Recession? Surely not!

We continue to be assured — by the President of the United States, no less, and on more than one occasion in recent weeks — that America is not in a recession. George W. Bush clearly stated, on February 26, 2008, that “We're not in a recession, I don't think we will go in a recession. We're in a slowdown, and there's a difference.”

I’d like to appeal that to the Supreme Court, if you don’t mind, and specifically to the late Justice Potter Stewart, whose most well-known observation I now paraphrase:

I shall not today attempt further to define what I understand it to be; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

Justice Stewart was referring to pornography; I’m talking about what’s going on with our economy, something equally obscene.

For almost a year now, even the casual news consumer has been aware of a disturbing rise in the number of foreclosures, a trend that began well over two years ago, by my reckoning. By last summer it had blown up into what came to be called “the sub-prime mortgage crisis,” with the potential to take down our national economy, along with big chunks of the rest of the world.

If, in my anger, I were to digress here to place blame (hint: the bottom line is greed) I’d not get to the point of the piece, which is to offer a reality check as we move into the spring and summer and on to the election season that follows.

Fact: Gasoline prices are moving beyond affordability for ordinary folks, with no relief in sight. It was $1.59 a gallon in January 2001.

Fact: The price of gold, which always rises when an economy is sinking because investors consider it the safest place for their money, reached $1,000 an ounce last week. It was $268 in January 2001.

Fact: The value of the American dollar has dropped so low that it is no longer the universal currency it once was. That makes everything we import more expensive — the good news, perhaps, would be to put lead-painted toys out of our reach.

Fact: Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., a leading investment banker and brokerage firm, announced last week that it had insufficient funds to pay all its investors, thereby generating a minor run (shades of 1929) and a near 50% plunge in its stock value; it was finally bailed out by J. P. Morgan Chase, who purchased it for $2 a share, with the help of a short-term loan from the Federal Reserve. How did this happen? The hedge funds they had established on the basis of sub-prime mortgage holdings had tanked.

Fact: 80, 000 American jobs were lost in just January and February of this year. But last week Mr. Bush assured us that unemployment rates remain low. Anyone care to square those numbers for me?

I know one thing: A person who has exhausted unemployment benefits no longer counts as unemployed; nor does a computer programmer or engineer who has taken a job tending bar or pushing carts at Wal-Mart or flipping burgers; nor, by the way, do all those real estate agents who gave up because homes aren’t selling — along with other small business owners who have seen their incomes wither away, they are independent contractors and not even eligible for unemployment benefits.

But look! See all those ads than in high-gloss magazines and on television for luxury items — homes, vacations, cars, jewelry! See all those store shelves groaning under the weight of more stuff than we could ever consume, more choices than a sane person would welcome.

Surrounded by such affluence, you’d be tempted to think Mr. Bush is right, that things are hunky-dory, just a little slow. And that the tax cuts worked, by the way.
Except he’s wrong, and we fail to recognize that at our peril.

I’ll come back to my point: It’s time for a reality check as we move through spring and summer into the election season. We need a new direction in this country.

Like most of America I have been stunned by the incredible turnout to vote in primaries all across the country. However large or small the state, the number of voters has in some cases more than doubled from years past. Photographs of long lines at polling places, huge rallies for candidates, stories of frantic election judges running out of ballots, all told the tale:

We are really anxious to move on.

In a beloved Disney cartoon, Donald Duck and Goofy undertook to paint a fence: Goofy got to painting faster and faster and Donald Duck asked him why. “I’m trying to get the fence finished before I run out of paint,” explained Goofy.

All those folks lined up, all the enthusiasm, all the rallies, all the participation, all the attention to every bit of campaign news? We are just trying to get the thing over with before any more damage is done.

Alice in Wonderland

I have the urge to scream when I hear commentators and political experts, who should know better, assert that Clinton and Obama “need to stop bickering,” that “they” are hurting the party. Comments like these don’t square with the reality as I’ve come to know it.

The Clintons are the ones doing the damage here. They have been very successful at framing the race, which isn’t hard to do if you just keep on the attack. Last week they absurdly accused Obama of “playing the race card” after Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about his race.

