blogging last debate
This time I’m going to try to blog less and pay more attention

After 10 minutes of promises, McCain says Joe Wurtzelberger will pay higher taxes under Obama plan. Sounds gimmicky to me, especially since he can’t explain why Joe will pay more.

Obama hammers on middle class tax cut, just like Clinton in ‘93.  Everyone is moving to the center and handing out free candy.

9:11 McCain says Obama “wants to spread the wealth around”, hollers “class warfare”.   McCain says: why do you ever want to raise anyone’s taxes?  (Um, national debt...)  Obama responds with usual robotic response: 95% of you will pay less, Exxon blah blah blah...

McCain staying in ideological comfort zone- not sure it works under current conditions.  

9:13 Schieffer points out both candidates smoking crack given size of current deficit. (Ross Perot, where are you when we need you?)

Obama endorses “net spending cut” and “pay as you go.”  Amazing how someone from such a liberal background is moving to the center.  Obama says difference is “investing in America”: health care, energy.  

9:17 McCain endorses New Deal Home Ownership Loan Corp - didn’t they create redlining or something?

McCain endorses “across the board spending freeze.” Government “out of control.”  I know how to “eliminate programs”.  Takes on ethanol subsidies. (Good hit!), tariff on sugar cane.  Reminds me why he’s such a good senator - takes on small issues like a bulldog.  But can he persuade anyone that this translates into big picture executive skills?

Obama says some programs don’t work at all, others underfunded.  Reminds us that national debt doubled under Bush.  

9:20 McCain asks Obama when he voted against party.  Obama hits out of park with several examples, starting with tort reform.  (Good hit! - not that I’m expressing an opinion on, like, factual truth - but it sounds good)

9:27 Pointless squabbling about which campaign more negative - makes both look bad.  McCain sounds mellower than usual, which works for him though.

9:36 McCain accuses ACORN of “one of the greatest frauds in voting history.”  Talk about poisoning the well!

Obama talks about Ayers.  Says: he’s a professor in Chicago, who 40 years ago did despicable things.  Long after that, we served on a board with lots of perfectly respectable people, including a Repub or two.   Re ACORN: apparently they hired some crooks who registered nonexistent people.  They have nothing to do with my campaign.

Let me tell you who I associate with:

Buffet.  Volcker.  Biden.  Dick Lugar.  Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas.  (Good hit!)

9:39 McCain says Obama “launched his campaign in Ayers’ living room” and his board gave money to ACORN.

9:44 Obama gets good hit on McCain.  McCain praises Palin for “reform” and supporting special needs children, and Obama says “Hey wait a minute- how can you brag about special needs kids and then freeze their funding?”

9:47 McCain promises 45 new nuclear power plants.  With whose money?  Obama never responds to this point.

9:49 Obama sounds responsible: “I’m for drilling, but we only have 3% of world’s oil reserves.”

9:55 5 minutes of blathering about Colombia.  McCain is not getting viewership on this one.  Does anyone really think Colombia matters that much?

9:57 Discussion of health care.  Obama starts with strong response: If you have health insurance. nothing changes.  (Sounds great!)

McCain blathers about details, then accuses Obama of favoring “fines” and “bureaucracies.”  Accuses Obama of favoring “single-payer system” (which doesn’t sound at all like what Obama is proposing).  Obama explains alleged fine- basically larger employers who don’t insure have to pay for insurance, but emphasizes none of this applies to smaller companies.

10:02 Obama goes after weakness in McCain proposal.  If you get rid of employer tax deduction, won’t people lose their employer based insurance?  And what good does tax credit do in comparison?  Sounds knowledgeable.

10:04 McCain tries to turn this into ideological dispute.  Sounds like Jimmy Carter in 1980.  

Obama goes back to details- sounds in command.

10:07 McCain talks about Supreme Court, and how he was part of Gang of 7, against litmus tests, etc.  But adds “I do not think someone who supported Roe v. Wade would have qualifications I want.” Sounds like he wants to have it both ways.

10:09 Obama all for litmus tests.

10:14 Wrangling over abortion.  McCain throws kitchen sink at Obama.  Obama makes McCain look like he’s twisting Obama’s record. McCain emphasizes he’s for adoption too.

Schieffer ends with interesting question: we spend more than other countries on education, and the results stink.  (Though not a big issue at federal level).

Obama responds “more money for teachers in exchange for higher standards”, more money for college.   More money blah blah blah.  Endorses charter schools.  McCain criticizes “throwing money at the problem”.  

Obama says “we agree on a lot, disagree on vouchers.”  (I notice McCain never mentioned the V-word).   In response McCain takes on voucher issue, emphasizes how atrocious DC schools are and how helpful vouchers can be.   Obama says vouchers now limited to DC. McCain wisely responds: “Because there’s not enough vouchers, we shouldn’t have them”.

This all seems like an argument that could have happened 20 years ago.

Closing statement:

McCain starts with “reform.”  Was there a big scandal that I missed?  Is this still 1976?  

Obama talks about “change”.  Let’s “invest in the American people again” (as Ross Perot would say, “Hand out free candy”)  

McCain seemed much mellower than in the second debate, though there were a few times he got in the mud.  It seems like he’s reconciled to losing.  Obama wasn’t that good on the offense, but was great on defense.

A yasher koach to Schieffer.  4 years ago he moderated a debate and I thought he was remorselessly trivial and kind of in the tank for Bush.  This time, I thought he was much better.

live blogging debate Part II

9:49 Q for Obama- should health care be treated as commodity?

