McCain's Chappaquiddick?

On Huffington Post: McCain may have been involved in a serious car accident in 1964 with a passenger who was injured or killed. Vanity Fair has requested an expedited FOIA requiest, which the Navy has denied:

The first request for information concerning duty assignment logs to Portsmouth Naval Hospital -- where McCain was allegedly brought after the accident -- came in the form of a Freedom of Information Act request on August 28, 2008. The Navy acknowledged receipt of the request and advised that it had located the relevant information a few weeks later, only to deny the FOIA on grounds that it didn't prove an "imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual" or satisfy the criteria of "a breaking news story of general public interest."

"The patient admission record logs that you seek are exempt from release," wrote G.E. Lattin, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, "as information in personnel and medical files, as well as similar personal information in other files, that if disclosed to a requestor, other than the actual person in which the information is pertaining to or next of kin, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

NS News Service and Vanity Fair appealed the decision and asked for expedited treatment of the case, as the end of the presidential election loomed. But the Navy denied that request as well.

In itself, I don't think this is that politically damning, based on the electoral reaction to GWB's DUI and Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick incident - in other words, we probably won't see any negative movement in the polls. But it comes at a bad time. With only a week left, and down in the polls, McCain needs to win every possible news cycle with his message. This only detracts from that. It might well be enough to put the final nail in his campaign coffin.

This Election and Historical Parallels

The last time the United States was actively involved in an unpopular military conflict was 1968. During that election, the issue was Vietnam and pressing Communist threat, along with significant conflict at home. Today, we're engaged in two wars that are thinly strung together under the auspices of "fighting terrorism."

By every count, war brings out the worst in humanity: In 1968, the press reported on My Lai, a brutal, inhumane and criminal act perpetrated by American soldiers on Vietnamese villagers, because the Americans believed that the villageers were harboring Viet Cong rebels. In Iraq and Afghanistan today, Abu Ghraib and Guatanimo imprison hundreds of purported "enemy combatants" without due process or the Geneva Conventions to protect their rights. Even more egregious is the policy of engaging in torture including water boarding and sensory deprivation to coerce information from the imprisoned. Some have been detained for over 4 years.

What's important about these parallels between 1968 and 2008 is the fact that the party in power found themselves in with an angry electorate and the challenging party offered change, any change. In 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, was in office; today George W. Bush, a Republican is in office.

Interestingly, both presidents were lame ducks. Both were very unpopular with large swaths in their own party. Johnson chose not to run in 1968; Bush is constitutionally limited after his two terms.

In both elections, race is key issue. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, costing the Democratic party votes in the southern states even until now. Today, because of the Johnson's foresight and fortitude, we now have for the first time in our history, a black man running for President. Yet, after 44 years, Barack Obama, despite his strong lead in the polls and high likelihood of winning the Electoral College in 8 days will undoubtedly lose votes simply because of his skin color. We obviously have a long way to go.

1968 was the beginning of the Republican's coalescense of power that would allow them to win 8 of the last 11 elections through 2004. Reagan may the Republican party's venerated saint, but it took the Vietnam war, huge levels of dissent at home because of civil and racial unrest, and a desire to change the philosophical premise of the role of government, because of the sweeping changes brought forth by LBJ's "Great Society."

The 2008 election might well be another fundamental shift in the attitudes of Americans toward government. Undoubtedly, George W. Bush will be remembered as the poster child for presidential incompetence and recklessness, both in terms of the Iraq War and the overarching failed neo-conservative policy of "pre-emptive defense" (aka: Shoot first, ask questions later), and his feckless response the the current economic crisis. He will likely be seen as the proverbial gasoline on the fire that ignited a massive groundswell of anger and antipathy among Americans. Yet, the fire was already lit by previous administrations with policies that slowly undid the previous generations' work centered around the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" and went too far.

Arguably, 2008 offers us another parallel on a more visceral level: in 1968, America had Bobby Kennedy who inspired a whole generation of young people to believe in the lofty idealism that Americans aspire to, until his tragic death. Today, Barack Obama is my generation's Bobby. He has captured the imagination of millions that American Dream is alive and well. For many in my parent's generation, Barack Obama may well be the realism of their dreams also.

In any case, 2008 will be an historic election because of the parallels with 1968.

Obama's New Economic Plan

There's been a lot of criticism in the punditry of Obama's economic plan as being too vague. Today, in Toledo, OH, a key battleground state, he provided more details.

Essentially the plan targets incentives for small businesses to create jobs with a $3,000 per created job tax credit for the next two years, a 90-moratorium on foreclosures, penalty-free withdrawals from 401k (up to 15% or a maximum of $10,000), and additional funds available for municipalities to spur local economic development, among other details.

