Papa was never a rolling stone, but he was a broadcaster, a station manager and owner. Perhaps, John McCain may have misunderstood the fundamentals of the economy, but Papadablogger knows what commercial broadcasting is all about.
If you watch “Election Coverage” on TV… network television or cable, right-leaning FOX NEWS or left-leaning MSNBC, traditional over-the-air network news or local market news, even non-traditional television “news” like Jon Stewart or SNL… if you watch any of this, you should know what it is you’re part of. Its entertainment and you are the audience.
There is no such thing as “Broadcast News.” Therefore, there is no such thing as legitimate election coverage or credible political reporting anywhere on television. There’s good entertainment and not so good, but there is no traditional journalism or honest, straightforward analysis to be found there.
Broadcasting is an arm of the Advertising Business. This is not a cynical assessment. Look at the financial facts and decide for yourself exactly what’s going on.
This year, about $82 billion will be spent on broadcast advertising. These days, what with Wall Street bailouts, enormous monthly loans to the US federal government from our Chinese trading partners and even larger amounts of American dollars flowing steadily to the coffers of OPEC as quickly as those electronic gasoline pumps can make it happen, $82 billion might not seem like so much money. Think of it in simpler terms. Each billion dollars is a thousand million dollars – that’s a million dollars, a thousand times over.
And thus, 82 billions of dollars is 82,000 x $1,000,000. That’s a lot of money. If you like, you can throw in an extra $11.5 billion for Internet advertising.
So, you’re getting pretty close to $100 billion dollars and you haven’t yet used an ounce of ink or a single sheet of paper. And, also, we haven’t touched a penny of the $3 billion that will be spent by all candidates for public office combined in this election season. How do broadcasters view that $3 billion? Easy money. Guaranteed extra income. Its like candy on Halloween, icing on the birthday cake, another Christmas added to the calendar every four years.
Every broadcaster knows there are 168 hours in a week. That equals 10,080 minutes weekly or 1,440 minutes every day. The normal commercial inventory ranges between 288 and 384 minutes per day, or 2,016 to 2,688 minutes each week. Break these down into 60 seconds, 30 seconds, 20 seconds and 10 seconds and you have your “product” which has to be sold by your Sales Department. In order to make that “product” attractive to buyers, at the highest possible prices, the Programming Department must put programs on the air that will bring in the maximum number of viewers.
Do these commercial needs square with credible, reliable, truthful reporting and thoughtful analysis? Oh, sure. If Papa may quote the VP nominee of the Democratic Party, as he addressed an inquiring TV anchor-woman – “Are you joking? Is that a serious question?”
Ask yourself - If an accurate reporter could tell you that a contest has been decided, beyond the possibility of reversal, would you continue to watch the continuing analysis, night after night, once you had been assured of the outcome? How many viewers – of the millions watching – might stop watching? A few? Some? Many? Most? Viewership would decline. Advertisers who had paid for commercial time would be angry that the same network or station that sold them time had then driven the audience away by telling them the truth – the analysis is complete; the contest is over!
On a less controversial matter than Presidential politics, have you ever seen a baseball game in which one team takes a 9 or 10 run lead after only a few innings – and the TV announcer says something like: “No lead is safe in this stadium, folks!” Is that true? Of course not. But imagine the chagrin of all those advertisers who bought time in the 4th or 5th inning, not to mention those with TV spots scheduled to run in the 8th or 9th innings. In politics as in baseball, if you’re waiting to see who wins, you can leave now. But, if you are in broadcasting, you can never let them go!
The same principle applies to all Election Coverage, on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, FOX NEWS and MSNBC… all of them. When you watch those programs – no matter how much you may like a particular “host” or supposed reporter or purported pundit – they are there to entertain you; you are being entertained; and you are paying for it by agreeing to be exposed to the commercials that makeup part of the $82 billion in annual broadcast advertising revenue.
So, in these final few days before Election Day, you may be fairly certain that –on TV anyway – the race will get closer and closer, tighter and tighter, the battleground states will get more intense, the fight will become fierce.
And then, of course, the landslide will ensue as if all previous predictions and frantic warnings never happened.
On TV, nobody who wants to continue working on TV will tell you the truth until the last dollar is safely stashed in the cash register. C'mon now, sing along... "Let me entertain you."
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
EARLY VOTING - MAYBE IT'S ALL OVER, ALREADY
Early voting has changed everything we’ve come to think of about our Presidential elections. The election is not next week – it’s already well underway – and in some key states, it’s as good as over.
Florida has announced that beginning today, it will extend Early Voting hours from 8 to 12 hours daily. Why? The demand to vote – NOW! – is overwhelming. In 31 states, across the nation, voters are eagerly and patiently waiting in line for as long as 5 hours, often in bad weather, to Vote Early, to vote now!
Nothing a candidate says or does, in the days ahead, can change these votes. No October Surprise can allow anyone to go back and change their mind, change their vote. Put simply, if you’re campaigning today in a state where half the votes have already been cast, you’re only talking to half the voters. Your entire effort has been reduced by 50%. Your market has shrunk by half. If you’re behind, as everyone agrees John McCain is, it may be too late to catch up – no matter what happens between today and next Tuesday.
American Presidential elections will never be the same again. Early Voting has changed everything. Future candidates must arrange their campaigns to peak on the day Early Voting starts.
How many Americans have already voted? Are these numbers significant? According to George Mason University, which is tracking this daily (elections.gmu.edu), the number is 14,242,162. That represents 11.5% of all those who cast ballots in the 2004 Presidential election. But, the number of Early Voters in key states – those referred to as battleground states – is far higher than that.
In 6 of these battleground states the election may already be decided. Look at these numbers – and remember, these are NOT poll numbers, predictions of how voters will vote – these are ACTUAL VOTES, already cast and counted.
Florida: 2,063,157 – that’s 27% of all Florida votes in 2004
Georgia: 1,206,891 – that’s 36.4% of all Georgia votes in 2004
Colorado: 958,508 – that’s 44.6% of all Colorado votes in 2004
Iowa: 339,725 – that’s 24.3% of all Iowa votes in 2004
Nevada: 344,198 – that’s 41.4% of all Nevada votes in 2004
North Carolina: 1,411,999 – that’s 39.7% of all North Carolina votes in 2004
And there is still the rest of this week of Early Voting left. A lead – especially a substantial lead – in any of these states may be too big to overcome by voters who wait until Election Day to cast their ballots.
Early Voting in Ohio, according to the latest poll by SURVAY USA has Obama leading McCain by a margin of 56.5% to 43.5%. That’s not a poll of how voters say they WILL vote; it’s a count of votes ALREADY CAST. The Gallup organization shows pretty much the same for Ohio’s Early Voters. Gallup has Obama leading McCain 53% to 43% in Ohio votes ALREADY CAST. Gallup goes further and asks if voters who have not yet voted intend to Vote Early in the week remaining until Election Day. Ohio respondents who say yes, they will, reply in favor of Obama by a margin of 54% to 40% over McCain. Of those Ohio voters who say they will wait until Election Day to vote, Gallup shows Obama leading among them also, by 50% to 44%.
In four vital battleground states, CNN figures show an Obama landslide in the making – not in voter preference, but among those who have ALREADY VOTED.
In North Carolina, CNN has Obama already leading 66% to 34%. In New Mexico, CNN shows Obama with a lead over McCain of 65% to 35%. In Nevada, the CNN numbers show Obama ahead by 64% to 36%. In Iowa, CNN says Obama leads McCain in votes already cast and counted by 63% to 37%. Can McCain overcome these enormous defecits? Reason dictates otherwise.
Do the math. When they say, the only poll that matters is the poll taken by the voters on Election Day, they now need to amend that, to add – plus the votes cast as part of Early Voting.
Florida has announced that beginning today, it will extend Early Voting hours from 8 to 12 hours daily. Why? The demand to vote – NOW! – is overwhelming. In 31 states, across the nation, voters are eagerly and patiently waiting in line for as long as 5 hours, often in bad weather, to Vote Early, to vote now!
Nothing a candidate says or does, in the days ahead, can change these votes. No October Surprise can allow anyone to go back and change their mind, change their vote. Put simply, if you’re campaigning today in a state where half the votes have already been cast, you’re only talking to half the voters. Your entire effort has been reduced by 50%. Your market has shrunk by half. If you’re behind, as everyone agrees John McCain is, it may be too late to catch up – no matter what happens between today and next Tuesday.
American Presidential elections will never be the same again. Early Voting has changed everything. Future candidates must arrange their campaigns to peak on the day Early Voting starts.
How many Americans have already voted? Are these numbers significant? According to George Mason University, which is tracking this daily (elections.gmu.edu), the number is 14,242,162. That represents 11.5% of all those who cast ballots in the 2004 Presidential election. But, the number of Early Voters in key states – those referred to as battleground states – is far higher than that.
In 6 of these battleground states the election may already be decided. Look at these numbers – and remember, these are NOT poll numbers, predictions of how voters will vote – these are ACTUAL VOTES, already cast and counted.
Florida: 2,063,157 – that’s 27% of all Florida votes in 2004
Georgia: 1,206,891 – that’s 36.4% of all Georgia votes in 2004
Colorado: 958,508 – that’s 44.6% of all Colorado votes in 2004
Iowa: 339,725 – that’s 24.3% of all Iowa votes in 2004
Nevada: 344,198 – that’s 41.4% of all Nevada votes in 2004
North Carolina: 1,411,999 – that’s 39.7% of all North Carolina votes in 2004
And there is still the rest of this week of Early Voting left. A lead – especially a substantial lead – in any of these states may be too big to overcome by voters who wait until Election Day to cast their ballots.
Early Voting in Ohio, according to the latest poll by SURVAY USA has Obama leading McCain by a margin of 56.5% to 43.5%. That’s not a poll of how voters say they WILL vote; it’s a count of votes ALREADY CAST. The Gallup organization shows pretty much the same for Ohio’s Early Voters. Gallup has Obama leading McCain 53% to 43% in Ohio votes ALREADY CAST. Gallup goes further and asks if voters who have not yet voted intend to Vote Early in the week remaining until Election Day. Ohio respondents who say yes, they will, reply in favor of Obama by a margin of 54% to 40% over McCain. Of those Ohio voters who say they will wait until Election Day to vote, Gallup shows Obama leading among them also, by 50% to 44%.