Obama- discusses problem.  We’ll lower costs of premiums with super technology (not credible).  If you’re not insured you can buy into fed’l premium. Nails McCain on key weakness: he’ll tax your health insurance (good hit!) - even business organizations say that will destroy employer based health care system [so Obama and NY Times say; I'm not personally agreeing or disagreeing).

McCain- more Obama-like gibberish on efficiency. Obama will impose “mandates’ (wooo scary).  Obama will “fine” you. [Since McCain wants to tax employer based health benefits, this seems like another area where he's vulnerable too) I’ll give you tax credit so you can go across state lines.  Claims you’ll have increased funds to buy health insurance. Not sure I get his point.  Obviously small business people want to give health insurance to their employees.  Not if you take away the tax deduction! (Fortunately, the chances of either candidate getting to health insurance in the next four years is so low that I doubt health insurance is a voting issue; the recession will keep the President busy).

Keeps repeating word “fine.”

McCain- health care ‘responsibility.’

Obama- health care ‘right’. If people are bankrupted due to medical problems, that’s not right.
There is no mandate.
What’s the “fine”? I do want you to insure your children, because children can’t do it themselves and they are cheap to insure.  And McCain voted AGAINST expansion of children’s health insurance, so he’s got a lot of nerve.

What’s the problem with buying across state lines? Obama says Race to bottom problem. Consumer protections you need you can’t get.  McCain ‘believes in deregulation in every circumstance.’

Some of this argument is confusing to me- I can’t imagine how confusing it would be to average voter.  Lots of inside the beltway gibberish.

Debate shifted about foreign policy- 10 PM McCain says America “is the greatest force for good...we are peacemakers.” Do most Americans consider McCain part of that "we"?

Obama- McCain says I don’t understand.  He’s right.  I don’t understand why we went after Iraq and let bin Laden go free. And McCain supported that.

We’re spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq - we need that in the United States.  

Emphasizes his agreement that US a force for good.  We can’t let economy decline and keep our military superiority.  

McCain- surge blah blah blah. As debate shifts to foreign policy I’m fighting off boredom.

10:09 Q from audience- should we ignore Pakistan’s borders or pursue terrorists into those borders?

Obama- emphasizes Bush failure in Afghanistan.  End war in Iraq to support war in Afghanistan.   Says crushing al Qaeda first priority.  Period.

McCain- “Talk softly and carry a big stick.”   Sounds like a dove.  “Help Pakistan govt. get support of the people.”  Use force but “talk softly”- not real credible from McCain given some of his not-so-soft remarks in the past.  (From Huck or Romney would sound much more so!)

Obama- I didn’t call for invasion.  I want to bomb only if Pakistan unable or unwilling to get bin Laden.   Besides, you were the one who said “bomb bomb bomb Iran.’  (Nice hit!)

McCain- Says “trust me’; I ‘act responsibly.’  Not sure whether Jane Swing Voter trusts McCain.

10:16 British commander says ‘we’re failing in Afghanistan.’  What do we do?

Obama - more troops.  McCain doesn’t seem to disagree on Afghanistan.  But says- how come Obama won’t admit same strategy worked in Iraq?  

10:19 Good question- how can we avoid cold war with Russia?

McCain- Attacks Russia, Putin again.  We must get Ga and Ukraine in NATO, to punish “naked aggression.” And if there’s a border dispute, what then?  Sounds somewhat more responsible than right after the Russia/Georgia conflict.  

Obama- Outbids McCain; wants to give money to Georgia.  Points out situation not ‘stable’- we need to see 21st c challenges.   If we can reduce our energy consumption Russia will be weaker (kind of fatuous, since Russia sells to global market)

10:23 Is Russia evil empire?

Obama- not an evil empire, has engaged in “evil behavior”.  
McCain- “maybe.”  “We can deal with them’ but we are ‘firm and determined.’

Why are we messing around even more with foreign policy?  Haven’t we beaten all these horses to death in first debate?

10:26 McCain and Obama preach about how we “can’t” let Iran get nuclear weapon, and how we’ll “never” take military options off table.   Obama says diplomacy has to be on the table.

Then boring closing statements.  Obama evades question by talking about how America and his grandma are great, blah blah.  We need “fundamental change.” Is he serious?  Expecting fundamental change from Obama is like expecting Putin to join the ACLU.  (For a great explanation of Obama’s wussiness go to Daniel Larison’s latest post at www.amconmag.com/larison )

McCain has similar list of generalities.

This was much more sedate than I expected.  I guess McCain won slightly, but this doesn’t strike me as a game-changer either way.

live blogging second presidential debate part 1
I’m going to try to liveblog again, even though I realize it interferes with my appreciation of the visuals.

9:03 First question- what’s the most positive solution to bail regular citizens out?

Obama- Starts off by attacking Bush/McCain, probably a bit too much time on that.  Starts off with last week’s (already failed) bailout, leading with his chin.  Beats up on crooked corporate executives- kind of a waste of time.  Eventually gets to answering question- helping state and local govts, tax cuts, “keeping homeowner in homes.”  Weak answer- by the time he got to answering the question he already lost me.

McCain- Starts off by acknowledging people “fearful.”  Uses standard conservative line- low taxes, low spending, drill drill drill.  Talks about “home values.”  Moves left, suggesting govt. “buy up bad home mortgages” to stabilize home values, and then rent out homes.  Good answer, but should have led off with it.

Neither of these guys seem to know how to go positive.   Both seem to lead off with same stuff they spouted BEFORE financial crisis.

Brokaw- who do you have in mind for Treasury Dept?

McCain mentions Meg Whitman, Buffet- someone who “inspires trust and confidence”.

