Bring It On! Election 2008

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia.

Just a suggestion.

Senator Clinton unveiled her health care plan today. While I have not read the plan yet, the way they are selling it leaves me uninspired. According to CNN:

A Clinton adviser compares the plan’s so-called “individual mandate” — which requires everyone to have health insurance — to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according to The Associated Press.

Under the plan, federal subsidies would be provided for those who are not able to afford insurance, and large businesses would be expected to provide or help pay for their employees’ insurance.

Clinton said her plan would not require small businesses to take part, but will offer tax credits to encourage them to do so.

The problem is that health insurance is not the same as auto insurance. If someone can’t drive because they can’t afford insurance, well they don’t exactly die do they? Has anyone been complaining about a crisis in auto insurance? Of course not because the rates haven’t gone through the roof in the last decade. Mandating that people have coverage and that large business es pay a large part of the premium does nothing to tackle the real problem - the incredible waste of money that is is the private health insurance system. It’s punishing American competitiveness and punishing workers who are still held hostage to corporate greed.

Sure her plan is offering the now fashionable tax credit for insurance idea to help families afford the cost of coverage. Great. So now we can have more money thrown into the coffers of United Health, Humana, Kaiser etc. What happens when they raise rates again? And again? And again? How does a tax credit deal with letting for-profit pencil-pushers decide on what treatment someone gets or doesn’t get? How is that better than “letting the government decide” (which is a lie anyhow) your health care? At least the government is accountable to the people - who are those guys accountable to? Stockholders?

I will read through the plan to see if it answers the real questions concerning the poor state of health care in this country. I doubt it. I’ve given up hope for real reform in this area from this candidate. It seems like more of the same and less than we need. We deserve better.

Universal coverage. Single payer. No leaches stealing the money in the middle. It works everywhere else. Why are we so resistant to a good idea?

Fred Thompson is someone to watch…someone who may have a strategy which is far more evolved than many may think. Personally, I’m not inclined to support Thompson but as I’ve kept an eye on the 2008 presidential candidates, I keep coming back to Thompson as a candidate who is blazing a new trail and carving out a niche that just might serve him well.

Prior to Thompson’s official announcement on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, I too questioned his decision to delay his entry into the race. Since he’s actually become a candidate, I’ve begun to wonder if Thompson is onto something. One recent Thompson statement crystallized my thoughts on the candidates strategy.

While offering that “debates are important,” Thompson warned about letting “the tail wag the dog here.”

“Standing up here, ten in a row, you know, like a bunch of seals waiting for somebody to toss the next fish is not necessarily the best way to impart information to the American people,” he cracked to loud applause. “I’m not above acting like a seal every once in a while and waiting for the next fish. I just don’t want to do it all the time.”

Conventional wisdom has suggested Thompson’s absence from the many debates may harm his candidacy…but after reading his remarks, I think Thompson will be able to succeed…or at a minimum, hold his own…with a measured participation. I say as much because I suspect that voters will soon be tired of the many debates as well as being bombarded by newfangled formats which may appeal to the tech savvy…but not so much to the bulk of “ordinary” voters simply looking for a means to garner an understanding of the candidates positions and therefore draw necessary comparisons and conclusions.

The manner in which Thompson has chosen to characterize the debate process and their frequency may well allow him to define a unique and independent style as well as a distinctive leadership quality…one that questions the status quo. I would call it a move to define himself as “presidential”. Rather than following the crowd towards endless “performances”, Thompson can downplay their merit while still benefiting from his well established name recognition.

His ability to distill folksy and frank messages adds to his appeal as an outsider…one who understands the voters and their disgust with polished political rhetoric designed to maximize the constituent base while maintaining an element of policy flexibility. The bottom line is to impart that he isn’t selling slick…to convince voters that he’s not selling anything; he’s simply a straight shooter.

Look at his response to a question about his late entry into the race.

Local television reporters swarmed the senator before he had time to sample the stew. With his chili going cold in a Styrofoam bowl behind him, Thompson insisted that his late entry into the race would not prevent voters from warming to him. “I can’t let other people set my agenda for me,” he said.

