Joe the Independent

Now that the Democrats don't need Lieberman - with their strong majority in the Senate (not counting the three races still to be decided) - their is talk of punishing him for his support of John McCain. I find this ridiculous. Lieberman and McCain are good friends and kindred spirits in the Senate - both are moderates and have a history of taking stands against their party. Add on top of that the lack of support Lieberman received from his Senate colleagues when he lost the primary in his Senate race, and it is obvious why he supported McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that Lieberman is definitely more to the right than the rest of the party and can be a thorn in the party's side. And he made some really stupid statements on the campaign trail for McCain - using fear tactics on foreign policy that seemed straight out of the Republican playbook. And he spoke at the Republican National Convention. Okay, I don't have much love for him right now either.

In the end though, I don't think a party should punish someone for a position or person they support. What matters more is votes. And if punishing Lieberman will make him more likely to vote with Republicans on key issues, then I think it is a bad idea. Democrats need to realize that despite large majorities, they will still need to build coalitions. Part of building coalitions is having a big tent party - one that accepts those who don't toe the party line on all issues (the other part is knowing how to court those from the other party - including those who are not treated well by their party).

It may not seem like it right now, but Democrats need Joe Lieberman. How they handle this will be a good indicator of how they plan to handle things for the next two years.

More on the Election

I am still trying to get out all that I feel about this election. Right now, the joy of the victory is giving way to an extreme optimism for the next four (hopefully eight) years. Although part of the excitement is the real change we are getting from Bush and Republican policies, I also know it goes beyond that. I wouldn't be this excited if it had been Hillary or Edwards (or even Richardson). I think Obama's election is transformative - or at least has the ability to be. Not just because it changes the way the world thinks about us, but because it changes the way we think about ourselves.

One of the best parts of Obama's campaign is that it empowered his supporters and asked us to have an active role. And so I hope that the volunteer energy that Obama created doesn't end with the election. We have real problems in this country that can't be fixed through higher taxes alone. On September 11, 2008, both Obama and McCain came to New York for the memorial event and spoke at Columbia University later that night. They both talked about creating a renewed interest in public service. President-Elect Obama's new website, change.gov, has a feature on it called America Serves that describes his plans for increasing volunteer work. I seriously hope that this is a major push of his administration.

The bigger challenge though will not be encouraging more volunteers, it will be forcing the country to sacrifice a bit more. Recently, we have been told to consume our way out of recessions and we have been given endless credit to do so. We are encouraged to live way beyond our means - in both financial and environmental terms. This has to stop. We need to borrow less or else risk another recession like the one we are in now. We need to use less oil if we truly hope to have some independence from the affairs of the Middle East. And we need to consume less, while we also change our sources of energy, if we hope to have an impact on global warming.

I do believe that we elected the right candidate for encouraging more volunteering. I don't know if there is any politician who will seriously ask people to sacrifice. Hopefully I am proved wrong.

Would Wallace Have Voted for Obama?

Peggy Wallace Kennedy, the daughter of George C. Wallace and Lurleen Wallace, who both were governors of Alabama, wrote a really good commentary on the CNN website. Basically, her piece says that her father - the most famous advocate for segregation - would have voted for Obama. For those of us who don't know the end of Wallace's story (how he renounced his former positions), the commentary is uplifting.

The Cabinet

I keep thinking that sometime soon I am going to take a break and read about politics less obsessively. It never happens though. Oh well. Now that the election is over, everyone is talking about who President-elect Obama will choose for his administration. I don't have too much to contribute to this - at least at the moment. Basically, I do think he should reach across the aisle - at least for symbolic reasons. And I don't want to see too many Clinton people, although that might be hard to avoid.

As for specifics, I would have thought Bill Richardson would be a great choice for Secretary of State, but Timothy Noah begs to differ. His one short paragraph about why Richardson is a bad choice makes me realize I didn't know as much about him as I should have and therefore slightly embarrassed for supporting him at the beginning of the primaries. Timothy Noah may be way off, but I don't know enough even to be able to defend Richardson. I agree that we don't want Summers as Treasury Secretary, mostly because of how bad of a job he did at Harvard. I think Arnold though would be a good choice for EPA.

