Sedente Animo

Obama Probably Doesn't Even Know He Did Something Wrong

Everyday, all over the Internet, people throw around the word "treason" very lightly.  However, when I use the word treason right now in regards to Barak Obama, I'm not making that mistake.  Link: From the New York Post:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

In all seriousness, this warrants an objective and bipartisan investigation.

A Welcome Change

Scanning today's headlines yields a promising trend in the campaign for president:  a focus on the issues.  The headlines are filled with talk on taxes and energy independence and you have to believe that if substance receives more attention than style, John McCain stands a pretty good chance of coming out on top in November.

A Reagan-esque Remark

There's been a lot of discussion as of late about whether or not John McCain is a "Reagan-style" Republican.  I think most people would agree that though there are some similarities, there also a lot of differences.

But when I read McCain's remarks on Fidel Castro:

"I hope he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon,"

I couldn't help but think that was certainly something Reagan would have said.  Remember when Reagan called Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi "a flake"?

Decisions, Decisions 2006

On this beautiful November morning, I cast my vote.

When I finished, a red "X" glowed next to the names of Rick Santorum and Curt Weldon.

I wasn't terribly elated to vote for either one, but given the other options, I felt they were the best choices for my state and my country.  Santorum's -- for lack of a better term -- "over-the-top religiosity" is a turn-off, and even if Weldon is proved to have broken no laws, it seems likely that he has at least enjoyed the largesse of majority a bit too much.

But for me, homeland security (the war in Iraq falls under this large umbrella), lower taxes, and lower government spending are the most important issues at hand.  All of us deserve to be safe and all of us deserve to have as few roadblocks in our way to achieve our goals, you know, the usual stuff: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If election cycles were absurdly short, say six months, I would be tempted to cast a "let's teach them a lesson" type of vote.  But they aren't.  Terms are measured in years, not months, and for that reason, I stand a much better chance of having what is important to me addressed by seemingly out of touch Republicans in office than I do with Democrats.

If you value similar things as I do, then staying home from the voting booth or voting for Democrats is nothing more than cutting your nose off to spite your face, an act for which we may all suffer.

Where's the Plan?

John Broder in the The New York Times gets around to writing about something we've all noticed:  Democrats have no plan for solving the Iraq problem.  I had to chuckle at this passage:

“We haven’t coalesced around a single plan,” Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is up for re-election this year, acknowledged in an interview on Thursday. “But, we’re in general agreement on the basic principles.”

What basic principle is that?  "We are against anything Bush is in favor of"?

I can't believe Americans are willing to vote for candidates who are in favor of withdrawl, such as Bob Casey running for Pennsylvania Senator.  Day after day, Americans teach their children to clean up the messes they've made and to not quit in the middle of something.

Leaving Iraq before the job is done is the same thing.

Flawed Polls

Michael Barone pens an informative piece on Real Clear Politics concerning the errors inherent to polling.

In it, he explains how pollsters will attempt to screen out those responders who are unlikely to vote.  Most pollsters agree that this is a difficult at best proposition.  I would imagine that setting the screening criteria slightly to one degree or another would make huge differences in the results of the poll.

Barone also mentions that since fewer and fewer people now have traditional landline phones, it is becoming harder and harder to accumulate representative samples.  This makes sense to me, but Barone leaves one one other piece of technology that I think is even more important:  Caller ID.

More and more, people only answer a telephone if they recognize the number displayed.  Over the years, telemarketers have immunized us from reflexively assuming that whoever is calling is someone with which we would actually want to have a conversation.

Think about it, what type of person answers their telephone no matter who is calling?  And is that person representative of those likely to vote?  For the most part, I doubt it.  Or, maybe the more accurate question is, "Are Democrats or Republicans more likely to answer a ringing telephone that displays "UNAVAILABLE" in the caller ID?"

But to be fair, Republicans should not readily dismiss every poll as inaccurate.  Sure, the results of polls may be distorted for any number of reasons.  But, if your candidate is 11 whole points behind this close to election day, then there is probably a lot of validity to it.

Timing is Everything

Around these parts, as one travels the area, colors are plentiful this time of year.  A great deal of it is due to the foliage, but much of it is also from campaign signs mounted in yards and medians.

Even more specific to my part of the world, signs abound for Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.  If signage and placards were indicative of election outcomes, Weldon could go home and put his feet up on his couch from now until November 7th.

Obviously that is not the way to gauge elections.  A less imperfect way to project election outcomes are polls, and in that regard, the election appears to be much tighter.  Most polls show that while Weldon at one point held a sizable lead over Sestak through most of the summer, the lead dwindled to just a few points as autumn arrived.  Two issues contributed to the tightening of the race: Sestak proved he was a legitimate candidate for office and the discontent with the Republican controlled Congress loomed even larger.

But all of that was before October 16th when FBI agents raided the house of Weldon's daughter and a political supporter of Weldon, Charlie Sexton.  The raids were part of a probe to determine whether or not Weldon gave improper help to his daughter to obtain lobbying contracts.

While there is certainly an appearance of impropriety, it remains to be seen whether there is or not.  But what is also interesting is the timing of the investigation and raids.  Just days before the raids, mailings were sent to residences in the congressional district challenging the ethics of Weldon and his daughter.  Just minutes after the raids in the Philadelphia area, the media was on the scene along with protestors opposing Weldon.

All of this just weeks before a tight election.

I've never been one for conspiracy theories.  I don't think Johnson had Kennedy killed, I do think astronauts actually landed on the moon, and I don't think NFL games are routinely fixed by Vegas.  But when Weldon claims that the investigation has questionable motives, you have to wonder if there isn't something to it.

Schumer MIA

Who are you and what have you done with Chuck Schumer?.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Finance Committee, gave [Henry M.] Paulson his backing after talking to him Tuesday.

"His experience, intelligence and deep understanding of national and global economic issues make him the best pick America could have hoped for," Schumer said.

Where's the hyperbole?  Where are the cries of cronyism between Goldman-Sachs alums Paulson and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten?

Three Out of Ten Journalists Don't Read Their Email

Link: Poynter Online - Romenesko - Seven out of 10 journalists say they've been accused of bias.

Who the heck are the other three?  Are they hermits?

Seriously.  Both conservatives and liberals accuse the media of being biased, so its hard to believe there are any that haven't been accused of it by one side or the other.

OxBlog

I could not agree more with Mr. Porter of OxBlog.

Link: OxBlog: ENOUGH OF THE NAMECALLING.