In four vital battleground states, CNN figures show an Obama landslide in the making – not in voter preference, but among those who have ALREADY VOTED.
In North Carolina, CNN has Obama already leading 66% to 34%. In New Mexico, CNN shows Obama with a lead over McCain of 65% to 35%. In Nevada, the CNN numbers show Obama ahead by 64% to 36%. In Iowa, CNN says Obama leads McCain in votes already cast and counted by 63% to 37%. Can McCain overcome these enormous defecits? Reason dictates otherwise.
Do the math. When they say, the only poll that matters is the poll taken by the voters on Election Day, they now need to amend that, to add – plus the votes cast as part of Early Voting.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
"ELECTION DAY" IS ARCHAIC
Harry Truman came from 8 points down to beat poor Tom Dewey in the final 2 weeks of the 1948 Presidential race. Although the romance of Camelot has dimmed memories, JFK trailed Nixon until the end of the 1960 campaign. Again, in 1980, Ronald Reagan came from behind in the polls to defeat Carter in the final days of that campaign. In 1976 Gerald Ford’s last week’s rush left him just short of a victory and in 1968, Hubert Humphrey also gained furiously in the last days to nearly beat out Nixon in the closest popular vote ever. Some analysts will even point to George W. Bush who brought new meaning to “coming from behind” by overtaking the exit polls themselves and unexpectedly winning against both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. To many, how he managed that feat of magic remains a mystery. But, it’s a fact – in American Presidential elections, the final days and few weeks have been extremely important to the final decision on Election Day.
Without much fanfare, that tradition has come to a screeching end, trampled into the ground this year under the feet of millions of early voters, many of whom are patiently waiting hours upon hours to cast their vote for President well before the official Election Day
The term Election Day has been rendered archaic. Early voting in 31 states has deftly and quietly swept Election Day into the same cultural dust-bin where 45 rpm records lay stacked in piles next to millions of IBM Selectrics and other similar machines called typewriters. It’s the same place where out-dated behavioral patterns, and those who continue to practice what was once thought to be important social necessities, such as men who shave their face everyday or women who routinely, and for the most part needlessly, wear girdles and corsets. All of them have gone the way of the 8-track cassette, the Zippo lighter and the doctor who makes house calls. Joining them now – Election Day.
Yes, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, this year that being the fourth day of the month, many Americans can and will go to their local polling places to vote for President of the United States. But, so many millions of Americans will have already cast their irrevocable ballots – via Early Voting – that this particular election will already have been decided. Votes actually cast on Election Day will be an afterthought, quite literally, a thing done after the result has already been determined.
NEWS FLASH! All the candidate activity of the last two weeks is wasted effort. The 2008 Presidential Election is over. The next President of the United States - Barack Obama.
Modern technology, not to mention common sense, has modified if not completely overwhelmed the wit and wisdom of Yogi Berra. For those who nevertheless insist it ain’t over ‘til it’s over… well, then – let me give you the news. It’s Over!
A mindful, rational examination of the various, numerous polls should lead most observers to the conclusion that, with less than 2 weeks remaining in the campaign, only 4 states can still truly be called toss-ups, too close to call for either Obama or McCain. They are: Georgia, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota. These 4 states have only 32 Electoral votes. How they eventually divide means nothing to the election’s outcome. So, for our purposes, let’s give them all to John McCain. It doesn’t matter; its too late for him.
A 5th state with early voting, Nebraska, awards its 3 Electoral votes by district. It joins with Maine as the only two states not to participate in the winner-takes-all Electoral system. Nebraska’s 3 Electoral votes will split 2-1 in favor of John McCain. Thus, to get started, give the Next President, Barack Obama, 1 Electoral vote.
Of the remaining 26 states with early voting, Obama and McCain will each win 13 – an even split in states, but an Electoral landslide for Barack Obama. The 13 states Obama will win, including California with 55 Electoral votes all by itself, will give him an additional 185 Electoral votes. John McCain’s 13 states deliver only 106 Electoral votes.
Okay… with 1 from Nebraska and 185 from the other 13 states, early voting will mean Election Day begins with Barack Obama already having 186 of the 270 Electoral votes needed for victory. Before a single vote is registered on November 4th, Obama only needs only 84 Electoral votes win the Presidency. Still, you may ask, if he only has 186, and if he needs 270 to win, why is Election Day archaic, obsolete, an afterthought? The answer is simple.
John McCain can win only 4 states that actually vote entirely on Election Day. They will be: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Carolina. In our unique American system, none of them is big enough to help McCain win anything. Combined, they will only bring McCain 31 more Electoral votes, equal barely to Obama’s sure-thing victory in one state, New York. Even giving all the toss-up states to John McCain (more a rhetorical device than an actual reality), McCain will win only 4 states with double-digit Electoral votes: Texas, Tennessee, Georgia and Indiana. Obama will win 16 states with more than 10, including 6 with more than 20, 1 with more than 30 and 1 with more than 50. Remember, its all about Electoral votes. All told, on Election Day Obama will rack up a staggering, and almost uncontested 179 Electoral votes. Obama will end up with 365 votes in the Electoral College, one of the largest electoral landslides in American Presidential election history. No matter how much closer the popular vote may be, who cares?
Early voting will change all future Presidential elections. The campaigns must forget about the last two or three weeks. If they haven’t made their case effectively before early voting begins, it will be too late – just like it is this time for John McCain.
We used to talk about the October Surprise, a event so significant it would alter the result of a November election. In the coming elections the October Surprise better be a September or August Surprise or it will have no chance to change the dynamic of anything.
For 2008, this one’s over and done with. Put a fork in the McCain/Palin ticket and rent your tux for Barack Obama’s Inauguration on January 20, 2009.
Without much fanfare, that tradition has come to a screeching end, trampled into the ground this year under the feet of millions of early voters, many of whom are patiently waiting hours upon hours to cast their vote for President well before the official Election Day
The term Election Day has been rendered archaic. Early voting in 31 states has deftly and quietly swept Election Day into the same cultural dust-bin where 45 rpm records lay stacked in piles next to millions of IBM Selectrics and other similar machines called typewriters. It’s the same place where out-dated behavioral patterns, and those who continue to practice what was once thought to be important social necessities, such as men who shave their face everyday or women who routinely, and for the most part needlessly, wear girdles and corsets. All of them have gone the way of the 8-track cassette, the Zippo lighter and the doctor who makes house calls. Joining them now – Election Day.
Yes, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, this year that being the fourth day of the month, many Americans can and will go to their local polling places to vote for President of the United States. But, so many millions of Americans will have already cast their irrevocable ballots – via Early Voting – that this particular election will already have been decided. Votes actually cast on Election Day will be an afterthought, quite literally, a thing done after the result has already been determined.
NEWS FLASH! All the candidate activity of the last two weeks is wasted effort. The 2008 Presidential Election is over. The next President of the United States - Barack Obama.
Modern technology, not to mention common sense, has modified if not completely overwhelmed the wit and wisdom of Yogi Berra. For those who nevertheless insist it ain’t over ‘til it’s over… well, then – let me give you the news. It’s Over!
A mindful, rational examination of the various, numerous polls should lead most observers to the conclusion that, with less than 2 weeks remaining in the campaign, only 4 states can still truly be called toss-ups, too close to call for either Obama or McCain. They are: Georgia, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota. These 4 states have only 32 Electoral votes. How they eventually divide means nothing to the election’s outcome. So, for our purposes, let’s give them all to John McCain. It doesn’t matter; its too late for him.
A 5th state with early voting, Nebraska, awards its 3 Electoral votes by district. It joins with Maine as the only two states not to participate in the winner-takes-all Electoral system. Nebraska’s 3 Electoral votes will split 2-1 in favor of John McCain. Thus, to get started, give the Next President, Barack Obama, 1 Electoral vote.
Of the remaining 26 states with early voting, Obama and McCain will each win 13 – an even split in states, but an Electoral landslide for Barack Obama. The 13 states Obama will win, including California with 55 Electoral votes all by itself, will give him an additional 185 Electoral votes. John McCain’s 13 states deliver only 106 Electoral votes.
Okay… with 1 from Nebraska and 185 from the other 13 states, early voting will mean Election Day begins with Barack Obama already having 186 of the 270 Electoral votes needed for victory. Before a single vote is registered on November 4th, Obama only needs only 84 Electoral votes win the Presidency. Still, you may ask, if he only has 186, and if he needs 270 to win, why is Election Day archaic, obsolete, an afterthought? The answer is simple.
John McCain can win only 4 states that actually vote entirely on Election Day. They will be: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Carolina. In our unique American system, none of them is big enough to help McCain win anything. Combined, they will only bring McCain 31 more Electoral votes, equal barely to Obama’s sure-thing victory in one state, New York. Even giving all the toss-up states to John McCain (more a rhetorical device than an actual reality), McCain will win only 4 states with double-digit Electoral votes: Texas, Tennessee, Georgia and Indiana. Obama will win 16 states with more than 10, including 6 with more than 20, 1 with more than 30 and 1 with more than 50. Remember, its all about Electoral votes. All told, on Election Day Obama will rack up a staggering, and almost uncontested 179 Electoral votes. Obama will end up with 365 votes in the Electoral College, one of the largest electoral landslides in American Presidential election history. No matter how much closer the popular vote may be, who cares?
Early voting will change all future Presidential elections. The campaigns must forget about the last two or three weeks. If they haven’t made their case effectively before early voting begins, it will be too late – just like it is this time for John McCain.
We used to talk about the October Surprise, a event so significant it would alter the result of a November election. In the coming elections the October Surprise better be a September or August Surprise or it will have no chance to change the dynamic of anything.
For 2008, this one’s over and done with. Put a fork in the McCain/Palin ticket and rent your tux for Barack Obama’s Inauguration on January 20, 2009.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
THE BRADLEY EFFECT
In 1982, Tom Bradley, the Mayor of Los Angeles and an African-American, ran for Governor of California. Throughout the campaign, Bradley enjoyed a comfortable lead. He lost the election. The clear assumption was that many white voters, who said they favored Bradley when asked by pollsters, succumbed to a deeply ingrained racism when the time came to pull the lever in the voting booth. Enough white voters couldn’t find it in themselves to vote for a black candidate, so Bradley lost.
