Is it worth saving? I’m not sure. I’m quite conflicted on this one.

On one hand, I agree with Mark Morford that GM, Ford and Chrysler have been woefully inadequate in the last several years and don’t make any cars really worth buying. They’re obsession with the SUV and the big margins they made on them got them drunk and silly… now they’ve got a hangover and we’re supposed to bail them out? NO WAY!!

But then I read articles like this with some really great ideas on ways we can transform the beleaguered auto makers with government intervention because they obviously haven’t been able to do it themselves. Thomas Friedman describes how we got here and where we might want to go from here better than anyone.

Here are some suggestions that have been put out there… and the upcoming Obama administration is probably going to do some or all of these things when they do bail out Detroit. I hope it works:

Stock goes to zero
Existing debt-holders take a hit ($0.30-$0.40 on dollar?)
Money dispensed in small amounts in return for senior convertible debt, pending the meeting of goals
Management and board gone as soon as strong replacements can be found
Union contracts torn up
Company radically downsized
Remaining employees offered new, fair employment terms (pay, benefits) which they can accept or decline at their choosing
Company commits to designing and building cars that people want.

justin

For those of you who are new to the blog and have only been reading Justin’s comments over the last several weeks, allow myself to introduce…myself. I am his other better half. You can think of me as the rational side of the argument. I need to very much apologize for being distinctly absent on these pages over the last few weeks. Especially over an incredible election. This blog was never intended to be a one way conversation on the issues. Justin recently told me that he believed my lack of input was due to my apathy over the poll numbers leading up to the election. I won’t say he is entirely wrong, though I would only attribute apathy to about 10% of why I haven’t been writing recently. Instead, I can attribute my absence to the ridiculous nature of my life over the last 14 days. One week before the election, I began six straight days of shooting in which my earliest call time was 5:30 am and my earliest arrival home was 11 pm. Didn’t expect that. We were shooting in a location where cell phones worked only half the time. Didn’t expect that either. I got very little sleep. After those six days, now one day before election day, I planned on sleeping in and catching up on the latest news only to discover that my landlord rented my apartment (I had given her 30 days notice in October and never rescinded it). I definitely didn’t expect this. So last week, I was forced into an emergency move which took the better part of the week. On election day, after one all-nighter, rather than staying updated on the latest poll numbers, I was stressed with trying to move my refrigerator and large bookshelf from my old apartment to my new apartment. Moving a frig sucks! Then I had a shoot that lasted into the early evening. But, at the end of the move, I found myself in a one bedroom as opposed to a studio so there is a good part to the story. Due to the move, I was without internet for a full five days! Can you imagine? No internet for five whole days!!! It’s amazing how much we rely on computers and the internet to conduct our day to day affairs. I have to admit it was kind of nice to not check my 50 plus emails a day. But it was painful to go through 250 emails at the end of the week. I now on and off contemplate moving to a remote location in order to shun all technology and cleanse my spirit. Maybe I’ll study math in a tiny little cabin and start wearing hooded sweatshirts. Just joking! Gosh, calm down.

As you can guess, this was the last way I expected to spend election week. I was, however, able to make it over to Justin’s on election night to see the speeches by John McCain and Barack Obama. I was impressed by both. For the record, I voted for John McCain. He remains to me a true patriot and American hero. But, I share in the concerns of many fellow conservatives in his distinctly negative campaign and his selection of Sarah Palin (I know I didn’t always feel this way). As it turns out, these two areas ended up hurting him in the end. It does sadden me the finger pointing I’ve heard about from the right after the election. As for the election of Barack Obama…I’m happy for him! Truly. I wish him the best. I’m happy for my liberal friends who are so energized by this event. I will say that one comment I heard on election day, “He shouldn’t be called President Obama, he should be called King Obama” made me chuckle before realizing the potential power that the people could give to this man. Just as a word of caution, we should think very clearly and carefully as an electorate, especially in this time of economic emergency, in giving too much power to any one man. Obama’s celebrity image makes it all the more likely that we will willingly give him a blank check to do as he wishes. I’ll admit this is cynical. But crazier things have happened in history. In the end, I think Obama has the potential to be a good, if not great, president. I’m happy that the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton era of race relations will now come to a close. No minority has an excuse for the “man” keeping him down as a reason to not succeed and excel in life. For this reason, I have hope for an Obama presidency. I will pray for him as I did his predecessor.

Well, my place is now less of a disaster than it was two days ago, which is saying a lot. I couldn’t even walk through my living room without stepping on bags, papers, and other stuff that I should have burned long ago. Had I needed to move into a place other than the building next door, I would have contemplated lighting a match and throwing it on the floor before I left for one of my shoots. I don’t consider myself a very materialistic person, but daggonit I have a lot of junk!

In time, I’ll respond to some of Justin’s recent comments. Stay tuned…..