All told, the estimates for this plan will cost the US between $60B and $100B. Compared to McCain's $300 tax incentive for big business, this looks cheap. It also looks generally doable. I do have doubts that a 90 day moratorium is enough, unless the TARP plan gets its act in gear right now. Nonetheless, it's still better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and it might well save taxpayers around $200B.

McCain is slated to present new economic plans today tomorrow. Unfortunately for McCain, this is too little, too late. He's been shaky from the start on the Wall Street crisis, and Obama's new plan only will give the impression of, "me too! I got a plan!"

Game. Set...

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Pennsylvania today on the stump for Obama. In her speech, she came up with a retort to the Republican's own line of "Drill, Baby, Drill!":

"Jobs, Baby, Jobs!

No surprise Bill Clinton won in 1992, and 1996. "It's the economy, stupid!"

Welcome

My other blog is more related to my professional life. Outside of my professional interests, I have been and continue to be a political "junky." My Master's thesis in Sociology was focused on Politics, Economics, and Class, all of which are still interesting to me today.

My Political Philosophy

I tend to lean left of center, but not so much so that I blindly adhere to liberal tenets or the Democratic Party's platform (though, I am registered as a Democrat). I am wary of (and will in the future rail against) extremes on either side of the political spectrum. I'm fiscally conservative and believe in the principle that a smaller government is better, but I don't necessarily believe in the Republican (read: William F. Buckley) philosophy that the role of (federal) government should be minimalized to the point where individual states have too much control. Therein lies a balance where states have control over their economy and to a certain extent their social mores, but only to the extent that individual rights cannot be impinged. To that extent, I believe that the size and strength of the federal goverment should be proportionate to the needs of society. No more and no less. When the federal government is too large, we relinquish too much power to too few; on the other hand, when the federal government is too small, we leave too much control to the states to consider the interests of the nation at-large (much like herding cats).

Socially, I tend to be more liberal. I believe that government's sole responsibility is to ensure that all citizens are afforded the opportunity to live their lives in a manner that harms none. For me this means:

• Gay Rights: I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights afforded to heterosexuals, including rights of survivorship, the ability make decisions for partners when they are incapacitated, and to be recognized as a legal and binding partnership in every state in the union. In short, whom one partners with is none of my business, as is my relationship with my wife none of anyone else's business.
• Women's Rights: Women still earn less than men, and frequently are overlooked for promotions. I firmly believe that merit (regardless of gender) is the ultimate benchmark of anyone's ability to succeed.
• Religion: I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that all religious traditions should be respected, and that no religion is superior to another. But I believe that religion has no place in politics or government. Period. Like Andrew Sullivan, I have my own religious beliefs, but strongly assert that these remain separate from my secular life.
• Environment: I believe that global warming is real, and man-made. We need to clean up our mess, and need to find alternative fuel solutions, and fast.
• Race: I find it discouraging that this is still in the public discourse. How does the color of someone's skin or their birthplace make someone more or less likeable, interesting or vice versa?

About Me

I grew up in Lowell, Massachusetts, the "birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution", in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. I went to public schools through junior high school, and went to a catholic high school in Lawrence. Lowell is a blue collar city, ethnically and racially diverse. There were Irish, French-Canadian, Greek, Polish, Italian, African American and Puerto Rican enclaves within the city. Politics were (and generally still are) dominated by Democrats.

I moved to Colorado in 1986, and attended the University of Northern Colorado. Colorado politics aren't nearly as visible as those of my youth. Politicians infrequently make news, and the political discourse is as rough and tumble. Here, folks are much more inclined to be left alone, and only want government involvement when they ask for it. Otherwise, they prefer that government's footprint to be very light. There's a much stronger emphasis on socially conservative ideals - of strong moral character and doing the "right" thing.

I also lived in Northwest Washington State for 8 years. Politically, this region is a mishmash of very liberal and very conservative views, somehow coexisting in a tenous detente, neither side having or exerting too much or too little influence.

I'm influenced by all of these political mindsets. My family and friends cover a wide swath of the political spectrum also. To me all facets of politics are interesting personally, and sociologically. I'm interested in the internal and external factors that influence how an individual chooses to vote. I'm interested in the dynamics of politics that influence our elected leaders in their decision making processes.

In this era of instant news, and a wide range of opionions from the punditry, it's truly mind boggling that anybody "gets it right". There are so many spin doctors competing for their version of the truth to win out that the average American is justifiably cynical about politics. I enjoy the spin. In some ways, it truly is an art form; in other ways, it's pure BS. Nevertheless, my hope is that I can untangle their spin, and put my own on things, purely through my own rose colored spectacles.

And with that, some ground rules: I enjoy polite, courteous, and civil debate. No one person has a monopoly on what's right or wrong. At the least, we can agree to disagree; at best, we can find common ground for further discussion. Flame and hate trolls aren't welcome.

I hope you enjoy. On to interesting discussions.