Ever since, whenever a black candidate has run against a white opponent, the question of The Bradley Effect has been a prominent consideration. How much must you discount the polls when a black candidate is running, and leading a race, against a white opponent? It is a major concern in this election. Some people think Hillary Clinton remained in the race long after it was obvious she wouldn’t win because she was banking on The Bradley Effect. If so, she was wrong, but that was a primary. Only the nomination was at stake. No one was actually voting to make Barack Obama President of the United States.
How will The Bradley Effect influence the contest between Barack Obama and John McCain? The polls show Obama ahead, not only nationally, but also in the key battleground states. In this context, how can we best assess The Bradley Effect?
Three assumptions appear to have merit. First: no one supposes that all white voters face a racial dilemma; Second: no one supposes that all white voters who vote for McCain are racist; Third: no one believes The Bradley Effect isn’t real. Who doesn’t assume that there will be some white voters who will cast their ballot based on race? The important question is: how many? Will the actual number be high enough, in enough key states, to tip the scales?
Put most simply and straightforward – will John McCain win the Presidency because too many white voters vote Republican, against their Democratic inclinations, based on race?
Some may want to point to a reverse Bradley Effect, namely the tendency of black voters, motivated by race, to vote for Obama. Since previous Democrats running for President – every one of whom was white – received 90% or more of the black vote, this so-called reverse Bradley Effect appears not to be an issue. As a Democrat, Obama will get more than 9 of every 10 black votes anyway. One must also consider that black voters represent too small a percentage of the total vote to determine the election’s outcome by themselves.
The questions remains: How far ahead must Obama be in the pre-election polls to survive a racist backlash in the privacy of the voting booth? While everyone who ponders this issue probably has an answer – maybe 3 points, 5 points, 8 or even 10 points - no one knows if theirs is the right answer. And yet, the most shocking aspect of this whole matter may be that while it is very possible that the future of America – perhaps the future of the world – depends upon the size of The Bradley Effect, it appears that no one in the campaign – neither the Democrats nor the Republicans – will address the issue directly.
Perhaps, as it seems to be with so many issues of public concern, it is embedded within our culture; it is The American Way to pretend the issue doesn’t exit and hope it goes away on its own, pray it disappears, vanishes from sight. Maybe, if we don’t dare talk about it, nobody will notice. Maybe it will hide in plain sight. Perhaps, no one wants to recognize that after nearly 400 years, after slavery, a Civil War, Jim Crow and a de facto apartheid society, race still remains the central and unresolved focus in the American culture.
Ever since, whenever a black candidate has run against a white opponent, the question of The Bradley Effect has been a prominent consideration. How much must you discount the polls when a black candidate is running, and leading a race, against a white opponent? It is a major concern in this election. Some people think Hillary Clinton remained in the race long after it was obvious she wouldn’t win because she was banking on The Bradley Effect. If so, she was wrong, but that was a primary. Only the nomination was at stake. No one was actually voting to make Barack Obama President of the United States.
How will The Bradley Effect influence the contest between Barack Obama and John McCain? The polls show Obama ahead, not only nationally, but also in the key battleground states. In this context, how can we best assess The Bradley Effect?
Three assumptions appear to have merit. First: no one supposes that all white voters face a racial dilemma; Second: no one supposes that all white voters who vote for McCain are racist; Third: no one believes The Bradley Effect isn’t real. Who doesn’t assume that there will be some white voters who will cast their ballot based on race? The important question is: how many? Will the actual number be high enough, in enough key states, to tip the scales?
Put most simply and straightforward – will John McCain win the Presidency because too many white voters vote Republican, against their Democratic inclinations, based on race?
Some may want to point to a reverse Bradley Effect, namely the tendency of black voters, motivated by race, to vote for Obama. Since previous Democrats running for President – every one of whom was white – received 90% or more of the black vote, this so-called reverse Bradley Effect appears not to be an issue. As a Democrat, Obama will get more than 9 of every 10 black votes anyway. One must also consider that black voters represent too small a percentage of the total vote to determine the election’s outcome by themselves.
The questions remains: How far ahead must Obama be in the pre-election polls to survive a racist backlash in the privacy of the voting booth? While everyone who ponders this issue probably has an answer – maybe 3 points, 5 points, 8 or even 10 points - no one knows if theirs is the right answer. And yet, the most shocking aspect of this whole matter may be that while it is very possible that the future of America – perhaps the future of the world – depends upon the size of The Bradley Effect, it appears that no one in the campaign – neither the Democrats nor the Republicans – will address the issue directly.
Perhaps, as it seems to be with so many issues of public concern, it is embedded within our culture; it is The American Way to pretend the issue doesn’t exit and hope it goes away on its own, pray it disappears, vanishes from sight. Maybe, if we don’t dare talk about it, nobody will notice. Maybe it will hide in plain sight. Perhaps, no one wants to recognize that after nearly 400 years, after slavery, a Civil War, Jim Crow and a de facto apartheid society, race still remains the central and unresolved focus in the American culture.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
THE FACTS YOU WON'T FIND IN THE POLLS
There are compelling events and the data, the statistics, that give them credibility will not appear in any polls, will not be discussed by any of the Talking Lips on the never-ending cable channels… and they all point inexorably to a Barack Obama victory in November.
I am not talking about somebody’s opinion. I am talking about somebody’s fact; somebody’s proof; something that has no “fair and balanced” other side to consider.
You must first clear out, sweep away your preconceived notions. Stop with the “Yes, buts….” Followed closely by your reasons why the facts won’t hold up in this election. Just examine these facts for what they are – facts. And deal with it.
There are 42 million registered Democrats in America, and only 31 million registered Republicans – that was as of the 2006 US Census. You want to argue with the Census folks, go ahead, but these are the facts. So, if all the Democrats voted for Obama and all the Republicans voted for McCain… well, McCain would need to find 11 million votes somewhere, just to get back to even, wouldn’t he? Why won’t you find this in the polls? Because the polling companies set their samples with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans or a very slight sample weight in favor of the Democrats, but nothing that matches the statistics.
What about the growth of the so-called Independent vote, those voters who register to vote and list themselves as being “Independent” having no party affiliation? What about this “growth?” Talk of it is a hoax. It’s a myth. How can I say this? Because in 28 states, when someone registers to vote, they are asked to indicate their party affiliation, if they have one. Since 2006 has there been no growth among registered Independents. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Since the elections of 2006, there has been a decrease in voters listed as Independent. How big a decrease? How does 900,000 voters sound? That’s how many fewer registered Independents there are now than there were two years ago. Where did they go?
Since 2006, there have been more than 2,000,000 new voters registered in the Democratic Party. At the same time 900,000 Independents have taken their names from the rolls or changed their party designation. Perhaps, they’ve become Republicans? Don’t hold your breath. In these two years, the Republican Party has lost 344,000 registered voters. So, that’s minus almost a million Independents and nearly 350,000 Republicans… against a gain greater than 2 million for the Democrats. These are not opinions; these are facts.
Records are kept, you know. In every state except North Dakota, voters are legally required to register before voting. In North Dakota you just walk-up and vote. In 28 states, registered voters are asked to name their party.
Just where have the Democrats made these huge gains while the Republicans were losing registered voters? Because, if the Democrats have gained a lot of Californians or New Yorkers, well then – who cares? They already have those states. That won’t help them.
The facts show the Democratic Party’s biggest gains are in the very swing states they need to take to win in 2008. For example: Big gains have been registered in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado and Florida. In a very important Red state that might go Democratic in 2008, North Carolina, the Democrats have gained 167,000 newly registered voters. The Republicans? In North Carolina, they gained 36,000 new voters. That’s a possible gain for Obama of 131,000 votes in a state Bush carried twice and McCain must win in order to win the Presidency.
In Pennsylvania, a state Obama needs to hold, Democrats have registered 375,000 new voters. And the Republicans? They’ve added 116,000 new voters. In the Keystone state, the Democrats have added to their winning margin a net total of 259,000 new voters.
In Virginia, a state that – if Obama wins there – means he will probably be the next President, they do not have party registration. But, of the 235,976 newly registered Virginia voters, as of August 1, 2008, the great majority of them live in the five northern Virginia counties in the Washington area, counties that are normally heavily Democratic. In 2004 Bush won Virginia by only 262,000 votes.
In Ohio, which decided the 2004 election, a new Democratic Governor and a Democratic Secretary of State have put together a new kind of election for 2008. Using the Supreme Court ruling that allows college students to register and vote where they attend college, this time Ohio will allow all of it’s 470,000 college students to register and actually cast their ballot at the same time, on Election Day. Pre-registration is unnecessary. Courts have already ruled that the Ohio officials are within their authority to do this and to officially count the votes as they are cast, and include these vote counts in the state totals, prior to any challenges, should there be any.
In 2004, Bush carried Ohio by a mere 118,000 votes.
In the key Southern state of Georgia, where voters also register without naming their party affiliation, there have already been 337,000 new voters registered since 2006.
There has been very little talk at all about Black voters in this election. In many states there are enormous numbers of unregistered blacks 18 years old and above. In Georgia alone, the figure has been put at 600,000. The Census shows that nationwide 39.1 of all eligible blacks are not yet registered to vote. That number gets smaller every day.
The number of potential new black voters is measured in the millions across the states. Even a moderately successful registration drive among these voters has the promise of turning a number of states to the Obama side and keeping many traditional Blue states from changing color.
The three states with highest percentage of unregistered voters – Ohio, New Mexico and Colorado - are all swing states and each has a substantial minority population.
Why won’t you see any of these data in the political polls? Because the polling companies draw their sample universe from registered voter lists as of the previous election. None of the newly registered are considered in any of these polls.
These are the facts. If you’re a Republican, how do get around them? If you’re a Democrat, you should be very happy.
I am not talking about somebody’s opinion. I am talking about somebody’s fact; somebody’s proof; something that has no “fair and balanced” other side to consider.
You must first clear out, sweep away your preconceived notions. Stop with the “Yes, buts….” Followed closely by your reasons why the facts won’t hold up in this election. Just examine these facts for what they are – facts. And deal with it.
