The Soccer Mom Vote

What happens next?

"Why," my Republican friend asked, "can't we seem to field any decent Republican challengers in this state?

Of course I had a snappy answer, it is Massachusetts after all, but the question stayed with me. Most of the Republicans I know are fairly moderate, their message isn't that much different than the Democrats I know. The big difference is the level of belief in either private industry or unionized employees.  Some of the Republicans I know are anti-abortion, but not all of them.

We may be the Kennedy state, but we're not entirely anti-Republican. Until recently, we had a string of Republican governors; all moderates until they developed designs on national office. Then they started taking actions that conflicted with the wishes of their constituents, but still were not conservative enough for their national party. They couldn't win.

By most accounts, the national Republican party could lose big tonight; perhaps not the Presidential race, but certainly in both Houses. With several prominent conservatives endorsing Obama, one wonders where the Republican party is headed, McCain or no McCain.

Calls for change are cyclical; Ronald Reagan was the beneficiary of one, Bill Clinton, another.

I remember how hopeful I was when Clinton was first elected. What I was unaware of at the time, was the sheer number of Republicans who hated him before he even got started and were determined to bring him down. I also had no idea the industry that "outrage radio" would become, and how anger and name-calling would fuel politics for the next decade and a half. I couldn't imagine a country so bitterly divided.

So here we are again. Change may return a Democrat to the White House. And if it does, how will Republicans respond?

Will Sarah Palin be the future of her Party, as she so clearly believes? Will the voices of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity continue to drown everyone else out? Can moderate Republicans get a seat at the table without being excoriated as RINOs? Is there room for pragmatic foreign policy in a party where only the pro-war are patriotic? Can we finally say good-bye to Karl Rove, for the good of the party, and the country as a whole?

I have this theory that maybe the Republicans who endorsed or may be voting for Obama, have come to realize that divisiveness only helps those who seek power for its own sake, not for the good of the nation. Democrats, with the potential for a supermajority for the next two years, need to guard against this as well. Of course there's the more cynical view which says that the Republicans have turned on McCain, setting him up to fail so that the neo-cons can come back in four years and retake their party. I hope not.

Nearly twenty years of divisiveness have gotten us two poorly conducted wars, a world of growing anti-Americanism, and finally, an economy collapsed in on itself. We've come to as low a point in our history as I have seen since the Iranian hostage crisis.

But this morning I saw something I have never seen in all my years of working in and observing political campaigns.

There was a line at my polling place today.

And everyone was smiling.

Someone please wake me from this Obama nightmare

I have just joined those who can’t sleep thinking about Obama as president.  Why does he BRAG about some nation testing his presidency?  Why would anyone still want to elect someone who, just by being elected could put our nation at such risk?  And after George Bush has kept us safe for 7 years? 

What is so important that we would look past the fact that Obama has promised that his first act as President would be to end the ban on partial birth abortion? 

Then there’s all the shady connections.  Wright faded away, making way for Franklin Raimes.  When nobody pointed out Obama’s part in the whole Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack debuncle, that thing died down too.  Then Ayers came up.  Obama flecked that away with a reference to his age.  Now the ACORN thing.  Slipping out of our fingers.  But none of those connections would have anything to do with an Obama presidency, right? 

And the fact that his running mate doesn’t even believe in him shouldn’t give us pause, right?

The ObamaNation promises to be a very bleak world, indeed. 

The uglier it gets, the uglier it gets.

So, the McCain campaign has unleashed their lipsticked pit bull to campaign freely.

Fire hydrants all over the country are running scared.

I believe I have David Letterman to thank for that line. He used it in response to Dan Quayle's calling himself "a pitbull for the policies of George Bush."   Hmm. Plus ça change....

The Evangelical Christian VP candidate is now giving tent-revival style speeches in key areas to fire up the party faithful. Of course, instead of the usual "Alleluiah!" and "Amen," the true believers are screaming "Kill him!"

What century are we in, again?

