Obama & McCain - What the Astrologers Say

The polls at fivethirtyeight.com predict an Obama win. According to them, Obama has a 96.3% chance of becoming president in early 2009.

But for those of you who don't trust polling data, there is something more convincing: excerpts from the horoscopes for Obama, McCain and their running mates for tomorrow.

Obama’s 4 Nov horoscope

You may be accepted as just the person for a particular job. If you have always been the follower, you may find yourself a leader today. As a leader, you could appoint a co-leader to help you plan and coordinate. Radical and inventive ideas hold the key to realizing your ambitions and advancing your status--a shake-up could be in the works. You draw emotional sustenance and a sense of security from friends who give you support. Your relationships and partnerships are very important to you. They are capable of transforming you at the most basic level. A time of real inner growth is encouraged through other people.

Biden's horoscope suggests that he might be working with the younger Obama on foreign policy issues. Biden's 4 November horoscope.

Your communication skills are energized this morning. Your timing should be perfect and those around you should find your responses are lively. Concerning relationships, you are entering a phase of emotional directness--one marked by powerful feelings. Emotional beginnings, a fresh start, perhaps the establishment of new habit patterns--make sure they are good ones, because they will set the tone for you for quite some time to come! This evening there is time to enjoy a favorite hobby. Rearranging, organizing and perhaps trading with someone that enjoys the same hobby will be part of this preoccupation. Doing something nice for a loved one makes you feel good about yourself this evening. This may involve helping a child with homework.

McCain's 4 Nov horoscope

Report any difficulties as you see them and ask for help to create a friendlier atmosphere. This may bring an end to the problem or at least ease the problem. Change happens and in time the situation will become non-existent. Working through problems seems to be the order of the day and hard to avoid. It is good you are understanding and can be helpful in the work place or at home.

It doesn't sound good for Sarah Palin either. She may be looking at a career change that includes tupperware or amway? (Of course, if McCain Palin pull off an upset, this working in your own home may take on a diferent sound.) Her 4 Nov horoscope

Ambition and achievement can be a tough path to follow. You win reward, recognition and authority through hard work and knowing the score; otherwise, you may wisely realize that someone hungrier and in the know will overtake you. Who owes what, who owns what and who decides what, are some of the major issues for you today. This could be a time of developing ideas for working out of your home. You have a deep yearning to express your talents and may feel that you are held back. Working in your own home would place you in the roll as your own boss. Talk to people that have a business in their home; go to conventions where home-based businesses are advertised. Careful--someone you work for or with could be a new customer

.

It is hard to construe this as anything but positive news for the Obama camp. And really, what could be more reliable?

Hope for Scandal

Next week, an entire industry will disappear. For about two years, analysts have predicted and explained the political campaigns. Printers and advertisers have been busy putting together flyer's, ads, and radio spots. In one week, all of that will be over.

The bad news is that millions of jobs will be gone overnight. The only good news for the economy is that most of these were volunteer jobs.

Worse, for the last 16 years, our media has been moved along by a sense of outrage. First it was Bill Clinton's penis and then George Bush's brain that enabled news analysts and columnists and talk show hosts to express outrage and feign understanding. The growth in 24 hour news channels, on-line news, and talk radio has been one of the only bright spots in this American economy.

We can only hope that - for the sake of big media - whoever gets elected manages to find himself in a scandal soon. Maybe McCain, if elected, could invade Vietnam or Obama - striking fear in the hearts of whites who are a afraid of a black take over - might outlaw polka. We can only hope. For the sake of the economy.

Obama, Kennedy & Voter Fraud

Current polls indicate that Obama will win about two thirds of the electoral votes. Pundits are talking about a landslide. This is not, historically, a landslide. FDR got 99%, Reagan 98% and Nixon 97% in victories. That is a landslide.

This chart shows how, during the last century going back to the 1908 election, the Republicans have won about 51% of the electoral votes, the Democrats about 47% and third-party candidates almost 2%. As you can see, the close elections that twice gave us George W. are really anomalies.

I've included Obama's latest poll numbers in this graph. You can see how it compares with the results over history. (Click on it to make it larger.)