There are 42 million registered Democrats in America, and only 31 million registered Republicans – that was as of the 2006 US Census. You want to argue with the Census folks, go ahead, but these are the facts. So, if all the Democrats voted for Obama and all the Republicans voted for McCain… well, McCain would need to find 11 million votes somewhere, just to get back to even, wouldn’t he? Why won’t you find this in the polls? Because the polling companies set their samples with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans or a very slight sample weight in favor of the Democrats, but nothing that matches the statistics.
What about the growth of the so-called Independent vote, those voters who register to vote and list themselves as being “Independent” having no party affiliation? What about this “growth?” Talk of it is a hoax. It’s a myth. How can I say this? Because in 28 states, when someone registers to vote, they are asked to indicate their party affiliation, if they have one. Since 2006 has there been no growth among registered Independents. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Since the elections of 2006, there has been a decrease in voters listed as Independent. How big a decrease? How does 900,000 voters sound? That’s how many fewer registered Independents there are now than there were two years ago. Where did they go?
Since 2006, there have been more than 2,000,000 new voters registered in the Democratic Party. At the same time 900,000 Independents have taken their names from the rolls or changed their party designation. Perhaps, they’ve become Republicans? Don’t hold your breath. In these two years, the Republican Party has lost 344,000 registered voters. So, that’s minus almost a million Independents and nearly 350,000 Republicans… against a gain greater than 2 million for the Democrats. These are not opinions; these are facts.
Records are kept, you know. In every state except North Dakota, voters are legally required to register before voting. In North Dakota you just walk-up and vote. In 28 states, registered voters are asked to name their party.
Just where have the Democrats made these huge gains while the Republicans were losing registered voters? Because, if the Democrats have gained a lot of Californians or New Yorkers, well then – who cares? They already have those states. That won’t help them.
The facts show the Democratic Party’s biggest gains are in the very swing states they need to take to win in 2008. For example: Big gains have been registered in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado and Florida. In a very important Red state that might go Democratic in 2008, North Carolina, the Democrats have gained 167,000 newly registered voters. The Republicans? In North Carolina, they gained 36,000 new voters. That’s a possible gain for Obama of 131,000 votes in a state Bush carried twice and McCain must win in order to win the Presidency.
In Pennsylvania, a state Obama needs to hold, Democrats have registered 375,000 new voters. And the Republicans? They’ve added 116,000 new voters. In the Keystone state, the Democrats have added to their winning margin a net total of 259,000 new voters.
In Virginia, a state that – if Obama wins there – means he will probably be the next President, they do not have party registration. But, of the 235,976 newly registered Virginia voters, as of August 1, 2008, the great majority of them live in the five northern Virginia counties in the Washington area, counties that are normally heavily Democratic. In 2004 Bush won Virginia by only 262,000 votes.
In Ohio, which decided the 2004 election, a new Democratic Governor and a Democratic Secretary of State have put together a new kind of election for 2008. Using the Supreme Court ruling that allows college students to register and vote where they attend college, this time Ohio will allow all of it’s 470,000 college students to register and actually cast their ballot at the same time, on Election Day. Pre-registration is unnecessary. Courts have already ruled that the Ohio officials are within their authority to do this and to officially count the votes as they are cast, and include these vote counts in the state totals, prior to any challenges, should there be any.
In 2004, Bush carried Ohio by a mere 118,000 votes.
In the key Southern state of Georgia, where voters also register without naming their party affiliation, there have already been 337,000 new voters registered since 2006.
There has been very little talk at all about Black voters in this election. In many states there are enormous numbers of unregistered blacks 18 years old and above. In Georgia alone, the figure has been put at 600,000. The Census shows that nationwide 39.1 of all eligible blacks are not yet registered to vote. That number gets smaller every day.
The number of potential new black voters is measured in the millions across the states. Even a moderately successful registration drive among these voters has the promise of turning a number of states to the Obama side and keeping many traditional Blue states from changing color.
The three states with highest percentage of unregistered voters – Ohio, New Mexico and Colorado - are all swing states and each has a substantial minority population.
Why won’t you see any of these data in the political polls? Because the polling companies draw their sample universe from registered voter lists as of the previous election. None of the newly registered are considered in any of these polls.
These are the facts. If you’re a Republican, how do get around them? If you’re a Democrat, you should be very happy.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
OUR QUESTIONABLE HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
The results of American Presidential elections have never been as simple, straightforward, clean and uncluttered as many might believe. The media impression especially, of our history of elections, is overwrought with both certainty and patriotic zeal. Our first 4 elections were filled with confusion and desperation, partly because Electors were chosen by the states, without popular elections, and when they voted, they cast 2 votes – 1 for President and 1 for Vice President – but they didn’t vote twice! They just cast 2 ballots each. Thus, in 1800 the Electoral College ended in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, each with 73 votes. The House of Representatives had to settle the matter, which they did by voting 10-4 in favor of Jefferson. But, even then, in the House vote, 2 states decided not to vote for either candidate. They abdicated their responsibility, letting the other 14 states make the decision.
Even in our very first Presidential election, in 1789, while George Washington did receive 69 votes, 18 other men also received Electoral Votes and – strange as it may be to believe – 24 Electors refrained from voting at all! For example, New York appointed its 8 Electors too late for them to be recognized as authorized voters. They were denied standing, refused certification, and not allowed to vote at all. So, in the very first Presidential election in our history, the State of New York, and therefore all its people, went unrepresented. If Washington was to be “The Father of His Country,” New York must have been raised by a single mother.
Again, in 1792, 6 Electors abstained from the vote for reasons left unrecorded. In the next election, in 1796, John Adams squeezed by Thomas Jefferson 71-68, but what’s largely been forgotten is – Thomas Pinckney got 59 votes; Aaron Burr got 30, Samuel Adams got 15; Oliver Ellsworth got 11; George Clinton (who got 50 Electoral Votes in 1792) got another 7 and 15 other men also got votes. Confusing? You bet. And then came the 1800 tie with Jefferson and Burr. After that, the Constitution was amended to choose the Vice president separately from the President and everyone thought things had been fixed.
There are no reports of the popular vote until the election of 1824. Many still think of that election as the most corrupt in our history. Andrew Jackson, the Hero of the War of 1812, won the popular vote with 41%. John Quincy Adams received only 30% of the popular vote, but the election went to the House of Representatives, just as it did in 1800, and Adams was named President over Jackson. Unlike Al Gore in 2000, who met the same fate with respect to the popular vote, Andrew Jackson spent the next 4 years telling anyone who would listen that the American people had been robbed of their vote. Jackson never conceded, never gave in to his “defeat.” In 1828, Jackson was redeemed, trouncing Adams in a rematch 56%-44%.
In the years preceding the Civil War, we had a series of minority Presidents – that is to say, Presidents who failed to capture a majority of the popular vote. Presidents Polk, Fillmore and Buchanan all won with less than 49% of the vote and then came the pivotal election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln emerged as President, in a contest among 4 candidates, but Lincoln scored an all-time low for any winner getting only 39% of the vote.
Following the reunion of The Union, and up to the turn of the century, we had a series of corrupt Presidential elections in which the “winner” of the popular vote was twice denied the Presidency – in 1876 and again in 1888 – and in the last 25 years of the 19th century we had 5 Presidents with a minority of the popular vote – Hayes in ’76; Garfield in ’80; Cleveland in ’84; Benjamin Harrison in ’88; and Cleveland again in ’92.
In the new century, the US went into a World War in Europe under a minority President. Woodrow Wilson barely won the 1912 election with 41% of the vote. Teddy Roosevelt had 27% and Wm. Howard Taft got 23%. The 1912 election was perhaps our most democratic ever. Even the Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs was able to garner 6% of the popular vote. Nevertheless, Wilson won and assumed the Presidency with a majority of the country against him. Running for reelection as a wartime Chief Executive, Wilson won a second term, but still failed to break the 49% barrier.
More recently, after World War II, we went through another half-dozen Presidents who failed to get a majority of Americans to actually vote for them. Harry Truman got 49% in 1948; JFK also got 49% in 1960; Richard Nixon got only 43% when he won in 1968; and both our most recent Presidents have been minority vote getters. Bill Clinton, although elected twice, got only 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. Of course, in the election of 2000 we saw – for the 4th time in our history! – a “winning” President who didn’t manage to beat his opponent in the popular vote. George W. Bush won in 2000 with 47%, but more than a half-million votes less than cast for Al Gore. Gore chose a different path from that taken by Andrew Jackson 176 years earlier. Instead of standing up for the many millions of Americans who voted for him, Gore went on to explore other interests. Quite rightly, he has vanished from electoral politics since.
What does this portend for the next Presidential election? Does it signify anything? Some believe the 2008 election will be a landslide – not even close – while others think it will end up with as narrow a victory as we have seen in 2000 and 2004. Whatever your prediction, it appears that the “loser” in 2008 may get as many as 60 million Americans to vote for them. No matter who wins, tens of millions of our fellow citizens will not be happy with the result.
If those who look for a very close contest turn out to be right, they will have guessed in accordance with our 219 years of a checkered history of Presidential election results, and therefore, another such questionable decision should not surprise anyone.
Even in our very first Presidential election, in 1789, while George Washington did receive 69 votes, 18 other men also received Electoral Votes and – strange as it may be to believe – 24 Electors refrained from voting at all! For example, New York appointed its 8 Electors too late for them to be recognized as authorized voters. They were denied standing, refused certification, and not allowed to vote at all. So, in the very first Presidential election in our history, the State of New York, and therefore all its people, went unrepresented. If Washington was to be “The Father of His Country,” New York must have been raised by a single mother.
Again, in 1792, 6 Electors abstained from the vote for reasons left unrecorded. In the next election, in 1796, John Adams squeezed by Thomas Jefferson 71-68, but what’s largely been forgotten is – Thomas Pinckney got 59 votes; Aaron Burr got 30, Samuel Adams got 15; Oliver Ellsworth got 11; George Clinton (who got 50 Electoral Votes in 1792) got another 7 and 15 other men also got votes. Confusing? You bet. And then came the 1800 tie with Jefferson and Burr. After that, the Constitution was amended to choose the Vice president separately from the President and everyone thought things had been fixed.