On McCain

I want to write a longer post about McCain later, but for now, I want to add my thoughts about his campaign. The bottom line is that I lost respect for him as the campaign wore on. Partly, it is because of the level of his negativity along with the elements he chose to focus on. All of it seemed so disingenuous - so unlike him. Spending so much time on Ayers was absurd, and calling Obama a redistributionist (for a tax policy not so different from one McCain from four years ago would have supported) was something I wouldn't have expected from him. He also chose to focus on symbols and culture wars (Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin) instead of substance.

Worse though is what he allowed the campaign to do to his positions. So many of us hoped that McCain would change his party. For the past four years, McCain has moved to the right, probably with the intention of winning the Republican nomination. But even after winning the nomination, he continued to move to the right and appeal to the Republican base. So instead of changing his party, McCain let the party change him (Brooks covers this theme here, and of course he does a better job than I do). The Republican platform's immigration policy - so different from McCain's previous position, is far to the right. His tax policy is no different from Bush's - including tax cuts for the very wealthy. Even his global warming stance, which admits warming exists, shows disdain for anyone with even the slightest concern over nuclear power.

When I look back on the way the campaign moved through the final months, I see a candidate I don't recognize from the one I admired. Last night, at the concession speech, we saw part of the old candidate again (many people independently said that to me today). The old McCain was honest, gracious, and tough but fair. It's too bad we only saw that McCain after the race. I might say things would have been different if McCain had been able to be himself during the race, but I'm not so sure. At the very least though, I would have respected him far more.

Iran and Venezuela

Maybe it is early still, but I really think two things are going to change Iran's power in negotiations with us. First, Ahmadinejad will no longer have President Bush to take attention away from Iran's failed economy and as the reason he needs to pursue nuclear technology. Secondly, as gas prices decline, so will their revenue. This will of course make their economic situation worse as well as exacerbating the impact of the sanctions. I think we can look for a President Obama to have a much stronger position if / when he negotiates with Iran.

These same reasons might weaken Chavez in Venezuela.

President Barack Obama. Amazing

I am still trying to process the election results and come down from the excitement. Actually, I don't want to come down too much. To be honest, I was anxious for weeks, and it got worse the last few days. I didn't realize how bad I wanted Obama to win. It went way beyond how I felt in 2000 and 2004.

This is the reason I volunteered for the Obama campaign. I knew that if I didn't work the phone banks and enter data, I would blame myself if he lost. It's not that my ego is that big. I just knew that I couldn't actually be upset if he had lost and I hadn't done a thing to help. Volunteering also helped me keep my mind busy as I wondered if the candidate I wanted to be president so badly could actually win.

The fact is that from the beginning I believed this country could elect a black president. At first that belief was just based on faith in our country. But seeing him win the primary in Iowa confirmed this belief. Towards the end though, my fear of not getting what I thought we needed so badly blinded my faith.

The voters yesterday showed that my early faith was not mistaken. And the rest of the world got the message as well. For two elections, the world saw the US elect a president who seems unintelligent and needlessly aggressive and condescending. They assumed we were a country of fools who don't share the values of the rest of the world. After last night, they saw that we can make some bad decisions, but we can also make some truly amazing decisions.

Health Care

I went to an amazing policy breakfast the other day on health care. It was hosted by the Maxwell School and Public Agenda and featured Drew Altman. Because of the breakfast, I am now a huge fan of Public Agenda (a group I knew nothing of before this) and I expect I will be paying more attention to them in the future.

Basically, the breakfast did a great job of highlighting the real differences between McCain and Obama's health care philosophies (and by extension the difference between Republicans and Democrats) - which is different than talking about their plans. Neither are likely to have their actual plans passed, so understanding their philosophies is more important.

Before I get into that though, Drew Altman made three important points that I want to mention. First, he said surveys show that people are more concerned with making health care more affordable - with being able to pay their bills when they receive health coverage. Percent of people with health insurance isn't as big a concern (except how an inability to afford coverage would affect them).

Secondly, he said that what we have seen recently is that as costs are increasing, health plans are charging higher deductibles and providing skimpier coverage. This is likely to continue unless something major changes.

Finally, he talked about what he thought was mostly likely to happen. He thought it somewhat unlikely that there would be an immediate major shift in health care policy. Instead, he predicted small changes that would build on the Children's Health Insurance Program or maybe a bigger program that moved towards universal coverage but would be phased-in if the economy improved.