When Barack Obama secured the Democratic nomination, Republicans were quick to claim that the Democratic Party had succumbed to the ultraliberal faction of their party. Of course, they would have said that had Hillary Clinton won the nomination - or, for that matter, anyone to the left of Charles Krauthammer. Yet the GOP has done nothing to address or even acknowledge the extremists in their own party. An extremism that's been there, bubbling under the surface, quieted somewhat by the blunders of the Bush Administration, but shamefully reawakened by the nomination of Sarah Palin.

One almost feels sorry for John McCain in this video, where he is confronted with the hatred and ignorance of his own supporters:

Really, these people vote?

Back in the '90s, when the first George Bush was facing challenger Bill Clinton, the word I heard most used to describe Republicans, starting with the speeches at the GOP convention, was "meanspiritedness."  It was a theme that carried through their anti-gay, anti-Clinton, anti-poor people, talk radio rhetoric; designed to get listeners all hot and bothered about people they could look down upon, in order to shield the behavior of those getting away with so much more.

Time has passed.  Under the Republicans we have been through two wars; we've been introduced to extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, and the fact that our country engages in torture. We've spent billions destroying a country; killing countless civilians. We've dehumanized an entire religion and destroyed our own human rights record.

Now, in an effort to capitalize on the worst of human instincts,  McCain has offered us a shrill cheerleader of this behavior. As Governor, she encourged hunters, not only to shoot wolves from airplanes, but to lop off their paws and turn them in for a prize.   The ethos of the Republican Party has evolved, if one can use that word, from meanspiritedness to brutality.

The good news, if there's any to be had, is that the majority of Americans seem to be sick of this worldview. The uglier the McCain campaign gets, the lower his poll numbers go. Maybe we're disgusted that it has come to this. We've had nearly 20 years of this nastiness and maybe we've finally had enough of this finger-pointing, tongue-wagging, hate-filled, rhetoric wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.*

It's being said that John McCain has to come out swinging to score points in the final debate tonight.  It's hard to believe that it would help. At this stage in the game, it's easy to picture McCain as a weary Bob Dole, stumbling forlornly about wondering "where's the outrage?" and why it's turned against him.

Finally.

*with apologies to Sinclair Lewis.

Maybe it's not a game.

Like a lot of people, I'm looking forward to Thursday's Vice Presidential debate with a mixture of amusement and apprehension. I have already committed to "liveblogging" the event on a local message board with a variety of political junkies on both sides of the aisle. From the comfort of our own homes, we will pour a glass of wine, or two, and exchange snarky comments in a form of verbal scorekeeping.

For those who want to play along at home, there's debate LINGO; a cross between business buzzword bingo, and the "Who" parties you had in college while watching the original Grinch.

Already, Democrats, Republicans, and the press have engaged in expectation setting. Will Sarah Palin be a better debater than she has been an interviewee? Will she be wearing her hair down to hide the transmitter feeding her answers?  Will Joe Biden add to his long list of gaffes? The speculation abounds. I wish I could remember who commented last week (Jon Stewart, maybe?) that some people watch the debates for the same reason people watch NASCAR. For the crashes.

Even if you are one of the undecideds for whom this debate might actually matter, there's no denying the Circus Maximus - like atmosphere around these events. And while no one is about to die, whatever happens on Thursday night will doubtless be speared on news shows, blogs, and by the staffs of SNL and Comedy Central.

It's a fair question to ask whether the debates are still meaningful in this day and age. In 1960, they changed the game for Jack Kennedy, but Lloyd Bentsen's quick-witted  "You're no Jack Kennedy"  (audio) ultimately did not help Mike Dukakis on Election Day.

Are we looking for examples of leadership and statesmanship from these televised interactions? Or, as with the election of the current president, is there something else that overrides the oratory?

The nomination of Sarah Palin, her views and interviews, have contributed greatly to the comical atmosphere of this election. She's been called a Weapon of Mass Distraction in many quarters, and has indeed taken the spotlight off, not only McCain, but the very serious issues this election was supposed to be about.

As a country, we should be long past the point of it being acceptable to elect someone based on wanting to have a beer with him, But here we are, in a time of war and economic crisis, still reduced to praising Palin for her folksy delivery and seriously discussing why "elite" is a bad thing.

