Debate Impressions

If one has a Republican friend or acquaintance, be nice and don't make many loud noises this morning.  Last night's debacle in New Hampshire was enough to provoke the most committed, teetotaling Republican to down a fifth of Jim Beam, straight and hot.

Let's get the candidates who have absolutely no chance off the table first.  They may be around for the next seven months or so, but once the buses leave South Carolina, they will be gone.

Herman Cain is a condescending jerk who has a bunch of ideas, and absolutely no idea how to make them work in the context of Government.  His skill set requires the absolute authority of a business executive, not a contentious Congress.  Cain is one bad interview from gone.  He's smug, arrogant, and the wrong color to get any traction with the full Republican electorate.

Ron Paul is a great cult figure, but that is exactly what he will remain.  His greatest obstacle is that he speaks the language of his cult.  The rest of us are sitting there listening to the theme from The Twilight Zone going through our heads.  He's not going away, but he is unlikely to connect with more than the ten to fifteen percent of the Republican Party that he already holds. 

Rick Santorum has one major problem which will not go away: he was thrown out by the voters in purple Pennsylvania.  The Keystone State leans slightly blue, but you would be hard pressed to know it because they will pick some of the most conservative candidates known to God or man.  If Santorum could not hold Pennsylvania, how in the world does he expect to hold Ohio or Florida?  He should run out of money before long.

Tim Pawlenty has more than one issue which will not go away.  He has a competitor from his home state in Michelle Bachmann.  He looks enough like Rick Santorum that their respective wives could view the photograph and ask, "What's wrong with this photo of my husband?"  By screwing with Romney, he has tinkled in the Rotarian Republicans' corn flakes.  And he is almighty dull.  He might last until Super Tuesday as the non-Mormon version of Romney.

The scariest moment your Wandering Gentile had while watching the debate was looking at Newt Gingrich and thinking, good Lord, he's the best one up there.  His answers were comparatively clear and articulate.  He showed a sense of having an idea of how to do things.  Hell, Gingrich was Clinton's tough old adversary, and almost worthy of nostalgia.

Newt Gingrich also sounds like a capon being strangled, and Romney does competent equally well.

Mitt Romney looked better.  He was clear, concise, articulate, and he is blessed with one of the better speaking voices in a party filled with men who sound as if they are waiting for puberty.  He is a little bit less dull than Pawlenty, who remains his closest competitor on the issues.  He was the best communicator on the stage on 13 June.

Michelle Bachmann was the other candidate who mattered. With her unofficial declaration as a candidate, she slapped the elephant in the room in the tusks. The elephant in the room is Sarah Palin. 

Palin will be the shadow over any candidate on the stage until she formally declares her decision.  Her name recognition exceeds that of Mitt Romney.  Palin has a national apparatus in place waiting for her to jump in, and by avoiding the early debates, she is finally listening to the wisest advice she could get: Better to be silent and considered to be a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

The last thing Sarah Palin needs right now is a lucky punch from a second tier candidate that lays her candidacy on the ground.  The only ones who could get that in might be Gingrich or Santorum.  In spite of their being insufferable, the two of them are also much smarter than Governor Palin.  Santorum and his ideological twin Bachmann have the most to gain by the absence of Palin.  They are similarly paleoconservative in philosophy, and Bachmann has an outside chance of winning the nomination compared to Romney.

What one should watch for in the short term of this most off of off-years follows.

There will be attrition in the very near term of candidates with little or no traction.  Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum do not appear to have very strong campaigns and may not make it to Iowa.  The heat and light Pawlenty needs to grow in Minnesota will be consumed by Michelle Bachmann competing for much of the same supporters.

Ron Paul's supporters will be a spoiler, and will likely go to ABR, i.e., anyone but Romney.

If Michelle Bachmann gains traction over the next three months, she will serve as Palin's surrogate.  That is all Michelle Bachmann will ever be.  She lacks adequate name recognition, and she is unlikely to build a national base beyond those who would have written Palin in, anyway.

Look for Palin to get in late, possibly as late as December 1.  This keeps her out of debates where she has always done poorly, but leaves her viable in the Iowa caucuses.  Michelle Bachmann holds the enthusiasm of Iowa congressman Steve King, which puts Tim Pawlenty at a huge disadvantage.

Mitt Romney will continue as the moderate alternative to Bachmann Palin overdrive.  The fatal error that Romney's campaign will make is that he will continue to run to the right.  Romney's problem is that he is not credible as a paleoconservative, not if he had a successful career achieving statewide office in Massachusetts.  Indeed, the waning support for the tea parties indicates that he would have a chance as a moderate in the general election.

