Getting Down to Cases, Pt. 2

At last! We can now--finally--address the question of who should be the President of the US for 2013-2017. And, more importantly, who it will be.  Here, we examine the broad landscape under which the election will be held; then we will look at the key state elections which will decide the contest .

The US Economy
It has been a truism of this electoral campaign that the US economy is not what it should be, that Americans are justified in thinking that things should be better than what they are, which is a 1-2% annual GDP per capita growth, slow but steady increase in jobs, and very little inflation (apart from, sporadically, increase in certain energy products).  The Republicans use this as the premise for arguing for a change in the Presidency; the Democrats accept it as a tenet it would be impolitic to deny.

I, on the other hand, disagree with this; I would call it an axiomatic falsehood.  The fact that things may have (and I emphasize, may) been better in the past is no reason to assert that things will be/should be better in the future--it is not an entitlement that we, the richest nation in the world, should grow more than other nations.  I question even whether this would be desirable, even if it were possible; it would suggest that the rest of the world's economies would not be able to keep up, which would bode ill for us all in the long term (lack of markets, lack of political or economic stability).  I would deny that our rich are overtaxed, that small businesses are handcuffed by anything (except banks' unwillingness to lend to them), that there is too much uncertainty about tax policy.  I would accept that we have an imbalance of work, in which many are underemployed while many others are overemployed, and that in general there is not enough work needed by our public and private employers to support the domestic cash-flow demands of our families.

I am extremely skeptical of the likelihood of the program of either major party's candidate making a significant difference in the employment level of the economy, so let's not get too hung up on the (minor) differences their policies would produce in that area. Instead, let's think about the substance of their economic policies, the chances they can get them done, and what their real effects would be.

Mitt Romney's domestic policies are more like suggestions, couched as they are in ambiguities and contradictions, but they come down to reducing the tax rates for the middle class and all above, reducing corporate taxes, reducing taxes that only affect the wealthy like dividends and capital gains, and reducing deductibility limits for higher income brackets--I think. He wants a package that is revenue neutral but can't get there with the deductions that he has--it seems--put off the table. He claims to have reductions in spending, but won't specify those, either:  apparently they exclude defense, foreign aid (seemingly, and surprisingly, based on his last debate tack), and the safety net. Clearly, the cuts would have to include some of the agencies which limit the depredations of big business.  He does seem inclined to conduct some kind of big negotiation and make a big deal, which might be OK if we had some idea what it was that he would, or would not, accept in such a deal. I would guarantee that his deal would be one acceptable to Grover Norquist and the tax reduction pledge to which most of his party is bound.  Which means it's one that the Democrats of the Senate are unlikely to accept.

Barack Obama's plan is one that could achieve bipartisan support in a different political environment.  Essentially it will promise benefits for most of the country in the form of needed investments in infrastructure, and I'm sure it will be well-distributed across the districts and states of the Senators and Represenatives who will support it. He would pay for it by agreeing to progressive cuts targeted to certain areas over time (replacing the across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending, including the military, that the sequestration plan currently in law would require) and some revenue increases that would also be phased in over time.  The criticism of the package, which could prevent it even coming to a vote in the Republican House of Orange we expect to continue, will be that it does not do enough to reduce the deficit soon enough, and that it does not do anything to "fix" Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  A true fix of these programs--some kind of cuts in amount, timing, or extent of benefits, or increase in payroll taxes to pay for continuing current levels of benefit--is something that I think is beyond the capability of any likely form of Federal government in the next Congress.  Maybe it could come in the 2015-2017 one, when the danger will be closer, the President weaker, and the Congressional makeup could be changed one way or the other from what I expect to be the continuation of the current power stalemate.  In that regard, failure to give serious consideration to Obama's plan could cause the dam to break in the Democrats' direction, so I see there being a great deal of pressure on the Republican House leadership to allow the vote, and then to defeat it. I expect that the most Congress will end up passing in the next session is more stopgap spending with more improvised budget cuts.

The Rest of the World 
Back to Romney for a moment.  One clear aspect of his program is to increase exports, which sounds good and reasonable, but, in the event, might be a big failure.  The reason is that the global economy, excluding the US now, seems perched on the edge of a significant growth recession.  Europe's austerity programs are severely limiting possible growth there, while Asia's growth is slowing, as well.  Labeling China a "serial currency manipulator on Day One", as Romney has pledged to do, will do nothing real but will trigger protectionist provisions from the US (so it would be counter to his program); it would antagonize the Chinese, who are sensitive to such symbolic slights, and it certainly won't result in increased exports to China. Though Obama has not made such a point of it, he also promises increased exports (if I remember correctly, double the 2009 level by 2016); though the global economy is not likely to be better or worse if he is elected, he would do a better job maintaining friendly relations with our trade partners, of that there should be little doubt.

In terms of foreign policy and the role of commander-in-chief of the military, Obama has been successful for the most part.  He has done what the American people wanted (especially with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by ignoring the Pakistani government to attack al Qaeda), worked well with our neighbors, and achieved much.  There are some major pieces of unfinished business--clearing out Guantanamo, making progress in the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, and bringing Iran's nuclear program to some satisfactory resolution--but there is no reason to oppose him based on the results, and no reason to prefer Romney in this area.  After making various hawkish criticisms of Obama in the primary campaign, Romney (or his advisers) realized as much before the final debate, and he ended up agreeing with Obama more often than not.  In particular, Romney avoided the opportunity to put his foot in it a third time with regard to the tragic results in Benghazi on September 11--in this, he disappointed his loyal neo-con backers, who want him to poison relations with the governments emerging from the Arab Spring. I will credit Romney with eschewing such an approach and avoiding a disaster, at least on that occasion.

Government Beyond the White House
While I think that the first term of the Obama Administration deserves an overall grade somewhere in the "Very Good" range, there are big problems with all other parts of our government.  Congress, of course, is totally ineffective; its greatest problems are due to the perennial campaign and unlimited campaign spending, but the difficulty of doing anything to reduce the potency of the filibuster also rates mention. Obama's political appointees are languishing in most or all Cabinet departments, with more problems on the way as first-termers depart, unless there is an agreement with the Senate to start giving nominations prompt consideration.  The Supreme Court is a disaster area, and one can only imagine things getting worse unless Obama has a chance to nominate a replacement to one of the Far-Right Four or the unsound swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The governments in the worst shape are the state and local ones.  It is fine to suggest more devolution of power from the central government to the periphery (as long as basic rights are protected when this is done); it is a completely different matter whether these local entities have the capacity, the talent, or the monetary resources to handle additional responsibilities.  I see this as one of the key areas the next President will need to address, with something like President Nixon's (yes, his!) Revenue Sharing a likely solution.

Finally, our political environment is poisonously bad.  I'm not saying this because of the partisan battles; that is the way of our republic, and the voters should be able to judge.  The problem is the extremely high cost of bad quality in our political system, in which any damned fools with lots of money can say any sort of lie, and there is no possibility of penalizing the liars. The other problems are lack of progress in statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. or  toward eliminating or emasculating the Electoral College, and lack of any consistent approach to issues of voter registration, decennial redistricting, and access to polls.

With regard to the very last point, let me leave you with a question:  what would have happened if Hurricane Sandy had hit this weekend, not last weekend? I am not sure I can describe what the results would have been, but it is safe to say that our election would also have been a casualty of the calamity.

Election 2012: Getting Down to Cases Pt. 1

No more distractions!  The baseball playoffs kept my mind away from obsessing about the elections (the World Series, a little less), then there was the wild weekend just past and Sandy. Now, though, it is time to look at things squarely, without blinders, and tell 'em like I see 'em (before the other pundits go on record).

The House of Representatives
First, some individual races I'll be watching for clues on Election Night:
IL - 8 Tammy Duckworth (D) vs. Joe Walsh.  Technically an open seat, Congressman Walsh is shifting to a new district, a somewhat unfavorable one created by the Democratic Legislature in redistricting.  Along with Allen West (see below), he rates as one of the worst legacies of the Tea Party wave in 2010.  A win by him over Iraq wounded vet and helicopter pilot Duckworth would be disastrous, though I believe it to be unlikely. If he did win, it would be the David Duke Effect (also known as the Tom Bradley Effect), in which the vote goes far stronger to an extreme right-winger than the constituents' polled opinions would suggest.

NH - 1 Frank Guinta (R - incumbent) vs. Carol Shea-Porter.  The other New Hampshire district looks to be a pickup for the Democrats with Ann McLane Kuster; this one, a rematch from a close 2010 race, is a tougher task. A win by Shea-Porter should equate to a comfortable Obama win in New Hampshire.

FL - 18 Allen West (R- incumbent) vs. Patrick Murphy.  West is flat-out one of the worst, full of bombastic bigotry, and beating him is a big priority for the Democratic party; Murphy is young and a bit green. It's a district in the Gold Coast area, slightly favoring the Democrats, but West's incumbency, and a lot of money, even up the odds.

AZ -2 Ron Barber ( D- incumbent) vs. Martha McSally.  Barber won the seat in a special election when Gaby Giffords had to give it up; he used to work as an aide for her.  He is favored to hold it.

