CNN reports:

"A new survey from CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation suggests Americans are nearly as pessimistic now about the state of the economy as they were in 1992 — the year Bill Clinton defeated then-President George H. W. Bush by running a campaign focused largely on America's economic woes."

According to the new poll, three-quarters of all Americans think the country is going through a recession, and a majority thinks it will last at least a year. Close to a quarter of Americans expect it to last more than two years."

OK, times are tough -- I totally agree on that one. There is an election coming up -- another agreement there too.

Here's where we diverge, though: the President is not the prime mover of the economy in this country, the Congress is.

Who writes the laws in the US? Congress. Who passes legislation that guides the regulatory bodies? Congress. Who authorizes money to be spent on various programs? Congress. (Sense a pattern here?) Oh, and who has done pretty much nothing since the present economic difficulties began? Guess who... yep, Congress. The President can stump and scold, suggest and cajole, but in the end it's Congress that passes laws.

So if the tone of this election mirrors the "It's the economy, stupid" theme of the 1992 election and the knee-jerk reaction is the throw the bums out, then shouldn't we be looking at tossing the Democrats out of Congress? Besides, if we examine the timelines, didn't this current economic slowdown coincide with the Democrats taking over Congress?

Hmmm.... 

Last month I listed the five most controversial Republican Vice Presidential Candidates. I just thought of another, so here goes... hold onto your hats because this one's a doozy...

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- Senator McCain has a history of working across the aisle, as evidenced by the McCain-Feingold finance reform and McCain-Kennedy immigration bills. Picking a VP that also shows such a willingness to work across the aisle would be crucial to proving that his ticket is not looking for business as usual in Washington DC. Like Senator Obama, choosing a VP candidate like Arnold would show that he is in fact a candidate for change.

As Governor of California (an unquestionably red governor of a decidedly blue state), Schwarzenegger has broken down the divide between the aisles and has reached out to both sides of the state legislature. He has sweet talked and strong-armed Republicans and Democrats alike in pursuit of (what should be) everyone's goal of getting the best for Californians.

But wait a minute, I can hear you saying. What about that minor technicality called the US Constitution which specifically prohibits a foreign born citizen from seeking that position?

Well, there's that whole "constitutional amendment" thing that gets tossed around from time to time. Don't hold your breath on that one leading to a Schwarzenegger presidency -- it'd take way too long, and without a compelling candidate on the Democratic side to sway those voters I can see them dragging their feet if things started steamrolling. Besides, its' impossible to get that working in time for this fall's election, let alone the Republican convention.

There is a quick and dirty solution that's perfectly legal, though. With it, we could see a President Schwarzenegger in our lifetimes.

"George Carlin died yesterday from heart failure." 

I won't pretend he was the greatest American since Tim Russert, but George was a giant in his field. He had the unerring ability to make you laugh with 80% of his act while royally offending you with 20%, yet he'd keep you coming back for more. Whether it was religion, free speech, advertising, or flatulence, George always had something insightful (and inciteful) to say.

As a fellow New Yorker, I'll miss him. 

A couple of weeks ago I posted about the five most controversial Republican VP candidates, and had some fun coming up with those choices. Due to popular demand, today I'm turning my attention to the Democratic field now that Obama has sewn up the nomination.

(I didn't bother to include Hillary here; while it would be surprising, so many have tossed her name around that it just wouldn't be controversial at all.)

• Joe Lieberman -- I covered him in the other post, but he brings something to this candidacy too. His solid foreign policy experience would shore up an area sorely lacking in this ticket. Also, just a few short months ago the Democratic party turned on him and he still managed to pull out a win; putting him on the ticket would demonstrate Obama's independence from the "business as usual" dealings in the Democratic party.

• Jesse Ventura -- One way for Obama to solidify his "change" claims is to nominate an independent candidate. Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura certainly fills that bill. No stranger to the public eye, Ventura's mixture of social liberalism and economic conservatism would appeal to a broader audience apprehensive with the perceived extreme choices of Obama and McCain. Also, as a former Navy seal, he brings a military perspective that Obama lacks.
  
  On the downside, his outspokenness can quickly put him in hot water, such as his repeated criticism of the two-party system and his suspicions about the tower collapses on 9/11.

• Al Gore -- OK, I can't for the life of me think of a reason why Gore would do this. However, he would bring some key elements currently missing from the Obama candidacy including foreign policy experience and a more extensive experience in the inner workings of Capital Hill. Plus, with his Oscar and Nobel in hand he has morphed into some sort of cult hero.
  
  The downside is clear, though -- what kind of "change" is it to bring back the Clinton VP? 

• Oprah Winfrey -- Many pundits points to Oprah's May 2007 endorsement of Obama's candidacy as a watershed event. The fact that she has such a widespread and influential following (witness the impact of an Oprah book endorsement) and the fact that she'd never endorsed anyone before made it a newsworthy event. Was it enough to get him the nomination? Probably not, but certainly it was enough to get him in position to do so.
  