Obama- Prosperity isn’t just going to trickle down; we’ve got to help middle class.  Wages have flatlined.  Loss of jobs loss of income.  (OK I guess, doesn’t add anything substantive).

Audience question- How is bailout package going to help?

Boring question, since McCain and Obama are 100% in agreement on this issue.  Let’s face it, the bailout has already been unmasked as at least partially a failure, since the reason Congress voted for it was the stock market went down- but after bailout passed it went down even more.

McCain invokes Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Says “I stood up to these crooks’ while the Democrats in Senate defended them.   Says “stabilize home values” for 2nd time.

Obama says- “Here’s what in rescue package for you.  Credit frozen up and people can’t make payroll.”  Says it all started with deregulation of financial system which McCain bragged about.
I said we’ve got to reregulate but no one paid attention.  With respect to Fannie Mae, the bill McCain supported wasn’t his idea, and Sen. McCain’s campaign manager’s firm was involved with FM too.   “This is not the end of the process”, we’ll “work with homeowners” to prevent foreclosures.

Neither seem real credible to me. I’m not a financial expert, but even I know this wasn’t just about one or two bad banks, even ones as big as Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.  This is about an entire industry going hog wild thanks to easy money, and homeowners buying homes they can’t afford.  We have met the enemy and he is us (and the Federal Reserve that enabled us with too much easy money for too long).

9:18 Another audience question- How can we trust either of you when both parties got us in this crisis? (Darn, I wish a third party candidate was on the stage to answer that question!)

Obama - hits on Bush, Bush deficit.  McCain voted for 4 out of 5 of George Bush budgets.
I’ll spend money on “reform” of health care, “dealing” with energy.  On the other hand he proposes unspecified spending cuts.  He sure can move to the center.  But he stinks when talking about specifics.  This is why the Democrats are still incapable of governing- too afraid of their own shadow to come up with good bumper-sticker issues that sound both specific AND appealing.

McCain says he’s a reformer, hits on campaign finance reform, climate change.  “Obama has never taken on the leaders of his party.” Good (and true) hit!   

McCain blathers about earmarks, new spending.  Seems pretty minor to me (hypocritical given Palin’s earmark record).   Blathers about energy- not really a key issue now that the price of oil is down.

Brokaw asks about entitlement reform, domestic issues.  McCain says let’s get together to cut Social Security, has “clear record of reaching across the aisle”.   Talks about energy- was that really what the question was about?  It sounds like he’s doing what Palin did- avoiding the questions that he doesn’t have painless answers about by shifting to energy.  Sounds a few months out of date- questions that would have been more important when oil was $100 a gallon.  But if we’re heading into a global recession, oil prices are going to keep going down and not up, as demand stagnates.

Obama repeats McCain’s blather about energy.  Health care priority number two.  Education number three.  (Did he just punt on entitlements?)  Obama talks about “going line by line’ through federal budget- shades of Carter’s zero based budgeting?  We also have to prioritize tax policies as well as spending policies.

Internet question- What sacrifice will you ask us to make?

McCain- cut allegedly ineffective govt. spending.  I saved some defense spending.  Obsession with earmarks.  Sounds like Hoover - if people are starving and freezing, tell them to eat less [But Obama never calls him on it so he's fine].  “Spending is going to have to be cut.’  Spending freeze for everything but defense.  You mean after 8 years of war, we need even MORE money for war? Lotsa luck with that, Senator.  I always thought in a a recession you stimulate the economy.  That means putting money in people’s pockets, whether through tax cuts, spending increases).  Is now the time for austerity? Right now it doesn't seem like it, but ultimately yes once recession over.

Obama- One opportunity Bush missed was saying to American people “go out and shop”- not really a call to service.  Endorses clean coal, nuclear.  Wants incentives to get more fuel efficient cars, businesses - nice answer.  Double Peace Corps (seems silly- more Americans going abroad and getting killed by terrorists?)

9:34 Brokaw- How do we break habit of too much easy credit? (This would have been a good question to ask a year ago; but everyone from the Fed to Congress is trying to make credit EASIER.  So in today’s context this seems like a moronic question).

Obama- Why ask middle class to tighten their belt when Wall St gets bailout?  President should “set tone.”  But across the board freeze is ‘using a hatchet’ to ensure that people who need help are getting it.

McCain- Hollers “tax raiser.” Ties Obama to Hoover- tax increases, protectionism.  (Great hit!) Obama's tax increase will increase taxes on 50% of small business revenue.  But since he wants to cut spending he’s vulnerable to same charge.

“I am not in favor of additional tax cuts for the wealthy.” “Let’s not raise anyone’s taxes.”

9:37 Brokaw- would you give congress a date certain to reform SS/medicare?

Obama- We gotta focus on economy, so I can’t promise anything in first four years (Very sensible- right now we gotta focus on avoiding economic collapse- this other stuff is not so urgent).  Goes back to taxes.  I want to provide tax cuts for 95% of Americans.  Only a few small businesses make over 250K, so vast majority of small businesses get tax cut AND I would provide tax credit for health insurance.  Accuses McCain of favoring tax cut for rich again. (Huh?  This just sounds like one of them is lying.)  

McCain- “I’ll answer the question.”  Re SS- we know what the fixes are.  (But he won’t tell us).  Repeats claim that Obama hasn’t taken on party (Good).
Medicare “tougher”- have a commission.
Obama has voted 94 times “against tax cuts.”  Beginning to seem shopworn.

live blogging debate, Part I

First ten minutes (before I got computer 100% on because I just got in)- Biden seems slow, like he’s on Valium or something.  Palin gets a good start talking about “fear” of ordinary people.  But Palin seems to be laying it on a bit thick about the “maverick” thing calling herself and McCain “a team of mavericks.”   Generally Palin’s doing OK though- she’s just reciting prerehearsed lines, and she’s good at that.  As long as she isn’t being probed as Katie Couric did she’s fine.