Cheers,
Joel

You’re used to this one by now:

But this one looks a lot cooler:

And this? The coolest of all:

For a description of what these crazy images mean, you have to check out this project from a University of Michigan student.

cool, huh?
justin

My real kick in the ass came when I thought back to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the passionate hope filled fight he waged against intolerance and justice… and I cry again. Sob, in fact…. so proud of my country right now that I hope it will take a long time to wear off. I’m sure it has something to do with how angry I was for the last 8 years. The release is incredible… and the best part is that I know millions of Americans feel the same joy. This is an amazingly historic time to be alive and tonight I want to thank God for today.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. dared to dream of this day back on August 28, 1963. Many of my fellow Americans saw this speech 45 years ago. I can only imagine what they must be feeling when they think back to this moment of history from the prism of November 4, 2008:

Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Watch the whole speech here.

justin

PS: To my gay friends: Your dream will come true, too. This is proof.

As Dr. King said: “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

But there was a setback for equality yesterday as well. Florida, Arizona, and even California voted to deny same-sex couples the right to get married… (but not Connecticut) and Arkansas even will deny gays the right to adopt children. Predictably, it was the bigoted Mormon church that funded Prop 8 in California and ironically it was the huge African American turnout that may have spelled its doom… but the battle has not been lost… just put off.

My favorite enigma, Andrew Sullivan, who is a conservative gay blogger supporting Obama, has has a great deal to say about this issue and no doubt will lead the fight in the future. But today, his sober thoughts:

But I realize I am not shattered. My own marriage exists and is real without the approval of others. One day soon, it will be accepted by a majority. And this initiative in California can and will be reversed, as California’s initiatives are much more fluid than those in other states; and the younger generation is overwhelmingly - 2 to 1 - in our favor. The tide of history is behind us; but we will have to work harder to educate people about our lives and loves and humanity.

To gay people across the nation, your separate but equal status will be shot down one day as it was for blacks in the 60’s. Have faith that Americans are inclusive and loving as a people… this election on a broader scale has proven that progress will come. You’re next.

justin

I wish I’d seen this article earlier, but alas, I just found out about the endorsement of The Economist:

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

and the persuasive closing argument:

…this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Now, GO OUT AND VOTE! Today is the day!!!

justin

From Environment California:

The vote tomorrow on Prop 1A, the ballot measure to create high-speed rail, is expected to be really close. If California is serious about fighting global warming and cutting our use of oil and other fossil fuels we can’t let this opportunity pass us by. Join me in voting YES on Prop 1A!

VOTE YES ON 1A
justin

CNN has just reported that Dixville Notch has voted 15-6 in favor of Obama! It wasn’t even close! Ladies and gentlemen, it’s going to be a great day for change!!!!

justin

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law
Review and Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his
graduating class?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a
severe disfiguring car accident to marry a rich heiress with whom
he had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama had become addicted
to pain killers and acquired them illegally through her
charitable organization?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?
(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of
corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the
larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if Obama was known to display publicly, on many
occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from beer
distribution?

What if their educations had been reversed like this:
John McCain:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization
in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Barack Obama:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political
Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
Joseph Biden:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

If either their background or race were reversed
do you think the election numbers would be as close as they are?

We are on the cusp of history tonight, so I don’t mean to complain
or belittle anyone, but I wanted to send this to remind you that there is still prejudice in this country to overcome… and while we’re at it… those of you who live in California should stand up for progress towards equality and vote NO on Prop 8 to fight against prejudice of a different kind.

thanks,
justin

“When our days become dreary with low hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” - Martin Luther King

An amusing picture of what this might look like:

5 More Friends

justin

Find the several other videos either on their very cool site or on YouTube.

I had to post this one specifically for Joel. She makes some great points that I’ve tried to make to him:

UPDATE: Just found a nice list of Conservatives who are supporting Obama. In fact, it’s an entire blog devoted to this idea!

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Conservatives, Advertisements

Meet Rose Greene and Helena Ruffin:
(and some black mormon guy who is against gay marriage)

justin

Dear Dad,

There is something that I would like to discuss with you, or maybe it would be better said, there is something that I am feeling that I would like to share with you. As you know I am in a 12 ½ year loving relationship with a person that up until now I did not have the legal right to marry, but very much want that right. As mom has probably told you we will be married before Nov. 4th.

Not too long ago, under the terms of marriage, women belonged to the men they were pre-arranged to marry. Less than half a century ago, people of different races could not marry. Marriage has been redefined several times over in the last hundred years, and hopefully we at least agree that most of it has been for the better.

I guess in writing this, I’m hoping that, even though you are not gay, you believe that I should have the legal rights to support my American dream, even if it looks a little different then your own. And believe me when I say, it’s only a little different. You know what’s most important to me? Beyond the plethora of financial protections afforded married couples, I want the right to sit by the hospital bed of my partner if she were to get into an accident (or vice-versa). I can’t tell you how afraid I am that one day something would happen and I would be denied the right to be that support for her and to tell her I love her one last time. Anyone who loves someone should know that the thought of being purposefully denied that is terrifying, and worthy of shouting about.

Please hear me when I say I’m not asking for a religious ceremony, or any recognition from a church. But there are over a thousand rights granted to married couples. And if there truly is a separation of church and state… something the Constitution says there is… I don’t see why my family should not be encouraged to be committed to each other and protected by law in the same way my sister family is or yours. I believe that denying my family those rights to be more cruel and unjust than granting them ever could be. Because at the end of the day, your entire life will never be turned upside down if this proposition passes, but mine could… and so could the lives of hundreds of thousands of others like me.

