in the future.

Obama’s experience has been as a community organizer. His focus was to work with people, even those with whom he disagrees. He would attempt to bring about America’s security through diplomacy and negotiation. The caution for Obama is that he must not allow a desire for negotiation to morph into appeasement.

I believe, he would attempt to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism by containing it rather than try for some total victory, which might lead America into yet another war. Obama says he wants to build America’s strength from the bottom up, by building its economy.

Which style would work best, over the next several years? All we can do is look to history and hope to learn from it. The United States has always done best around the world when we exerted economic and moral leadership. Since the end of WWII, this kind of leadership has guided America through international difficulties. In the past eight years, under George Bush, we seem to have lost our way. America has become known as a nation that starts wars, rather than a nation the tries to end them. People of the world see us now as a nation that tortures its prisoners of war, rather than a world leader in the humane treatment of POWs. It will be many years before America recovers it prestige in the world. For us to do so, will require a cool leadership hand, rather than a hot one.

Second Presidential Debate: A Clear Win for Obama

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:01:36 -0700

In the first presidential debate, I called it basically a draw, with a very slight nod toward McCain. The second debate was a different story. Barack Obama won this debate hands down. Obama was clear, articulate and calm, while McCain was less clear and seemed to be scratching around in an effort to get under Obama’s skin. He could not find an opening. Even McCain’s discussion of foreign policy (his supposed strong suit) seemed flat and to me lacked the energy, he has displayed on the campaign trail and in the first debate. . My analysis has been supported by the preliminary poll results which show that viewers gave the debate to Obama by about 15 percentage points.

As I watched, I observed the evaluations of the focus group CNN had gathered with their instant rating of what the candidates were saying. I noticed that whenever McCain made a personal attack on Obama, the evaluation went down dramatically. When Obama responded the rating went up. It suggest that the personal attacks on Obama that the McCain campaign has lately ramped up significantly may not be working

I don’t know, because personal attacks have worked for Republicans in the past (recall the attacks on McCain by the Bush campaign in previous elections and of course the “swift boat attacks on John Kerry). However, it may be that the American people are tired of campaigns of personal assassination. I’d like it if that were true.

Nevertheless, the surge of personal attacks by the McCain campaign suggest a level of desperation on McCain’s part. I have always thought McCain was an honorable man. But, it seems to me now that he wants so much to be president that he is willing to sell his honor for a very unlikely chance to pull his failing campaign out of its downward slide.

Tax $$$ and Political Contributions

K9Mike — Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:05:52 -0700

$ 152 billionTax Rebates
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 - enacted February 13, 2008
The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008 with an additional $124 billion to be spent over the next 10 years.

Most taxpayers below the income limit will receive a rebate of at least $300 per person ($600 for married couples filing jointly).

$ 700 billion Executive bailout
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 passed Oct 3 2008

“Throwing $700 billion at Wall Street, everyone seems to believe, would restore confidence in the financial markets, repair the balance sheets of U.S. banks and other financial institutions, and get the great national borrowing-and-lending machine back up and running so the economy would start creating jobs again.” msn.com
But not all the objectives have been disclosed.

The tax $ return
Executives know how to convert tax dollars to contributions. Get tax $$$ and then send a political contribution, payable to “RNC” (Republican Party). Who will then bailout the McCain campaign.

But, can the McCain bailout be in time??? The Bush Administration has created a slow poorly run government.

The Vice-Presidential Debate: Both Exceeded Expectations

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 3 Oct 2008 07:38:40 -0700

The big Vice-Presidential debate is history. I thought it was a more interesting, although surely less important, debate than the last Presidential wrangle. How did the candidates do? In my view, both exceeded what was expected of them.

Sarah Palin aim was to appear competent and shake the impression that emerged from her recent CBS evening news interviews. In other words, Palin wanted simply to stop being an embarrassment to the McCain campaign. She accomplished that goal. For the past few days, at least, Palin was the campaign story not McCain. The debate last evening should allow the McCain campaign to get back on message.

Palin’s responses to questions were mostly superficial and in some cases simply off the subject. She offered almost no response to the questions on the economy. Instead, she turned over and over to the McCain talking points on energy. Nevertheless, Palin’s responses were personable, folksy, and reasonably articulate, a thousand times more effective than were her responses to Katie Couric’s questions. Palin even managed to get in a few zingers toward Obama and Biden. My guess is that the McCain campaign breathed a collective sigh of relief as the debate ended.

When the questioning turned from the economy to foreign policy Palin surely held her own, laying out the McCain campaign’s view on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though she did not know the name of the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan (referring to General David McKiernan as General McClellan) her responses to questions were, otherwise, articulate and a great deal more clear than were her statements on the economy.

As for Biden, his performance was absolutely outstanding. He had a greater command of facts and information than Palin. Biden was polite, non-combative, and focused his attacks on John McCain. He even refrained from correcting Palin when she misspoke on the Afghanistan-commander’s name (a name he surely knows, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). I have not seen all of Biden’s debates (he has participated in many), but this was clearly the best performance of all that I have seen.

Biden’s goal was to support the top is his ticket and try to tie McCain to the policies of George W. Bush. He did this in an extremely concise and direct manner. Perhaps, his best moment was when he clearly and specifically argued that McCain is not the Senate maverick he keeps telling us that he is. He also laid out very clearly Obama’s plan for getting out of Iraq.

In my view, both candidates accomplished the goals the wished to achieve. There were no gaffes, no U-Tube moments, and no fodder for a Saturday Night Live skit. Will this debate do anything to influence the election? Probably not! But, surely neither candidate did anything to hurt their respective campaign. People vote for the top of the ticket not for the second spot. We can look forward to the second Presidential debate next week.

