Halloween Suprises!

My girlfriend sent me a Halloween card recently that had a newspaper headline on the front that said “McCain Wins!” and on the inside says “This was the scariest card I could find!”.  Right now, that probably is the scariest prospect I can think of, and what better time to write about frightening political things than Halloween!

Right now, it seems that McCain is being routed.  As of yesterday, the Obama campaign announced it would begin running positive campaign ads in Arizona, as polls are showing only a single digit lead.  If Obama makes McCain spend any time or money in Arizona of all states, that can be seen as a victory for the campaign.  Also of note is the fact that Obama will end his campaign with a rally in Prince William County in VA.  Now, this is even a bit of a surprise for me, as only a few months ago I never would have thought he had a chance in Virgina, yet the polls are proving me wrong.

Speaking of surprises, is there anything left in the bag that could really alter the shape of the race?  McCain has brought Joe the Plumber into the limelight, yet with no real affect on the race.  The GOP has once again tried to scare voters by bringing up Obama’s connection with another “radical”, a Columbia Professor whom people claim was part of the PLO, yet that is unclear.  Regardless, scare tactics have been failing, even at this most spooky time of the year.

Could the higher ups in the party even pull out a surprise at this point in time?  For a while, I thought Bush might do something towards the end that would dramatically alter the race, such as a statement about pulling out of Iraq or maybe playing up the fear of Iran.  Yet in reality, the poor state of the Economy is trumping all, as more and more voters are worried about what is happening in this country as opposed to overseas.

This could be an interesting final few days of the campaign.  I’m heading up to New Hampshire for two days starting tomorrow, then will be back on Monday, before heading back up on Tuesday.  Expect a post by Monday at the latest.  Enjoy Halloween, and enjoy this video!

What's the deal with "Joe the Plumber"?

Why is the McCain campaign using this man so much?!?  He doesn't provide any credible backing or even name recognition.  No one knows who the guy is, considering he both lied about his name and being a plumber!  

It seems the McCain campaign likes touting about people who know nothing about the issues our country faces.  While "Joe" clearly has no expertise about the economy or foreign policy (apparently Obama= Death to Israel...), John McCain's own running mate Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is (or how to read, for that matter). 

Here's my real question.  Why has John McCain, a formerly sensible man who can not really be an idiot considering his many years in congress, tied his campaign to these idiots??

Grant Park

When I heard on Sunday that Obama will be at Grant Park on Election Night, I immediately thought of 1968 and crazy riots.  Clearly I wasn't the only one, as the Washington Post carried an article about the subject in today's paper  - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102802954.html

What an interesting choice by the campaign for where he will likely be giving a victory speech. 

Hopefully next Tuesday will bring about a new era of history for Grant Park, and for the Democratic Party.

Obama's Future Dilemma

With a week left in this historic campaign, I can say with a good degree of certainty that Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States(knock on wood x infinity).  After hearing several prominent visiting speakers all say this, I feel comfortable agreeing with them and with what my gut has felt since mid-September.  I don’t want to jinx it or anything, but barring a truly crazy October surprise (it would have to be big enough to influence people more than the economy AND President Bush) I think Obama has it in the bag, potentially by a large margin.  If he is to win big, this gives him a mandate to make good on the change he has been talking about all campaign long.  He should be especially encouraged to forge a new path in Washington if Democrats capture 59 or potentially even 60 seats in the Senate, giving them full reign over both the Executive and the Legislative branches.  This dominance would be the beginning of new era of Democratic control unseen in this country since 1976.

One promise that has helped to catapult Obama to where he is right now, on the cusp of the most historic election in our country’s history, is that he would be willing to compromise and work across the aisle to solve our country’s problems.  It has been a dominant theme of the campaign since his famous “Red States-Blue States” speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.   It has even created many Obama-cans , Republicans attracted to the notion of bipartisan participation in governing that Obama has so strongly advocated for.  However, this campaign promise would go directly in the face of what many Democrats would like, especially if Democrats were to obtain the “Magic 60”.  With the Republican party in disarray from coast to coast (and outside of the Lower 48- Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in the Senate, was just found guilty today on corruption charges), some members of the Democratic Party will be pushing for a fairly liberal agenda in Obama’s first term.  While this is something I’m sure Obama in his heart-of-hearts  wants, it would go against his campaign promise of working across the aisle.  Passing a liberal agenda on the back of huge majorities in the House and Senate would be anything but bipartisan.

