Less guanxi, please

Senior Chinese leader Xi Jinping has urged the Party to improve its criteria for selecting and appointing cadres in the process of building the Party in the new era. Xi, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), made the remarks recently at a workshop attended by delegates from the Party's Organization Department in Beijing.

Cadre -- In 1987 the party and government cadre (ganbu) system, the rough equivalent of the civil service system in many other countries, was entering the final stages of a massive overhaul aimed at transforming the bureaucracy into an effective instrument of national policy. The term cadre refers to a public official holding a responsible or managerial position, usually full time, in party and government. A cadre may or may not be a member of the CCP, although a person in a sensitive position would almost certainly be a party member.

Guanxi -- describes the basic dynamic in personalized networks of influence, and is a central concept in Chinese society. In Western media, the pinyin romanization of this Chinese word is becoming more widely used instead of the two common translations—"connections" and "relationships"—as neither of those terms sufficiently reflect the wide cultural implications that guanxi describes.

It's hard to imagine that anyone but Party cadres and academics outside of China would pay attention to this, but Xinhua featured it in the "Window on China" section of its web site.It's another vague statement of opposition to corruption. Action takes place in a totally different world -- maybe not this world.When Party leader Xi talks about the criteria that should be used for "selecting and appointing cadres," what is he saying about the criteria now used?

"Senior Chinese leader Xi Jinping [above] has urged the Party to improve its criteria for selecting and appointing cadres in the process of building the Party in the new era...

"The Party should set officials' integrity, performance and their dedication to their work as an important criteria for selecting and appointing cadres, Xi said."The CPC's 17th national congress put forward the aim of increasing public trust in cadre selection and appointment...

"The Party should give special attention to cadres who have long been working diligently in places fraught with hardships and difficulties, and promote cadres who work hard, enjoy popular support and have political integrity, Xi stressed.

"He vowed to severely punish crooked Party officials linked to corruption and dereliction of duty."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/20/content_7632876.htm

China's Katrina?

By Feifan

As you might know from the news, at the beginning of this February, China was hit with a series of severe winter storms. How severe? It was reported to be the worst winter weather in over half a century, and the coldest winter in 20 years. The storms covered a huge swath of land from the beginning of January to the beginning of February from Xinjiang on China’s northwest border all the way to the eastern coast.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/China_snow_2008_eng.png

The effect of all this was disorder on a massive scale. Many small buildings were damaged when their roofs collapsed from the snow, 223,000 homes were destroyed and 862,000 others were damaged. Many cities were left without power or water, and telecommunications and internet infrastructures were damaged across the nation as well. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that 129 people were killed as a result of the snowstorms, with another 1.8 million Chinese citizens having to be relocated. Among these fatalities were a bus crash in my home province of Anhui in which 11 people died, and the incident with 3 workers who were killed trying to remove ice from power lines, a story that the government quickly jumped upon, calling the 3 men “revolutionary martyrs”. As well, there was massive damage to China’s agricultural infrastructure (refer to link).

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080201/98198463.html

Note that the picture on that story is either the PLA or the People’s Armed Police out in force to shovel the snow, while red flags wave in the background. Particularly amusing is that one guy in the middle raising a flag. Interesting, the kind of public relations you get in a country still ruled by a communist regime. :]

The effect on China’s people was profound as well. As luck would have it, these storms happened to fall exactly at the time of the yearly Spring Festival (also known as Chinese New Year) celebrations. As you might have seen in the news, countless numbers of migrant workers that are employed in cities were trapped at bus and train stations (especially in Guangzhou) by the bad weather.

Now thankfully, everyone in my family generally just stays in our hometown of Hefei, but for all those who work away from their relatives, getting home for the holidays was imperative. It seems like aside from the small stores and restaurants, usually when Spring Festival rolls around most of China grinds to a halt as people find time to visit with their families. Of course, Chinese values espouses the importance of close family ties, so it’s not as if all those stranded at transportation hubs were just about to give up. But ultimately, millions of travelers were forced to cancel their plans. Not exactly a great way to ring in the New Year.

A special report on "China's War on Snow Havoc" can be found here:

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/08snow/index.htm

Here's Ralph, Again

Ralph Nader is running for President again. Even if he loses, he might eventually get the Harold Stassen Award for the most number of pointless runs for the Presidency after you have already become a national laughingstock. If you follow the Stassen link to the bottom of the Wikipedia page you can find how the continually running candidate got his name into a Simpson's script.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, Nader might actually get a few votes. If Barack Obama is the nominee, it seems unlikely that he will even hit 1%. Few Democrats over 25 have forgotten that if Al Gore had gotten 1% of the 92,000 votes Nader got in Florida in 2000, he would have become President. Democrats under 25 seem obsessed by Obama. Republicans want no part of Nader.

By the way, Ron Paul said in a Tuesday morning radio show that he would not run as a third-party candidate because the institutional obstacles make it too hard and, "really undemocratic."

Another factor this time is age. Nader is 2 years older than John McCain. Here's an SAT math question: Ralph Nader is older than John McCain. McCain says he is older than dirt. What is Ralph Nader's relationship with dirt? Well, as the Green Party candidate in 2000, Ralph was representing what 2004 Greeny David Cobb said was the party that, "is the heart and sould of the Democratic Party. Greens stand up for the disenfranchised. We stand up for plants and animals and Ecosysystems."

Here is Nader announcing his latest run on Meet the Press last Sunday. In 2004, as an Independent, he was only on 24 state ballots. How many state ballots do you think he will get on this year?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23320281#23320281

Nader says it's not always about winning, as the Swamp reports here:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ralph_nader_its_not_always_abo.html

One-party democracy?

Before parliamentary elections held last December, pressure was felt at two of the region's largest universities, Volga State and Lobachevsky State, shown here. Students said they were warned not to join marches sponsored by the opposition coalition. And they said that before the elections, administrators issued a threat: if you do not vote for the ruling party, you will be evicted from your dorms.

Lost in all the horserace excitement over the New York Times and its front-page story about John McCain and the lobbyist, was a series the Times published with arictles that, "will examine the crackdown in Russia under President Vladimir V. Putin."