9:12 Palin raises tax issues, talking about “94 times” Obama could have voted to cut taxes.  Basic Republican cliches- “government has to be more efficient.”  Biden gives convincing response about taxes, saying that McCain voted against tax cuts sometimes soon.  Points out that Palin didn’t respond to her hits about deregulation.

9:14 Palin brags about the taxes she cut.  A bit misleading, since she raised taxes both as mayor and as governor.  In response to point about McCain’s deregulatory tendencies, Palin talks about how McCain “known for” something or other.  No matter who?

9:15 Biden asked about tax hike on 250K earners.  Biden responds about “fairness”- not sure what that means.  But makes key point, no one earning over 250K will see tax increase.  (Doesn’t sound like a realistic promise to me).   Biden hits hard on middle class tax cut.  These Democrats sure are moving to the center?

9:17 Palin says “but what about small businesses earning over 250K?”  Hits Biden by responding to his claim that raising taxes not “patriotic.”  They both sound like idiots to me.  

9:18 Re health insurance- promises $5000 credit so people can buy their own health care coverage.  Oh please.... who the hell pays only $400 a month for private insurance?  Hollers “socialized medicine.”

9: 19 Biden - its not redistribution to support giving middle class tax cut.  Good hit!
Claims most small businesses earn well under 250k - good hit!
Biden points out that if you have health care plan through employer, you have a tax increase because the government will eliminate the deduction.  Gets a little too statistical though, a bit hard to follow.

So far: Biden sounds more commanding, but Palin not so bad.   Nobody has really messed up so far - not entertaining enough I’m afraid!

Ifill asks what will you have to cut with bailout?

Biden- don’t double foreign aid - hurts by making us aware that Obama favored doubling foreign aid initially, not something popular with voters.  Ditch McCain tax cuts.  (So let’s get this straight– we’ll finance the bailout by not doing the things we opposed from the beginning...)  

9:24 Palin brags about energy expertise.  When asked by Ifill about what she will drop to finance bailout, she says she “hasn’t made a lot of promises” in five weeks- nice way to turn vagueness of Ifill’s claim against her.

9:25 Biden points out that Obama supports the windfall profits tax Palin did in Alaska- but McCain won’t.

9:27 Palin brags about McCain’s gimmick of suspending campaign to help with finance crisis.  Sounds dumb- his role in these issues is pretty minimal.

Biden seems more lively than he did at the start, though a bit too technical.

9:29 Palin demagogues about how we can just get all these undisclosed domestic supplies of energy to get energy independence.  Surely she should know that we have, like, 3 percent of the world’s oil.

9:30 Palin says “Alaska feels impact of climate change more than any other state.”  Um, I would think warm states would feel it more.  “I don’t want to argue about the causes” - nice evasion of her prior statements on issue (which don’t square with McCain’s).  Claims she has formed “climate change impacts” subcabinet.   Claims she supports “all of the above” approach- good line.

Biden much pithier on climate change- “I think it is man made.”  Says if you don’t understand cause you won’t come up with solution.  (Probably won’t appeal to people other than core Ds).  Gets key point that we don’t have that much oil, need to focus on “clean” coal and “safe nuclear.” (Great lines- “clean coal”, “safe nuclear” because it puts Obama on side of nuclear!)  “Drill we must” but let’s do other stuff.

9:34 Rightly or wrongly, I sense that Biden and Palin are aggressively moving to the center on energy- everyone is claiming to support “all of the above” solutions.   But each is accusing the other of being against good stuff- Biden says “You’re against everything but oil!” and Palin says “You’re against oil and natural gas!”

9:35 Both support limiting carbon emissions.

9:37 Palin discusses gay rights, and says word “tolerant” over and over again (good).  But both candidates draw line at gay marriage.  More everyone moving to center.

But one really clumsy evasion: Palin asked “does this mean that you agree that there should be no difference between gay and straight couples?”  Palin responds by saying she’s against gay marriage not answering gay marriage.

9:41 Palin rants about “victory” in Iraq.

Biden focuses on future- we’re with Maliki and George Bush.  “The only man out is John McCain.” (Very clever!)  Biden says there’s a fundamental difference- we’ll end war and let Iraqis take responsibility for their own future.
9:42 Palin responds with generalities about “commanders telling us when we’re done.”

9:43 Palin hits Biden on his prior attacks on Obama. Good hit!

Ifill asks which nation is more dangerous, Pakistan or Iran.

Biden gives obvious right answer: Pakistan obviously because they already have nukes.  Points out that Iran isn’t the primary problem because al-Qaeda mother ship in Pakistan.  Biden shows off expertise. Then goofs “there have been 7000 madrassas... we should build schools.”  Um, a madrassa is a school isn’t it?
                            
9:47 Palin cites Petraeus to support “Iraq central” theory.  Then panders to Israel vote by blah blah blahing about Iran.  Attacks Obama for being willing to talk to bad guys “without preconditions.” (Um what’s a precondition?)   

But when asked about Kissinger and other wise men favoring diplomacy, she gets very confusing: she has “passion for diplomacy”, diplomacy is “hard work by serious people”, having “sanctions lined up before there’s a summit”.  Basically incoherent- let’s negotiate but only till we have more economic sanctions first?

9:50 Biden gets great hit- says McCain “won’t even sit down with government of Spain”.  Not sure this is true- may have been slip of tongue by McCain.