UT - 4 Jim Matheson (D - incumbent) vs. Mia Love.  Matheson is a moderate Democrat (not too liberal, but not a Blue Dog) trying to survive redistricting in a heavily red state.  Ms. Love is a new Republican heroine, a conservative black Mormon mayor who spoke at the convention.

It would take a sudden storm surge greater than Sandy to send  the Democrats over the top this year--every inch of gain will be hard-fought.  I predict a gain of 12-13 seats, to 205-206, short of the 25-seat gain which would be needed to return control to the Democrats.

The Senate
We begin by tabulating the seats either not up for election this year, locked up for their incumbents, or in the cases of the open seats in Texas and Hawaii, the obvious favorites, Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Mazie Hirono.  This is an exercise we did long ago, and our current version of this brings the point of departure count of seats to 42-42, leaving an incredible 16 races close enough to be worth talking about.  I will address each of the sixteen briefly, starting with the ones that have the clearest leaders and moving to the ones that are inseparably close, and give the running total:
Maine - Angus King will win the seat with about 60% of the vote.  The question is whether this moderately liberal independent can be relied upon to caucus with the Democrats.  It no longer appears that his will be the decisive vote for control of the Senate, though.  Called here a "Democratic pickup".  D, 43-42. 
Nebraska - Former Gov./Sen. Bob Kerrey has run a good, hard race against a Tea Party extremist, but it is an uphill struggle for him, or for any Democrat in this state to hold onto Ben Nelson's seat that was--just barely--counted in the Democratic column. . Republican pickup. 43-43. 
New Mexico - Congressman Martin Heinrich has opened a lead against former Republican Congresswoman  Heather Wilson, both from Albuquerque.  I saw a televised debate between them on C-Span:  Heinrich is solid on the arguments but not too impressive as a speaker, Wilson still cagey but looking a bit drawn and tired.  Heinrich has opened a lead. D, 44-43.
Pennsylvania - Incumbent Democrat Bob Casey has run a weak campaign this year, nothing like what he did six years ago in destroying Rick Santorum.  It does appear he will win, though--the Sandy Effect (see the Presidential prediction post) should not be enough to bring him down.  D, 45-43.
Florida - Incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson has been challenged, mostly by the huge spending made in the state by Republicans and PAC's, but it appears he will survive--again.  D, 46-43. 
Connecticut - The seat being vacated by Joe Lieberman, it should go Democratic, but free-wheeling Republican Linda McMahon has spent big money of her own on her candidacy as a Republican, and she has closed the gap.  Which doesn't mean she will win, though.   D, 47-43. 
Ohio - Sherrod Brown is holding on in the ultimate battleground state by a few points (like the President is doing in Ohio, as well), despite being barraged by attack ads. D, 48-43. 
Arizona - Rep. Jeff Flake is holding off Democratic nominee Richard Carmona, who has run a good race.  Flake is still a slight favorite to hold onto the seat being vacated by Jon Kyl.  D, 48-44. 
Nevada - Republican Dean Heller won the seat in a special election after it was vacated by disgraced Sen. John Ensign.  Heller now seems likely to hold off the challenge of Rep. Shelley Berkley. /D, 48-45. 
Massachusetts - I expected this to be one of the closest races, and it is certainly one that will get more than its share of attention on Election Night.  I see it as a fairly safe win for Elizabeth Warren, though, over that special election interloper, the incumbent Republican Scott Brown.   Basically, he was brought down by his association with the national party. Democratic pickup.  D, 49-45. 
Missouri - Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill should be losing this one, despite the advantages of incumbency.  Instead, her opponent is the infamous Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin, so she should pull out a 2-4 point win.  D, 50-45. 
North Dakota - This race for the seat Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad is vacating should favor the Republicans for a pickup.  Democratic nominee Heidi Heitkamp has run a good political race, tilting a bit populist and anti-liberal to some extent, while seeking plenty of national party and feminist support. North Dakota also has the most vigorous economy in the country, due to a big oil boom.  Still, got to go with the Republican Rick Berg here.  Republican pickup. D, 50-46. 
Virginia - After Massachusetts, and alongside the fate of the extremist Tea Party candidates in Missouri and Indiana, this race rates as one of the biggest stories of the night.  Two former governors battling for an open seat with big budgets, major national party involvement, and, of course, the complexity added by Virginia's being one of the most critical swing states in the Presidential election.  I give a slight edge (1-2 points) to President Obama's former national party chairman, former Gov. Tim Kaine.  D, 51-46.
Indiana - Vying for the seat held by Republican Dick Luger are the Tea Party extremist who defeated him in the Republican primary, Richard "Rape pregnancy? God planned it" Mourdock and moderate (even conservative) Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly.  Despite repeated gaffes (Mourdock insisting on speaking honestly), I think he will win, very narrowly--I don't trust the Indiana voters to do the right thing.  D, 51-47. 
Wisconsin - Democrat Tammy Baldwin has run a strong race to hold the seat of the departing Herb Kohl, but she has a competent, popular, fairly-moderate opponent in former Gov. Tommy Thompson.  After this spring's recall vote which went to Gov. Scott Walker, I don't trust the Wisconsin voters much, either.  Republican pickup.  D, 51-48. 
Finally--
Montana - Moderate (even conservative) Senator Jon Tester (the farmer with the crewcut) has run hard to save his seat; he has a typical Western Republican (think:  Goldwater-type) opponent in Rep. Denny Rehberg.  I expect this race to be too close to call all night, maybe even subject to a recount with the outcome in doubt.  At the end of the day, though, I think the Republican will win.  Republican pickup.  D, 51-49.

So, my picks are for four seats gained by the Republicans vs. two for the Democrats, a net gain of two.  I'm leaning toward the Republicans' winning the closest races, with the exception of Virginia's.  The Democrats would still hold a majority that would be somewhat safe, assuming Maine's King goes with them, even without the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President.  We will look at the race for Joe Biden's seat (and, President Obama's), in our next post.

Departures

George McGovern (died 10/21) - It was only after the frenzy of the electoral campaign and the embarrassment of his landslide defeat in 1972 that America really got to know this fine person.  In 1968, he was the guy who came from nowhere (i.e., South Dakota) to try to claim the mantle of the martyred Bobby Kennedy and acted as a spoiler for Hubert Humphrey's nomination.  In 1972, he was the symbol of opposition to Richard Nixon's Vietnam War (which had--officially--expanded into Laos and Cambodia) that the Democrats found themselves nominating, the man who selected Tom Eagleton as his running mate without proper vetting, who ended up winning one state (Massachusetts) and 17 electoral votes.

It was a time when political passions ran higher than they do now, and he was furiously, and successfully, caricatured by his political opponents.  Nixon's dirty tricks crew broke into the Democratic HQ at Watergate in June, when McGovern had almost clinched the nomination. It wasn't McGovern they were worried about; they were hoping to get some dirt in case Ted Kennedy decided to make a late run for the nomination.  It was the great irony; they needn't have bothered, and without that error the fundamental, tawdry criminality of Nixon's White House would probably never have surfaced.
McGovern did win re-election to the Senate one more time, in 1974, before being turned out in the Reagan election victory of 1980.  What we eventually learned about him is that he was no un-American radical; he was just a normal liberal who saw the problems with the Vietnam War earlier than most, and he was a  World War II hero.  He distinguished himself in his post-Senate career and came to be a respected senior statesman of his party.


Prince Norodom Sihanouk (10/15) - Speaking of the war in Southeast Asia, Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia (later King Sihanouk) was one of the most interesting players in the conflict. Though his ways were somewhat flamboyant, he worked hard to try to keep his country from being enmeshed in the conflagration chewing up his larger neighbor country, Vietnam.  He tried to maintain neutrality, but could not sufficiently maintain the integrity of his borders from infiltration by the North Vietnamese.  The Americans eventually lost respect for him and his country's territorial integrity and messed around with the country--they put in the palindromic anticommunist military man Lon Nol through a coup d'etat, and chaos ensued. 

The Khmer Rouge communist insurgency in Cambodia, which had been a minor force prior to the  coup, gained strength from the end of neutrality--and from the appearance by their side of Sihanouk himself--and eventually took power (America had lost interest by then).  What followed was one of the worst episodes in recorded history, as the Khmer Rouge rusticated the capital and massacred thousands of Cambodians. After the Khmer Rouge eventually exhausted the patience of Communist Vietnam, the Vietnamese invaded, overthrew them, and began a long occupation. 

Sihanouk went to exile once, twice.  His Second Act (or was it the third?) began in 1993 when he acted as guarantor for democratic elections and was named king in what was intended to be a constitutional monarchy.  He stayed on after the next coup by another strongman, Hun Sen, for another decade, before his health, which had been bad for decades, took a more permanent turn for the worse.  He died abroad, in Beijing. He had quite a life--dramatic, sensational, sometimes courageous--but may not be remembered particularly well by his people, whom he protected poorly from the violence of the region.

