The Dems need to step it up

I'm feeling ranty today. I'm getting really tired of the Democrats and Obama not fighting like they want to actually win. I love Obama. He's exactly what I think this country needs in a president: he's can speak intelligently without looking like a jackass, he is a really intelligent person, he's got international experience and awareness, and he's a great motivator and organizer.

I hate Bush's smirk. Bush's speeches always remind me of Henny Youngman , the King of the One Liners. "Take my wife, please!" *laughter and applause* "Liberals think we're not winning in Iraq!" *smirk and applause* No that was not an exact or real quote, but you get the idea. McCain has the same stupid speaking style. One liners and he's got the stupid smirk. A politician smirking makes me think two things: he's already rigged the election and he's really just pandering for applause. Obama doesn't smirk. When he speaks, he says stuff. This is great.

And it is bad. Obama doesn't create the soundbites. He doesn't have that one-liner style that forces the audience to get up and cheer for him after everything he says. When Obama speaks, you listen to the whole thing and it makes you think. He doesn't get the laughs for the one-liners, he makes you appreciate the whole thing. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans seem to have short attention spans and really can only appreciate "The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip."

And a brief aside on Obama's international experience. Republicans on one hand say Obama has NO foreign policy experience, then they bash him because he lived in Indonesia as a child, saying he is not American enough. You know what? Living abroad as a child helps develop a broad understanding of different cultures and a great mind for cooperation internationally. McCain's experience seems to be based on the fact that he spent a few years in the 60s bombing the shit out of Vietnamese. Then he got to enjoy the inside of a prison. Foreign policy based on blowing up foreigners and seeking revenge for years locked in a box isn't likely to be that great.

Palin has no experience other than living near Russia (that's a bullshit response). Her experience is a lot more like Bush's. Bush governed near Mexico, but had never travelled abroad before becoming president. Palin had to apply for a passport in 2007 to visit troops in Kuwait and Germany. At least Bush governed a state with a diverse population. I would love to have a president who's at least traveled a bit. Obama has done that. He hasn't performed international negotiations or anything else, but at least people around the world like him.

Back to my point.

Ok, so back to my point, if I have one. Obama and the Dems need to step it up. A lot. They've got a great candidate in Obama (and a reliable guy in Biden). They just are not fighting the way they need to. Winning candidates show that they are ready to fight for what they want. McCain's doing that. He's ready to contradict his previous statements and say what people want him to say. McCain didn't have the support of the far right conservatives, so he chose a redneck as his vice presidential candidate. She got the votes.

The latest from the McCain camp is a new ad blasting Obama for his sexist comments about Palin. McCain's campaign is claiming that Obama called Palin a Pig with Lipstick. That's a funny image...

The context of Obama's comment has nothing to do with Palin (directly): "That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." But McCain's campaign wants to suck every bit of sympathy that they can out of Palin. She's a woman so Obama should be nice, and McCain wants to look like he will protect the women. Not that that concept isn't a bit paternalistic and demeaning to women, generally.

On the other hand, McCain used the same stupid pig in lipstick phrase to bash Hillary and has used it many times. But when Obama says it, it's sexist and McCain wants an apology.

Obama, two bits of advice for you. First, NEVER use this phrase. It should only ever be muttered by someone in Appalachia. McCain and Palin are working to corner the redneck market. Good for them. Use reaosnable, less creepy phrases. Second, fight back. Don't get on your speechifying stump and give one of your great speeches. Put together something that shows how sexist McCain is. I know you can find good clips. But fight back. This is the sort of stupid shit that people get worked up over.

I guess I'm just exhausted by this election already. I keep seeing McCain use low-brow campaign tactics and I keep seeing them work. Then Obama is staying above the fray, which I do appreciate, but it makes him look like he isn't fighting for it.

I would love to see Obama keep up his goodguy image and not stoop to McCain's level. If you have to give up your ethics to win, sometimes it isn't worth it. But McCain's contradictory tactics are working for him, look at the polls. I hope it backfires, but I don't think it will until Obama comes out swinging. Or maybe some independent Dem should start swiftboating the fuck out of McCain without Obama's approval. But somewhere or another, the Dems need to go on the offensive and stop assumign that Obama's intelligent discussion of the issues is going to win.

As a friend of mine recently said, "The last two elections, and this one incrasingly, have shown that you can bring up all the issues you want to, but that mudslinging works." While I would hate to promote the idea that the ends justify the means, I think some additional means should be used to prevent another Bush term.

The Bridge to Nowhere

View Larger Map

So, there's all kinds of talk lately about Sarah Palin's support (or opposition) to the Bridge to Nowhere. I imagine most people don't know what or where this bridge was supposed to be and probably don't know how amazingly stupid the idea was. Ketchikan, Alaska is a beautiful little town in Southeast Alaska, a couple hours north of Seattle. The town was once predominantly a fishing community with a cannery or two and a lot of commercial vessels based there. There's still that, but the town has moved to being a tourist town. The salmon and halibut fishing is great in the area, so there's a lot of fishing tours out of Ketchikan. Additionally, many cruise ships either begin there or dock there at some point during their journey to peruse the old town area's charming shops and massive souvenir markets. Probably most important though is Ketchikan is home to an (international) airport that can land larger planes, so it is a great base point to anywhere you might need to travel in Southeast Alaska.

