Five things I learned from my conservative family members over the holiday break.

Despite my wife’s fervent request that I not mention Donald Trump during our family Christmas dinner back in Indiana, politics did indeed come up as I talked to my cousins, aunts, uncles, and parents. It’s fair to say they’re strongly conservative—Fox News-watching, Republican-voting, Tea Party-sympathetic Americans who have always considered my pro-gun-control, pro-ACA stances to be outrageously liberal.

But even though we live in partisan, contentious times, our Christmas dinner conversation proved that people who see the world very differently can still have a civil, even productive, discussion about politics. Your mileage may vary, of course. But here’s a short list of my takeaways from the conversation:

#5. Donald Trump is not that popular with lifelong conservatives.
Trump draws rabid crowds, dominates the cable new networks, and is the point man for a certain type of Republican voter. But my conservative relatives ranged from distrustful to disdainful of the former reality-TV star. “I just worry that he’ll fly off the handle,” one family member said. The brash, mercurial nature of Trump may be working against him with these older voters. It’s likely that my conservative focus group agrees with him on many issues. But they just don’t trust his temperament, or the commitment of what they see as a fair-weather conservative. On the other hand, they pointed out that many people they know are angry—even more so than usual—with our political system, so the allure of an outsider campaign is strong in conservative areas.

#4. The polls don’t lie: even fans of the NRA support expanded background checks.
You probably could not find a group of people more committed to the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment than those gathered at my parents’ dinner table. They absolutely believe in a constitutional right to bear arms, and they lean toward the notion that what we need is more guns, not fewer, to solve our problems with crime and gun violence. But after hashing through many, though certainly not all, of the talking points in the gun control debate, most of the conservatives at the table grudgingly conceded that something should be done. They generally agreed that closing the gun show loophole, and creating a more consistent system of screening for criminals, terrorists, and those with severe mental illness is something they could, in theory, support. Hey, I’ll take what I can get.

#3. The issue of mental illness could be an area of common ground
The discussion did take a turn I didn’t expect—the conservatives at the table seemed to strongly support addressing mental health issues as a way to respond to the gun violence epidemic. Now, I know the problems with this line of thought—because it’s simply wrong to assume that people with mental health issues are more dangerous than others. Mental health is a spectrum, nearly all of us will have issues at some point, and people with mental health illness issues are much more likely to be victims of gun violence, rather than the cause of it.

But instead of rejecting this topic as a red herring, maybe we should be seeing it as an opportunity to find common ground. There is a severe shortage of mental health providers in this country, and there are still too many insurers and employers who are not putting enough emphasis on treating and preventing mental illness. A national consensus on the importance of improving mental health diagnoses, treatment, and prevention would be a huge win for everyone. And if nothing else, it would help reduce the very high rate of suicide-by-gun in the U.S.

#2. There are still (plenty) of areas of disagreement.
There were, of course, a number of topics where little common ground could be found. Climate change is still dismissed as a serious problem—although the attitude has shifted in recent years. Instead of outright denial of the science of climate change, I heard more thoughts along the lines of, “it’s too expensive to fix,” or, “we’ve had climate change before and survived it.” I suspect this is roughly similar to going from denial to bargaining in the grieving process.

Another point of disagreement was regarding political correctness, of which my relatives often say (agreeing with Donald Trump) that it’s “ruining America.”

“How?” I asked. “You’re speaking your mind, I’m speaking my mind, and it’s for sure that Donald Trump says whatever he wants. So why are we so concerned that politically correct speech is damaging the country?” I didn’t get an answer that made much sense to me.

#1 We can actually talk about these things.
Arguing about politics on Facebook has become such a cliché that there are Facebook memes about arguing politics on Facebook. Many of us get frustrated with it, or angry. Some have dropped friends, or stopped talking about politics altogether. Everyone has the right to make that decision for themselves. But my conversation with my relatives reminded me that the rules for face-to-face discussion and debate are too often forgotten in online exchanges. And they shouldn’t be.

Be polite and respectful. Listen to the other person. Give them the benefit of the doubt; don’t assume that they’re ignorant or ill-intentioned. Treat them as you’d like to be treated. Use a little humor to lighten the mood. When the conversation hits a wall, be willing to agree to disagree.

At our Christmas dinner, when I expressed relief that we were able to discuss politics without getting into a heated argument, one family member said, “Well, you should hear what we say when you’re not around.” But all kidding aside, productive political debate does require us to be considerate of the other side and curb our more passionate (or extreme) impulses. That’s part of being civilized. And it’s the only way that we as a nation are going to move forward—this year or any.

Poor parenting skills? Seriously?

Oh, I so wish I could comment on the FaceBook thread that popped up on my feed today--the one where gun fans are bemoaning the lack of morality and good parenting skills that lead to all these mass shootings by young people. But since it's a "friend of a friend" posting, I could only share it. No thanks. But I'll comment briefly here.

I would really like to ask these folks: so which country should we turn to, to emulate their morality and parenting style? England? Germany? Japan? Sweden? Australia? Canada? Any of the other countries that have a) young people, b) mental illness, c) video games, d) crime, --but nothing like the amount of gun violence we have in the US--because there are many.

Seriously, which should we turn to? Because I have a feeling when we go hat in hand to Australia to ask how on earth they manage to avoid mass shootings, they're not going to talk about parenting skills or morality. They're going to say, "It's your f***ing guns, you idiots."

I haven't commented on the Santa Barbara shooting on FaceBook. Since I'm venting a little bit, I thought I'd bring my comments here. But there's much that could be said, and I feel for Richard Martinez as he voices the outrage and grief that many of us have felt as we witness one horrific shooting after another.

I do think there's a discussion to be had about the shooter's mental state and how he was able to be so well-armed after being so troubled. But it's not poor parenting skills that lead to close to 300 people being shot every day in the US. There's something else in the equation. And we all know what it is.