Arlen Specter (10/14) - Like Sihanouk, Specter was another cat with several lives. He was elected, repeatedly, as a moderate Republican from swing-state Pennsylvania.  In another era, he worked with the Democratic majority on many occasions..  When the Republicans controlled the White House, though, he showed different colors.  One of his most famed episodes was his hostile questioning of Anita Hill for the temerity she showed in challenging Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual harassment of her when he got the nomination for the Supreme Court.  Specter won that battle, and we all lost as a result.

Specter turned his coat inside out again in 2009, switching from the Republican side to the Democratic one, and thus giving the Democrats a short-lived filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes (they lost it when Republican Scott Brown won the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat).  He cited the intransigence of the Republicans at the time, but the real problem was that he saw the rise of the Tea Party and that he was going to be challenged, and likely defeated, for re-nomination.  As it turned out, though, the Democrats' acceptance of him was only temporary:  he was defeated for re-nomination on the Democratic side by Congressman Joe Sestak, who then narrowly lost the race for the seat to right-winger Pat Toomey. 

Specter had suffered from cancer for several years, and his health was probably a factor in his political decline in 2010. He will be remembered as a savvy politician with a mixed record, an old-fashioned Senate swing vote who showed that political leverage can come from the ability to take positions independently of the party line.

Eric Hobsbawm  (10/1) - Hobsbawm was one of the greatest historians of the modern era. His approach was a Marxist one that emphasized economic analysis and frequently focused on those who were not of the exalted elite.  His political stance made him a target for criticism, and then for the triumphalism that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union.  He defended his belief, though he didn't stand behind all the many mistakes of the Communist regimes.

Hobsbawm came to England as a refugee to the imminent World War II and made a home there.  Later in his life he became a close ally of Britain's Labour party.  I appreciated in particular his social economic history study of the Sicilian Mafia, its roots, and others of its ilk ("Primitive Rebels....") and his history of "the short 20th Century", from the beginning of World War I through the end of the Cold War, 1914-1989, "The Age of Extremes".

Alex Karras (10/10) - Karras was a Pro Bowl NFL offensive guard for the Detroit Lions who became a successful professional actor. He combined the two talents in a prominent role in George Plimpton's famed chronicle of his pretended attempt to make the Lions as a third-string quarterback, "Paper Lion". Karras was a big, strong man, but also an intelligent one, and someone who was willing to show a more gentle side on occasion.  My favorite among his acting roles was the one he performed in "Victor/Victoria", where he was a sort of foil to Julie Andrews' cross-dressing male drag singer (if you can follow that); Karras' character was a tough guy who later revealed he was gay.

In his football career, Karras was the rare offensive lineman who became a well-known face.  Partly it was due to his ability, partly to the role in "Paper Lion", but also because of his notoriety when he was suspended for a year for consorting with suspicious characters, back in the '60's when that kind of autocratic edict was possible for an NFL commissioner.

Andy Williams  (9/25) - For me, Williams was the best of an unpleasant breed, the '50's-style romantic male vocalist.  He could sing well, but what was more appealing to me, compared to someone like Sinatra, was his personality, which was humorous and self-deprecating.  I found myself surprisingly fond of his eponymous  late-'60s TV musical variety show.

After that, he had a rather dramatic episode or two, when his ex-wife, the glamorous Claudine Longet, killed her lover, the famed skier Spider Sabich, then charmed the Colorado jury into letting her off.  Williams had only a supporting role in that drama, but after that he mostly retreated from the public eye; he would appear in annual TV musical specials for Christmas for several years, and he bought a club in Branson, Missouri and used that as his base for performing thereafter.  He seemed to be genuinely popular in the phony world of show business.

Sandy's Revenge

One of Bruce Springsteen's best albums (and my personal favorite) is his second, "The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle".  The worst song on that album is the one generally known as "Sandy", officially titled "Fourth of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)".  The song is very much what Bruce's title suggests that it is, an entry in a catalog of one-night stands.  Bruce (or the character Bruce is voicing) made her on the rebound, down on the Boardwalk of A.P.,  because his waitress girlfriend broke up with him. Its lyrics are basic "Jersey Shore" banality, while the music, and especially Springsteen's singing, are sappy.

Tonight, Sandy got her revenge on Asbury Park and the whole Jersey Shore for being memorialized so dishonorably. The folks who live there, and those throughout the middle-Atlantic East Coast who have suffered from the storm, have my full sympathy,

And Bruce?  He was scheduled to perform in Rochester, NY tonight, according to a blog that tracks his every move.  The concert was cancelled, so I guess she got him back a little, too.

The superstorm called Sandy is a new type of phenomenon, one that blends the cyclonic swirl of a summer/fall hurricane with the kinetic thrust of a winter Nor'easter.  That blending of seasonal storms suggests something different in our climate, or at least in our weather.  I can only hope that this one is not a prototype for superstorms we will see more frequently in the future.

A final point:  It is time to realize that destruction of homes on the barrier islands on the East Coast is the norm, not the exception.  It is not rational to continue to offer Federal flood insurance to some of these areas. Those who had the insurance should expect it to be honored, but not continued.

"Please Proceed, Governor"

With these polite words, President Obama set the trap into which Mitt Romney stepped.  Romney made the foolish move of once again challenging Obama on The Benghazi Affair, and once again he got burned.  It's not that Obama's administration is unchallengeable on the matter, or that it is inappropriate to do so; we have already pointed out two major issues which the tragic episode brings forward, ones which Romney could have usefully debated and which might have put him in a good light, positioning him better for the final debate on foreign affairs and military policy.  Instead, he thought he caught Obama in a lie, and Obama, knowing he had the winning cards, let the hand play out.

In general, Obama did what he had to do, even if it was unpleasant:  get in Romney's face, challenge him, and show that he cared about winning.  The second debate, along with a substantial home-field advantage in the subject of the last debate, should allow him to complete his electoral victory.  It may end up being very close in the popular vote, as the current polls suggest, but Obama's edge has been restored in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Ohio, and with those, the rest of the swing states--both the ones which have tipped a little in Romney's favor (VA and FL) and those about which the uncertainty is complete (CO, NH, IA)--won't be enough for Romney, even if he were to win them all.  With regard to the popular vote, in fact, I'm kind of hoping that Romney wins it while losing the Electoral College--not that I would encourage anyone to vote for him--because that might, finally, be the result which will convince the Republicans that what happened to Al Gore in 2000 can just as easily happen to them, and then we can complete the process of converting the Presidential election to one decided by popular vote.

90 Minutes of Broadsides and B.S. Displaced by 5 Minutes of Truth
I will readily admit that it's important who "won" the debate, and who will win the election; however, with regard to the important question of the education of the electorate, I don't think the debate served us very well.  Along with the well-researched and publicized untruths, there were plenty of half-truths, and, most importantly, unspoken truths.  This is because of the simple fact that there are certain honest responses to the questions that both Obama and Romney would not dare speak.  I, on the other hand, who am not running for anything, can fill in these gaps. 

So, here are the questions asked of the candidates (I may have missed one), and the truthful answers that just couldn't be uttered.

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

Alas, Jeremy, there are no guarantees in the Western world. For the next 15 years there is going to be a consistent oversupply of labor, even for graduates. I hope your graduate degree includes some useful, marketable skills, or that you can borrow money to start a business or buy a franchise.  Otherwise, I would reassure your parents that politically-motivated tax reforms will likely make it possible to  increase the degree of deductibility of the support they will be giving you.

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

Gas is only one commodity of energy; its price is partly driven by global demand, partly by decisions by monopoly capital which keep it high, and the government cooperates by taxing it heavily. The US and state governments can not give up the revenue, and can do little about the rest of it.  What the Energy Department can do is help to make sure that real costs of energy in general--all sources, and including the externalities like pollution--do not get so high as to strangle the health of the economy.

QUESTION: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you're elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue.

Concerning the -- these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the -- oh, what's that other credit? I forgot.

OBAMA: You're doing great.

QUESTION: Oh, I remember.

The education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class?

First, it's Congress that decides the tax rates, not the President.  Second, tax reform is not going to make a significant difference in the taxes the middle class pay:  it is electoral suicide to propose eliminating the deductions you mention, so nobody is going to do that.  The question is basically about which rich people will pay more or less, but I'd put my money on more of them paying less, because they can afford the tax accountants and attorneys.

QUESTION: In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

The biggest thing that we could do would be to help working mothers reduce the career interruptions often driven by motherhood by requiring "job-killing" things like providing infant care and transportation assistance, which we won't be doing anytime soon. Or we could increase tax assistance for working mothers; with the current deficits that is a non-starter.  Obama did what he could, legislatively, on Day 1 of his Presidency; Romney doesn't really support mothers working; it's a concept which is inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

QUESTION: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.

I assume you're saying you're not as optimistic as you were in 2008, not 2012.  I have no idea why you would've been optimistic in 2008, but if you were, you were due to be disappointed.  As for the cost of living, it hasn't gone up.  I did what I could, but let me ask you:  where was your vote in 2010?  That's what really limited my first-term effectiveness.

QUESTION: Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?