So what is Obama to do?  If he goes the route of moderation, he could tack on Republican support, make good on his campaign promise of bipartisan unity, and potentially even usher in a new era of American politics.  With the internal hemorrhaging of the Republican Party (see McCain-Palin campaign infighting, many Republican endorsements for Obama, GOP on the run in states such as Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, and potentially even presidential losses in North Dakota and Montana).  If Obama were to tap into Republicans after the Election, he could help to put the GOP in an even bigger hole than the one they already dug themselves into.  He could shift America to the left for years to come by compromising, and thus weakening the Republican Party, creating the most dramatic shift in party power since FDR.  However, if Obama goes this route, he would put his proposals at risk could potentially face backlash from his own party.  The Democrats would be fuming.  They have not gotten their way for the past eight years.  While potentially placating independents and Republicans by compromising on some issues, he could hurt support from his real base, the Democratic Party.

His other option is to stay on course with the Democratic Party’s dream- health care reform, withdrawal from Iraq, and economic intervention in our troubled economy.   If he is to win in a Democratic landslide, he will have the popular mandate to push through exactly what he and the Democrats want.  This could totally alienate the GOP, marginalizing them in Washington, especially if Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate. Republicans would set themselves up as the underdog for the next four years, and if they are able to hold onto their base as a result of the passage of many Democratic platforms, they could regroup and come back with a vengeance, reorganized and gunning for blood in 2012. 

Obama has proven to be one of the most gifted politicians our country has ever seen, yet he still is an unknown as to how he is going to govern. He is going to need to prove himself during his first Hundred Days, yet, how is he going to do it?  Will he pass exactly what feels necessary on the back of huge majorities in the House and Senate, or will he moderate slightly to pacify the other side of the aisle?  Whichever route he chooses, he will likely face those political consequences four years from now, during his (fingers crossed) reelection campaign.

Op-Ed for the Daily: Vote No on Question 1

This is an op-ed i just wrote for the Tufts Daily.  It will probably run on wednesday or thursday.  Let me know what you think. It's about a boring subject (income tax) but it is a really important issue here in MA.

Vote No on Question 1

 The income tax has been a staple of American life since the beginning of the 20^th century.  While no one really enjoys paying taxes, most tend to think of it as a civic duty.  However, here in Massachusetts, an initiative is on the ballot, called Question 1, that, if passed on November 4^th, would eliminate the Massachusetts state income tax, which at the present, is a flat 5.3 percent.

Some of you out there probably think this sounds like a good idea.  That’s how a lot of people felt back in 2002, when a similar proposal garnered 45% of the vote.   However, this proposal is in fact, an extreme measure that if passed, would hurt the Commonwealth for years to come.

While the group behind this proposal, the Committee for Small Government, claims this effort will “force the State Legislature to streamline ”, in reality, this policy will do anything but that.  It is an honorable goal to try to attempt to slim the budget, especially considering the fact that Massachusetts is short 1.4 billion dollars this year, however, eliminating the income tax is not the way to do it.  If this policy were put into place, the state would lose tons of revenue, approximately 12.5 billion dollars, all of which the State needs right now.  Two courses of action would be available to the State if this proposal were to pass: cut spending on programs, or raise taxes in some other area.  Both could be done simultaneously to make up for the enormous amount of money the state would be down. 

Though the goal of this libertarian group’s proposal is clearly to eliminate taxes, the proposal does not restrict increasing other taxes.  If other forms of taxes are increased to make up for lost revenue, it could potentially be in the area of sales tax, hurting every Bay Stater whenever they go out to buy for their family.  Right now purchases of food, prescription drugs, gas, oil and electricity are exempt from the sales tax, up to $175.  This restriction on taxing small sales protects the lower class and middle class from taxes on essentials that families need to get by.  If we were to lose the 12 billion in state revenue from the income tax, this exemption of necessary goods from taxation will have to go for the state to remain financially afloat.  This increase and abolishment of exemptions on the sales tax is regressive in fact really hurts the middle and lower class most.  Everyone needs to pay money for essentials, and if the state were to increase the sales tax substantially, it would make it even more difficult for the poorest in our state to pay for necessities. 

If this initiative becomes law, the State will be forced to make cuts in programs that are for the good of everyone in society.  Police and firefighting budgets may even have to be slashed to reduce the budget deficit if this is passed.  These are essential to everyone’s well being here in Massachusetts.  Safety should not be put at risk just to make a statement about “government waste”.