You want to watch a very uncomfortable 2:15 of video--watch the video below. You want to be ashamed of what some people in this country have become? Read the comments on the YouTube page below the video.

Beer on the tracks—Bob Dylan at Midway Stadium in St. Paul, MN. 7-10-13

There were plenty of tell-tale signs at last night's Bob Dylan concert in St. Paul. The frozen clock, hands stuck at midnight, on the Midway Stadium scoreboard. The empty wheelchair, abandoned behind a swaying crowd near the stage. The blaring, Gabriel-like horn of the eastbound freight train that passed as Bob fired up his million-and-first rendition of "All Along the Watchtower" at the end of the night.

It would be easy to take such evocative moments and elevate them into something more meaningful. Maybe a bit too easy. The truth, if truth is relevant to a Bob Dylan performance, is a bit more nuanced. This was a good, not great, show from a legend who is well past his prime but still gamely putting himself out there night after night, still on the Never Ending Tour, entertaining young and old alike.

Dylan, for all his acknowledged brilliance and historical import, remains an acquired taste, an oracle to his fans and a mystery to the uninitiated. The same show that had a friend—who likes his music—expressing extreme disappointment about Dylan's Tom-Waits-with-a-headcold voice and the barely-recognizable rewrites of songs like "Tangled Up in Blue," had me in tears as Dylan leaned into his harmonica for long, drawn-out blasts that sounded like they had been torn out of his 72-year-old soul during "She Belongs to Me."

Sentimentalist that I am, I couldn't help thinking this might be the last time I see the man in the flesh (Also what I thought when I saw him in Rochester, what, 9 years ago? Maybe he'll outlive us all.) As with a treasured patriarch, some of us attend to every utterance and change of expression, drinking in the experience of seeing him one more time.

And others shrug and say, "Meh."

Mostly, I think, people had a pretty good time. Grainbelt Tall Boy cans littered the grounds postconcert, the craft beer wagon had an impressive line throughout the night, and the smell of something sweet and herbal was in abundance.

The fact that two of the warmup acts would've fit right in at any Grateful Dead concert certainly contributed to the mellow vibe. My Morning Jacket sounded good, and got a little help from Minnesota semi-legends Trampled By Turtles, who joined them for three songs. The hard-to-peg Jackets ranged from gentle love songs to psychedelic jazz-funk squawking, and frontman Jim James was certainly eye-catching, wearing a purple cape and what appeared to be a clock radio hanging from his neck. (Truth be told, I was pretty far from the stage at that point. So I'm not sure what that was.)

Wilco put on a pretty good set, including one of my faves, "New Madrid," from the Uncle Tupelo catalog. Speaking of Meh--I've liked, not loved, Wilco through their long years as counter-culture darlings. Last night, it occurred to me the band never really has much fire, although there was lots of smoke. It says something, I think, that their most compelling performance of the night was of a song that featured nonsense lyrics, written by Woody Guthrie as a lark ("Hoodoo Voodoo").

But maybe I was just in a bad mood after waiting 40 minutes in line for cheese curds.

In any case, the night's biggest disappointment (even worse than the cheese curds!) was that I missed Richard Thompson, who was a big part of the reason I wanted to get tickets in the first place. Thompson and his trio started promptly at 5:30 and played for 30 minutes. After fighting rush hour traffic to get to the stadium, I stepped out of my car in the parking lot and heard the last note of the last song of RT's set. Oh well.

Much has been made of Dylan's shoutout to Bobby Vee, and it was touching to hear him speak at length (for Dylan, at least) about the artist who, in the words of another friend, was "The first person to hire Dylan, and the first person to fire him." We didn't see Bobby Vee onstage, but he was there, per Dylan, and he had to be smiling with the rest of us, proud that the kid had done good. Seated at his piano, Dylan seemed genuinely pleased to have pulled off the cover of "Susie Baby." That little glimpse of vulnerability was perhaps something new to even the most veteran Dylan fans.

Three-quarters of the way through the set, Dylan wandered over to stage's only prop, a 6-foot-tall flame that burned in a cage-like enclosure through the night, and seemed to warm himself briefly. Just another old man staring into the fire, perhaps, recalling other shows and other days. But what days. And what a flame.

The NRA throws a drowning Republican Party an anvil

This story about the NRA makes a very good point. The NRA is a radical lobbying group that has no interest in compromise, consensus-building, or reform. As the article says, they're there to say NO, and say it as loudly as possible. It's not interested in politics, other than to make sure that no political solutions are found to the problems created by guns.

Oh, that's a good fit for where the GOP is these days.

Look at it this way: the GOP has lost the battle on gay marriage. It's lost the struggle to oppose Obamacare (A/K/A ACA). It's suffered a historic setback over immigration, to the point where many analysts question whether the GOP has much of a future as a national party, after alienating such large groups of voters. And of course it continues to have problems with women voters.

So does it really need another divisive, controversial issue to further drive away moderate voters? Does it need be seen as MORE intolerant and resistant to change?

What the Republican Party needs is, of course, not the point. The NRA doesn't care about the Republican Party any more than it cares about finding political consensus on the problem of gun violence or the lives of the the 30,000 Americans lost to gun violence every year.

Guns are all that matter to the NRA and its most devoted followers. Guns are more important than public health, more important than the welfare of their fellow Americans, more important than the Constitution itself, really, since all they can focus on is their bastardized version of the 2nd Amendment.

I will note here that I know several NRA fans who will strenuously object to this line of argument. They will say I am unfairly judging them. "We're not extremists," they will argue. But when I ask them if there's anything, ANYTHING that they will compromise on when it comes to this debate, they say no. They won't even support universal background checks--they hem and haw and ramble on about their reasons, but when it comes down to it, they will not compromise. At all. On any point.

So what other conclusion can we draw? Their actions and words make it clear: it's guns that they care about. That's it.