However, in order to get to the general election, one must cater to the party's base.  And that base will prefer someone with a better set of credentials as a Conservative, be it Bachmann, or more likely, Palin.  Mitt Romney would be well served by campaigning for the Vice-Presidency, because Governor Palin has a history of not bearing up well under scrutiny from the national press.

The future of the Republican Party will be dependent upon the strength of bringing moderates into the fold. 

It shall be seen if they remain to do so in 2016. 

The New Calendar Arrives

If the Obama administration were a baseball game, taking Osama bin Laden out is a fifteen-run fourth inning in a game he was winning 7-3.  Make that 22-3 now. 

In one weekend, the instant replay showed that the ball hooked fair around the Pesky pole (ask a Red Sox fan about this particular obstacle at Fenway Park), by dragging out the original birth certificate signed by his mother's OB in Honolulu.  Then within hours, the Internet lit up like a Bush Family midnight visit to Baghdad. Osama, the infernal boogeyman of the last twenty years, was dead.

There are those who will argue that eliminating bin Laden may not have been legal.  A description of that particular mindset contains language which is not appropriate here.

When one commits an act of war upon a nation, confesses, and declares oneself to be the accountable party of the body committing the act of war, one becomes an enemy combatant.  That is cut and dried.  Whether or not the culpable party has the official backing of a nation-state or functions as a privateer is not relevant.

The tacit approval of several countries with Islamic majorities is apparent-particularly Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the former Taliban Regime in Afghanistan.  The implied, as opposed to express support saves a major city in any of those countries from becoming a parking lot. The fact that bin Laden was in Pakistan was troubling due to the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Remember the old Bush-era spectre of our only warning being a mushroom cloud over a major city?  Pakistan has the tools to make that happen.  Osama bin Laden was not hiding from the Pakistanis.

Indeed, it is pretty evident that the compound was out of the ordinary and the locals knew something was up.  There was somebody high enough up in the Pakistani command apparatus to make sure he stayed off the radar.  It is not entirely unbelieveable that someone with that kind of clout has access to tools and codes, the kind which make mass murder a one-stop affair.

Sometimes it is as simple as "it was him or us."  Bin Laden wasn't remarkably original in his target selection, which leads to the conclusion that New York and Washington were, if not the two leading targets, in the top three. 

The Obama Administration, in two and a half years of being a little less heinous in their practices compared to the Bush Administration, managed to neutralize Osama bin Laden without the use of "extraordinary rendition."  The euphemism is still offensive.

For the cost of a 24-man Seal Team, one Black Hawk stealth helicopter, and retraining one clumsy whirlybird pilot, they got Osama. All told, a bit over 60 million dollars, including ruined hardware. That is still real money, but a whole lot less real than three trillion dollars, 5000 servicepeople dead, seven-and-a-half YEARS without neutralizing the original objective, and the nation's reputation as a fair broker stuffed down a commode.

It was, mathematically speaking, like replacing an ugly $50,000 car that sits inoperable in the driveway and periodically eats a young family member, with a brand new sportscar which was purchased for ten cents, gets to the desired destination...and 38 miles per gallon.

This puts the national security aspect into dollars and cents-mostly cents.  Twenty cents a person is what the mission cost, belying the costs of the security mechanisms built under the George W. Bush administration.  The plot wasn't even new-it merely lacked Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson and Martin Balsam as the designated Jew from being culled from a Golan-Globus film of the mid-eighties.  (Which one? ALL OF THEM.)

Afghanistan  has returned to comparitive irrelevance.  Pakistan has proved to be an unreliable partner.  Iraq is as progressive friends advised nine years ago, superfluous and should not have been our problem.  The Southern border with Mexico was much less vulnerable than the comparably porous Northern border with Canada, which has a fairly open immigration policy with Pakistan.

In other words, every "Security" Republican's credibility has been effectively destroyed.  There is no unnecessarily elaborate Dr. Evil/Bond Villain death involved, no monologue, just the Osama cocktail, two shots and a splash of water.

There is a sentiment among a part of both the progressive and conservative communities alike that bin Laden should have been tried.  It is fair to characterize this viewpoint as an outlier.  There is no necessity in putting the people of New York, Washington, London, Madrid, or even The Hague through reliving the horrors of Osama's confessed crimes.  Nor is there a particularly compelling reason to make any of those cities a target for bin Laden's associates.  If he wanted a trial, bin Laden had ten years to surrender.

