Friday, October 31, 2008

Goolsby's House lounge; Obama campaign plane

The Nightly Build...

Goolsby: "I'm up to my ass in a damn campaign."

The AP reports that the Texas House is splurging on renovations to its members lounge, including $30,000 worth of antique wood furnishings, in a time when Gov. Rick Perry is ordering state agencies to cut the budgets. Who is responsible for this wasteful use of taxpayer dollars? Well, let's ask the people in charge. House Speaker Tom Craddick said he's not responsible. He throws Dallas representative Tony Goolsby under the bus, saying it's the chairman of the House Administration committee who is responsible for the expenditures. What does Tony Goolsby say?

"Goolsby said he hadn't kept up with [the project] because he's been too focused on his own political survival in a district where supporters of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama -- and presumably his opponent Carol Kent -- are highly energized. 'I'm up to my ass in a damn campaign,' Goolsby said. 'This is the only job I've got and I'm trying to save it. Obama's got people coming from the rafters.'"
LOL. Burnt Orange Report thought so much of Goolsby's quote that they led with it and repeated it twice more in their short coverage of the AP story.

If this is the only job Goolsby's got, you'd think he'd be doing a better job at it than splurging on redecorating in the face of an economic recession the likes of which our country hasn't seen in a long time. Maybe it's time to give the job to Carol Kent. She'll do a better job of protecting taxpayer money and ensuring it's spent on projects that benefit taxpayers instead of 19-year House incumbents.


No Plane Ride for DMN

The Drudge Report today reported that the Obama campaign plane is getting crowded and three newspapers are getting the boot in the last two days before the election. One of the newspapers is The Dallas Morning News. One thing all three have in common: they all endorsed John McCain.

Rabid wingnuts were quick to let their opinion be known in the comment thread of DMN Trailblazers blog item explaining the background to the Drudge news.

"Karen" says, "Obama and his gestapo has made it clear that critics will be punished." And then she gets mean. "El Bueno" says, "You've been Brown Shirted. ... OBEY!" "tracey" says, "get ready AMERICA.....you get what you deserve if you vote in OBAMA...he will take away your hard earned money, right to free speech and guns just to start with. ... What is wrong with you people?????????????"

The truth is more prosaic. Demand for seats on the campaign plane goes up in the last days of a campaign. DMN is a regional newspaper not in a swing state. DMN has had the same trouble with the McCain campaign. Business is business. And winning an election is big business.

But there are two sidelines to this story that deserve more attention. First, the news was broken by the Drudge Report, not DMN. Why is that? Every newspaper in the country is in financial trouble. Most, including DMN, are retreating to a defensive position of focusing on local news. What's more local than what's happening to DMN reporters? How can they let Drudge scoop them? Another instance of this were the layoffs at DMN last week. What's more local than what's happening in DMN's own newsroom. Yet, hardly a word was said in the newspaper or in the paper's own blogs.

Second, in downplaying news of being booted from the Obama plane, DMN says it's had the same trouble with the McCain campaign. That's not an exoneration; that's an indictment. That indicates that DMN doesn't have the size and stature that it imagines it has. That downward spiral is only likely to continue as cutbacks in the newsroom leads to skimpier news coverage which leads to ever declining readership and revenues which leads to even more cutbacks. Will DMN even be around to request a seat on the Obama 2012 re-election campaign plane?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Crime and race; D and Observer

The Nightly Build...

What's Race Got To Do With It?

If there's a shooting, count on Trey Garrison to show up. After all, he used to work for Dallas Blog, where he covered the crime beat, telling us when every inmate on death row was scheduled to die. Today on his blog, it's a column by James Ragland of The Dallas Morning News that catches his eye. Ragland points out that a homeowner who confronted a burglar and ended up shot and stabbed, failed to provide a detailed description of the assailant. This sends Garrison off on a tangent, complaining that newspapers often don't report a suspect's race when they report crime stories. WTF? Can you say non sequitur? What's race got to do with Ragland's story?

But now that Garrison brings it up, I do seem to remember that in all those Dallas Blog stories about impending executions, Garrison never missed an opportunity to highlight the condemned man's race, at least when he was African-American. Hmmm... But that's just how I remember it. I could be wrong. I usually don't pay too much attention to race.


Cat Fight in Dallas Media

Tim Rogers has a column in this month's D Magazine titled "Why the Observer Stinks." Yawn. If you want to goose sales, create a controversy. If you want to draw attention to yourself, call someone else names. It's worked since the schoolyard, I'm sure it'll work today in Dallas media.

But if you don't want to look like a total idiot about it, pick a subject to complain about other than the Observer's coverage of the Trinity River Corridor project, which has been first-rate. Jim Schutze was a model of what good investigative reporters do. Sam Merten's work at Dallas Blog was in the same vein. (See, I can say something nice about Dallas Blog.) The highest value of a free press lies in its role as watchdog for the public interest, something that The Dallas Morning News and D Magazine show no interest in filling.

In today's Unfair Park, Sam Merten fires back at Rogers. Rogers definitely comes out the worse for the exchange. Idiot.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Divided government

The Nightly Build...