John McCain's Judgment: Not As Good As Advertised

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:06:14 -0700

John McCain has made his judgment a staple of his presidential campaign. He says he has the experience and solid judgment to lead America through crisis times, while Barack Obama does not. Well, let’s take a close look at some of Senator McCain’s recent judgments.

First, he selected the grievously unqualified Sarah Palin to be his vice-presidential running mate. At first, this selection looked like a political master stroke. Palin became the darling of conservatives and energized the Republican base voters. But as we get to know Palin better, the lunacy of his choice becomes clear. I hope some of her supporters watched Palin’s interview with CBS News anchor, Katie Couric. In that interview Palin bragged of her foreign policy expertise based on the fact that her state, Alaska, borders Canada and Russia. Asked why she thought that was a basis for foreign policy experience, she said, “We have trade delegations to those countries” (countries to which she has never traveled in any official context). In another part of the interview, Palin was asked to comment on the Bailout deal that has made so much news in the past week. It was clear from her response that she barely knew what the legislation under consideration was or how it impacted our economy. This was a pitiful response and totally ignorant response. All of this, of course, reflects on the judgment of John McCain. If he gets elected, McCain will have placed some one so miserably unready for high office one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the leadership of the most powerful nation on this planet. If that does not simply terrify you, then my friends you are just not thinking.

As we all know, America is experiencing an economic crisis of towering proportions. Congress was heard at work hammering out a very difficult piece of legislation to ameliorate the crisis. They almost had a deal worked out. Then John McCain panicked. He put his campaign on hold, flew off to Washington, got into the middle of those very delicate negotiations, and almost blew up the deal legislators were making. Does this show good judgment? Again, as with his V.P. choice, McCain placed his campaign for President ahead of the needs of the nation. If this is his idea of calm leadership, in a crisis, we need to look elsewhere for a president.

The thing that made him look most silly was his threat to cancel the presidential debate. He said he would not debate, until there was a deal on the economic bailout package. Then he got enough feedback from fellow Republicans to see how his backing out made him look and what a really stupid move that was. So, he flipped on his threat not to participate and decided to debate even though there is not economic-package deal yet. However, with McCain out of Washington, there is a chance they will soon get a deal. Canceling the debate then backing down and deciding to do it, is a gigantic political blunder. Doing this made him look weak and indecisive. If McCain had any chance of winning the presidency, I believe he blew it with this decision. It seems he was against the debate before he was for it. When the analysis of this campaign is written, this move will be seen as the death blow for his campaign and will go down in history as one of the worst political blunders of all time.

McCain’s major asset, as seen by the American people, his experience and good judgment has been put to the test in the past several weeks. It has come up wanting. If he is to have any chance of salvaging his campaign, he will have to give a world-class performance in tonight’s debate.

Cancel the Friday Debate? Surely, You Jest.

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:00:59 -0700

I just heard that McCain wants to cancel the Friday presidential debate, because of our economic crisis. What better time for us to hear from the candidates, than in a time of crisis.

I have a better idea. Let's change the topic of the debate to the economy, and let the foreign policy debate go until later.

I don't understand McCain's argument here. McCain and Obama are titular leaders of their respective parties and their imput into any plan would be valuable. However, they can do this by phone or by flying to Washington when needed. There is no use to suspend campaigning or to cancel the debates. Furthermore, as Barack Obama said a few moments ago. Presidents need to be able to multi task. They will have to be able to do more than one thing at a time once they get to the White House. So, I asked myself why does McCain want to cancel the debate. Is it a political ploy? Id he afraid to debate? McCain's campaign seems to be slipping in the past few days. Does he needs another stunning move to jazz it up? Can we call this "cut-and-run?"

I'm curious to know what others think of McCain's idea. Cearly, I don't think much of it.

Lies, Lies, Lies: Can We Trust Any One Running for Political Office?

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:10:49 -0700

It is well known that both Barack Obama and John McCain promised a different kind of campaign in this presidential election. They promised a truthful campaign that provides facts without distortion. It is clear to any reasonable observer that both candidates have failed miserably to live up that promise. While the distortions and lies from both campaigns are so numerous, I could not possibly list them all. I thought in might be interesting to discuss some of the lies told by each campaign.

Education:

An Obama ad says the McCain has voted five times to cut education funding. This is not true. On these occasions, McCain voted against an education funding increase that Democrats wanted. He was not willing to increase education funding to the level Democrats wanted, but he did not vote to cut spending from what it was at that time.

A McCain ad says the Obama has voted in support of sex education for kindergarteners. That too is blatantly untrue. Obama did support a bill that would help educate kindergarteners to avoid sexual predators. It was not sex education.

Taxes:

A McCain/Palin ad claims that Obama would raise taxes on electricity. Obama has offered no such proposal. Both candidates support a cap-and-trade policy that might raise the cost of energy. Additionally, the ad claims the Obama will tax home-heating oil. This is blatantly false. Obama has actually proposed a $1,000 rebate to families to help defray heating costs.

Obama has been saying the McCain is willing to allow tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. That is not exactly accurate, although there are some elements of truth in this statement. McCain does support a policy that allows corporations that make money overseas to defer taxes on those profits until they bring the money into the U.S. So, if they keep their profit overseas they tend to do, these companies will not have pay tax on it. This might encourage companies to operate overseas, rather than in the U.S.