The incontrovertible truth is that Osama bin Laden was an armed, dangerous fugitive who had ample opportunity to solicit a fair hearing and supply his followers with a litany of propaganda.  He did not choose that route.

The Pakistanis will bear watching, but for now the intelligence gathered from bin Laden's computer files should prove to be very fruitful for American and allied intelligence services.  There could be up to a terabyte of plans and contact information.  All of bin Laden's now-known accomplices should be watching over their shoulders.

They will not anticipate when the visit comes from the CIA, MI6, or the Mossad.  These are not nice people, and they do not have nice tasks, but they are also a sad necessity of last resort.

As for those who prospered from bin Laden's continued existence, there is a huge vacuum where the monster, the destroyer lived.  These are people who profit from fear and loathing of the other.  A large component of those belong to the Republican Party in the United States.

Already, two viable candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination have decided against entering the field.  One of them is Mike Huckabee, which should be sufficient to provoke jubilation in the Obama camp.  The other, Donald Trump, is a polarizing figure who would have done more to destroy the Republican party than promote it.  That job will now go to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.

Budget and security policy likewise inhabit a changed territory.  When the argument existed that legislative activity contributed significantly to the well-being of the nation and its citizens, it was not possible to prove a negative...nor is it ever.  In a landscape where effectiveness can be measured against a result, it becomes imperative that the whole shebang (a technical term) goes back on the table to see what can be disposed of.

This will require a Republican of stature serving in a weak district to happen before 2013.  Should no agreement be found, the death of Osama bin Laden may prove to be what fragments the Republican-Libertarian coalition in American politics.  It exists as a point of the deficit being unmanageable without an identifiable symbol at which resources may be directed. 

In other words, the Democratic Party has the opportunity to say "We are the party which wants to leave you alone and stop costing you money," to the vast majority of Americans.  They now have the leverage to show how that will be accomplished, and the credibility of action and results.

Oh, how one yearns to use the Anglo-Saxon vulgarity which is applicable to the condition of al Qaeda and the Republican party alike.

Post Speech Analysis

Barack Obama came off the bench and delivered something meaningful in the clutch. If anything is to be taken from the President’s Wednesday address to Congress, the key fact is that his performance was solid.

It would be convenient for Obama’s critics to decry him as ineffectual or incompetent. It would also be the only argument left, and totally subjective.

Obama came to the podium on top of his game. There was not time to act with deference toward his opponents, or balm the wounded sentiments of his party’s base. The President took his rhetoric to the audience he needed: the political center.

As suggested here on Tuesday, President Obama went into the language which has served him well. He spoke in the vernacular of moderates and conservatives, connecting his ideas to values which had been staked by Conservatives as their sole province.

President Obama was not an ideological Liberal when he spoke. His progressive friends- and they are many- may decry the President’s lack of traditional Liberal expressions. He sounded more like Rush Limbaugh in the tone of his discourse than the wild-eyed Liberal that Limbaugh portrays Obama to be.

That is a high complement. Limbaugh is not a very nice person, but he knows how to connect with an audience.

The speech masterfully connected the issue with themes of Patriotism, Family, Thrift, and Opportunity. The President called statements from his opposition as mendacious when he felt it to be necessary. Gracious acknowledgement was offered to his opponents in the rare instances when he felt they offered something of value to the debate.

From Obama’s end, there was only one minor misstep. His reference to the late Senator Kennedy’s role, and Senator Kennedy’s work across the aisle was justifiable. However, it went about 45 seconds too long.

No one is unaware of the gratitude Barack Obama owes to Ted Kennedy. But that part of the speech was a thudding minor chord in a program which was heavy with Obama’s joyous early hits.

It was like watching a Beatles reunion ditch I Wanna Hold Your Hand for a Yoko Ono song. One understands the outreach to Democrats, but not the method employed.

The Republican opposition was not as fortunate in their display as President Obama.

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) managed to start the clock on his 15 minutes of fame by interrupting the President and stating, “you lie.” This will not end well for Representative Wilson. On lists of things which will end a political career, interrupting a speaking President is just behind making a homemade adult featurette with a commode plunger, a wild animal, and Jane Fonda holding the wild animal.

It was not appropriate when Cindy Sheehan tried it on George W. Bush. Sticking an “R” after one’s name does not make it any better.

Just when Republicans didn’t think things could get much worse, Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA) gave the response to the President. It wasn’t just bad; it was the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

Representative Boustany used his teleprompter ineptly. His script appeared to have been written a year ago by a talk radio host who would be rated fourth in a two station market. One is not entirely certain that he did not mispronounce his own name.

