Tag: decision-2008

Musings on Proposition 8 Advertising

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

[Some lunchtime musings o’ the day]

Now that ads for the various California propositions are starting to show up, I’ve been thinking about the advertising for Proposition 8… the proposition that would remove the ability for gay couples to get legally married. The current “No on 8” features an elderly couple talking about how they’ve always loved their family, and don’t want their daughters’ gay marriage broken up. The “Yes on 8” ad builds on fear that the era of same-sex marriage will unleash a flood, and force their churches to do stuff.

What I would like to see is a “No on 8” ad that addressed those fears. Picture this. With appropriate images in the background, the voiceover announce says

“If Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, and same-sex marriage remains legal, do you know what will happen? Let me tell you:

  • Your marriage to your spouse is unaffected.
  • If you were married in a church or with a church’s blessing, that blessing isn’t removed.
  • Your religious leaders are not forced to do gay weddings, unless they want to.
  • Your house of worship is not forced to provide space for gay weddings, unless it wants to host them.
  • You are not forced to attend a gay wedding, unless you want to.
  • Your church is not forced to recognize a gay wedding, unless it wants to.
  • Schools will not be teaching what gay sex is or that anyone can marry anyone. On the other hand, churches will still be free to teach their religious doctrine.
    [Tip o’the hat to dieppe for reminding me of that one]

There is separation of church and state in America. California’s law does not tell churches what they must accept. Just as that separation is fundamental in America, so is the notion of equal justice under the law. So, a “No” vote on Proposition 8 will:

  • Ensure that one’s legal spouse has the legal rights of a spouse: hospital visitation, medical benefits, survivorship.
  • Ensure that the family unit, both spouses and the children, are treated as a family unit

So, a “No” vote on Proposition 8 actually strengthens the family, and doesn’t force your church or religion to believe any differently than it does today. Sounds pretty American to me.”

Yup, I’d love to see that ad.

Share

More Bailout Bill Stuff

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

A lot of folks in the eithersphere are arguing the pros and cons of the recently failed bailout bill. Many are arguing from outdated information, believing it would have given $700B immediately, that it had no limits on executive pay, or that it included nothing to guarantee that funds wouldn’t be lost.

This page from the Wall Street Journal provides a great summary of the differences between the 3-page Paulson bill of two weekends ago, the version developed by Dodd and Frank in the middle of the week, and the final version that was voted on yesterday. If you are going to argue, please make sure you know which version you are discussing.

One other note: This article from the LA Times shows why the vote really failed: worries about joblessness. Specifically, representatives were worried about losing their jobs. Of note from the article:

Pleas from a president may not work either — especially if the president’s public standing has fallen to record lows. White House spokesmen said Bush called dozens of GOP members of Congress. His efforts appeared to bear little fruit. Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas) said the president called him, but the lawmaker explained that he preferred to listen to his constituents.

In such a situation, even a powerful vice president such as Cheney can no longer command votes from members of the House. “Cheney lived up to his reputation as Darth Vader . . . talking about all the terrible things that were going to happen,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). “People weren’t afraid of Darth Vader.”

Nor did Republican members appear to pay much heed to their presidential nominee.

Over the weekend, aides said, McCain spoke to at least 11 House members to try and round up votes. On Monday morning, he told a rally in Ohio that his intervention had helped aid the expected deal.

Of the 11 lawmakers that the McCain campaign said the nominee talked to Saturday, seven voted for the measure, although five of those were members of the House GOP leadership. Four, including two from Arizona, did not.

As for Obama, he “lobbied gently”, but Pelosi had done much of the work for him. Still, many Democrats listened to their constituants more than their party leaders.

Share

Do I Want What He’s Having?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

There are times I wonder what John McCain is smoking.

I just read the CNN article on McCain’s and Obama’s reaction to the failure to pass the economic recovery bill in the house.

Obama’s reaction?

Obama told voters at a campaign event in Denver, Colorado, that it’s important to “stay calm, because things are never smooth in Congress.”

“There are going to be some bumps and trials and tribulations and ups and downs before we get this rescue package done,” he said. “I’m confident that we are going to get there, but it’s going to be a little rocky.”

Nice and measured. Something that calms people, doesn’t induce panic. Obama also indicated that he was on the phone right after the vote with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and congressional leaders.