Does the regime under Putin -- recent past and future -- have legitimacy. And is there a different standard of legitimacy as Russians look in the mirror and out the window:

The Times reports that the meaning of the youth vote is very different in Russia. Check out the caption under the picture above. Or this graph:

"The city’s children, too, were pressed into service. At schools, teachers gave them pamphlets promoting “Putin’s Plan” and told them to lobby their parents. Some were threatened with bad grades if they failed to attend “Children’s Referendums” at polling places, a ploy to ensure that their parents would show up and vote for the ruling party."

Other passages:

"Over the past eight years, in the name of reviving Russia after the tumult of the 1990s, Mr. Putin has waged an unforgiving campaign to clamp down on democracy and extend control over the government and large swaths of the economy. He has suppressed the independent news media, nationalized important industries, smothered the political opposition and readily deployed the security services to carry out the Kremlin’s wishes.

"While those tactics have been widely recognized, they have been especially heavy-handed at the local level...

"Mr. Putin’s Russia is not the Soviet Union. For most Russians, life is freer now than it was in the old days. Criticism of the Kremlin is tolerated, as long as it is not done in any broadly organized way, and access to the Internet is unfettered. The economy, with its abundance of consumer goods and heady rate of growth, bears little resemblance to the one under Communism.

"Still, as was made plain in dozens of interviews with political leaders, officials and residents of Nizhny Novgorod over several weeks, a new autocracy now governs Russia. Behind a facade of democracy lies a centralized authority that has deployed a nationwide cadre of loyalists that is not reluctant to swat down those who challenge the ruling party. Fearing such retribution, many of the people interviewed for this article asked not to be identified..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24putin.html

One wonders if the Russian Federalism you read about in the paper constitution, which legend says was written in part on many of Boris Yeltsin's vodka cocktail napkins, has melted away like bar cubes.

'All We Want Are the Facts Ma’am'

Mourners at an NIU memorial last week.

From the 2 Regular Guys at CBS2chicago.com/school:

Common sense tells us that gun violence is a problem here in America.

It does not take the Valentine Day tragedy at Northern Illinois University to remind us that guns kill indiscriminately.

Furthermore many agree with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley this week when he called gun violence "an epidemic" in our nation.

Why is it that horrific gun violence continues to kill innocent lives and little to no public policy change occurs?

It is at this point that Joe Friday voice is heard saying, "All we want are the facts Ma'am . . . Just the facts." The facts may surprise you.

Though guns continue to be the method of choice (68%) when it comes to violent crime, such offenses in America are down 38% since 1990. Gun ownership continues to expand in the United States with an estimate of 70 million gun owners possessing over 200 million guns. That means roughly 45% of American households own at least one gun. Yet accidental deaths attributable to guns are down 90% since such statistics were kept.

The news frightens us. The facts may calm us.

What should our conclusions be?

Guns will be a wedge issue in the upcoming national elections. Conservatives, finding protection in the 2nd Amendment, will promote individual rights to own guns. Liberals, pointing to terrible incidence of gun violence, will call for greater individual responsibility and stricter gun control.

At that point, Dragnet fans, facts become irrelevant.

In the end, guns will be an issue in 2008. Policies will not change, but votes will.

And that is just a fact.

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Gun Violence

Your Turn: Russia/China quizzes

The BBC has two comprehensive in-depth looks at Russia and China. Your job is to read through the sites and come 1) 10-question quiz on Russia; and 2) 10-quiz on China.

Provide answers to your questions.

Russia key facts at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457038/html/default.stm

China key facts at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1287798.stm

President's Day Potpouri

There's been a lot of government and politics news over the last few days, so the Political Warrior will take this post to catch up. But before we do, we should reflect back on the U.S. President's we honor today. At one time a day to honor George Washington, then another day was added to laud Abraham Lincoln, now it's one day to honor all 43 -- love 'em or leave 'em.

As CitizenU.com wrote:

Most of us learned our U.S. history by way of presidential stories.Washington began it all.

Jefferson purchased Louisiana then hired Lewis and Clark.
Jacksonian democracy resulted in a chaotic inaugural.
Lincoln saved the Union.
Roosevelt gave us a New Deal and then saved the world.
Kennedy brought sex appeal, and so began a revolution.
Nixon broke our trust.
Reagan made us feel good again.

The threads that weave our American story invariably include one of our forty-three Masters of Ceremony, one of our Chief of State, one of our Presidents. For this reason we honor our Presidents today.

President's Day, at one time only a day to celebrate Washington, is now dedicated to remembering much more. A strong single executive has guided the rich tapestry of American history. Our story is wrapped in Presidents’ stories.

The President of the United States truly matters. Yet citizens matter too. Perhaps this is why our presidential candidates expend so much energy these days. Without us, their stories become less important.

Happy President's Day.
_________________


And then there were 193? Kosovo, by letter, declared its independence from Serbia and asked for recognition from the other states in the world Monday. Remember, recognition is one of the charicteristics (or pillars) of the state -- a body of people (population) living in a defined territory, organized politically (government) and having the power to make and enforce law without consent of a higher authority (sovereignty).

Does Kosovo have it? Bypassing official UN recognition, it did get props from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and most of the EU.

It did not get recognition from Russia (with permanent UN veto power) and Serbia. Russia considers Kosovo near-abroad -- the non-Russian countries that were once part of the USSR. More recently, Russian leaders have been referring to all 15 countries collectively as "Post-Soviet Space," while asserting Russian foreign policy interest throughout the region. Follow the still developing story here:

Bush: ‘The Kosovars are now independent’
U.S. formally recognizes nation; Britain, France, Germany say they will too

PRISTINA, Kosovo - The United States formally recognized Kosovo's independence Monday, and Europe's major powers said they would do the same, setting up a confrontation with Serbia and its key ally, Russia.

Kosovo's leaders had sent letters to 192 countries Monday seeking formal recognition of independence, and suspense gripped the capital as its citizens awaited backing from the key powers.