So we'll watch this debate with our ears open for a good sound bite or a serious misstep; we'll dissect it for the remainder of this week and probably over the weekend. But then can we get back to talking about the serious issues that will face the country, the world, and the next President in the years to come?

Some wise words about this bailout

Now, why isn't she running for President?

It's not about her family until it's about your family.

Count me out of those women who are questioning whether Sarah Palin can or should campaign for VP because she has young children. I'm not sure being a hockey mom qualifies Palin to be VP, but it doesn't disqualify her either. As a working woman well-versed in the tongue-clucking of SAHMs, I maintain that how she and her husband manage their family is none our our business.

Ah, but didn't she make it our business by parading all those children in front the cameras at the GOP Convention?

No. Just about every politician does that. It's like proving they're human; that they're "just folks" whether or not it is an accurate portrayal. If the kids were to start making speeches in public, that would be a different matter.

What kind of mother would leave her family to campaign anyway?

Sometimes, you get a once in a lifetime opportunity - a now or never. I think most people would want to take it and ask for the support of their families. One could ask how Michael Phelp's sisters felt about rearranging their lives around his swim schedule, or the family of any figure skater who has to move to another state so the child with talent can be trained for the Olympics. Or the family of a father who needs to move for a job. Sometimes a dream or a talent requires sacrifice for others, and why should it be the mother who always sacrifices? Few people would ever ask a father to do the same.

But what about announcing Bristol's pregnancy and impending marriage?

Well, it wouldn't have been my choice, but if she hadn't said anything about it, the media would have sniffed out the story and run with it in an even more embarrassing manner. This way, the Palin family have the opportunity to frame the story as best they can. And while I feel a bit sorry for Bristol, 48 hours of media scrutiny is not going to ruin her life the way a teenaged marriage might.

But...

But Bristol's story becomes legitmate fodder for public discussion because it has implications for the way the rest of us run our own lives and stories. Sarah Palin has endorsed abstinence-only education, which has been declared a failure all over the country, and the results of which Bristol Palin will carry with her forever. Never mind Roe v. Wade, members of Sarah Palin's party want to restrict access to birth control even by adult, married, women whether by legislation or regulation. Her policies would have more of our daughters end up like Bristol.

It's one thing to be pro-life. It is another thing entirely to be against birth control. Chipping away at access to birth control is not truly about respecting life, it is about controlling and limiting the lives of women. The GOP can talk all they want about "protecting girls from exploitation and statutory rape" as a reason to limit birth control; but the simple fact is that teenagers will have sex, and unlike Levi Johnston, most boys will walk away.

They won't be saddled with a pregnancy, denied entrance to the National Honor Society, be prosecuted or forced to marry. They may be in the baby's life from time to time or even pay child support, but their career and life prospects won't be limited by the birth and care of a child. They won't spend their lives being labelled "gimme girls" and "welfare queens" when times are tough and they need extra support. 

The best and most life affirming way to combat this, is to empower young women; something the GOP, whether they are limiting birth control, fighting Title IX, or denying equal pay, has proven loath to do.

The Republican party talks a lot about the evils of government intervention, but they want to define what your family looks like and control the choices that you make. Too bad that Sarah Palin wants to make what's happened in her family, happen to yours.

Palin - The Ultimate Pander

So, wow! John McCain really hit a home run with his VP pick, no?

Seeking to snag the disappointed Hillary supporters, he picked a woman. He really thinks we're that shallow.

Needing to convince the religious right, he picked an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-stem-cell, evangelical who wants creationism taught in the public schools. She opposes abortions even for the victims of rape and incest.

Looking to shore up the Republican base, he picked a pro-gun, pro-oil, anti-environmentalist, who is suing the federal government for placing the polar bear on the threatened species list. She insists that human activities have no impact on climate change. To paraphrase my favorite line from John Kerry's campaign: What if we had a VP who believed in science?

Desperate to energize his campaign, he picked a 44 year old former beauty queen with less than two years in office. Sadly, the ploy might work, given the traditional demographic of McCain supporters. Pat Buchanan loves her, as does Rush Limbaugh, who calls her a babe. Um, eew. And then there's this bumpersticker already circulating on right-leaning websites. It should warm the heart of any woman in or seeking a leadership position who just wants to be taken seriously.

