Illinios Governor makes the state look like old-time Tammany Hall!

Seriously, this is much more important than the Fran Drescher post.  While I was on CNN.com today, I read a story that made me think I was back in the 1800’s and reading about Tammany Hall.

It seems that a sitting governor in the state of Illinois has seen fit to put up the seat of a United States Senator, no less, (that was recently vacated by the President-elect of our country) for sale to the highest bidder.  Amazing.  There is a little voice in the back of my head that keeps saying, “What else did you expect to come out of the most corrupt political machine in the country?”  But there is a bigger voice that screams back “Weren’t you listening?  A sitting governor in the state of Illinois has seen fit to put up the seat of a United States Senator (that was recently vacated by the President-elect of our country) for sale to the highest bidder!”  This is huge!

The language used by the US Attorney over the case is just as amazing.  I quote from the article:

“The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering,” U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. “They allege that Blagojevich put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism.”

According to the statement, Blagojevich is alleged to have discussed obtaining:

1.  a substantial salary for himself at either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;

2.  a spot for his wife on paid corporate boards, where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;

3.  promises of campaign funds — including cash up front;

4.  a Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself

Wow.

The political implications go deep.  Who turned him in?  If he was seeking a Cabinet post or ambassadorship, was Obama involved?  Did Obama turn him in?  I doubt that.

Is he going to step down immediately, or is he going to fight the charges and remain governor?  If he does, will he still be allowed to appoint Obama’s replacement in the Senate with this cloud hanging over him?  Will he allow the seat to go unfilled until his situation is resolved?  If he steps down, does the state have a provision for someone other that the actual elected governor to be able to make the appointment?  Assuming he steps down, will the replacement have to be put on hold until a special election for governor is completed?  Will they simply have to wait until Obama’s seat comes back up for reelection to fill the seat?  There are many juicy scenarios, and I love them all.

Remember, it was the Media that refused to pursue the allegations of corruption in the Chicago political machine during the elections.  If these chickens come home to roost now, the media will be guilty abdicating its responsibility in favor of pushing its own agenda, again.

The 16%, and Why I Hold Them in Contempt

I have developed a lot of theories over the years.  Earlier this year, I posted one of my best, ‘The Five.’  Though I am surprised at the little interest that it has garnered.  Recently, one of my friends admitted he has discovered that one of my oldest theories is true.  It is the theory of the 16%. 

In this theory, it is supposed that 42-43% of Americans have core values that are conservative in nature.  These are most often sons and daughters that embrace the values of their parents.  They are mostly pro life and are fiscally conservative.  They usually embrace America’s heritage of rugged individualism, and are more likely to vote for the Republican party regardless of the candidate because they agree with most of the values that are promoted by the Republican Party.

The theory also supposes that there are 42-43% of Americans that have core values that are on the left.  These people believe that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure that all Americans are happy and cared for.  They believe that it is appropriate to tax people who work and are successful in order to make sure that everyone is able to live at some high standard of their determining.  They definitely have Socialist leanings, and believe (for some reason) that bigger government, and the good intentions of lawmakers will lead to a better world.  These people almost always vote Democrat regardless of the candidate because they believe the Democratic party supports the issues that they believe are important. 

I could get into an argument as to why I think the first group is right, but that is not the point of this particular post.  I am writing this article to deal with the 16% that is left over, and that is why many years ago during the 1992 elections that I developed “The Theory of the 16%.”  Thank you Ross Perot.

The point of the theory is that about 84% of Americans vote on issues.  For them, them primary season is when their candidate for president is determined.  Coming out of the conventions, they already know who they are going to vote for.  The debates will do nothing to sway them one way or another, because they already know the core issues and values of their party, and they support its candidate.  The problem is that 42% is not enough to win a presidential election.  That is where the 16% come into the picture.

There are 16% of Americans out there that have not taken the time develop a set of core values, or if they have, they do not take the time to determine which party or candidate actually is closest to the values that they hold. 