Self-deportation seems to be working very well with the Obama administration:  due to the weak economy and oversupply of labor, net flow has moved into the outbound direction. The problem has been receding of its own accord. 

There is always an election coming up, so there is almost never a good time for comprehensive immigration reform--it certainly wasn't in 2009, when we were bleeding jobs.  I can certainly understand why it didn't happen then.  If there ever comes a time when the oversupply of labor ends, there will be plenty of support for it--until then, it's just a question of which legal rights we will allow them to have.

QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

You expect me to believe that you were sitting around talking about Libya?  Didn't any of you cosmopolitan-minded geniuses know the embassy is in Tripoli and it was the consulate in Benghazi that was attacked?

Sorry for the sarcasm.  Two points:  1) Our embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic missions are considered fair game for the terrorist movement, which is always looking for soft targets to hit. 2) Our diplomatic missions in that part of the world are basically part and parcel of the military counter-terrorism mission and they all need more security; our enemy spotted a weakness at the consulate and took advantage.  It happens, in a war.

All the embassies and consulates in the region are clamoring for more security, all the time.  It's the only safe stance to take.  You want to pay for it all?

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

Prayer, mostly.  What, you mean it's not working? How about that Fast and Furious assault weapons export program?  Did I mention that it has been practiced by administrations of both parties?

QUESTION: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?

The only jobs over which my government would have much direct influence are the government jobs, which aren't going anywhere. But, do you want to increase or decrease those? 

As for the rest, facilitating trade--which is the best way to support private job growth here--means accepting the risk that jobs will move.  Job protectionism ends up protecting fewer jobs. It's just a question of getting the balance right.

QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?

Actually, I think their responses to this one--that Romney is a bad person who has no social conscience, and that Obama is a Marxist--were pretty accurate.

The good news is that we're almost so close to the election that it won't make sense to ask us for any more money. 

Don't Let's Panic

I can't decide who's more stupid:  the political elite and media who've overreacted to the first debate, or the "low information voters" who changed their minds based upon it.

The fact of the matter is that Obama didn't say anything particularly wrong or bad--nothing like what Mitt Romney has done several times in the campaign--he just didn't seem particularly into the event, or very interested in responding vigorously to Romney's (deceitful, flip-flopping) arguments that he debuted that night.

I can't believe the media is putting such a spotlight on tomorrow's Vice-Presidential debate.  Re-reading that sentence, I guess I do believe it, but I can't credit it very much.  I want to know who is going to change their vote because Paul Ryan made better points in a televised debate than Joe Biden (or vice versa, for that matter). It will be interesting to see what tack the two will take, though; will the Republicans try to continue with the faux moderate stance Romney adopted in the debate (can Ryan do that?)  Will Biden have all restraints removed and go into total attack mode? Then, I guess, tactically, both Presidential candidates can reconsider and reset their tactics for the next debate. (The last one will be on foreign policy, which will be the most important but probably anticlimactic.)

The worst overreaction came from Andrew Sullivan in The Daily Beast, who was positively freaking out about the Pew poll the other day that had Romney ahead by four points nationally.  Does he understand the meaning of the word "outlier"?

I don't want to call this "facts", because it's just an opinion based on data, but I would say that Obama is still an overwhelming favorite to win the election.  I think Obama should be able to learn from his errors in presentation evidenced the other day; what he needs to do in particular is demonstrate the passion for winning the election that we believe we deserve.  Why we think that, I don't know; based on what I've seen last week, we deserve the total black-hole tunnel of risk that electing Romney would represent.

OK, I guess we were a bit disappointed by his performance.  I would like to quote my blog post on the eve of the 2008 election, "We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain."  Give him a break--we all have a bad day!

The Debate Tomorrow

I will not be able to view tomorrow's Presidential debate--prior, overriding engagement; however, the event does deserve comment and a decent preview.

The first debate is Mitt Romney's last, best chance to turn around the momentum, which, since the conventions, has been spectacularly bad for him.  He was even presented with a significant September Surprise opportunity, in the form of a fairly significant foreign affairs setback (see my post on "The Benghazi Affair"), and he botched it.

Still, debating is suggested to be Romney's strong suit, and it is not particularly President Obama's.  Romney has had a great deal more time to prepare--Obama's daily work as President is only somewhat relevant to the task of standing before cameras and improvising brilliant statesmanship.

Not that something like that is really required of Obama.  A sufficient formula will be the usual unruffled, matter-of-fact, logical exposition that he produces in most public contexts (apart from his specialty, the political pep rally). The main thing is not to let Romney get to him; I would not be surprised to see Mitt do something like what he did with Rick Perry--crowd his space, put his hand on him, something like that, or the verbal equivalent of it.  Obama must not let his distaste for Romney show as anger--something more like incredulity at Romney's awkwardness would be appropriate.

As for issues, I'm sure there will be the duel of competing tax reform/entitlement reform packages.  There will be more similarity than difference in the plans, but the differences will be emphasized.  Neither is likely to be able to get his plan through Congress.  As for jobs, there will be competing claims through their respective plans of investment/infrastructure (Obama) and tax rate cuts/laissez faire (Romney); also neither likely to get approved, or to make a significant difference in the employment picture if it were.

I am curious as to whether two issues will come up:  gun violence (the debate will be in Denver, and the massacre at the cinema in nearby Aurora might suggest a question on the topic) and the obscene level of campaign spending--both by the campaigns and by their officially non-affiliated PAC's.

As for the race, the Electoral College tally is moving slowly but definitely toward Obama.  Michigan and Pennsylvania seem definitively in Obama's column, Nevada and New Hampshire are beyond the margin of error for him, and--most important of all--Ohio is close to or at that point. Romney's position in North Carolina has held--even, or with a small lead---so, if we put that state down for Romney, he projects to 206 electoral votes.  With NV, NH, and OH,  Obama reaches  265, with the following states still not assigned:
Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and Florida (29).  Florida remains a definite toss-up; the others are all polling in Obama's favor, but by such small margins that they could reverse.  Winning all five is definitely likely, which would (once again) get him to 332 EV.  The over-under is in the 315-320 range, but with a wide margin of error due to the uncertain nature of Florida's votes, in particular.

Obama would only need one of the five:  if they were 50-50 and the results were independent, he would have a 31-in-32 chance of winning.  Neither of those statements are true, though; his chances are better than 50-50, but they are not at all independent of one another.  So we're back where we started, with Romney needing a breakthrough in the first debate to reverse the momentum.

Senate Race Shift

The odds on intrade.com and 538.com* shifted dramatically in the last half of September to the level (80% chance of Democrats' holding control; technically, the intrade odds are lower, but they should include the 20% for "neither" having control, because they exclude the independents--Bernie Sanders, and the likely new Maine Senator Angus King--from the calculation) that I had suggested in late August. 

I had responded specifically to the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" blunder which shifted the Missouri race against the Republicans, but also generally to trends favorable to the Democrats in several races.  This has continued, or accelerated, with the races in Nevada and Indiana both looking to be great possibilities for Democratic pick-ups, but the most dramatic move has been in Wisconsin--a state I didn't even mention in late August--in which Tammy Duckworth has moved right by former Gov. Tommy Thompson into a substantial polling lead.  Massachusetts and Virginia remain high-profile, impossible-to-call races, but it is now quite likely that control of the Senate may not depend on those two outcomes.

*I highly recommend taking a look at 538.com's Senate forecast map, which is a lot more interesting--great variety of colors, full of variation--than the Presidential map!

Sports Report

Last weekend cleared up most, but not all, of the uncertainty about the remaining baseball post-season qualifiers.  Detroit should clinch its division tonight, or soon enough, and Oakland and St.Louis are in position to lock up their playoff spots in each league.  The identity of the 10 teams making it into the post-season would then be finalized.

The past few days have been very hard on my preseason picks, with the Brewers, Phillies, and D'backs all eliminated over the weekend and the Rays and Angels set up to be eliminated.  These were all worthy teams in terms of talent that came on strong (especially Tampa Bay), but too late.  That will leave me with only five correct postseason teams out of the ten:  the Yanks, Reds, Braves, Tigers, and Rangers.

One  battle with the outcome not yet indicated is for the AL East division chmpion, vs. the other AL wild card, between Baltimore and New York. This is clearly an important outcome--the winner of what is generally considered the best division in baseball must be considered a top contender for the pennant, while the loser of the contest will have an uphill struggle to make it to the championship series.

Or so it has been designed, anyway:  One big piece of the plan was that the play-in game between the two wild cards, which will deplete the winning team of its best starter (one would expect each team should be able to schedule it so its ace goes in the single game, unless the race for the slot goes down to the final days) ; then, the survivor gets the team with the best record, which will have a day of rest and home-field advantage.

The problem is that the battle for the last spots is intense, and the survivor will be a hot, if tired, opponent for the team with the best record.  That is why I'm half-hoping that the Reds end up with the second-best record, instead of first.  I think I would rather they face the Giants (with home-field advantage) than the survivor of the Braves-Cards (or Braves-Dodgers, if somehow LA makes it).  That goes against the intended wisdom; we shall see in the next couple of years how it plays out, but recent history advises to be wary of the wild cards.