There are no reports of the popular vote until the election of 1824. Many still think of that election as the most corrupt in our history. Andrew Jackson, the Hero of the War of 1812, won the popular vote with 41%. John Quincy Adams received only 30% of the popular vote, but the election went to the House of Representatives, just as it did in 1800, and Adams was named President over Jackson. Unlike Al Gore in 2000, who met the same fate with respect to the popular vote, Andrew Jackson spent the next 4 years telling anyone who would listen that the American people had been robbed of their vote. Jackson never conceded, never gave in to his “defeat.” In 1828, Jackson was redeemed, trouncing Adams in a rematch 56%-44%.
In the years preceding the Civil War, we had a series of minority Presidents – that is to say, Presidents who failed to capture a majority of the popular vote. Presidents Polk, Fillmore and Buchanan all won with less than 49% of the vote and then came the pivotal election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln emerged as President, in a contest among 4 candidates, but Lincoln scored an all-time low for any winner getting only 39% of the vote.
Following the reunion of The Union, and up to the turn of the century, we had a series of corrupt Presidential elections in which the “winner” of the popular vote was twice denied the Presidency – in 1876 and again in 1888 – and in the last 25 years of the 19th century we had 5 Presidents with a minority of the popular vote – Hayes in ’76; Garfield in ’80; Cleveland in ’84; Benjamin Harrison in ’88; and Cleveland again in ’92.
In the new century, the US went into a World War in Europe under a minority President. Woodrow Wilson barely won the 1912 election with 41% of the vote. Teddy Roosevelt had 27% and Wm. Howard Taft got 23%. The 1912 election was perhaps our most democratic ever. Even the Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs was able to garner 6% of the popular vote. Nevertheless, Wilson won and assumed the Presidency with a majority of the country against him. Running for reelection as a wartime Chief Executive, Wilson won a second term, but still failed to break the 49% barrier.
More recently, after World War II, we went through another half-dozen Presidents who failed to get a majority of Americans to actually vote for them. Harry Truman got 49% in 1948; JFK also got 49% in 1960; Richard Nixon got only 43% when he won in 1968; and both our most recent Presidents have been minority vote getters. Bill Clinton, although elected twice, got only 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. Of course, in the election of 2000 we saw – for the 4th time in our history! – a “winning” President who didn’t manage to beat his opponent in the popular vote. George W. Bush won in 2000 with 47%, but more than a half-million votes less than cast for Al Gore. Gore chose a different path from that taken by Andrew Jackson 176 years earlier. Instead of standing up for the many millions of Americans who voted for him, Gore went on to explore other interests. Quite rightly, he has vanished from electoral politics since.
What does this portend for the next Presidential election? Does it signify anything? Some believe the 2008 election will be a landslide – not even close – while others think it will end up with as narrow a victory as we have seen in 2000 and 2004. Whatever your prediction, it appears that the “loser” in 2008 may get as many as 60 million Americans to vote for them. No matter who wins, tens of millions of our fellow citizens will not be happy with the result.
If those who look for a very close contest turn out to be right, they will have guessed in accordance with our 219 years of a checkered history of Presidential election results, and therefore, another such questionable decision should not surprise anyone.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
THE 2008 ELECTION IS THEFT-PROOF!
Many Americans believe, and always will, that George W. Bush, and/or those who represented him, stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. In the key states that decided those contests – Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 – the State Chairmen of the Bush For President Committees were also in charge of counting the votes! I know, that sounds… un-American. But, it’s true. The state Governor appoints or oversees the Secretary of State and it is that Office which is tasked with conducting the balloting, counting the votes, and certifying elections.
Imagine you were running for election, and imagine too, your opponent controlled the apparatus and organization that planned and carried out the election; and then that same opponent counted the votes and told you if you won or not. Sounds like it couldn’t possibly happen – not here in America. Well, it did. It happened just that way in Florida in 2000 and then again in Ohio in 2004. The Democrats played the role of the old Brooklyn Bums – “We wuz robbed!”
The most important lesson of those tainted elections – the American people accepted those vote counts as definitive, never raising a serious protest, never questioning how one contestant could operate the election machinery, then count the votes afterward, and then claim it was a fair and honest procedure. Bush may have “lost the vote” but he “won the count.”
Some are afraid Barack Obama’s campaign may meet a similar fate. They fear he might “win the vote” yet “lose the count.” Don’t worry. That can’t happen this time, not in 2008. Why? Because the Republican Party no longer controls the process in the key swing states.
To win in 2008, the Democrats must hold four states being targeted by the GOP. Each of them were previously won by Kerry and/or Gore and before them by Bill Clinton. Those states are:
MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCONSIN.
All the other states, plus the District of Columbia, that were carried by the Democrats in the 1990s and by Gore and/or Kerry too, appear safe for the Democratic ticket in 2008.
What makes these four key states theft-proof, besides the expectation that Obama will get more votes in each than McCain will? None of the four – Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin - have Republican Governors. Democrats are in charge of all four state governments which includes control of the vote counting apparatus. Bluntly speaking, the votes cast in Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will be counted by Democrats.
While Obama/Biden must worry about these four, most analysts agree there are eleven Bush/Cheney states that are potentially vulnerable for McCain. In each, the 2008 Democratic ticket has a real chance to win. These eleven are:
FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NEVADA, COLORADO, KANSAS, MONTANA, NEW HAMSHIRE, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, VIRGINIA, NEW MEXICO
In order to win in the Electoral College, the McCain/Palin ticket must hold every one. They cannot afford to lose any of these states to the Democrats. Not a single one. Of course, the question is: Who will count the votes in these eleven states?
Only the first three – Florida, Georgia and Nevada – have Republican state administrations. All of the other eight states have Democrats as Governors and therefore, in all eight, the votes will be counted by Democrats this time, not by Republicans. And, look at that list – this time around it now includes Ohio, which no longer has a Republican Governor and a Republican Secretary of State. The Ohio election of 2008 will be run by Democrats and the votes cast will be counted by Democrats. The GOP cannot steal the state of Ohio in 2008.
How significant is this?
If Obama/Biden carry the 18 states and Washington DC - won by Kerry and Gore (who both lost, remember?) - and then add to that list of Electoral Votes ONLY ONE OF THE 11 TARGET STATES – any one of them! - the Democrats will win the 2008 election. Should Obama win Ohio – it’s over. Win Virginia? Over. Colorado? New Mexico? Any of them – its over.
No matter how you look at it; when the states needed to win are theft-proof; when the Republicans can no longer “lose the vote” and still “win the count,” this is a Democratic year.
Imagine you were running for election, and imagine too, your opponent controlled the apparatus and organization that planned and carried out the election; and then that same opponent counted the votes and told you if you won or not. Sounds like it couldn’t possibly happen – not here in America. Well, it did. It happened just that way in Florida in 2000 and then again in Ohio in 2004. The Democrats played the role of the old Brooklyn Bums – “We wuz robbed!”
The most important lesson of those tainted elections – the American people accepted those vote counts as definitive, never raising a serious protest, never questioning how one contestant could operate the election machinery, then count the votes afterward, and then claim it was a fair and honest procedure. Bush may have “lost the vote” but he “won the count.”
Some are afraid Barack Obama’s campaign may meet a similar fate. They fear he might “win the vote” yet “lose the count.” Don’t worry. That can’t happen this time, not in 2008. Why? Because the Republican Party no longer controls the process in the key swing states.
To win in 2008, the Democrats must hold four states being targeted by the GOP. Each of them were previously won by Kerry and/or Gore and before them by Bill Clinton. Those states are:
MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCONSIN.
All the other states, plus the District of Columbia, that were carried by the Democrats in the 1990s and by Gore and/or Kerry too, appear safe for the Democratic ticket in 2008.
What makes these four key states theft-proof, besides the expectation that Obama will get more votes in each than McCain will? None of the four – Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin - have Republican Governors. Democrats are in charge of all four state governments which includes control of the vote counting apparatus. Bluntly speaking, the votes cast in Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will be counted by Democrats.
While Obama/Biden must worry about these four, most analysts agree there are eleven Bush/Cheney states that are potentially vulnerable for McCain. In each, the 2008 Democratic ticket has a real chance to win. These eleven are:
FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NEVADA, COLORADO, KANSAS, MONTANA, NEW HAMSHIRE, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, VIRGINIA, NEW MEXICO
In order to win in the Electoral College, the McCain/Palin ticket must hold every one. They cannot afford to lose any of these states to the Democrats. Not a single one. Of course, the question is: Who will count the votes in these eleven states?
Only the first three – Florida, Georgia and Nevada – have Republican state administrations. All of the other eight states have Democrats as Governors and therefore, in all eight, the votes will be counted by Democrats this time, not by Republicans. And, look at that list – this time around it now includes Ohio, which no longer has a Republican Governor and a Republican Secretary of State. The Ohio election of 2008 will be run by Democrats and the votes cast will be counted by Democrats. The GOP cannot steal the state of Ohio in 2008.
How significant is this?
If Obama/Biden carry the 18 states and Washington DC - won by Kerry and Gore (who both lost, remember?) - and then add to that list of Electoral Votes ONLY ONE OF THE 11 TARGET STATES – any one of them! - the Democrats will win the 2008 election. Should Obama win Ohio – it’s over. Win Virginia? Over. Colorado? New Mexico? Any of them – its over.
No matter how you look at it; when the states needed to win are theft-proof; when the Republicans can no longer “lose the vote” and still “win the count,” this is a Democratic year.
Monday, September 1, 2008
ANOTHER FIXED ELECTION IN 2008?
We have a long history of vote counting corruption in American elections. We’re hardly the only ones. Every place that holds elections shares our history. For as long as there have been elections, there have been fixed ones. And the gold standard for stealing an election? Vote fraud. Vote switching; stuffing the ballot box; throwing away votes without counting them.
Supposedly, it was Comrade Joseph Stalin who said:
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
That aphorism’s authorship may be in question, but whether or not it was Stalin, or somebody else, the truth of it is both certain and certainly accepted. Another example is the quote of an as yet unknown and uncredited winning candidate who is said to have told his losing competitor:
“You won the vote, but I won the count.”
We’ve had our problems especially with Presidential elections. The most famous, or infamous considering the notoriety of the corruption, are the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000 and 2004. It does not speak well for the fundamental honesty of the electoral process if a country with only 43 Presidents has had a-half dozen questionable Presidential elections. A margin of error that high - 14% - seems unacceptable for a serious democracy.
