Last-Minute Regrets

President Bush has recently admitted that beginning the war in Iraq based on flawed intelligence is one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. This article discusses the bad intelligence indicating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when, in fact, there did not, and quotes the President as saying:

The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein.

However, the President refused to speculate when asked if he would have invaded Iraq even if he was certain Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, instead opting to dodge the question by saying that he didn't get a chance for a "do-over." By refusing to answer the question, it makes it look like he probably would have invaded Iraq regardless. While it's nice that the President has publicly admitted to making a mistake, it does sound more like a publicity stunt than anything else; an effort to raise his embarrassingly low approval ratings. Regardless of his intentions, I think most would agree with me saying that this apology comes about 4,200 men too late. Bush discussed how he was advised to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, but ultimately decided not to because it would "compromise his principles," according to the article. Additionally, Bush revealed that he was unprepared for war when he was elected (but to be fair, nobody was or could have been prepared for 9/11).

Bush also lamented about the recent economic crisis, but was confident that he did what needed to be done to save the economy and prevent "a huge financial meltdown." He hopes to "leave the White House with [his] head held high."

Works Cited
Zakaria, Tabassum. "Bush Calls Flawed Iraq Intelligence Biggest Regret." Reuters. 1 Dec. 2008. 2 Dec. 2008 .

Well... It was the Thought That Counted

Today it was announced that the United States economy is in fact in a recession and has been since December 2007, according to this article at MSNBC ("It's Official: U.S. is in Recession"). I don't know about the rest of you, but, I kinda figured that out sometime in late winter/early spring of this year (admittedly, I wasn't sure of the exact date we entered a recession, but that's what the officials at the National Bureau for Economic Research are for!). Wasn't it only a few months we were told a recession "was possible?" Now we're in the middle of a full-blown worldwide economic crisis. To top it all off, the White House didn't even use the word "recession" when they commented on the recession! Okay, so, I probably overreacted a bit just then. But, what does this newly-gained knowledge do for us? Will it help us recover from the recession? Probably not. Instead of wasting money looking at when we got into this mess, let's look at how we got into this mess and how we can get ourselves out of it! The article tries to explain why the announcement comes so late:

The NBER committee that sets official dates for recessions typically does not act for many months after a downturn has begun. The panel is looking for clear evidence of a substantial, lasting contraction. "The committee waits long enough so that the existence of a recession is not at all in doubt," according to the NBER Web site. "It waits until it can assign an accurate date."

I can understand that. Waiting a few months seems logical, so as not to cause panic. But, it's been a year since the recession began, according to their report. Rather than avoiding panic, it's just made people angry and made themselves look like fools.

The News of Tomorrow; Today?

According to an article in the New York Times, ("A Generation of Local TV Anchors is Signing Off;" Brian Stelter) many high-paid anchors for local television news stations are being replaced by younger, cheaper anchors as the economic situation worsens. While this may make economic sense, viewers have a strong attachment to the anchors they're used to, so this move could drastically cut viewership. However, part of the reasoning behind these cuts are part of an effort to keep up with online news:

On the Web, users can assemble their own newscast from an around-the-clock buffet of options, making anchors seem somewhat superfluous, especially to younger viewers. Perhaps as a result, station layoffs are in the news almost every day now, said Tom Petner, who edits the television industry newsletter ShopTalk.

This reminds me of Sunstein's Republic.com 2.0, in which the author discusses the concept of the "Daily Me," the hypothetical online newspaper of tomorrow custom-tailored to each and every individual reader. Sunstein also discusses the important of TV news anchors in providing diversity in the news people get and warns of the danger of a world in which everybody sees only the news he or she wants to see.

The article also discusses other ways the news industry has had to make cutbacks to keep up with online news and blogs. Television news stations have cut back in the behind-the-scenes production crews. Newspaper is also suffering; thousands of newspaper journalists across the country have already lost their jobs. Just as Winograd & Hais predicted in Millennial Makeover, online news and blogs are beginning to replace television as America's primary source of news. Although I expected these changes to occur as more and more Millennials reached adulthood and took positions of authority, I didn't expect them to occur so quickly!

