Sen. Specter confirms his own total lack of actual beliefs

Sen. Specter (R/D - PA) recently got himself in the news by switching parties. Democrats are happy, as it seems like they can pass their agenda without worrying about Republicans in the Senate getting in the way through filibuster. I'm not so sure that this is a good thing - for Democrats or the country. Also, Sen. Specter is a perfect illustration of why we need term limits.

First of all, it will be VERY easy for Republicans to run for office in 2010. All they have to do in each individual race is discuss the evils of single party rule in America. It will be easy for the GOP to raise money, and it will be easier for them to win toss-up races. So Democrats should expect to lose some seats in the next election, which will undoubtedly be portrayed by the mass-media as a referendum on President Obama's first two years in office, even though the election will have nothing to do with that (they like to write the easy stories).

Second of all, sometimes I think I am the last liberal out there who thinks that two-party rule is actually a good thing for America. I don't want either party to have complete control of the government, and with 60 votes in the Senate, that's what we would have. The primary reason for this is that I don't trust Democrats in Congress anymore than I trust Republicans. Us regular folks like to think that our Congressional leaders are doing what they think is best for the country, but in reality, they are doing whatever is best for them personally, financially, professionally. There is no better example of this than Sen. Specter.

Why did Sen. Specter switch parties? Because he realized over the years that his views were more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans? This man was elected as part of the Reagan Revolution. In order for us to believe that Specter's philosophy is now more closely aligned with Democratic philosophy than it is with Republican philosophy, you would also have to believe that if Reagan were alive today, that he too would be considering a change in party. If you want to know how crazy THAT is, ask your Republican friends if they think Reagan would be a Democrat today. I recommend doing this over the phone, or in a room without sharp objects.

You could argue that the Republican Party of today has moved to the Right, and that there are several litmus tests that they put candidates through, and if candidates don't pass those tests, well, tough luck. But be careful - I don't hear about a lot of Pro-Life Democrats out there, and Sen. Nelson (D - Nebraska) is already getting called out by Democrats for not towing the party line and worshipping Obama and everything his administration does. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans of playing that game.

The ONLY reason that Sen. Specter is becoming a Democrat is because if he didn't, he would lose his seat in the next election. There's no way he wins a Republican primary in PA. Apparently, Specter believes that he is entitled to his seat, and be damned anyone who wants VOTE him out of office. He's been serving in the Senate so long, that even if the people who helped elect him in the past don't want him to serve anymore, in Specter's world, it's not up to them anymore. Think about how truly anti-democratic that really is.

If you want further evidence of Specter's cynical view of our political system, look no further than his recent comments regarding the Senate race in Minnesota between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Sen. Specter said he wants Coleman to win. Why would he want that? Because Specter's philosophy and Coleman's are closely aligned? Then why did Specter switch parties? Because Coleman is Jewish? Nope, Franken is too. It turns out that Specter doesn't want Coleman to win, he wants Franken to win. Here's the link: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/06/specter/index.html?source=refresh

And the quote:

"In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates. I'm ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I've made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke."

I have to get used to my new teammates. In other words, I support Franken, not because I think he own fairly, or because his philosophy is in line with mine. I support Franken because I am now on his team. That's all it is to these leaders - especially the ones who have made it their job in life to be Senator, or Congressman. It's just a game, with teams, and scoreboards - winners and losers. What matters most is winning, and whatever you can do to make sure that you are on the winning side is the right thing to do, even if it means switching teams in the middle of the game.

It's sad really. I am sure that Specter has no idea what he believes anymore. His sole focus at this point is retaining his Senate seat, a seat given to him by God, no matter what the voters in the state of Pennsylvania have to say about it.

What SHOULD Adam Do?

I received the following email from a client the other day:

Thanks Adam. I have just one other question . . . Al Franken?

I had been answering some questions for this client, and this was the reply I received. This is a good client for us (not from Minnesota), a very nice person, and I have no desire (or reason) to sow any kind of ill will here. I am probably running a small risk by even publishing this email and discussing it in this blog (my boss said he was looking at it recently, although it's probable that he won't read anymore because he was bored by what he read). But I think it represents an interesting dilemma, especially for us "Minnesota Nice" folks who have been taught not to discuss politics or religion under almost any circumstances.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to discussing non-business matters with clients? Or co-workers? I have strong feelings about Sen. Al Franken, and have friends who worked on the campaign. I have strong feelings regarding former Sen. Norm Coleman as well. Obviously, a meandering rant on the evils of Coleman is not an appropriate response to the email from my client. Above all, I desire to remain professional, and to maintain what has always been a good relationship with this client. At the same time, I do feel compelled to take this opportunity to outline some of the qualities that I like about Sen. Franken, and why I was very proud to vote for him. It would be a bit of Political Evangelism, if you will.

But is that necessary? What's wrong with just leaving well enough alone? And do you know what is disturbing me the most about this? What can't I think of something hilarious and appropriate to send back to her?

I welcome any input others might have on the issue. Remember, this is a paying client, who could do great damage to me professionally if they wanted to, in response to some sort of snide or inappropriate remark by me. What would you do in a case like this?