9:51 Asked about Israel, praises Rice and two-state solution.  Clever- takes center and right too.

9:54 Biden follows suit, but points out that Bush “abject failure” by letting Hamas take over Gaza.

9:55 After Biden delivers withering attack on Bush, Palin responds with mushy-headed generalities about “change is coming.”  Sounds kinda foolish.

Biden: where are the specifics?  Where’s the difference between Bush and McCain?

9:57 Palin says she's for surge in Afghanistan, so that's a difference too.

9:58 Biden says commanding general in Afghanistan says its more complex.  Points out how much more money spent in Iraq than Afghanistan.

live blogging debate, part II

10 Palin and Biden get into argument about exactly what generals in Afghanistan said.  Makes Palin sound more expert- not that I have any idea who’s right.   

10:02 Biden rattles off a lot of foreign policy interventions.

10:03 Palin calls Biden a flip-flopper, saying he supported “John McCain’s strategy.”  Biden says he was never that wild about war, but voted to authorize war only to give Bush negotiating leverage.  

10:07 Palin starts to repeat herself about McCain consulting with commanders, etc.  

10:07 Biden asked what he would do differently from Obama if he became president.  He says he would favor Obama’s policies on every major issue, making slip of tongue:  saying Obama favors “reinstating the middle class.”  Reinstating them to what?  

Palin says “We’re a team of mavericks.  We’re not going to agree on everything.”  Nice answer!

Though lines about bringing “reality on Wasilla Main Street” to Washington lays it on a bit thick.

10:10 Biden goes back to “Bush/McCain” lines and talks about how “people in my neighborhood get it.”  Um, your “neighborhood” is four-acre houses.  Some neighborhood.

10:11 Palin says “there you go again, pointing backwards.”  Are we that dumb?   On the one hand, they are “mavericks.”  On the other hand, they are scared to distance themselves from Bush on substantive issues.  Not exactly William J. Bryan running against Grover Cleveland (or to use a modern analogy, if Tancredo or Paul were the nominee they’d be taking Bush to the woodshed).

10:13 Palin says “Of course I know what the Vice President does!”  I doubt it.  

This debate is already starting to feel too long.  Basically an exchange of sound bites, both candidates trying hard to avoid putting foot in mouth and mostly succeeding.

10:18 Ifill asks dumb question about “what is your achilles heel”?

Palin brags about knowledge of everything - we used to be poor, blah blah blah.  (Um aren’t they millionaires?)  Brags about American exceptionalism- what does this have to do with her experience?  Nothing but it distracts- she’s cunning.

Biden talks about how he was a single parent and he wasn’t always rich.

Yep, those millionaires were both born in log cabins! Feh.

10:21 Palin says “John McCain has been the consummate maverick.”  Yeah, he sure showed that on the bailout bill (sarcasm) (And yes, Obama was just as much of an un-maverick!)

Great Palin slip of tongue about McCain- “He is the man that we need to leave”

10:23 Biden- McCain not a maverick on “things that matter to people’s lives”.  Hits hard on budget, health care, education.  Rat-at-tat-tat of good sound bites!  When I listen to Biden I feel like I could be listening to Walter Mondale in 1976.

10:24 Ifill asks if you have ever changed your mind on a serious issue.  Biden cites Bork (i.e. that ideology of judge justifies voting no).   Palin says she never has on a major issue because “we found a way to work together” in Alaska- probably true but not because she’s so great, just because she’s only been governor a year!

Closing statements-

Palin: We’ll “fight for America”, “fight for the middle class”, “fight for freedom”.   McCain “fights for you.”  In a way, gets to key difference- Obama the lover, McCain the fighter.

Biden: focuses on whether people can pay the bills, health care, education blah blah blah.   

 

My conclusion: on substance Biden seemed stronger.  But Palin will probably be the "winner", based on low expectations.

One of NBC's pundits says debate basically a tie. 

Live blogging Palin speech

Since the Palin speech is the first time many Americans have been exposed to her, I thought I would try live blogging it.

10:35 Mentions son in Iraq- seems slightly exploitative (compared to McCain and Biden who have children in Iraq but have softpedaled it).

10:37 Talks about special needs children- nice soft touch in mentioning Downs Syndrome kid. 

Am noticing Huck and Rudy right behind her.  Wonder what they are thinking- Huck must feel vindicated at some level; Palin seems kind of similar to him ideologically (socially conservative, but not a taxophobe). 

10:40 Compares herself to Truman.  Truman had ten years in the Senate- twice as many yrs in statewide office as Obama and her COMBINED.

10:41 Talked about how people in small towns are "always proud of America." Wonder what Rudy feels about that!  She seems to be laying it on a bit thick - not that that will hurt her, since just as every bride is beautiful, every acceptance speech is beautiful.  That's just how politics is. 

10:43 "A small town mayor is like being a community organizer, except she has actual responsibilities."  Laying on it a bit thick isn't she?  Seems kind of childish.

10:45 Attacks "media" for considering her "unqualified."  Whine, whine, whine. 

10:46 Disses the alleged media but she's "not going to Washington to seek their good opinion."  Whine, whine, whine.   Oh, poor me!

10:48 Talks about her reforms in Alaska- putting "luxury jet" on EBay (nice line), ditches governor's personal chef, etc.  Not sure how much this checks out, but sounds good. 

10:49 Praises vetoes in nonspecific way.  Brags about surplus, half a billion dollars in vetoes.  

10:50 Claims opposition to bridge to nowhere.  Wasn't she for it before she was against it?

10:50 Brags about sending $ to taxpayers, doesn't mention she got it by taxing oil companies. 