And since the GOP and the NRA are now tied together so closely, I suspect both groups will continue to be marginalized. The American public has seen enough of radical, uncompromising approaches to political issues. This country has problems it needs to address. Since the NRA and GOP refuse to be part of the solution... well.

Time will tell if I'm right. But I think most of us have had about enough of the NRA.

What to do about guns

We're all still processing the horrific news out of Newtown, Connecticut last Friday. I've meant to comment here for days but can never quite think of what to say. I have a six-year-old. This crime hits too close to home. The loss those parents are dealing with I can imagine, but I recoil from. I don't want to imagine it. It's too hard, too painful. All I can do is pray for them.

But as time passes the discussion of how to prevent such a horror will continue. Of course gun control advocates like myself recognize that we now have an opportunity to address a problem that time and time again our country has turned away from. It's been too hard to face, this reality that 30 people a day die from gun violence. We'd rather bicker about fiscal cliffs or watch a football game.

But the killing goes on, and now a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude has shook us to our core. So finally, we're talking about it.

Some of my gun-loving, conservative friends have gone silent since the shootings in Newtown. Others have posted a string of statements about how useless gun control laws are, how we need guns to protect ourselves from incidents like these, and how you'll have to pry their cold dead fingers, etc. etc. etc.

Those latter folks probably are not going to contribute meaningfully to this conversation. Their minds are made up. Not that I don't try to convince them, but I'm kind of masochistic about these things. I don't know when to quit.

But the majority of Americans are not extremists. They recognize there is a time and place for compromise.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested some practical beginning steps. As the mayor of New York, where he claims stricter gun laws have lowered the rate of gun crimes, he has some credibility.

I think his list is a great place to start, and I'll add a few thoughts of my own:

I recognize that a new assault-weapons ban is going to be a tough one for the gun-loving community to swallow. But I think something along those lines is going to be necessary, along with a limit on high-capacity clips. We should probably stop selling guns and ammo over the internet altogether.

More important than the hardware itself is the access. There simply can no longer be any excuse for the many loopholes in background checks for gun buyers. Every purchase, whether it be gun show, retail site, or private transaction, must have a background check. If the systems aren't in place, we need to put them in place. If states aren't doing a good job of enforcing the law, they need to be compelled to do so. This is the most obvious place to start, and one which surely most Americans can agree on.

People who buy guns should be trained on how to use them, how to store them safely, how to prevent them from being misused. We require training to drive a car. We should require training to use a firearm.

We should also have efficient and manageable systems for tracking guns. The NRA has used its influence to make it almost impossible for law enforcement to track guns used in crimes. This has to be addressed. If we can license cars in a way that law enforcement can instantly find their owners, we can do the same with guns. No excuse for delay on this one, either. For the NRA to continue to resist this is for them to admit that they are basically a lobby for criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Although it's a touchy subject, I'd like to see prospective gun purchasers screened for mental illness. There are surely basic tests that can flag anti-social and overtly violent tendencies. Although it will be tough to know where to draw lines, we should have a system for "red-flagging" anyone who falls below a certain threshold.

Speaking of mental illness, we certainly should include improved mental health resources and policies as a part of this process. In this state and others, disturbed individuals have murdered others after their families have sought in vain to have them institutionalized. There needs to be more discussion on how to balance the rights of mentally ill individuals with public safety. And there needs to be public dollars to help treat them and care for them.

I am not completely opposed the idea of arming teachers. Although I think it's ridiculous to expect teachers to pack heat, I could see one or two teachers or administrators per school taking special training and having a secured firearm in their office (not a classroom). I suspect most teachers oppose this idea but the bottom line for me is the safety of the children and I think this could be a possible solution. Better yet would be an armed security guard at each school in the nation. Any solution along these lines would be very expensive and a terrible statement about our society. But that statement has really already been made, hasn't it?

There are lots of other ideas out there. It's time to start talking about them and enacting them. Doing nothing is not acceptable.

Obama Delivers Change

If you had told me, say, ten years ago, that an African-American president, vilified by huge swaths of southern and midwestern Americans as a socialist who doesn't really love his country, would run on a platform that included higher taxes, gay marriage, and easing restrictions on illegal immigrants, I would have had a simple reaction.

"Are you out of your freaking mind? That idiot will lose in a landslide."

If you had told me further that campaign finance laws would be gutted so that billionaires and corporations could donate unlimited amounts of money, and that hundreds of millions would be pledged for campaign ads against this candidate, that the No. #1-rated cable news network would abandon all pretense of being fair and balanced and launch a jihad against the candidate, that voting laws would be changed in a number of states in a clear effort to discourage turnout by young people, minorities, and the elderly, I would be shaking my head in despair.

I am not in despair today.

By running a smart, modern campaign that focused on winning swing states and getting a broad coalition of voters to turn out; by presenting a message that appealed both to Americans' sense of fairness and their economic self-interest; by providing steady, competent leadership over his first term that stood in stark contrast to the bizarre caricature of Obama that has been pushed relentlessly by Fox and other right-wing media outlets, President Obama convinced Americans that he could be trusted, and conversely, that his detractors could not.

When he first ran for President, Barack Obama talked a lot about change. He said semi-mystical stuff like, "We are the change we seek." This approach earned him some mockery from the right; notably in the form of Sara Palin--who is almost the complete opposite of Obama in many ways--when she said, "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?"

Turns out it's working fine. Barack Obama did bring change, but he would not have been returned to office if the electorate hadn't itself been part of that change. America is changing. The electorate last week was younger, less white, less male, less conservative, less likely to be regular church-goers, than the electorate of past years. There are still white male voters like myself who will vote for Obama, but what allows him to win is that the rest of America prefers him strongly over what the Republican party offered this time around.