You don’t have to tell a direct falsehood in order to tell a lie. Joe Biden has used partial McCain statement in order to create a false impression. Biden said that McCain would not help small borrowers suffering in the mortgage crisis. He quoted McCain as saying that he would ….”fight for those that lost their …. real estate investments.” The impression Biden wanted to promote was that McCain would help major investors but not homeowners who are experiencing financial difficulty. Biden did not tell us that McCain also said that he would fight for those “who have lost their jobs and savings.” McCain has as actually proposed assistance for homeowners.

Sarah Palin has been promoted as an expert on energy. She has claimed that Alaska supplies 20% of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. As governor of Alaska she should know. However, her statement is blatantly false. Alaska's actual share of domestic energy production was 3.5%, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

I know that political campaigning is a hard-nosed business and campaigners are expected to stretch their own position while distorting their opponent’s views. However, to me, it is disappointing to see both candidates use blatant falsehoods, in order to win an election.

Here’s a communication professor’s view. Every message has a surface message and a subtext. The subtext of lies told to viewers goes something like this: “I don’t think much of your intelligence, because I can tell you this lie and you are so stupid you’ll believe it.” When I get that message, I get angry, no matter who is telling the lie.

It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. I think that statement applies to political campaigning as well. At least with politics we have at our disposal the ability to check the truth of a politician’s statements. I encourage everyone, no matter what their political persuasion, to use web sites like http://www.factcheck.org/, from Annenberg Commuications (from which many of the facts cited in this post came) to verify the truth of any candidate’s statements.

Palin and the Bridge: What is the Real Story?

Bob Hertzog — Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:18:19 -0700

In her vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech and in her campaign stump speeches, Sarah Palin is fond of saying that she turned down the so-called “bridge to nowhere,” which she did. Palin leaves the impression that like Horatio, she stood there sword in hand defending American taxpayers. However, there are a few facts about that incident that Palin does not relate which shed a different light on the whole story.

First, the bridge to nowhere actually goes some where. The name “bridge to nowhere” gives the impression that a bridge was to be built that simply ends somewhere in the ocean. The bridge in question, would be built from the town of Ketchikan Alaska to Gravina Island, where the town’s airport is located. At present, the only way people can get from town to the airport is by ferry boat. For the people of Ketchikan, the bridge was a necessity.

Second, Palin was for the bridge, before she was against it. In her campaign for governor, Palin campaigned on getting the bridge. She went to Ketchikan and told the people the she would see that they get their bridge. When she became governor she flip-flopped and stopped the building of the bridge.

Third, although the construction of the bridge was stopped, stopping it did not save American taxpayers one dime. Not a single cent!!! As governor, Palin refused to allow the construction of the bridge, but she did not return the money appropriated by Congress for the bridge. Palin is fond of saying that she told Congress (with respect to the bridge), “Thanks but no thanks.” However, she did not return the dollars appropriated for the bridge. Those funds are still in the coffers of the Alaskan government. So, the impression that Palin intends to leave is that she stopped the bridge and saved American taxpayers millions. That is simply a bald-faced lie.

So, is seems, that Palin opposes earmarks when they go to another state or district, but she is willing to take the money when they come to her state. Right now Palin is the spearhead in the McCain’s campaign against earmarks, but as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she is on record of begging for earmarks and using them whenever she could get them.

Personally, I’m against earmarks. I want to see all appropriations from the federal government go through the committee process and be specifically voted upon before money is doled out. What I would like to see from McCain/Palin is a little more straight talk about their dealing with earmarks.

God Bless the USA

Bard — Sat, 6 Sep 2008 06:59:39 -0700

John McCain's Acceptance Speech: Where Will He Take the Country?

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:54:28 -0700

John McCain accepted the nomination of the Republican Party last evening and now, as Sherlock Holmes might have said, “The Game’s afoot.” The voters of this nation have 61 days to make up their minds about who will lead America through the next four years.

McCain told us a bit about his experience as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. What a compelling story! John McCain is without doubt a man of character. His experience in the Vietnam War demonstrates that fact most vividly. We Americans owe a massive debt of gratitude to John McCain has his comrades for the suffering they endured in the service of their nation. However, that debt of gratitude does not include an automatic pass to be the President of the United States. That he must ear anew.

Now, let me offer a few words about McCain’s speech. It was ordinary at best. When it comes to speechmaking, McCain is certainly no Barack Obama. Indeed, with respect to speechmaking skill, McCain is no Sarah Palin. I thought, as I listened to his acceptance speech, that if one had to judge the McCain’s speech and Palin’s speech side by side, without knowing the speaker, Palin’s speech would win hands down.

Nevertheless, McCain is the presidential candidate, what he said carries a great deal more weight than what Palin had to say. In my point of view, McCain said a number to things I liked a great deal. He spoke of his willingness and ability to work across parties in order to solve problems. Personally, I like that very much. It is time for our government to stop the partisan backbiting and backstabbing that began following the Watergate scandal and continues to this day. So, any candidate who was really willing to try to put party aside and end the cross party fighting, would go along way toward getting my vote. McCain did not say how he would reach across party differences. On what issues would he be willing to compromise? As I listen to his campaign stump speeches, I don’t hear much about compromise.

McCain said, as President, he would veto every bill that comes to his desk containing an earmark. This is another thing that I would like very much to see happen. However, I know this is impossible and so does John McCain. Congress loves earmarks and if there is to be bills at all passed into law they will come with some earmarks. What I suspect will happen is that bills with earmarks from primarily Democratic legislators will get vetoed while those from Republicans might get through.