But the United States formally recognized Kosovo's independence in a statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and President Bush said, “The Kosovars are now independent.”

Serbia responded by recalling its ambassador to Washington.
The foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany and Italy said those nations also would recognize Kosovo.

"A majority of (European Union) member states will recognise a democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo founded on the rule of law," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after talks among EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

Russia also rejected the declaration and persuaded the U.N. Security Council to meet in emergency session Sunday in an attempt to block Kosovo's secession. The council was to meet again later Monday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has argued that independence without U.N. approval would set a dangerous precedent for "frozen conflicts" across the former Soviet Union, where separatists in Chechnya and Georgia are agitating for independence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23219277/

______________

Valentine's Day Masacre

This from Indianapolis Star political cartoonist Gary Varvel on his shocking cartoon, covering last week's event which is becoming seemingly less and less shocking all the time. Why did I find the cartoon more shocking than the fact that a disturbed student has an arsenal and used it to kill on a close-by college campus?

"This cartoon is a shock to the system. It is disturbing and it should be. These things should not go together. The contrasting images of a bookbag, books, a rose and a valentines card should have nothing to do with blood splatters but this is the ugly truth of evil. Whether it's terrorists or some sick individual who decides to leap into eternity and take innocent people with him, we are left with unanswered questions and the empty feeling of helplessness. To those of us with children who still use bookbags, this is a nightmare image. On a day when we celebrate "love" we are gripped by grief. "

Last April I posted this after the Virginia Tech shootings, the opposite of sunsetting legislation, will the policy making window open up for those calling for madatory reportin of mentally ill on college campuses, or those who continue to call for further gun-control legislation:

Regardless of your stance, the gun attack has opened the policy-making window for somebody.

Thousands of bills are introduced in state and federal legislative chambers every year in America, but relatively few of these bills ever get enacted into law.

In many cases, lawmakers shelve a bill and wait to introduce the legislation at an opportune time when a window opens.

The U.S. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act within 45 days of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, but most components of the bill had been written more than a decade before 9/11/2001.

The terrorist attacks simply opened the window of opportunity for advocates to push the policy through.Just as the Reagan Assassination attempt opened the window to passing the federal Brady Law that requires gun buyers to undergo a criminal background check, the 1991 killings in Kileen, Texas opened the window to passing the Texas law that allowed Texans to carry a gun anywhere.

Angry NIU parents pushed for more gun-control following the campus tragedy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-niu-parents-gun-control-080216,0,7705826.story

____________

Back to the Horserace -- Clinton accuses Obama of Plagarism

Hillary Clinton has accused Barack Obama of plagiarism as the former First Lady attempts to drag her high-flying young opponent into a pitched battle for the Democratic nomination.

Video: Watch Obama's 'plagiarised speech'

Having triumphed in eight consecutive primary elections, Mr Obama is forecast to continue his stunning ascent with victories in Hawaii and Wisconsin on Tuesday, although the latter is a close race.

However, he has been forced into the unwelcome distraction of fighting off charges from Mrs Clinton's camp that he lacks credibility after he used a short passage from a speech by his friend Deval Patrick, the Governor of Massachusetts, nearly verbatim and without attribution.

Speaking at a titanium plant in Ohio, where Mr Obama was trying to focus on his ideas for saving US jobs, he said Mr Patrick had suggested he use the words.

“Deval and I trade ideas all the time. He has occasionally used lines of mine and at the dinner in Wisconsin I used some words of his. On occasion, Senator Clinton has used words of mine as well."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/18/wobama118.xml

McCain vote on torture a flip-flop?

This week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted against an intelligence bill that stated:

"No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=deVf_fTSDP8

You make the call...the government listening...who's right on FISA?

While the Senate passed the FISA bill with telecom amunity last week, the House hasn't. This shapes up the classic political debate of our time. Who is keeping us safer from the terrorists? These comments in the crossfire from President Bush, who vows to veto a FISA Bill that doesn't give telecom companies legal immunity and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

"I guess you got to come to the conclusion that there's a threat to America, or not a threat," the president said, warning that he might have to cancel a state visit to Africa. "I mean, evidently, some people just don't feel that sense of urgency. I do." -- President Bush

“The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.

No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.” -- Senator Kennedy

Remember, Politics is Easy. Governing is Hard.

______________

Also, late last week:

House holds Bush confidants in contempt

WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.

Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout.

The vote was 223-32 to hold White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.

"Let's just get up and leave," he told his colleagues, before storming out of the House chamber with scores of Republicans in tow.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_go_co/white_house_contempt;_ylt=AoXamNQa6OkeAjBSuMHFZEms0NUE

Why is Congress investigating steroid use in baseball?

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, said the main motivation for the investigation is the rising use of steroids among the country's children. Along with testimony from baseball players and executives, the committee also calls upon medical experts and parents whose children committed suicide after using steroids.

For our purposes, Congress has oversight powers, and in a contentious hearing on the use of performance-enhancing drugs by Major League baseball players, Brian McNamee testified that he had injected Roger Clemens and others with human growth hormones and anabolic steroids.

Mr. Clemens flatly denied Mr. McNamee’s statements under aggressive questioning by some committee members. Mr. Scheeler testified that he still stood by the results of his investigations for the Mitchell Report and believed that Brian McNamee was truthful about administering the drugs.

Mr. Clemens’ lawyers Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer tried to intervene on behalf of their client during questioning but the committee chairman eventually told them this was not allowed in hearings.

The full title of the report prepared by former Senator George Mitchell is, Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball.

Linked here is the four-hour hearing from C-Span.org. Congress also can use the "Necessary an Proper Clause" to take action, which could include recomending perjury charges against Roger Clemens. Baseball also has Congressional Anti-Trust exemption, which further gives members jurisdiction. Days before the hearings, while giving depositions, Clemens met with members. He was filmed giving away autographs. I bet he has not given one of those away at ballpark for years.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?

Blog here and comment on any of the news of the last few days.

Constitutional Censorship

In looking comparatively at the constitutions of China and Russia, we noticed some contradictions on what is written in theory and what is allowed to be written, read or watched in practice in the former Communist States.