However, there was one silver lining to Representative Boustany’s response to President Obama.

It was the funniest thing seen on CBS since WKRP in Cincinnati went off the air 27 years ago.

REPORT CARD:

President Barack Obama: A-. It was a momentum changer for sure and at least tied the game.

Republican Response: F. Republicans came off like a bunch of crybabies who are not only petty and small, but also weak for their size.

Health care just became a sprint to the finish, a discipline where President Obama excels.

I Got Your Compromise...RIGHT HERE!

Just a word for those who feel that President Obama is about to tank on Health Care reform: chill.

Things look pretty rough right now. Obama is catching grief from Town Hall screamers and the louder voices in the Republican Party. His Democrats are running about in spectacular disarray. Much of the press is assured that any bill that comes out of Congress is not going to make anyone happy.

We have seen this movie before. Barack Obama has played this role so frequently that there is no drama. He did not become President by gambling. Obama became President because he is a very astute tactician.

Last year, when Obama was caught in a rasslin’ Cage Match with Hillary Clinton, there was the distinct belief that he might lose. What happened? He won, and got Mrs. Clinton to throw down the deal-breaking arguments when they were not in a position to harm him.

The Palin nomination for Vice President was supposed to be a game-changer which was going to invigorate the Conservative base of the Republican Party. Briefly, in early September, John McCain pulled ahead in the polls.

The economy tanking did not hurt Obama’s campaign at all, but Mrs. Palin was already on radar. She had already popped up on Limbaugh. His campaign had a scouting organization which would put the Dallas Cowboys to shame. A plan was in place.

And now Republicans would have us believe that Barack Obama and his organization have caught a massive case of lazy compounded with a latent onset of stupid?

More likely is that Obama has taken a big gulp of rompin’ stompin’ pick ‘-em-up-by-the-ears LBJ. He will not share Lyndon Johnson’s rough-hewn Texas populism, but the deals will come straight out of the Johnson playbook. A few are already in place, and have been since the early summer.

The quiet is designed to bring the unhinged on the right out. The unhinged are rather untelegenic. There is a distinctly scripted quality to their rhetoric. And, oh yeah, they also happen to be as obnoxious as hell.

Nothing sold Civil Rights to a majority of the Senate in 1965 like the loudmouths in Mississippi and Bull Connor’s dogs, either. Images of violence, whether real or implied, do not portend well for the side upon which they are found. By the time the President speaks to Congress on 9 September, death panels will not abide in the memories of most Americans,

Every hateful image will come to haunt Republicans like the spirit of Nixon’s Southern Strategy. There will be nothing left of the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan but a few decrepit southerners who may have lived slightly better when blacks, Latinos, and women “knew their place.”

Obama’s first tack will be a nice little conversation with Senator Baucus (D-MT) to bring him back to Faith. There are several things he can do to make Mr. Baucus’ life quite uncomfortable. Obama can drop them on Kent Conrad in next-door North Dakota, too. This moves a bill to the floor with a public option in place.

Once President Obama is done with the reluctant committee, he can sic Rahm Emanuel on the Blue Dogs. If Mr. Emanuel is allowed latitude to persuade, one has little doubt that his fellows from the Blue Dog caucus will leave less than convinced…or uninjured. Emanuel is a relatively conservative Democrat, but he is also compelled by his service at the pleasure of the President.

Meanwhile, an excess of vitriol within the Republican Party will cause their remaining popularity to implode. It is possible that one or both of the distinguished ladies from Maine may cross the aisle to join the Democrats. There are a few more Republicans in the House who live in competitive districts and could find political advantage in alliance with the President.

The final result will be a reform bill which will contain a tiered public-private system which likely resembles the French model. Passage will come under the budget reconciliation process, with 54-58 votes in favor. And President Obama’s antagonists in the Legislative Branch will have a great deal of explaining to do no matter what.

This might be fun.

UPDATE: As your Wandering Gentile was writing, CNN broke news that President Obama and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) were in talks to develop a compromise bill. This bill would include a trigger for the Public Option if private insurers fail to reach certain cost-cutting and coverage goals by a predetermined date.

Face saved.

Losing The Health Care Argument

One suspects that President Obama's handling of the Health Care issue is not indicative of his lovemaking ability. If it were, he would be facing a divorce hectored by Rush Limbaugh on top of the daunting issues already sitting on his desk.