Voting yes on prop 8 would be voting against my family. Against me, Dad.

Your Loving Daughter

I’ve already chronicled many conservatives who are voting for Obama and many reasons they might be doing so… and now Andrew Sullivan who is perhaps the leader of the movement from the inside, has created a fantastically effective top ten reasons conservatives should vote for Obama. Here it is, in it’s entirety:

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won’t touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain’s plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama’s. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain’s knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran’s nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush’s first term and George W.’s.

7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

5. Faith. Obama’s fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.

4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

3. Two words: President Palin.

2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today’s Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.

1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America’s reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama

While we’re at it, I’d like to re-compile my list of conservative supporters of Barack Obama into a top-ten list of my own.

Smart guys who just got smarter:

10 - Lincoln Chafee

9 - David Brooks

8 - Ken Adelman

7 - Charles Fried

6 - George F. Will

5 - Scott McClellan

4 - Christopher Hitchins

3 - Christopher Buckley

2 - Colin Powell

1 - Ordinary, thinking Americans who happen to be conservative

For an interactive rundown of the conservative and newspaper editorial rejection of Palin, check out this Talking Points Memo interactive summary of “The Palin Effect”

Honorable mentions:
William Weld.
Boris Johnson.
Joel Van Brunt?
Fred Bradshaw?
Kevin Knight?

you boys comment now… read first, then comment!
justin

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Conservatives

The current proposition is mostly a response to the 2004 San Francisco same-sex marriages that effectively attempted to redefine the historically accepted connotation of marriage AND the recent overturning of Proposition 22 by the California Supreme Court. For a comprehensive history of this issue in California, visit the Wikipedia article. So I will ask this question…

How is it discriminatory to define a marriage as between a man and a woman when ALL legal rights are ALREADY afforded same sex couples in California? This question underscores the fact that the opposition has the express purpose of not settling with the already fair and non-discriminatory California domestic partnership laws. Instead, they seek to eventually overthrow the culturally and religiously accepted definition of marriage claiming that this is a civil rights issue.

Let’s see where this slope leads. If same-sex marriage is allowed to become a civil rights issues, which it is not, then ANY Church that elects to not marry a gay couple can be charged with discriminatory practice similar to how doctor’s could be charged during the Civil Rights era for refusing to treat African Americans. A Church charged with discrimination is subject to having it’s tax-exempt status revoked, thereby weakening the ability of Churches to succeed in America. While many in the opposition may publicly claim that Churches need not fear any litigation as a result of this issue, it is not hard to imagine how things will continue to shift in favor of a redefinition and how Churches will be a future battleground of this issue. From the Christian perspective, this could all very quickly turn into a cultural battle against Christianity. Of course this is all good news for skeptics of Christianity and of religion in general who behind closed doors and in some public settings will champion the decline of Christian influence in our society.

What opponents to prop 8 will also not tell you is that “As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state of California.” (from the same Wikipedia article) So same sex marriage has effectively been LEGAL for the last 5 months. This fact is a result of a 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court that found a previous proposition (prop 22) in violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. But again, how can there be a violation of the equal protection clause if same sex couples are already granted the SAME rights as heterosexual marriages under the Domestic Partnership law of 1999?

It is because of this decision that the definition of “marriage” should be written into the California constitution. This WILL NOT take away ANY legal protections and rights ALREADY afforded same sex couples.

This is clearly about the definition of marriage and not about equal rights. The equal rights already exist. Terrific! Leave the definition of marriage, which holds so much significance to the religious and culturally conservative elements in our society, alone!!!

Cheers,
Joel

Wednesday’s Washington Post had an article stating that Al Quaeda prefers to have McCain elected as USA’s next president. For the record, I don’t put a lot of stock into this… but if the same website had expressed support for Obama, you can bet McCain would be using that in his stump speeches. You can bet that Obama will not stoop to that level, though.

The rationale for the “endorsement” is extremely interesting, though. As they sometimes do, Al Quaeda has a very logical argument for their opinion:

“The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful ’son of Bush’ — someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk,” Raisman said. “They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain.”

The idea that Bush has made extremism worse by invading and inflaming the Muslim world is well supported by what they are saying. It’s also important to note that this is not just one extremist website

In any event, the comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist sites, said Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist Web pages.

Bottom line: It’s only news because it’s coming from Al Quaeda… but it’s an important argument because it’s true. We need a completely different kind of leadership in Washington… leadership that will do a better job in the complex war we’re now fighting. We don’t need another war loving maverick.

justin

UPDATE: The Times of London just listed 5 other unwelcome endorsements but somehow missed this big one. huh?