The Russian Constitution specifically states that censorship is prohibited. . .Yet. . . Free press in Russia is all but an ancient idea from 10 years ago. Gone are the days of a vibrant media that felt free to criticize President Yeltsin. President Putin has helped to consolidate much of the TV media under the government's control thereby obliterating meaningful criticism of his regime.

The suspicious deaths of two of his most vocal critics --one by gunfire, one by radiation poisoning in 2006 -- threaten to silence the remaining critics.

Article 22 of the Chinese Constitution states: "The state promotes the development of literature and art, the press, broadcasting and television undertakings, publishing and distribution services, libraries, museums, cultural centres and other cultural undertakings, that serve the people and socialism, and sponsors mass cultural activities."

But Article 28 states:The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.

The Chinese Government uses Microsoft technology to block anti-State messages. Microsoft, which was stymied in its attempts to buyout Yahoo last week, has been in competition with Google and Yahoo for the last couple of years. The multi-national media communications companies have made business decisions. If you can't beat them (the Chinese Government), join them (in censorship).

In 2006, Yahoo handed over to the Chinese a problematic blogger who has since been imprisoned.

Google.cn is a search engine geared toward the Chinese market. This engine, however, has been retrofitted to please the Chinese leadership and communist officials. When searching for “human rights” and “death penalty” no sites are found. Furthermore when doing an image search for “tanks in Tiananmen Square” again no luck. Human rights advocates are outraged.

Members of Congress met to consider exposing and punishing corporate suits like Google who appear to be compromising American values to earn a buck. But no legislation ever came of it. Our free trade agreement with China trumped calls for free speech rights.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/09/65089

Google, remember, has a motto - “Don’t be evil.”

But what about here at home, where we have Free Speech, Press as part of our First Amendment. We've earlier covered how the MSM with consolidation of corporate ownership may be filtering the news through busisness eyes as some suggest. That has led to the new You-Media.

But because "All Politics is Local," it would be good to examine how much is censorship covering our eyes and ears right here at home? To despell the myths that our librarians are "evil," and to give us a look at what local governments are filtering from us, WVHS LMC Director Gayl Smith's guest commentary on censorship in our school district. Internet filters, you all know and get around, but you may not know that four books have concerned the powers that be:

Within our school district, there have been attempts at censorship. Most recently, parents in one of our elementary schools objected to a book called:

Yankee Girl -- This is a middle school book about a girl who, in the 60s, moves to Mississippi from Chicago. Her dad is an FBI agent and he's been sent to protect the Freedom Riders. She is nicknamed Yankee Girl by her schoolmates because her "northern ways" seem strange to them. Because she is treated poorly, she has some sympathy for the black girl who is integrated into her classroom. The problem for the parents here in #204 is the constant use of the "n" word.

The author, in trying to be true to the times, has the characters speak as they would have in Mississippi at that time. These parents felt that if children are allowed to read this book, they will believe using that work is ok. In order to check this book out of that school library, students must now bring a note from home. The access to the book is not banned, but it is restricted.

Flamingo Rising -- There was recently a challenge to a high school book. A couple of years ago, students were required to read Flamingo Rising for an advanced English class over the summer. The book describes a first sexual experience. Parents objected, feeling that without class discussion, their students wouldn't handle this sensitive subject well. A compromise was reached and while the novel stayed in the curriculum, it could not be an independent summer assignment, again a restriction.

Harry Potter -- has been banned as a classroom read aloud in an elementary school. A book called Big Mama Makes the World, a reworking of the story of creation with a large black woman being the creator has been been removed from one of our elementary schools.

"I applaud your concern about censorship occuring anywhere in the world," writes Mrs. Smyth.

The American Library Association (ALA) is a special interest group that lobbies local, state and federal government authorities under the motto that, "Free People Read Freely." The ALA sponsors a, "Banned Books Week," each year:

"And Tango Makes Three" tops ALA's 2006 list of most challenged books

CHICAGO – Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell’s award-winning "And Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins parenting an egg from a mixed-sex penguin couple, tops the list of most challenged books in 2006 by parents and administrators, due to the issues of homosexuality.

The list also features two books by author Toni Morrison. "The Bluest Eye" and "Beloved" are on the list due to sexual content and offensive language.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=151926

Sizzle or Substance? Or Both?

There was a reported 16,000 at the UW Kohl Center to hear Barack Obama speak Tuesday night.

Image is not everything in politics. But it's pretty important. Here are some images following Tuesday's Potomac Primaries. Followed by what would sure to be a substantive policy debate between the two now leading front-runners, Barack Obama and John McCain.

First the visual of the victory speeches. Obama spoke before repotedly the largest crowd ever at the University of Wisconsin Kohl Center. The Washington Post called the candidate "ebullient," and his college crowd "ecstatic."

Read more and view the speech here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/12/ebulient_obama_rallies_in_madi.html

At 46 on election day, if Obama were to get the nomination to run against 72-year-old John McCain, it would be the largest age difference (26 years) in presidential electoral history, accordng to NBC's Tim Russert.

Meanwhile, John McCain's image exudes experience. He was seen celebrating his victory here side-by-side with former Senate Armed Services Chair John Warner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHwTcOptSQM

Will the inturpreted image be experience, or what conservative commentator Pat Buchanan said, "They gotta change that. He was surrounded by old guys. It looked like, 'Grandpa wants more power.'"

Hillary Clinton moved to her firewall, Texas. She did not mention her three losses at all during her stump speech. With more changes in her campaign, what image becomes reality?

Clinton had won lower income Democrats, generally, until Tuesday. The Times of London ran a story which said the race was between the “Latte Liberals” (Obama) and the “Dunkin’ Donuts Democrats” (Clinton). But this video shows Barack trying to break through that barrier.




http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/C48d

And then on Wednesday there came substance along with the sizzling images. Obama was at a GM auto plant in Wisconsin, where he proposed a $210 billion job creation plan. In announcing his plan, Obama pointedly did not include one of his biggest applause lines, that he would require vehicle manufacturers to raise fuel economy standards. Obama often points out that he delivered that message straight to the automakers during a speech last year in Detroit.