And it's not just demographics. It's ideas, positions, that are changing. Republicans can no longer win by bashing immigrants. They can no longer win by promising tax cuts. They can no longer win by rousing their base with anti-gay laws. I have to say, when the GOP-dominated Minnesota Legislature passed constitutional amendment referendums on gay marriage and voter ID last spring, I thought the cause was lost. I braced myself for both measures to win in November. But as time went on, I saw an amazingly energetic and committed marriage equality movement take shape in this state. The Voter ID debate was more muted, but with a savvy strategy (don't say Voter ID is wrong, say it's poorly written and needs to be fixed) and some effective late advertising, the anti-voter ID forces surged in the last weeks. And both amendments were defeated.

And it's my suspicion that the GOP's strategy of exclusion is itself one key as to why turnout was so favorable to Obama and Democrats last week. In Minnesota, there is evidence that the marriage and voter ID amendments actually increased turnout and brought more "No" votes to the polling booth--voters that also supported Obama and returned the Minnesota's Legislature to complete DFL control for the first time in decades. Nationally, it seems reasonable that the media attention given to voter-ID laws and the suppressive effect they have drove minorities and young voters to be even more motivated to vote.

The country still faces grave challenges, not the least of which is gridlock. Many in the GOP will retrench and return to their obstructionist ways, knowing that their safely-red districts will reward them for it. As time goes by, though, it seems likely that these dead-enders will become increasingly irrelevant.

But even with the difficult issues we face, Obama's promise is being fulfilled. We have seen change in America. Better yet, we have seen progress.

Final Predictions

President of the United States:

As of today, Obama leads nationally by 0.4 percentage points nationally, according to Real Clear Politics. Yes, this is a close race.

But the race is not decided by the national vote, it's decided by the electoral vote, and there Obama leads in 10 out of the 12 states listed as battleground states by RCP. We can speculate all day (and some will) about voter enthusiasm, margins of error, ground games, expanding the map, and independent voter share, but clearly, being ahead is better than being behind.

I find that RCP polling averages give a little more weight to R-leaning pollsters, so I'll use them instead of HuffPost/Pollster, or the folks at Talking Points Memo. Just from the RCP analysis; if we choose an arbitrary cutoff point, say anything at 2 percent or above for Obama, give him those states and give Romney *not only* the states where he leads but the states where Obama's lead is below 2 percent, what do we find?

Obama wins the electoral college: 281 to 257.

I personally think Obama has a good chance to win Virginia and Colorado (303-235) and would not be shocked if he also won Florida (332-206).

The polls could be wrong. There could be a Romney wave, or Obama voters could not turn out as expected. I'd be shocked to see Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania end up in the Romney camp. But a Florida/Ohio/Colorado combination could get Romney there.

In the end, I'll give Romney Virginia and Florida, and predict a 290-248 Obama win. I expect the winner of the electoral college will win the popular vote. If not, well, I believe there is some historical precedent for that.

Minnesota Races

Frankly, I'm no expert on these; I haven't followed the polls closely. But I'll take a shot. I never bet against Michele Bachmann, so I'll predict she holds on for a win. Ellison wins. Walz wins. Peterson, Paulson, & Kline (not a folk group) -- they return to Congress. The really interesting race is Chip Cravaack (R) versus Rick Nolan (DFL). I'm inclined to think Nolan, a former congressman, can turn this traditionally DFL district back to blue, but after hearing the two debate, I'll admit that Cravaack seems smart and in-touch with the district. He may pull it out.

Amy Klobuchar will win by perhaps the biggest margin of any Senate race this cycle as she tromps Kurt Bills. Bills is a sincere and smart guy, but seems out of his depth. His somewhat radical stands (he got the nomination after the state Republican party was taken over by Ron Paul followers) have not helped at all. Another example why embracing its libertarian wing has really been a handicap for the Republican Party. The R's would have a Senate majority if they didn't keep having to deal with Tea Party and Libertarian candidates who are just clearly outside the mainstream.

Constitutional Amendments
In Minnesota, voters are being asked to vote on whether to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriages, and to require a photo ID system for voting. Both amendments are horrible ideas for this state, where gay marriage is already illegal (sadly) and one of the best voting systems in the nation would be thrown ass-over-teakettle with the passage of the amendment in question.

Unfortunately, both types of referendums have a history of passing. This year, a large campaign that includes the business community, part of the faith community, and a wide range of Minnesotans have rallied to solidify opposition to the marriage amendment. I believe it will be blocked. I am less optimistic about the photo ID amendment, and I predict it will pass narrowly. Polls show a close race on both, which is encouraging, but I suspect voter ID will pass. Then it will be up to the courts and next year's Legislature to either find a way to block it or make it less onerous. We'll see.

Well, that's all I got. Please feel free to share your predictions in the comments section.

And VOTE!

Republicans buy the Brooklyn Bridge

One of the things that has struck me as this campaign has wound down is how Republicans have come to embrace Mitt Romney, a man who in some ways embodies everything they hate about politics and politicians.

It has always seemed to me that conservatives and Republicans have tended to hold politicians to higher and possibly more unrealistic standards than, say, Democrats or the mythical independent voter.

Republicans claim to be disgusted by political spin. They can't stand flip-floppers. They disdain anyone who can be seen as a career politician. They are cynical and distrusting of politicians because, as they sometimes say, they're all a bunch of liars who just tell people what they want to hear.

Enter Mitt Romney.

I mean, really. Mitt's record is so full of flip-flops, about-faces, doubletalk and dishonesty, it seems redundant to go over it all again. Abortion. Health Care. Cap and Trade. Gun Control. Over and over again, Romney has changed his position to fit the race and the moment he's in. He's told outright lies, been called on it, shrugged and repeated the lies again.

And yet conservatives have seemed to embrace him here in the last months and weeks of the campaign. It this just a sign of how desperate they are to defeat Obama?

I have to say, at one point I didn't expect this race to be close. Yet Romney pulled it together and came into that first debate with a whole new persona and approach, and suddenly it was game on. The electorate saw a moderate, articulate, passionate candidate, who bore little resemblance to the Mitt Romney who appeared at the Republican National Convention. And that seemed to make the difference.