Now, the major differences between the parties on health care:

Republicans:
-Want to move away from the employer-based system
-Believe a market-based approach can make health care more affordable
-Want less regulation on coverage
-If people have control over their coverage and knowledge of the real costs of their care, they will make better decisions and waste less money (health savings accounts are a move in this direction)

Democrats:
-Want to build on the employer-based system
-Want to move towards universal coverage
-Believe we need to regulate levels of coverage
-Buying health care is extremely complicated and public cannot make decisions about coverage

After hearing this, I think I came down on the side of Democrats. First, I think health coverage is a right not a privilege. Also, while I think we definitely need to do what we can to make health care more affordable, I don't know that I trust the market for this - especially if there is less regulation. Choosing health care coverage is a really complicated decision that involves many factors, some of which the buyer doesn't even know to consider. People will have to make decisions about deductible amounts, choice of doctors, and detailed levels of coverage for treatments. It's not that I think the public is stupid, but that there is naturally information asymmetry that the insurance companies can and do exploit.

Here is where my mind splits though. Above I said I think we need to make health care more affordable. I don't really trust government to be able to do this. The problem is that markets are often more efficient (not always, but often) but definitely not fair. Since so much of health care is about fairness (ie ensuring everyone has adequate coverage), markets cannot be trusted. But without some market pressure, we won't be able to afford to provide coverage for everyone.

I obviously need to do some more thinking about this. I think there is a lot of bad information out there (one-sided pieces like Michael Moore's Sicko for example), and I have not found much good information aside from this breakfast panel. There are some serious questions out there that I haven't heard good answers to yet, like: What are the real strengths and weaknesses of some of Europe's single-payer universal coverage systems? How much do they cost? Why are there extreme variations in costs between states that don't match variations in outcomes?

This is going to be a huge issue no matter who is elected. Costs are rising rapidly and for such an advanced country we have too many people who lack coverage. I will definitely be coming back to this issue. (After all, I didn't even touch on the lack of access to preventative medicine for people without coverage or the overall health of our country.) This is all I've got for now though.

What You Need to Know About Oil

If you are curious about why oil prices have changed so much recently (or even if you think you know), read this article in the Times. If you don't have time, I have highlighted the main points below. If you don't even have time for that, then I would send you away with this main point: Current capacity for the production of oil is flattening while global demand is rapidly increasing. Because of oil futures speculators, prices will fluctuate, but in the long term, prices will rise. We need to decrease our consumption and find alternate sources of energy. The author believes (as does Thomas Friedman, and as do I) that we should create an artificial price floor (through taxes) to accomplish this because every time prices decrease, we forget and we stop conserving.

Those Damn Speculators

According to skeptics like George Soros and Michael Masters, a hedge-fund operator, the only thing wrong with the oil market is the market itself. Speculators, they say, drove the price away from its "fundamental" value; worse, a new breed of institutional investor has been buying oil futures, hoarding the supply.

On the other hand:

Of course, capitalism demands that people, or at least investors, make bets. That is how resources are allocated and money is invested where it is needed; high prices communicate scarcity. You could even say the oil market has performed a vital service to the country by telegraphing the need to conserve and to develop alternative supplies.

Recent History of Oil Prices:

The reason that the history of oil is basically one of attempted price fixing is that, as technology has improved, drilling costs have fallen, meaning that prices have been under near-continuous downward pressure. Like most commodities, oil should sell for whatever the cost of producing one additional unit is — in this case, one more barrel. Economists call this the "marginal" cost. If someone charges much more than that, a competitor can offer to sell it more cheaply.

It’s only when oil is scarce that things become interesting. If there isn’t enough to go around, then the marginal cost no longer matters because, at the margin, there is no more oil to produce. Under such conditions, oil will rise to the price at which people stop using it — either because they drive less or because they find another energy source. This is called the price of demand destruction. Think of that as the upper bound on the price. With the twin shocks of the ’70s — the Arab embargo and the Iranian revolution — oil did reach an upper bound, jumping tenfold to $40 a barrel in 1981. Demand quickly collapsed, and the price eventually sank all the way back to the marginal cost, $12.

Low prices were good news for consumers but a mixed blessing for society. Since it takes time for oil companies, as well as consumers, to react to price changes, markets tend to respond with a perilous lag. In the ’80s, oil companies were spending billions looking for oil, and Detroit was retooling its plants to make smaller cars, even as the price of oil was collapsing.