It does make you wonder why he passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe for Palin. I thought Carly Fiorina might have been a good choice. What must she really be thinking?

When Sarah Palin was first introduced, I was truly intrigued, and hopeful, even if I'm not a McCain supporter.  The more I learn about her, the more I am concerned that she may be a disaster for women - win or lose. 

If she wins, and maybe even ascends to the Presidency, her beliefs and policies stand to set back women's freedom and their children's economic, environmental, and global security for decades.

If she loses, or has to step off the ticket because of her complicated family issues (I'm deliberately leaving it at that) she, and not Hillary Clinton will become the face of women running for higher office. It's been 24 years since Geraldine Ferraro's family finances sunk the Mondale campaign. I really hope we don't have to wait that long again.

In alarmingly short time, the Clintons' fabled bridge to the 21st century has been converted to a big ole bridge to nowhere. Perhaps Sarah Palin should have said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the McCain Campaign.

I see your lips moving, but all I hear is blah, blah, blah

I was pretty ticked about McCain being the last man standing on the Republican side.  Frankly, I don’t know anyone that’s really excited about his candidacy.  On the other hand, I know many people excited about Obama.  Comes with the skin, I guess. 

Now, after the longest campaign ever (or it just seems that way), we’re finally heading into the home stretch.  The delegations are something new to get excited about now that the Olympics are over.

Did you get a chance to check out the Saddleback Civil Forum?  Finally a chance to see the (almost) candidates address issues. . . or not.  What was interesting to me was how each presumptive candidate answered.  How Obama made a point to snuggle close to interviewer Rick Warren with each question.  It reminded me of Arsenio Hall and Eddie Murphy.  Then he carefully sidestepped several questions.  When asked about abortion, he said he wasn’t pro-abortion, but he wouldn’t try to abolish it because he knows how hard it is to make a decision to abort.  Ok?  When asked what controversial stances he has taken, Obama continued to say that he voted against the war.  That’s controversial? Didn’t most of the members of his party vote against the war? The uhs and ahs were ever present as well, as he thought of how he might ingratiate himself to Warren and not answer the question at the same time.

McCain, on the other hand, was very quick to answer each question.  He looked like he’s been planning for the presidency for a long time.  When asked what tough decisions he’s made, against the tide of his party, McCain was able to rattle off several, including voting against a Ronald Reagan military effort, despite his great respect for President Reagan.  When asked what was the most difficult decision he’s ever had to make, he related a choice to decline an early release from his POW camp, and mentioned that he prayed before the decision.

Obama cleverly used the Bible to align himself with Warren and the crowd at Saddleback church.  McCain worked the crowd talking about off-shore drilling and pursuing alternative energy sources.  He lauded former Ebay CEO Meg Whitman as the kind of creative entrepreneur to boost our economy.  He educated the audience about Soviet aggression in Georgia and what he would do to stop it. In short, McCain sounded presidential, and the candidate I’d resignedly backed became the candidate I enthusiastically back. 

As for Senator Obama, I have to hand it to him for getting where he is today.  He worked hard and he worked smart.  But at the Saddleback Civil Forum, I saw his lips moving, but all I heard was blah, blah, blah.

The Sputnik of our age

When Al Gore set down a challenge to the country that we find a way to derive 100% of our electricity from clean, non-carbon sources within the next ten years; a fair number of people, including the NYT, had visions of JFK and the old Soviet Sputnik dancing in their heads. Thankfully, you don't have to be President to lead on an issue, and in this day and age, it may be easier if you are not.

Critics were quick to fly the flag of Gore's hypocrisy - how dare a man who lives in such an enormous house and has been known drive SUVs lecture us about how to save energy? And those "carbon offsets" he buys are actually investments, from which he might make money.

But that's partly the point. Going green and clean is not about living in a yurt and milking your own goats. Sometimes it's about technology and innovation, spending our time and money wisely, creating jobs in new sectors, and getting ahead of the competition.