Other Options for Nobama Voters

Trey Garrison is a conservative Republican who is embarrassed to admit same, a political species that is not all that rare this election. But he spends little time on self analysis and practically ignores John McCain altogether, training all his criticism on Barack Obama. So, what's a Nobama like Garrison to do, when you want to see Obama fail but don't want to be seen supporting McCain? You can call for divided government in an attempt to make your anti-Obama vote sound principled and not just negative. Or you can mention the Libertarian candidate, always a safe choice because he has no chance of winning. Finally, there's the option of not voting at all. Garrison covers all three in his blog posts today.

Garrison approvingly links to an essay titled, "You Choose, You Lose: What happens when the two evils are pretty much equal?" No need to read further. If you guess that an essay that starts by presuming Democrats and Republicans are both "evil" probably has an author with an axe to grind, you'd be right. Author Jacob Sullum is at least aboveboard, coming right out and telling us he intends to vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Neither Sullum nor Garrison defend Barr as much as condemn McCain and Obama. That leads Garrison to his ultimate protest, taking his ball and going home and not voting at all. Garrison nods approvingly at Brian Doherty, the author of another essay that suggests that "the whole game of majority-rule ... is inherently illegitimate."

Sometimes I think Garrison is putting us on, writing self satire. In this case, the giveaway might be the oxymoronic name of the online magazine Garrison links to: Reason.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

PUMA

The Nightly Build...

PUMAs Not Extinct

Karen Brooks, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, relates the reaction to her story about the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement. PUMA was started by Hillary Clinton supporters as backlash against calls for party unity following Barack Obama's securing the Democratic nomination for President. The gist of Brooks' story is:

"If the polls and the media are any indication, the once-ferocious roar of the PUMAs is sounding more like the quiet, harmless purr of a kitten."
Predictably, that triggered a rash of reader responses saying it's not so, that millions of PUMAs are out there, that they are just as unreconciled, just as determined as ever to oppose Barack Obama and tip the election to John McCain. They even have an explanation why their numbers appear to be so small -- they are lying to pollsters, telling them they plan to vote for Obama. They predict one of the biggest upsets in presidential election history.

That theory is far-fetched, but the depth of the disaffection of the PUMAs is real, even if their numbers are dwindling. These are voters who started out supporting Hillary Clinton, but no longer follow her lead as Clinton endorses Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. These are voters who supported Clinton's positions on health care, women's rights, the economy, foreign policy, the environment, etc., but now claim to support John McCain, whose own positions on those issues are opposed to hers. Sarah Palin's positions are, if anything, even more opposed to Clinton's than McCain's are. A Clinton candidacy that a year ago was so positive and forward looking has dissolved, leaving only the PUMAs who draw their strength from negative feelings about the past.

Ironically, the McCain campaign is now an alliance of people who hated Hillary and people who loved Hillary. I wonder what they find to talk about at the McCain rallies. Probably how much they both hate Barack Obama. Strong motivation in an election campaign, certainly, but not much of a platform for governing once they win the election. Thankfully, there's not much chance they'll be required to do any governing after the election results are known.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Divided government; Goolsby's environmental record

The Nightly Build...

McCain Implies Congress Is Lost

In recent ads and campaign speeches, John McCain implies Congress is lost and Congress implies the White House is lost. Republicans are beginning to use their coming electoral losses as arguments against each other. Implicit in both these arguments is that divided government is good for America.

Michael Landauer takes up the perceived wisdom in a blog post on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog. He quotes from the The Dallas Morning News' own endorsement of John McCain:

"In better times, America could afford to consider entrusting the White House to an appealing newcomer like Mr. Obama and giving control of the presidency and Congress to the same party."

This makes no sense. If America is facing crises (and we are, two wars and the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression), why would we want ineffective government, bogged down by inter-party bickering and politics? When decision-making needs to be swift and firm, divided government is a recipe for failure. The News' argument actually makes sense only in reverse. In good times, America can afford divided government. In a crisis, voters should choose wisely and empower the winner to defeat the threats facing our country.

I can't find the text of the 2004 endorsement by The Dallas Morning News editorial board, but I know they endorsed George Bush, so they didn't worry then about Republicans having control of both Congress and the White House for another four years. This year, The Dallas Morning News endorsed John McCain for President, John Cornyn for Senator, and Sam Johnson, Pete Sessions, Joe Barton and other Republicans for Congress. The News has no concerns at all about recommending pretty much straight-ticket Republican voting and using any and all arguments to win votes, including fear of straight-ticket voting and the possibility that Democrats might end up winning too many races.


Tony Goolsby Blows Smoke At Voters

KERA radio aired an interview with Texas District 102 Rep. Tony Goolsby today in which Goolsby claims that he's always supported clean air and environmental issues. In a fact check, Burnt Orange Report details thirteen votes on environmental issues last legislative session. In ten votes, Goolsby voted against clean air and clean energy. (Two votes were consensus measures that passed unanimously.) BOR identifies Carol Kent as the "real clean air candidate" for District 102.

It's becoming a trait in this election for Republicans to run ads that present them as 180 degree opposites of what they've stood for in the past (and probably what they'll stand for again if voters are foolish enough to re-elect them). Tony Goolsby is just the latest of these extreme-makeover Republicans.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Morning News layoffs; Straight-ticket voting

The Nightly Build...

