History Guy's blog

After the breakdown of another thread, I asked myself, what's the best way for political parties, of all stripes, to encourage more young people to vote, get involved, to get interested in the overall political process?  I have a few ideas, but I know that the wider IP community would have more, and probably better, ideas.  First, a couple of set-up questions...

1.  What's the best definition of a "young voter"?  Is it a certain age range (18-25 or maybe 18-27)?  Is it educational status (high school vs community college vs university, or some combination)?  Is it employment status (full-time vs part-time vs part-time while in school)?  Is it some combination of everything I've listed above, or maybe something completely different, something outside the little box I just described?

2.  What's the best way to get a young voter to connect with a party, a candidate, a political philosophy, whatever?  What's the best way to get a young voter to connect, and then get them to act on their connection, by voting, by organizing for a party or candidate, by maybe even running for office themselves?

3.  What's the best way to keep a young voter connected, to keep them involved, so that they continue that connection into "non-young voter" status?  Not necessarily keep them chained to a specific party or candidate per se, but more how do we maintain their interest in the process and continue to keep it relevant for the voter?

4.  What am I forgetting, or missing?

I'm not writing this to mock anyone, or to throw gasoline on the floor and wait for the trolls to come by with matches, but I want to ask this seriously, as a "non-young voter":  How do we get young people to get connected and stay connected?  I'm not as interested in hearing about how a specific political party or candidate can connect with young voters, so much as I'm interested in hearing how we can get young voters connected and interested in the first place.

HG

Interesting article from Politico.com:  McCain readies unorthodox campaign.  In essence, McCain is shying away from the traditional, top-down, centralized Presidential campaign; instead, McCain plans on designing his campaign to be much more decentralized, more regional-based style of campaign.  Some interesting quotes:

McCain strategists insist their paradigm can work. And the sour national climate for the GOP, McCain’s limited money supply and his preference for an impromptu campaign style that he can take to all parts of the country mean there is no other option but to break the mold, says one aide.

“To run a normal, typical race like a normal, typical Republican, we would win 45 percent of the popular vote and 189 electoral votes,” this aide says. “You can’t just go to Columbus.”

Also:

...perhaps most importantly — McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.

Obviously, there's a lot that could go wrong with this.  A regional manager could be ineffective and ruin the campaign for that region; the friction between the RNC, the McCain campaign, and other staffers could bog down the campaign; and so on.  Also, the campaign finance aspect is beyond my ken; I don't know what the stated "jointly funded" idea means in the real world, during the General election.  The sour grapes from unnamed Republican opratives is kinda interesting as well; my reading of that section of the article is that people don't like something new or different, or maybe they're upset about not having a job opening in a more traditional campaign.

Personally, I like this idea, initially at least.  Given how unusual and wacky this primary season has been, I have no idea what'll actually happen.  But this seems to be a good plan, designed to maximize McCain's strengths and minimize his weaknesses.

HG

    I had heard rumblings of this earlier this weekend, that Clinton would start making overtures about Obama being the VP nominee with her the top name on the ticket.  I say "Dear God, No..." for a few reasons:  first, the one thing that might make me vote Democrat this year is Obama at the top of the ticket.  The one thing that will make me run, not walk, and pull that lever for McCain will be having Clinton at the top of the ticket.  I brought this same point up in another thread; I can't conceive of any possible universe in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton, and having Obama as the VP will not sway my decision.

    The second reason:  I see this as a play made from a position of weakness on the part of Clinton.  She's been consistently losing the delegate count post-New Hampshire; she knows it, Obama knows it, and I know it.  She's now got to win something like 60% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Does anyone think that's possible?  I don't.  She's in a weak position, and will likely get weaker. 

    I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid on Obama; I don't think he's the greates thing since sliced bread, but for him to even entertain this overture is a monumental waste of time and energy, and I believe he should get the word out, that this is a non-starter.  It could be like that scene in "A Bridge Too Far", when the British airborne commander, at Arnhem, is asked by a white-flag carrying German soldier if he would like to discuss surrender terms, replies "We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else?" -- "I'd like to talk with you about your offer of being the Vice President, but I can't right now."

    The final reason I think this is a bad idea for Obama to even consider is that, if he were to be the VP nominee, I think he'd risk being tainted by the nearly inevitable anti-Clinton attacks during the general election.  I just think he'd be "guilty by association" if he tried to run for the Presidency again, in the future (meaning, running as an incumbent VP succeeding Clinton, or as the John Edwards of 2012).