McCain says he will end the influence of “special interests” on American politics. This is still another issue on which I would agree with him. However, every politician says he is not influenced by special interests. The problem here is that one legislator’s legitimate constituency is another’s special interest. A “special interest,” in our political affairs, is the interests of those who disagree with you. Neither McCain nor Obama will end the influence of special interests. I know it, you know it, and they both know it.

He says he wants to change the way Washington does business. I would hope he really wanted to do that. However, the proposals he has been offering, seem to me to be a lot more of what we have experienced for the past eight years. He also failed to mention that he has been a part of that Washington establishment (a leader in the Senate) for the past 26 years. He has done little to change the way things work.

What frightens me about McCain is his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal courts. In doing so, his administration could set American civil rights, women’s rights, and reproductive choice back to the 1960s.

Although, he offered no specifics, McCain indicated a willingness (and this point has come through in his stump presentations, as well) to work closely with America’s major corporations, (particularly oil companies) offering them tax breaks despite their willingness to take jobs overseas and their making of exorbitant profits, at the expense of middle-class Americans. He says this is the way to bring prosperity back to America. That’s just wrong.

Finally, there is the differences I have with John McCain on the war in Iraq. We have argued and discussed this issue over and over. I won’t repeat those arguments here, but I believe McCain is dead wrong in his willingness to keep out troops in Iraq when Iraqis want us out and most Americans want us out. This is another issue on which I personally believe McCain is just flat wrong.

So, while I liked a good bit of what John McCain had to say in his speech, these three issues (federal judges, big business corporations, and the war in Iraq) are, for me personally, deal breakers. I will continue to listen to both candidates, but unless McCain modifies his views on some of these issues, he cannot earn my vote.

Sarah Palin: Why Was She Chosen?

Bob Hertzog — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:52:03 -0700

John McCain shocked the political pundits (including yours truly) this week when he selected the practically unknown Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin, to be his Vice-Presidential running mate. This is a good choice for McCain, for a number of reasons. First Palin is satisfactory to most Republican conservatives. On the issues, she is strongly opposed to reproductive choice and opposed to any form of gun control. As Alaskan Governor, she has a proven cost-cutting record and she is an advocate for ethical reform in her state government. In addition, Palin is tough, intelligent, articulate, and good looking.

On the minus side, Palin has absolutely no experience with foreign policy or any national or international affairs. This inexperience, however, is unlikely to matter much to voters. Those so inclined will vote for McCain, without much concern for who he has selected for Vice President. Nevertheless, it is clear that someone like Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge would be much more qualified than Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. So, why was she chosen over other more qualified aspirants? The answer is the expectations game.

Political communicators know that the media treat political candidates in terms of their expectations. If a candidate is expected to perform well and does perform well, that candidate has met expectations and thereby is not particularly newsworthy. However, if a candidate is expected to perform well, but actually performs poorly (below expectations) or extremely well (above expectations), that performance becomes much more newsworthy and will garner several days of discussion in the media.

Palin is an unknown, political neophyte and thereby generates very low expectations. Bu t, she is intelligent and articulate, so she is very likely to perform very well in debates and on the campaign trail (above expectations). This is the major reason, she was chosen as McCain’s running mate.

At least that is how it is supposed to work. However, Palin is a risky choice. If she works out as the McCain campaign expects, she might bring in a few votes that McCain otherwise might not get. The risk is that because Palin is untried on a national level (She no doubt spoke to more people yesterday from Dayton, then she ever has in all of her political career), she might get nervous and make a serious blunder that could cost McCain any chance he has of winning the election. Personally, I don’t think this will happen. I think she will perform very well and will be seen as a very positive force in the McCain campaign.

Compare Palin to Biden in terms of expectations. Biden has been in politics since 1972, has chaired important Senate committees, has traveled abroad in U.S. business, and has negotiated with foreign heads of state. The expectations for his performance in the campaign are very high. If he should have even one bad day on the campaign trail, his performance will be seen in the media as below expectations. Biden will have a much more difficult task than will Sarah Palin. This too is part of the McCain strategy.

To put is all in perspective, I think Palin selection is a risky but good choice for McCain, but it is one that shows a wee bit of desperation on McCain’s part. Candidates tend to be unwilling to take many risks on the campaign trail. So, the McCain campaign, must be feeling the pressure of what they see as a losing campaign effort.

Biden: Clearly the Best Choice

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:59:57 -0700

You can criticize some of Barack Obama’s campaign strategies, but his pick for Vice President was one of the best moves he has made since he secured the nomination. First, let’s take a look at some of the top alternatives and why they were not chosen.

Tim Kain? Kain is still in his first term as Governor of Virginia. He’s young and a future Democratic-party star, but what would he add to the ticket? He has more or less the same characteristics as Obama. Had Kain been selected, it would reinforce the idea of change, but with both candidates as relative new comers, it might have signaled too much change for Americans. Primarily, Kain would add to Obama’s chief negative; his lack of national and international experience.

Evan Byah? Byah might have been a good choice, but he is not exactly Mr. Excitement, is he? Byah is a steady and moderate Democrat. He might have brought Indiana’s electoral votes to the Democrats. However, Byah lacks one important quality for the Vice Presidential campaign. He has not demonstrated an ability to serve as an attack dog. The role that traditionally goes to the vice-presidential nominee.

Somebody mentioned Texas Congressman Chet Edwards. All I can say about that is, “You’ve got to the kidding.” Obama’s campaign might have thrown out the name to play with the heads of some reporters, but in my opinion, Congressman Edwards was never a serious candidate for the VP slot.