But he didn't mention it on the plant visit that came a day after GM reported the largest annual loss ever for an American automaker - $38.7 billion in 2007.

"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday," Obama said. "I also know how much progress you've made, how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to retool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8UPLPSO0

The Republican National Committee responded by launching the Obama Spend-O-Meter.

http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=2be4675a-89a2-49ce-a994-778dc92b9d19

Another image. Bill and Hillary circa 1970. Remember Bill smoked the wacky tabaccy (Dunkin Donuts drug?), but didn't inhale. Barack wrote that he briefly tried cocaine (Latte?) in college.

Liberty vs. Security showdown?

Liberal filmaker Michael Moore's next project is reportedly about the liberties we are losing while "we slept." -- or were otherwise distracted.

Moore will likely have more coverage on yesterday's action of the Senate than any of the broadcast MSM outlets, that had hours of horserace primary coverage but nothing on a major vote that two of the three presidental candidates cast yesterday. Voice of America Reports:

"The U.S. Senate Tuesday voted to renew a controversial surveillance law set to expire at the end of the week. Lawmakers left intact a provision to shield telephone companies from lawsuits for their role in the Bush administration's wiretap program, despite opposition from many Democrats."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-12-voa74.cfm

Some citizens advocacy special interest groups -- not the telecom companies (remember coorporate special interests lead all of lobbyist groups in their influence of our government) slammed the 31-67 Senate vote. The legislation now moves to the House, where lawmakers did not provide legal coverage for the telecoms. President Bush vows a veto of any bill that does not give corporate communication companies legal coverage in giving the executive branch information to keep the nation secure.

The Washington Post reports:

" The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) slammed the Senate vote. "Immunity for telecom giants that secretly assisted in the NSA's warrantless surveillance undermines the rule of law and the privacy of every American," said EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston. "Congress should let the courts do their job instead of helping the administration and the phone companies avoid accountability for a half decade of illegal domestic spying."

It doesn't make sense for Congress to work hard on the FISA bill when the NSA and telecom providers can circumvent the law, added Greg Nojeim, CDT's senior counsel. "The telecom immunity provision sends a message that it's OK for a telecom to assist with unlawful surveillance when secretly asked to do so by the government," he said.

Democratic Senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin had sponsored the amendment to get rid of legal immunity for the telecom providers. AT&T and other telecom carriers are being sued in U.S. court in San Francisco for their participation in the surveillance program, which many civil liberties groups say is illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021300920.html

Of course there was a horserace sidebar to this story, and the Politico's CRYPT blog reports.

"The vote also provided an opportunity to showcase the key differences on national security between presidential candidates, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted against immunity for telecoms, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), voted to keep immunity in the bill. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not show up for the vote. All three candidates were in the Washington area Tuesday morning for the region's three primaries."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/

And apparently after the vote, Obama and McCain got togther for a bear hug that turned into a head butt?

"Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and his 60-watt smile couldn't get a moment alone Tuesday as the Senate voted on the FISA bill.

Obama, who’s locked into a fierce battle with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, was tending to the fans — and there were many of them.
First, he was surrounded by Sens. Ben Nelson, (D-Neb.), Kent Conrad, (D-N.D.), Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). Then, almost instantly, he was enveloped by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sens. Barbara Boxer, (D-Calif.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-Fla.) pulled him away for a moment, as did Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) played the "my turn! my turn!" game, too.

Clinton did not vote Tuesday.

But someone else wanted an O-Mo. (Short for Obama moment) As Obama and Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) talked mano-a-mano in the front of the chamber, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) approached Obama to say hello.

The two presidential rivals shook hands and exchanged a laugh, but Salazar apparently wasn't satisfied with that. The Colorado senator bear-hugged the two candidates bringing them head to head for a brief moment, as their colleagues looked on and laughed.

Could Salazar be signaling who he thinks will be head-to-head in the presidential election?
Hmmmm. We wonder.

The New Crusade? Intro to the Post-Communist World

As we begin our look into the Post-Communist World, we need to start with the basics in this three part intro assignment:

Part One:


In Groups, Access the constitutions of current day Russia and China and create a compare/contrast chart with the U.S. Constitution. List and explain a minimum of 5 comparisons and 5 contrastings observations. (similar to what we did for Great Britain).

Russia:


www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/constit.html

China:


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

Part Two:


Read and highlight the first two Chapters of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.


http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html



Part Three:

You will write an "I am not a Marxist" essay from the eyes of three leading Communist leaders. I will explain (more explanation later).

For an out-of-the-box analysis check out The Karl Marx Band and the Find the Flowers Campaign:

http://www.thekarlmarxband.com/

How big is a trillion, or 3?

Last week, President sent Congress his final budget. He called it "innovative" because it was dispatched to Congress electronically, saving the American money because the $3.1 trillion budget didn't have to be printed, copied or mailed out.

Despite those savings and cuts in Medicare, Medicade and frozen expenditures in education, it would be hard to claim that the record 2009 budget will have anyone repeating President Bill Clinton's 1996 claim that, "“The era of big government is over.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22990613

The $3.1 trillion proposed budget projects sizable increases in national security but forces the rest of government to pinch pennies. It seeks $196 billion in savings over five years in the government's giant health care programs - Medicare and Medicaid.

But even with those restraints, the budget projects the deficits will soar to near-record levels of $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, driven higher in part by efforts to revive the sagging economy with a $145 billion stimulus package.

So how much is a trillion?

“A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years,” (see http://www.tysknews.com/).

or

“Let’s say it’s the year 1, the beginning of the first millennium. You have a trillion dollars to spend–at the rate of one million dollars a day. At just before three years, you’ve reached a billion dollars. So you keep spending. Now you are in the year 2,000. Would you believe you’d still have 737 years to go before you exhaust your trillion dollar pile,” (see http://davidhunnicutt.com/).

$3.1 trillion?