Naturally, many of us remember best 2000 and 2004. Some of us recall vividly the massive numbers of “Chicago cemetery votes” that mysteriously appeared about two o’clock in the morning on Election Night 1960. It was those “votes” that made John F. Kennedy President, not Richard Nixon. For us, who do remember JFK’s victory, now almost a half-century ago, Florida 2000 was no surprise. Isn’t it interesting that, with that tainted election, George W. Bush joined another son of a former President, John Quincy Adams, each equaling their father via a questionable election. And, while Ohio 2004 was indeed an outrage, it too was to be expected when viewed through the looking glass of American electoral history. Wouldn’t Chicago’s Mayor Daley or New York’s Carmine DeSapio have been proud of Ohio’s Republicans in 2004?
After any election, how do we know who won? In every election, somebody counts the vote, and some media outlet reports it to you and me – as fact. Have you ever seen a TV announcer report a vote total, in any election, and then say something along the lines of:
“We need to be careful about accepting these vote counts because they may be subject to corruption, machine error, or even simple incompetence.”
Of course you haven’t, and you never will. When you watch your TV screen and you see, for example:
“NBC is calling the state of Florida for George W. Bush.”
Have you wondered why? Have you asked yourself, based on what? Has it occurred to you that neither NBC, nor any media company, has actually counted a single ballot? Have you ever pondered the added question:
“Who is telling them that this is the accurate vote count?”
If we take a moment to listen, Stalin tells how elections are stolen. The vote count is a fake. It’s a lie. So, the question, in an American Presidential election, must be:
“Who exactly is counting the vote?”
The answer is different in every state, yet the key to that answer is the same everywhere. Who is the Governor of the state – a Democrat or a Republican? It is the Governor who either appoints or oversees the Secretary of State, and it is the Office of the Secretary of State that is responsible for counting the votes.
Simply put – the key to stealing an election is the party affiliation of the state’s Governor.
Many Democrats believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry won their elections, but each was denied the Presidency because a key state had its vote “counted” corruptly in favor of the Republican. And many who think that, fear this may happen again in 2008 – they are afraid Barack Obama may “win the vote” but “lose the count.” The Governors of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were both Republicans. The Secretary of State in both states was a Republican – and each also happened to serve as the state Chairman of the George W. Bush campaign. It was these same Secretaries of State who supervised the vote counting. Yes, the head of the BUSH FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE counted the votes in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Bush wins! Bush wins! Wow, what a surprise.
Can this happen – again - in 2008?
No, it can’t!
Read the very next papadablogger for the details that will show you that the Republican Party no longer has the capacity to steal the Presidency in 2008.
Supposedly, it was Comrade Joseph Stalin who said:
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
That aphorism’s authorship may be in question, but whether or not it was Stalin, or somebody else, the truth of it is both certain and certainly accepted. Another example is the quote of an as yet unknown and uncredited winning candidate who is said to have told his losing competitor:
“You won the vote, but I won the count.”
We’ve had our problems especially with Presidential elections. The most famous, or infamous considering the notoriety of the corruption, are the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000 and 2004. It does not speak well for the fundamental honesty of the electoral process if a country with only 43 Presidents has had a-half dozen questionable Presidential elections. A margin of error that high - 14% - seems unacceptable for a serious democracy.
Naturally, many of us remember best 2000 and 2004. Some of us recall vividly the massive numbers of “Chicago cemetery votes” that mysteriously appeared about two o’clock in the morning on Election Night 1960. It was those “votes” that made John F. Kennedy President, not Richard Nixon. For us, who do remember JFK’s victory, now almost a half-century ago, Florida 2000 was no surprise. Isn’t it interesting that, with that tainted election, George W. Bush joined another son of a former President, John Quincy Adams, each equaling their father via a questionable election. And, while Ohio 2004 was indeed an outrage, it too was to be expected when viewed through the looking glass of American electoral history. Wouldn’t Chicago’s Mayor Daley or New York’s Carmine DeSapio have been proud of Ohio’s Republicans in 2004?
After any election, how do we know who won? In every election, somebody counts the vote, and some media outlet reports it to you and me – as fact. Have you ever seen a TV announcer report a vote total, in any election, and then say something along the lines of:
“We need to be careful about accepting these vote counts because they may be subject to corruption, machine error, or even simple incompetence.”
Of course you haven’t, and you never will. When you watch your TV screen and you see, for example:
“NBC is calling the state of Florida for George W. Bush.”
Have you wondered why? Have you asked yourself, based on what? Has it occurred to you that neither NBC, nor any media company, has actually counted a single ballot? Have you ever pondered the added question:
“Who is telling them that this is the accurate vote count?”
If we take a moment to listen, Stalin tells how elections are stolen. The vote count is a fake. It’s a lie. So, the question, in an American Presidential election, must be:
“Who exactly is counting the vote?”
The answer is different in every state, yet the key to that answer is the same everywhere. Who is the Governor of the state – a Democrat or a Republican? It is the Governor who either appoints or oversees the Secretary of State, and it is the Office of the Secretary of State that is responsible for counting the votes.
Simply put – the key to stealing an election is the party affiliation of the state’s Governor.
Many Democrats believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry won their elections, but each was denied the Presidency because a key state had its vote “counted” corruptly in favor of the Republican. And many who think that, fear this may happen again in 2008 – they are afraid Barack Obama may “win the vote” but “lose the count.” The Governors of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were both Republicans. The Secretary of State in both states was a Republican – and each also happened to serve as the state Chairman of the George W. Bush campaign. It was these same Secretaries of State who supervised the vote counting. Yes, the head of the BUSH FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE counted the votes in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Bush wins! Bush wins! Wow, what a surprise.
Can this happen – again - in 2008?
No, it can’t!
Read the very next papadablogger for the details that will show you that the Republican Party no longer has the capacity to steal the Presidency in 2008.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
OXYMORON, HYPERBOLE, TROPE OR JUST A LIE?
You’ve heard it before.
No lead is safe in Wrigley Field. Or in Fenway Park; at the Indianapolis Speedway; sitting at a blackjack table in Las Vegas; or in an American Presidential election.
Where have you heard this? On television, of course. Maybe on radio, too. Somewhere, sometime, some broadcaster has told you, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” No lead is safe in Wrigley Field… because, when the score is 8-0 after six innings, a lot of viewers will turn to something else if they are not being urgently reminded, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” The announcers don’t really believe the team ahead 8-0 is going to lose. What they do believe is the TV station’s ratings will suffer if the audience goes elsewhere and it’s their job to keep those viewers tuned in. After all, what about the sponsors who’ve bought time in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings? “Hey, folks, we’ll be right back, after these messages. And don’t forget: No lead is safe in this stadium!”
In the broadcasting of political campaigns, the same principle applies: keep the audience tuned in! And what is the time honored favorite device used by TV producers to accomplish this “prime objective?” The Four C’s: Controversy. Conflict. Crisis. Chaos. These are the erotic figments of a TV producer’s wet dream.
It is the nature of media coverage to start with the assumption that “their perspective” automatically becomes “your perspective.” It is essential to their presentation that the viewer believe what they see and hear – and believe it to be the truth.
The real truth is, there is no such thing as broadcast journalism. That term is every bit as much an oxymoron as the phony “catastrophe titles” routinely used by all television networks as labels for just about any story they televise. As with all oxymoron’s, broadcast journalism, expert commentator, noted observer, respected historian, elder statesman and all the other nonsensical titles given to the same old, endless line of TV Talking Heads, it's self-contradictory. Some might go so far as to say the coverage of politics on TV amounts to hyperbole and trope. Whoever did say that might be right, except it’s really much worse. Broadcast journalism, including the so-called serious coverage of this Presidential election, is actually an outright lie. You think that’s too strong, too harsh a judgment?
Have lies become so ordinary in our daily public discourse that we now overlook them, excuse them, pretend they are not what they are, accept them as “acceptable?” What exactly is a lie?
LIE: “A false statement deliberately presented as the truth.”
Think hard about that. The key words are; “…deliberately presented…” Well, what do you know? Isn’t that the very essence of broadcasting, of television, of radio? Of course it is. Broadcast journalism, including the commentary that is the blood and guts of it, is just that… it’s “deliberately presented.” It doesn’t happen by itself. It’s all planned, setup, written out, even rehearsed. You don’t think they just turn on the camera and start talking, do you?
So, let’s look again at the upcoming election and ask the following question:
“What if this election is not close; what if the outcome seems certain; will anyone on TV ever say that?”
Looking back should give us some insight on this. What happened on TV during the primaries?
By now, any rational observer must conclude that after Barack Obama ran off a dozen or more victories in a row – most of them in states like Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota and other places he was never given a chance to win – after that string of impressive wins, it was practically impossible for Hillary Clinton to come back and win enough delegates to capture the nomination. It never mattered how well she might do in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia… or any other state yet to vote. The rules of the Democratic Party were such that the manner of delegate selection dictated that Obama was the obvious victor way back in February and March. Yet, for 5 months – nearly a half-year of TV time – the broadcast journalists kept up the “Battle Between Hillary And Obama.” The “new threat” of a Hillary Clinton comeback was a nightly affair on all the TV channels devoted to covering the election. For five months, Hillary’s already moribund hopes, her dead-in-the-water campaign, was reported as both alive and well, together with millions of dollars in TV product advertising on MSNBC, CNN and FOX NEWS. They “deliberately presented” coverage of a campaign that was actually already decided, as if it was not. Well, of course they did – they are commercial television networks carrying millions and millions of dollars in product advertising. They have programming needs everyday, every week, every month. It never stops – not for them. “And remember, folks, no lead is safe in this election!”
The Democratic Primary was treated like a Cub’s baseball game in Chicago’s Wrigley Field. “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” That was the unremitting refrain from TV. Was it an oxymoron? An example of hyperbole? A trope? Well, maybe it was all those – but, most of all, it was a lie. It was something false, deliberately presented as the truth.
Watch out! The same thing is happening now. There are still eight weeks to go – “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” Except it is. It’s already over. Here’s what you won’t hear on TV because any Talking Head dumb enough to say it won’t be seen again anytime soon: John McCain has as much chance to win this election as Hillary Clinton had to win the Democratic nomination.