Look at 1960. Although Kennedy won by a comfortable margin of victory in the electoral vote, his margin of victory in the popular vote was only .17% - not even two-tenth of one percent. Historians seem to agree that Kennedy won by voter fraud. Try this thought experiment. What if Nixon had won in 1960, been assassinated in 1963, and Kennedy had served two terms starting in 1969, at age 51? (You can decide whether his second term would have also ended in impeachment (likely for his conduct with an intern rather than breaking and entering into the Watergate apartments). It is hard to think of a better argument against voter fraud than that scenario.

DATA FROM GRAPH from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
----
At other blogs
Political Irony - Imaginary Voter Fraud
YouDecide2008 Voting Fraud Fears Grow
AskCherLock An Obama Landslide
Baseball Nooby The Evaporating Obama Landslide

That's Absurd! (Mere Blogger Takes on Would-be Leaders of the Free World)

The difference between Monty Python skits and political debates is that Monty Python was trying to be absurd.

It was utterly absurd when McCain and Obama were arguing with each other about who would provide the most in tax cuts. Next year’s deficit is projected to be as much as $1,000 billion (a trillion or a million million) and they are clamoring to cut taxes. Do they really think that we Americans are so stupid that we don’t realize that tax cuts that fuel deficits don’t make us better off? Or are they really that stupid? Can anyone pronounce “credit crisis?”

Obama had the good sense to talk about needed investments. Why Obama did not make more effort to distinguish between government spending and government investment is lost on me. The American people need to be reminded that things like the interstate highway system, the Internet, and the GI Bill were fabulous investments that more than paid for themselves. Today there are even more opportunities for such incredible investments – in everything from biology research and nanotechnology and alternative energy to transforming school systems to educate and train people able to work in such fields. And getting back to deficit spending, it was no coincidence that when deficits became surpluses in the 90s, investment and business formation boomed. Government borrowing squeezes out business borrowing. Can anyone pronounce “credit crisis?”

In an age of globalization, it is ridiculous to talk about ending reliance on foreign oil unless or until we end reliance on oil. The mix of oil we consume through free markets will always pretty much look like the mix of oil on global markets. Can anyone pronounce “credibility crisis?”

One of the odder proposals thrown out by McCain (almost as odd as his defense of the “drill baby drill” chant while claiming to be one of the early defenders of climate change initiatives) was his casual mention of a “troops to teaching” bill that would allow veterans to go right into teaching without needing those (and this said with a grimace) “credentials that they require in some states." So, having worn a uniform somehow exempts a person from the need to meet state teaching standards?

We spend the most per capita on education and health care and we rank near the bottom of the industrialized countries in measures like math and science and infant mortality. Obama’s solution to high expense and poor results in health care is more government. McCain’s solution to high expense and poor results in education is less government. I have no doubt that their plans will work.

Finally, the most absurd thing about the debate was how the first third of this debate seemed to be taken up with accusations and defense of character. This when the American people are watching a slow motion train wreck of America’s financial system, when 86% of Americans think that we’re on the wrong track. McCain seemed not to understand that the American people would be less interested in his hurt feelings than what he proposed to do to get the country back on the right track.

It seems as though McCain missed his opportunity to gain ground on Obama tonight. I am almost beginning to feel sorry for McCain, seeing various polls that suggest Obama led by 8 to 14 percent before the debate and that the percentage of undecided voters who thought he won tonight’s debate is nearly double those who thought McCain had won. But I’d much rather feel sorry for McCain than for the country that has already suffered under 8 years of Republican’s confident and cheery incompetence.

What Biden Could Have Said

I have to confess that my favorite moment in the debate was when Sarah Palin pronounced nuc-u-lear energy the same way as our president. Suddenly, I had a vision of George Bush in lipstick.

I love Joe Biden. Like the rest of the country, I think that he won tonight's debate. Still, I think that he left a low hanging curve ball out over the plate, not even taking a swing at a pitch he could have hit out. Palin said a couple of times that she was going to cut taxes to create jobs and the Obama - Biden administration would destroy jobs. Might I put words in Biden's mouth?

Biden:
If all it took to create jobs was tax cuts, private sector job growth would not have been 6X as high under Clinton as it has been under Bush. The American people have seen the disastrous results of simplistic policies. It takes more than tax cuts and our plan reflects that.

We're going to fund alternative energy, helping to create the industries of the future. We're going to make college more affordable, creating not just any jobs but better jobs. And we're going to encourage business formation by giving breaks to start ups and small businesses rather than offering tax cuts to big oil.