Predictions - and May God have Mercy on Me If I am Wrong

I know that I should not so this, but I can't help myself...

Electoral College:
Obama 326, McCain 212
(That's the Kerry states plus IA, OH, VA, CO, NM and NV)

Popular Vote %:
Obama 51.3%, McCain 46.7%

Election Called by MSM: 11 pm Eastern - when the polls close in California. The best part of THAT is that the polls will still be open in Palin's homestate.

MN Senate:
Franken 41%, Coleman 40%, Barkley 15%
And THAT result will not be made official for at least a couple of days.

Total Democratic Senate seats
58, which does not, and SHOULD NOT count Lieberman

Also, I just want everyone want everyone out there to think about making sure that they DO NOT rub it in the faces of their Republican friends. If you remember how badly you felt in 2000, 2002 and 2004, they will be feeling that way as well tonight. The peaceful transfer of power from opposing political parties is one the the things that makes America great. No need to twist the knife as the Republicans leave power.

What I want

Well, the time has almost come. I can't wait to vote tomorrow. I won't be able to bring Josephine with me like I did 2 years ago, but that's ok. I suspect that our parents generation never thought an African-American would ever be this close to being President. I know for a fact that our grandparents never thought this would happen. I think that most of us have become so use to the idea that Obama could be President, that we forget how amazing this really is. Maybe that's a good thing, too.

So here is a list of who I want to win, and yes, these are in order. Think of it this way: It starts at the top, with the one I want the most. If all of the rest of the races below each entry were lost, I would be reasonably happy, because the one above each entry won. That's written very poorly, but that's just too bad.

1. Barack Obama
   Yes, if he makes it and none of the other races below go my way, I will be sort of disappointed, but not that much. This is HUGE.
2. Al Franken
   I have been nervous about this one from the moment he declared. But you know what makes me mad? Norm ran with Bush A LOT in 2002. You can't have it both ways, Norm. You were with him then, and to me, that means you are with him now. Plus he ran a ridiculous campaign. Honestly, when you have been there 6 years and all you have to show for it is some free suits and a crappy free apartment in DC, you don't deserve to win.
3. Mark Begich over Ted Stevens
   Few people know that I went to Bartlett-Begich High School in Anchorage. The school was named in part for Mark's father, who died in a plane crash while campaigning for the US House in 1972. Don Young won that election, and has not lost since (the Bridge to Nowhere was his doing). Anyway, don't think that just because Stevens was recently convicted of corruption that this is over. He could still win- it's possible the carrier pigeons haven't reached Alaska with the news of the trial yet. 
4. Kay Hagan over Liddy Dole
   Dole's recent ad that made it seem like Hagan didn't believe in God is what will end up finishing Dole off, but did you know that in the 24 months of 2005 and 2006, she spent exactly 33 days in North Carolina? If you don't want to live there, then don't run for an officing representing the people who DO live there.
5. Tinklenburg over Bachmann
   I have a bet with my boss, and so here is my prediction: Bachmann will WIN. The people in that district LIKE the kind of stuff she brings to the table: 3/4 crazy and 1/4 pretty. Here's my advice for you if you ever run into her: If it is daylight, tell her you agree that some members of Congress are anti-American, and that you want to help with the penetrating expose she proposed. But tell her that it would help if she could point you in the proper direction, so if she could name some of the people she suspects, it would be a big help. Then, go donate money to the people she names, because I guarantee you they are doing good work. If you run into her and it is at night, run.
6. Chambliss loses in GA
   He questioned his opponents patriotism in 2002. That was Max Cleeland, a man who had given three of his limbs in service to his country. They compared him in ads to OSAMA BIN LADEN. How these people sleep at night, I will never know. 
   
   Aside: It's strange that all these Senate seats up in this cycle are reminding us of the history of the 2002 election. The one where Bush was floating the idea of invading Iraq, and anyone who wanted to question that idea was called Anti-American. It's time for those people to get what they have coming.

List of States I'll be watching next week

After wasting a lot of time on 270towin.com, fivethirtyeight.com, pollster.com and a couple of others, I decided to organize my own list of "swing" states that I will be watching as I pray for an Obama victory next week. If you think this election is over, YOU ARE WRONG. There are a lot of ways McCain/Palin can win. I for one think that polling is not entirely accurate. Polls are all we have at this point (even with some early voting going on) - so we can use them, but it is too early to celebrate.