Read All About It... Or Not

Rob Wilonsky, on Unfair Park blog, links to a blog post by Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News about layoffs taking place at the News today. Dreher calls it "Black Friday" and talks about the miserable situation for the newspaper industry in general, not just the News. At the end, Dreher asks readers to click on his link to the new Dallasnews.com Opinion site, which Dreher edits, to help keep at least him among the employed.

What jumps out at me about this sad story? First, I hear the news not from The Dallas Morning News, but from Unfair Park. Second, the News' own employee, Rod Dreher, tells us what's going on, not on the News' own Web site, but from his sideline blog at Beliefnet. Third, when you go to the New's Opinion site, which Dreher plugs, you don't see any opinion about the layoffs. In fact, you find links to other Web sites like Unfair Park and The Observer, where, more and more it looks like you find the real news.

I'm not saying I know how to save the newspaper business. But I do know that The Dallas Morning News acting like it still has a monopoly on news in Dallas, controlling what's news and what isn't, isn't helping itself. Who better to write about what's happening in the local newsroom than the News' employees themselves, eyewitnesses to events? When the News is the last place to cover the news, you know a little why this newspaper, at least, doesn't stand a chance in the new economy.


Vote Straight-Party And Irritate the News

The Dallas Morning News published its second editorial trying to scare voters away from voting a straight-ticket. Given that Dallas County voters tended to vote Democratic in 2006, the implication is clear. The Dallas Morning News is trying to save a few Republican seats this year.

The logic used is intellectually dishonest. The editorial says that instead of voting for a party, look for recommendations from "groups that represent your interests," like "Texas Right to Life" and the "Texas State Rifle Association" and the "Texas Heritage Alliance." They include a token liberal group, but by excluding political parties, The Dallas Morning News implies that the Texas Democratic Party isn't a "group that represents your interest." Or the Texas Republican Party, for that matter, but in that case, maybe the News is implicitly conceding that the GOP doesn't represent voters' interest.

The Dallas Morning News doesn't list one of the most valuable sources of information on the candidates. That's the information produced each year by the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan political organization dedicated to citizen education and advocacy. Support your local league. Learn about the candidates. Then, don't be afraid of voting a straight-party ticket. Many informed voters do just that.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Polling place electioneering

The Nightly Build...

Free Speech or Illegal Electioneering?

Did you ever wonder why, when you go to the polls on election day, that a forest of campaign signs has sprung up overnight, but not in the voting booth itself, not in the polling room, not in the hallway outside the polling room, not at the door to the building housing the polls, and not on the walk leading up to the door? You may also be met in the parking lot by a volunteer passing out campaign literature, but not at the doorway or inside the polling place. This is not an accident. It's not a courtesy by the politicians running for office. It's because of laws prohibiting people from "distributing," "circulating," "posting," or "exhibiting" campaign materials within a certain distance of polling places. In Texas, the ban includes buttons, t-shirts, hats and not just standalone signs. Ironic, isn't it, that the one place you can escape the incessant electioneering that marks American politics is the voting booth itself? Ironic and welcome.

Not to Trey Garrison. In a rant on his own blog, he lays into laws that keep electioneering a respectful distance from the polling booths. He says he's wracked his brains and can't come up with any reasons why we might want to prohibit polling place electioneering. He insists that polling place electioneering is "one of our most sacred rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments." He says "The Powers That Be" need help remembering they're there to serve us. And this voter, for one, appreciates their efforts to ensure that I can vote in peace, in the one place in America where the politicians can't go, the polling place itself.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Palin's wardrobe; Baptists and the Pill; Email urban legends

The Nightly Build...

Palin Spends 4X a Plumber's Income for Clothes

Todd Gillman, on The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, cites a story today about Sarah Palin going on a shopping spree to Saks and Neimans, spending $150,000 of campaign money since September on clothes. The McCain campaign says it all OK because she plans to donate the clothes to charity after she's done wearing them. OK. Gillman says this doesn't pass the smell test. All I have to say is...

"I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and bright!
And I pity
Any girl who isn't me tonight."

"Fundamentalism Run Amok"

The sh*t hit the fan at Soutwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, when Thomas White, vice president for student services, told his students that use of birth control pills is murder. Bruce Tomaso passes on the story from WFAA, which sought comment from Dwight McKissic, former trustee at Southwestern.

"This is fundamentalism run amok, and I'm concerned that once was the world's largest theological seminary is degenerating into a Baptist fundamentalist indoctrination camp."
Why do churches act like we're still in the Middle Ages? If they are going to fall victim to arrested development, why 1300, and not, say, 33 AD, or, my favorite, 1962? Churches are like DisneyWorld, where they arbitrarily froze Tomorrowland at 1955's vision of the future.

Why Do Only Republicans Fall For Email Smears?

Steve Blow, in The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, relates yet another political urban legend that circulates forever by email. Is it the "Obama is a secret Muslim" slur? Is it the "Obama refuses to salute the flag" slander? It could be any of a hundred smears Obama has been victim to this election. This time, in Steve Blow's email inbox is the "Obama isn't a US citizen" allegation. Blow quickly dismisses the unfounded charge, then asks some thought-provoking questions: "Where are the emails with kooky allegations against John McCain?" "Don't Democrats like urban legends, too?"

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Income diversity; World for Obama

The Nightly Build...