The first thought which entered my mind as I began to view his strategic acumen was the comparison and contrast to George W. Bush. Clearly, none of the candidates want to be seen as George Bush the policy maker…but being seen as George Bush the down home person one might like to have a beer with is another story. Of all the candidates, Thompson may best capture that trait…one which has led voters to forgive many of the gaffes they’ve witnessed from the current president…simply because he seems to be a likable chap.

At the same time, two recent remarks by Thompson help establish the necessary contrast. His comments on not being a regular church goer and his suggestion that he was uncomfortable talking about his faith at length…other than to state he was “right with God and the people I love” is a clear deviation from the Bush approach to religion as a driving force. Add in his virtually disengaged reaction to a question about the Terri Schiavo situation and an astute pattern emerges. Let me explain.

The press jumped upon both comments. With regard to his sporadic church attendance, a number of pundits saw it as the equivalent of political suicide. Perhaps that makes sense on the surface but it requires more reflection. As the 2008 election approaches, one must first look backward and forward…backward to eight years of the Bush administration’s perceived religious excess…forward to the efforts by Democratic candidates to accentuate and highlight their proximity to religious faith.

I suspect many voters will view Thompson’s position as authentic…a position absent the religious pandering which characterized the Bush years…and one which refuses to engage in the seeming rush by Democrats to demonstrate their religious credentials so as not to alienate the faithful. As I perceive Thompson’s remark, I suspect it mirrors the views of a majority of Americans…one that strikes a practical balance in the current political atmosphere.

As to the Schiavo comments, many in the media portrayed them as a liability which may be indicative of a candidate lacking the necessary sharpness…an acuity which some argue could have been refined by an earlier entrance into the fray. His vagueness has also been cast as potentially supportive of the suspicions that Thompson is lazy. I disagree with both assumptions. Take a look at Thompson’s actual statement on the Schiavo situation.

“I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best,” Thompson said. “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.” […] “Local matters generally speaking should be left to the locals. I think Congress has got an awful lot to keep up with.”

As I read the words, they were in keeping with the opinion of most Americans from a number of angles. No, they won’t necessarily satisfy the far right…but Thompson has support from that quarter already as a function of the perceived insufficiencies of his opponents…meaning he need not pander to them on social issues. Rather, his words establish his conservative credentials for those independents who may have voted Democratic in 2006 as well as those Republicans who have viewed George Bush as an acceptable social conservative but also a president wholly lacking in the traditional GOP conservatism which has become equated with Ronald Reagan.

Further, his answer is actually in line with what most Democrats felt about the situation. Specifically, they believed it shouldn’t have become a national political issue whereby Congress and the President would intervene in a matter which had been fully vetted at the appropriate levels. In other words, Thompson’s lack of knowledge…or lack of interest…along with his musing that Congress has plenty to do already…sends some important and welcome messages to Reagan Democrats; he doesn’t intend to be George Bush, he is a traditional conservative, he supports limited government intervention, and religion will not drive his presidency.

Even his comments on gay marriage honor this apparent strategic equation.

Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Thompson’s proposal stops short of resurrecting the failed Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.

“It is a pretty huge difference from the Federal Marriage Amendment that President Bush supported,” he said. “This proposal would not prohibit state legislatures from passing gay marriage.”

But many gay activists said Thompson’s proposal would nonetheless enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution.

Thompson’s camp eventually issued a statement clarifying his stance.

“If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states,” it said. “Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”

Clearly, Thompson’s position won’t fully satisfy evangelicals…but it must be looked at in comparison to his fellow GOP candidates. In that regard, he has little to lose in establishing a federalist position on the issue…and is likely to draw some much needed support from moderate Republicans and independent voters.

One last statement shines a bright light on the Thompson strategy. During a recent campaign stop in Florida, Thompson addressed No Child Left Behind…calling it a good idea but once again seeking to strike the right balance between federally mandated programs and good old local decision making. Here’s how he summarizes his view.