Another service that is in jeopardy because of this proposal is education.  Massachusetts is up there with the best in terms of public education.  Our schools are strong; yet, this proposal will threaten the very well being of the system that everyone in the state is proud of.  Our education represents the future of our state, considering that we are a center for high-tech jobs and technological research.  If funding for education is cut, we will be sure to see many teachers leave the state.  Teachers already are not paid enough at it is.  If there is any further decrease in pay for teachers, we will lose all the good ones.  If we gamble with education, the children of Massachusetts will be the ones who will face the consequences.  If our educational program declines, we hurt our children and the future of our state.

Cuts in educational funding would not only hamper basic education programs, it will also take funding from our higher education system.  This would be really detrimental to the UMass system, and it would even hurt Tufts.  Tufts receives millions of dollars in state money that help with various aspects of the school.  If question 1 passes, expect to see the university less able to handle various financial issues, which would be particularly dangerous to certain programs, given the current economic turmoil.

For many out-of-staters, this does not seem like it would affect you that much, however this is really not the case.  Considering the financial hole this would put the state in, expect sales taxes to be increased, while essential services will  need to be slashed.  All Tufts students would feel the pain as a result of this, and considering that a plurality of Tufts Students are from Massachusetts, those Jumbos would be affected even more.

If you are a native of Massachusetts, make sure you vote against Question 1.  What you would gain in an income tax cut would be replaced by losses in public services, education, and increased taxes on other things.  The whole state, including everyone on the Hill, would be negatively affected by the passage of this proposal.

"Juggernaut"

Wow, well at least William Kristol can admit how beast of a campaign Obama has run.  http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/737mifbf.asp

Nice use of the word juggernaut... even though it is very much a Weekly Standard article (Don't even bother reading.  I only really skimmed it, but hardcore right-wing, anti-Obama) , it makes me smile because of that one word.... brings to mind X-Men 3.... "McCain vs. the Juggernaut".  

Image and narrative in a campaign.

Wow, it's great to be home.  I've had a relaxing day, similar to the Saturdays I had last year.  The best part of it all- getting the weekend New York Times, including this week's New York Times Magazine.  I just spent a good amount of time reading a really interesting article in the Magazine.  Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. If you have a good chunk of time, I would highly recommend it.  It's hefty, but worth the read.  Robert Draper gives the reader a remarkable behind the scenes look at some of the biggest moments in the McCain campaign to date, including some inside info and insight on what happened during the selection of Sarah Palin.  

Draper also does a really good job of looking into the ways in which John McCain has morphed as a candidate.  We all have noticed this, whether it was the shift over the summer from "experience first" to "change" and "maverick".  John McCain has run an ever shifting, morphing campaign, intent on capturing the current emotion of the time.  While all candidates generally change after the primaries, when they had to appeal directly to the party base, to a more centrist position, John McCain's shift has been all over the map.  People are desperate for change, however, this is no excuse for McCain to flip his message completely.  The American people are not stupid.  People noticed when McCain picked up his opponent's central theme and try to claim it for his own.  This shift is ultimately part of John McCain's undoing.  While McCain has fumbled to try to grasp a theme or message that resonates with the public, Obama has been fairly steady with his message, only slightly altering the campaign slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" to "Change We Need", reflecting increased urgency as the campaign comes to its final stages.

Maybe John McCain was doomed from the start.  Whether it is because of  his party affiliation or his ties to the Bush Administration on the War and the economy, John McCain has had an inherent disadvantage this campaign just because of who he identifies with and what he has done over the past eight years.  However, his reckless and erratic campaign and message have not helped him this campaign cycle.  Obama has been the candidate of steadiness and consistency, while John McCain has been anything but those qualities, especially for the past few months. The John McCain of 2000 was nowhere to be found during this general election, as he morphed from a man of conviction and principle, to a man that, in my eyes, just seems desperate to win.

Youth vote, and why we as a generation must defy the pundits

So I just got this in an email yesterday (thank you, Ben Ross), and this actually frightened me a bit. http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=mpig3oTbCCUDNGZk2ygTpTMzNDE2Njc-&referred_by=5613600-LDng5kx

It’s an incredibly effective ad.  Kudos to MoveOn.org for getting this running and as personalized as it is.  The thought of an Obama loss makes me feel sick, and I hope it makes you all feel sick too.  Our generation has, overall, been so passionate about his candidacy, and yet, if we don’t work for it, this potentially once in a generation opportunity for real change could be gone, and our generation would be the one to lose out the most, and potentially, be the most to blame.

Voter turnout is truly one of the X-factors of this election, and really, our generation is key to this.  Since 1972, when 18 year olds were given the right to vote, people always talk about how young people are so passionate, yet generally don’t make it to the polls.  With Obama running as strong as he is amongst people my age, if we don’t show up, it could mean that McCain could, somehow, squeak out a victory.