A lot of people, including my wife, wanted Hillary Clinton, but it was never going to be. Selecting Hillary might have helped unify the party, but in my opinion, party unity is really not a major problem. Hillary’s supporters might be a bit miffed, but when they think about the issues of health care, women’s rights, maintaining reproductive choice, and civil rights (all issues for which they have been fighting for years), they could not possibly vote for McCain. Hillary was never a serious candidate for VP. She knew it and so should have everyone in the media who made it look like she was.

Biden is clearly the best choice, for several reasons. First, he fills in what is obviously Obama’s chief negative, his lack of experience. Besides being one of the longest serving Senators, Biden is a recognized expert on foreign policy. He is the sitting chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to boot is a past chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden has met and negotiated with foreign leaders. Like McCain, Biden has a personal relationship with (and recently visited) Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. The point I want to make here is the Biden has more time in the Senate than McCain and a good deal more foreign policy experience than McCain. On those grounds alone, he could not be a better choice for Obama.

Biden also brings one other asset to the Obama campaign. He has a reputation for being a tough but gentlemanly campaigner. He will be the “attack dog Obama needs, but he will do it in a way that respects his opponents. Biden and McCain are friends and have worked together in the Senate, but Biden will not hold back when it comes to pointing out the weakness of McCain’s campaign promises.

Finally, Biden is a top notch debater. He is articulate (we might even say he’s clean) knows the important issues inside and out. If you watched the Democratic primary debates, as I did, you will see that Biden stood out in all of them, despite that the media paid him little attention.

In summary, let me say one thing to the McCain camp. “Be afraid, be very afraid!”

A Christian Perspective on Evil: Rick Warren's Question

Bob Hertzog — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:27:14 -0700

I watched the forum with Rick Warren posing question to Barack Obama and John McCain. There is not time or space, in this forum, to go over the entire program, but I would like to begin a discussion of one of the questions Warren asked, each of the candidates.

Warren asked: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it.?" No political candidate could possibly answer this question other than to say “We defeat it.” However, the way this question was asked, was a perfectly designed to fit John McCain’s hard-line, social-conservative view. McCain was quick to indicate his leaning toward very aggressive tactics wherever evil is encountered.

Now, I most surely do not want to argue that we should refrain from using whatever means are necessary to protect ourselves from terrorists who would do us harm. Just to be sure I’m not misunderstood, I believe that when you are attacked, you fight back hard using whatever force is necessary. However, there is a more important question with respect to this issue. The question Warren should have asked was not do we try to defeat evil – of course we do -- but how do we defeat evil? For Christians that is the key question. Many Christian leaders have noted that violence is not the answer to the question of evil. Violence, they argue, simply creates more of the very think it seeks to destroy. Violence brings violence!

So, I would have liked to have heard Warren ask the following question of each of the candidates. “As a Christian, committed to the teaching of Jesus, what is your long-range plan for confronting and defeating evil?

Personally, I think Obama would have provided a more Christian answer to this question than would have McCain. But, who knows for sure? We did not get that question.

Fantasy Economics and Our Presidential Candidates

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:49:59 -0700

We can discuss the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can talk about health care. We can grouse about the sophomoric level of political campaigns. However, the one prime issue on which this presidential campaign will turn is the economy. Here’s a brief summary of what the two candidates are claiming as their economic plans for the country. The data I have included here comes from the August 11 issue of Time Magazine.

Senator John McCain says he will balance the budget. He plans to do this by reducing government spending. So far, the only thing he has said he will cut is little things. He wants to cut out all earmarks. McCain has said that as President he would veto any bill with earmarks included. Since the vast majority (even the most fiscally conservative) of senators and representatives use earmarks, this would set up a real battle royal between the White House and the congress. One the president probably could not win.

But, for the sake of argument let’s say President McCain did actually eliminate earmarks. That would amount to a savings of about $20 billion a year. McCain is also proposing to extend the so-called Bush tax cuts and add to them a large cut in the corporate tax rate. This alone would subtract about $300 billion from the government’s revenue. McCain would also, at least for the foreseeable future, continue spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. What this means is that there is absolutely no way McCain is going to balance the budget, with the proposals he has offered. It sounds good but it ain’t going to happen.

Senator Barack Obama, on the other hand, has no intention of balancing the budget. And he promises to raise taxes, at least on rich people but probably on all of us. He is promising a universal health-care program, and $21 billion a year on infrastructure and alternative energy. To pay for all this, Obama says he will end the Bush tax cuts for people and families making over $200, 000 yearly. He will raise the capital gains tax, which applies mostly (but not entirely) to more wealthy tax payers. In addition, Obama says he intends to close some of the corporate tax loopholes. Basically, it is an economic plan right out of Hogwarts. It just won’t work, unless Obama has been hiding a magic wand we don’t know about.

Obama recently held an economic conference with some high level economists (Paul Volker, Warren Buffet, and Robert Reich). The conclusion of the conference is that government needs to become more involved in manipulating the economy. This is probably necessary, but there is a risk. Government is seldom as efficient as the market in trying to set an economic policy. However, given the current state of affairs, government activity and a level of deficit spending will be necessary to help get us through the worst of this recession.

Clearly, neither candidate is telling us the truth. Nevertheless, because he does not promise to balance the budget (something neither candidate can or should do), Obama's economic plan seems a little more honest than the one offered by McCain.

Here's a Second Salvo in the Dirty Campaingning War.