The criteria for this list is as follows: 1) States are listed here with the most generous definition of "swing" possible. So don't freak out because Minnesota is there - this is a very generous listing, because I am trying to be as conservative as possible going into election night. 2) States are listed in order of importance, coupled with how realistically "swing" they are. For example, a highly ranked state on this list is a combination VERY important in the election AND highly volatile for some reason. A state ranked low on the list is either NOT that important to victory or unlikely to really swing one way or ther other. So here goes:

1. Pennsylvannia - If Obama wins PA, it is VERY difficult for McCain to get to 270. Obama had a large lead in polls up until today, when an new NBC poll had Obama up only 4 points. Many pundits said that McCain should have given up PA, but he couldn't really, because he almost HAS to win here. Example: If you are a Republican and you take a REALISTIC view of the electoral map (Obama is VERY likely to win MN, IA, NM, and NH) then losing PA means McCain needs to win every other state on this list except for NV. Considering that McCain is behind in the polls in most of the states on THAT list, if you are a Republican you are stocking up on Budweiser or Jack Daniels or whatever, and you are making your drinks stiff early in the night should PA really go blue.
2. Florida - If Obama wins PA and FL, it's all over but the crying for McCain. In almost any scenario, FL is pretty much a must win for McCain. All the polls really tell us about Florida is that it is close and don't watch the local news in Orlando.
3. Virginia - I heard there are commies in Virginia. Well, if there are enough of them and this state votes Obama, again, McCain's electoral math becomes very dificult. Also, I think that Republicans would probably start to give up hope at this point. Realistic electoral math puts Obama over the top with PA and VA - the rout might be on.
4. Ohio - If Joe The Idiot (Plumber) doesn't symbolize many of the things that are wrong with America, then nothing does. Again, PA and OH put Obama over the top no matter what else happens.
5. North Carolina - In a way, winning in the late Jesse Helms' state would be piling on - talk of 370+ electoral votes would follow any media declaration that Obama has won here. But I think it is important psychologically for Obama to win NC, to show he has appeal in "Red" state America. Also, it would mean that Liddy Dole probably loses her bid to be re-elected to the Senate. That's a race near the top of my list - posting on that sometime soon.
6. Colorado - I believe that there is a semi-realistic 269-269 scenario out there. If Colorado goes blue, that scenario is no longer possible. If you start with the 2004 final map, change IA, NM and NV from red to blue, you end with a 269 tie. That's not that far fetched. Colorado voting for Obama makes a tie almost impossible.
7. Missouri - Obama drew 100K+ at a rally there last week. Polls say that it will be close and impossible to pick a winner. But the results from other states above may have already decided the race. If they haven't, it will be a MUST win for either side. There is a way to view this state as the Florida of 2000 in this election.
8. New Mexico - Polls have this state firmly blue, which is why it is low on my list. Plus it is out west, and the election may have been decided before the polls even close there.
9. Nevada - Same as NM.
10. New Hampshire - Probably gos for Obama - BUT: As an early closer out east, look for a lot of momentum should McCain be declared a winner there. It's always been an INDEPENDENT loving place. If they are buying it still from McCain, it could be a sign of good things to come for the Republicans.
11. Minnesota - This really has to b considered over, but I am still seeing ads here. The MPR poll out today has Obama up 19. The only thing a McCain victory here would mean is that someone screwed with the election.
12. Iowa - Obama won the caucus here. Should be firmly democratic.

I left off Montana and North Dakota. They would be nice to win but not crucial. As we are watching on election night, these states listed above will tell us who is going to win.

UPDATE: Apparently I didn't get all the information on that NBC Poll from PA. According to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, that same poll had Obama up only 2 points a month ago. So that's actually a net gain in one month. Better news than I thought. However, I am still not bringing out the champagne...

270 To Win

http://www.270towin.com/

If you haven't been there - I cannot recommend it highly enough. Just a fascinating way to waste A LOT of time. My thoughts:

1) Look back in history at California's electoral votes since the 1950's. Just an amazing population growth there.

2) LBJ absolutely SMOKED Goldwater in 64.

3) Vermont and Maine voted against FDR in 1936 (start of his second term). There's just no excuse for that. I definitely lost some respect for those guys today.

4) I would have guessed that the 1988 election was a lot closer than it was.

5) Do not, under any circumstances, click on the 2000 election. You will be reminded that Bush won that election in spite of the following:

a) Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush.

b) The electoral college ended 271-268. Florida takes all the blame, but New Hamshire was the lone bit of red in the blue Northeast, and Bush would have lost without New Hampshire.

c) Gore "lost" Florida in the official final count by 537 votes. Out of nearly 6 million cast. That's remarkable.

d) Ralph Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida that year. I know times were different then, and that it really is only with the benefit of hindsight that we see how exceptionally the Bush/Cheney administration has performed. And this is a free country, and I think people should be allowed to vote for whomever they choose. But for me, personally, I would feel a lot better if I knew that Nader was having a little more trouble sleeping at night than he appears to. He was never going to win anything that year. At least Ross Perot actually had a chance to win something in 1992 (less so in 1996). But the only realistic outcome of the Nader campaign was to take votes away from Al Gore. Indeed, he did accomplish that. Imagine if only a quarter of the people who voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Al Gore. There's no Supreme Court case, no chads, no nothing. They would do a recount, and Al Gore would have been President. I also think the Republicans would have tried to impeach Gore after 9/11, but that is a different story.

6)Having looked at lots of polling data and playing with the site quite a bit, it is very difficult to imagine McCain winning at this point. Something really odd would have to happen to even give him a shot. Which of course will make it all the more devestating if Obama loses. But still, this is as close to in the bag as a close election can be.

7) I am a nerd.