Bush’s conservatism has grown the government at rates not seen since Nixon (another conservative) thirty years ago. Democrats will certainly pass this budget albeit in their own image. Do not look for them to shave any off the total.Big government over? Humorist Will Rogers said “you can always tell when a politician is not telling the truth . . . when they move their lips.”

[Political] talk is not cheap.

Push Polling, Robo Calls and Other Telephonic Shenanigans

Dirty tricks, or HARDBALL Politics?

With a razor-tight race in the Democratic Primary and a prominent "good-bye" given in the Republican race, I thought it was a good time to look for, or analyze the shenanigans or downright dirty tricks of these campaigns of candidates seeking our highest office in the land.

Push Poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning [1]. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative.

Robocall is American pejorative jargon for an automated telemarketing phone call which uses both a computerized autodialer and a computer-delivered recorded message. The implication is that a "robocall" resembles a telephone call from a robot.

Some states (23 according to DMNews) have laws that distinguish political robocalls from other kinds of political telemarketing. For example, in Indiana and North Dakota, automated telemarketing calls are illegal.[1][2] In NH, political robocalls are allowed –- except when the recipient is in the National Do Not Call Registry.[3] Many states require the disclosure of who paid for the call, often requiring such notice be recorded in the candidate's own voice.

So with the definitional context, who uses these things. Well, everyone. And they all get criticized. The Clinton campaign criticized the Obama campaign for making illegal Robocalls in New Hampshire.

Here are two examples of Robocalls. One for Barack. One against Barack Hussein Obama.

Good Call: Here's a recording of the Scarlett Johansson call, where she asks the recipient in California to "join me and thousands of other independent voters in supporting Barack Obama tomorrow."

Bad Call: The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan's answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: "Hussein."

"I'm calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama," the call begins, before saying that "Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does."

After mentioning his full name once more, the call concludes:

"You just can't take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama."

Click here to listen to the campaign's recording of the call.

The Los Angeles Times reports that someone supporting Hillary Clinton is push-polling for the candidate

Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.

Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."

"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."
For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.

Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn't get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

South Carolina is a state made imfamous by Robocalls and Push Polls. This year John McCain says he beat them. In 2000, he didn't. As the NY Times reported before the SC primary.

"Volunteers making telephone calls for Senator John McCain in South Carolina last weekend noticed something odd: Four people contacted said in remarkably similar language that they opposed Mr. McCain for president because of his 1980 divorce from his first wife, Carol, who raised the couple’s three children while Mr. McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

By Tuesday afternoon, a group calling itself Vietnam Veterans Against McCain had sent out a crude flier accusing the candidate of selling out fellow P.O.W.’s to save himself.

By Tuesday evening, a group called Common Sense Issues, which supports

Mike Huckabee, had begun making what it said were a million automated calls to households in South Carolina telling voters, according to one of the calls, that Mr. McCain “has voted to use unborn babies in medical research.” (The campaign of Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, said it had no connection to the group and had asked it to stop the calls.)

Mr. McCain quickly fired back, but he has seen this movie before. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, one of the most notorious smear campaigns in recent American politics peddled distortions and lies about him, among them that Mr. McCain’s current wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s daughter Bridget, adopted from

Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh, was a black child Mr. McCain had fathered out of wedlock. "

The now-defunct Fred Thompson was cranked by Huckabee-sided Push Polls.

At this point, various recordings of the artificial-intelligence-powered telephone calls are up on the web, and Huckabee's presidential rival Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, even has a YouTube video of it up on his site as a fund-raising gimmick. In "How to Rig an Election," Raymond recounts how Dick Zimmer, a former Republican congressman from New Jersey, hired political consultants to help him with a bid to unseat incumbent Democrat Rush Holt.

Is all of this just HARDBALL Politics or Dirty Tricks that need to be cleaned up?

Block Party

After the vote, Mr. Reid said he needed time to decide how to proceed. The majority leader, however, had already decided on the Team Reid Uniform (see staffer in the background).

Politics is easy. Governing is hard. But the hard politics of the government finding an easy, if not band-aid solution, to an ailing economy reared its ugly head again yesterday. Enter the Blame Game, again.

Senate Republicans, by a single vote filibustered the Senate version of the economic stimulus package. The political brinkmanship in the Senate stood in marked contrast to the House, where Republicans and Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi took just a week to reach a deal on an economic stimulus package with President Bush, and just four more days to pass the bill.

The measure was opposed by Republican leaders who said the Democrats added too many costly provisions, including an extension of unemployment benefits, tax credits for the coal industry and increased subsidies for home energy costs.

The total cost of the Senate plan came to about $204 billion over two years, or about $40 billion more than the House version.

The package needed 60 votes under Senate rules to move forward but failed 58 to 41, with 8 Republicans joining 48 Democrats and 2 independents in support of it. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, switched his vote to no from yes at the last second, a parliamentary move that lets him control the next steps on the bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/washington/07fiscal.html?ref=us

What would the next president say?

The Crypt, Politico.com's blog reports on the Senate's three presidential candidates' action/or not on yesterday's Senate session:

With 99 senators voting on the economic stimulus package and Democrats one vote short of their goal, some of them wondered:

Where is the Democrats' favorite Republican?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was actually in Washington _ his plane landed at Dulles Airport by 5 p.m., leaving plenty of time to make the 5:45 p.m. make or break procedural vote, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin.

But while hard core conservative critics of McCain might fear he'd join Democrats and vote for an expansive economic stimulus package opposed by GOP leadership, McCain's office says he wouldn't have helped Democrats on the bill.

"As you know, it was a procedural vote _ so his absence would not have affected the outcome as he would have opposed cloture," McCain spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield wrote in an e-mail to Politico.

So McCain could have added one more "no" vote and exhibited Republican unity as he seeks to nail down the Republican presidential nomination. Shuffield did not explain where McCain actually was instead of the Senate floor.

Democratic White House hopefuls Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) both made it to the Senate floor and voted "yes" on the economic bill, which now stands in limbo thanks to Republican opposition.

So what do you think? Is this just more party politics. Or does stimulating our sagging economy simply need more time (and riders?!)