Republican Thinks Diversity is Good... In Income

Trey Garrison, on his own blog, finds disturbing a study by the Institute of Urban Policy Research at UT-Dallas that takes as a premise that it's a good thing for a city to have similarity of economic opportunity, self-sufficiency and involvement in civic life across the city.

I am not surprised if Garrison argues that diversity in culture, religion, entertainment, politics, etc., is not of interest. After all, he's boasted before of his joy in living in his Plano neighborhood where everyone goes to Home Depot on Saturday mornings, just like him. There are plenty of people like him for whom "diversity" is a dirty word.

What surprises me (but, in hindsight, I realize it shouldn't have) is that Garrison does value diversity in at least one respect. He values diversity in income. He is all in favor of the kind of diversity that ensures we always have poor people (as long the poor people are restricted to their own neighborhoods, not his).

Jesus famously said, "For you always have the poor with you." Garrison's corollary is: "There is always going to be [an income] gap, and that gap widens even if everyone makes exactly the same percentage gain in income." The problem with Garrison's corollary is that everyone isn't making exactly the same percentage gain in income. The rich are making bigger percentage gains. In fact, the middle class isn't gaining at all. Their incomes are stagnant or even shrinking while the incomes of the rich continue to rack up bigger and bigger gains (even in percentage terms). The gap is getting wider.

For a generation after FDR's New Deal, the income gap shrank. It corresponded to the rise of the middle class in the United States. Education, home ownership, cars, televisions and vacations to the beach or mountains became affordable for the first time to the middle class, not just the rich. Many Americans look on the period as a golden age in American history.

But for the last generation, the income gap has been widening again. Today, in the America of George W. Bush, income distribution is again statistically closer to the Great Gatsby levels of inequality of the 1920s. Maybe Garrison looks back fondly on that era. Maybe he's willfully ignorant of the contrast between the luxury and poverty that defined the era. That era ended badly with a stock market crash and a great depression. The Institute of Urban Policy Research's "Dallas Wholeness Index" can help tell us whether our own era is at risk of recreating those long-ago mistakes.


World Opinion Favors Obama For President

Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, cites a new Gallup poll of world opinion that supposedly shows the globe favoring Obama over McCain by a margin of 4-to-1. Landauer considers the poll to be of little importance. He says, "He's not running for president of the world. Besides, the world is stupid. The world favors soccer to football. I mean, c'mon."

But if the poll is going to matter, Landauer thinks having world opinion on your side might be a distinct advantage in case of a world crisis. I think it's dangerous to American national security that Republicans consider the world having a favorable opinion of you is a negative. It's like they now want their candidates to go out of their way to insult the rest of the world, adversaries and allies alike. How did a major political party go so far astray from America's strategic interest?

Monday, October 20, 2008

Newspaper endorsements

The Nightly Build...

"Cognitive Dissonance and Willful Ignorance"

This weekend, The Dallas Morning News endorsed John McCain for President. No surprise here. The reasons given were, at best, stretching the truth, putting lipstick on a pig to coin an expression. Burnt Orange Report describes such endorsements as "less like a 'voice for the community' and much more like a 'voice for the cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance that inhabits corporate board rooms.'"

  • TDMN calls McCain "a decisive break from the Bush years". This is the candidate who boasted of having voted with Bush 95% of the time.
  • TDMN praises McCain's support for the Iraq war as somehow in opposition to his own party. Like McCain had to talk Bush into a "stay the course" strategy.
  • TDMN praises McCain for campaign finance reform, an issue McCain has run away from.
  • TDMN praises McCain for immigration reform, even though McCain has said if given a re-do, he would vote against his own bill.
  • TDMN praises McCain for promising to freeze domestic spending (except for all the things he's promising more funding for - the military, NASA, autism research).
  • TDMN praises McCain for his "progressive conservatism." That's this year's version of "compassionate conservatism," which TDMN endorsed in 2000 and 2004. That worked out well, don't you think?

There's a lot of historical revisionism and wishful thinking in this editorial. But it had to be thus. How else to write an endorsement for a Republican candidate for President after the disasters that current Republican rule has left us with? TDMN says electing a president is not a popularity contest. No, for TDMN, it's simply a matter of looking for which candidate has the "R" after his name and pretending because the name is different, he represents change.

What strikes me about this editorial is the intellectual dishonesty of it. TDMN pitches McCain as a change agent. But it offers not a single example of where the platform McCain is running on differs from Bush -- not on the war, on taxes, on health care, not even immigration. I could understand if TDMN said it was happy with the results of the Bush administration and recommended four more years. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would at least be an intellectually honest endorsement.

This endorsement is particularly hypocritical given yesterday's TDMN editorial against voting a straight party ticket. After endorsing Cornyn, Sessions, Barton, Johnson and practically every other Republican in sight, TDMN now endorses... surprise, Republican John McCain. You have to get down pretty far on the ballot to find a token Democrat or two.

I suspect the editorial board was coerced into this endorsement. For evidence, I look to the wording of the endorsement itself, looking for a tell that signals coercion, like the SOS eye-blink of a prisoner of war. Maybe it's this sentence: "Mr. McCain offers the continuity, stability and sense of authority people want, as well as a decisive break from the Bush years." Continuity and a decisive break in the same sentence. Only an idiot would write a sentence like that but the editorial board is not made up of idiots. Coercion is the only explanation that makes sense.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Late-term abortion

The Nightly Build...