  Oprah has no real national political experience, but could nonetheless be a tremendous asset to the Obama campaign. He has real need to reach out to women voters, after the way he trounced Hillary, and this would help those efforts. Plus, having two minorities on the ticket would be a historic event. (It worked for Chris Rock and Bernie Mac in "Head of State" after all...)
  
  On the negative side, Oprah's political experience makes Obama look like an elder statesman. Plus, with equal time laws the networks would probably have to give McCain his own talk show.

• Howard Dean --  Dean had a successful campaign going in 2004 until his impromptu yell came back to doom his chances. Still, his maverick approach to campaigning earned him the top spot in the DNCC. As a former physician, he could take point on Obama's universal health care issue like nobody else could. As a former governor of Vermont, he brings much-needed executive experience lacking in both presumptive presidential nominees. He also extends the idea of the "change" candidacy, being known as a maverick in his own day.
  
  Dean's downsides are numerous. His "change" credentials can easily be challenged - after all, he is the current DNCC chairman. Plus his decidedly liberal leanings that won him terms in Vermont could galvanize the conservative opposition in ways that John McCain is having trouble doing on his own.

So who do you think will be the eventual VP pick? 

I've been listening to the talking heads for a while now, and contemplating on my own. Sure, there are lots of high-profile candidates like Florida Governor Charlie Crist that "make sense" for all the safe, normal reasons. These five candidates may not be the best choices for John McCain, nor for the Republican party, but any one of them will certainly keep the talking heads busy for weeks:

• Michael Bloomberg -- As mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg has something neither of the present candidates has - he's actually run something bigger than a Senate office. In fact, with McCain's self-confessed deficiency with economic issues, Mayor Bloomberg's corporate experience at Salomon Brothers and Bloomberg LP makes him an ideal point-man to take on the stalling U.S. economy.
  
  He should be a favorite on Wall Street and, while he won't help put any states in play, he could certainly make parts of the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area more difficult for the Obama campaign. Plus, this will help reinforce the idea that McCain is more of an independent than a diehard conservative. (This all goes out the window, of course, if Obama picks Bloomberg first...)
  
  
• Condoleezza Rice --  Obama has already begun painting McCain as a rehash of the Bush administration, so why not work against that idea? Dr. Rice, as former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State under Bush, has the national security chops to stand up to anybody the Democrats throw at her. She's also got the double-whammy of being a woman and a minority, so the reverse race card won't be nearly as effective. (Not that I expect such shenanigans from the Obama campaign, but there are always third-party political action committees like MoveOn.org that are capable of anything...) Finally, Condoleezza brings a fresh and younger perspective to balance out the older-not-quite-so-fresh McCain, one that could resonate much more effectively with younger voters.
  
  Of course, there's that Bush/Iraq connection...
  
  
• Joe Lieberman -- Senator Lieberman is a good friend of John McCain, and as presidential teams go there is alot to be said for the President and Vice President getting along well. Senator Lieberman, like McCain, is also viewed as a maverick, having run for his Senate seat as an Independent after the Democrats sold him out last fall.
  
  Lieberman also has foreign policy chops, and has good relationships with many world leaders. He could also help put Connecticut in play, and while it isn't a swing state every electoral vote counts. (He also can help deliver the Jewish vote.)
  
  A Lieberman choice would demonstrate that McCain is ready to work across party line. On the downside, how many diehard Republicans will stand for a Democratic-leaning independent in the #2 slot?
  
  
• Rudy Giuliani -- Everything I said about Michael Bloomberg goes double for Rudy Giuliani. He has the experience of running both a city and a corporation, and in addition has his years in the Attorney General's office to fatten up his tough-on-crime chops. (He even had mobsters contemplating a "hit" on him -- how many VP candidates can say that?)
  
  With all that, he also has his center-stage status during the worst terrorist incident ever on US soil, where he demonstrated the balls to drag his city back from the brink. That was pure leadership, more so than anything I've seen from any of the others Democrat or Republican. It remains to be seen if that was his finest hour, or merely a foreshadowing of things to come.
  
  His big downside comes from his more liberal stance on several social issues like gay marriage and abortion, which could make the party faithful freak out.
  
  
• Ron Paul -- The one thing that McCain needs desperately is campaign funds, and Ron Paul's followers have shown they can deliver that in spades. Congressman Paul has captured something on the internet, with followers willing to work tirelessly to spread his message. As part of the Republican ticket, he can bring those followers into the campaign again, countering the similar demographic fueling Obama's successes.
  
  Like Obama, Congressman Paul also has been anti-war from the start. He also could appeal to the conservative base in the party, although his conservativeness borders on Libertarian.

As I said, any of these would be controversial enough to keep the talking heads in business for many days. Not sure which would be open to the idea, or even if McCain would consider them. It's fun to speculate though, isn't it?

(Check out my choices for the five most controversial Democratic Vice Presidential candidates.)

P.S. Don't miss my bonus controversial Republican vice presidential candidate. 

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as "the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Socialism has been a cornerstone of many countries over the years, including North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. It is also featured in its more "moderate" form in other countries like Sweden. The main points of socialism, as I understand them, are that of re-distribution of wealth and a "mothering" of citizens (for lack of a better term) where services are provided not by free markets but by the government.