Works Cited
Stelter, Brian. "A Generation of Local TV Anchors is Signing Off." The New York Times. 30 Nov. 2008. 1 Dec. 2008 .

Sunstein, Cass. Republic.com 2.0. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Winograd, Morley and Michael Hais. Millennial Makeover. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 2008.

As if $700 Billion wasn't Enough...

According to this article by Richard Cowan, ("House to Push $500 Billion Stimulus Bill," Reuters) the Democrats are planning on spending another $500 billion on yet another economic stimulus bill that, according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is "aimed at 'creating jobs for the 21st century,' with a focus on energy projects" and will "include a middle-class tax cut, billions of dollars for road, bridge and mass transit construction, expanded aid to states and investments in renewable energy." Look, I'm all for the Democrats, but what happened to that $700 billion awhile back? Where did that go? And where is the next $500 billion going to come from; who's going to pay for all that? At what point do we draw the line and realize we're going to have to do more than throw money at the problem in order to fix it? The budget deficit is already at a record $455 billion. With war in Iraq and a worldwide economic crisis, how can the government so casually toss money around? How can the average citizen be sure this will help him or her? Will there be enough jobs for everyone? There are so many questions this bill raises, and so few answers. If the government wants to spend all this money, I want to see some guarentee that the money will help the average American and isn't just another attempt to stall for time. Money may make the world go 'round, but lately it looks like it can't support the weight of the world on its shoulders alone. We're going to need something else to help us through these difficult times, and we need it fast. Hopefully it won't be too late.

Currently, Pelosi hopes the bill will be ready for President-elect Obama to sign shortly after he takes office on January 20th.

Enough With Ayers Already!

I was reading an article in the New York Times (“The Final Countdown: Obama Casts His Vote,” Jeff Zeleny) which talked about how Obama had voted this morning at 7:36 AM in Chicago.

However, Obama was not the focus of this article. Another voter was: Bill Ayers. Shortly before Obama arrived to vote, Ayers and his wife voted in the same place as Obama (Beulah Shoesmith Elementary School). Although Ayers and Obama were not there simultaneously, reporters somehow felt it was worth mentioning this “truth-is-often-stranger-than-fiction moment in the presidential campaign.” Can we please stop talking about Obama’s alleged ties to terrorism through Bill Ayers? Don’t we have anything better to talk about as Election Day moves forward and more and more people cast their ballots? Unless Obama and Ayers met, spoke in a secret code, and exchanged packages marked “Nuclear Weapons – Handle With Care” I really don’t see the relevance that the two men voted at the same place. On the final day of this long campaign, can’t we put aside the hostile attitudes and attack ads? Election Day should be the day we all come together and vote, regardless of the candidate we support. Besides, talking about Ayers is pretty much beating a dead horse now. I don’t think many people really care about the rumor or consider it accurate anymore.

The article also mentions how Obama is spending the day in Indianapolis to try to convert the Republican-leaning state to a Democratic victory. The article ends on a positive note, with Obama talking about how he had fun on the campaign trail and joking that he was worried about who his wife, Michelle, was going to vote for.

Sorry, Texas

According to this article in the New York Times (“Networks May Call Race Before Voting Is Complete” by Jacques Steinberg) CBS News is confident that it will be able to announce the next President before the polls actually close. According to Paul Friedman, a senior vice president of CBS News, the results of the election “could be clear as soon as 8 p.m. – before polls in New York and Rhode Island close, let alone those in Texas and California” (these “results” will be created by looking at polling data and early voting counts):

We could know Virginia at 7. We could know Indiana before 8. We could know Florida at 8. We could know Pennsylvania at 8. We could know the whole story of the election with those results. We can’t be in this position of hiding our heads in the sand when the story is obvious.