In the mid-1980s the oil industry suffered a terrible slump. Thousands of petroleum engineers were fired or left the business. Congress lost interest in energy conservation, and projects to develop shale oil and other alternatives were dropped. In Europe, high fuel taxes meant that people still had an incentive to conserve. In America, families became unwilling to ride in anything but trucks.

Even as oil prices rose in this decade, big oil companies — still responding to the price signal of an earlier period — plowed most of their cash flow into dividends and stock repurchases rather than risk it on exploration. State oil companies overseas, like Saudi Arabia’s, which control four-fifths of the world’s reserves, refused to make the investment to develop their fields to full potential for fear of flooding the market (another reaction to low prices). For similar reasons, there was a lull in building critically needed refineries.

By the time oil companies woke up to the consequences of low prices, it was in some sense too late. There was "a missing generation of engineers," according to Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and the author of "The Prize," a history of the oil industry. There was also a lack of drilling rigs and men to work them. Drilling costs soared, and equipment was often unavailable. Also, countries where oil is abundant, like Russia and Venezuela, were increasingly chauvinistic and hostile to foreign operators. Civil unrest set back production in Nigeria.

By the middle of this decade, various big oil regions — Mexico, Nigeria, the North Sea, Colombia, Venezuela — were experiencing production declines.

The lesson here is that a high price of oil is the only thing that forces us to conserve and invest in alternate energy. Hence the need for an artificial price floor.

Also, if you think compressed natural gas (CNG) is the solution to our problems, read this article. Basically, if we really want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming, we need to decrease our consumption, not change the form of our consumption.

Who Did the Times Endorse?

The New York Times endorsed Obama. That shouldn't surprise anyone. What is surprising though is who the Time has endorsed over the years. The graphic shows that they have endorsed the losing candidate 15 out of 37 elections and haven't endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower in 1956. Also, they didn't endorse FDR in 1940, his third election. Instead they endorsed Wendell Willkie (who?) because they thought he could better protect the country, because FDR's fiscal policies apparently were failing, and because they didn't want to give a president a third term. Interesting.

Also of note, the Times endorsed Dewey over Truman, and endorsed Lincoln both times and Grant both times. In 1928 they endorsed Al Smith (whose dinner Obama and McCain recently attended). I wonder if they knew the country (aka the south) was too anti-Catholic to elect him.

A Huge Endorsement

Colin Powell endorses Obama for president. That speaks volumes. He did it because of McCain's recent tone and choices. And he did it because Obama offers a significantly different foreign policy approach. I was hoping this would happen.

Palin and the Conservative Movement, Part 2

David Brooks is really shaping up to be one of my favorite columnists. He is the only conservative (albeit a moderate one) who can really challenge me and also give me hope for a better conservative movement. This column is probably one of his best. In it he laments the Republican party's decision to wage a culture war on intellectuals.

Politics in our country would be so much better if it involved more intellectuals on both sides. Now, I refuse to believe that conservative politics is incompatible with reason, intelligence, and academic study. My hope therefore is that at some point, conservatives get tired of listening to, and voting for, people like President Bush and VP candidate Sarah Palin.

I'll let Brooks take over from here:

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole.

[Edit]

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking "eastern elites." (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

[Edit]

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

What is so upsetting is how many intellectual people in the Republican party go along with this (just as too many liberals for too long allowed the Democratic party to talk down to people of faith). Hopefully this changes, and soon.

Palin and the Conservative Movement

The last time I wrote about Palin was following the GOP convention. We have learned a lot since then. What seems clear to me is that she just isn't up to the task of being President. What surprises me is that so many think she is.

It's obvious that people like her because they think she is like them. What I have trouble understanding is why people want someone like them to be president. I guess I assumed everyone wanted someone better than them to be president.

This in part is a battle of the culture wars we find ourselves in. Republicans tend to be wary of intelligence in leaders. Now, while I understand being wary of a certain kind of intelligence - one that shows the leader is not connected to the everyday lives of regular people - that doesn't mean that it's opposite, stupidity, should be favored.

Let me be clear about my terms with specific examples. John Kerry is probably a good model of the disconnected intellectual. George W. Bush and Sarah Palin to me represent the type of vapid and lack of intelligence that are sometimes favored by Republicans. On the flip side, you have someone like the Clintons (character failings aside) or Obama - people who are clearly intelligent but also grounded. I would definitely put John McCain and Joe Biden into the category of intelligent people.