The Mormon church has led a bitter fight against equality in marriage in California, even including dirty blackmail tactics against corporations who support it like Apple and Google. (others include AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, PG&E and Levi Strauss) But it didn’t work… the companies went public against discrimination and for constitutional equality:

Apple:

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Google:

While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

I agree with Apple and Google that this is a moral issue about fundamental equal rights that no one has the right to take away from anyone, including homosexuals. I know several same-sex couples, including a few who have gotten married recently and a few who raise children. They are just as loving, if not more so, to their children and their partners than any heterosexual couple I know. Isn’t love what people and especially children crave? Love and a stable home environment does wonders for children and, FYI, having gay parents does not make you gay.

It’s pure discrimination. Don’t vote for it.

Check out this great TV ad they recently came out with that is a spoof on Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads:

More great No on Prop 8 Videos

thanks,
justin

In this statement, Clarence Thomas has summed up a lot of the “progressive” American mentality. Nothing illustrates this more than Obamanomics or the future redistribution of wealth that we are likely to see under an Obama administration.

We’re all familiar with the “Joe-the-plumber” redistribution of wealth quote. At least Obama was honest in this situation of his intent for his future tax policy. Interestingly, this is the only occasion where he’s come clean on his intensions. Why? Why not tell it like it is to everybody? I guess that’s not very politically popular amongst potential supporters.

Let’s look at how Obama has been wrong on government spending.

1. Obama claims that there is a federal “investment deficit” in many needed federal programs. I’d like to know what he means given the following information.

“Over the past eight years the federal budget has exploded by more than $1.1 trillion, much of it for the very programs that Democrats want to spend more on. Let’s start with infrastructure. Three years ago Congress passed a transportation bill of more than $286 billion. The transportation budget is up 22% after inflation in the past eight years…How about aid to local communities? That spending has soared by 91% after inflation in eight years. The education budget is up 57%. Welfare programs are up 30%. Only two years ago Democrats were calling the Tom DeLay Republicans spendthrift. Now they say there’s an “investment deficit.”"

So with all this increased spending over the last eight years (an issue I have with the administration), where is this “investment deficit”? How much more does Obama want to increase these budgets given his 1 trillion in proposed new spending?

2. Obama’s plan proposes to raise taxes on the top 5% while lowering or keeping the same taxes on the rest of us 95%. If this is not redistribution of wealth, I don’t know what is. While I directly benefit from this, I do not think that this system is “fair” as Obama claims it to be. As Adam Lerrick from Carnegie Mellon points out…

“In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million — 40% — paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes — less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama’s plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.”

As this article says,

“Our tax system is designed so that only the people in the top three tiers (or tax brackets) actually pay income tax. When you hear a politician talk about lowering you taxes what they really mean is adjusting the bracket percentages down. They also like to call tax credits “lowering your taxes”. But what they really mean is they are going to take more money from someone else (those that don’t get the credit) and give it to you.”

But tax credits carry with it severe risk as pointed out here by J. Kenneth Blackwell.

“Of course, Obama knows that the term “socialist” would kill his plan, so he calls it a “refund” instead. But there’s no way it’s not socialist; he’s either:
* Giving a “refund” on taxes people never paid to start with,
* Moving us drastically closer to the day Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt, requiring a massive bailout by other sources of taxation,
* Or outright turning the core federal retirement funds into welfare programs.

The deficit now runs hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Yet Obama proposes almost $1 trillion of new spending - and promises to also give “rebates” to the 38 percent of us who pay no income tax. Where is that money coming from?”

3. Obama and company seem to believe that the rich no longer pay their fair share because of the Bush tax cuts. But as Dick Morris, the former advisor to Bill Clinton, points out, those very Bush tax cuts lead to higher percentages in federal income tax paid by the rich.

“It is true that the richest Americans are getting richer a lot faster than the rest of the country. The top 10 percent experienced a real (after inflation) income growth of almost 50 percent in this decade. The rest of America saw its income rise, but by less than 5 percent after inflation.
But it wasn’t Bush tax cuts that fueled the growing inequality. The top 1 percent of American taxpayers now pay 40 percent of the taxes (compared with 33 percent in 2003 and 24 percent in 1986).”

So, Obama wants to increase the tax burden on the most successful individuals, give tax “rebates” to the bottom 90% equating to a hand-out, and spend a lot more money on programs that have already drastically increased in the past several years. And I haven’t even touched on health care.

Why again is this what’s best for the country? Where’s the fairness? Perhaps I’m missing his message of hope and change that everything will be better as long as he becomes president. I hope for his sake and ours that he doesn’t take his tax proposal seriously.

Cheers,
Joel

Seriously, this is amazing. Everywhere I look there are more of them… not just the pundits and Colin Powell but everyday americans who happen to be conservative seeing that the best direction for this country is Obama. There is a whole website devoted to it called Conservatives for Change

Here is their video:

Eric Hirschberg from the Huffington Post, who put together the site, makes a great observation about this video and the others on the site:

This is what democracy is supposed to be. These people actually listened, considered and were open to the possibility of change. They didn’t support a candidate. They actually chose one. And while I’m happy this year they are voting for “my team,” they also inspired me to be more open in my own political life.

I thought we were making an ad campaign about Obama. But I think we ended up making an ad campaign about the essential ingredient that makes democracy work: an open mind. We don’t belong to our political parties. Our political parties belong to us.