The seedings in the AL are not at all finalized--besides NY-Baltimore, Texas and Oakland are playing a series which could cause them to flip positions, as well.  The one team in the AL postseason which knows its spot--Detroit, as the #3 seeded division winner--would be my pick for the league championship (they were my preseason pick for the world championship), I like their combination of starters, hiters, and bullpen.

In the NL, I have to pick the Reds for personal reasons, and I think they have as good a shot as any.  If the Braves win their one-game matchup, though, they would be the team I would fear most.  I have to think that the Nationals, like the Orioles in the AL, are likely to underperform in the postseason due to their relative youth and lack of postseason experience.  The Giants and the Cards both have recent World Championships, but I feel that they used up their supply of good luck in those victories.   So, I'll go with Reds-Tigers in the World Series; we'll reassess in a couple of weeks  if that doesn't happen and predict the winner if it does.

Ryder Cup Epic Fail
Yielding to my proven ineptness, I gave up golf a few years ago, but I have had enough experience with the game to have some sense of the mind-numbing, tremor-inducing pressure the Ryder Cup players experienced on Sunday.  So, I won't criticize the American team's play or its tactics; I will point out that actually Europe has a greater population to draw upon than the US (though maybe less golf-playing men), because I can't think of any other excuses.

I will say that, while golf is normally the second most boring sport ever shown on TV (just ahead of bowling, and poker is not a sport), this was compelling TV viewing.  The number of different close matches being played simultaneously was unique, from my limited golf-watching experience, and there was a lot at stake (in golf terms). And what a beautiful course, and a beautiful day for it!

The Scabs Were not the Refs
The fourth weekend of NFL play held an escalating tide of missed calls and erroneous rule interpretations, all dutifully revealed by the TV networks' in-house rule geeks.  This was capped by a howler on Monday night, when the two refs ruled differently on a game-ending Hail Mary pass that was either a win-clinching interception by the Packer defensive back or a winning touchdown catch by the Seattle wide receiver.  The referee whose ruling prevailed had the worst angle and got it wrong (somehow, this scoring play was not reviewable); the Packers left the field rather than allowing the point after to be played.

That fiasco sent the owners into a hurried re-think; rather than gaining mastery over the complex NFL rules, the new referees were becoming a story with major negatives for the league (to be fair, the broadcasters did not shy from criticism).  So, within 48 hours, there were concessions that couldn't be made in the previous 48 days, and the referees' union was offered a satisfactory contract for its employees.  The replacement referees were put back on the street, or refereeing high school games, or whatever.

I think this lockout of the regular referees was clearly a bad tactic by the NFL; the complexity of the rules to be enforced has increased dramatically, driven by intention to protect the quarterbacks and receivers, bearers of the exciting game that attracts viewership, and to facilitate instant replay (adds a few commercial breaks to each telecast).  It's challenging enough to expect full-time professionals to understand all the subtleties, and too much for short-timers to pick up.

Speaking of scab owners, the NHL seems not to have learned from its previous near-death experience and has once again locked out its players.

The Elections, Contributions, and Me

One story that upset me deeply--I saw it on TV, but couldn't tell you where anymore--was an interview with a woman who runs a food bank, a nonprofit that provides free food to the poorest of Americans. She complained that every four years, contributions to her organization drop sharply, and that this year was the worst yet, to the point where she was in danger of having to cease operations.

She attributed it to the problem that her contributors' limited discretionary dollars were being sucked into the gaping maw of this year's election campaigns  (my wording), and I have no doubt that she is right.  This overload of campaign spending is a development that is bad for all--even Mitt Romney would say that private contributions to charity are a public benefit and need to continue. As for me, I know that her point applies to me--my contributions to private charities have dropped off sharply, that being partly a function of my deficient cash flow, but also that I am channeling my benevolent impulses in these months into (probably fruitless) campaign contributions.

I sometimes see articles by Democratic-leaning individuals patting themselves and their chosen party on the back for the party's platform stance and the inclination of many of its candidates to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling, and then drawing distinctions with the Republicans who are fueling their campaigns with well-hidden, big-money Super PAC donors.  I don't like those articles, whether true or not:  This is not a partisan issue.  Even a moment's consideration would reveal that a constitutional amendment in the US can not be passed on a partisan basis--it needs two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures (or a constitutionl convention, if you want to get technical).  There is no way that the Democrats, or Democrats plus Independents plus minor-party backers, are ever going to get close to that kind of dominance nationally--if they did,  there would be such a power monopoly that they wouldn't even need to spend on campaigns.  This is not a talking point to try to get more Democrats elected; it is critical to the future of our democracy that we change this system, and that it begin immediately after this election ends.  Unfortunately, it can't really begin any sooner.

It is absolutely essential that Republicans, too, see the futility of continuing to have campaigns funded in this excessive, wasteful, regressive fashion.  One way they could see it, I will admit, would be if the Republicans put their faith in huge TV spending and it fails, and they figure out that there has to be a better, more effective way.  Another, better, way is if the winning Republican candidates realize that what they just went through was something that a) they never want to do again; and b) they don't want their opponents or successors to go through, either.

It's false that no one benefits from the current system, though.  A few groups that probably gain:  the TV channel owners, ad agencies willing to produce sleazy campaign ads, the telemarketing companies that can put people on the phones dialing for dollars.  Maybe some others:  there have been some interesting articles to the effect that Sheldon Adelson's expected value for his $100 million or so contributions would be positive if his candidate has better than 20-1 odds of winning the election (he did, but now I'm not so sure).

The rest of us, though, are losers, and I'm particularly thinking of the small-time contributors, like me, who are conned into giving because of some media-report deadline, or scare tactics about a poll that shows their candidate about to lose, or about a poll that shows that their underdog candidate has a chance, after all, or even the one-in-a-Lotto chance that if I give money I'll get chosen to have dinner with the President and the First Lady.   Or the equivalent for the Nominated Suit and his Trophy Babymaker. I'm pretty sick of all of it, and I imagine my counterpart on the other side is, too.

Spending My Hard Earned Contribution Buck Wisely...
That would be a change, as I realize looking at my "act blue" contribution history.  Mostly I have given to false-hopers and easy winners.  Can I change my ways?

My record-keeping is pretty bad; I can see some contributions, but not what prompted them.  It suggests to me that my pattern is the equivalent of impulse-buying, and probably the results are no better.

I have given two or three times to the President's campaign  ("ofay",  I call "Obama for America";  I wonder if his team has absorbed the irony of that monicker); again, I can't really tell you what moved me to respond in those cases out of the hundreds of appeals I have received.  One was for a bumper sticker that said  "Obama!" (with an upside-down exclamation point before it--I have no idea how to produce that character on this keyboard) ; I don't think any of them saved the world, or any lives, or even his campaign.

Here are a few more I've been able to dig up:
 - One contribution to the national Democratic party; I was moved to do it by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's name-drop of Gabby Gifford (the former Arizona Congresswoman nearly assassinated by Jared Loughner).  Debbie actually has the right to drop Giffords' name, and I knew that:  she just had better not overuse the privilege.
- The contribution I made to Claire McCaskill's campaign for re-election as Missouri Senator, the day after Todd Akin got the nomination.  I still feel pretty good about that one.
- $25 for Emily's List; I can't remember why anymore.  I'm not crazy about E.L., as they only provide support to (pro-choice) women, but I could do worse, I guess.
- $5 to Ilya Sheyman, Congressional candidate around here.  Loser.
- $10 for the Gov. Walker recall campaign.  Loser.
- $25 for Ann McLane Kuster, Congressional candidate in New Hampshire.  We'll see;  I think she's favored to win now, but hopefully not so easily that my contribution was meaningless.  I believe one of my fairly-distant relatives (father's cousin) is one of her key political backers.
 - $50 to the DSCC.  That was last year, probably a reasonable move in that I knew there would be tough sledding for the Democrats to keep control of the Senate, but WAY TOO EARLY--what was I thinking?
- $20 to the DCCC (Congressional Campaign Committee).  This is a good idea, if you trust them to make good strategic decisions about which campaigns to support.  I would argue that it's much too complicated to try and assess all the Congressional races and which deserve a contribution, so picking one's spots wisely would mean just contributing to races that have a particular personal interest.  Sort of like the difference between buying an Exchange-traded fund and a specific stock.
 - My Act Blue records also reveal the following, most of which I have no memory of whatsoever:

• Eric Griego (New Mexico congressional primary candidate).  Loser.  It's really bad strategy to give to primary candidates, I've decided, unless it's to prevent the Devil himself from getting a nomination.
• Colleen Hanabusa (Hawaii Congresswoman).  She should win easily--bad investment.
• Martin Heinrich (New Mexico Senate candidate).  He's pulling away from his opponent--not such a great one.
• $20 to Joe Donnelly (Indiana Senate candidate)--Donnelly has been sending out emails lately pointing out that Nate Silver (of 538.com) has said that a contribution to Donnelly has eight times better chance of affecting the future control of the Senate than one to Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts Senate candidate)--this, although both are in extremely tight races.  It must have to do with the amount of money being spent in the two races, not the price per vote bought, or the amount of Senate votes each would get if elected (=1).  It's pretty snarky of Donnelly, but I'll grant that he's measurably better than his opponent (an extremist Tea-bagger, Richard Mourdock) and in a close race that he can win.