-----
But tonight I kept track - with my buddies Beth, Jason and Clay - of the number of gaffes (scored even), funny quips (even), and clear and specific points (massive advantage to Biden), credible claims (again, about a dozen points to Biden and about half a dozen negatives for Palin, huge edge to Biden) and good ideas (significant edge to Biden, although an admittedly more subjective evaluation).

Palin did not look foolish but it was at least in part because she completely refused to answer certain questions. It is hard to look unprepared if you simply don't respond to the questions for which you have no answer.

Time will tell if the attempt to lower expectations led Americans to decide that she did well enough. The immediate response seems to be, no - she did better than expected but not well enough to convince us she is ready for the job.

And the fact that Palin is not qualified matters because the president does so few of the really important jobs. This financial crisis reminds us how important it is to have competent Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman. Appointments matter, and McCain has seemed more eager to show his maverick recklessness than demonstrate more traditional, yet boring judgment.

Biden - Palin Pre-Debate Analysis

This is a messy and complex world. One might be inclined to think that in a debate about such a world the advantage would go to a person able to deal with and talk about such complexity (and by that I mean Joe Biden). This might not be true.

If your audience is easily confused by complexity, the simpler answers are more likely to gain their approval. People don't judge words by their accuracy - they judge them by how comprehensible they are.

The conventional wisdom is that the vague generalities, ignorance, and simple worldview of Sarah Palin is going to give her a distinct disadvantage tonight. I'm not so sure. Such simplifications and vague reassurances might be just what many voters are looking for.

My prediction? Palin will come across as vague and simplistic as the pundits are predicting, but it won't hurt her in the polls.

Strategy or Tactic? The Difference Between Obama & McCain

From Friday night's debate:

OBAMA: But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
...

MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.

OBAMA: We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise?

So the question is, do you want to elect a president who thinks that his strategy ought to begin with the question of how best to win a war or who thinks that his strategy ought to begin with the question of what – including war, investment in research into alternative energy, tax cuts, health care, etc. – is going to do the most to improve quality of life?

A president should not focus on the best strategy for educating the youth, extending longevity, enhancing the safety of pensions, or creating transportation solutions that minimize commuting time and carbon footprint. The president should focus on the best strategy – among these and various other options – for improving quality of life.

For Obama, the change in the approach to the Iraqi occupation is a tactic and the decision to make the world safer by invading Iraq is a strategy. For McCain, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq is a given and how best to do that is a strategy. McCain remains the good soldier. He is not, it would seem, running for president so much as Commander in Chief.

Just the Facts

Why people have grown cynical about politics
A Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that much of the money collected by professional fundraisers does not get to charities. "Philanthropy watchdogs say fundraisers should never keep more than 35 cents on the dollar, but the Times found the overall average was 54 cents, and for missing children charities, fundraisers kept 86 cents. (Fundraisers for an organization called Citizens Against Government Waste kept 94 cents.)"

Which one of these candidates didn't know how many houses he owns?
Percentage change by 2012 in the after-tax income of the top 0.1 percent of the U.S. earners, under Barack Obama's tax plan: -5

Percentage change under John McCain's tax plan: +12


Why the government may have to buy $700 billion in bad mortgages:
Percentage change between 1989 and 2007 in the median price of an American single-family home: +130

Percentage change in the median down payment: +3.7

Well, okay - not just the facts:
And since I'm quoting from The Funny Times, here is the caption to a cartoon featuring a women talking to two smiling friends at a cafe: "My ideal man is kind, sensitive, intelligent, six-two, a hundred-eighty pounds, and made of solid milk chocolate."

The Pretty Face and Ugly Policies of Sarah Palin

Well, they've done it again. The Republicans have found a way to distract voters from policy and its aftermath by making people think personality is more important than policy or worldview.

The election news has focused on Sarah Palin. She's better looking than Biden. She has kids. She has taken on good old boys in the Republican Party. She has won beauty pageants and the state basketball championship. Suddenly, the question seems to be, wouldn't you rather support this woman we can all relate to and admire rather than that wonkish and not quite one of us candidate with the funny name?

But does it really matter how personable someone is if they still think that blood letting is the way to cure illness? Palin’s policies are pretty much Bush’s policies. It is not obvious how her good looks and missing Y chromosome will make those policies any less of a disaster.