Bless you, everyone with an open mind. YOU make democracy. We here at Skull Sessions thank you for using that open mind to visit our site and contribute to our mission of civil, open-minded debate!

justin

PS: and to my dad, if you’re reading this: Please don’t vote for the libertarian this year. He’s going to lose anyway. Your vote in Georgia matters more than ever… and Norman Rockwell got it right when he said your vote matters because you matter, especially to me. I know you to be an open minded intelligent guy who does the right thing regardless of ideology… so it’s for you that I lay out these myriad of posts and arguments by conservatives like you in support of Obama!

UPDATE: Another prominent conservative, Charles Fried who was appointed Solicitor General by Reagan and a Harvard Law Professor who used to actually be an advisor for McCain… has shockingly announced that he’s already voted for Obama via absentee ballot! For more on him, check out his Boston.com profile.

Boston.com has an article called “Crossing party lines” where they profile several people who are doing just that. The only one that is crossing toward McCain is Joe Lieberman (who is technically not a democrat anymore anyway). The rest that I haven’t already mentioned on Skull Sessions who are flocking to Obama… including William Weld (former Mitt Romney supporter), Scott McClellan (former Bush press secretary who wrote a devastating book about the inside of the White House),

… and Charles Krauthammer is screaming about it all! But at least by reading Krauthammer’s article, I learned that Christopher Hitchens (Bush apologist and Clinton basher) is yet another conservative that can’t vote for McCain/Palin. And this quote from this article is priceless:

I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that “issue” I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the “experience” is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

UPDATE 2: McCain has also lost the vote of the Goldwater legacy, CC Goldwater:

Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician.

UPDATE 3: David Frum, one of my favorite conservatives, has written a devastating argument for consolidating Republican losses by abandoning the presidential race in favor of the senate. He also acknowledges that the choice of Sarah Palin was a huge strategic blunder since it’s lost them the independent vote McCain’s candidacy was predicated upon.

UPDATE 4: Several new (to me, at least) Republican endorsements are mentioned by Politico.com: James A. Leach, Wayne Gilchrest, Lincoln Chafee, Arne Carlson and Larry Pressler. Some cite his flip-flopping, some his Palin swing to the right, some his negative campaign,

Pressler even said this:

“The Republican Party I knew in the 1970s is just all gone,” he said, explaining that he preferred Obama’s economic plan.

It seems that the only “mavericks” left supporting McCain are Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham.

and Chafee just admitted there are many more moving towards Obama:

Chafee suggested there may be more Republicans supporting Obama without advertising it.
“The Obama campaign has had me call different leaning Republicans and asked them to publicly support [Obama and Biden],” Chafee said. “They’ll tell me privately, ‘I’m going to vote for them.”

A “spirited” conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. “It wasn’t a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way.” The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama’s perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible.

Barack Obama has prospered in this presidential campaign because of the steadiness of his temperament and the judicious quality of his decision-making. They are his best-known qualities.

And he not only speaks with inelligence, he speaks to us like adults! Do you remember Obama’s big speech on race? It was an inspired response to Jeremiah Wright and pretty much put the issue to rest for all reasonable people. Here is how Obama described it:

“My gut was telling me that this was a teachable moment and that if I tried to do the usual political damage control instead of talking to the American people like … they were adults and could understand the complexities of race, I would be not only doing damage to the campaign but missing an important opportunity for leadership.”

And if you’ve known me or watched the video Skull Sessions, you know that I strongly believe we need a Manhattan Project-like effort to combat global warming and wean us from oil over time… and it couldn’t excite me more to see Obama talking about that as his #1 priority!

He wants to launch an “Apollo project” to build a new alternative-energy economy. His rationale for doing so includes some hard truths about the current economic mess: “The engine of economic growth for the past 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20. That was consumer spending. Basically, we turbocharged this economy based on cheap credit.” But the days of easy credit are over, Obama said, “because there is too much deleveraging taking place, too much debt.” A new economic turbocharger is going to have to be found, and “there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy … That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.”

Most of all, what a President should be able to do is inspire the nation to do great things. Now, more than ever, we need that leader! Klein puts it quite well to finish up his article:

If he wins, however, there will be a different challenge. He will have to return, full force, to the inspiration business. The public will have to be mobilized to face the fearsome new economic realities. He will also have to deliver bad news, to transform crises into “teachable moments.” He will have to effect a major change in our political life: to get the public and the media to think about long-term solutions rather than short-term balms. Obama has given some strong indications that he will be able to do this, having remained levelheaded through a season of political insanity. His has been a remarkable campaign, as smoothly run as any I’ve seen in nine presidential cycles. Even more remarkable, Obama has made race — that perennial, gaping American wound — an afterthought. He has done this by introducing a quality to American politics that we haven’t seen in quite some time: maturity. He is undoubtedly as ego-driven as everyone else seeking the highest office — perhaps more so, given his race, his name and his lack of experience. But he has not been childishly egomaniacal, in contrast to our recent baby-boomer Presidents — or petulant, in contrast to his opponent. He does not seem needy. He seems a grown-up, in a nation that badly needs some adult supervision.

justin

Max Blumenthal makes a great case for this. Here’s an example of how James Dobson helped cost McCain the election by essentially forcing him to nominate someone like Sarah Palin:

Powell might well have supported McCain’s bid for the presidency had things turned out differently. McCain yearned to select his friend, the turncoat Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, as his running mate. Lieberman, who shared Powell’s positions on domestic policy, would have made the Republican ticket the most moderate since the pre-Goldwater era. But opposition from the Christian right―especially from Dobson―threatened a fight on the floor of the Republican convention, rendering the Lieberman option impossible. And so McCain chose Sarah Palin.

