Time Poll Results - Dems

In the latest generic national presidential race poll conducted by Time magazine, Barack Obama and John Edwards are in a virtual dead-heat for second place behind Hillary Clinton. The poll excluded Gov. Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich.

I used to think that Edwards had a real shot at becoming the Democratic nominee, and these poll results would tend to support that. However, I really have questions about it now. Consider:

• Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have enough money (more than Edwards) to hang around in the race even after faring poorly in a few states' primaries
• Both of them are strong in California which recently moved its primary date forward--muting the impact of Edward's strength in Iowa

Edwards really needs Barack Obama to commit a major faux pas. If that happens, then he could capture more of Obama's supporters than Hillary could. If Clinton slips up, Edwards would still have a shot, but she is a lot less likely to commit a terminal error.

AFA Straw Poll

The American Family Association is running a National Presidential Preference Straw Poll. So far, Fred Thompson is far and away the front-runner. His vote count is more than double that of his next-closest rival's.

This is particularly interesting given the comments of Dr. James Dobson last week, where he appeared to be advocating Newt Gingrich over Sen. Thompson.

Deception -- Part 2

The Bush administration is constantly accused of "lying to the American people." It is not, however, the first administration to be accused of that. In fact, it is the fourth administration of the past seven where the accusation has really stuck. My list includes Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and now George W.

The Ford, Carter, and first Bush administrations weren't widely believed to be dishonest. Then again, none of them were reelected, either...

The reason that the political opposition frequently uses this accusation against any administration is that it is the easiest charge to make. The four main reasons why that is true are as follows:

1. If ANYONE in the administration is EVER wrong about ANYTHING; then it is easy to accuse the whole monolithic "administration" of "lying to the American people."
2. If something is secret, and thus the administration cannot comment on it, then it is easy to say that the administration is hiding something--thus "lying to the American people."
3. If the truth in a situation is subtle, and it requires real thought and reason to understand it; then it is easy to point out the superficial evidence to the contrary of the truth, and thus accuse the adminstration of "lying to the American people."
4. Finally, the piece de la resistance is this: if top officials ever engage in obfuscation, misdirection, or outright deception such as with the Valerie Plame affair or the US Attorneys' firings; then it is EASY to accuse the administration of lying to the American people.

Reason number one cannot be completely eliminated, but it can be minimized by hiring only competent and intelligent people--and avoiding predicting the future whenever possible. It requires you, as the President, to hire based upon merit rather than upon "loyalty". It also requires you to provide leadership and discipline to your management team. It also sometimes requires you to fire people that you really care about when they don't learn or accept discipline.

Reason number two just goes with the territory, and it is the natural cousin to the fact that you are privy to secret information. Just live with it. You will sometimes have to keep a stiff upper lip when being called a liar. However, it is essential that you never claim this predicament as an excuse to not defend yourself against charges when it isn't the case.

Reason number three requires faith in the voters, and it requires your administration to educate and inform the electorate. To do so, your administration much reach out rather than retrenching into an adversarial relationship with the media.

Reason number four is totally and completely under your control. In fact, it is the only thing that is easily avoided. Unfortunately, administration officials usually adopt a bunker mentality over time--feeling like they are constantly under seige. Of course, they ARE constantly under seige, but the bunker mentality is chosen...but it doesn't have to be...

The Problem with Deception

According to the Associated Press, Newt Gingrich said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should consider resigning because his credibility has been destroyed over the mishandled firing of U.S. attorneys. I agree with Mr. Gingrich.

Don't misunderstand me, I support the President's--and thus the AG's--right to do what he did. The President of the United States has the sole constitutional authority to fire US Attorneys at will. Previous Presidents have done that very same thing with impunity. President Bush can make the decision that he did, but the better way for the AG to handle the situation when asked about the firings by the press or by members of Congress is to say something close to this:

The President of the United States can hire and fire United States
Attorneys at any time for any reason as a matter of course. That is a
time-honored and precedent-honored tradition. Sometimes the firings
are for performance reasons, sometimes for personal reasons, and sometimes for
political reasons. It is not requisite for either the President or for me
to specify which category each of the fired attorneys fall into. In fact,
it would be very unfortunate for those who were fired for dissatisfaction over their performance if we did so. Therefore, since it is neither necessary nor
productive for us to expound upon each firing--we won't. In short, the
President decided--with my input--that for whatever reason it was time to make a
change in several US Attorney positions. I implemented the President's
decision.

Members of the press and of Congress have the right to inquire into this
matter, but it is way past time for members of both parties to stop trying to
make political hay out of normal actions on the part of their political
adversaries. Nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing improper, has been
done in this case. Thank you.

The above statement might appear to be a little imperial, but I would chalk it up to simply "answer(ing) a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own estimation." While I often (certainly not always, but often still) support the administration in it's positions and actions, I fear that it has already lost its moral authority and credibility in the eyes of the average American.

One of the reasons that this has happened is that instead of giving honest and plainspoken answers to queries, the administration has chosen to engage in obfusction, or in some cases, outright deception. That does not mean that the members of the administration are evil, as the DNC would have you believe. It does mean, however, that in each and every one of those situations the administration has failed to provide the leadership and example of integrity that it should have. In those instances, the administration failed to live up to its "Charge to Keep."