So far, Elizabeth Warren has gotten nothing from me.  I admit some conflict in my thinkings/feelings about this one.  Scott Brown isn't great, but there are far worse.  Both have sworn off PAC money, and held to the promise--I think he deserves some credit for that.  Then, of course, there's the huge money involved, on both sides:  giving just encourages them, right?  Also, I think that Warren has opened some daylight from her opponent recently, as a result of some of the more outrageous Romney gaffes, like the "47%" one that Brown disowned, but from which he can't fully hide--not in Massachusetts.

Unless things change dramatically, I'm not giving any more to the President's campaign.  I have changed my mind a bit about it, in a positive way--they are promising to use the money to build grassroots support and turnout, instead of throwing it down the TV hole, and I do believe them, but that is one campaign that will have enough support (even if outspent) to win.  That strategy also means that I should not give money to Tim Kaine in Virginia (even though he's in a close race), Sherrod Brown in Ohio (though he's one of the best out there, and in a competitive race), or Bill Nelson in Florida:  Let's just assume that Obama's campaign is going to be spending like crazy in those three states for turnout, and that these Democratic Senate candidates' boats will be fully floated by it.

The one specific race I'm thinking I may blow a few bucks yet is the Congressional challenger for Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin (name to be added later--I heard him speak once, and I thought he was pretty good, a viable opponent in a swing district).   I declared Ryan my enemy a year ago when he targeted people my age to lose their Medicare benefits (though there was some ambiguity about exactly which birthdate and younger would get the raw end of the deal); although I am a year older now, and his proposal still promises full benefits to people "55 and over" (so I would, hypothetically, be safe), I am not ready to forgive and forget.

CPS vs. CTU

As a relative newcomer to the Chicago area, I've been reluctant to wade into the minefield of local politics, which are intensely complex and more than a little vicious.  Not to mention corruption, which is the norm here--not to mention it, just accept that it exists.  Things are very deep here--how deep, I don't know, because they are unfathomable.

That being said, I have to weigh in a little on the teachers' strike, because it is threatening to become an issue on the national stage and because it is so close.  Not as close as it could be, as there is no direct personal stake for me or my family members, but it is close in the sense of being not far away, close enough I can almost hear the noise.

The background story is fairly easy to describe quickly.  New Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a longer school day one of his promises when inaugurated, something very popular with most observers.  As for those most closely involved, the teachers could hardly object:  the school days were unusually short, the need of the students for more and better education blatantly obvious; I doubt the opinions of the students themselves were considered.  Anyhow, this major change in the terms of employment was absorbed fairly readily:  the Chicago Public Schools' authorities were willing to pay more, the teachers willing to work more.

After that adjustment, things should have gone smoothly.  The initial reason for the strike had to do mostly with job security, initially in the form of resistance to a change in the terms under which teachers and schools would be evaluated.  Essentially, the extremely low odds of a Chicago Public Schools teacher ever being dismissed due to ineffectiveness had to change, and evaluations based on the students' performance on standardized tests were going to be the vector of change.

Now, I have heard the objections from those who back the teachers in this dispute.  Most of them center around the fact that the teachers have many factors which are beyond their control, and to make their jobs depend on overcoming those difficulties would be unfair.  This is tough, but the facts are that students must be educated better, and there needs to be an objective standard of measurement of that progress.  It is entirely appropriate to take into account the starting point for students each year, and to make targets realistic based on those circumstances, but it will not do to say that there are no expectations.  

Somehow, there was something like a tentative agreement on the subject by the end of last week between the negotiators for the school system and the Chicago Teachers Union.  There was hope that school would start back on Monday.  But no--the Union insisted that they have time to consider the proposed deal and said they would vote on Tuesday (Monday being Rosh Hashanah).  Not too auspicious, but not a disaster.

It is at this point that Mayor Emanuel seemed to lose his bearings, seeking an injunction from the courts against the strike which would force the teachers back to work.  The argument was that state law specifically prohibits the CTU from striking on non-economic issues, and teachers' pay was not the issue. 

I don't want to argue the merits of the suit; the city has a point, but it appears the real issue is one that is at least partly economic:  a hidden agenda to close some of the schools--either the poorer-performing ones or ones that are under-attended.  Teachers would lose jobs, and then the question of the evaluations of the laid-off teachers would come into play as to whether they would ever be rehired. The CPS denies there is such an agenda, but it hardly seems improbable, and the CTU is reluctant to agree to go back to work and then get the shiv in the back.

My point is that Emanuel's move, and its timing, will undoubtedly antagonize the union, and I would be surprised if they vote to accept the agreement in the newly re-charged atmosphere.  The question now is whether the union had negotiated in good faith, and whether the city had done so.

The broader issues are whether public unions like the teachers' are something states and municipalities should tolerate--do they provide value to education or harm it, and is it appropriate to limit the right of these employees to organize?  This is an issue that is coming up time and again--recently, in Wisconsin, in Ohio, and elsewhere.  The Democrats have fairly consistently backed the right of public employees to organize, and the Republicans have looked to limit that right.  In Chicago, the pragmatic Emanuel is breaking with that stereotype, taking on the teachers; he doesn't challenge their right to organize, but is challenging the scope of what they can effectively bargain about with their employers.

There is another angle that affects the national election:  Emanuel is one of President Obama's key people, his former Chief of Staff, and a very public backer and fundraiser (up until the strike), and this is Obama's city.  It's not just that Obama is answerable for the settlement of the strike; it's that it seems that in the public eye he's responsible for everything that happens in the country (in fact, in the world, as last week's strife in the Middle East showed), in particular for that involving his people, his party, his city. 

If the strike drags on, it has the potential of upsetting the positive momentum he and the Democrats have been enjoying since the conventions.  So, I expect some discreet calls to Emanuel to cool it and settle it.  Emanuel will have to swallow the bile he apparently felt when union agreement to the settlement was not assured, and he will either drop his suit in a show of goodwill, or, if his suit should succeed Wednesday, be magnanimous in victory and offer the same terms in victory that his people negotiated last week in the bargaining stage.  If he should lose the suit, though, there will be enormous pressure on him to concede something to the CTU to get them back to the table, and then back to work.

Fall 2012 Movie Preview

I've been seeing this storyline from critics, over and over, of how TV has displaced the movies as the top dog in our visual kennel.  Generally, I don't buy it--there is more crap than ever on TV, and a higher percentage of it, too, though I will admit that there are more interesting dramatic series than previously (but less good situation comedy, variety, or live performance).  And don't even get me started about "reality" TV or the surfeit of forensic crime shows!

 I see this fall as being an extremely exciting season for film, as the good stuff comes out.   We start with a couple of supergroup-type productions with superb stories to tell.

Five Films I'm Eager to See

1)  Lincoln, (release date 11/9)- Steven Spielberg directing Daniel Day-Lewis, in the story of America's greatest President, screenplay by Doris Kearns Goodwin.  Over-under on the Academy Awards is seven. Not just that, though:  Something like this has the potential to do more than just entertain us for a couple of hours (the most one could've hoped from last year's Best Picture, The Artist).  The last days of President Lincoln is a story for the ages (ours included), one that few, if any,  have dared to dramatize.

Gala looking at the Mediterranean Sea which at a distance of 20 meters is transformed into the portrait of Abraham Lincoln (Homage to Rothko) by Salvador Dali (in the Dali Museum, St. Petersburg, Fla.) courtesy of a money bomb email from Alan Grayson.

Step back from your screen a few meters and try it.

2) Cloud Atlas - (10/26) - based on one of my absolute favorite novels of the last 20 years (and one of the pillars of this blog) by David Mitchell, starring Tom Hanks (in about six roles), Halle Berry, directed by Tom Twyker (of Run Lola Run fame) .  Produced by the Wachowskis (of Matrix fame).

To be honest, this is one that might be done better as a miniseries on TV (six-part); the stories span  hundreds of years of history, something resembling the present, and the near and distant future.  It could be a big mess, confusing even to those who already know the stories.  At least the Wachowskis won't skimp on the budget.

On the other hand, this movie may animate something along the lines of the novel's aspiration--nothing less than a change in human nature and in the way the world operates, bringing understanding to the causes, the nature, and the ultimately self-destructive result of the exploitation of others. 

3) Argo - (10/12) - A story so outrageous, it couldn't be invented, but it's one I'd never heard until word of this movie started getting out.  Six US staff and family members escaped the Iranian Embassy that day in 1979 when the militants "took America hostage".  The six were sheltered by the Canadian mission in Tehran  (note:  recently closed) ; this is the story, directed and starring Ben Affleck, of their rescue.  Lots of amazing late-'70's hair.