The poverty of Palin's policies ought to be evident. As a person, she could be wonderful or she could be a pitbull. I really don't care. I do know that the vapidity of her advocacy for abstinence-only education for teens should be evident to anyone who sees the consequence of that in her own house. Her unwed seventeen year old is about to give birth within a year of her mom. If this is the consequence of her policies, does it really matter whether or not she is likable?

Of course, for all their talk of accountability, the Republicans never actually do take responsibility. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the bailout by American taxpayers (a bill that will total tens, perhaps hundreds of billions) is in no way related to the Republicans love for deregulation. At least not in their minds. These mortgage giants are too big to fail but they were left in private hands, largely unregulated, until they did fail. The profits are left in private hands and the losses are made public, passed on to taxpayers. This is not a random act. This is a direct consequence of ignoring lessons learned from financial busts past. Of course, those hard to understand policy wonks who explain financial regulation could never compete with the lovable politician who said, "And I say get government out of financial markets. Ours is a capitalist system. Government can't be trusted!" And so they deregulate things they can't understand - or refuse to understand because it conflicts with their ideology. And then the party that will not raise taxes taxes us twice - once to bailout the institutions and again in the form of unemployment and slow economic growth.

And like the candidate George W., Sarah is a governor who pledges to make government smaller and lower taxes. Having heard this promise by a man who then began spending like a 9 year old who just got his first VISA card, expanding government more than anyone since FDR (who dealt with a Great Depression and a World War), you would think that American voters would want more than a simple promise. The question is, can she do it? The answer is, she sure hasn't done it in Alaska.

Some states pay more in taxes than they get back from Washington. No state gets more from Washington than Alaska. Alaska ranks No. 1 in spending per citizen, but much of this is paid for by those of us in states like California, where we pay in more than we get back. Palin is an expert on deficit spending. When she gets into office in Washington, she won't have other states to borrow from. Or, rather, she'll have to borrow from other nation-states, continuing George W.'s massive dependence on the nation-state of China, for instance.

Palin is not ready to take action against climate change but is ready to take action against Iran. Like George, she is biased towards action and not given to deep thought.

The question is not who is Sarah Palin. Delving into that could reveal ugly warts or things to admire. The question is, what would be the consequence of implementing her policies? When she talks about what we should do with government, she sounds just like George Bush. I'm guessing that the results she would get would be no different.

The Republicans are the incumbent party and have had a chance to pursue their policies unfettered for six of the last eight years. Their foreign and domestic policy has been expensive, ineffectual, and left us all (Americans and the rest of the world) worse off. Nothing that Sarah Palin has said or done suggests she sees any connection between these policies and outcome or any reason to change. Why that doesn’t make everything else about her irrelevant escapes me.

Biden?!

He had already dropped out of the race by the time that we Californians held our primary, but I voted for Joe Biden anyway. He won my vote because he talks like a real person and was the first Senator who bothered to point out that Iraq was not working out so well and then the first Senator to suggest a plausible alternative to shooting all the bad guys until no Iraqis were left standing.

Biden is no saint and his willingness to talk openly has gotten him into trouble. But his judgment seems sound and the man has a good sense of foreign affairs.

About five months ago, I took one of those on-line tests to determine which of the candidates best matched my own views and positions. I've done this in past elections and then, the highest ranking candidate would match my own views by about 60 or 70%. Obama matched mine 100%, which I actually found frightening.

The prospect of an Obama-Biden ticket pleases me nearly as much as the prospect of an Obama-Lama ticket. This is me with my fingers crossed.

Who Are These Swing Voters and Why Are McCain and Obama so Eager to Distance Themselves From Them?

The latest political game reminds me of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. "Today, Obama's priest said ..." "Yesterday, McCain's advisor said ..."

The candidates have learned not to go off script, realizing that one gaffe could define them to swing voters (defined as people who spend 7 minutes or less on politics every 4 years) and spoil their chances. Meanwhile, they are surrounded by a posse of advisors and donors about the size of the posse that follows a rap star (which is to say, a population roughly equal to Cleveland). These people - like Americans everywhere - occasionally speak their mind.