No Compromise on Abortion

In this week's Presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, McCain raised Obama's vote against a proposed Illinois law dealing with providing medical care to a pre-viable fetus that has been aborted but is not yet dead. Obama opposed the bill on Constitutional grounds and on the practical grounds that Illinois already had a law on the books that protects the life of a viable fetus that is aborted but is still alive outside the womb.

Jeffrey Weiss reasonably asked, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, "There's no question about the outcome. There is no medical treatment that would allow the fetus to live. So what is the purpose of the bill?" There was a long and vigorous comment thread, but no one ever answered Weiss' question. What follows is own contribution to the discussion.

Jim: "Obama's objection to the law is precisely that this law would be unconstitutional. If there's a law that does the same thing, why isn't IT unconstitutional?"

Because the law would have done *more* than simply protect the lives of living infants outside the womb, as the law on the books did. Its expanded scope would have violated the protections afforded by Roe v Wade and thus would have been unconstitutional. The backers of the new law were disingenuous about the scope of the law, then and now.

What's sad is that compromise would lead to an outcome perfectly satisfactory to an overwhelming majority of Americans, but extremists prevent it. Those on the extreme right insist on extending to zygotes the same Constitutional rights you and I have. They stubbornly proclaim that compromise itself, as a general principle, is evil. The left reasonably concludes that compromise with the right is impossible. Each concession by the left will be treated as the new starting point for the next pitched battle, so why go there? Sadly, the result is more abortions than *anybody* wants to allow.

bewildered: "If there's more abortions than everybody wants, why don't a number of those people having abortions forego the abortion and bear their child??"

A number do just that. Some people do a wonderful job providing counseling, medical insurance, parental training, job training, day-care services, children's health insurance, etc., so more mothers are able to bring healthy, wanted children into this world and care for them. If we all supported more of this, the number of abortions would surely go down.

A zygote is alive. It's human life. But it's not equivalent to a more developed fetus, a newborn, a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult, a senior citizen, etc. That's why we have different words for these. Society treats each stage of development differently, with different legal rights. Some people want to give the same legal rights all the way back to the single-cell zygote. They are in the minority.

bewildered's proposed "compromise" of letting the states decide is not a compromise at all. It's a step towards granting full Constitutional rights to zygotes, one state at a time. bewildered asked what's wrong with letting the people decide? Google "tyranny of the majority" for an answer. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of "inalienable" rights. That means rights that can't be taken away, even by majority vote. Now, of course, some think those rights extend to zygotes. Others disagree. I don't see any hope of compromising those positions. So, we are at an impasse that leads to more abortions in this country than we would have if a compromise were reached. To repeat, I find that sad.

bewildered: "I know you're not trying to imply that the founders of this nation considered abortion an inalienable right."

No, they probably didn't. They also didn't consider that the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applied to African-Americans, or at least they didn't protect those rights in law. The founders weren't the last word on what rights are inalienable or who is entitled to them. But their understanding that some rights are too precious to be entrusted to majority vote has stood the test of time.

bewildered: "And after some compromise that still allowed abortion on demand, what do you think the unborn child that was still in the column of 'aborted' would think of your compromise?"

You are giving your reasons why you won't compromise on abortion. I understand and respect your reasons. Your comments just reinforce my point that compromise isn't going to happen. People like you will never compromise. And so the other side digs in its heels, too. And the result is many more abortions than would happen in this country if the two sides *did* compromise. That's sad.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Joe the Plumber

The Nightly Build...

Say It Ain't So, Joe

"Just when you didn't think things could get worse for John McCain - they go in the toilet. Literally."
-- Robert J. Elisberg:

Everybody's talking about Joe the Plumber, the guy John McCain used in the Presidential debate as an example of someone who would be hurt by Barack Obama's tax plans. What John McCain didn't tell us is that "Joe" does not make $250,000 (which means he would probably be helped by Obama's tax plans, not hurt), he just "hopes" someday to be rich enough to afford to buy a million-dollar business and in the meantime doesn't want to "hurt" others who are rich already. McCain also didn't tell us that neither Joe nor his employer are licensed as required by the county the business operates in and reportedly Joe has tax liens against him. McCain conveniently forgot that Joe is is related to Charles Keating (yes, the 1980s savings-and-loan scandal figure McCain was messed up with). Finally, McCain didn't tell us that Joe is a Republican himself who supports McCain for President and thinks Barack Obama is a "socialist". Joe told the morning talk shows today that Barack Obama "tap dances better than Sammy Davis Jr." Ouch!

OK, Joe the Plumber is a great character, if you don't dig too deep. John McCain made an inspired decision to use him in the debate. This will forever be remembered as the Joe the Plumber debate. But I think McCain overplayed his hand. He mentioned Joe the Plumber about six times too many. By the end of the debate, I half expected to see Joe the Plumber distractedly wandering around the back of the stage like McCain himself did in the town hall debate.

Where's the local angle to this story? Rodger Jones, on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, was quick to break the story that "Joe the Plumber has a Website already." Uh, Rodger... joelaratheplumber.com is for a different Joe, a plumber in California, not McCain's unlicensed plumber from Ohio. And what's with that "already?" Why do you think the Web site wasn't in existence *before* the debate? And how did the more obvious domain name, joetheplumber.com, escape your research? Only that's not the right Joe either, but at least he's from Texas. Amarillo, in fact. I hope his Web server is holding up under the increased traffic today.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

3rd Presidential Debate; State Fair

The Nightly Build...