I have more respect for the hard-line person on the left than I do for the people in the 16%.  At least the liberal has developed a set of values and know why it is that they believe the things that they believe.  The 16% simply blow around like a leaf waiting for the right person to tell them what it is that they are supposed to think.

These people choose a candidate for any number of reasons.  Looks are a big factor (if you ever want to see the impact of looks on these people check out the numbers of the first Kennedy/Nixon debates, and compare the radio numbers to the television numbers at the time). 

Talking points and catch phrases become very important in winning over these people.  They do not take the time to develope ideas or investigate the details of the issues, so if you want to win their vote on the issues, it is better to have a catchy phrase or a good ‘one-liner.’ that they will remember.  Having your facts straight is unnecessary because these people cannot be bothered with the facts.  It is more important to say the things that you think they want to hear whether you believe them or not, and whether you are actually planning to carry them out or nor.  You can bet that they won’t check up on you.

The Democrats have discovered something else that is important to these people.  They will watch a terrible television program, or go see an awful movie simply because a celebrity that they like is in it.  If they can be motivated to spend their hard earned money to see a terrible movie just because Brad Pitt, for instance, is in it, how much more easily can these same celebrities be used to get this 16% to vote for the Democratic candidate?  That costs them nothing, and they get the feeling that they are able to connect with Oprah, for example.

The media is the other ace that the Democrats have in the hole.  These media outlets (excepting Foxnews) have decided to shamelessly support the Democratic candidate, in this case Obama.  The interesting thing is that their obvious bias is not where they are having the biggest effect.  Their biggest influence comes in the areas where they shape the arguments by throwing out their own suppositions.  They have intentionally changed many of the fundamental questions in these arguments so that only the democrats can win.

For instance, on  the question of the bailout, the issue that they raise is not what is best for the economy and the future of America, but “Isn’t it the governments responsibility to make sure that these Americans who were cheated are fairly compensated for it?”  On the abortion argument, they do not ask, “What is your stance on abortion and why?”  They ask rather, “Do you believe in the Constitutional right to Privacy?”  This is a loaded question.  On gay marriage, they will ask “Don’t you think all Americans should have the right to choose their own life-partner and live happily?”  Rather than, “Do you believe that the definition of marriage is one man married to one woman?”  And, on the global warming issue, they have so taken over the intellectual high ground, that we will probably never be able to have a real discussion of the issues.  Anyone who questions a “man-made cause to an imminent global catastrophe” is dismissed as an idiot who does not believe in science by the media without even allowing an argument based on science.  On issue after issue, they have chosen to frame the debate in a way that supposes the Democratic ideas are right.  The 16% is extremely susceptible to this sort of thing.

These people are also influenced heavily by polls.  As they see the polls trending one way or another, they sway towards the one that is winning.  They feel comfortable being part of the majority, and it keeps them from having to actually determine whom to vote for on their own.  They just assume that since more Americans are supporting one of the candidates over the other, there must be a reason for it.

So with all of this being said, it is easy to see why Obama is inching ahead in the polls.  He definitely is a better looking guy than McCain, and is also more telegenic.  Obamas has shown the ability to be all things to all people.  He has no problems promising anything even both sides of the same issue, because he knows that he will not be called out for it.  Since the press has already moved the arguments into his playing field, it is more easy for his answers to sound appealing.  McCain, however, is in the position of having to either reinterpret all of the questions the press asks him in a way that works for his point of view, which looks awkward, or he has has to appear more populous which offends his constituency and makes him look disingenuous.  Obama definitely has the support of Hollywood, and cashes in on it daily.

The best move McCain made in the election was to choose Palin.  She was a legitimate attempt to grab some of the 16%.  Unfortunately, in the end, the choice of the VP does not carry enough weight to make a difference.  The Republican Party has to figure out that while it is important to choose someone who that tows the party line (which by the way is not McCain), it is more important to choose a candidate that is telegenic, and is a good and forceful communicator.  This is why Fred Thompson would have been a good choice, but it is too late now.  The only hope we have now is for a huge skeleton to fall out of Obama’s closet, and it will have to be one that the press cannot ignore.