4)  Anna Karenina - (11/16) - OK, I saw a terrible review of it (from the previews being given for many of these movies in the Toronto Film Festival) , but I don't care--I like the idea of a remake, done as a stage treatment for film, with Keira Knightley and Jude Law.  Like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I'm drawn to it even if I'm not thinking I will like it, and it will be a much more efficient use of my time to watch it then reading it could ever be. 

5) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - (12/14)  - Some returning favorites from Lord of the Rings, like Ian McKellern as Gandalf and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Peter Jackson driving the bus, and the return of the spectacular New Zealand fantasy landscapes.  What I don't like much is that Jackson is going to take three movies to tell the story (with some incidents from other Tolkien work thrown in somehow). 

....And Ten More That I'm at Least Curious About

Hyde Park on the Hudson - (10/7) - Bill Murray dares to take on the role of FDR, with the return of the stuttering English king from The King's Speech.  Might not be great, but I want to see it; I saw the preview, and Murray's FDR-like appearance is startlingly good.

Life of Pi - (11/21) - Ang Lee dares to take on the best-selling story of a young man, a boat, and a Bengal tiger.

Django Unchained - (12/25) -  I'm not as enchanted with everything Quentin Tarantino does as some are, but Jamie Foxx in a genre-busting Western does appeal--in theory.

The Master (12/21) - There is a lot of buzz about this one; someone in Hollywood (Paul Thomas Anderson, no less) dares to bring forth a story of a Scientology-like mind-controller (someone like L.Ron Hubbard, played by the incomparable Philip Seymour Hoffman) in the post-WWII milieu in which Hubbard first made his mark.

On the Road (12/21) -  The Jack Kerouac novel, beatniks in the US in the '50's.  You can't tell me that this has never been covered before!

This Must Be the Place (11/2) - A major Sean Penn dramatic role, a retired Irish rocker coming to America on a voyage of discovery.  It's been too long since we've seen Sean challenged by a role (Milk, I'd say).

Lay the Favorite (12/7) - this is one that could be great or awful.  It's about sports betting--an excellent subject for drama--and apparently from the point of view of some women (Catherine Zeta-Jones being one, Rebecca Hall another) who meet up with a team of obsessed gamblers (Bruce Willis being one of them).  I may wait and look for more buzz before deciding to invest in a cinema ticket (as opposed to waiting and seeing it for free, which I will definitely want to do at some point, no matter how bad it may be).

West of Memphis (12/25) - I am a little reluctant to wade into this documentary, sponsored by Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame), which analyzes a notorious case of apparent injustice in a murder trial of three individuals in Arkansas.  The case is controversial, also the movie, which has a backstory of some feuding with another series of documentaries on the subject called Paradise Lost, and I don't want to go there, but I do want to understand the case and have it presented in an interesting way--which is what I hear of this film.

Looper (9/28) -  I think the premise is ridiculous (time traveler who must go in the future to kill his future self):  theoretically impossible (to go into the future and come back), and why would you do it (kill your future self)?  But (from the preview I saw), it seems to introduce a rather profound theme:  what our older self would advise our younger self, if only we could. 

Silver Linings Playbook (11/21) - An offbeat comedy by David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees, the underrated Three Kings) and starring Jennifer Lawrence.  I will give it a try, no matter what others may say.

The Benghazi Affair

The news of the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by armed militants, which destroyed the building and killed the US ambassador and three others, hit close to home for me.  I was fairly close to joining the Foreign Service at one point, and my thoughts were along the lines of "There but for the grace..."

The militants exploited the opportunity of protests by Islamists against the Internet release of a trailer for a low-budget film called "The Innocence of Muslims" by an anti-Muslim (apparently an Egyptian Coptic Christian--the Coptics have had recent strife with Islamists there).  It appears to be a thoroughly disgusting film, for which the actors have reported that all the dialogue they had filmed had been dubbed out and replaced with inflammatory language added by the filmmaker.  Apparently the film suggests the prophet Muhammad was a homosexual, a child molester, some other stuff--thoroughly scurrilous.

The first protests had been in Cairo, Egypt, with the ones in Benghazi soon afterward (since then, there was another dangerous protest in Yemen, and other protests elsewhere).  The besieged embassy in Cairo released a statement aimed at calming the riotous crowd apologizing for any offense and disassociating the US from the film.

Mitt Romney wasted no time at all in politicizing the affair, releasing a statement in the middle of the night in response to the Cairo release, to the effect that the Obama Administration was appeasing Islamic radicals. Romney's clumsy attack missed the mark and violated rules of responsibile US Presidential politics, which require serious candidates to avoid bringing active national security issues into political debate.  He has been heavily criticized by a variety of folks, including most of the press and even some Republicans.  Some have said this was a tipping point for his candidacy, which is slipping rapidly away from any status as a credible challenge to Obama.

I would disagree in a couple of regards.  First, his clumsiness, ignorance, and inadequacy to deal with delicate diplomatic issues is already well established, so this is nothing new.  I am not one who supports suppression of all partisan political discussion of foreign affairs, especially for Presidential candidates, though Romney's take on the incident was deficient. His challenge is slipping, but it's not because of this: I don't think most Americans will even take note of this brouhaha. 

The Real Issues
Putting the campaign considerations on the side, I think there are two legitimate topics for discussion raised by these incidents. 

The first is the status of those countries in the Middle East which have had their governments disrupted or overthrown by the Arab Spring.  The fact that the worst incidents occurred in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, all countries whose leadership has been forced out by upheavals in the past two years, is no coincidence at all.  The militants' attack on Benghazi was coordinated and heavily armed; it shows every sign of being conducted by al-Qaeda, or some similar extremist group.  The weakness of the central governments and the tenuous state of security in these countries has provided an opening for extremists to operate. 

We can (and do) demand better security for our embassies from the host countries, but really it falls to us to provide adequate security--which clearly was not present in Benghazi.  Al-Qaeda wouldn't try something like this in Baghdad:  We have enough troops stationed at our embassy to counterattack and destroy the attackers, while the instigators in Benghazi apparently ceased their assault when US reinforcements showed up and blended back into the (chaotic) scenery. 

There is also legitimate ground to debate, or criticize, the US role in the overthrow of the Egyptian and Libyan governments; to argue against the result, though, is implicitly to prefer the previous rule of the tyrants Mubarak and Qadhafi--something that few would suggest. Still, one could argue that, having contributed to the current instability, we should be doing more to prevent the infiltration into these countries of armed extremists.  Libya, in particular, remains overly well-armed in the aftermath of a civil war, and its fragile (but generally friendly) government needs our support.

The second point for discussion is whether the US really wants to provide safe haven for blasphemers, something we have clearly done in this case.  This guy who made the film would never dare do it in Egypt; he's taking advantage of our safety and the uncensored media here to produce inflammatory, foul filth.  OK, we have plenty of obscenity produced legally here all the time, and that's a different question, but we must consider whether we want to be the source of more stuff like this.

The answer, I think, is that we do have to say (after Voltaire) to our citizens who would do this sort of thing--"We  disapprove this 'art', but we will defend to the death your right to produce it."  If the producer of this particular piece of garbage is here on some sort of visa, though, he should be deported back to Egypt, where he will receive his due.  If our laws don't provide for any distinction between citizens' free expression and that of those whose visits we are tolerating, then they should. (There is clearly a difference between this thing and the work of, say, Salman Rushdie, who was also condemned as a blasphemer in some parts, and whom we have also hosted some of the time.  We need to find a way to make the distinction, as it pertains to cultural refugees.) And, we should recognize there will be more "blasphemy" coming out of our fertile culture, and we should expect and plan for more strong reactions.  With increased, armed American military defending our embassies and consulates in vulnerable locations.

Conventions in the Rear-View Mirror

To put it briefly, the Democratic and Republican conventions were not a game-changer in the Presidential race.  President Obama had favorable momentum going into them, and should have it coming out of them.  His narrow popular vote edge in national polls (among likely voters) conceals a more substantial lead in electoral votes.

Is There a Story Here?
The news value of the national conventions has dropped in recent electoral cycles:  There are few surprises, the messages are managed.  Not even much new information, really.  I saw three storylines which dominated much of the discussion during the conventions themselves:
1) Paul Ryan as serial liar?  His speech's effect was severely undercut by several factually-challenged statements.  Ryan's job as VP candidate for the challengers will be as attack dog; he will have to be more selective, though, in the charges he accepts into his speeches.  More generally, Ryan's status as a leading light in John Boehner's House of Orange was not something the Republicans cared to celebrate.
2) the Democrats' second thoughts on their platform:  The original draft had two "mistakes"--removal of the Deist reference to American workers' "God-given potential" and to Jerusalem as the real capital of Israel.  These were errors of political formulaic expression, not of policy:  the international community has not recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, because it is the subject of (theoretically) ongoing negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Palestinians, and neither has the U.S. government--through both Republican and Democratic administrations.  As for where our "potential" comes from, the delegates (and Obama behind them) decided to offend the atheists instead of failing to nod to the believers--a traditional stance, and not very controversial.  The tempest in the teapot was that some delegates booed the amendments' adoption by voice vote; the platform is a very moderate, inoffensive document and these changes--hypocritical though they may be--fit right in.
3) The Battle of the Spouses' Speeches:  The argument was over who was better, but I think that was misplaced:  They aren't running against each other, and both came across very well. Ann Romney had a more difficult task, to humanize her husband, but expectations were lower for her.  Michelle Obama is a practiced, skilled speaker with a fairly simple theme--he's still the same guy as ever.  And, of course, she nailed it.