I think the main misconception is that liberals think only the highly educated (read: Ivy League) are competent to run the country. But for most liberals actually, education doesn't so much matter. While Clinton and Obama were educated at Ivy League schools, McCain went to the Naval Academy and Biden to University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School. Other Republicans also fit here - like Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and Jeb Bush. All of these people have demonstrated that they understand the main issues in our country.

I have heard many conservatives say that intelligence doesn't so much matter if the person surrounds themselves with smart people to help them make decisions. I find this to be such a cop-out. How can you make decisions on policies if you aren't smart enough to understand them and therefore wouldn't know when to oppose what your advisers are saying. We need no better example than President Bush, who seemed to be ruled by his staff (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) instead of the other way around.

I can understand when imperfect candidates come along, sometimes you have to hold your nose. But I would prefer if people would acknowledge that instead of lying to everyone else and themselves. Let's go back to John Kerry. Clearly, he wasn't an ideal choice for President. He was smart, but he seemed to lack good ideas (not to mention a serious foreign policy). But I voted for him because I agreed with his policies far more than Republicans. What the 2004 election gave us was a contest between a rather unintelligent Republican candidate, and a smart but aloof Democrat. I still think the better bet there is someone who at least understands issues and can talk about them in depth and using complete sentences.

The point I am trying to make is that no one should be satisfied with a president (or a vice president who could easily become president) who seems dim, and yet also unaware of his or her inability to grasp so many complicated issues. Just like no one should be satisfied with a John Kerry. Instead though, people are celebrating Palin's ability to make only broad but meaningless statements like, "gosh government, you need to just get out of the way."

Both Wrong

So the debates are over - three between Obama and McCain, and the one between Biden and Palin. I'll talk about Palin another time. But for now, I want to express my one disappointment - that neither candidate was able to admit that they were wrong at least once about Iraq. John McCain, at the beginning, supported the troop levels in Iraq and believed we would be welcomed as liberators. Looking back, that was obviously an error in judgment.

As the insurgency increased without sign of end (despite "last throes" comments from the administration), McCain did become one of the first to suggest increasing troop levels significantly. And here is where Obama was wrong. He opposed the surge from the beginning and even had trouble admitting when it was working. Granted, this wouldn't have worked without the Sunni Awakening - but nor would the Sunni Awakening have worked without the Surge.

So here we see the two politicians having made errors of judgment on the war. Both can of course point out where the other had erred, but neither has admitted their mistake. We can't blame Bush for saying he hasn't made any mistakes in office if every other politician is equally incapable.

It's About Time Mr. Rosenthal

The steroids issue in baseball is one I can't look away from - particularly with Mark McGwire. Probably my best post ever was about this topic. Although I am disappointed in McGwire more than words can say, I think the press, along with the fans, pretends like they didn't enable this by wearing blinders to what was going on.

Finally, a sports columnist has written the column that I think all of them should have written already. He acknowledges, with much embarassment, how he ignored obvious signs of what was going on (he actually quotes himself from an old article looking foolish in retrospect).

Here it is, and here is the best part:

"Then there is the Hall of Fame, which leaves me similarly ambivalent. The Hall instructs voters to consider not just playing ability, but also character, integrity and sportsmanship. I do not vote for McGwire because I am not convinced he meets those subjective standards. Yet I ask myself: Am I penalizing Big Mac because I was the fool?"

I’ve been waiting for an article like this for over three years. I wish all sports writers were this self-aware.

He also does a great job of acknowledging how that summer, 1998, brought so many baseball fans back to the game. Because of that, it is hard to separate and understand our different emotions. I did fall in love with baseball again that summer, and it was because of McGwire. That can't be taken away. But I am so profoundly disappointed in how it seems he achieved it.

I wonder if I'll ever be able to reconcile these emotions.

One of Those Days

I'm having one of those days. I feel like I did during the late stages of the Democratic primary - where the campaigns and the news coverage of the campaigns just disgusts me. Let's see, we had more talk about Obama's lipstick wearing pig. And as was common in the Democratic primaries, the McCain camp feigned outrage and persuaded the public that the comment was about Palin. Then the McCain camp said that the Obama camp was acting desperate by attacking McCain. The race is insanely close right now, and there is a person who can say with a straight face that one camp is desperate.