I guess the thing that I like best about it is how much attention all this gets. If a candidate is going to win this thing, they'll likely aim for at least 50.1% of the vote. This means that among their supporters will be some certifiable nut jobs. Genuine loonies. Complete whack jobs. In fact, these very people - prone to sprout nonsense like a toddler with Tourette’s - probably make up the swing vote. Which is to say, the candidates ought not to distance themselves from the members of their retinue who say stupid things; in fact, if they are serious about winning this thing, they need to embrace these people and say that such nonsense is welcome among their supporters.

Or, they could take it one step further and, like George W., they could actually be the spokesperson and representative for the gaffe-prone among us. How else to explain the fact that he was elected twice? And why wouldn't either McCain or Obama be eager for those very supporters who put George in the White House?

You Made It Rain! - No, You Made it Rain!

This might be my favorite headline of the week: "Obama, McCain try to pin economic woes on each other"

No wonder people eventually lose interest in elections. This is like two rivals to become tribal chieftan blaming each other for the latest hurricane or drought. To paraphrase Jeremy Bentham, "this is nonsense on stilts."

In a related story, Bob Dole blamed Bill Clinton for global warming and the otherwise inexplicable popularity of reality TV shows and Nicole Ritchie blamed Paris Hilton for the fact that plaids and stripes clash.

Heil Leader

Richard J. Evans writes in The New York Review of Books:

Almost as soon as the Nazis came to power in Germany, they made the greeting 'Heil Hitler!' a compulsory part of national life. Civil servants were legally obliged to sign documents with it, and anybody writing a letter to officialdom would have been well advised to do the same. Schoolteachers had to greet their classes with a 'Heil Hitler!,' raising their right arm stiffly in the 'German greeting' as they did so; train conductors had to use the greeting when they entered a compartment to collect tickets from passengers.

I can't help but wonder if we aren't doing something similar at this stage of elections.

The election is, for me, coming into the boring period. Gone is the plethora of choices that I found so interesting. Even when they weren't choices that I liked, I liked the fact that, for instance, the Republicans had such a wide variety of characters, I mean candidates, who represented very different segments of the American right.

But even worse than the sudden lack of variety is this deification stage of the election process. The right has to continually defend an old conservative who likes to pretend he is a maverick; the left has to defend a young liberal who likes to pretend he's led something before. These are real people and real choices (not even bad choices), but Obama and McCain are as far removed from flawless as the rest of us. And yet their supporters see fit to elevate their candidates, gather in circles around them, and then chant like primitive natives before the god of volcanoes.

"Modern politics is a chapter in the history of religion," John Gray writes in the opening line of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. Sadly, it doesn't seem as though we have to put in place true despots to feel compelled to deify leaders. There is something more tribal or religious about this stage of elections than rational and open.

We carry our psychoses into every arena we play in - from family to business to community; I suppose that there is no reason that politics should be excluded from this weight. But does politics have to be based on such psychoses? It just seems to distract from the larger and more important question about what kind of world we want these leaders to help us to create.

I suspect that one of the reasons we do this is that if we could convince ourselves that these leaders really are omnipotent, we won't have to take responsibility for our world. And in this cycle - deification, disappointment, and vilification of leaders - we have the electoral process that never once forces communities to be accountable for creating the world that we all love to complain about.

What if Race Didn't Matter in November?

Colin Powell was once one of the Republican Party's luminaries, one of the country's most respected men. Was, that is, until he was made to be dubya's good soldier and distort the facts about the threat of Iraq at the UN. This single egregious act basically destroyed his further political prospects.

The Republicans chose McCain as their nominee, obviously wanting a man with military experience. Powell could have done that - and offered the experience of a successful commander instead of the experience of a less than successful pilot.

Had he not been violated by his relationship with Dick and dubya, Powell might be running against Obama in November's general election. And think about how cool that would be - race as both the most notable feature of the campaign and a complete non-issue.

McCain's Mysterious Allure

McCain now leads Clinton and Obama in the polls. This is me scratching my head.

McCain has basically embraced Bush's record. If that is not an indictment of the man, I don't know of one. 81% of the country thinks that we're on the wrong track. 81% makes up everyone but the illiterate, those recovering from traumatic head wounds, and people who still think that all-you-can-eat buffets represent the pinnacle of progress. Another poll (graph to the right) indicates a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who feel they are worse off than in the past. In fact, this is the sharpest increase in the number, and the highest value it has reached since 1964.