Fears Going into Thursday Night’s Vice Presidential Debate

I want to preface this by saying that I am a Republican, I will vote for McCain (though he would not have been my first choice), and I was thrilled with the Sarah Palin pick. 

This morning I read a story on foxnews.com.  It seems that choice of Gwen Ifill, who by the way is black, to fill the role of moderator in Thursday night’s Vice Presidential debate is being questioned.  She has written a book (The Breakthrough), and its premise is that ‘the civil rights movement has cleared the way for post-racial politicians to ascend to new heights.’  In layman’s terms, it is a book that chronicles the rise of African Americans in American politics since the civil right’s movement began.  Obama’s success, among that of others, is discussed in the book.

The point made by Foxnews and the National Review is that her appropriateness as an unbiased debate moderator is now being called into question because of this.  While I can understand why a person would be given pause when presented with the basic facts of the issue, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that because she is black, and wants to write a book that spotlights the recent political successes of African American, then she must be pro-Obama, and as a consequence is not professional enough to moderate a VP candidate debate.  Considering the subject of the book, it has to include Obama, just as it has to include Clarence Thomas (I am just assuming that it does).  At this point, I do not think it is realistic to think a person could find an intelligent person in the media who is not already leaning one way or another (Personally, I am convinced that 95% of media personalities wear ankle weights on their right legs to keep them from toppling over).

When Sarah was chosen as the VP candidate, some were questioning the vetting process in the McCain camp.  I think they would vet the moderator of the VP debate with almost the same scrutiny as they did the actual VP, considering the weight that the VP choice has been given in this campaign.  As a result, I am now beginning to question the McCain camp’s vetting process also.  I am less concerned with the book than I am that Ifill is an anchor for PBS, the home of Bill Moyers.  If they did not vet Ifill well enough to determine that she is ‘pro-Obama,’ then that is their problem.  I’m sure that it would have been easy enough to discover that she was publishing a book!  In the end, I still do not think that there is enough evidence of her perceived ‘bias’ to recuse her from consideration as a moderator, and I will even give her credit for not pushing her book to press before the election.  She could obviously make more money, and hedge her bets in the case of an Obama loss, if she were to release the book during the election.

In truth, I believe that this, unfortunately, is an example of the newest strategy regarding Palin to come out of the McCain camp.  They have observed the fact that the public has risen to her defense in the wake of the flood of unwarranted attacks on her coming from the left.  This has been good for her, up to this point, but as it begins to look like a strategy, it will quickly wear thin.

The current cry coming from the National Review and other conservative publications that Ifill cannot be objective, begins to ring hollow in the light of all of this.  It looks like a preemptive strike to make Ifill look bad if she asks Palin any tough questions, calls het to the carpet on an answer, or lets Biden savage her.  I believe this is being floated to force Ifill to water-down her approach to Palin in the hope that she will not want to even give the appearance of any bias.  Mark my words, the McCain campaign will not ask her to recuse herself from the debate.  They want her there, and they want her (Ifill) on the defensive.

I believe the McCain strategy of making Palin look like a victim is a mistake.  I do not have a lot of faith in the American public to be able to understand what is going on in general, but at this point they have been conditioned by recent events to be aware of unfair attacks on Palin.  If Ifill is an unfair moderator, and if Biden attempts to savage Palin, it will be readily apparent.  The McCain camp and the National Review do not need to do the attempt to set the stage for it.

I have a friend (www.exploded.wordpress.net) who has called on the McCain camp to let Sarah be herself, and take her off the leash.  He is absolutely right.  She needs to be allowed to go back to the Sarah we saw bowing-up to Charlie Gibson. 

Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about this debate.  I am afraid that she is going to be given a list of talking points and a script by her McCain handlers in the hope that she will be able to stay on message while Biden makes an ass of himself.  If this is the case, she will look off-balance, and she will indeed be savaged by Biden.  You cannot be a ‘pit bull’ and a victim at the same time, and remember by definition victims are losers.  My greatest fear is that she breaks down and we will have a Ferarro incident.  If that happens we all might as well vote Obama because it will be over.