Then I read an article about Biden's "gaffes". Now, I will be the first to criticize his real gaffes, like when he said Obama was the first articulate African-American candidate. But only in today's insane, 24-hour news coverage world is a slip of the tongue like calling his opponent George McCain or talking about the Biden Administration. These are slip-ups, and it seems like the only candidate that the press can appreciate is one who never makes a mistake.

Then we had reports of Democratic corruption and likely ethical lapses. Worse is the realization that Democrats protect their own as long as they can as much as Republicans do (ie Pelosi firing back against the Republican Minority Leader).

As I write this though, I am watching McCain speak at Columbia University (as I sit a few blocks from where he is speaking). McCain's conversation is helping my mood. His tone is civil, his points are well articulated even when I disagree. This is the person I used to respect. Unfortunately, his campaign has taken over and created a different candidate, and that is a shame. I do feel the same way about Obama. Hopefully his conversation later will also leave me feeling better.

I do wonder if maybe Obama made a mistake by not doing the town-hall meetings with McCain. Granted, that would have played to McCain's strengths more than Obama's. But maybe the tone of the campaigns would have been different. Then again, the tone is still up to the candidates, no matter what forum they choose to debate each other. So maybe it is a pipe dream to hope that somehow campaigns can somehow be civil.

Chess and South Ossetia

I've been looking to get a better description of the events that lead up to the Russian invasion of Georgia. Through these events I have realized just how much we are dependent on the media and their portrayal of events. The earliest reports suggested that Russia's invasion of Georgia was unprovoked. Now the story seems to be that the Russian response was not in proportion to Georgia's provocation. But the only way we can know which of those it was is to get an unbiased account of events. I am still not sure I have gotten that.

This article in the New York Review of Books is the best I have come across. What is amazing about the article is how it has the feel of a chess match. Basically, the article is saying that Russia has been planning to protect and recognize the independence of these regions of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) for some time. It was a response to the US expanding NATO to former Soviet countries, including Poland and now Georgia as well as the US recognizing Kosovo's independence, which Russia fears would strengthen more secessionist movements. Apparently, this has left Russia fearing for its security while also being humiliated at how the US ignores its wishes even in cases where there could be reasonable compromise (ie Kosovo).

Russia's response recently, according to the article, was to make a point to the countries in its region. The point was that US promises of security are merely talk. Russia sees that the US is tied down in Iraq and needs Russian cooperation with Iran. Therefore, Russia can exercise power in its region without serious American intervention. This is supposed to give pause to those who feel safe by American guarantees of support.

It is no surprise that international affairs involve a lot of strategy. But since I spend so much time thinking of examples where strategy seems like less of an issue (Darfur for example, where I care less about strategy and more about seeing some real action), the extent to which both sides are calculating responses and making decisions about gains really struck me.

So the US now has to decide its next move. Our most recent move is to back out of civilian nuclear pact with Russia - which doesn't seem like a major play (not really responding "with tempo"). We need Russia's help, so the options are limited. Being tied down in Iraq further limits our response. We made a decision to invest heavily in the Middle East - with military operations as well as our national attention - which takes away from what we can do in other areas of the board.

As I think all this through, I picture a chess board. I see the US bogged down in a king side attack (Iraq). So Russia sees that it can take one of our pawns. Our only response weakens our on-going king side attack. It seems then that Russia will be able to keep our pawn.

There are two lessons here. One, chess isn't so boring after all. Two, the invasion of Iraq continues to bring out our weaknesses elsewhere. Iraq doesn't seem like it was a very strategic decision. Then again, I never really pegged Bush as a long-term strategic planner.

Budgeting and Pork Spending

Okay, as both candidates are making certain pledges about their spending and savings, I feel the need to weigh in. I have been a budget analyst for only five years now, but I have come to learn a few things on the job. Some other things I have learned just by following the news.

First, one of McCain's big messages is how he will change Washington. And one of his biggest projects will be cutting pork barrel spending. Now, pork spending does make me angry too - it is often a misuse of scarce resources and also is a factor for why it is so hard to vote out incumbent politicians from office. At the same time though, it is less than one percent of the federal budget, which means it is hardly worth the time and effort spent opposing it. Also, it's not like this is a new gripe for Presidents. Bush has long opposed pork spending, but he has so far been unable to do anything about it. So I know McCain claims he will end pork spending, but as long as Congress controls the purse strings, he is going to have trouble getting a budget through Congress without any pork in it.