And it makes you wonder if they’re going to put her up as president against Obama in 2012. That will be great for the Democrats, I predict, but bad for the country as a whole.

justin

Oh, and if you want an Obamacon perspective, PhDiva puts it very very well:

We need change - not another Clinton. Senator Obama may not be able to deliver it, but hope can be just as powerful and he has successfully harnessed that. America needs a regime change to restore its standing in the world, and Barack Obama seems to be the best option.

Andrew Sullivan is more lucid in his thoughts, so if you’d like to read why he, as a conservative, supports Obama, I recommend -
Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters.

“If it’s taboo to talk about politics, we’re doing ourselves a disservice.”
Amber MacArthur

Go to this link and either subscribe to listen in iTunes, or listen right on the web page. The good stuff is between 24:50 and 27:50.

justin

In general, as this article by Cal Thomas points out, government has failed miserably at being the solution to people’s problems. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as John Stossel points out through Thomas’s article, is an example of this. We should seriously consider the benefit of a liberal agenda being pushed through by a Democratically controlled executive and legislative. Many on the left think this is exactly what the country needs. I respectfully and profoundly disagree.

Joel

Will Obama be a transformational candidate and change the electoral map forever, as Colin Powell suggests and progressives like me yearn for? Or will he simply be another “50 plus 1″ president with a slim majority, no clear mandate, and a continually divided country to lead?

We’ll see… but my money is on the guy who beat the Clintons!

On the reality of rural white voters who see Obama as “different”:

Obama’s strategists accept that there will be some number of voters — particularly white men — who will reject Obama solely because he is black. But they are betting, first, that most of these voters wouldn’t have voted for a Democrat in any event and, second, that the groundswell of black support for Obama will produce enough new African-American votes in a lot of states to offset them.

Obama on the potential of his campaign:

“If I’m able to change this,” he told me on his plane, meaning the cultural breach in our politics, “then it’s probably going to be most powerful after I’m elected, when you’re no longer in the context of day-to-day battle, and I can prove it by what I do.”

… and Obama on FOX news:

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told me. “If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?

Overall, a great read, if you’re into the nuance that makes politics interesting…

justin

Humans’ sense of indignation is not just limited to violations against us. Even if you’re able-bodied, think of how offended you feel when you see another able-bodied person pull into a handicapped parking spot. Most of us will just walk on, quietly irate, but a few will yell at the driver. These moral enforcers are vital to society. Frans de Waal writes that experiments with macaques show that if you remove the individuals who perform this policing function, hostilities increase among the entire band.

The presidential candidates present us with two stark leadership approaches: the cool, slow-to-anger reserve of Barack Obama; and the aggressive, man-of-honor style of John McCain. People instinctively weigh whether a leader who’s laid back makes them worry that he won’t stand up to enemies. And they consider that a hot-headed leader may be intimidating to foes, but that he also might create more of them.

“The more attached you are to your sense of self, the more you see forces trying to attack that self. If you have a more Buddhist view, and are less attached to self, you are less likely to see offense.”

justin

I know that every year lots of celebs and marketers do their part to “get out the vote”… but doesn’t it feel different this year? Like we’re on the cusp of something huge?

Enjoy Norman Rockwell’s insight. I did…

and if you like Bill Maher, this one you’ll love.

and I like this one a LOT!

justin

justin

PS: “Moon” on the right is a friend of mine. They’re a funny pair. Check out more of their stuff on their website.

We’ve got two individuals — either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now — which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time.

And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

The non-partisan site Politico.com has a good article about it too, and this is my favorite quote from it:

Kevin Madden, a GOP veteran who was the press secretary for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, said that “Colin Powell was a proxy for our party’s ability to persuade Democrats and independents to join a center-right coalition of ideas built around economic conservatism and a strong national defense. The endorsement is emblematic of the challenges we face as a party when it comes to winning back these voters.”

I mean, most people had not even heard of Christopher Buckley before last week, but who in their right mind doesn’t respect Colin Powell? If you go see the biopic “W” you will see that he was the one voice of reason in a Bush cabinet that beat the drum to war and he should be respected for his choice to resign as Secretary of State when he profoundly disagreed with the course of the administration.

Thank you, Secretary Powell, for giving another intelligent voice to this extraordinary movement to change our country and its’ direction in 2008. You were and continue to be a true patriot.

justin

UPDATES: Dick Polman wrote a great article about Powell’s endorsement too.

More conservative endorsements keep popping up!

Ken Adelman, a “lifelong conservative Republican” who is practically, but not really, a neo-con, is also voting for Obama! for reasons of “temperment and judgement”.