Meanwhile, Bush has ignored the environment and spent billions to create enemies in Iraq. I challenge anyone to find a positive trend that Bush has nursed along rather than de-railed. Having Bush watch over our national affairs has been like having a crack addict watch the kids. Even the frat boy cheerleader may be gradually realizing that he is in over his head. His performance might lead one to believe that there is more to being a good president than staying sober. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case.

We now have McCain, who has largely done what he can to smooth over differences between his policies and George's. And once again I feel utterly baffled. Does no one see a connection between policy and the conditions we live in? Is there a huge swath of the electorate that considers an executive successful as long as he keeps his pants zipped? Do they have no clue? Really?

As I've said before, McCain represents a huge step up for the Republican Party. But his policies are little different, his priorities often the same, as George's. And his level of understanding about Iraq - a country in which he's game to invest 10 trillion ($100 billion X 100 years) - shows the same kind of superficial curiosity that made George such a disaster. (McCain has more than once revealed his confusion of Shiites and Sunnis - a confusion for which casual citizens might be forgiven but is, for policy makers, the equivalent of a doctor confusing the knee and ankle in surgery; it makes a difference. Sure, it is all leg and they are all Muslims, but when it comes down to action, one would like the one performing an operation to be able to distinguish between them.)

One can only hope that McCain's surge in popularity traces back to the fact that he can look presidential - no longer forced to sling mud back and forth with Mitt, Mike, and Fred. This is the campaign that keeps on giving - I'm sure it has yet to reveal its last twist.

For me, the job interview for president ought to start with one simple question: do you think that George Bush has done a good job? If a candidate answers with anything other than a decisive "No!" he ought to be dismissed. Why 81% of Americans can't agree with that is beyond me.

The Inherent Contradiction of Mitt Romney's Campaign

The pundits are speculating about why Romney's bid for the presidency failed.

Romney's natural base would have been business conservatives, given his background. But he lost the support of business conservatives because of his emphasis on religion and then lost the support of religious conservatives because of his religion. Personally, I don't think that Romney being Morman would have mattered except that he ran a campaign emphasizing religion.

You can't tell voters that religion matters and then tell them that your religion doesn't matter. His failed bid might have been just that simple.

Obama - "We are the change we have been waiting for"

I think I may have just watched Barack Obama win the presidency.

I find it amusing that people have made so much of the differences between the Democratic candidates. I want to see one win, but I will be the first to admit that the Republican primary is far more interesting, offering as it does real choice and variety. The differences between the major Democratic candidates, by contrast, from Biden to Obama, have seemed to me more a difference of style than substance.

The Republican Party is wrestling over a new definition of conservative, threatening to fracture. By contrast, it seems to me that the major Democratic Party candidates have been fairly aligned on a change in direction.

And then, I watched Obama give his speech tonight. Wow. He made the other candidates look like amateurs. "We are the change we have been waiting for," is a line that could land in history. (And have I been asleep? Has he - or someone else - bandied this phrase about already?) This man can speak in a way that makes emotional seem reasonable and vice versa. [And it turns out that I heard this wrong. Obama actually said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."]

And, thanks to slouching mom, I saw this video made of one of Barack's speeches, underscoring my point that the man can inspire. (Well, in this case with a little help from will.i.am and a host of others.)

The Importance of Obama's Middle Name

In the spring of 92, I asked Sandi, "Ross Perot for President bumper stickers. Do you think those will be like pet rocks by October?"

My 5 year old daughter Jordan pipes up from her car seat, "Ross Perot. He wants to be president. I don't know, though. He doesn't sound like a president." And then from nowhere, she puts on this oddly convincing drawl, "Howdy, Howdy. I am Ross Perot and I want to be president." she says. And then she concluded, quite authoritatively, "His name does not sound like a president's.” [Note to young parents everywhere - that child in the car seat is not always ignoring NPR.]

"And who do you think should be president?" I asked.

"I don't know, maybe George Washington or George Bush. That sounds more like a president’s name."

Apparently, names matter to some of the polity. I've heard more than a few folks express shock at the fact that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. "Just like Saddam's last name!" they exclaim.

And that matters. Almost as much as it matters that once we had gained our independence from King George we turned around and elected George Washington.