    That being said, there's still a long time to the election.  Who knows what will happen...maybe Clinton will be decisively beaten; maybe there will be a brokered convention for the Democrats; maybe Obama does accept this move; and maybe the horse will learn to sing.

    We'll see...

HG

Did George Will just advocate for Obama, over a Republican?  I'm kinda confused...this throws my entire world out of balance...up is down, down is up, right is left, left is right...

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

 

In the earlier paragraphs, Will takes Huckabee and Edwards to task for over-the-top, unfounded claims of a shrinking middle class.  Money quote: 

He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrinking middle class. Well.

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

 

As a voter, I've never cared for or liked Edwards; his most recent campaign seemed had too much of a "look at me, look at me", shrill tone to it, in my opinion.  I hadn't formed an opinion on Huckabee, until the recent foreign affairs naivety came up; my opinion of him lowered after that, but not irredeemably so.

 interesting times...

HG

From Reuters.com:  President Bush to outline 5-year rate freeze.  Essentially, the sources quoted in the Reuters story claim "the plan envisions covering subprime loans taken out between January 1, 2005, through the end of this past July, with rates that are due to reset over the coming 2-1/2 years."  Later on, more specifics are offered:

Under the plan pitched by the ASF, distressed homeowners would be offered mortgage help according to their ability to pay.

Borrowers with strong credit would be encouraged to drop their existing loan and be shepherded to more affordable mortgages like those offered under the Federal Housing Administration. In August, Bush expanded that government program so that it could reach an additional 240,000 troubled borrowers next year.

A second class of borrowers who simply do not have the resources to make mortgage payments would return to the rental market.

A third group of borrowers who have shown that they are a reasonable credit risk but who could not afford their homes with higher rates would qualify for "fast-tracked" loan modification and a five-year interest rate freeze.

Other existing borrowers who have struggled to keep up their loan payments could still qualify for the freeze, but would face more scrutiny before receiving any loan modification.

I've said this before:  why should the government be involved, at all, with protecting (or otherwise aiding) lenders or borrowers that, through their own willful actions, are in danger of defaulting?  No one held a gun to a borrower's head, and forced them to sign an adjustable rate mortgage; no one held a gun to a lender's head, and forced them to lend money to a high-risk applicant.

The one line that absolutely kills me:  "A second class of borrowers who simply do not have the resources to make mortgage payments would return to the rental market."  Does that mean the plan will force both the lenders and the borrowers to convert the mortgaged property to a rental unit?  Or force people to move out of the mortgaged property to a rental property?  Or wave a magic wand and *poof* the mortgage is gone, no penalties, no worries, here's a listing of local rental units?

Seriously, if that group of borrowers can't afford the mortgages, why are they not renting already? 

To me, this is a gigantic slap in the face of every responsible homeowner; the ones who had the ability and the foresight to plan ahead, to only take out as much money as they needed, to work hard to make their monthly payments.  Now, Bush's plan is to reward irresponsible behavior:  take out too much?  didn't plan properly on ballooning payments?  decided to buy that $2000 hi-def TV instead of putting that money towards your mortgage?  Don't worry, we'll take care of you...

The other thing that galls me is this:  what happens after the 5 years is up?  Do the rates suddenly go up again?  Do we go through another round of this?  Or is it simply a matter of "That's the next guy's/gal's problem"?

One of the sidebars in the Reuter's article links to a "FactBox", a quick-hit of the major candidates stands on this "mortgage crisis".  The talking points speak for themselves...

HG

From today's Washington Post:  How Huckabee Could Rock the 2008 Vote.  The article presents a viable "what-if" scenarion, in my opinion, for Huckabee (wiki; campaign website) successfully campaigning in the Republican primaries and caucases.  It makes a few comparisons to Pres. Bill Clinton, and details what might happen, and, in the author's opinion, needs to happen for Huckabee to either win the Presidential nomination or be the "social conservative" counter-weight on a Guiliani-led ticket.  While it is a "what-if" scenario, I thought it made for good reading, especially this last part:

The clearest testament to Huckabee's dexterity -- and the staying power of his faith-infused, soft-edged conservatism -- is the very makeup of the 2008 GOP field. In the mid-1990s, Huckabee was a frequently overlooked member of the celebrated corps of Republican Revolution-era governors. The talent pool ran so deep at the time that the party seemed stocked with viable presidential aspirants for decades to come.

But while one of those governors, George W. Bush, found his way to the White House, the others slowly faded. By late 2006, just three governors were in the hunt to succeed Bush -- Huckabee, New York's George Pataki and Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson. Pataki quickly learned that he had no constituency and never entered the race. Thompson did jump in, only to discover that his signature issue, welfare reform, had lost its political saliency.