No lead is safe in Wrigley Field. Or in Fenway Park; at the Indianapolis Speedway; sitting at a blackjack table in Las Vegas; or in an American Presidential election.
Where have you heard this? On television, of course. Maybe on radio, too. Somewhere, sometime, some broadcaster has told you, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” No lead is safe in Wrigley Field… because, when the score is 8-0 after six innings, a lot of viewers will turn to something else if they are not being urgently reminded, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” The announcers don’t really believe the team ahead 8-0 is going to lose. What they do believe is the TV station’s ratings will suffer if the audience goes elsewhere and it’s their job to keep those viewers tuned in. After all, what about the sponsors who’ve bought time in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings? “Hey, folks, we’ll be right back, after these messages. And don’t forget: No lead is safe in this stadium!”
In the broadcasting of political campaigns, the same principle applies: keep the audience tuned in! And what is the time honored favorite device used by TV producers to accomplish this “prime objective?” The Four C’s: Controversy. Conflict. Crisis. Chaos. These are the erotic figments of a TV producer’s wet dream.
It is the nature of media coverage to start with the assumption that “their perspective” automatically becomes “your perspective.” It is essential to their presentation that the viewer believe what they see and hear – and believe it to be the truth.
The real truth is, there is no such thing as broadcast journalism. That term is every bit as much an oxymoron as the phony “catastrophe titles” routinely used by all television networks as labels for just about any story they televise. As with all oxymoron’s, broadcast journalism, expert commentator, noted observer, respected historian, elder statesman and all the other nonsensical titles given to the same old, endless line of TV Talking Heads, it's self-contradictory. Some might go so far as to say the coverage of politics on TV amounts to hyperbole and trope. Whoever did say that might be right, except it’s really much worse. Broadcast journalism, including the so-called serious coverage of this Presidential election, is actually an outright lie. You think that’s too strong, too harsh a judgment?
Have lies become so ordinary in our daily public discourse that we now overlook them, excuse them, pretend they are not what they are, accept them as “acceptable?” What exactly is a lie?
LIE: “A false statement deliberately presented as the truth.”
Think hard about that. The key words are; “…deliberately presented…” Well, what do you know? Isn’t that the very essence of broadcasting, of television, of radio? Of course it is. Broadcast journalism, including the commentary that is the blood and guts of it, is just that… it’s “deliberately presented.” It doesn’t happen by itself. It’s all planned, setup, written out, even rehearsed. You don’t think they just turn on the camera and start talking, do you?
So, let’s look again at the upcoming election and ask the following question:
“What if this election is not close; what if the outcome seems certain; will anyone on TV ever say that?”
Looking back should give us some insight on this. What happened on TV during the primaries?
By now, any rational observer must conclude that after Barack Obama ran off a dozen or more victories in a row – most of them in states like Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota and other places he was never given a chance to win – after that string of impressive wins, it was practically impossible for Hillary Clinton to come back and win enough delegates to capture the nomination. It never mattered how well she might do in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia… or any other state yet to vote. The rules of the Democratic Party were such that the manner of delegate selection dictated that Obama was the obvious victor way back in February and March. Yet, for 5 months – nearly a half-year of TV time – the broadcast journalists kept up the “Battle Between Hillary And Obama.” The “new threat” of a Hillary Clinton comeback was a nightly affair on all the TV channels devoted to covering the election. For five months, Hillary’s already moribund hopes, her dead-in-the-water campaign, was reported as both alive and well, together with millions of dollars in TV product advertising on MSNBC, CNN and FOX NEWS. They “deliberately presented” coverage of a campaign that was actually already decided, as if it was not. Well, of course they did – they are commercial television networks carrying millions and millions of dollars in product advertising. They have programming needs everyday, every week, every month. It never stops – not for them. “And remember, folks, no lead is safe in this election!”
The Democratic Primary was treated like a Cub’s baseball game in Chicago’s Wrigley Field. “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” That was the unremitting refrain from TV. Was it an oxymoron? An example of hyperbole? A trope? Well, maybe it was all those – but, most of all, it was a lie. It was something false, deliberately presented as the truth.
Watch out! The same thing is happening now. There are still eight weeks to go – “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” Except it is. It’s already over. Here’s what you won’t hear on TV because any Talking Head dumb enough to say it won’t be seen again anytime soon: John McCain has as much chance to win this election as Hillary Clinton had to win the Democratic nomination.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THIS "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TEST?"
What’s the deal with “The Commander-In-Chief Test?” What test are they talking about? And how many of our War Presidents passed it?
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Whoever wins will be Commander-In-Chief. Obviously, that’s important – but only in time of war. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of the job description. So, what exactly is the history of our wartime Presidents? Would they – if they were running for the office today – pass this so-called “Commander-In-Chief Test?” Take a guess – go ahead. How many American Presidents have served in times of foreign wars?
The answer is 17. Yes, 17 different American Presidents have been in office while the US was engaged in a war with a foreign nation. How did they do, and how important was their background? Did they all pass this all important test of leadership? Let’s look at the two indisputably biggest wars in US history and see if those President’s might pass whatever it is people today are calling “The Commander-In-Chief Test.”
World War I was fought almost entirely under a Commander-In-Chief whose previous experience was as a college professor and President of Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson. Officially, the Great War was concluded under President Warren Harding. Neither Wilson nor Harding served in the military. Neither ever commanded men in battle. Neither man ever saw battle themselves. Imagine that skimpy resume, and we won that war, too – didn’t we?
Twenty years later an even larger conflict would engulf our country. During World War II, the Commander-In-Chief, until the final few months, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although WW II called for the US to do battle completely around the globe, fighting two mighty empires simultaneously, we somehow managed to win this war, even with a Commander-In-Chief who had never served in the military in any capacity. Amazing, don’t you agree?
After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Harry S. Truman (who as Vice President was not even briefed on the progress of the war and had never heard of an Atom Bomb until the day he became our Chief Executive) concluded the hostilities still underway with Japan. Truman had served his country in the Army during WW I. He attained the rank of Major. What about his work experience prior to being Vice President? Perhaps that gave him the necessary Commander-In-Chief stones. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a clothing retailer. After dropping two Atom Bombs on Japanese cities, President Truman got to hone his Commander-In-Chief skills in another war, the Korean War. Using nuclear weapons, something no Commander-In-Chief had done, before or since, apparently didn’t help Truman much. The Korean War did not come out as well as the one before it. In fact, more than 50 years later, our military forces are still there.
Going back to the beginning of the United States of America, our very first foreign war was fought against a bunch of rag-tag North Africans. In the Tripolitan War (1801-1804), the US Commander-In-Chief was the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson. Some people say Jefferson was a member of the Virginia militia in 1789, but most records of his time do not indicate any military service on his part. Despite his lack of experience, we beat the North African pirates handily. Taught them a lesson or two.
In 1812, England had the temerity to attack us. They even bombarded our new capital city, Washington D.C. We fought back bravely under Commander-In-Chief James Madison. President Madison liked to say that he and Jefferson served together in the Virginia militia, but there are no records to backup his service and nothing to show that he actually manned an artillery position against the invading British in 1812. That story may have been the first in what would be 200 years of Presidential spin. Nevertheless, we successfully pushed the British forces off North America and back across the pond from whence they came. Another victory for a Commander-In-Chief with no experience.
Thirty years later, the United States went to war with Mexico under the leadership of Commander-In-Chief James K. Polk. That engagement, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, was successfully concluded in our favor although President Polk had, at best, a sketchy military record. He claimed to have been in the Tennessee militia, but just like Madison and Jefferson before him, there are no official records to prove it.
In the years 1861 through 1865, the Civil War happened. This may not have been a foreign war, but it accounted for the greatest loss of life and number of seriously wounded of any war ever fought by the United States. The Commander-In-Chief was Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose to the Presidency despite having served only a single term in The House of Representatives. The sum total of his military service was a short stint spent in the Illinois militia and his participation in one of the unfortunate Indian Wars, called The Black Hawk War, in 1832. In that engagement, Lincoln did not see combat. He was part of a burial unit. Lincoln did have some command, executive experience. Back in Illinois he had served briefly as a Postmaster. As Commander-in-Chief, he seemed to work out just fine. He saved the Union. The Civil War was officially ended under President James Buchanan. He was the only Commander-In-Chief in our history who served as an enlisted man in the Army never rising beyond the rank of Private in the War of 1812.
A couple of years before the turn of the century, the US was caught up in The Spanish-American War. We won that one in 1898 and the very next year our victorious Commander-In-Chief plunged us into a new war in the Philippines that lasted from 1899 to 1902. That Commander-In-Chief was President William McKinley. While McKinley served in and survived the Civil War, reaching the rank of Major, he came to a bad end one day in Buffalo, New York. We won that war in the Philippines; at least that’s what we said for many decades to come. We’re not as proud of it today as we once were.
In more modern times, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was conducted under three Commanders-In-Chief – Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, in that order – and every unbiased observer will tell you we didn’t do very well there. However, each of our three Commanders-In-Chief had seen service as officers during WW II. All three served in the Navy, John Kennedy as a Lieutenant and both Johnson and Nixon as Commanders. That service, that wartime military experience – although none of the three ever commanded combat troops - didn’t seem to help much. We came out on the short end of the stick in Vietnam.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan, who reached the rank of Captain in WW II despite never leaving the country and never seeing active duty or combat, invaded the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. Among his previous job experiences, prior to getting the gig as Commander-In-Chief, he had been an actor, in the movies and on the new medium, TV as well as a baseball announcer on radio. Under his leadership, we whipped those Cuban construction workers who were building an international airport in Grenada.
Later, the next President after Reagan, George H.W. Bush, commonly known as Bush 41, attacked, in force, the country of Panama. Panama had not threatened or attacked us and they were easily defeated in a war that resembled an eighth grader taking lunch money from kindergarten kids. We literally kidnapped Panama’s President. No doubt encouraged by his swift success in Latin America, President Bush, acting as Commander-In-Chief, then started a real war in 1991 against Iraq. Although he went up against Iraq, Bush decided to fight that war in the country of Kuwait, right next to Iraq. Bush 41 had been a Lieutenant in WW II. As a flyer, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. Perhaps, it was this military service that accounts for the fact that we won, both in Panama and against Iraq in Kuwait. What do you think?