Who Zoomed Who More?
Like the phony debate over the better spouse speech, there was much phony discussion about who among the Democrats gave the best of the many good speeches:  John Kerry zinged the Republicans' follies, Michelle provided warm and fuzzy feelings, Joe Biden gave an effective pitch.  Most observers gave the edge, though,  to former President Bill Clinton, who provided an extensive, point-by-point argument (not a "brief", by any means) for a second term.  Speaking from the perspective of one who has been there, and using language which spoke directly to voters, neither over their heads nor insulting their intelligence, Clinton went deep, long and convincingly for the man who defeated his wife in the bitter 2008 nomination campaign.  Clinton deserves all the credit he has gotten for his statesmanlike performance; perhaps not all the (bipartisan!) adulation and nostalgically enhanced memory of his administration.

Personally, I always find Clinton too long-winded, and this speech was no exception.  I thought Biden deserved better treatment, and I preferred Elizabeth Warren's combative warmup for Clinton (though programmatically a little out of synch with his centrist policy preferences).   Anyway, those who opt for one performance or another are missing the point:  the convention's main speeches were set up to provide a complete experience, filling in all the background and major details for the finale.

The Tilt of Our Returning Champion Jouster
Which brings us to President Obama's speech.  Reactions have generally tended to two extremes:  either totally unimpressed with the lack of soaring rhetoric, inspiration, or even specific policies, or on the other extreme, a terrific speech worthy of his best performances.  My own opinion is mixed:  He did what he needed to do, what he and his campaign wanted him to do, but I wanted more.  It takes a bit longer to explain my dissatisfactions than my satisfactions with the speech.
Dislikes:
1) His Specifics Limited Him:  I can understand the reasons why Obama should not make great promises at this time, but some of the promises he did make concern me. Obama is well aware of the debt limit and budget negotiations coming up just after his election, but his speech's promises box him into a difficult negotiation strategy.  He promised on the one hand to cut deficits by $4 trillion dollars, but on the other hand he put the mortgage deduction, entitlement benefits, and the middle-class tax break all off limits.  As both he and Clinton said about the Paul Ryan budget, "the arithmetic" doesn't add up for his approach--reducing tax breaks for the wealthy, plus non-entitlement discretionary spending cuts won't get there.  The deal he will have to make, assuming his re-election:  prolong the tax cuts--rich and poor--for just another year or two, substitute targeted defense cuts for the across-the-board ones, and phase in additional payroll taxes to support Medicare/Medicaid in 2-3 years (when, hopefully, the recovery will be stronger).
2) He did not appeal to disaffected Republican moderates:  I guess that was supposed to be Clinton's task, but, just as the Republicans made overt appeal to disappointed Democrats, there are millions of moderate--or even moderately conservative--Republicans who are disenchanted with the extreme tack taken by the national Republican party.  While I buy the argument--one that you rarely hear, but most political operatives would admit--that there are few likely voters who do not have at least some leaning already to one side or the other of our intensely divided politics, Obama's policies and political stance is truly moderate enough that he can make a bid for those who have not drunk the Tea Party Kool-Aid, with its denial of science, false conservative intrusion into our privacy, and voodoo economics. He did not really do so; neither did any other Democratic speaker, with the exception of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
3)He made no appeal for the need to win back Congress: I believe strongly that Obama has a small but stable lead that he will most likely retain, but it will avail Obama little in his second term if he lacks control of both houses of Congress.  He says it's not all about him, he may be feeling outspent, and surely those down the ticket will benefit from turnout in support of his re-election, and finally he is likely to support the Congressional candidates more once he's sure he's going to be re-elected, but he needs to get out in front of that objective more:  his message must be, "If you support me, you need also to go out and vote for, work for, and financially support the Senate and House candidates running where you live.  Otherwise, what change can we accomplish together?"

Likes:
1) He showed humility: I was a little worried when he stated, early on, "Things are different. I am the President." (and you're not!) But he built the key theme of his speech about how he needs us--"You give me hope"--and he quoted the greatest of all Americans, Lincoln, in citing his many failings and his need to pray for help. He admitted his shortcomings without showing weakness.
2) He touted his foreign/military policy successes: Not just that--and his administration has a great deal to brag about--he got in a couple of well-aimed digs at the weaknesses of Romney-Ryan in that area.  The Democrats have gained the appearance of the party of responsible governance, the steady hand guiding the ship of state; in large measure they have the Bushites and the Tea Party to thank for that, but also they are starting to build a history of better guidance of state affairs and, for that matter, better performance in the stock markets and in job growth (something Clinton hit upon most effectively).
3) He drew upon his community organizer and religious revival experience:  Obama's campaign leadership is staking their hopes for the endgame not on buying votes with saturation levels of TV ads in the key markets of the swing states, but on a furious get-out-the-vote campaign. The whole tone of his speech aimed at this strategy.

And Coming Up Fast into Our Windshield...
One thing I'm fairly happy about is that the electoral campaign seems to be going by quickly, without a lot of movement.  The margins--and I am relying here primarily upon 538.com for the detailed analysis of the state-by-state probabilities--are holding, or slightly increasing.  Right now, in Nate's analysis (which looks at current polling margins, historical tendencies in the state, and the likelihood based on electoral history of a margin of the current size being erased), there is exactly one state (North Carolina) in which the probability of one candidate (or the other) winning is less than 60%--and that is now quoted at 58.4% (for Romney).  Between 60-70%, there is one state (Florida, at 65.5% for Obama).  There are four states between 70-80%:  Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio (!), all with the odds in Obama's favor; and there are several states between 80-90% probability:  Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, and Montana in Romney's favor, and New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Nevada in Obama's favor.  All the rest are at 90% or more in one candidate's favor, and thus should be considered near to sure things. The electoral vote with these most likely results would be 332-206 Obama, the same as in my post on the subject two months ago. 

Still, the debates could turn the momentum, and I would say that Gov. Romney, who is a strong debater, is likely to "win" one or more of those debates; however, based on what I have seen, Obama seems likely to take advantage of Romney any time the discussion strays from Romney's organizational acumen or a President's alleged capability to manage the economy.  There is little else that could turn things from the rather solidified bases of support--and I discount the likelihood that a Vice-Presidential debate could do it.  Some sort of terrible gaffe by Obama that reveals that he really doesn't care about the middle-class, white people, brown people, or women, maybe.

And now the Democrats' Turn....

The convention will be full of piety to Democratic party values, with some interesting speakers.  You can see the list here; the schedule will eventually be posted there.  I have seen high touting of the merits of the keynote speaker, Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, about whom I know very little.  Congressman John Lewis is one of the most emotionally compelling speakers, in the manner of Rev. Martin Luther King, so feel yourself fortunate if you happen to catch his.

It will be interesting to see if Joe Biden puts his foot in it--I doubt he will stray from his script, but there is always an element of risk when Biden speaks. Biden has a bit of an edge in the sense that the other two people I would consider to be early major candidates for 2016, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are not on the list of announced speakers, so he should do his best to look future-Presidential.  It's not that Madame Secretary's too busy, as far as I know, or that Cabinet secretaries are not allowed: Interior Secretary Salazar and HHS Secretary Sebelius are on the list.  I do expect to see HRC on the dais when her husband wraps up his speech (and I hope he can keep it to the scheduled length).

There is really only one important speech in the week, though, President Obama's.  He is truly a great speaker, and I expect his rhetorical gifts to be fully present in a speech that he will largely compose.  I do have some advice for him (and here I echo the wise suggestions of Donna Brazile and Matthew Dowd--yes, that Matthew Dowd, Republican political adviser, whom I saw agreeing--amazingly--on George Stephanopoulos this week):  Do not dwell on the past failures of the Bushites; you can mention, but do not spend much time, on the shortcomings of this House or Congress more generally, the insanity of the national Republicans, or the Tea Party movement, and how they have hindered the public policy of the last two years (others will do plenty of that).  Instead, do spend a large percentage of the time recounting the successes of the first administration,* then move to the programs left to do, the future, and what you will do.  Obama must give people a handful of good reasons, ones that people will understand, for them to vote to give him another term.

I think Obama and his people know this, and I expect he will do no less.



*Apart from the Affordable Care Act, taking out Osama and a number of other nasty folks, ending "don't ask, don't tell", implementing key provisions of the Dream Act through Executive order, rebuilding America's standing in the world, exiting the Iraq War and setting the plans to exit the one in Afghanistan, he should not be afraid to say that the worst was avoided in our exit from the Great Crater, and that jobs have been added for some 30 months in a row.  That last one will give way to a good transition to what must still be done.