David Plotz, editor of the website Slate, shares a similar sentiment, but is blunter in his word choice:

Our readers are not stupid, and we shouldn’t engage in a weird … drama that pretends McCain could win California and thus the presidency. We will call it when a sensible person — not a TV news anchor who has to engage in a silly pretense about West Coast voters — would call it.

These claims are incredibly pretentious and dangerous. These claims put a lot of trust in exit polls, which are notoriously unreliable (remember how exit polls showed that Kerry was going to win in 2004?). Announcing the “winner” of the election before the results from the West Coast are in effectively disenfranchises West Coast voters. Prematurely announcing a "winner" effectively says, “Don’t even bother voting, your vote doesn’t matter to us” to everyone on the West Coast (great way to attract a West Coast audience, CBS!). Indeed, the article then goes on to describe how, in 1980, a similar claim resulted in an estimated 2% decrease in voter turnout in California and lead to Jimmy Carter conceding to Ronald Reagan before the west coast results were in! By announcing a perceived “winner” before all the results are in, the media is, essentially, selecting the next President for us. Is that what we really want?

Obama's Gains and Losses

Since yesterday’s polls, Obama has gained ground in some battleground states while losing ground in others. According to today’s polls, Obama has lost his lead in Missouri, where Obama and McCain are now tied with each receiving roughly 49% of the vote. Obama has also lost a great deal of his lead in Florida and Ohio, dropping from a 2-point and 6-point lead to a 1-point and 2-point lead, respectively. Obama has also slipped slightly in Pennsylvania. However, Obama’s national lead has risen from a 7-point lead to an 11-point lead. Obama has also increased his lead in Nevada (from 8 to 11 points) and Virginia (from 6 to 9 points). Additionally, Obama has increased his lead among Independent voters from a 15 point lead to 24 point lead, and among women has increased from a 13 point lead to a 19 point lead. Obama also “leads among every age group and among every income level,” an improvement from yesterday (McCain held a 1-point lead among voters ages 55 to 69). More good news for Obama: McCain’s lead among whites dropped from a 13-point lead to a 7-point lead. McCain is also attracting only 29% of Hispanic voters; while this is an increase from yesterday’s results (25%) it is a huge loss compared to Bush, who managed to earn 40% of the Hispanic vote in the 2004 election.

As we head into the final hours of the election, predictions are rapidly changing as new data are made public. These gains and losses for both candidates reveal just how unpredictable elections can be and how quickly polls and predictions can change. These (incredibly) slim leads in certain states also show just how important it is that everyone votes, even in “safe” states. Don’t let the polls lure you into a false sense of security!

Who's Gonna Vote?

We’ve all seen the polls and the maps and the predictions (my compliments to Zach’s prediction) but we seem to be forgetting that it all comes down to who actually shows up to vote on election day. Obama’s supporters may see so many polls predicting an Obama victory that many of them don’t vote, while McCain’s supporters may assume that Obama’s young voters won’t actually go out and vote and, therefore, won’t feel the need to vote themselves. An article by John Whitesides entitled “The Last Unknown in White House Race -- Who Votes?” discusses how important it is to each candidate that all of their supporters vote. This holds especially true for Obama, who has a large base of “new and sporadic voters;” these voters Obama are relying on may not show up to vote. Obama officials, however, remain confident, citing the results of early voting: “43 percent of Democrats who voted early [in Nevada] are new or sporadic voters, and 19 percent of the Democrats who voted early in North Carolina have never voted in a presidential election before” according to Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. McCain officials, however, are not concerned, citing that Republican candidates often do poorly among early voters but receive a large number of absentee votes. Both campaigns are implementing massive get-out-the-vote drives: Obama’s campaign is relying upon “’several million’ volunteers” to talk to every last possible Obama supporter while McCain has utilized a “72-hour voter turnout plan [similar to one] that paid huge dividends for Bush in 2004.” It’s cliché and has been said countless times before, but in this election, every vote really does count.