Now, McCain’s reaction?

“Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families,” Doug Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser for McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said in a statement.

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill. … This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country,” he said.

Now, the house vote was 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans voting in favor and 95 Democrats joining 133 Republicans against. That’s 60% of the Democratic caucus in favor, and 30% of the Republicans. To me, it looks like the Democrats delivered a majority of their caucus… and I’m sure that Obama is doing what he can to convince the others to change their vote. McCain could only deliver a minority of his caucus: you should expect the leader of their party to at least be able to deliver their party, and if bi-partisan, to deliver more from the other side as well. McCain didn’t demonstrate he could deliver his party.

So where is the failure of leadership? If the Republican leadership cannot reliably deliver Republican support, is that leadership? The Democrats delivered the majority of their caucus. The Republicans didn’t. So don’t blame the Democrats for this failure.

Now, I’m not trying to say this bill is the best thing since sliced bread. But our representational form of government means you make compromises, and sometimes have to do something not 100% perfect, and then amend it later. Right now, our credit markets are frozen: ask anyone trying to refinance before their loan adjusts or they lose more equity. We do need to do something now.

Share

Politics and Poker – The News Chum Edition

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Politics and Poker, Politics and Poker
Playing for a pot that’s mediocre
Politics and Poker running neck and neck
If politics seems more predictable..
That’s because usually
You can stack the deck

Today’s news chum deals with the political and economic (hence the reference to poker) arena. And just like with poker, just when you think you are winning the game…

  • From the “And The Only People Who Make Money Are The Ones Making The Signs” Department: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that J.P. Morgan has struck a deal to take over Washington Mutual. While the exact structure of the transaction wasn’t immediately known, J.P. Morgan is expected to acquire Washington Mutual’s deposits and branches, as well as other operations. The deal isn’t expected to result in any hit to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s bank-insurance fund, according to a person familiar with the arrangement. But it’s likely that another arm of government would have to pick up the tab. Some analysts have worried that a WaMu failure could cost more than $20 billion. In other WaMu news, it will now cost you $5 to cash a check on a WaMu account at WaMu if you don’t have account there.
  • From the “But You Said You Could Convince Them” Department: Remember today how a bipartisan deal over the bailout had supposedly been hammered out before the “big meeting” — the deal bringing together the Senate and the House, the Republicans and the Democrats. Remember how Bush called McCain and Obama together to convince their parties to support the deal. Well, Democrats are behind the deal. But House Republicans are balking. Wasn’t it McCain that called for bipartisan leadership on the issue? Let’s see if he can bring his party along. It should be noted it is only the House Republicans that are balking; the Senate Republicans as well as both House and Senate Democrats agree with the revised proposal.
  • From the “Paranoia” Department: I’m finding it interesting how cynical the Bush administration has left the supporters on the other side. I’m seeing more and more people that think elections are going to be suspended, that training some troops to support NorthCom means were going to have a military coup. Have the bad actions of the Bush administration led people to doubt the fundamentals of our political system? Perhaps I’m naive, but we’ve been in dire straights before… and elections and campaigns have gone on. We’ve had power-hungry presidents before… and elections have gone on and our system has righted itself. We must have faith in our system of government folks.
Share

A Political Observation

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

So John McCain today issued a call for both major party candidates to stop campaigning, return to Washington to provide leadership for the economic crisis, and to not have the debate (or to postpone it to be when the VP debate would be — I’ve seen both reports). Obama has said he isn’t suspending campaigning, will do the debate, but will go to Washington to do whatever congressional leaders need him to do to help through this crisis.

I wonder if Sen. McCain has thought through the implications of what he is saying. He’s saying he wants to stop campaigning and return to Washington. Fine, that’s his choice. But why should he need Obama there, if Obama is really the junior senator with no power that McCain claims him to be? Shouldn’t Sen. McCain, with the power of bipartisanship he claims to have, be able to convince those in Congress of the correct approach? Shouldn’t he be able to find a solution without Obama’s help and argue why it is the right way? If he needs Obama there, isn’t he just admitting he’s ineffective in building bipartisan coalitions?