President Obama built his brand with an outreach to the political center. He has done a poor job of that lately. We have detailed the President's passed ball on green energy. That one went all the way to the backstop in a different stadium. Mr. Obama's agenda is getting savaged by a milquetoast presentation and what appears to be a fundamental lack of desire to reconnect with the people most responsible for his election.

For all of this criticism, one recognizes that the administration has done an admirable job of expressing itself responsibly and treating the debate (a bit too) thoughtfully. Regrettably, the Republican opposition has been very successful demagoguing the Rove-Atwater ankle-biting, testicle-punching, sand-throwing propaganda tactics. The President is not going to realize a reversal of current trends until he becomes angry, yanks his opposition up by the hair, and slams them into a turnbuckle at full force.

As stated in the discussion about Cap and Trade, empowering the liberal wing of the Democratic party with the details of presentation has proved to be a poor use of Obama's political capital. Obama's jury is in the center, and the entire presentation has been committed to people who drive Swedish cars and listen to NPR on their way to Whole Foods. That can be defined as converting the converted. Less fortunate for the administration are the Camrys and Accords catching right-wing screeds on the way to Kroger.

The President's first objective must be to narrow the term "socialist." For nearly anyone with a dictionary in the house, it would not be hard. The Clear Channel-Fox News axis is particularly fond of the term. In an instant, Roger Ailes' propaganda machine is able to hitch an idea coming from the Obama White House to unattractive little cars tooling between grimy concrete apartment blocks.

The pitfall for the right is that of any panacea which becomes abused. The effectiveness dwindles to nothing. A speech that puts some pavement between Health Care Reform which includes PRIVATE providers and Socialism is necessary. Should Mr. Obama defang the opposition's number-one favorite go-to word, there exists no equivalent, effective backup. Conservatives are only left with asinine portmanteaux.

President Obama is more than capable of delivering an optimistic message which takes the mischaracterization of socialism off the table for good. What can be achieved simultaneously is the contextualization of the current federal participation in health care. At the moment the United States and Canada spend the same amount per capita on the governmental level for health care. The Canadians have a functional, relatively transparent system of universal medicine, which approximately 90% of Canadians describe as good or excellent. (See enclosed link from CTV News in Toronto.)

We in the United States, on the other hand, are paying a sirloin price for stale chicken hot dogs.

The public-private duality of the Obama plan must be clarified on the President's terms. A private option, and the ability to move between public and private plans serves as a check on the growth of government. It also serves as a release for pressures to undo a public system by political means. A key motivator of many who preferred President Obama to Secretary of State Clinton in the primaries was his endorsement of a Universal solution which included Private insurers.

A single-payer public health care system in a diverse population of 300 million is unworkable due to its political vulnerabilities. The quasi-private system that exists is unworkable because it fails to cover one in six people, and thusly leaves the nation in a system of de facto rationing. This disproportionately affects less affluent and minority Americans by denying access to medicine, particularly those with chronic conditions which are factors of poverty.

The administration's preferred health care system requires a comparison of total cost to society as compared to the status quo. The best idea would be to have the estimates drawn by several partisan think tanks so as to provide a range of values which would not be impeachable by partisanship. Every group would be instructed to use the same criteria and methodology.

Similarly, the status quo offers the opportunity for some well-justified populism. While incessant populism quickly becomes tiresome, a short burst against a worthy opponent gives Obama's credibility a shot of painfully absent vitality. He could have given the What? Now they can't compete? discussion a bit more time, and saved himself the drama he finds himself in now. A seasoning of mild populism leverages appeals to small businesses and working class families.

Once equipped with independent, empirical data, the case in the president's favor hews closely to his usual style of cool reason. When armed with the tools of logic, President Obama is nonpareil in his ability to offer a clear, informed engagement as to how the average person will benefit from Health Care Reform. Taking the mantle from congressional master debaters and vitiriolic radio polemecists plays to Obama's greatest strength, analytical rhetoric that focuses upon the justification for a plan without the caprice of gratuitous emotion.

President Obama is well aware of Stephen Colbert's lesson: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

The Terrible Two Year Term

NEVER EVER WASTE A GREAT SIGHT GAG!!!!!!!!

When Right Is Wrong

As the worthy opposition in talk radio rants and raves about President Obama's economic recovery package, one wishes to suggest that the conservative talkers are spectacularly wrong about everything.

Privately-based solutions to issues facing the public are infinitely preferable to those coming from the public sector. However, the state of the private sector is such that the catastrophic collapse of large segments of the private intellectual infrastructure has occurred. Free markets can only survive when both the production and consumption sides function as equals.