As it happens, some our competition in this area might still be from Russia, who has been using her natural resources to engineer a return to dominance in Eastern Europe. Russia has made an economic comeback on the strength of their natural resources and while the rising tide has not lifted all boats, there is a growing middle class that did not exist 15 years ago. Unfortunately, Russia is also using its resources to bully its neighbors - cutting off supplies to Ukraine and Belarus in an effort to keep them from getting too close to the West.

Now, what if some of the Eastern European countries had energy alternatives to fall back on? And what if those alternatives were based on American engineering, bought from American companies, or built by American engineering firms?

That's just one, oversimplified scenario. However, it shows that even if you are skeptical about global warming, there are other reasons to invest time, money, and effort into alternatives to oil and natural gas. If you are not convinced about global warming, what about combatting pollution, reducing the cost of all fuels, and reducing the burden on the local taxpayer?

Back in the early 80s, in the town of Hull, Massachusetts, a wind turbine was installed at the town's high school that lowered the school's energy cost to the taxpayers by 28%. When that turbine finally failed in 1997, it was replaced by more modern technology and is now providing energy to the entire municipality. Hull is now making money with the surplus generated energy that no doubt offsets costs in other areas, such as salaries for town employees, and lowers costs for the taxpayer.

Smart businesses are always looking for innovations that will save them money or improve the product they deliver to their customers. They look toward the future, identifying upcoming needs and trends and investing in research that will help them meet those needs when they arise. Companies that don't do this, but instead spend their time whining about change and trying to keep it from happening (read: Lobbying), get left behind. One has only to look at American car companies and the efforts they put into fighting stricter CAFE standards; insisting that "the technology isn't there yet" instead of working to create the technology. We see the results of this poor planning frequently these days in the form of layoffs and contractions in Big 3 operations.

Americans of all political stripes might agree that the United States needs to be leading rather than following or even obstructing this kind of innovation. So how do we encourage that to happen?

An article in the May issue of Fast Company discusses the role of contests and prize money in spurring innovation. Government and private funding of university research such as this solar storage solution at MIT aids in the development of technologies that eventually become saleable. And finally, some of those tax incentives lavished so heavily on oil and gas companies, could be either matched by or shifted to alternative energy companies.

In making the case for more drilling rights, more refineries, and the horribly misnamed "clean coal," Republicans often argue that we can't conserve our way out of this (oil) crisis. That may or may not be true, but we certainly can't solve a problem by continuing and expanding the behavior that created the problem in the first place.

Challenge tends to bring out the best in Americans, and this should be no exception, regardless of politics. If, as happened after Sputnik, we emphasize the study of science and technology, encourage young men and women to pursue engineering careers, and restore our drive to innovate, these efforts can only benefit our country, and maybe other parts of the world as well.

taxes or oil?

Why do we differ when it comes to the price of gas?  I think somewhere, in the deep recesses of my mind there’s a memory of gas being under $1.00.  Maybe.  And when it started rising, my father grumbled about it, even as he said, “We ought to pay more for gas.  It’s only civilized.”  And he went on to espouse European society for understanding the importance of taxes and taking care of its citizens, etc.

I don’t understand the liberal fascination with Europe.  On the one hand, they have prohibitively high taxes, on the other hand, there’s no speed limit.  On the one hand, there’s national health care.  On the other hand, there’s no drinking age.  So we trade personal responsibility for exorbitant taxes.  Or something.  Or rather we pay for personal freedom with exorbitant taxes.

I for one don’t buy all that garbage about climate change, which used to be global warming, which used to be the new ice age.  It’s always something, and that something is usually about raising taxes.  Interesting how people are always the least important in their scheme of things.  Like baby seals are more important than unborn babies.  And preserving land is more important than digging for oil.  That’s when I get suspicious of the whole thing.  The same people crying about saving the environment are also rabid about population control.  And we’ve already established where I stand on that. These people would have us using rickshaws and outhouses.

It blows me away how people could go through the exact same thing (high gas prices) and come to such vastly different conclusions as to how to respond to it.  One person would take steps to quit driving altogether, while another person would look for more oil.  A third option would be to look for alternative fuel sources.  And let’s not forget the drive smaller (hybrid) cars argument. 

Everybody is convinced of the veracity of their argument, yet they can’t all be right, can they?  How can we come to one conclusion when we have so many diverging solutions?