And I think the subsequent bump in the polls was enough to bring along the Republican base, because they started to hope. They decided that if Romney really could pull it off, they could live with a little betrayal of their principles. It's a human thing; goodness knows those on the left have put up with flawed candidates. One of those flawed candidates has been Obama's best surrogate, and Barack's going to owe Bill big time when this is all over.

So they let go, and let Mitt. They trusted him. That's all a candidate can ask for, and Romney responded with a sometimes-inspired (sometimes not-so-much, as in the foreign policy debate) October that brought us to this: a very close race, in doubt until almost the end--some would say still a tossup on the day before.

Still the irony is something I find striking. The epitome of a slick, say-anything candidate, supported and loved by his principled, no-spin-zone base. Politics is truly strange.

Post-pre-debate musings, Veep preview edition

Well, I called that one!

Just chalk it down to my signature brand of Xtreem Punditry (TM) that after I posted a entry saying that nothing much would happen at last week's presidential debate and that it was unlikely to change the race... well, you know what happened.

So basically if Obama loses it's my fault, because I jinxed him.

At the risk of sounding even MORE out of touch, I still don't know why words like "disaster" and "debacle" have been used frequently to describe Obama's performance. I thought he was thoughtful, articulate, and maybe a little too cautious. I thought Romney was energetic, aggressive, and just all over the place with his contradictions, inaccuracies, and reversals. But neither really did anything surprising or, I thought, very memorable.

That's why I get the big bucks, obviously.

So now that I've been historically wrong about the first debate, let me stick my neck out further on the VP clash coming up tonight.

I predict a high viewership, not just because people want to see if Biden can redeem the ticket to some extent, but because conservatives find Biden a kind of catnip, he's the guy they can't get enough of, they hang on his every faux pas (and to be fair there have been a few) and awkward comment. They probably don't like to admit it but they love the guy. He's their George Bush (either one), kind of a doofus, highly likely to embarrass the country in some novel and entertaining way.

Except of course, that's perception and not entirely the reality. Biden is also an experienced statesman who can be quite insightful and inspiring. Don't know which guy will show up tonight, maybe both. But I'm not betting against him.

Ryan could also surprise us. He's a smart guy, he could certainly *sound* convincing in talking about debt and deficits. There's plenty of data out there that he's practiced at spinning in ways that strengthen the GOP's position. Whether Biden can stay with him is a good question. What Ryan has to watch out for is the classic rookie mistakes: talking to fast, letting his voice get too whiney, going off on tangents... I would expect him to be well-prepared but it is a lot of pressure on a guy who has never been on a stage quite like this one. His convention speech was the closest thing and he did... OK. Lots of arguable claims of course--the difference is the fact checker will be on stage with him. How that goes will be very interesting.

The first debate was won by the guy who showed the most energy and personality. It's possible the second one will go the same way. Which of these two candidates is more likely to pass that test?

Everybody, now: TIME WILL TELL...

Pre-debate musings

I haven't done a ton of commenting on the presidential race because, frankly, it's been a little boring. President Obama has maintained a solid, if sometimes small, lead. He's looking very good in the swing states that will determine the electoral vote. The weak economy continues to be his biggest burden, and there have been some problems with foreign policy as well. But overall, he's been able to stay on track and in the lead.

Romney has continued to look like a weak and over-matched candidate, exactly the way Kerry did in 2004. Like Kerry, he's managed to get the base behind him, but their dislike of Obama is much stronger than their affection for Romney. And he's made some appalling mistakes: the "47 percent" tape is an example. It's true that he made those remarks behind closed doors; what's just as true is that they are inexcusable in any context. Would Ronald Reagan have made remarks like that? I don't think so.

The bottom line is that the unhappiness that Americans feel with the job Obama has done is not strong enough to overcome their distrust of a candidate who seems out of touch, unqualified, and temperamentally unsuited to leading this country. I understand that Mitt Romney has done some impressive things in his career. Inventing Obamacare, for example. But after all this time, all this campaigning, does anyone really feel like they know him or know what kind of president he'll make?

And yet this was the best the Republican Party could offer this year. As doomed as Mitt seems, can you imagine how Gingrich or Perry would be doing now? When your party insists on being out of touch with reality, when it is willing to write off whole chunks of the electorate (and the GOP has been doing just that since long before Romney launched his campaign), when it is bereft of any ideas outside of cutting taxes and letting the market (chance) decide, you end up where the GOP is now. Very popular with a minority, confounding to the rest of us, and simply unable to amass a winning coalition of voters.

Can the debates change that? I don't see how. No matter what your opinion of Obama is as a debater, it seems unlikely that he won't be able to stay on his talking points and maintain his "no-drama" demeanor. The guy is a basketball nut--he is very familiar with the concept of running out the clock.

And at this point, that's all he needs to do.

Post-conventional thoughts

("Well, Barack, there you go again...")


I still think "Talk to the Chair!" would make a great bumper sticker.

No?

OK, so some final thoughts on the 2012 nominating conventions.

First of all, both parties really, REALLY want the female vote. I mean, both of them spent a lot of time and energy saying "We love the ladies!" Not in so many words, of course. But close. From Ann Romney's "I LOVE YOU WOMEN!" to the Dems’ lineup of women speakers, the female voter has never been courted, so to speak, so fervently.

With the Dems that meant a lot of talk about reproductive rights and a star turn for Sandra Fluke, who, after the despicable way she's been treated by certain media figures, deserves a little adulation.

Being pro-choice is always something that's mentioned at D conventions, but I don't think I've ever seen so much screen time for NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc, and so much use (by Democrats) of the word abortion. This was one of many examples of what I believe was the most unapologetically progressive/liberal conventions I've ever seen the Dems give. It was kind of nice to see them not trying to water down their stances so much. They were loud and proud, and it was refreshing. Now, does that mean they feel confident, or does it mean they have bought into the "fire up the base and hope a few independents break our way" school of thought that has become popular lately? Probably the latter; maybe both.