Second, Obama says he is going to eliminate programs that don't work. By doing this he claims he will fund his new programs. This is nothing new either. In fact, Bush has also tried this to limited success. The fact is, many programs that seem ineffective have Congressional support for one reason or another. So as I said about McCain, Obama will have trouble getting his budget through Congress when he cuts some of their beloved programs.

Look, budgeting involves making real choices about priorities. Money, even for the federal government, is a scarce resource. You can make changes on the margins by improving efficiency, cutting ineffective programs, and eliminating pork spending. But you don't make any significant impact on the budget that way; it won't help you cut taxes or create new programs. In the end, the real choice is between the level of services you want and the amount of revenue you want to raise. If you cut taxes, at some point you are going to have to cut services. And if you want to provide more services, you are going to have to raise more revenue. Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

Shame

I am becoming more upset each day at the way two politicians - the only two - who seemed capable of rising above it all take the low road and choose to distort each other's record. This graphic at the Times does a good job of showing some examples of this. You can also check out factcheck.org. Here are two of what I think are the most egregious misstatements - one from each of the presidential candidates. McCain first:

"I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them."

Reality Check: This drastically simplifies what the candidates' tax plans would do. Mr. McCain would preserve all of the Bush tax cuts, while Mr. Obama would let them expire for those making more than $250,000 a year. Mr. McCain would also double the child tax exemption to $7,000 and reduce business taxes. Mr. Obama would reduce income taxes and provide credits for people earning less than $250,000 a year. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while Mr. McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Mr. Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under Mr. McCain.

This is just classic Republican talking points. Paint Democrats as tax and spenders, regardless of their actual revenue proposals. Now, if they were to say that Obama's plans wouldn't actually provide enough funding for all his projects, that would be a different thing.

And from Obama:

"Now, I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year?"

Reality Check: This refers to Mr. McCain’s answer at a forum last month when the Rev. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church asked the candidate to give a specific number for the income level that divides the rich from the middle class. "How about $5 million?" Mr. McCain initially answered. The audience laughed and Mr. McCain went on to say: "But seriously, I don’t think you can” cite a number. He also foresaw how the opposition would use his answer. "I’m sure that comment will be distorted," he said. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org concluded that was what Mr. Obama did — distort what it called Mr. McCain’s "clumsy attempt at humor."

This is just absurd. Granted, McCain dodged the question on what constitutes middle class, and he did it in a stupid way. But that doesn't justify taking a joke and making people think he meant it seriously. Shame on Obama.

Our political process would be so much better if someone like FactCheck.org was given more attention by the press. Seriously, if I were running a network, I would be the first to do that - have FactCheck there during a broadcast to have them report on statements they know to be untrue.

The Message

Now that the RNC is over, McCain's message is starting to clarify. There seem to be three main points. One, McCain is a war hero and Obama is not. This tact didn't work for Kerry in 2004, nor did it work for Bush or Dole against Clinton in 1994 and 1996. We'll see how well it works this time.

Secondly, McCain is running on change. And the more I hear it, the more it irritates me. John McCain has done some important things in the Senate, definitely more so than Obama. And some of that was done by opposing his party. But since 2004, McCain has been voting with his party more and more. It is no longer accurate to suggest that his policies will be different from President Bush's policies. He wants to continue Bush's tax cuts (which he once opposed for giving too much back to the super-rich), he has no plans for withdrawing from Iraq, he is more militant towards Iran, and he supported a law that allows the CIA to use the type of torture techniques he opposed for the military. In fact, even his stance on immigration has changed and is more conservative than Bush. Reading the Republican Platform here, you can see that it opposes any amnesty and wants to deport all illegal workers.

John McCain is no longer a maverick and seems to be far from the moderate he used to be. The Republican base is starting to realize this (hence their excitement), but I don't know if independents are catching on. If McCain were the person he was between 2000 and 2004, I wouldn't be so worried. I could relax knowing we would have someone different in the White House. Unfortunately, McCain seems to be moving further and further from that person every day.

Finally, the Republican campaign is using the same talking points they always do. They say Obama will raise taxes and is weak on foreign policy. They aren't responding to particular policies of Obama's and instead are relying on reinforcing stereotypes. This worked for them in 2004, but not in 2006. Hopefully voters don't buy it this time either.