McCain's Strategy: Wright or Wrong?

Sharon Grigsby, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks whether John McCain should or shouldn't mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in tonight's third and last presidential debate against Barack Obama.

Arguing against bringing up Wright are recent polls that indicate that negative, personal attacks are backfiring on John McCain. Arguing in favor of bringing up Wright are the polls that indicate McCain is behind, far behind, and unless he shakes up the race, he'll lose November 4. Maybe more important, his right wing base is demanding he use Wright and Ayers to attack Obama. McCain risks losing independents if he does; he risks losing his base if he doesn't. What to do. What to do.

In my opinion, Wright, Ayers, and Rezko aren't the game changers Republicans hope. The polls are right. McCain's own negatives will go up, perhaps more than Obama's, if McCain attacks Obama with these personal associations. This is especially true with Wright, as McCain is on record as saying he won't make Wright an issue in this campaign. To do so now, late in the campaign, when he's losing, will look like a cynical, me-first, honor-be-damned political move on McCain's part.

McCain's only hope is to finesse the issue. He needs to attack Obama, and attack him hard, but on the economy and on Obama's judgment regarding his economic policies. If he attacks hard enough, he just might satisfy his base, who want McCain to tear into Obama, and he might even attract some independents who harbor lingering doubts about Obama's ability to resolve the economic crisis we're in.

What I'm recommending will be tricky to pull off. McCain hasn't shown any great debating skill, so the chances he can pull it off are slim (even if he decides on my strategy in the first place). But in my opinion, it's the only chance he has to close the poll gap and win the election.


Steve Blow Goes To The Fair

Steve Blow descends into self-parody with an unread column today in The Dallas Morning News titled, "State Fair Livestock Tour Enlightens City Folk."

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Ethics and Abortion

The Nightly Build...

1000 Fetuses or 1 Baby (Part II)

The comment thread grows longer on The Dallas Morning News Religion blog about the ethical challenge, whether to save 1000 fetuses or 1 baby. So, it leads me to a second day of commenting myself.

Scientists haven't come up with a satisfactory definition of life, and it's not for lack of reasoned analysis. Every definition they try either includes too many things people consider living (computer programs, chemical reactions, etc.) or excludes some very odd life forms that scientists universally recognize as living.

Obviously, a fetus is alive. Obviously, it's human. (So is a human cancer cell, as someone pointed out.) Whether or not the fetus deserves legal rights identical to a baby, an adult, the mentally retarded, a comatose patient, a brain-dead accident victim, embryonic stem cells, etc., is a question society does not agree on, and it's not for lack of reasoned analysis.

I still find it telling that no one has responded in this thread with the answer that they would save the thousand fetuses (not even RelicMM, who, knowing that he couldn't save both buildings, would let both fetuses and baby perish). To me, that tells me that as much as people say they believe conception marks the creation of a fully human person, in reality they act as if the worth of that life is something that develops more gradually over time.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Ethics and Abortion

The Nightly Build...

1000 Fetuses or 1 Baby

A reader of The Dallas Morning News Religion blog poses an ethical challenge. Say two buildings are on fire, one containing a thousand fetuses, the other a single six-month old baby. Which do you save?

After the first thirteen reader comments, I notice that no one has answered that he would save the fetuses before the baby. I'm not surprised. Because everyone understands, even if he won't admit it, that fetuses aren't equivalent to six month old babies.

Yes, a fetus is alive. Yes, a fetus is human. No, a fetus is not entitled to all the same legal rights as a six month old baby. That's not to say society couldn't decide to grant such rights. It's just that society hasn't and it won't. There's no moral imperative that it should.

The reason that all these special cases (abortion, the mentally retarded, coma victims, the brain dead, etc.) are ethical challenges is because people recognize that these are special cases. Some people take the simplistic position and say that all such cases are the same and society should do everything within its power to keep the life-force alive in all cases. But then those same people don't actually do as they say. The example of millions of natural abortions in the first hours or days of pregnancy, before the mother is even aware she's pregnant, is a good example where virtually no one is trying to do anything to save this huge loss of life.

The majority of society takes a more nuanced position, a stance that recognizes the unique features of each situation, a stance that balances the rights of the individual against the rights of the mother, the rights of the family, the interests of society. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the profound mystery of life, no matter how desperate some are to insist there is.

Friday, October 10, 2008

McCain/Palin rallies

The Nightly Build...

Baiting the Base

All hell is breaking lose in this Presidential election campaign. The fires are being fueled by John McCain and Sarah Palin's increasingly desperate tactics. Their campaign rallies and television advertising are slandering Barack Obama and working the rabid right base into a frenzy of anger towards the Democrats.

Conservative icon William F. Buckley once said, "You know, I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks." Well, William F. Buckley is dead and the kooks are running rampant in the Republican Party and in the comments threads on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog. Check out Tod Robberson's post titled "McCain and Palin's lynch-mob tactics" for evidence. The rabid right commenters are vehemently protesting in ways that only lend support to Robberson's thesis.