It’s really hard to be objective about these events, it might be my (ahem) bias, but the D convention seemed much more fired up and energetic than the R one. Of course, that may be because the average age of D delegates was about two decades younger.

And I think it’s pretty clear that the Democratic convention was better run, with better speakers. Ann Romney was good; Michelle Obama was great. Paul Ryan was not so good. Bill Clinton gave probably the best speech I’ve seen at a convention in years. (Although Sarah Palin’s speech was pretty memorable in 08). I wanted Obama’s speech to be great; it was merely very good. Mitt Romney did pretty well—I thought the sections about his family were very good—but his slick gipperisms and the general lack of content did not impress.

And there were odd moments at the Republican convention. I mean, yeah, Clint Eastwood, chair, yadda yadda. That was bizarre and embarrassing for the GOP. (I love the never-say-die partisanship of some of the pundits, though: “Clint was brilliant!” “It was really funny!” Riiiiiight.)

But what about the weird juxtaposition of Ann Romney saying: “I want to talk to you about love”—followed by Chris Christie saying, “Pick respect over love”? It was a clash of messages, and it seemed strange. Obviously, the planners didn’t coordinate the speeches, and just as obviously, didn’t vet Eastwood’s “speech” at all. Both sides like to claim they’re going to be the “adult in the room.” Wouldn’t an adult have seen the huge downside risks to giving a primetime slot to a guy unaccustomed to public speaking—who doesn’t even have a speech written out??

Which begs the question, if this is how they run a convention, how will they run a country?

Fear built this

Dinesh D'Souza's hatchet-job of a movie is drawing big crowds in America's heartland. You can get a taste of it from the trailer below--the ominous music, the dark tones, the barely-articulated suggestions of conspiracy and other-ness. The real giveaway is a series of scenes, cut so quickly as to be almost subliminal, of an African-American family playing the archtypical American game, Monopoly. We see the dice roll, we see the game pieces ending up in jail, we see the family erupt into conflict, dashing the game to the ground. Subtle, and yet not subtle at all.



D'Souza has said in interviews that he is following the example of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" in releasing a political documentary during an election year. Many years ago I debated family members over Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," challenging them to give the filmmaker a chance by viewing the movie. I'm afraid I'm unlikely to follow my own advice anytime soon. The thought of giving money to an enterprise as dishonest and ill-intentioned as this one makes me feel a little sick. So maybe I owe my relatives an apology. But I suspect that D'Souza owes us all one.

It's only Medicare but I like it!

Is the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare really that bad? This is a question that has been bothering me lately. It's easy to quote the standard talking points in opposition--the end of Medicare as we know it, thousands more in medical costs shifted to seniors, and have I mentioned VOUCHERS???

But consider: the cafeteria-style plan offerings that that the R/R proposal envisions are not much different from the insurance exchange model that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) calls for. And, the R/R team swears that if you want old-style Medicare, you can keep it! How bad can that be, really?

But it's probably not the ACA we should thinking about when trying to get a handle on the R/R Medicare changes. After all, the ACA is basically trying to expand the current, mostly-for-profit health insurance system to the uninsured population. The R/R proposals for Medicare, on the other hand, would shift people already with health coverage from a single-payer system to a new, private system with multiple choices of payers.

It does remind me a little of Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage (also known as Medicare Plus) was an effort to bring free-market efficiency to the Medicare health system by giving private health plans subsidies if they would offer HMO-type insurance products to Medicare enrollees.

With Medicare Advantage, plans could get higher reimbursements from the federal government. Suddenly, new plans were springing up everywhere, offering exercise classes and free hearing aids, adding the preventive services you find with HMOs—really it was a pretty good deal for the seniors who had that option. But some areas—especially rural or poor areas—simply did not get Medicare Advantage options.

The Medicare Advantage approach was really a bonanza for the insurance plans. Their Medicare book of business became one of their most profitable. In places like Florida and New York, where Medicare reimbursements were already higher, the plans did really, really well.

(As a sidenote, this is where the controversy over the Medicare cuts under the ACA come in. The Obama team, when looking at how to pay for the ACA, recognized that the “incentives” offered to the plans, along with some other reimbursements, looked a lot like the wasteful, bloated government spending that certain tea-partiers and deficit hawks are always complaining about. It really was a prime example of where budgets could be cut without seriously affecting the care given. So they did it. They negotiated cuts with both hospitals and health plans and found $500 billion in savings, partly by reducing those generous Medicare Advantage payments.)

So how does this relate to Romney and Ryan’s plan for Medicare? Well, it may be that the R/R team will come up with some incentives for private plans to participate in this voucher system they envision, and we’ll see another boom just like the Medicare Advantage one.

But maybe as time goes on and medical costs go up, private plans will find it better for their bottom lines to drop out of the Medicare business. Or they may start raising copays and deductibles, just as they have been in the regular marketplace.

And almost certainly, there will be Medicare enrollees who are not attractive to the private system. Those from rural, poor areas may have not choice but to stick to the traditional fee-for-service, just as in the Medicare Advantage example. And since all the wealthier, healthier seniors will now be on private plans, what will that do to traditional Medicare?

There are a lot of questions, not the least is how will R/R make all this attractive to private plans. After all, higher reimbursements would be a sure budget-buster, and they’re trying to CUT government spending.

So, we have a choice. We can stick to a proven, successful model, Medicare, cut some waste, and still have some tough choices to make down the road to ensure the system’s finances remain sound as the baby boomers retire.

Or we can try a new, untested system. One that has many unanswered questions and unclear consequences. The Medicare Advantage experiment generates mixed reviews—it hasn’t worked for everyone, and it hasn’t held down costs.