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:35:08 -0700

Senator McCain has raised a great flap over Barack Obama canceling his visit to the military hospital in Landstuhl Germany, during Obama’s recent European trip. In a commercial the McCain campaign said that Obama cancelled the visit because he was not permitted to bring cameras and that he cancelled his visit but still found time to play basketball. The implication, of course, is that Obama cared more about his image and a little recreation than he cared about wounded troops. Both of the statements, in the commercial, are bald faced lies. Here are the facts.

Obama had no intention of taking reporters or cameras on the visit. He was going with a couple of his campaign advisors. One of the advisors was a retired army general, who advises the campaign on military affairs. The Obama campaign learned that the visit would be treated by the army as a campaign event, instead of what it was intended to be a visit from a sitting senator to wounded troops. The Obama campaign realized that if it was treated as a campaign event, he would open himself to the criticism of using wounded troops to promote his political image. He did not want that to happen.

Furthermore, Obama did not go to the gym and did not play basketball instead of going to visit the troops. In order to tell this lie, the McCain campaign took a picture of Obama shooting a basketball in a gym in Kuwait, when he visited a base there before he went to Germany and placed it in the commercial with the voice over saying he went to the gym instead of visiting the troops. The juxtaposition of the picture and the voice over left the impression that Obama was playing basketball instead of visiting the troops.

Now I realize that politics is a dirty business and lies are thrown back and forth like rice at a wedding. I suspect that the Obama campaign will soon enough get into the gutter with McCain. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the first tow salvos (see my last post) of dirty campaigning were fired by the McCain campaign. Since McCain has made a point of saying over and over that he would never challenge his opponents patriotism and that he wants to raise the level of political campaigning, I would guess that he is getting just a bit desperate.

John McCain's Foreign Policy Expertise: Plus or Minus?

Bob Hertzog — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:17:33 -0700

Poor John McCain, he has based his strongest argument for why he should be president on his supposed foreign policy expertise. But his expertise seems more and more under attack, even from some in his own party. Now, McCain’s well-known volcanic temper seems ready to erupt, because he seems unable to get Obama to agree the he was correct about some foreign policy issues. So, with respect to McCain’s foreign policy, let’s take a look at what he seemed to have correct and what he seemed to have incorrect.

McCain was clearly right about the surge and that General Petraeus was indeed the right man to put in charge. Petraeus developed a brilliant battle plan and McCain was right to back him.

McCain was dead wrong about the Iraq war in the first place. This war has been almost surely the worst foreign policy blunder of America’s entire history. It has taken the lives of 4,000 Americans and an untold number of Iraqis and caused a loss of American credibility around the world that will take years to recover, if American ever recovers its credibility at all. We attacked a small nation that was never a threat to us, was not engaged in terrorism, and had no weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, we violated every principle that American has stood upon, for over 200 years. McCain supported that and still refuses to recognize what an awful blunder it was. Obama was correct about the war from the outset.

At the time the Iraq war began, we had things pretty much under control in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was cornered and would soon have been captured and the Taliban was all but wiped out. McCain supported moving troops out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. With his foreign policy expertise, McCain supported taking troops away from fighting the war we needed to fight (in order to put bin Laden out of business) and shifting them to a war we had absolutely not business at all fighting, against a nation that did not threaten us. I would prefer a little more sophisticated foreign policy expertise.

McCain supported freedom in Iraq. So, now, the Iraqis are free and as a free nation they want us to tell them when we will leave. They are free, a sovereign nation and they have asked us to get out. McCain says we should stay indefinitely until we get ready to leave. Is that the kind of foreign policy we want our nation to have? Not for me!

McCain’s foreign policy follows what was President Bush’s idea that we don’t talk to anyone we don’t like. At least that was Bush’s policy until he sent a high-level diplomat to talk to Iran. Now McCain does not seem to know just what to do. Does he support Bush, as he has in the past, or is he going to separate himself from bush and go his own bellicose, “don’t tread on me” way.

Poor John. He seems panicked. In his agitated state he struck out at Obama with the most virulent personal attack, that I have seen in a presidential campaign for a very long time. He said that he would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war, but the Obama is willing to lose a war in order to score a political victory. McCain is a man who made a point of saying he would keep the campaign clean. He seems to be losing his cool.

McCain's Verbal Gaffes: Senior Moment or Fatigue?

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:02:40 -0700

John McCain’s campaign communicators have been complaining because they say Barack Obama is getting the lion’s share of news coverage while John McCain is getting short shrift. So, for the last few days (perhaps a little longer) there has been a debate over the imbalance in media attention. Well, McCain and his supporters have a point. A study by an organization called the “Project for Excellence in Journalism” has found that Obama was a significant or dominant factor in 83 percent of the election stories, while McCain was a dominant or significant factor in only 52 percent of stories. Right this moment, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Brian Williams are all in Europe to cover Obama’s overseas trip. That leaves McCain’s campaign coverage to second stringers and pool reporters. We can be pretty sure who will get the most air time.

There is, however, another side to this issue. Some have argued that it is McCain who is being treated best by the media. The reasoning is that every word Obama utters is scrutinized, criticized, and analyzed. Any misstatements or verbal gaffes by Obana will be immediately broadcast around the world and repeated over and over.

McCain on the other hand has made gaffe after gaffe and very little has been said about it. On Good Morning America McCain referred to the Iraq-Pakistan border. Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Twice in recent days McCain has referred to Czechoslovakia which has not existed as a nation for about 15 years. He has constantly mixed up Sunnis and Shiites and has identified Vladimir Putin as president of Germany.

