PassionateCentrist

One thing I've noticed in the analysis of the presidential campaign for 2008 is that there are few talking heads in the major media who veer away from the conventional wisdom. The importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in the 2008 campaign are seen increasing in the ever-changing compact schedule. But no one really knows how the changes are going to play out. If there were odds offered somewhere I'd be betting that it works the other way and states later in the month have more impact than the conventional wisdom thinks. I'm not sure those later states are going to matter, but it seems few give that idea any credit.

But the Wall Street Journal today has a story about how candidates are spending money in more than Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans especially are spending money elsewhere, with Giuliani spending money big in Florida. Obama has enough money to be a factor even if Iowa and New Hampshire don't go well - and he's spend a lot elsewhere. I think that shows this may not play out as Iowa/New Hampshire or nothing as a result.

"Thompson has begun outlining a plan that would slow the growth rate of benefits and tie future cost-of-living adjustments to the cost of goods, which rise at a slower rate than wages."

He's not exactly my favorite candidate, but I sure hope he doesn't cave to the conventional wisdom and actually talks about Social Security and Medicare. A healthy debate about adjusting the inflation metrics used for social security would go a long way. We'll see if it happens.

The reaction to the Q1 money raising data in the presidential race seems to miss a point: money really matters. Where are the stats showing that 15 of the last 16 presidential candidates from both parties who raised the most money before the primaries ended up winning the nomination?
Sure, the exception is Howard Dean in 2004, but in my opinion that's because he got his money in a new disruptive way (the Internet) that caused forces (media, party leaders) to move against him because it was so unsettling. Even so, 15 out of 16 (all but Dean since 1976) is a fact worth talking about. But I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in the talk of money.

Oh sure, there were some candidates way back when who had the most money early on (Phil Gramm) and then didn't keep it up. So maybe Q1 isn't the best guide. But with more and more primaries moving to Feb. 5 in 2008, having money early will matter more than ever. It's a big problem with our political system. And it's one that seems to be systematically ignored. Anything that picks a winner 15 out of the last 16 times would get me interested.

While Obama has been short on specifics, his rhetoric has been very centrists in many regards and some phrases sound as if they are right out of the "Two Percent Solution Book." Specifically:

"What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems."

"the smallness of our politics" is an idea that the 2 Percent Solution talks about many times, in regard to our social issues.

And how about this on education:

"Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability."

That's not exactly a lefty position. I'm not sure the teacher's unions will be jumping for joy, but this sounds like the grand bargain offered in the book.

Overally I'm intrigued. Of all the candidates Obama is talking like a centrist and talking about tackling some of the big issues that have been systematically ingnored for the last 15-20 years. We'll have to see if the details match the rhetoric ... and if he changes his tune when the political going gets tougher.

Why isn't the media playing devil's advocate in the current Iraq debate about the downside to withdrawing? Bush continues to argue withdrawing from Iraq would be catestrophic. Many experts say the resulting civil war in Iraq would spill over to the borders and draw in Iran, Turkey and maybe more countries. Iraq would also become a haven for terrorists.

It's not just Bush and the pro-war forces pushing this thinking, many democrats also use this as the reason they can't support an immediate withdrawl or cut off funding.

But would pulling out really result in the catastrophy that the conventional wisdom envisions?

I'm not trying to make an argument that pulling out won't be so bad, but where is the media to question these assumptions? Back in October Leslie Glib argued that Vietnam shows withdrawing won't necessarily look like our fears. But there's been little followthrough from the media, excect last week's Left, Right & Center.

The conventional wisdom is that withdrawing from Iraq will be potentially catestrophic for these reasons:

1. A civil war in Iraq will likely spread to other countries, particularly Turkey and possibly Iraq as the Kurdish people seek to join in one nation. Iran is also seen widening its presence in Iraq. And the other nations may provide aid across borders based on to their religious orientation.

2. An unstable Iraq will be a haven for terrorists who will then strike against the US and US intersts.

3. A war in the Mid East is a huge threat for the world economy with all the oil in the region.

But you can make a strong case against all these and that withdrawing won't be the nightmare this alarmest thinking envisions.

1. One problem here is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the two countries, outside of Israel, that the U.S. can exert the most pressure on in the Mid East. So we have options if the Suni or Kurdish ties to the civil war become a problem. We can also put troops in key areas along the borders to prevent any escalation.

2. It can be argued that the Iraqis only tolerate outside terrorists because they are fighting against the US presence. Once the US presence is gone, they may not tolerate these outsiders interfering in their affairs. And the US can still strike against terrorists camps as they've done recently in Somalia.

3. Iraq isn't exactly producing oil, so unless this really spills over to Iran or Saudi Arabia, this isnt much more of a threat than at the moment.

Since much of the alarmist talk in running up to the Iraq war didn't turn out to be true, why should we trust the arguments this time around? And Vietnam is certainly a recent historical precendent that the media can grasp to show that alarmist talk ("Domino Theory") doesn't always prove true.

Will the pack mentality of the media break out its cycle of failing to explore the conventinal wisdom and spin from both parties?

Rep. Barney Frank laid out a "grand bargain" this week in a speech, which the Wall Street Journal titled:

"Businesses wondering how to deal with the Democrats taking charge in Congress today have a blunt offer from a top lawmaker in the majority: Support our priorities and we'll support yours.

The "grand bargain" laid out by Rep. Barney Frank represents a road map to how Democrats may strike deals to aid unionization, expand health-care coverage and find common ground on other issues, while giving businesses concessions on immigration, trade and investment."

I really like the tone of this. I don't think it's going to find any traction because my theory is that Congress has about six months to get anything done before the 2008 presidential campaign begins to crowd out any policy initiatives. But while Frank's talk may not result in any real policy iniatives in 2007, perhaps this is a tone that can carry over into the 2008 presidental campaign. Bigger issues like health care and education require this kind of thinking. Hopefully this is the start of a trend.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today on the Democrats' plans to slow the growing income inequality in this country, and it reads like a prequel to the 2% Solution.
All the problems - healthcare, education, minimum wage - are becoming more pronounced for both sides of the isle but solutions seem unreachable. Hum, many suggested in the book seem ripe for this envinronment. How can we make it happen?

I was particularly struck by this line about health care:

"Finding a politically palatable and affordable way to make health insurance universally available has been impossible, so far. Mr. Bush has pushed tax credits to help more people buy insurance on their own, and dangled rule changes and low-premium, high-deductible policies to encourage small firms to offer coverage. Although some Democrats still drool over proposals for government health insurance for all, others prefer piecemeal approaches."

Is that really the only solutions being floated out there? How about Mitt Romney's plan in Mass.? Is no one proposing anything else from either party?