In the case of the US banking and finance industries, the lack of public oversight left the consumer at a disadvantage to the producer. Ultimately liberties were taken which could not be supported by the market, leaving the production side of the equation with a handful of well-intentioned wishes which were legal and worthless tender simultaneously. Whether we like it or not, the public sector has a role in assuring that the practices of the production side do not overmatch the capabilities of the consumption side.

This goes the same for petroleum companies not gouging the price of gasoline and unions not gouging the price of labor.

At a moment when the economy is shrinking, government has a role as as a parallel conduit for capital improvement. If progress is blocked by large dead obstacles on the normal private path, then it is the necessary role of the public sector to ascertain that the well being of the nation continue to progress regardless.

President Obama's plan appears to have a functional system of mechanisms which appear to promote at least an illusion of rewarding initiative and empowering incentive for enterprises which accept risk. This is not Socialism, which attempts to restrain risk through planned production and scheduled shortage to perpetuate an underserved market receiving inferior product protected from competition by legislative fiat. Socialism isolates a nation behind walls, holding its people incommunicado from new ideas, ultimately enslaving multitudes by appealing to atavistic mistrust of the unknown.

Frankly, the cultural practices of socialism reflect more those of conservative talk radio than the last-resort leveraging of the public sector by a President faced with an economic crisis not of his making. We appreciate the thought that a strict orthodoxy of lower taxes, smaller government, and minimal reliance upon the public sector are keys to the nation's prosperity. Unfortunately, a sampling of large nations indicates that this is not true.

The tax burden in Germany is 42%. Norway's burden is 29%. The USA, Canada, and Australia are all at 24%. Mexico is at 8%. So far, if this wisdom holds constant, Mexico should be the most affluent of all of the countries.

A review of hourly incomes in manufacturing jobs after taxes in Germany, the US, Australia, and Canada has all four countries hovering between US$17-19. The Germans are at the high end, US$18.86, while the US, Canada, and Australia hover within about a quarter of US$17.60. The Norwegians smoked everybody drawing US$24.59, and the Mexicans came in at US$2.30.

Wait a minute, I'm confused! The Mexicans, with the lowest tax rate, the greatest local control of schools, the smallest presence of labor unions, a stricter emphasis upon border security and the strongest structures impeding imported goods, came in DEAD LAST? But, AM talk radio has been telling us that these things would lead to prosperity for twenty years!

Okay, well, Mexico has a heavily deregulated and completely private health care system. They should be the best cared for people, and the life expectancy should reflect that. The Mexican people only spend 6.2% of their GDP on medicine. Men can expect to live to 72.6, women 78.3.

Americans spend 15.2% of their GDP on a private health care system, over US$5700 per person, and get 74.8 for men, 80.1 for women. But this is supposed to be the best health care system in the world. So how come Norwegians, Germans, and Canadians pay less per capita (9-11% of GDP) but get over a year more life expectancy from their nationalized public health systems than we do in the United States? The average dollar outlay is even more dramatic, hovering at half(!!!!!) of what we pay for our health care as Americans.

One country would be a fluke. Two would be questionable. But a view of industrialized nations with nationalized health care shows a consistent per capita cost of between US$2500 and US$3200 per person. One may not speak for a gentle reader, but it looks like Americans are getting the raw end on this one.

After further review...the ruling is such...talk radio is lying to their listeners. The leveraging of public resources for the good of the population paying for them may qualify as socialism under a very broad interpretation of the term. However, the lesson of other industrialized countries, including our next door neighbors in Canada and Mexico, indicates that a certain level of taxaton is necessary and a certain level of publicly-based solutions are necessary for the continued wellbeing and prosperity of the nation.

For those who have invested their faith in the Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie, go get a World Almanac and prove me wrong. Utopianism, be it through a Capitalist or Socialist economic model, is spectacularly unworkable.

Imitating the practices of the Mexican Government is most likely to produce the same results as Mexico. We would be well served by taking our lessons from the neighbor which does not have millions of people risking their lives for a better existence as the object of scorn and prejudice.

Nobody is trying to deport Mike Myers, no matter how little they liked The Love Guru.

How Obama Gets His Groove Back

Apparently, Your Wandering Gentile is a Black, Muslim, Socialist, Anarchist, Miscegenist, Anti-American Pawn of the New World Order, harboring closeted homosexual tendencies, immediately disposed to the murder of infants and the elderly, and perverting kindergarteners with free access to pornography.

Wow, I got all of this for one small donation to the Obama campaign!