While voting amongst 18-24 year olds increased from 2000 to 2004, youth voting was still almost 20% lower than the overall national average.  This is honestly, pathetic.  According to CIRCLE, 18-24 year olds made up 9% of the overall electorate.   If this number could be raised even by a little, we could see real dramatic change when the votes come in.  As the percentage of youth vote as share of the total electorate rises, so to does Barack Obama’s and the Democrats’ chance of winning in 10 days. 

We have come to far to lose this in the last ten days.  We, the college aged people, were an engine for Barack Obama in the primaries; if we hadn’t given up time to volunteer for him, attend a rally, or vote for him, he would not be in this history-making position ten days out from November 4^th.  The Obama campaign realizes this too, hence why he wants to help make college affordable, and provide money for college for students who participate in some form of National Service.  If we can help Obama in this last push before Election Day, we are ultimately going to be the ones that benefit.   Obama as a leader will lead the country in a way we want it, not the way our grandparents had it.  Ultimately, our generation is going to be the one that will have to take on so many of the challenges we are just seeing the beginning of now, whether it’s the energy crisis, global climate change, or the continuing failure of Reagan-era economics in the 21^st century.  Obama realizes all of these problems, and he will begin the fight to fix them.  However, we will eventually have to carry the load; once the election is over, our generation will have to stay involved to make sure these problems get fixed.

We can have these changes if we want them.  We just need to work really hard for the next ten days, and then make sure that EVERYONE our age goes and votes.

I’m feeling the fierce urgency.  Are you?

GO VOTE and GOBAMA!!!!

John Kerry and US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Senator John F. Kerry spoke at the Cohen Auditorium here at Tufts yesterday evening to a full house.  While the topic of the lecture was meant to be on foreign policy, he did not stick to it entirely, talking about his run for President and some domestic and economic issues.  He made a few sad, somewhat self-deprecating jokes.  At one point, while talking about arrogance and confidence about the current campaign, he made a joke about his 2004 Presidential campaign, saying something along the lines of “all the polls projected me to be the next President.   You are looking at the shortest administration ever!”  Contrary to my expectations, and recollections of 2004, Senator Kerry was actually a very interesting speaker, though it did become somewhat of an Obama rally at times.  He was both engaging and incredibly intelligent.  What really stuck me was when he spoke off teleprompter, answering questions from the crowd.  Without the aid of a teleprompter, he was able to answer questions about alternative energy, gay marriage, and meeting with leaders of rogue nations.   He even spent a good ten minutes answering questions with people face to face after the lecture ended.

While Senator Kerry’s speech itself was nothing new or spectacular, his intelligence and general interest in talking to Tufts students reinvigorated my faith in public figures.  I sometimes feel that politicians are just talk, and don’t have much substance beneath them.  Yet, there was Sen. Kerry, engaging friends of mine as though they were media figures or fellow politicians.   It was really refreshing to watch actual dialogue between students and someone with such power- someone who could have been President of the United States

There was one thing that I thought Kerry had particularly right.  When he was talking to a group of us after, he spoke of terrorism and brought in the fact that, really, the people who are committing these acts are young people.  He listed some statistics that alarmed me; 50% of the population of some Middle Eastern countries are under the age of 21 (or maybe he said 25).  Regardless, that number is HUGE, especially for an area that is struggling economically.  And we thought we had a problem here when the Baby Boomers kids started applying for college!  The fact that these people are growing up poor, and coming of age to find nothing waiting for them is a major issue.  This, he concluded, is a reason we have suicide bombers and terrorists.  Without any alternative form of opportunity, these people can be easily persuaded by radicals to join a cause, any cause, just so they have purpose.

I immediately started thinking about this problem yet it really is quite a large one.  Poverty can lead to crime in any part of the globe, yet we are seeing this tendency to crime link with anti-Americanism to create ripe recruits for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.  My first logical solution was globalization.  In my having read half of The World is Flat, along with several articles in The Economist about the subject, Globalization seems like a way to expand the economic pie, especially to places that often don’t get jobs.  While I do regret the fact that manufacturing jobs are moving out of Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt to elsewhere, some other jobs have proven to be boons to other countries.  The best example is obviously India.  Our newly interconnected globe has brought India into prominence like no one would have guessed. If India can undergo such rapid economic change, I’m sure that, in the next few years, some form of the world economy could be based in the Middle East.  Currently, most of the Middle East is as left out in the global economy as anywhere.