Changing a system as big and important as this one is a gamble.

I guess the question is, do you feel lucky, Gramps?

Well, do ya?

I understand why Obama is saying bad things about Romney, but why is Romney insulting me??

Barack Obama come to office promising to change the tone in Washington, and I think we can all agree that he has failed to do that. Doesn't make him a bad president, doesn't erase the positive things that he's done, but hey, he doesn't bat 1,000. We still have a pretty ugly partisan divide in our politics these days.

This election season, many have been bemoaned the negativity of the presidential campaigns. Some say the negativity is "the worst ever." To my mind the attacks on both Romney and Obama don't hold a candle to how Sen. John Kerry was treated in 2004. And the 2008 campaign also got pretty nasty, with the thinly-disguised appeals to racism in Palin's disdain for community organizers and similar comments from Rush Limbaugh, etc. But as Obama himself has noted, handling that sort of bile is part of the job. Politics ain't beanbag, and presidential contests have often been nasty since the days of our Founding Fathers.

So let the charges and counter-charges fly. Politicians say bad things about each other, rain is wet, etc. etc.

What I want to know is, why does Mitt Romney think so lowly of me?

Romney is applying for the job of President of the United States. If he wins, he's going to play a large role in controlling our country's finances for at least four years, and his policies will affect my kids' economic future for possibly the rest of their lives.

If he wants my vote, he damn well better tell me something about his personal finances.

This isn't some ancient nit-picking like Obama's college transcripts or whether Bush flew enough hours in pilot training. It's not even a letter-of-the-law thing like Obama's birth certificate. This is directly pertinent to Romney's entire rationale for running for president. It's directly relevant to the argument this country is having over taxes.

And yet Romney is refusing to release anything close to the standard amount of tax returns for a presidential candidate. What's worse, his own father released 12 years of returns when he ran for president. Yet Romney is only releasing two (hasn't fully released even that much, yet). And when asked why, he all but says, "You don't need to know."

That's insulting.

Romney's official answer to why he's not being transparent about his finances is that the more he releases, the more ammo Democrats will have for their attacks. Well, yeah. That's called being a presidential candidate. You are under a microscope for a reason. Your record is examined. Your family is scrutinized. Your every word is picked over. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should do something else with your time.

I believe politicians should have some basic areas of privacy. But their financial background ain't one of them. For a presidential candidate to come in, say "I'm going to operate by a different set of rules," and then complain when people aren't satisfied with that just reinforces every cliche of elitism, arrogance, and regal entitlement that Romney has struggled with since Day One.

If this is the way Romney treats us when he's a candidate, how will it be if he's elected? What kind of transparency and openness can we expect from this man who wants to run our country? What kind of leadership can we expect in time of crisis, when there may be information that doesn't make his administration look good? Will he be honest and forthright with us?

We're not frickin' peasants, Mitt. We're your bosses. Give up the damn tax returns.

Ryan to get over

OH! A surprise pick! The GOP candidate is going to shake up the race! He's selected someone who is going to excite the base!

Hey, are you feeling sense of deja vu? 'Cause I am.

But before we go any further, can we please take a moment of silence--with NO giggling!--for Tim Pawlenty? Damn, that guy must feel cursed. Always the bridesmaid, never the VP. He was *this* close with McCain, and now again this year... I wouldn't blame him if he says "screw it, I'm going to take a nice vacation this fall."

Paul Ryan is a smart guy and really I don't blame him for being obsessed with debt and deficits. As someone who thinks Ayn Rand was a fool, I can't get behind his solutions. But I think this is a very interesting pick, and he is not another Sara Palin, at least. He's been on the national stage a while, and is not going to be flustered by someone asking what magazines he's read lately.

Dems are crowing that this pick is a sign of desperation, and I think it's true if the dynamics of the race were the same as the pre-European trip, we'd be talking about Pawlenty or Portman today. But Mitt has been taking a beating, and even if you dismiss the polls as a temporary blip, you know things are bad when a candidate for President of the United States is on national TV, complaining about how unfair the other guy is being and suggesting that they call a truce on talking about each others' finances. As if, Mitt.

Conservatives, ironically, are also crowing about the pick. But I'm not sure all Republicans are. Right-leaning site Real Clear Politics, in an analysis that looks at both good and bad points to the pick, does include this line: "It opens up an Obama landslide scenario for the first time."

Still, Ryan is a talented politician. I don't think you can ever underestimate the positives that a young, handsome, energetic candidate brings to a race. We all like to think that such superficial things don't influence us, but we're probably not being honest when we do so. So maybe he can give Romney a boost. The real question is whether mainstream Americans, those mythical independents and those who are leaners on either side, will buy the austerity and safety-net slashing that Ryan is selling. Can the Romney campaign survive throwing itself spread-eagle on the third rail of politics, as one blog colorfully asked? I don't know. I know a lot of conservatives who eat that kind of crazy up with a spoon. They really think Social Security and Medicare are a bad idea and we'd be better off without them, although I don't see them sending back the checks.

But will the voters in the middle embrace the radical vision Ryan has? I have my doubts. But what is beyond doubt is that the campaign just got more interesting.

Romney heads back to the USA

There were suggestions in a few of the political blogs that some of Mitt Romney's advisors did not want him to go on his recent trip overseas. "Why take the focus off the economy?" they asked. That, after all, is his strongest issue. Going overseas would just be a distraction. This isn't a foreign policy election, after all.

I'm thinking they feel vindicated after Mitt's less-than-stellar performance. It is true the media loves to jump on gaffes and little mistakes, and to be fair Mitt's mistakes were not terribly consequential, except perhaps the part about insulting the Palestinians. To say that a country undergoing occupation and economic sanctions is poor because of CULTURE is pretty strange.