To those who share their viewpoint with the lead paragraph, I would also like to say that I dislike puppies, SUVs, and the idea of persons wearing uniforms being granted the authority to review my papers on a whim. While we're at it, the idea of a fence as a barrier between my nation and the rest of the world suggests an infrastructure to convert the nation I love into a prison, an idea which is spectacularly offensive.

Okay, I don't really dislike puppies, but I am allergic to them.

I live in the middle of America, the suburbs of a major city, with an income, age, and educational attainment that sit exactly in the middle. I am John Doe. I am the guy who John McCain got in 2000, and the man he lost in 2008.

That being said, the Obama campaign has a couple of issues that need to be fixed...yesterday.

The campaign must address the fact that issues that face black America are fundamentally the same issues that face white, latino, asian and native Americans. Economic issues in particular have a disproportionately negative effect on black Americans, as do questions of selective enforcement and overt bigotry. To Obama's credit, all of the issues which are not receiving the attention appropriate to their importance were addressed in The Audacity of Hope.

The focus has to be moved on two fronts.

The first front is to demonstrate credibly that the interests of Americans of every identity are more alike than they are different. That in and of itself is a whole hell of a lot easier to say than do. The Republicans have been spectacularly effective in communicating that Obama and his supporters are different and strange, in such a fashion as to make a monolithic body which is questioned for its ability to be considered as a part of America.

This is the overwhelming theme of Conservative opinon, particularly talk radio which has a twenty year head start on Liberal talk radio. The best idea is not by attempting to discredit or disprove allegations, but by moving the conversation to where the audience overlaps in opinion with Obama.

As Chris Rock pointed out in Head of State, the worst thing that Bugs Bunny could do to Elmer Fudd was not blowing him up, but kissing him. An Obama presence with The Portly Pundit and Hannie Pie would be a better opportunity to reach middle America than a billion dollars worth of TV ads. All he would have to do is show up for an hour, take a couple of phone calls which are likely to come from hostile people, and hope the presenter would blow his stack, or in the unlikely event of a civil discussion, he connects with an audience which was not likely to seek his message.

Whether or not Democrats like it, Limbaugh and Hannity are big power brokers in the middle of America. A great big chunk of their audience is rural, white, and blue collar, a few of whom are highly susceptible to rumors and innuendo. The idea is not to mine those who are absolutely opposed to Obama under any circumstances, but appeal to the large component of middle class listeners to these programs who are fair minded and willing to review their decisions based upon a fair hearing of the facts.

There is no question of "legitimizing" Right-wing talk radio. It is not an issue of legitimization or de-legitimization. Right-wing talk radio simply is and no definition of the word is necessary. There is nothing to fear except abandoning an audience which lives in Obama's weakest demographic. One counts upon the junior Senator from Illinois bringing his charisma and charm to the microphone, swinging a few opinions to his side. This idea is a winner.

The other front is deemphasizing the "Change" brand. Senator Obama's resources have him in a position to upgrade his brand from "Change" to "Hope." One supposes that the Gentle Reader is considering that The Wandering Gentile is in deep need of a drug screening after suggesting that Obama show up on Rush Limbaugh and alter his branding.

Change tells the voter that the candidate would do things differently from the current administration, but it does not delineate how or how much. The idea of casting a candidate from the incumbent party as the incumbent is proving to be a non-starter. Hope is what persuaded voters to Clinton in '92, Reagan in '80, Roosevelt in '32. While McCain's policies are deeply similar to Bush's, he remains a different man, thusly falling under a generic idea of change.

It's not persuasive, nor was it ever. The Obama campaign requires the message of Hope to propel the conversation in its direction. Change without hope? Hell, I can get that with McCain. Non-Traditional on the ticket? Sarah Palin is not a traditional person on the ticket. Change is coming regardless.

No, change kind of sucks as a message. Obama would be well served to dance with the one what brung him, and that one is Hope. This is the point where the Clinton assets should come to the table. The Clinton brand was built on hope in the nineties, a particularly potent message in the atmosphere of the Bush 41 recession and the Keating Five. Considering the atmosphere where financial institutions are dropping like cell phone calls in the boonies, and all of the other crud the economy is going through now, hope combined with a clearly articulated agenda has a lot of potential.

The idea is not for either candidate to change their positions, but for both candidates positions to appear clearly and comprehensibly to the electorate. This absurd pattern where both parties' wedge issues are taking center stage needs to end now. While the candidates engage in volleys of juvenile name calling and finger pointing, the issues affecting the quotidian lives of real Americans are not being addressed.