On the other hand, perhaps there is hope for American public discourse. Today, Christopher Buckley, the son of conservative icon William F. Buckley, announced his support for Barack Obama, in large part because of the kind of campaign John McCain is running.

"John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, 'We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.' This campaign has changed John McCain."
Sadly for John McCain and for America, that is *not* change we can believe in.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

"That One"

The Nightly Build...

May I Have a Word? That One

If Americans know one thing about the second Presidential debate, it's that John McCain pointed at Barack Obama and sneered "That One" to identify Obama as the culprit for some horrendous Washington failing or other.

When I heard it real time, it made an impression, but I didn't consider it offensive and I certainly didn't expect it to be the most replayed line of the debate. Jarrett Rush, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, tends to dismiss the comment altogether, but perhaps for the wrong reason.

"The 'that one' comment was a slip. It don't think it was meant in disrespect or anger. These guys are so over-coached for these things that they are thinking about 50 words ahead of what they are saying. There was nothing behind it."
I don't think the slip is important, but I also wouldn't say there was nothing behind it. Some people think it's the slips that reveal the only genuine insights into these candidates at these debates. Everything else, over-coached as it is, is Kabuki. McCain's slip gave the audience a peek behind the mask and the audience didn't like what it saw there.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Debate impressions; Religulous

The Nightly Build...

Impressions of the 2nd Presidential Debate

Last night's first impression...

The debate sounded like Obama laying out his policy plans and McCain telling us what's wrong with everything Obama said. McCain needed to do that, but a whole lot more. He needed to make Americans understand and like McCain's own policy plans. But McCain made the debate so much about Obama that Americans are unlikely to recall much of what McCain proposed himself. Advantage: Obama.

Brokaw did a lousy job. He said there'd be no followups, then he himself asked followups. It seemed like he mixed up the order of questions more than once and gave one candidate and not the other time to answer one of his own followups. He scolded Obama for asking time for rebuttal, then immediately asked another followup and excused his own breaking of rules by saying the rules were pretty loose.

For those at home playing the debate drinking game...

"My friends" was far and away the big winner. Drink to that and, as Rod Dreher predicted, "we'll all be under the table poleaxed and out of our misery, by the halfway point."

"Change" was a distant second (and a little surprisingly, not by McCain. Palin tried to own the term in her own debate, but McCain didn't make his own claim to the word tonight).

"Maverick" didn't get out of the starting gate. And Wright and Ayers didn't even saddle up. No winks, no "you betchas" or "doggoneits", either. No Sarahs at all. No Joes, either. One mom. One dad. One senior moment ("Wave your hands, I can't see the colored lights.")

Next day impression...

Obama was poised, fluent and deliberate. McCain was restless, aggressive and impulsive. No new ground covered here, except for McCain's proposal for the government to spend $300 billion buying up bad mortgages. He also promised to "stop the spending spree in Washington." WTF?!? Advantage still: Obama.


Religulous: Reviewing the Review

Disclaimer: I didn't see the movie, but I did read the review. This is a review of the review. ;-)

William Murchison, in an op-ed piece in The Dallas Morning News, reviews Bill Maher's movie that looks at religion in a not so flattering light. Murchison describes Maher as "mocking, jesting, wise-guying to beat the band" ... as if this is a bad thing. Murchison recites many of the silly scenes in the movie, like the profile of the "entrepreneurial rabbi with the technological rationales for getting past Sabbath restrictions," without ever giving us a reason not to find these characters laughable. In Murchison's world, mocking silliness is self-evidently wrong.

Murchison makes one big mistake when he refers to Maher's "unshakeable grip on certainty." On his tour promoting the movie, Maher has adamantly described his own attitude as agnostic. He doesn't know. He doesn't pretend to know. He finds those who do pretend to know and gives them the stage and microphone and lets them make fools of themselves.

Murchison ridicules Maher for his presentation of fundamentalist Christians, end-timers, orthodox rabbis, new-age spiritualists. Maybe most tellingly, without a trace of irony, Murchison finds common cause with Maher in his presentation of Muslim extremists. Maher has no respect for their deadly certainty, either. Apparently, Murchison can see the folly of at least this sect of religious absolutists, but not the folly of his own brand of religious absolutism.

I can't say whether or not to see the movie, but I can recommend that you skip the review.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

McCain and the Dow

The Nightly Build...

Rod Dreher's Love/Hate Relationship

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, concludes that today's 500 point drop of the Dow Jones Industrial Average after the "staggering 4,619 point" drop over the last year pretty much wipes out any value in the McCain futures market this election cycle.

Poor Rod Dreher. He's had a love/hate relationship with Republicans this whole election. Reading him was like watching someone on an emotional roller coaster.

His first love was Mike Huckabee as he couldn't stand McCain's support for continued war in Iraq and an endless presence afterwards. But he couldn't stomach Obama's support for a woman's right to choose, so when McCain won the nomination, Dreher felt destined to sit this election out.

When McCain chose Sarah Palin for Vice President, Dreher's heart fluttered anew, maybe not as much as National Review's Rich Lowry, but enough to overlook McCain's neo-conservative foreign policy. After all, Palin promised to deny abortion rights even to victims of rape or incest. Then, Palin gave a couple unscripted interviews and Dreher despaired again, knowing that his hopes to overturn Roe v. Wade were in the hands of a local politician from Wasilla, Alaska in way over her head. When Palin learned her talking points well enough to get through a debate with Joe Biden, Dreher dared hope again.