But overall, it's hard to see this as being a decisive point in the election. Romney didn't come off well, but this will be a foggy memory come November. Still, it's part of a narrative that the Obama campaign can use--"Sure Romney's a great businessman, but there's more to the job than that." Given the reaction of the foreign press, it's an argument with some power.

Why can't more political ads be like this?

I think this is a pretty good ad. Clever how he works the "build that" theme in there, isn't it? The simple answer to the question is that going negative works, and both sides have been trying hard to define the other in negative terms early in the election. But it's good to see (finally) some positive ads from both Obama and Romney starting to show up.

"You didn't build that"--and Obama didn't say that.

The controversy over Obama's "You didn't build that" quote is one of the more remarkable political controversies I've ever seen.

It is further evidence that political ideology can quite literally make people blind--or in this case, deaf. I've watched the conservative blogosphere go nuts over this quote, despite the fact that there's nothing really controversial or disputable about it. Obama is saying that business owners didn't build the infrastructure they depend on to do their business. He is making the point that no man is an island, that society, ie, government is a necessary part of any individual's success.

He is not saying that a business owner did not build his own business. That's absurd on its face. No one would say that.

But the conservative side of the spectrum is so eager to hear something dumb, something ridiculous, something self-damaging from Obama, that they are willing to ignore what he actually said, and instead hear something that he didn't say.

The two lines that are at the heart of the quote are this:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

Anyone who listens to or reads the quote should be able to understand what Obama is saying. I'll print it in full below. All the examples surrounding "you didn't build that" fit exactly into the point that things like infrastructure take public investment.

But from this simple statement that some things we can't do on our own, the right has exploded into a frenzy--accusing Obama of hating business, hating free enterprise, not being American.

It's a disturbing spectacle. And it will play a role in this race. No matter how distorted, unfair, untrue their reading of the quote, the right has embraced it, and will continue to believe it, just as many of them believed John Kerry somehow lied about being a Vietnam Veteran.

Whether the public at large, and not just the extreme right, gets suckered into this false history is the bigger, and more ominous, question.



Full Obama quote:
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Will Romney Pick Pawlenty??

I bragged in 2008 of going 2 for 2 in predicting VP picks, and I sorta did; jumping on the Biden bandwagon when it was becoming increasingly obvious that Obama had figured out how to double his profile on Saturday Night Live, and suggesting that McCain might want to look at Palin (that's kind of a prediction, right?) to shake up the race, which is what he did.

My chances of going 2-2 in this election cycle are excellent--I am confident that Biden will once again be on the Dem. ticket. And I think there's about a one-in-three chance that former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty will be the pick of Mitt Romney.

It's a rather astonishing turn of events. Pawlenty fell off everyone's radar rather quickly after his presidential campaign sputtered to a halt in Iowa. Pawlenty was doing OK until he coined the term "Obamneycare" and then, inexplicably, refused to stand behind it during a debate (see below). Not having the courage of your convictions is a fatal flaw in politics, and there was much debate over why Pawlenty would back down so meekly and quickly over what was actually a pretty accurate description.

I know, I'm always complaining about conspiracy theories, but I just can't help but wonder, did Romney's people get to Pawlenty in between his comment and the debate? Did they promise, well, something??

Oh, probably not. It would make a great story, though. More likely Romney just likes the cut of TPaw's jib. Pawlenty is actual quite a good media person, he seems like a likable guy, he's smart and, on occasion, funny. He does well with evangelical voters. He won't deliver Minnesota, but those type of VP coattails are probably overrated. Yes, he's a boring white guy, but he's a nice boring white guy, and BWGs are pretty obviously all Romney's going to seriously consider anyway.

I mean, when your competition is Bobby Jindal and Rob Portman, you've got to like your chances, right?

Romney/Pawlenty 2012. Has a nice ring to it.

Is Obama Swiftboating Romney?

The topic of Mitt Romney's ties to Bain Capital continues to be a big controversy in election coverage. It has prompted an Obama TV ad (below) that has progressive pundits standing and cheering, with some declaring the election is effectively over. Yeah, it's a little early for that.

It's also raised comments that the Obama campaign is, in effect, "Swiftboating" Mitt Romney--if that term is defined as turning a perceived strength into a weakness. In 2004, Bush, Rove, and their election surrogates did just that with John Kerry's military record, by finding some people willing to raise very scurrilous and mostly false accusations and suggestions. The end result was a Republican convention where thousands of the GOP faithful mocked a Vietnam war veteran's service to his country by waving bandaid-covered fingers. It was a shocking display.

If you separate the strategy from the tactics, then I guess the Obama attacks could be called Swiftboating. The Obama campaign is going right at Romney's main claim for running--he sadly isn't running on his experience as governor, because then he would have to talk up the successes of Romneycare. (This has to be one of the first times a presidential candidate has taken his biggest governing success and basically turned his back on it. It really is an amazing development.) So he's running as someone who is going to get people back to work, fix the economy, and central to that is his career at Bain. It doesn't matter to me too much whether he actually stopped running the company in 1999 or 2002, but there is a contradiction in what he's said and what the paperwork shows. And beyond that, if he wasn't doing anything at the company, it looks pretty strange that he was pulling down $100,000 a year for it.

Every day the Obama campaign can keep the conversation focused on these topics is a huge win for them. And as others have noted, when the Romney campaign is spending its time complaining about the Obama campaign and demanding apologies, they basically look weak. It's just another way that this year's election is a bizarre echo of the 2004 campaign, with the roles switched. I never would've guessed we would be comparing Bush to Obama, but there are similarities here. Weird.

To me, the distortions and falsehoods that the Bush campaign raised about Kerry are much worse than raising questions about Romney's business practices (even though I think most of us would agree he probably didn't do anything illegal). Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. Romney has been a very successful businessman, but there are legitimate questions about how he practiced his business. But I suppose how you see this could depend on your political point of view. Nonetheless, it's quite ironic that the shoe is now on the other foot. I wonder how Rove and his compatriots like them apples?