Super Tuesday Breakdown

The results are coming in. Comment here to follow all of the action for this historic Super Tuesday.

This year, both parties were poised to dilute the initial flavor that Iowa and New Hampshire added to the nomination process. Instead of allowing the process to simmer for months, almost two dozen states—including Illinois--scheduled their nomination contests for February 5th.

This created the closest thing we've ever had to a national primary, but now we hear the critics complaining that this rushed process does not allow campaigns to connect fully with the citizens. We also saw that instead of reducing the role of Iowa and New Hampshire, the new timing had the exact opposite effect with candidates from both parties spending records sums of money and time in those early states.

What type of system will the party chefs cook up next time? They could create a national primary day with 50 states expressing their preference at once. Or they could change the timing of the process to create a system of rotating regional primaries as a more orderly way to proceed to the nomination.

The answer is anyone's guess, but we can accurately predict that any new recipe to create a nominee will have its fair share of critics and will probably continue to change for the next 200 years.

(From CBS 2 School)

Super Duper Tuesday Primer

Maria Shriver endorsed Senator Barack Obama on Sunday at a rally in Los Angeles.

More on endorsements and polls before the Super Duper Tuesday results come in tonight. Electoral-Vote.com has a map of the United States with tracking polls and analysis in each of the 24 states in play tonight.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Feb05.html

Linked on that sight (and also thanks to Salek for forwarding it to me) is an interactive choice of endorsements (non-inclusive) of the candidates. My favorites:

Hillary Clinton: Madeline Albright (former Sec. of State, fourth on presidential succession list but ineleigible for Oval Office because she was born in Czech.)

Barack Obama: Oprah (how can anyone else, regardless of gender, compete)

Mike Huckabee: Chuck Norris (his immigration plan)

John McCain: Arnold Schwarzenegger (California Govenator, though Golden State's Mansion is divided, see above)

Ron Paul: Howard Stern (libertarian-less government plan means less FCC hassles for the "King of All Media")

Mitt Romney: (Dennis Hassert, former Speaker of the House from Yorkville. I've got his autograph and two of my students worked as interns in his office)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/02/us/20080204_ENDORSE_GRAPHIC.html

The New York Times also reports on how this election is dividing votes within Democratic families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us/politics/04family.html?ref=politics

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS2 School have posted a what-to-watch for viewing guide for tonight's results:

The big winner this Tuesday will be the punditocracy. Regardless of primary election outcomes this Super Tuesday, the select few who blizzard the airwaves with commentary will tell us everything we need to know. Will we understand a word they say?

A political dictionary may be necessary. Many words in use now in the modern campaign sound foreign to the average viewer. Most pundits, campaign insiders themselves, take you the viewer for granted. Words are used that many find confusing. Below is a select glossary for the intended purpose of making this Tuesday a little more clear.

Use these words and you too can be a pundit this Tuesday.

Retail Politics vs. Wholesale Politics: Thus far we have seen retail politics. Candidates were able to spend a lot of time in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Votes came with hand shakes. This brand of personal politics has now been replaced by its wholesale version. Now candidates must show their appeal across many regions at the same time. The issues become much more broad. Pandering to particular provincial causes is over. In retail politics you play the role of neighbor. In wholesale politics you play the role of president.

Organization: This is the buzz word for campaign workers. Beyond strategy and even beyond the speech writing, the most important asset right now are legs in the field knocking on doors, making phone calls and bringing out the vote. In the end it is the vote tally that counts. Do not count on people going to the polls without an organization nudging every step of the way.

Institutional Support: Old-guard Democratic or Republican leaders who have been though this many times before. The institutions of the two parties is still significant, even if your text book suggests that the influence of America's two political parties (Ward Bosses, etc.) is not what it once was.

Mother's Milk of Politics: No viable political organization can be effective without this, money. Obama's claim to have raised $32 million in January was a battle cry. He can back up his words. Serious money buys a serious organization. Lest you think it is everything, think again. Romney ran 4,000 TV ads in Florida compared to McCain's 400. McCain still won the state. This Tuesday is different, however, so many states at once require these campaigns to do their work via TV. Money may make the difference at this stage.

Tarmac Campaigning: No more bus rides around the state over a period of weeks. The candidates now will be amassing enviable frequent flier miles. Quick campaign stops centered around regional airports will be the norm. Nixon, back in 1968, promised to campaign in all 50 states. The airport in Alaska, we're told, looks nothing like the rest of the state.

Pseudo-Events: TV ads are the buzz after yesterday's Super Bowl. TV ads will be the buzz after tomorrow's Super Tuesday results. Creating an image, framing a reality is critical to achieving political success. Huge sums of money are spent filling frames with pseudo-events in order to build a presidential image. Certain candidates appear more photogenic than others. With the proper editing, everyone now looks about the same.

Big Mo: After Tuesday, momentum will have taken a quantum leap. Most analysts assume that we should know the two frontrunners if not the two candidates this week. Winning Tuesday night will push certain dominos toward the ultimate nomination at this summer's conventions.

National Electability: Up to this point the word likeability has been preferred. The prize now is electability. With primary elections all over the country this Tuesday, parties and their respective candidates will get an idea of their chances next November. Demographic breakdowns will dominate coverage. Projections and predictions will abound. Look for some to start calling the November election outcome this Tuesday night.

Super Tuesday: A big day in presidential politics. What makes this day super is that so many states hold primary elections on the same day. No more one state at a time. Tuesday should reveal our next two candidates for President. John and Hillary sure hope so.

Of course the one word which matters most this Tuesday is the word DELEGATES. You cannot run for president in the general election without first winning the most delegates in your party's primaries and caucuses. Despite all of the important words Tuesday night, the most important may involve numbers."With words we govern men," Disraeli said more than a century ago.Never more true than right now.

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Super Tuesday Political Lingo

Remember, those of you watching the results from home tonight, I will get into the blogosphere and we can discuss/debate and give our real-time commentary on this historic, sort-of national primary night.

Welfare State Analysis

Today's assignment to review and analyze the British Welfare State:

Part One

1) Review the notes in your packet.