I think Obama proposed the right approach. The two of them should work together, whereever they may be, and come out with a joint proposal. They don’t need to be in Washington, nor to suspend campaigning to do that. The two of them don’t even need to be in Washington to convince other Representatives and Senators to support their approach. There’s this newfangled invention called the telephone, don’t cha know. The only time they need to be in Washington is to cast their vote on the final plan, once it is hammered out by congressional leaders. Anything else is political posturing. Let Congress do their job (which is why we pay them their salary). Folks should also remember that we are all paying McCain’s and Obama’s salary as well (they are sitting Senators).

You know, perhaps we should have a real test: Let Obama and McCain come up with a joint position. Then dispatch Biden and Palin to Congress. After all, one of them will be the future head of the Senate, and should know how to work Congress.

Share

How T’Steer The Ship O’State

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

As today is Talk Like A Pirate Day, I’d like to do some talking about two groups of pirates: Captain John and his wench Sarah, and Captain Barak and his first mate, Salty Joe. Both of these teams are campaigning to run our ship of state; they claim they can right it from its current floundering condition, and sail us into safe and secure waters. Right now, the ship is being buffeted by privateers and speculators, who are devaluing the gold and treasure in the hold, and making many in the crew lose faith. But what is the right course to take?

A landlubber paper, the Los Angeles Times, has an interesting article on the subject. It notes that Captain John’s solution is to say the current scalliwags attempting to handle the situation are wrong and should be keelhauled, and that the financial ships that are sinking should be left to go to Davy Jones, and not have a crew from the SS FRB board them and bail them out. He thinks the sole purpose of the crew of the SS FRB is to responsibly manage our money supply and inflation. However, this landlubber is curious: what would happen if we let those ships sank? Would we be able to navigate the financial waters littered with the corpses of the SS Bear Stearns, the SS Lehman Brothers, the SS AIG, the SS WaMu, and so on. Sailing in trecherous seas littered with corpses is even more dangerous. Perhaps Captain John sees the opportunity to grab some treasure of his own, and bury it on his private island? It should also be noted that Captain John was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that had oversight over every part of the economy–and he was unable to convice his crew to ensure a safe path.

Now, what does Captain Barak propose. First, he’s consulting with some pretty knowledable captains (whereas Captain John consulted with the likes of Captain Phil Gramm, who help started this whole free-for-all). Captain Barak’s advice, probably given over a good cup o’grog, came from folks like Captain Warren Buffett, Captain Robert Rubin, and Captain Paul Volcker. Captain Barak endorsed giving “broad authority” to the skilled sailors at the Treasury Department to deal with the credit crisis. But Captain Barak also has shown concern for the lowest crewman on the ship, advocating solutions that not only address those that have their gold and silver, but those who do not. He wants there to be an emergency economic plan for working crews and their families ” to help them pay for rising costs of gasoline, food and housing.” In other words, Captain Barak believes it isn’t only the captain of a ship that should benefit from good leadership; the crew is the team that makes the ship strong, and should benefit and be protected as well.

Captain Barak recognizes there are scalliwags out there, and wants stringent oversight and regulations and protection against rewards for running your ship asunder. He feels that the inadequate watchment in the crows nest, and inadequate protections for the crew, contributed to the shaky condition of the ship. Captain John? He’s arguing for oversight as well, but the type that has already happened. Captain John wants to focus on piratical lenders, forgetting that those lending practices are already gone.

So, the question is: Which team is in it just for the chest of gold? Which team do you want to guide your ship?

[Please note: In the spirit of the day, mateys, responses must continue the piratical motif and mileau. Those that disobey will walk the plank.]

Share

Los Angeles Personalities in the News

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Some Los Angeles personalities making the news today, gleaned from my lunch-time reading:

  • Former Mayor Richard Riordan has come out for Barak Obama: “I think he’s a much more open person. He’s young, he has more energy, more electricity.” As for McCain, Riordan says “When I was mayor I had dealings with McCain where I didn’t respect him”. From what I heard on the radio coming into work, Riordan attempted to work with McCain on issues related to LAX, and McCain was pretty uncooperative. Riordan is noting he hasn’t gone Democratic — he’s still supporting Republican candidates in other races. Still, in my eyes, this is a significant endorsement, for Riordan is someone many Angelenos respect.
  • The attempt to inject youth into the Rose Parade by KTLA-5 has failed. Channel 5 has announced that Stephanie Edwards is returning in 2009 to co-host the Rose Parade with Bob Eubanks. KTLA replaced her with a much younger anchor in 2005 — resulting in much criticism. Edwards was confined to a sideline role interviewing crowd members, soaked by rain. She has been off the broadcast since 2006. There’s a good discussion of this kerfluffle over at LA Observed (la_observed)
  • Long-time KABC talk-show host and restaurant reviewer Elmer Dills has passed away. Dills developed his knowledge of food and wine as an officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He has had a series of talk-shows covering restaurants and food on stations such as KABC, KMPC, KIEV, KRLA, and finally on CRN Digital Talk Radio.
  • Pacific Palisades resident Arnold Schwarzenegger is in the news again. Yes, the assembly and senate passed a budget (which has significant effects on every Californian–which no one caught in my last post). However, the governor is vetoing it because it doesn’t include everything he wants. He has also noted that if the legislature overrides his veto, he will return the favor by sending back most of the laws it passed in the last legislative session. According to Mr. S: “Every bill will be carefully evaluated, and hundreds of bills will be vetoed”. In some ways (OK, many ways), both sides are acting like children. I do hope this is remembered in November, and in two years, as folks vote for state offices.

(What do you mean I resemble today’s XKCD?)

Share

Tuesday News Chum

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

  • From the “Say That Again?” Department: Headline seen on CNN: “Bush arrives in Texas; Residents urged to leave”
  • From the “Nothing Up My Sleeve” Department: We all know that the budget compromise developed by the California Senate/Assembly supposedly does not raise taxes. But it is going to hit all of us in the pocketbook. According to the LA Times:

    Some businesses and individuals would have to pay their taxes sooner, and some would have to pay more than they owe and would get the extra back later. State taxes withheld at the workplace would jump 10% for everyone.

    Translation: Your paycheck will go down, because your withholding will go up. Yes, you’ll get the money eventually, but without any interest. Taxpayers who file quarterly would have to pay more of their taxes earlier in the year. The plan is loaded with accounting gimmicks, and does make large cuts to education.

  • From the “Coffee, Tea, or Me” Department: I probably should have posted this yesterday in honor of pradagirl’s birthday… the New York Times has a very interesting article on the life of a flight attendant. No, it’s no longer the swinger’s life of the 1960s movies. It’s a hard and unappreciated job. Good read.
  • From the “McCain/Gore” Department: You know how Al Gore invented the Internet (funny, I though it was Lenny Kleinrock). Well, John McCain is responsible for the Blackberry. It must be so, because CNN says it. Specifically, McCain senior domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently held up his Blackberry, stating, “[John McCain] did this. Telecommunications of the United States, the premiere innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you’re looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create. And that’s what he did. He both regulated and de-regulated the industry.”
  • From the “And the Dominos continue to Fall” Department: The news from Wall Street just continues to get worse. Just last week there was the hope that the support of Freddie and Fannie would buoy things a bit. But come this week, we have Lehman Bros. going Chapter 11, Merrill Lynch becoming part of BofA (which certainly knows its bull), AIG is faltering and may collapse by the end of the day (and if it doesn’t, it won’t make the week). The Fed has kept rates steady (the market was hoping for a drop), T-bill rates are falling as everyone rushes to safety (which may have the upside of lowering 30 year mortgate rates). We’re likely to see more companies engulfed by the panic, irrespective of whether they actually deserve to day: WaMu, Wachovia, or even Downey. We’re seeing massive job losses: over 24K at HP, and who knows how many from Lehman Bros and AIG. But throughout this all, we’re being told that our money is safe, and its just a little glitch. McCain thinks the fundamentals of the economy remain strong, and thinks the problem is unbridled corruption and greed (notwithstanding that his parties official stance is that less regulation is good, and giving the large companies more money actually helps the little people). Obama thinks this is the most serious financial crisis since the great depression, and calls for more consumer protection and regulations (although I don’t see statements about how to handle the massive failures). Me? I’m just glad that the buildings in New York have sealed windows these days, or we would be scraping investment bankers off the street.
Share