“It’s your responsibility,” he said. “If you don’t like what’s going on, don’t get in your car and drive by your school board and maybe drive by the capitol and get on an airplane and fly to Washington and say, ‘I don’t like the way the school down the street is being run.’”

Where does such a strategy potentially position Fred Thompson? He holds his own with the social conservative evangelical voters who lack better choices, he recaptures the essence of traditional conservatism, he broadens his appeal with independents, and he opens the door to capturing Reagan Democrats. If he can make that happen, that’s a pretty impressive achievement.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I read a poll this morning at the American Research Group site, and I started thinking about data in general and people in particular. For example, who has land lines at home? Well, lots of people, but not as many as used to. I know quite a few families at my kid’s school who have no land lines; their families all keep in touch by cell phone. Polls don’t call cell phones, as a rule. (I think there’s some rule in place that make it hard for solicitors to waste your minutes.) Lower income folks tend to have cells over land lines, or they go without completely. Cells are more convenient, Go-Phones are cheap, and if you more around, your number goes with you. Seniors have land lines. They stay at home more, and need to be able to call for assistance. I’m not saying that seniors don’t have cell phones, many do, but a significant number of seniors, especially those who are homebound, do not.  

Some pollsters, like Zogby, solicit opinion via the internet. I occasionally get tapped for a Zogby poll. I’d like to say that that’s the more reliable poll, but really, it’s as flawed as land line polling, because the number of seniors tapped is not in proportion to the number of seniors voting.

Then there’s the question of phrasing, which is a minefield in poll reliability, since typically EVERYBODY has an agenda. I mean, I don’t think I could parse questions that were completely unbiased, since the baseline I’m drawing from reflects my innate perceptions of society, government, and an individual’s responsibilities within that framework.  

Take this question: Do you think the government should help the poor? For one thing, it’s too broad. Which poor? All of them? Some of them? Who chooses? A yes or a no to such a broad statement tells the pollster nothing really, and it actually acts as a dividing force to a conservative or liberal, who, if the question was parsed this way: Do you think the government has a role in caring for people unable to care for themselves? might have a far different reaction from either group.

When II see a poll that says Hillary has the nomination locked up, I wonder, with whom? Indiana seniors and stay-at-home moms? With internet users across 16 states? It’s bolstering to the Hillary camp, but out here in real America, where busy people work and raise families and care for elderly parents and eye their retirements, does it really tell the whole story?

I think not.

Obama has raised some real cash from individuals. At this juncture, I take more stock in that than any poll, because when a citizen makes a $20 campaign donation, that’s 4 gallons of milk or half a tank of gas. This is not excess company profit that can be written off as R&D or some such nonsense, it’s a doctor co-pay or fresh fruit for a week. It’s not jaded, it’s hopeful. Because of that, it carries more weight with me. Edwards is raising cash from regular folks too, albeit not as much as Obama. Count these campaigns out at your peril. There is a lot of non-polled America out there who are digging deep for these two. Plus, when you give your hard earned cash to support an ideal, you tend to go vote.  

Democrats have a pretty clear choice this primary. Old school, questionable scource and corporate funded Hillary, or citizen fueled choices that feel like a departure from the past 30 years. I’ve been there (literally, I’ve been a registered Dem since 1980) and done that. I’m looking for representation which sees me as something beyond a stepping stone. I want somebody who sees national pride as a team effort – a team of millions. There are lots of voters who feel the same way. 

Despite what the “polls” say, I don’t think Hillary can deliver.

Just a little more than a week after Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign promised Iowa Democrats she would not campaign in states that broke party rules by scheduling early primary contests, Clinton held six events in Florida Monday.

Florida, along with Michigan, has considered plans to hold early primary contests that would break a scheduling rule set by the Democratic National Committee. — Sioux City Journal

Her campaign says that five of the events are fundraising, and one is a public event to highlight senior issues, which are exempt from her promise. Oh, brother. Now she can go into states, talk to corporations, take their money, and nobody has any idea what these people expect in return, cause hey! she’s not a candidate for president. Today. She’s just there for the money.

I can’t support somebody who thinks I’m that stupid.

Hat Tip to Political Wire