That leaves Huckabee, the last 1990s-era Republican governor standing in the 2008 race. As his rise shows, religion never goes out of style in American politics. Huckabee's rivals may yet learn that the hard way.

 

As IP says, discuss...

(by the way, Huckabee isn't one of the candidates listed in the categories section; IP, would you consider adding him?) 

HG

I found this site while crusing the internets today...i seriously don't know if it's a joke, or if this is someone's idea of an appropriate website for a (supposed) US Presidential candidate.  Some choice highlights from his website and "Current Issues":

"JURISDICTION:  There is some concern about Jurisdiction."

"THE DISCIPLINE OF REGULATING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT:  There is some concern about the U.S. Government regulating the U.S. Government. I will enforce regulating issues pertaining to the U.S. Government regulations and according to the U.S. Government enforcements."

"THE DISCIPLINE OF THE US GOVERNMENT ECONOMY AND THE U.S. PUBLIC’S ECONOMY:  There is concern about the U.S. Government Economy and the US Public’s Economy enforcements. I will enforce the U.S. Government’s Economy and the US Public’s Economy regulating its enforcements itself  with its regulations pretaining to itself and according to it’s enforcements to maintain 100% effectiveness with my tools."

 

and the greatest announcement (ever) that someone is running for President:  "I am running in the Democratic Primary to be chosen to represent the Democratic Party for President of the United States in 2008 because of my concerns for the following issues facing the future of the United States of America and my commitment to the American people."  The rest of it is a 70 (!) point explanation of why he is running.  His biography is quite possibly the single craziest thing i've read on the internet...

Despite how crazy and whacked out his overall website is, the "Donate" section seems quite professional.

I've not been able to find anything else out about this Mercer guy, beyond a page at Project Vote Smart; a Google search turns up his campaign website, a couple of geneological sites for the family name "Mercer", and then a number of blog postings from different sites talking about his webpage...

I know this coming election is wide open, but i didn't think it'd be this wide open...

HG

        A few weeks ago, I was browsing the New Yorker magazine's website.  I came across an article, written by Hendrik Hertzberg (it's linked to in the "print article" format, your printer dialog box may pop up) (Mr. Hertzberg's Wiki article; personal webpage; his New Yorker Magazine blog), in which he details a ballot initiative filed by a resident of California (go here for the California Secretary of State listing of initiatives).  From my reading of the article and of the ballot initiative itself, the group filing the ballot initiative seeks to proportionately award California's Electoral votes.  From the .pdf file for the initiative:  "...Section 2, B, ii:  In one presidential elector nominee shall reside in each congressional district in the state and the two remaining presidential elector nominees shall reside in the state", meaning two at-large electors and then one elector in each US Congressional district.  I've attached a copy of the initiate to this post.

        Mr. Hertzberg goes on in his article to detail the group behind this ballot initiative:  "Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm’s managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters." ; he follows up with some other ballot initiatives that the same group has attempted to win passage of in the past. 

        Mr. Hertzberg then comes to the point of his article:  that this devolution of electoral power is wrong, in his opinion, because "...what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes."  His next to last paragraph more fully states Mr. Hertzberg's problems with this initiative, so I'll quote it at length:

The California initiative flunks even the categorical-imperative test. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this “reform” at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.

        To me, Mr. Hertzberg's problems with this initiative seem to be that one, it's backed by no-doubt-about-it Republicans with (in his opinion) shady histories; and two, it moves the "battleground" of elections from the state-wide level to the Congressional district level.

        I don't see where either of those is a problem.

        The source of an idea or initiative isn't overwhelmingly important to me, on the theory that if one rabidly opposes all that originates with a specific person or political party, it's much easier to fall into a trap of opposing something that is genuinely useful or appropriate.

        His other apparent problem with this initiative, that it moves the "battleground" of elections from the state-wide level to the Congressional district level, doesn't hold any water with me.  In my opinion, this would devolve electoral votes (and therefore power) to the most basic representative level with have, the Federal Congressional district.  It would give more voting power to more people, to allow them to vote for candidates that they identify with or support, without having their votes wasted.  A quick and dirty example:  say this ballot initiative was used here in Illinois.  Cook County and the Collar Counties would still lean heavily towards the Democrats.  But those of use who live in more conservative, downstate congressional districts would be able to vote for a Republican without having to fear our votes were wasted, because the entirety of Illinois' electoral votes would go to a Democrat, with their candidate receiving half plus one of the state-wide vote.  I personally believe that this would open the door to more third party candidates, because I think it would give them an incentive to create better party structures in areas where they could win electoral votes, instead of the being on top of the "also-ran" list.