10:52 Energy independence blah blah blah. 

10:53 Stands up for drilling- "The fact that it isn't going to solve our problems is no excuse for doing nothing at all."  Sounds good, but party line, and some plausibility problems given that oil is sold in world markets and takes a long time to get out of the ground.

10:55 Hits Obama for not having authored "a major law." Kind of a cheap shot given that Republicans can filibuster anything. 

10:56 Good line about "styrofoam Greek columns hauled back to studio lot"- I think they look kind of cheap myself. 

10:57 Hits Obama on the usual stuff- some good hits (taxes), some cheap shots ("worried someone won't read them [the terrorists] their rights."

I wonder if she is thinking that there is some contradiction between smaller government and war on everyone all the time everywhere. 

She's definitely not pernsickety about being attack dog.  But that's the Vice President's job.

10:59 Taxes blah blah blah.  Leaves the field wide open for Obama's promise of middle tax class cuts- if Obama wants to raise the issue.

10:59 Says "there are those who use change to promote their careers and those who use their careers to promote change." Sounds kind of low road to me- not exactly a successor to Reagan. 

11:04 Plays POW card.  Talks about McCain as an "upright and honorable man".  Praises him for compassion, wisdom, etc. from his POW experience.  Am unfortunately starting to get bored. 

11:08 Ends on high note- says McCain a "great man", "God bless America."

Live blogging Palin speech

Since the Palin speech is the first time many Americans have been exposed to her, I thought I would try live blogging it.

10:35 Mentions son in Iraq- seems slightly exploitative (compared to McCain and Biden who have children in Iraq but have softpedaled it).

10:37 Talks about special needs children- nice soft touch in mentioning Downs Syndrome kid. 

Am noticing Huck and Rudy right behind her.  Wonder what they are thinking- Huck must feel vindicated at some level; Palin seems kind of similar to him ideologically (socially conservative, but not a taxophobe). 

10:40 Compares herself to Truman.  Truman had ten years in the Senate- twice as many yrs in statewide office as Obama and her COMBINED.

10:41 Talked about how people in small towns are "always proud of America." Wonder what Rudy feels about that!  She seems to be laying it on a bit thick - not that that will hurt her, since just as every bride is beautiful, every acceptance speech is beautiful.  That's just how politics is. 

10:43 "A small town mayor is like being a community organizer, except she has actual responsibilities."  Laying on it a bit thick isn't she?  Seems kind of childish.

10:45 Attacks "media" for considering her "unqualified."  Whine, whine, whine. 

10:46 Disses the alleged media but she's "not going to Washington to seek their good opinion."  Whine, whine, whine.   Oh, poor me!

10:48 Talks about her reforms in Alaska- putting "luxury jet" on EBay (nice line), ditches governor's personal chef, etc.  Not sure how much this checks out, but sounds good. 

10:49 Praises vetoes in nonspecific way.  Brags about surplus, half a billion dollars in vetoes.  

10:50 Claims opposition to bridge to nowhere.  Wasn't she for it before she was against it?

10:50 Brags about sending $ to taxpayers, doesn't mention she got it by taxing oil companies. 

10:52 Energy independence blah blah blah. 

10:53 Stands up for drilling- "The fact that it isn't going to solve our problems is no excuse for doing nothing at all."  Sounds good, but party line, and some plausibility problems given that oil is sold in world markets and takes a long time to get out of the ground.

10:55 Hits Obama for not having authored "a major law." Kind of a cheap shot given that Republicans can filibuster anything. 

10:56 Good line about "styrofoam Greek columns hauled back to studio lot"- I think they look kind of cheap myself. 

10:57 Hits Obama on the usual stuff- some good hits (taxes), some cheap shots ("worried someone won't read them [the terrorists] their rights."

I wonder if she is thinking that there is some contradiction between smaller government and war on everyone all the time everywhere. 

She's definitely not pernsickety about being attack dog.  But that's the Vice President's job.

10:59 Taxes blah blah blah.  Leaves the field wide open for Obama's promise of middle tax class cuts- if Obama wants to raise the issue.

10:59 Says "there are those who use change to promote their careers and those who use their careers to promote change." Sounds kind of low road to me- not exactly a successor to Reagan. 

11:04 Plays POW card.  Talks about McCain as an "upright and honorable man".  Praises him for compassion, wisdom, etc. from his POW experience.  Am unfortunately starting to get bored. 

11:08 Ends on high note- says McCain a "great man", "God bless America."

a meditation on full buses

Tuesday morning I took the SS-9 from Greyhound (since I went to my parents in Atlanta for the weekend) to Florida Coastal.  Much to my surprise, the bus was totally full.  I'd been on full buses once or twice since moving to Jax but never seen the SS-9 full.

What was the deal?  Here's my explanation: normally I take the SS-9 northbound (Mandarin towards downtown) in the morning; since the SS-9 begins in relatively affluent South Mandarin, not too many people take the SS-9 from suburbia to downtown in the morning (especially after rush hour; I usually board at 9:20 or 10:20, long after most 9 to 5 commuters are at work).   When I take it southbound from downtown (maybe 6 to 7ish), it is more crowded - but still, the main ridership is comprised of car-owning suburbanites. 

By contrast, reverse commuters* from the North and West sides (who are more likely to be carless and/or low income) are more likely to go southbound away from downtown in the morning and northbound at night.  Since low income bus ridership is higher, it would make sense that morning bus ridership is higher for reverse commuters than for downtown workers, and thus higher as you go south from downtown to Mandarin.

So what? Is there any point to this story?