2) Click on the BBC link:Among the features, read:

3) Breadline Britain (timeline), Hard Times & Poverty in UK

4) Blunket on Welfare State & State of Welfare (charts) and

5) 1st Time Buyers & Then & Now: A Hospital's Story

When done reading and taking notes, write your own 10 question BreadlineBritain quiz (with questions & answers).

Do Not just copy the quiz thatis on the page, although you should take that when you are done. Quiz must be typed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2005/breadline_britain/default.stm

Part Two

In a one-page social and economic analysis, take a side on what the UK should do about its economic slump. From the The Times (UK): "Over the next five years, public spending is set to fall to an eight-year low as a proportion of national income, while taxes rise to a 24-year high."

Inflation in the eurozone hit 3.2% in January, the highest in the decade.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article3300955.ece

In your position paper, back one of two famous ecomonic thinkers.

John Maynard Keynes. Regardless of what other economists say, Keynes' brand of interventionist fiscal and monetary policy have trumped times like these since the Great Depression. The influential writings of Keynes, the British liberal who died back in 1946, still hold court in both Democrat and Republican circles in America and have been foundation of the British Welfare State. Central to his economic theory was the importance of deficit spending. The government is to play an important role in "priming the pump" of the national economy. Laissez - faire is out, active intervention is in. This is now economic dogma here in America. Not quite that far out in the UK.

Milton Friedman. Friedman’s view was that inflation, at the time a serious problem in many countries, was caused by governments pumping too much money into the economy.

At the same time Friedman was convinced that private individuals and companies should be given as much freedom as possible to carry out economic activities. Friedman became the most outspoken economist of his time, promoting small governments, low taxes, free markets and privatisation.

He attacked even the dominant theory of the time, developed by the British liberal thinker John Maynard Keynes among others, who espoused capitalism with a softer, more human face.Friedman promoted capitalism in its basic and less human forms, centring on a fundamental belief in the working of markets and privatisation: market fundamentalism.

In 1976 Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics, which gave him the status to impress not only generals like Pinochet, but others including British prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) and US president Ronald Reagan (1981-89).

"The Iraq War is Stupid" or It's the Economy,Stupid"

On the same day as it was announced that the U.S. economy lost 17,000 jobs, the U.S military says al-Qaida in Iraq was responsible for bombings in two popular Baghdad pet markets. The death toll has been raised to 99, making it the deadliest day in the capital in several months.

Authorities say the two blasts, which occurred 20 minutes apart, were carried out by two mentally disabled women strapped with explosives set off by remote control. Earlier in the week 5 more U.S. servicemen died bringing the number of U.S. military deaths to 3,943 in Iraq (29,038 wounded).

But Iraq has been pushed off the front page. Instead, Newsweek, this week, leads with The Road to Recession. The highlights (or low lights) of the struggling economy is the subprime collapse that bust the housing bubble (includig more foreclosures than at anytime since before 2003; Wall Street's resulting credit crunch, the Euro vs. the Dollar (.68 euro = 1 dollar) and more. Like $3+ price at the pump. Meanwhile, thanks to surging oil prices, Exxon Mobil’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.

Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.

Has the pivotal issue now become how the candidates will lead us out of economic doldrums, and the 1992 election strategy of "It's the economy stupid," has replaced the 2006 strategy of "Being in Iraq is stupid?"

President Bush acknowledged economic troubles on Friday, as he called for quick passage of the tax cut stimulus package:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/01/sots.bush.economy.cnn

Bill Clinton's camp made famous the, "It's the economy, stupid," quote. And under President Clinton's leadership, Forbes magazine ranked Bill Clinton as the top proserity president in modern era.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

"To be sure, there is a sharp debate as to the ability of any president — or government — to control the economy. But that doesn't prevent the heads of Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup from rooting for one candidate over another based on expectations of economic performance. Fairly or not, each president was judged by how much prosperity is delivered on his watch. Some presidents, it seems, have watched a lot more effectively than others. (We did not rank the current president, whose term is not yet over.) "

How much impact each presidential candidate could have on the ecomony is debatable. But there were a couple of ecomomic endorsements on Friday. Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Paul Voelker endorsed Barack Obama, and Steve Forbes (founder of Forbes magazine and former flat-tax presidential candidate) is backing John McCain.

Reuters has a fact box on the presidential candidates plans on the economy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed3/idUSN2363180220080123?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

So what is the biggest issue to you this campaign. The War in Iraq? The Dying Economy? Or is something else?

Poll: Super Bowl vs. Super Tuesday

It's Super Tuesday vs. the Super Bowl, two huge events on the political and sports calendars coming down the pike just a few days apart. And while each has its own brand of devotee, it turns out that the two are almost equally anticipated by the American public.

Asked which they're more excited about, 40 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll cite the Super Bowl, which kicks off this Sunday at 6:17 p.m. But in a near-upset, very nearly as many, 37 percent, say they're more keyed up about Super Tuesday.

Could this mean that our political culture (usually apathetic or divisively partisan) is changing in this campaign of change? The Super Bowl is an American cultural phenomenon, but the numbers seem to indicate that the lack of interest in the political game is changing.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4223110&page=1

Let's take our own poll here. What are you more interested in, the Super Bowl or Super Tuesday. Also, pick your winners of both. And what about the Super Bowl ADs. should any of the remaining candidates run a 30-spot on Super Sunday?

The AP reported on the possibility last week:

"How about a presidential "vote for me" ad during the Feb. 3 Super Bowl? The notion of such a high-impact political commercial just before two dozen states vote has crossed some media advisers' minds. But chances seem pretty slim.

A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl is going for as much as $3 million. In an age of ultra-targeted media strategies, there are other ways for a political campaign to spend $3 million than on a commercial that would compete with some of the best spots Madison Avenue can produce."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/21/ap/politics/main3734812.shtml

Would we want to see a presidential candidate's commerical on the Super Bowl. Or would they run the risk of rating below Justin Timberlake and Pepsi, Bud Light, or GoDaddy.com?