The one cog in my train of thought is the whole issue of goodwill and soft power.  The US is not much respected in the Middle East, and the reasons are numerous.   As we learned from Iran in the 60s-80s, too quick development and westernization can lead to a serious backlash.  With out current standing in the region, Western industry may not be able to even get a toehold in their economies.

Our most immediate way to gain some respect in the region is coming up in less than two weeks.  There is a clear contrast in both candidates’ style; one a hawkish unilateralist who cannot even commit to talking to the Prime Minister of Spain, the other willing to work with other countries to solve our collective issues together.  Barack Obama will provide instant credibility in a region just by his being willing to talk to people.  As John Kerry said in his lecture when questioned about the issue of sitting down with unfriendly foreign leaders, it at least gets dialogue going, yet “no is still an option”.   We can at the very least try to work things out in the most volatile region in the world.  This would open the door to a possible resolution, as well as show the people in the country that we still care about them, regardless of what we think of their government.

So overall, credibility in the Middle East will help us in so many ways.  It will take away the perception of us being the “bad-guy”, while allowing us to reach out to them economically.  With economic opportunity, people, especially the young, will have more options, and won’t be left with the choice of either unemployment or crime, potentially even terrorism.  

For the immediate future, it is imperative for us to restore our moral standing in the world by electing Barack Obama to be our next President of the United States.

Choo chooooo!

While perusing wikipedia today (a hobby of mine), I found this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High_Speed_Rail  which then led me to the main website http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/why.htm  .  THIS IS SO FLIPPING COOL.  220 MPH!?!  I take the train fairly often, whether its from Boston back home to New York, or from my home in the suburbs into the city, and I always feel like the whole thing could be done better.  While it is nice being able to get from Boston to New York in about 3 hours with the Acela, that really isn't all that much better than car travel (except that there is no traffic).   In fact, France and Japan have had 150+ mph trains for well over 20 years.  Why is it that in the most densely populated and most travelled area of the country, our train only averages 86 mph (a wikipedia fact... but I'm going to trust it.  I've taken that train several times before), while in Japan and France the average speed is much faster.  

I feel like this, though not at all a national issue, is part of the dialogue our country is going to have about the energy crisis and global warming.  Trains are more efficient and leave less of a carbon footprint than any other form of mass transportation, especially compared to gridlocked cars, which are neither efficient nor fast.  Trains provide a solid alternative to cars, especially given the high cost of fuel these days.  Trains relieve congestion on highways, which makes getting from A to B faster for everyone, along with reducing emissions by cutting down on car-idling time in traffic.  They just make sense for travel between cities!

 

Small government nuts are obviously going to call this an intrusion of government and excessive spending, yet building railroads is not something that can be done well by the private sector.  There comes a point when projects are too big and Federal funding needs to be put behind them, as Dwight Eisenhower realized in the 1950s when he helped to create the Interstate Highway System.  This was the biggest infrastructure project ever in this county, one that, if it were to be attempted today, might be labeled as "Big Government".  However, I don't think anyone is complaining about it now.  It profoundly changed our country for the better, allowing greater movement for people and goods.  It boosted our economy by creating jobs.  I believe that new initiatives in high speed trains and alternative transport could have a similar effect today. Also, according to the plan for the current project, the California trains would pay for themselves within a few years.

Overall, though not on the public radar, high speed trains would be incredibly beneficial in terms of the environment, energy, and the economy, increasingly looking dire given that 41 states reported job losses in September.  Barack Obama talks about how we are going to have to invest in alternative energy, and how that could help our economy, along with the environment.  High speed trains and alternative transportation are part of the equation.  High speed trains will have to be part of our new 21st century infrastructure, helping us with many of the problems currently face, while making getting places quicker and easier.

If Californians vote this down, I will be so pissed...

My First Blog Post?! WOOHOO!

So it’s been a week and a half since I first decided to make a blog, and here it is!  I’ve never made or written for a blog before, so I have no idea how this is going to go.  My guess right now is that I’ll write about politics mostly, but, for all of you out there reading this (haha), don’t be surprised if I end up writing about something completely random.

Hopefully this blog will give me a chance to write on a more regular basis.  In college so far, I have only had one paper, which really blows my mind, considering I wrote all the time in high school.   I don’t consider myself that strong of a writer, but this blog should help.

Most of you who are reading this probably already know me.  My name is Jonny, and I’m a freshman at Tufts University in Boston. I am originally from suburban NY.  I am fairly liberal, and am a huge Barack Obama supporter, though I enjoy debate and discussion about politics as much as anyone.

 Thanks for reading this!  More to follow soon (as long as I don’t have too much work).