Now, let me be clear about this point. Running for President of the U.S. is a grueling exercise and I don’t, even for a moment, think that McCain is uninformed or lacks knowledge about any of the issues on which he has made verbal gaffes. If McCain goes from morning to evening making speeches two or more states a day and answering dozens of questions from his listeners, which is what he is doing, there are likely to be a few verbal gaffes. But, here’s the point. If McCain’s campaign stops were to get the same coverage that Obama’s are getting, such gaffes are likely to become fodder for news stories and people may begin to see them as “senior moments.” People may ask: Is his age catching up with him? Is he past his prime? Is he slipping a bit? Age is an issue with McCain, perhaps unfairly but it is and issue.

By the way, can you imagine what would happen if Obama has made the same kind of gaffes that McCain has made over and over. What would people say? Oh his inexperience is showing through. He does not even know that Iraq and Pakistan don’t share a border. So, with his extensive media coverage, Obama has to make very sure hs says exactly what he wants to say.

So, I would suggest that McCain should be careful what he wishes for. He might get it and what he gets might ruin his campaign.

Campaign Choice: McCain or Obama, It is the Lessor of Evils?

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:52:47 -0700

*** I got back from the Grand Canyon. The grandkids had a ball, so did Bonnie and I. The view from the Skywalk was spectacular, but expensive. ***

If you are an obama supporter, you might have been disappointed – as I was – by the reversal of his stance on campaign financing. Originally, Obama made a promise that his campaign would make use of public financing. That would mean there would be some restrictions on the amount he would be permitted to spend on his campaign. However, when he saw how well his campaign was raising money he realized that his campaign would be a financially better off if he opted out of public financing along with the restrictions it brings. What Obama did was, of course, perfectly legal under our campaign finance laws. Several candidates, including President Bush in 2000 and 2004, have elected not to take public financing. Obama’s move was disappointing because he make a campaign promise then, when he thought it suited him better, made a conscious decision to break that promise.

The purpose of using public financing for a political campaign, of course, is to reduce the need for the candidates to go to large donors, lobbyists, and bundlers in order to finance their campaigns. Obama said he wanted to change the way government and politics works. Staying with public financing was one of the changes he said he intended to make. With this reversal, Obama proves he is, like every other politician, interested in getting elected over personal integrity or keeping promises made.

This leaves us with the big question: What’s an Obama supporter to do? Vote for John McCain, who has made a few flip-flops of his own since he became the Republican presumptive nominee? Vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader? Here’s my thoughts?

McCain, as I mentioned, has reversed his view on a few issues. The most prominent of these reversals is his view on the so-called Bush tax cuts. He once said that he could not vote for them “… in good conscience…” because the vast majority of the tax benefit went to the very wealthy. Now, McCain says the he thinks the tax cuts were a good idea, and they should be renewed. With that reversal, McCain proves that he, like Obama, will say and do whatever it takes to get him elected. However the real reason I could not vote for McCain is his political philosophy, which to me seems cold and sometimes mean spirited. He opposed the children’s health insurance bill, which provides health care to poor children. He opposed the G.I. Bill, in the form in which it was proposed. The bill provides education assistance for soldiers returning from the fighting in Iraq. He wants to continue George Bush’s way of selecting federal judges and he wants to continue Bush’s really bad judgment on our involvement in Iraq.

So, McCain is out, as far as I’m concerned. I have a number of disagreements with Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, but even if I agreed with them on everything, a vote for one of them – as our system is currently set up – is likely to be counter productive. They have not even a miniscule chance of getting 270 electoral-college votes. In addition, you may be aware that the few votes Nader received in the 2000 election – most of which would have otherwise gone to Gore – threw Florida to Bush and gave us eight years of the worst president this nation has ever had. If you want to go back a few years, you may recall that the votes garnered by Ross Perot – most of which would otherwise have gone to George H. W. Bush – gave the election to Bill Clinton.

It all comes down to the following thoughts:

Every candidate will say what that candidate thinks is necessary in order to get elected. Regardless of what they believe or even what they intend to do once elected, the first rule for all candidates is get elected.
There is no candidate, with whom I can agree completely on every issue. I agree with Obama on some issues and disagree with him on others. I do agree with McCain on a few issues and disagree with him of a number of others. The same can be said for Nader and Barr.
It is not possible in a nation as complex as ours, where a candidate must appeal to a couple hundred million voters, to find a candidate that will say everything one likes and nothing one dislikes.
Staying home and not voting, in my view, is a cop out. We have a patriotic duty to try to elect the best candidate, of the choices our system gives us.
We are stuck with voting for the candidate, with whom we agree most or disagree least. In some cases, we are stuck with supporting the candidate, we perceive to be the least objectionable. For me, that’s Obama.

Dirty Politics: Will This Campaign be Any Different?

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:28:09 -0700

We now have a presidential nominee for both major parties. They both say they are going to give us a different kind of political campaign. John McCain and Barack Obama have both promised to present a respectful and civil presidential campaign. Will it really happen? Is it possible that in the months leading up to November 4^th., we will see a campaign in which the candidates discuss and debate major issue and avoid the low-road politics, to which we have all grown so accustomed? I’m hopeful but I do have my doubts.

We have grown familiar with gutter politics that certain strategies even have names. To attack an opponent’s character is to Bork an opponent. To swift boat an opponent is to misrepresent or lie about a critical fact in your opponent’s biography. This campaign has added a new technique. A campaign might Reverend Wright or Reverend Hagee an opponent by creating the impression that the opponent shares a set of beliefs with someone the candidate, at some time in the past, has associated with.