For an election that is supposedly “winding down” though, there certainly seems to be a lot of last-minute activity!

Political DNA

As Election Day approaches, some of us may begin to question who they are going to vote for and why. After all, there are so many factors that can influence which candidate will make the better President… Or are there? An article in the Boston Globe by Eve LaPlante, “Born to Party,” suggests otherwise. Emerging research suggests that our political ideologies are actually shaped by our genetics, and scientists have discovered that “the brains of liberals and conservatives are physically and functionally distinctive, suggesting that people on either side of the ideological divide are actually wired differently.” Additionally, our views on everything from gun control to immigration are shaped by an “unconscious reaction to threat” rather than well-crafted, intelligent opinions. In the words of political scientist Kevin Smith, who co-authored the study, “[our p]olitical reactions are gut responses rather than a rational weighing of pros and cons” after which we make a logical decision. Instead, our political beliefs are dependant on biological instinct rather than reason. The study also found that conservatives are quicker to react to threats but more resistant to change, while liberals were generally slower to react to threats but more quickly accepted change. Additionally, the study claims that people have a 40% to 50% chance of inheriting their political ideologies.

So, what does this mean? Some speculate that this finding demonstrates a genetic basis for our two-party system of Democrats and Republicans (and explains why third parties often do so poorly). Others believe it implies that both parties need each other to survive, as demonstrated by our system of checks and balances. I suggest reading this interesting article, as it goes into far more detail than I do and does a better job elaborating on many of these concepts.

European Union Already Prepared for Election

According to this article ("European Union Draws Up Letter to New U.S. Leader" by Crispian Balmer) at Reuters, the European Union has written a letter to the next president of the United States. The letter will be sent to the winner as soon as possible. In the letter, the EU calls for more cooperation between the US and the EU in addressing world issues. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner commented on the letter, expressing a desire "to open a new chapter in global harmony, global balance, [and] global change" and to put an end to "unilateral decisions that try to resolve the problems of the world." Indeed, the major world powers such as the US and the EU will need to work together to resolve emerging crises as the world enters a new age of globalization. However, perhaps the EU is being a bit premature in composing this letter? After all, whether Obama or McCain wins tomorrow (Tomorrow? Really? Where did the time go?) George W. Bush will still be President until January 2009, and the EU will be dealing with him, not tomorrow’s winner. Likewise, should the winner begin engaging in Presidential duties before he even takes office? While the letter is not necessarily a bad idea (and will hopefully do a lot to improve US foreign relations, which have suffered since the beginning of the Iraq War) perhaps it would be best if it was not sent until the winner of the election actually takes office.

The European Union hopes to work with the United States to alleviate the global financial crisis and help negotiate peace between Russia and Georgia. The EU also plans to work with China, India, and Brazil, along with other world powers.

Though most Europeans would rather see Obama elected president, those who wrote the letter refused to endorse either candidate. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU’s external relations commissioner, said "It is for the American people to elect their president. We will then work with whoever is there." Although the EU may be a bit preemptive, their actions are a good step towards increased international cooperation.

"White Slaves" and "That Pretty Girl"

Over the weekend, I overheard some old men talking about the election. One of the men said that he had already voted for “the only choice” he could make, McCain and “that pretty girl, Sarah.” Another commented that he was going to vote for McCain because he was absolutely convinced that Obama would “reverse civil rights” and “make us all white slaves.”

You’re joking, right? How could any rational person believe that slavery could ever be revived in this country? The Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution specifically states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States,” and the president has neither the power to propose nor to ratify an amendment (in this case, ratify an amendment overturning a previous amendment). Besides, the American people would never allow a reinstitution of slavery. Imagine the reaction! People would riot! So where does this “white slaves” thing come from? The disturbing, yet obvious, truth is racism. That anyone could be so influenced by racism to believe that Obama would enslave white people (or anyone, for that matter!) reveals a troubling reality about American society. It makes regular white people look bad.