A gifted orator and communicator like Obama can survive the slings and arrows of the partisan opposition if his campaign sticks to the qualities that make him compelling combined with a principled and concrete discussion of his positions. Playing a game invented by his opponents suggests that Obama's presence at the inauguration would be at the discretion of President-elect John McCain, not the American people who have worked so hard to support him.

One asks- does Senator Obama feel that the campaign lives up to the expectations of his supporters?

Hillary Goes Winehouse

Note to Hillary Clinton: Do NOT mention past assassinations EVER. Doing so makes a candidate appear desperate, and fundamentally unelectable.

Welcome to the ash heap of history.

It is not enough to apologize or repent the statement. The fact that it was made is indicative of contemplation, a musing of the unthinkable. The idea of an assassination has been the elephant in the room during this campaign cycle. Every candidate has a situation which could make him or her vulnerable to the perversity of political murder.

Is the voter supposed to accept that Senator Clinton's expulsion of the Robert Kennedy reference was a gaffe, or a reaction to the news about Edward Kennedy's brain tumor? If one wishes to reference naivete, by all which is holy, even my Fruit of the Looms, accepting that premise is the acme and the zenith of naivete.

The voter is aware of the unlikelihood of Clinton's nomination, and one must take as given that Senator Clinton is aware that her chances are past waning, and sitting on gone. Her body language and phrasing indicate the desperation of a human being so invested in a goal that the possibility of non-attainment has only recently become present in her awareness. Senator Clinton is at the point of an individual who has fallen from a high point, and states that so far she's okay...but she hasn't hit the bottom just yet.

It is the denial and self-delusion of the teenager who has applied to universities beyond the scope of his abilities as defined by College Board scores and grade point average. Aiming for the stratos is not enough if one is using a paper airplane to achieve orbit.

Until Friday, one felt regret for the Clinton campaign on some levels. She had the organization and the talent to overcome all but the greatest candidate of a generation. She found a voice that connected with a portion of the electorate which was historically underrepresented. And then Senator Clinton found herself in the position of being the Rolling Stones to Obama's Beatles.

The problem was that Hillary Clinton had been under the illusion that she was the Beatles, and Obama was the Rolling Stones. Senator Clinton is now on the path of becoming the Dave Clark Five. They were the first band to score a number one hit after the Beatles' first wave of success on American shores, now lost to most people under fifty.

Kids may be able to find the Dave Clark Five on vinyl at the flea market, although a turntable may prove troublesome to locate.

And now this abomination of referring to the Robert Kennedy assassination. It remains in your Wandering Gentile's memory, despite being a day short of 18 months when it happened, so vivid was the reaction in a modest home in suburban Tampa. In a decade marred by violence, the stilling of Robert Kennedy's voice was the irreconcilable break between progressive politics and optimism for two generations.

When the racial undertone of comments such as "...white working people," and appeals to Appalachian America are considered, one is forgiven for inferring a reference to the assassination of the last political figure to successfully marry optimism and liberalism as meaning "...take this (epithet of the reader's choice) out, and keep the White in the White House!"

One sincerely hopes that the Senator from New York was not making a case to base bigotries in a society where people of color are challenged by the reactionary tendencies of those who define their existence and self-worth by a measure beyond their control. Regrettably, Mrs. Clinton is not in a position of making a case for her innocence now. She did not choose to disavow the explicit urgings of Limbaugh and Coulter. Her tacit acceptance of such taint her credibility beyond suitability for the electorate.

Is Senator Clinton's pursuit of high office so single minded, so fundamentally needy, that her life cannot proceed if denied the position she desperately wants? The voter hopes for someone who serves in office, as opposed to wielding the position as leverage against real and perceived disputes past and present. The last twenty years are characterized by the perception that the holder of the presidency is wielding the office for personal gain, from one party or the other.

There are 300 million people in this country who function pretty well without holding a position of prestige and authority. They may have obstacles along the way, but the Clinton campaign has taken a big step away from that connection with the many not empowered by a famous name and powerful connections. If Hillary Clinton is an example of what happens with such leverage at the individual's disposal, one suspects that he is better off doing without.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, has achieved his fortunes without the patronage of a well-connected spouse, or a reputation etched in granite by eight years in the public forum in a position of no actual authority. He has persuaded thousands of American voters by virtue of his oratory and idealism, and is capable of more still.

That is, Senator Obama will achieve more success, and will not have to rely upon the misfortune of others to afford him opportunities that he can make on his own.

At some point in the future, a confident, assured, and very able woman will become President.

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton does not fulfill all of the preceding criteria.