        So what if there would be more "safe seats" or "spectator districts".  That's already a fact of the electoral map of the US; I hope everyone is cognizant that there are districts and regions that nearly always vote for the same party, no matter who's running.  This ballot initiative would not change the electoral map to that "safe seat" format, from some mythical "equal chance" idea.  It's already a fact of the electoral map of the US.  To me, this ballot initiative would move the battleground of Presidential elections to the most basic, most local, most personable level possible:  the Congressional district

        Why is that not a good idea?

HG

three smaller items, didn't see the need to create three seperate threads...

Hillary Clinton's election inevitable?  From the article at Politico.com: 

Obama strategist David Plouffe released a memo last week arguing that Hillary Clinton's advantages were essentially those of incumbency, that her support was thin, and that Obama should actually be considered the front-runner.

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, responded today with a memo that seemed designed to bludgeon all opposition into senselessness through the sheer power of numbers (links to 40 polls showing Hillary in the lead!)

Discuss  :-)

Next:  defense topics tend to be dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (rightly so), but here's an article from Reuters about cruise missile defense for the Eastern Seaboard, roughly from Washington, D.C. to Boston, Mass.  I've not personally done enough research to form an opinion about the program (or a similar one) mentioned in the article, but a few quotes: 

Christopher Bolkcom, defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service, said cruise missiles were difficult to track and that Lockheed's forecast about deploying a wide-area defense was "optimistic."

"It's sort of like border security. You can put some useful measures in place, but you can never afford a fool-proof system," he said.

and:

David Kier, who formerly was deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, said the technologies needed to track, identify and destroy any such missiles launched from ships off the U.S. coastline already existed or were under development.

"It just requires a will to do it," he told congressional aides at a briefing.

My two cents:  the idea that any government, not just ours, would do anything less than the best to protect their citizens from threats is philosophically disturbing to me.  Trust me, I believe in preparing, as best as can be, for threats that are probable or even physically possible, and not wasting time, money, and effort on defenses for a threat that are marginal at best.  However, the idea that, in order to promote some idea of MAD or equality of fear or to adhere to some international treaty (START I and II, SALT I and II), a country (US, UK, France, Russia, hell, even China) would voluntarily not construct or maintain such a defense system is morally repugnant and philosophically disturbing to me.  Why would you voluntarily leave your citizens defenseless?  I don't get it.  Maybe not going up during the bad old days of SAC and the Cold War means I don't get it...

Finally, an enviromental topic:  former Vice President Gore at odds with coal miner's union over clean-coal plants.  During the Live Earth concerts this past weekend, "Gore urged fans at the concerts held around the world on July 7 to commit to a seven-point pledge to cut carbon emissions and to lobby governments and employers to do more to save the planet.  The third point on the pledge states: "To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2.""  Representatives of the union (the United Mine Workers of America) said in response that "We believe it is the way to go, but we also believe a moratorium on any new plant is somewhat short-sighted as it could be years before the technology is developed, while the need for power is now," Smith said."

Whatever one believes regarding climate change/global warming, isn't the idea of refusing to build any new coal plants, even without the best of all worlds clean enviromental aids, a bit myopic?  Wouldn't building a coal-fired plant that is somewhat cleaner, relatively speaking, than older coal-fired plants help at least somewhat?  My opinion (because that's why everyone comes here :-) ) is that building new coal-fired plants that were as clean as current technology could make them, building them now, is better than waiting a significant period of time (10 to 15 years, as noted in the article by the UMWA rep)

Thanks for reading!

History Guy

Found this while reading through the Yahoo.com news service.  It's from the AP wire:   "A University of Illinois alumnus announced he will make a $100 million donation to his alma mater, the largest gift in the university's history.  Thomas M. Siebel, the founder and former chairman of Siebel Systems Inc., pledged to give the gift to the Urbana-Champaign campus upon his death."

Siebel has previously given to the UofI; in 1999, he donated $32 million, which went to building the Thomas M. Siebel Center for Computer Science.  He's also been a graduation speaker, in 2006.  Here's the Wikipedia entry on him; on his former company (sold to Oracle in 2005); and the website of one of his personal interest projects, the somewhat controversial Montana Meth Project.

I wanted to post (for the first time) on something that I have a strong connection to in the area, the UofI; and point out some good news for the area and the University... 

HG