The final American President to fight a foreign war is George W. Bush, or Bush 43, or Son of Bush. Beginning in 2001 with his bombing of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion there, and then in Iraq, in 2003 and continuing to this very day, these two wars have not gone well. Although he claimed, once, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” thousands more have died since that declaration and no end to either conflict appears in sight – at least not under the leadership of this Commander-In-Chief. President Bush 43 was a member of a unit of the Texas Air National Guard, but his outfit was never activated, he left the state before his obligation had been completed and he never saw combat or any other active duty action. You tell me, did Bush 43 pass “The Commander-in-Chief Test?”
So, have you figured out yet what this “Commander-In-Chief Test” is all about? No? Does it strike you as strange that the United States has never had a wartime President with any command experience in the military? Again, take in the meaning of that fact – that’s never; not sometimes; not frequently; not when we win these wars; it’s not never! We have never in our history had a wartime President with a background that included command of men in wartime. Although we have elected a handful of men who were Generals in time of war, we hired them afterward, and during their tenure as Commander-In-Chief, none ever fought another war. Come to think of it, maybe that tells you something.
The reality is - our foreign wars have been fought under the Commander-In-Chief leadership of farmers, Postal clerks, haberdashers, cripples, actors, University professors and businessmen, most of them failed businessmen. Does this have relevance to the 2008 election for President?
John McCain served in Vietnam. He flew a Navy bomber, was shot down and spent more than 5 years in a POW camp. McCain never commanded men in battle. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was refused promotion to Admiral and eventually resigned his commission to go into politics. How does that stack up against “The commander-in-Chief Test?” The US has endured untold POWs in war after war. We have never before elected a former POW President of the United States. We have never publicly considered that time spent as a POW was a serious qualification to serve in political office.
Barack Obama, the other choice for President and therefore would-be Commander-In-Chief, is in the historical tradition of those American Presidents with no military experience, no service in uniform and no personal participation in any sort of war. Obama joins a list of US Presidents that includes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.
When choosing your candidate in 2008, will you look to pick a President who can pass the mythical “Commander-In-Chief Test,” or will you recognize the true history of America’s foreign wars and see that there no prior life experiences that anyone can point to that qualifies a prospective President of the United States to lead the country in time of war.
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Whoever wins will be Commander-In-Chief. Obviously, that’s important – but only in time of war. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of the job description. So, what exactly is the history of our wartime Presidents? Would they – if they were running for the office today – pass this so-called “Commander-In-Chief Test?” Take a guess – go ahead. How many American Presidents have served in times of foreign wars?
The answer is 17. Yes, 17 different American Presidents have been in office while the US was engaged in a war with a foreign nation. How did they do, and how important was their background? Did they all pass this all important test of leadership? Let’s look at the two indisputably biggest wars in US history and see if those President’s might pass whatever it is people today are calling “The Commander-In-Chief Test.”
World War I was fought almost entirely under a Commander-In-Chief whose previous experience was as a college professor and President of Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson. Officially, the Great War was concluded under President Warren Harding. Neither Wilson nor Harding served in the military. Neither ever commanded men in battle. Neither man ever saw battle themselves. Imagine that skimpy resume, and we won that war, too – didn’t we?
Twenty years later an even larger conflict would engulf our country. During World War II, the Commander-In-Chief, until the final few months, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although WW II called for the US to do battle completely around the globe, fighting two mighty empires simultaneously, we somehow managed to win this war, even with a Commander-In-Chief who had never served in the military in any capacity. Amazing, don’t you agree?
After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Harry S. Truman (who as Vice President was not even briefed on the progress of the war and had never heard of an Atom Bomb until the day he became our Chief Executive) concluded the hostilities still underway with Japan. Truman had served his country in the Army during WW I. He attained the rank of Major. What about his work experience prior to being Vice President? Perhaps that gave him the necessary Commander-In-Chief stones. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a clothing retailer. After dropping two Atom Bombs on Japanese cities, President Truman got to hone his Commander-In-Chief skills in another war, the Korean War. Using nuclear weapons, something no Commander-In-Chief had done, before or since, apparently didn’t help Truman much. The Korean War did not come out as well as the one before it. In fact, more than 50 years later, our military forces are still there.
Going back to the beginning of the United States of America, our very first foreign war was fought against a bunch of rag-tag North Africans. In the Tripolitan War (1801-1804), the US Commander-In-Chief was the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson. Some people say Jefferson was a member of the Virginia militia in 1789, but most records of his time do not indicate any military service on his part. Despite his lack of experience, we beat the North African pirates handily. Taught them a lesson or two.
In 1812, England had the temerity to attack us. They even bombarded our new capital city, Washington D.C. We fought back bravely under Commander-In-Chief James Madison. President Madison liked to say that he and Jefferson served together in the Virginia militia, but there are no records to backup his service and nothing to show that he actually manned an artillery position against the invading British in 1812. That story may have been the first in what would be 200 years of Presidential spin. Nevertheless, we successfully pushed the British forces off North America and back across the pond from whence they came. Another victory for a Commander-In-Chief with no experience.
Thirty years later, the United States went to war with Mexico under the leadership of Commander-In-Chief James K. Polk. That engagement, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, was successfully concluded in our favor although President Polk had, at best, a sketchy military record. He claimed to have been in the Tennessee militia, but just like Madison and Jefferson before him, there are no official records to prove it.
In the years 1861 through 1865, the Civil War happened. This may not have been a foreign war, but it accounted for the greatest loss of life and number of seriously wounded of any war ever fought by the United States. The Commander-In-Chief was Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose to the Presidency despite having served only a single term in The House of Representatives. The sum total of his military service was a short stint spent in the Illinois militia and his participation in one of the unfortunate Indian Wars, called The Black Hawk War, in 1832. In that engagement, Lincoln did not see combat. He was part of a burial unit. Lincoln did have some command, executive experience. Back in Illinois he had served briefly as a Postmaster. As Commander-in-Chief, he seemed to work out just fine. He saved the Union. The Civil War was officially ended under President James Buchanan. He was the only Commander-In-Chief in our history who served as an enlisted man in the Army never rising beyond the rank of Private in the War of 1812.
A couple of years before the turn of the century, the US was caught up in The Spanish-American War. We won that one in 1898 and the very next year our victorious Commander-In-Chief plunged us into a new war in the Philippines that lasted from 1899 to 1902. That Commander-In-Chief was President William McKinley. While McKinley served in and survived the Civil War, reaching the rank of Major, he came to a bad end one day in Buffalo, New York. We won that war in the Philippines; at least that’s what we said for many decades to come. We’re not as proud of it today as we once were.
In more modern times, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was conducted under three Commanders-In-Chief – Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, in that order – and every unbiased observer will tell you we didn’t do very well there. However, each of our three Commanders-In-Chief had seen service as officers during WW II. All three served in the Navy, John Kennedy as a Lieutenant and both Johnson and Nixon as Commanders. That service, that wartime military experience – although none of the three ever commanded combat troops - didn’t seem to help much. We came out on the short end of the stick in Vietnam.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan, who reached the rank of Captain in WW II despite never leaving the country and never seeing active duty or combat, invaded the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. Among his previous job experiences, prior to getting the gig as Commander-In-Chief, he had been an actor, in the movies and on the new medium, TV as well as a baseball announcer on radio. Under his leadership, we whipped those Cuban construction workers who were building an international airport in Grenada.
Later, the next President after Reagan, George H.W. Bush, commonly known as Bush 41, attacked, in force, the country of Panama. Panama had not threatened or attacked us and they were easily defeated in a war that resembled an eighth grader taking lunch money from kindergarten kids. We literally kidnapped Panama’s President. No doubt encouraged by his swift success in Latin America, President Bush, acting as Commander-In-Chief, then started a real war in 1991 against Iraq. Although he went up against Iraq, Bush decided to fight that war in the country of Kuwait, right next to Iraq. Bush 41 had been a Lieutenant in WW II. As a flyer, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. Perhaps, it was this military service that accounts for the fact that we won, both in Panama and against Iraq in Kuwait. What do you think?
The final American President to fight a foreign war is George W. Bush, or Bush 43, or Son of Bush. Beginning in 2001 with his bombing of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion there, and then in Iraq, in 2003 and continuing to this very day, these two wars have not gone well. Although he claimed, once, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” thousands more have died since that declaration and no end to either conflict appears in sight – at least not under the leadership of this Commander-In-Chief. President Bush 43 was a member of a unit of the Texas Air National Guard, but his outfit was never activated, he left the state before his obligation had been completed and he never saw combat or any other active duty action. You tell me, did Bush 43 pass “The Commander-in-Chief Test?”
So, have you figured out yet what this “Commander-In-Chief Test” is all about? No? Does it strike you as strange that the United States has never had a wartime President with any command experience in the military? Again, take in the meaning of that fact – that’s never; not sometimes; not frequently; not when we win these wars; it’s not never! We have never in our history had a wartime President with a background that included command of men in wartime. Although we have elected a handful of men who were Generals in time of war, we hired them afterward, and during their tenure as Commander-In-Chief, none ever fought another war. Come to think of it, maybe that tells you something.
The reality is - our foreign wars have been fought under the Commander-In-Chief leadership of farmers, Postal clerks, haberdashers, cripples, actors, University professors and businessmen, most of them failed businessmen. Does this have relevance to the 2008 election for President?
John McCain served in Vietnam. He flew a Navy bomber, was shot down and spent more than 5 years in a POW camp. McCain never commanded men in battle. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was refused promotion to Admiral and eventually resigned his commission to go into politics. How does that stack up against “The commander-in-Chief Test?” The US has endured untold POWs in war after war. We have never before elected a former POW President of the United States. We have never publicly considered that time spent as a POW was a serious qualification to serve in political office.
Barack Obama, the other choice for President and therefore would-be Commander-In-Chief, is in the historical tradition of those American Presidents with no military experience, no service in uniform and no personal participation in any sort of war. Obama joins a list of US Presidents that includes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.
When choosing your candidate in 2008, will you look to pick a President who can pass the mythical “Commander-In-Chief Test,” or will you recognize the true history of America’s foreign wars and see that there no prior life experiences that anyone can point to that qualifies a prospective President of the United States to lead the country in time of war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