In a socialist environment, wealth is believed to be a zero sum game. If I have wealth, that can only be because I have deprived someone else of it. Taxation is a great socialist method to achieve re-distribution of wealth in this case, because it takes money away from "wealthy" citizens and gives it to the government to accomplish whatever "mothering" activities it sees fit.

Barack Obama advocates tax policies that increase taxes on "wealthy" Americans (although his definition of wealthy is less broad than the targets of the tax increases). Barack Obama advocates a government sponsored health care system (clearly "mothering" there).

In fact, Obama's official campaign posters bear an uncanny resemblance to the old Che Guevara posters. (Che was a noted Latin American Marxist revolutionary back in the 50's who was instrumental in helping to bring Fidel Castro to power in Cuba.) It's no wonder, then, that Obama wants to talk with leaders from Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea -- idealogically, they would seem to have much in common. 

Is this the America you want to live in?

In the aftermath of the latest round of primaries, the talking heads of CNN/MSN/Fox etc are a-twitter with their assessment of the Democratic candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Similarly, the candidates themselves are doing their own spin-jobs as they enter the home stretch of this primary season.

Obama trumpeted the fact that he has secured the majority of the pledged delegates, while Hilary points to her popular vote lead along with her wins in the swing states the Democrats need to win in the fall.

Many talking heads are saying that the majority of pledged delegates is a clear indicator that Obama should be the nominee, that the superdelegates should not contradict the "will of the people" in this. Huh? If the "will of the people" was the sole guiding factor, then the delegate formula wouldn't have ANY superdelegates -- it would be ALL pledged delegates. Why are the superdelegates in there, if not to (potentially) correct for a popular but misguided wave sweeping up the "will of the people".

In fact, look no farther than West Virginia for a case in point. Senator Robert Byrd, the most senior Senator from West Virginia, endorsed Obama this week, just after West Virginia finished totally trouncing Obama in favor of Hillary. Basically, Byrd told his constituents that he knows better. I won't debate his choice here, but if the most powerful Democratic member of the Senate decides its ok to contradict his constituents' vote then I don't see why the other superdelegates need to march in lockstep with their constituents.

The Florida and Michigan mess remains a thorn in the Democrats side, both now and in the future. Whether those delegates are included or not changes the finish line, but the finish line remains just that -- the point at which the race ends. Not before, unless all but one of the runners drops out.

Last year the Republican and Democratic national committees laid down the rules for when states could schedule their primaries. Florida and Michigan both decided unilaterally that they were not going to wait until after Super Tuesday and scheduled their primaries early. Both states were tired of the races being over before they got their say, and felt states like theirs with important voting blocks should have a say in the primary outcomes.

Both committees threatened sanctions against the states, and neither side backed down. So now we stand mired in a quandary: if the committees stand firm they risk alienating large voting blocks; if they give in, pandemonium will ensue next primary season as every state ignores the committee guidelines. Face it, coverage of the last several Democratic primaries have all had similar themes -- "this is the first time West Virginia has had a say in the primary..." States dig this opportunity, and at the local level this gets more people interested in registering and voting.

I don't know how this will play out for this year. (Personally I think every registered voter who wants to vote should be able to do so, and that vote should count.) For next time, though, I propose a solution before the problems start.

• Let Iowa and New Hampshire go first, they'll have a fit otherwise. As every parent knows, sometimes you just have to let the little ones have their way if you want any peace.
• For the rest of the states, schedule primary dates for Super Tuesday, not so super Monday, etc. so that you have the right number of total primaries.
• Hold a lottery draw to fill in the slots for those primaries. This way, Montana and South Dakota and New Mexico won't always be the last ones -- they could luck into a Super Tuesday slot!

Food for thought... Anticipate the problem and come up with a solution BEFORE it rears its ugly head.
 

The latest issue of Time carries the story "Is it time to invade Burma?" They describe the devastation of Cyclone Nargis as it slammed into the Irrawaddy Delta last week, and the inability/unwillingness of the military junta to embrace international aid to their stricken populace.

Is the answer here to "force" assistance? Is the answer to render aid in spite of the wishes of the Burmese government? This is a hard one to swallow. On one hand, the humanitarian perspective says "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." On the other hand, the "rightness" of forcing our values and sense of justice on a sovereign nation is at the core of the current opposition to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It isn't easy being the good guy... 

Democrats raised holy hell back in the presidential election of 2001, where voting irregularities in Florida were cited as evidence that not all votes were being counted. It's somewhat ironic that the same issue has once again raised its ugly head in this year's primary season, only this time it's Florida and Michigan voters that are being disenfranchised. The main difference, of course, is that a large portion of the Democratic faithful (those who pull for Obama) are the ones being accused by a different large portion of the Democratic faithful (those pulling for Hillary) of ignoring the will of the people.

Amidst this ongoing tempest, it's interesting to see that in yesterday's Guam primary the difference between winner Barack Obama and loser Hillary Clinton was a scant seven votes. SEVEN. That's like a few friends who decided to vote before going to a movie.

I guess every vote does count, as long as you don't live in Florida or Michigan.