What's Wrong with Fred Thompson

I do not understand the many Americans who seem to get so excited about candidates. I follow politics. I think that the stakes in politics are extremely high. I get excited about policy and elections, but I just don’t think that candidates are people much different than the rest of us. (Well, I will allow that they have an incredible capacity to absorb inordinate amounts of praise and criticism – levels that would leave the rest of us with psychological whiplash.)

But some people were incredibly excited about Fred Thompson’s entry into the race. Curious about that, I watched George Stephanopoulos's interview with Fred Thompson available here.

I was not impressed. Thompson seemed to show little regard for the implications of his policy or even the rationale for them. To me, he showed that he didn't understand the war on terror, which wasn't that surprising – he didn’t even seem to understand the interview. His tone suggested that he was genuinely offended that Stephenopolous would "challenge" him to describe policies and seemed amazingly uninterested in thinking through the implications of anything he suggested. Here are a few things that stood out to me.

Speaking to supporters about Radical Fundamentalism, Thompson says that this threatens “nothing less than the demise of Western Civilization." I still don’t understand this claim.

A couple of weeks ago, Newsweek had an article about the increase in the number of kids with food allergies. One theory is that children growing up in clean environments don't encounter serious threats to health, so their immune systems overreact to otherwise innocuous substances, like milk or peanuts. It's not that milk or peanuts will kill a child - but their immune system's overreaction to them can.

Radical fundamentalism can't destroy our civilization, but our reaction to it can. In their best shot to date, terrorists killed 3,000 Americans. By this measure, guns, cars, wrongly prescribed medicines, and depression all pose a much graver threat to our civilization, each taking the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year. But deaths don’t threaten civilization. Thompson knows that. If they did, Thompson would be anti-war.

We can overreact to threats to life. We can ban driving, foreign travel, exposure to dangerous ideas, and privacy. This might save lives. It would threaten our way of life, our civilization. It’s not the threats to life that will destroy our civilization. Like the anaphylactic shock that kills an allergy victim, it is the reaction to the threat that kills, not the threat itself. To be an American is to realize that freedom comes with the cost of life.

Thompson goes on to tell Stephanopoulos that this threat has to be defeated primarily militarily. Most interestingly, when Stephanopoulos points out that there is no conventional army or nation-state behind this threat to attack, Thompson says, "What's the alternative?" When Stephanopoulos counters with, "You tell me, you're running for president," Thompson shows a gift for non sequiturs that would warm the heart of any Bush supporter by saying, "That's exactly right. You make my point." Thompson shows no indication of having questioned whether our invasion and occupation of Iraq might have worked against us in the fight against extremism, offering platitudes that sound like the kinds of things that someone might have said at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion.

Although he's eager for war, Thompson can't imagine anyone pulling the plug on a loved one. He seemed genuinely heartfelt sharing his conviction on this matter, based in part on losing his own daughter. But Thompson again shows a gift for thoughtlessness when pressed by Stephanopoulos to explain the consequences of his stance on state laws. It's not just that he seems to be offended that Stephanopoulos would challenge him, but he says that he doesn't have a legal position, he's just sharing his opinion. In this response he seems to show a lack of awareness of two things - one, as president his opinion could easily become the basis for law and legal positions, and two, in a democracy any candidate has to explain himself fully to the voters.

To his credit, Thompson did use a word rarely heard by any candidates - "sustainability." He uses it in regards to social security, seemingly less impressed with Medicare's dire condition (a problem Life Hiker has pointed to). It seems to me that sustainability could become the unifying theme of a good campaign - from the need for sustainability in federal spending and entitlements to the need for sustainability in economic and environmental practices.

The answer in which he seemed to me most obviously lost was Thompson's attempt to refute Stephanopoulos's claim that Giuliani and Romney have a decided advantage in management experience. That is, they have lots and Thompson has none. He gives a meandering answer in which he challenges the importance of managing crime and roads, suggests that he actually does have management experience in government and then promptly says that government hasn't managed anything well in a generation (seeming to negate whatever management experience he'd just claimed credit for). Finally, he says that managers are people hired by leaders, suggesting that he doesn’t really need management experience. This conclusion seems to me a dismissal of the importance of management that only someone without experience in management could express.

Thompson is running second among Republicans in national polls and Republicans have a way of winning presidential elections. Fred Thompson as president. It’s a scary thought but, if you're like Thompson, it's not one you have given much consideration.