David Frum, one of my favorite conservatives (for his many appearances on “Left, Right and Center”) might not actually vote for Obama, but he certainly disapproves of Palin.

Fareed Zakaria, though not necessarily a lifelong conservative, also puts forth a great argument for Obama.

This is the case for Obama on substance, which is the most important criterion. But symbolism is also a powerful force in human affairs. Imagine what people around the world would think if they saw America once again inventing the future. And imagine how Americans would feel if they saw their country once again fulfilling its founding creed of equal opportunity, if they saw that there really were no barriers in their country, not even to the highest office in the land, not even for a man with a brown face and a strange name.

Oh, and lest we forget that newspapers around the country whose endorsements went slightly in favor of Kerry (213 to 205) are coming out in droves for Obama (112 to 39 so far) and that includes many papers that were Bush in 2004.

In a real shocker, two solid Bush papers in 2004, the Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, also came out for Obama on Sunday.

But I respect my conservative friends for their convictions and defend their right to have them… but it’s here that I see a widening gap and a higher difficulty of my own to actually respect some “conservative” viewpoints. Let me explain:

I thought that conservative meant that you believed in small government and objectivist notions like personal responsibility and fiscal restraint. That’s what Ronald Reagan and William F Buckley believed in at least. That’s what my true conservative friends seem to stress when they talk about politics. And guess what? I hold a lot of those convictions too! I, too want a government that runs like an efficient business (minus the ruthless pursuit of profit) and I, too think people should take responsibility for themselves and not ask for handouts from the government. But I feel like over the past 6-10 years with Bush, Cheney etc that we’ve lost that Buckley/Reagan sense of conservatism. This has a name, by the way: NeoConservatism… and it’s led us into pre-emptive and misguided wars, deregulated the banking system to point of failure, and neglected our future environmental interests in favor of short term business profits. But most of all, this Bush movement has favored the social conservatives over the fiscal conservatives: We’ve been led by a guy who thinks he speaks to God and honest churchgoing people have been rallied to the Republican side in droves for fear of gays, abortion and all kinds of real and made-up issues.

It all came to a head with the nomination of Sarah Palin. McCain wasn’t getting the “evangelical” vote so he had to pick a person who would. He wasn’t getting the woman vote so he had to pick a person who would. This is a sad gimmick that isn’t going to work… because this time the true conservatives are actually standing up against it instead of blithely defending her and her lack of experience.

Now you’re probably thinking, what’s so new about this? Why write about this now? Well I believe that the pendulum is shifting to the left in this country in a big way with this election and that this is one of the biggest reasons. We’re sick of Bush and the evangelicals running our country! We’re sick of ideology and god-fearing-ness trumping intelligence and experience!

And the best part? I now get to include some very prominent Republican conservatives in this list! We already saw Ron Reagan, Jr. speak at the Democratic convention and openly support Obama. We’ve also seen Andrew Sullilvan, George Will, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer and more express severe doubts about Palin, and McCain. But now, praise jesus, the legacy of the greatest icon of modern conservatism change: William F. Buckley’s son, Christopher Buckeley, just endorsed Obama! If you don’t believe me, or want to know why, just read this brilliant post of his: “Sorry dad, I’m voting for Obama”.

To me, it seems like the nail in the coffin for John McCain and the NeoConservative “movement” and begs the question of my Republican friends: Which kind of conservative are you?

Please comment on this one!

justin

UPDATE 1: From the New York Magazine, here’s a great overall look at the Buckley phenomenon I’m now obsessed with. Maybe it will help moderate Republicans like my Dad see that he should vote with his liberal son on this one!

The former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett predicts, indeed, that the Republican primaries will turn into a Palin/Gingrich steel-cage death match

The capper cracks me up. I want to meet Christopher Buckley, he sounds like an awesome guy:

“The smart ones in the movement should get together right after the election at the Greenbrier or the Homestead, you know, where they typically have these kinds of get-togethers, and have a long dark night of the soul,” he says. “And I’ll tell you what the conference should be called: Conservatism—What the Fuck?”

UPDATE 2:
London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson lays out another good case for Obama:

If Obama wins, he will have established that being black is as relevant to your ability to do a hard job as being left-handed or ginger-haired, and he will have re-established America’s claim to be the last, best hope of Earth.

Consider this reader comment to The Atlantic “Daily Dish” blog… which by the way used to support McCain and now is pushing for Obama quite openly. This reader is going to forgo his right to vote because he can’t support McCain and would never vote for Obama. He also isn’t fooled by Sarah Palin:

But I think the first moment that I ever squared with it was when McCain announced Palin as his VP candidate. My thought at the time was, “this sure will mobilize the base, but it is not a base I want anything to do with.” The succeeding month has only proved this initial notion terribly correct.

I’d love to hear where Joel stands on this issue. Are you a core-fiscal conservative like Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan or does he really base his vote on social issues like abortion and gay marriage like this Republican is lamenting?

justin

After reading this opinion article this morning, I was surprised I hadn’t written it first. Pretty much every point seemed right on to me and the farther I read the more clear this choice become.