Such strategies have been around ever since politics began. Plato even discusses some of them in The Republic. Now, however, the internet has turned dirty politics into an occupation. Political research agencies are paid tens of thousands of dollars to dig up or manufacture dirt on your opponent. In order for one of these tactics to work, there must be a small kernel of truth which can then be distorted and exploited.

Both parties do it, but my observation is that Republicans are better at dirty politics than Democrats. Republicans will even do it to other republicans, as John McCain learned in 2,000. As he ran for the Republican nomination against then candidate George W. Bush, an email was sent to thousands of voters in several primary states that McCain had fathered a black child (totally untrue) and that his wife was a drug addict (also untrue).

In this campaign, emails were sent that claimed that if Giuliani became president he would put a Catholic priest, who had been accused of child molestation, in his cabinet. Calls were made to Republican primary voters, disguised as a legitimate opinion poll, which mentioned John McCain favorably and reminded listeners that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and that he spent the Vietnam war in France as a missionary (true but irrelevant). Emails and bloggers have described Barack Obama as a Muslim (completely false). He has been accused of being unwilling to salute the flag and that he is really some kind of subversive.

These kinds of dirty tricks and almost never done by the candidate or the candidate’s campaign. They are usually done by what is called 527 organizations. The 527s are organizations formed to help one candidate and hurt another but are separate from the candidate’s organization so the candidate cannot be held responsible for what they do. They are the slimy, low-life, bottom-feeders of political campaigning. Politics is a rough and tumble game, and as Harry Truman famously said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” But the 527 organizations have brought politics to a level of nastiness we have not seen in the past.

If 527organizations are really beyond the control of a candidate and the candidate’s campaign, we cannot hold a candidate responsible for what they have done. However, we can, and we should, hold candidates responsible for not publicly and directly dissociating themselves from the ugly things that 527s do. In the past, few candidates have done this, but this year all three of the major presidential candidates, Clinton, McCain and Obama have made an effort to distance themselves from things some of their supporters have said and done. I think that is a good sign. Perhaps, we will get a new more civil kind of politics.

It is important to note here that the reason candidates go into the gutter with their politics is because it works. We, the voters, allow them to do it. We love to see a candidate we dislike pilloried, even when what is claimed is a fabrication or a serious stretch of the truth. We hate it when a candidate we like is attacked, even when the attack is primarily true.

If you really want to put a stop to this ugly kind political communication, there is something we can do. We can make sure that candidates we support know that our support is contingent on their willingness to run a reasonably clean campaign. If we would all do just that, we could change politics in a single season.

In Our Political Rhetoric, Does Logic Matter?

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:05:55 -0700

I wonder if it really matters to people whether or not our political leaders communicate in logically valid ways. Candidates across the political spectrum regularly present us with logically fallacious and specious arguments. We will debate the issue but seldom do we comment on the validity of the arguments. I have spent a good part of my life trying to teach university students to argue logically and to recognize specious and fallacious arguments when they occur. As I observe our political scene I wonder if my efforts were all in vain.

A few days ago, I wrote in this blog space a discussion of President Bush’s speech before the Israeli Knesset in which he committed the serious logical fallacy, that logicians call “straw man.” There were a number of comments on that blog post, but none of them discussed the President’s blatant use of logical fallacy.

A straw-man fallacy occurs when your opponent has presented an argument that is difficult to refute. In stead of trying to do so directly, you invent a related argument that your opponent did not make, attribute that argument to your opponent, then make a scathing refutation of the argument you invented.

An example of a straw-man argument occurred when Barack Obama argued that John McCain’s vote against a veteran’s benefits bill demonstrated a lack of concern for veterans. Logically, one can make an argument about the reasons McCain gave for his “no” vote, but Obama did not make that argument. Instead, he invented a reason for McCain’s vote, then made an argument against that reason.

Another example of a straw-man argument happens when McCain says that Obama’s plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq is a defeat in Iraq. It is easy to refute an plan for defeat, but a calculated withdrawal (which Obama wants) is more difficult to argue against. So McCain simply says Obama is promoting a defeat than goes on to make an argument against defeat.

Perhaps the most common logical fallacy of all is the attack on the person. Whenever it is difficult to refute an argument made by an opponent, the easiest thing to do is attack, not your opponent’s argument, but your opponent’s character or motivation. The logicians name for this very common tactic is argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man).

The most recent form of this extremely common rhetorical strategy is happening right now. Former Bush administration press secretary Scott McClellan has written a memoir of his days in the White House saying that Bush and others used propaganda to sell an unnecessary war in Iraq. Now this argument has been debated for several years, but McClellan’s accusations, as a member of President Bush’s inner circle, carries a good deal more weight.

Instead of trying to refute McClellan’s claims directly, one-by-one, administration officials have been pouring criticism on McClellan’s character, his motivation, and honesty. I have heard them say things like: “The whole book is a pack of lies,” “I don’t know what happened, but this is not the Scott we all knew,” (perhaps his body has been taken over by aliens) “He’s just trying to sell his book.” These statements about McClellan may or may not be true, but none say anything about the veracity of McClellan’s claims.

The point of this post is not to argue the merits of the issues mentioned here. Instead, my point here is to demonstrate that we often miss out on an informative discussion of the issues because we (the observers of political arguments) fail to recognize or are willing to overlook logically invalid argument from political candidates and our leaders.

My question is: Are we willing to criticize those with whom we agree when they present us with a specious argument? Or, will we accept fallacious argument from those with whom we agree, while rejecting reasonable arguments from opponents? In other words, does logic matter?