But, the administration's time isn't over. It isn't too late to begin leading as it should.

McCain is Desperate

Senator John McCain has decided to make the central thesis in his case for President reflect his unflagging support for the Iraq War, and to reassert that the war is essential to our security. Not only does such a move appear to be desperate, but it is linking him closely with the man that he has tried to distance himself from for 6 years.

His thinking is that the money that his campaign needs must come from former Bush financiers, so if he supports Bush on Iraq while others are dodging the issue, then Bush apologists will show their appreciation in the form of campaign contributions during the second quarter of 2007. McCain thinks that he can peel away supporters of Guiliani by showing himself to be a more legitimate hawk, and that he will be able to raise enough money to appear to be gaining momentum rather than losing it in three months.

Here is a snippet from the news article that I am referring to:

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 7, 2007;

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next
week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the
unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling
bid for the presidency.
With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop,
McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential
to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on
track after four years, aides and advisers said.
...It is a gamble at a
critical time for the former front-runner for the Republican nomination, the
political equivalent of a "double-down" in blackjack, as one person close to the
campaign put it. A candidate once seen as the almost inevitable winner, McCain
is struggling in the polls and this week placed dead last in fundraising among
the three top Republican and three top Democratic contenders.

McCain has very little support among the Christian Right of the Republican Party, and he has been in politics for way too long to make a convincing sudden about-face on a lot of issues. If I were him, this is what I would do:

1. Make a speech admitting that I made a mistake in advancing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. I would say that I wanted to decrease the influence of money in politics, but that the unintended consequence was to simply empower insiders while hurting grassroots organizations. I would then lay out a sweeping campaign finance reform plan that would right the wrongs of my previous act while preserving the "spirit and intent" of McCain-Feingold. This, more than almost anything else, is what causes Right-wing groups to hate McCain.
2. Seek speaking opportunities at conservative mega-churches, and give speeches dealing with the importance of the "family unit". My website would more prominently display my 83% rating by the Christian Coalition which represents a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003).
3. In my stump speeches, I would advocate a spending freeze, a flat tax that preserves mortgage and education deductions, and the elimination of income taxes on all income under $40,000. I would consistently use references to Ronald Reagan.

Romney Doesn't Get Taxes

You may remember that 1996 Republican candidate Steve Forbes championed the idea of a flat tax. Also, you may be aware that a major overhaul of the tax system has been languishing in Congress for half a decade or more, going absolutely nowhere despite the fact that there was a Republican House, Senate, President, and a conservative Supreme Court.

Anyway, while campaigning in Iowa, Mitt Romney said he opposes implementing a flat income tax because the concept is "unfair". He was asked about it because Rudy Giuliani indicated last week that he would consider a flat tax.

Romney seems to be unaware of the fact that 10% of $ 1,000 is $100, but 10% of $ 1,000,000 is $ 100,000. So, someone earning a million dollars would pay 1,000 times more money in taxes than someone earning $ 1,000. I don't understand where the fairness of that can be called into question.

It takes a real stretch of the human imagination to slap the label "regressive tax" on the flat tax. But, just for argument's sake, let's say that there is a real concern about the level of taxes paid by people at the lowest end of the income ladder. Then Congress could simply raise the income exemption level so that even more people who are " working poor" pay zero taxes. How can zero taxes for the poor be called unfair?

For a good overview of the Flat Tax, check out this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
(Personally, I favor Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax--read the whole article @ Wikipedia)

Dobson's Foolish Comments

Dr. James Dobson has done some commendable work in the past, and I believe that he is a well-meaning individual who is passionate about his country and principles. Having said that, he misspoke terribly recently, and left himself wide open to the accusation that he is a shill for the Newt Gingrich campaign. Consider:

1. Gingrich does a public confessional on Dobson's radio show.
2. Gingrich is trying to position himself as the only conservative option in the Republican primary so far.
3. Fred Thompson is well liked in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
4. Fred Thompson's associates begin floating his name in the media as a potential candidate.
5. Polls come out showing that Fred Thompson's potential candidacy hurts Gingrich more than other candidates.
6. Within days, Dobson calls a reporter of a secular news outlet that he hasn't talked to in years, and then makes the odd statement that he "doesn't think Thompson is a Christian".
7. Dobson also makes complimentary statements about Gingrich in the same conversation.

It would be very easy for someone to infer the following:

• Dobson is working at the behest of--and following orders from--the Gingrich campaign. Only Gingrich would have wanted someone like Dobson to immediately try to preempt Thompson's momentum.
• Dobson is willing to make personal judgements (in public) about the salvation of another human being purely for political motives. That is very alarming, and Dobson should be very careful.

What is worse, when called by another reporter about his comments, Dr. Dobson's spokesman said that Dobson was "just reading the tea leaves" of the campaign.

Instead, Dr. Dobson should have said something like this: "My interactions with Senator Thompson, and his legislative record, are insufficient to convince me that he shares my principles and convictions. Of course, it would be inappropriate for me to set myself up as the Senator's judge. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity in the future for the Senator to convince me that his values are the same as my own."

Such a statement would have sent the message that Dr. Dobson meant to send (which I disagree with strongly, by the way), but it would have avoided the political and spiritual pitfalls that he fell into.