Finally, now that Wall Street's collapse continues unabated, Dreher concludes that "in this economic environment, Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could firebomb Norman Rockwell's house screaming 'Free Charles Manson!', and it wouldn't help McCain much." Dreher almost sounds regretful, not because negative campaigning is distasteful to him, but because it won't be enough to help the McCain/Palin ticket. He keeps telling us he's not in love, but his actions keep saying otherwise.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Negative campaigning

The Nightly Build...

McCain Goes Negative

Paul Burka, on his Texas Monthly blog, criticizes Barack Obama for going negative by citing the "Keating Five" scandal that John McCain was a part of. Burka calls it foolish and extremely risky, "an indication that Obama has let his personal feelings get in the way of his judgment." WTF? Where has Paul Burka been?

Burka doesn't mention it, but it's McCain who has decided to go negative. He's had his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, out all weekend telling everyone and anyone that Obama "pals around with terrorists." Then, Palin says the country ought to be talking about, not the economy, but the Rev. Wright. None of this is mentioned in Burka's blog, titled "Obama goes negative."

Face it, Obama has three options. He can ignore McCain's swiftboating smears and watch his own negatives go through the ceiling. Or he can set the record straight and still watch his negatives go up while McCain escapes unscathed. Or, third, he can remind voters that McCain, too, has some unsavory associations in his past (Charles Keating and Gordon Liddy), and drive McCain's negatives up as well. Only with the third option does McCain derive no benefit from going negative first. It's not Obama's personal feelings leading him down the third path. It's common sense. McCain started it. Obama would be a fool to let him get away with it.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Media bashing

The Nightly Build...

Palin Bashes the "Liberal Media"

Karen Brooks, on The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, criticizes Sarah Palin for using the media and bashing it, too. Seconds after last night's Vice Presidential debate, Palin issued a fund-raising email, in which she bashes the media for being liberal and allying with Obama/Biden. Then she complains about controversial voter registration efforts in Ohio, telling her supporters they may have read about this in "media reports." Palin doesn't explain why the same media that's supposedly allied with Obama would be informing the McCain voters about these supposedly underhanded voter registration tactics. Palin doesn't explain a lot of things.

For example, Palin doesn't explain why the "liberal media" would ever write this glowing review of Palin's performance in the debate:

"I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America."
-- National Review's Rich Lowry

Stand aside, Chris Matthews. Rich Lowry's "little starbursts" just eclipsed that thrill going up your leg when you listen to an Obama speech as this campaign's most outrageous example of a reporter losing objectivity. Rich Lowry may make it impossible for Karen Brooks to defend the integrity of the press in general, but Lowry's crush on Palin certainly ought to give Brooks a "get out of jail free card" for any charges of liberal media bias for the next week or so.

Don't expect Lowry's ode to Sarah to cause Republicans to let up on their media bashing, especially given how much effort it took to get Palin to memorize her talking points for even this one debate. Palin surely wasn't going to let moderator Gwen Ifill's questions distract her from reciting those talking points during the debate itself. It took chutzpah for Palin, at one point in the debate, to brazenly declare that she wasn't going to answer Gwen Ifill's questions, and then, at the end, boast how she liked being "able to answer these tough questions." You betcha, Sarah.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

VP debate

The Nightly Build...

Religion Questions for the Debate

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, asks, for tonight's vice presidental debate, what questions you would ask the candidates about their religion. Tomaso himself likes the answer given by Michael Otterson, the head of public affairs for the Mormons, "I would ask Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin absolutely nothing about their religious beliefs."

I'd go along with that. I wouldn't ask about their own religion, but I would ask what court decisions regarding Constitutional separation of church and state they either agreed with or disagreed with and why.

By the way, Palin will do just fine in the debate. It takes a persistent interviewer to prod someone to give anything more than superficial answers (sometimes showing that there is no substance behind the gloss). Gibson and Couric could do that in a sit-down interview. Ifill won't be able to do that as moderator of the debate. So, expect Palin to skate by, sounding folksy and charming and, dare I say it, even informed, at least to that part of the electorate that doesn't even know what the Supreme Court is, to say nothing of being able to recall any court ruling.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Teaching evolution; Guns for kids

The Nightly Build...

Creationism Not Extinct in Texas

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports that the Texas State Board of Education is considering new science curriculum standards. Scientists from Texas universities are in favor of a proposal by an academic workgroup to eliminate language calling for the teaching students the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. The scientists claim that talking of "weaknesses" is being used as an excuse to introduce creationism into the science curriculum.

The root problem is not the language in the curriculum standards. It's not the teaching of strengths and weaknesses of scientific theory -- that's what science is all about. The root problem is that Texas has a creationist, Don McLeroy, as chairman of the State Board of Education (and a creationist, Terri Leo, as chair of the instruction committee). It's like putting witch doctors in charge of the Texas Medical Board.


Guns for Kids

The Dallas Morning News, not content with just one Pavlovian conservative, Mark Davis, in its stable of local op-ed columnists, adds a new regular column by Trey Garrison. Today, Garrison descends into self-parody with a piece titled, "Buying my 5-year-old her first gun."