If you’re an Obama supporter, read this article to brighten your spirits (or just take a look at the latest poll numbers).

If you’re a McCain supporter, I’m sure you’ll have rebuttals for certain things, but I’d like to hear an answer to the larger philosophical conclusions the New Yorker staff has come to:

At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

And if you’re still undecided in this race, PLEASE read this article. It is fair, thoughtful and thorough and deserves consideration. It’s no accident that The New Yorker took so long to endorse a candidate. They didn’t jump to conclusions and this article shows their independent minded approach which appeals greatly to people who value deliberation and knowledge over… well, you know, ideology.

And now, if you don’t mind, I’ll share a few of my favorite segments of the article in case you’re too lazy to read the whole thing!

On Energy:
(and related to another post of mine today on energy policy)

Opening up America’s coastal waters to drilling would have no impact on gasoline prices in the short term, and, even over the long term, the effect, according to a recent analysis by the Department of Energy, would be “insignificant.” Such inconvenient facts, however, are waved away by a campaign that finally found its voice with the slogan “Drill, baby, drill!”

On the Supreme Court:

McCain cites Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two reliable conservatives, as models for his own prospective appointments. If he means what he says, and if he replaces even one moderate on the current Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade will be reversed, and states will again be allowed to impose absolute bans on abortion. McCain’s views have hardened on this issue. In 1999, he said he opposed overturning Roe; by 2006, he was saying that its demise “wouldn’t bother me any”; by 2008, he no longer supported adding rape and incest as exceptions to his party’s platform opposing abortion.

On Habeas Corpus:

While McCain voted to continue to deny habeas-corpus rights to detainees, perpetuating the Bush Administration’s regime of state-sponsored extra-legal detention, Obama took the opposite side, pushing to restore the right of all U.S.-held prisoners to a hearing. The judicial future would be safe in his care.

On Iraq:

In Iraq, McCain seeks “victory”—a word that General David Petraeus refuses to use, and one that fundamentally misrepresents the messy, open-ended nature of the conflict.

Asked during the first debate to outline “the lessons of Iraq,” McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear: that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict.” A soldier’s answer––but a statesman must have a broader view of war and peace. The years ahead will demand not only determination but also diplomacy, flexibility, patience, judiciousness, and intellectual engagement. These are no more McCain’s strong suit than the current President’s.

On “Yes We Can”:

The modern Presidency is as much a vehicle for communication as for decision-making, and the relevant audiences are global. Obama has inspired many Americans in part because he holds up a mirror to their own idealism. His election would do no less—and likely more—overseas.

On Sarah Palin:

We are watching a candidate for Vice-President cram for her ongoing exam in elementary domestic and foreign policy. This is funny as a Tina Fey routine on “Saturday Night Live,” but as a vision of the political future it’s deeply unsettling. Palin has no business being the backup to a President of any age, much less to one who is seventy-two and in imperfect health. In choosing her, McCain committed an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility.

On Obama’s temperment:

Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness.

On Obama’s eloquence:

Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one––something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern.

I could go on, but it’s better if you just read the article!

justin

justin

PS: This article about recent oil spills from Hurricane Ike explains why I’m against offshore drilling. And this article shows how foolish it is to pin our independence hopes on simply drilling.

Or watch this video?

Issue 1: Bush did not listen to his generals’ advice over the surge and whether or not more troops would be needed.

Bob Woodward not only makes this point in his two interviews, he also makes it in his recent Washington Post Editorial. The Post piece in particular offers an inside look into the frustrations amongst some military generals in 2006 before the surge. While there is no explicit statement in the interviews that this was the wrong decision, the subtext seems to be that this decision to not listen to General Casey and the Joint Chiefs on the surge was wrong and an example of why Bush was “out of touch with the reality of the Iraq war.” How can a president go against the advice of his top commanders? 60 minutes didn’t specifically report Woodward’s conclusions, but fortunately Larry King picked up the slack. Phrases like “Bush in ‘denial’”, “Bush ‘failed to lead’”, “On Bush’s management of war: ‘never got a full handle on it…’, and “Bush ‘rarely was the voice of realism on the Iraq war’” came up on the screen to ensure viewers knew Woodward’s conclusions.

However, as William McGurn makes clear in his recent WSJ Op-Ed, sometimes presidents and generals disagree. One of the greatest examples in our history, Mr. McGurn points out, was General McClellan and President Lincoln during the Civil War. Recall that during that period, Lincoln lost confidence in McClellan because McClellan wasn’t aggressive enough. Recall that McClellan was one of the most popular generals with the Union Army at that time. At Antietem, McClellan failed to pursue Lee’s forces, which withdrew first and were vulnerable. Perhaps a more aggressive McClellan could have crushed Lee’s forces at this battle in late 1862 and saved the country three more years of war. We’ll never know. But thank goodness for Lincoln’s leadership. Similar to that situation, Bush expressed disappointment and a loss of confidence in Casey’s performance in Iraq and the overall strategy in general. According to Woodward’s interview with the commander-in-chief, Bush wanted to simply know, of Casey, if we were fighting back against the insurgent attacks. The level of improvised explosive device attacks was on everyone’s mind at t