As if racism influencing the election wasn’t bad enough, several of the men were voting for McCain because they liked “pretty” Sarah Palin. What should the physical appearance of a candidate, man or woman, have to do with voting for him or her? Are Americans really that incapable of looking past age, skin color, and gender? If this group of old men is a reflection on the entire country, it would seem that “politics” has come to mean beauty and popularity. But are those really the best criteria for choosing the next President of the United States of America?

House Passes Revised Bailout Bill

I'm watching C-SPAN as I write this. The House of Representatives is now voting on the Revised Bailout Bill. The revised bill passed through the Senate on Wednesday by a vote of 74-25. This CNN article highlights some of the important changes between the original, rejected bill and the new bill.

The final results of the bill:
Democrats -

• Yea: 172
  
• Nay: 63
  
• Present: 0
  
• Did not vote: 0
  

Republicans -

• Yea: 91
  
• Nay: 108
  
• Present: 0
  
• Did not vote: 0

Total -

• Yea: 263
  
• Nay: 171
  
• Present: 0
  
• Did not vote: 0

Now that the House has passed the revised bill, it's up to the President to approve or reject the bill.

America's Mood

While doing research, I stumbled across the results of the Reuters/Zogby Index (RZI), which attempts to use the results of 10 different monthly polls to measure the "mood" of America. The September 2008 results show an increase from August's results (91.9) to September's results (96.3). The RZI began at a level of 100 in June 2007. A level above 100 indicates America's mood has improved, while a value less than 100 indicates a decline.

A breakdown of the September Results as compared to the August Results:

• Congress's Approval Rate: Increased from 9% to 13%.
• President Bush's Approval Rate: Decreased from 29% to 28%.
• Approval Rating of President Bush's Economic Plan: Decreased from 15% to 13%.
• Approval Rating of United States Foreign Policy: Remained steady at 25%.
• People who considered themselves in good economic standing: Increased from 47% to 52%.
• People who felt they had good job security: Increased from 61% to 64%.
• People who feel the United States in "on the right track": Increased from 23% to 25%.
• People who are proud of the United States: Increased from 87% to 91%.
• People who felt safe from foreign threats to the United States: Increased from 84% to 86%.
• People confident that their children would have better lives than themselves: Increased from 64% to 68%.

The following two polls are not part of the RZI, but were reported anyways:

• People who will spend less money on holiday gifts this year than they did last year: 45%.
• People who will spend the same amount of money on holiday gifts this year as they did last year: 46%.

Although President Bush's ratings are for the most part deteriorating, faith in the country, the economy, and the future seem to be increasing. And isn't that what America is all about?

And They Say Obama Flip-Flops...

I can understand why candidates "flip-flop" in most cases. Opinions change as time goes on. Let's be honest, who didn't support the War in Iraq when it first began? But a lot changed between then and now, and it's unfair to condemn someone who previously supported the war but no longer does. But I digress...

Anyways, this interesting article written by Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times caught my attention. The story is mostly about how many feminist organizations such as EMILY's List are urging women not to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket (EMILY'S List newest slogan proclaims, "Read my lipstick: I am voting Democrat"). However, there is a tiny tidbit of information in this article that really says a lot about the Republican party:

The transformation of Republicans into energized Palin fans was quick. Shortly before Mr. McCain announced that Mrs. Palin was his running mate, the Pew Research Center surveyed 2,300 voters, asking, "Do mommies or daddies make better candidates?"

At that time, only one in five Republican respondents said they would support a candidate who was the mother of school-aged children; 53 percent of Republicans said working mothers were a "bad thing for society." Among Democrats, a third supported mother-politicians, while 38 percent did not favor working mothers.

You really can't get much more hypocritical than that. You can't go from saying that working women are bad for America one day and then the day after say that a working woman should be the next Vice President of the United States. If a "Hypocrite of the Century" award existing, there would be a clear winner in the Flip-flopublican Party.

Really, how do they sleep at night?