The "problem" with the airport is that it is based on an island seperate from the island Ketchikan is on. The news says the Bridge to Nowhere was going to connect the two, never mentioning how close they are or the infrastructure built up to get people form the airport ot where they need to go. You really have a few options. First, many people (and companies) in Ketchikan have boats and they can dock at the airport island. Second, float planes might pick you up from the island to take you directly to one of the more remote islands. Finally, and most importantly, there is a ferry that runs about every 15 (or 30) minutes from one side to the other.

The ferry costs 5 bucks or so per person and the ride is a whole 5 minutes. Look at the photo to the right there. To the road to the right of the image is the ferry at the airport. On the far shore, at the very left edge of the photo, is the ferry loading zone in Ketchikan. This is not a far distance. This ferry is very convenient, fast, and for many tourists (me) it is a charming entrance to the town.

But people want a bridge because it is easier and faster. When I'm going on vacation to a great fishing town, speed and efficiency are not really MY highest priorities. Maybe I'm just weird though.

Ok, so why would the Bridge to Nowhere be a REALLY stupid thing? And why would it cost so damned much money? Why should anyone with half a brain say it would be more trouble that it is worth? Because that little channel between Ketchikan and the airport island is a heavily traveled channel.



View Larger Map

In that map, do you see the large cruise ships docked at Ketchikan? Do you see the variety of smaller vessels moving about? I think I mentioned float planes at some point. How about the large ferries that run through there on the Alaska Marine Highway connecting other outlying islands? The point is, this is a busy channel that needs to have room for large vessels. A bridge over it would have to either be REALLY tall or a very significant drawbridge. It would hamper vessel traffic. It would be dangerous for the bazillion float planes that use the area. It would be really, really dumb. There is no reason to spend that much money to build a bridge to avoid a 5 minute ferry ride to the airport.

If Sarah Palin ever supported this stupid project then she is either:

a) a complete idiot, and/or

b) a wasteful spender who likes to throw taxpayer's money away on things she knows nothing about.

I hope this was educational in some way. I know a lot of people are talking about the Bridge, but most people don't seem to know what it is. I thought I would explain, with pictures.

Here's Your Pledge and My Signing Statement.

According to the Washington Post, earlier this month the Virginia Board of Elections approved a VA Republican Party plan to require all GOP primary voters to sign a pledge stating they intend to support the party's Presidential nominee in the fall, no matter who he is. No pledge, no vote.

Here in Virginia, we don't provide a party affiliation when we register to vote. Consequently, we get to choose which primary we participate in, if any. The sta- er, Commonwealth GOP is paranoid about independents and (GASP!) liberals casting ballots in the primary, so they have decided to clear up any confusion in the mind of voters. If you were a little unclear about whether the GOP is a big tent party open to a range of opinions, this ought to settle the question. May only he who votes in lockstep enter here!

Of course, there are a lot of silly things to point out about this pledge business. First, it is entirely unenforceable; the GOP can't tell who you vote for in the fall. Second, by letting independents know that they aren't welcome to voice a preference unless they would be comfortable with any nominee, the GOP is just ensuring that their nominee will appeal to fewer voters in the general election. Third, it just isn't great PR when someone drives all the way down to the polling station to participate in party politics and gets turned away over some silly pledge. Fourth, it is more of this, "Everybody is out to get us!" paranoia that I keep hearing from the right: "Golly! There's a war on Christmans, gays are trying to cheapen my marriage, athiest want to teach my kids we came from monkeys, and now the liberals want to tamper with our honest elections!?!? Thank God the party is looking out for us!"

Fifth, and most importantly, it illustrates the fact that the people who end up working for political parties (on either side) are the sort that think everyone on my team is better than anyone on the other team. Total nonsense. The dissatisfaction among Republicans with President Bush ought to be evidence enough that one Republican isn't just as good as another. If they were, why bother with a primary? They should just be fiscally conservative and draw from a hat. Nonetheless, I'd like to see these hacks eat their pledges if Ron Paul is nominated.

Anyway, the party is also pushing to put party affiliation on VA voter registration forms so they don't have to mess around with these messy loyalty pledges. I'm against that. Political parties are private organizations, not government entities. But people forget this because parties get so much official recognition from the government. I might be alone in this, but when I worked in the House of Representatives I thought it was weird that Congress provided separate Republican and Deomcratic Cloakrooms right on the House floor. That's prime real estate! If it's for private use, the party should have to pay for it. Go rent a room at the Radisson if you want to have a caucus!

Not to be over-dramatic, but whenever I see the government remember that it isn't its job to carry water for political parties, as I did when I registered to vote here in the sweet Commonwealth of Virginia, I think that maybe there might be some hope for this country yet.

But I digress back to one last point on the loyalty pledge. The leader of the national Republican Party, our dear President (a man of conscience, I might add), has had little trouble putting his signature to hundreds of laws which he has had little intention of either enforcing or abiding by. Perhaps would-be VA primary voters, who don't intend to decide who to vote for next fall until they actually know who is running, may sooth their consciences by taking a page from the the President's playbook. When the GOP puts the pledge in front of you, just add a signing statement to let them know the pledge doesn't apply to you. That way we can all feel Presidential on voting day!