Yes. For as long as I've lived in Jax, I've heard people whining "Why should we have more buses if the ones we have are empty?"  But my story suggests that even a bus that is empty at some point is full for part of its route.  My SS-9 began (full) downtown, then got less and less populated as it dropped off customers in Baymeadows and Mandarin. 

Then it terminated (probably empty) in South Mandarin and started going north- but it wasn't necessarily full going towards downtown, because it dropped off customers as well as picking them up. 

Once it got downtown, its only remaining riders were those who had business downtown.  So as it was heading north into downtown it might not have been that crowded. 

But once it went to the main downtown bus terminal, it picked up a bunch of southbound riders, became relatively full with reverse commuters, and the cycle began again.  So I suspect if you were downtown and you saw the bus entering downtown it looked pretty empty except during rush hour.  But leaving downtown (especially during rush hour) it was probably not so empty.

*By "reverse commuters" I mean people heading away from downtown towards suburban jobs. 

Facts we know that just aren't so

How many times have you heard that Jax has the "highest murder rate of any city in the state"? 

I got curious and went to the FBI's crime statistics website

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/table4co_id.htm

Here are the 2007 numbers:

                Population      Murders   Murders per 100,000 people

Jax         797,350            123            15.4

Miami     410,252             79              19.25

Orlando 224,417              49             21.8

 

As you can see, both Orlando and Miami are "ahead" of us.  We're no. 3!  We're no. 3! 

Facts we know that just aren't so

How many times have you heard that Jax has the "highest murder rate of any city in the state"? 

I got curious and went to the FBI's crime statistics website

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/table4co_id.htm

Here are the 2007 numbers:

                Population      Murders   Murders per 100,000 people

Jax         797,350            123            15.4

Miami     410,252             79              19.25

Orlando 224,417              49             21.8

 

As you can see, both Orlando and Miami are "ahead" of us.  We're no. 3!  We're no. 3! 

Facts we know that just aren't so

How many times have you heard that Jax has the "highest murder rate of any city in the state"? 

I got curious and went to the FBI's crime statistics website

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/table4co_id.htm

Here are the 2007 numbers:

                Population      Murders   Murders per 100,000 people

Jax         797,350            123            15.4

Miami     410,252             79              19.25

Orlando 224,417              49             21.8

 

As you can see, both Orlando and Miami are "ahead" of us.  We're no. 3!  We're no. 3! 

Facts we know that just aren't so

How many times have you heard that Jax has the "highest murder rate of any city in the state"? 

I got curious and went to the FBI's crime statistics website

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/table4co_id.htm

Here are the 2007 numbers:

                Population      Murders   Murders per 100,000 people

Jax         797,350            123            15.4

Miami     410,252             79              19.25

Orlando 224,417              49             21.8

 

As you can see, both Orlando and Miami are "ahead" of us.  We're no. 3!  We're no. 3! 

Not about Jax (blogging about law professors' conference)

Went to SEALS (Southeast Association of Law Schools) conference last week.  Some highlights:

 

1. Impact of Westlaw- Access to information leveled; small firms with small libraries have more information.  Also, digest [primary system of print research, based on books of cases called “digests”]  structures inquiry, limits cases people find.  Westlaw search means more of a diversity of arguments, as people are more likely to find unpublished, obscure or moribund cases.  Generally a bit more open-endedness in law; less likely everyone will find same cases. 

 

2. Some real left wing stuff: one on juveniles as informants, asserting that they shouldn’t be police informants because (under death penalty precedent) they are too immature to be executed, thus too immature to be informants.  Then someone asked: “But aren’t 17 year olds mature enough to be sentenced as adults?”  Speaker responded “I’m against that too.”  Reminds me how far I am from the real academic Left.  Fundamentally, I really, really, really value social order.  They don’t (or perhaps just disagree with me about how we get there).

3. Property rights- A speaker critiqued “takings” legislation (requiring govt. to compensate landowners whenever regulation reduced property value by restricting development) by analogy to old property case of Pierson v. Post.  In Pierson, hunter chases fox, but is held not to have really owned it unless he killed it.  Similarly, someone trying to develop chases development, but shouldn’t be compensated for loss of opportunity until he has “captured” use by getting a building permit. 

4. Restrictive covenants and sex offenders- Some covenants ban all sex offenders.  To run with the land (i.e. bind people not parties to original covenant, as land is sold again and again) covenant must “touch and concern” land.  Does this covenant affect property values enough to touch and concern land? Law unclear.  I think so- but covenant may be against public property as unreasonable if so widespread they have no place to live.  We don’t want sex offenders to be homeless- if they are, its harder to find them if they commit additional crimes. 

5. Panel on US News rankings- Since part time students aren’t counted in schools’ LSAT (Part of rankings) schools game the system by admitting weaker students as transfers and part timers.  Some juicy examples of how schools shifted tiers merely by switching full time/part time balance.

 6.  Speech on statutes requiring government to “consider” factors (especially National Environmental Policy Act, which requires government to consider environmental impact of actions)-  all I remember is great line: “A county without a squad car has no speed limit.”

7.  Also a neat webpage on climate change litigation: www.climatecasechart.com  

 8.  Interesting article on how international treaty governing civilians in warfare is rigged in favor of terrorists: protocol (which US has not signed on) provides that civilians engaged in hostilities (e.g. terrorists) can only be targeted while actively engaged in hostilities.  Even though US hasn’t signed on, some risk it could be treated as customary international law.

9.  Interesting presentation on how web pages can be archived for posterity.  There is an archive (www.archive.org ) but it is pretty erratic – archive often down, lots of people opt out, copyright law unclear enough that it might be illegal

Interesting panel on nature of scholarship- some commenters favored “Big Tent” approach- but felt constrained at their own institutions (e.g. feeling like they had to publish only in their specialty, only long articles, etc.)  

10. Interesting presentation on bar exams- While multistate bar almost universal (48 states) as is MPRE (47), multistate performance and essay tests much less so (34 and 22 respectively). 

Memorable urban [and suburban!] experiences

Took Greyhound to the Southeastern Association and Law Schools conference in Lantana, Fla. - definitely some interesting experiences:

Began by taking bus during the day (last Sunday).  We had an hour and a half layover in Orlando, and I saw what might be the future of American suburbia (well, some of American suburbia anyhow!).  The Greyhound station is definitely in sprawl- 4 miles from downtown, with 6 lane roads, single family houses, and the usual big parking lots.  But unlike the stereotypical suburb, this area was kind of ghetto-ish.  I could see at least one boarded-up home from across the street, saw a couple of people who looked like they might be homeless, was asked for money once or twice.   On the positive side, one of the strip malls had a police precinct office; by a not-so-odd coincidence, it had a decent amount of commerce (including an interesting Jamaican restaurant and a pretty well-stocked dollar store).

On the way back, I had to get to West Palm Beach's Greyhound station (at its commuter rail station).  First I took a county bus (PalmTran) from Lantana to West Palm.  The buses had something that definitely qualifies as "Best Practices in Public Transit"- the bus had numerous copies of "Bus Books" listing every bus schedule in the county.  By contrast, in Jacksonville all you usually can find on the bus is the schedule of the route you're riding - and in most other transit systems not even that!

West Palm itself is a mixed bag: it has two very nice new urban developments downtown, chain-dominated CityPlace and funkier Clematis Street.  But between the two, and between both and the train/bus station, lies a fearsome abomination of desolation.  I walked several blocks down the western, not-so-funky part of Clematis to the station, and for some blocks saw not a single soul, not even a panhandler.  (I suppose I should have gone somewhere and waited for a cab, but it looked like the sky was about to open up in a thunderstorm so I hurried - I figured any scary person out there probably had already found shelter!)

My Folio Weekly article for this week
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/50/

my latest Folio Weekly article
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/49/

Coming home to the Republicans

I have been a Republican all my life, and even held minor party office in some of the places I've lived.

On the other hand, I've had my issues with the current Administration, and with the national Republicans generally.  (In fact, I have occasionally been known to refer to myself as a "swing voter.")

So when I was asked to run for precinct committee, I was kind of conflicted.  But I said yes anyhow.

So why would I publicly identify myself with the Republican Party, in the hour of its greatest disgrace since 1974?

1.  My economic views are pretty consistent with what Republicans used to believe: balance the budget, at least in good times.  Be a little more skeptical of government programs than the Democrats, and a little less skeptical than the Libertarians.

2.  The most successful municipal governance in my lifetime was that of a Republican, Rudy Giuliani in NYC.  And I do think I'm a social conservative in the Rudy Giuliani sense, though not in the Karl Rove sense.  That is to say: I prioritize social order over equality, and sometimes even more over liberty. 

3.  The last politician who inspired me was a Republican (Ron Paul). And I think my foreign policy views have moved in his direction, though I'm certainly not as radically noninterventionist as he.

4. Intellectually, the Republicans are where the action is in American politics; the Democrats seem to just react to Republican mistakes rather than setting the agenda themselves, even under President Clinton.  Has any Democratic presidential nominee since 1984 stood for anything to speak of? Well, maybe something, but not very much.  I don't think Obama is an exception.

5.  And where I live (in one-party Jacksonville, in basically-Republican Florida) the Republicans are basically where the action is, period.   

 

 

Bus terminal: pros and cons

Yesterday I went to a hearing on JTA's new bus terminal proposal.

JTA is planning to build a big new bus terminal on the west side of downtown, and to reroute a lot of buses there instead of having them run around downtown.

There are some positives to this idea: (1) it may include Amtrak, which really should be downtown;

2) if you are transferring from non-downtown point A to non-downtown point B, you probably want the bus to spend as little time downtown as possible.

Nevertheless, I don't like the idea in its current incarnation.  Transit's chief market, like it or not, is the suburb-to-downtown commuter.  And a suburb-to-downtown commuter doesn't want to

(a) transfer to the Skyway or trolley to get to work; or

(b) have to walk ten blocks to get to work.

Instead, JTA should try to provide these commuters with something close to door-to-door service.  If JTA has any "choice" riders (i.e. people who can drive to work but don't) it is these people.  Lose those suburb-to-downtown commuters, and you cripple your ridership base.

To learn more contact whart@jtafla.com

The Skyway actually works

Today, I rode the skyway (Jacksonville's downtown-only monorail) to a lunch on Jacksonville's South Bank (the south side of downtown).   It was actually fairly packed; I saw one or two railcars with four or so people on it- the maximum a car can have with everyone sitting down.

Evidently the common claim that "no one rides the Skyway" is not true.

Of course, this claim is not dissimilar to a common statement about our admittedly anemic transit system: "No one ever rides the [bus/Skyway/whatever]... I look at these buses and they are always empty."

In fact, sometimes they aren't.  But even when they are, it doesn't mean what you think it means: buses are constantly loading and unloading people, so if you don't see a ton of people on the bus, maybe some of the passengers have already gotten off, or haven't gotten on yet.

And of course, if the buses were full people would be complaining about how full they are.

For shame!

Jacksonville rated America's least walkable large city:

 

http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=8673581&GT1=35000

 

Neighborhood by neighborhood stats at

 http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/Jacksonville