It’s Alice in Wonderland time.

The only thing Obama has done to Clinton is to aggravate the heck out of her by (a) not engaging at her street-fight level, and (b) winning more states, more delegates, and more votes.

But Hillary Clinton claims that she has proven she is the most likely winner against John McCain because she won “all the big states” in the Democratic primaries.

It’s faulty reasoning; to accept this you have to believe that California, New York, Ohio and the rest of the big blue states (Obama won Illinois) would automatically fall to the Republicans in an Obama-McCain match-up. Hard argument to make.

If Obama would only cede to Clinton the race he is winning — one in which she cannot now legitimately overtake him — all would be peaceful. Like a spoiled child, she seems determined to nag, browbeat, whine and stubbornly hold on until everyone else is exhausted and just gives in.

Some of those same misguided pundits and politicians suggest that the perfect solution is to put these two on the same ticket. I don’t think so.

Clinton has run a mean, dishonest, cynical campaign. The idea of both running together is idealistic to a fault, in my opinion. And not a good idea politically.

Nonetheless, the Clintons would have you believe they would offer Obama the vice-presidential spot, but if you trust a word they are saying you aren’t learning from history. The lying and cheating they’ve engaged in has completely alienated me, of all people.

But just for the sake of argument, imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket: That would present a near certainty that Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives throughout the country would (a) draw out more Republican voters and (b) cause not just a few Obama folks to just stay home — precisely because of the negative campaign she has run against him.

For that matter, can you imagine her choosing as VP someone who would outshine her? Or, for that matter, someone to whom she owes no favor?

Now imagine Obama/Clinton: If Hillary were the VP candidate, because of those high negatives, she would drag down the vote in the states Obama could win without her. The result would be losing many down-ballot races, so that even were Obama/Clinton to win it might well cost the Democrats important congressional seats.

Anyway, why would the guy who is in first place accept second place? Especially knowing that he would end up being part of a threesome, outnumbered by Clintons?

Finally, have you thought through what another four or eight years of Clintons in the White House would be like for the country?

I think she figures that she will by God be the nominee and devil take the hindmost; if that gives the election to McCain — who is better qualified anyway, according to her — then, so what? He likely would serve only one term and then she’ll be baa-ack!

People in the know have almost to a person acknowledged that in fact the candidates’ positions are so close on matters of substance, with differences primarily in how they would implement this or that idea, that it really has come down to which style of leader we want.

My own personal take on the choice is this:

Do we want someone who will tell us what to do, or someone who will persuade us to do it? Do we want secrecy, or transparency? Do we want calculation and triangulation, or is it time to play it straight?

And, finally, do we want another four or more years of drama with all the same old players, or do we want a fresh start?

What were they thinking?

Truth to tell, it appears they weren’t thinking at all, these powerful guys who got caught up in career-destroying sex scandals. And we are left to wonder just what it would have taken to, say, pause for a moment and give a thought to consequences.
You have to wonder.

And it’s not just sex scandals; sometimes it’s money, as in the downfall of Duke Cunningham, whose lust for the high life was so great that he allowed a lobbyist to buy his favors in Congress with a mansion and a yacht.

Now, I honestly don’t believe anyone runs for public office thinking, “All I need is to get elected and then I can dip into the public coffer, or maybe sell my votes to a lobbyist, and I’ll be set for life!”

No, but it kind of confirms the old saw that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

A better saw to remember might be “honesty is the fear of getting caught.” If all else fails.

Power is seductive, and it messes with your mind.

Back in the day, a young assemblyman we helped win his first term in the California State Legislature came to a party we threw for him back home, shortly after he was sworn in. He was fairly glowing, and quite exhilarated as he described his first week in Sacramento.

“You wouldn’t believe the perks!” he exclaimed. “It’s just unbelievable, what they give you to work with.” He exuded confidence and energy as he talked about the unexpectedly comfortable new life ahead of him. It had never occurred to him as he sought to accomplish great things for his constituency that there would be fringe benefits to go along with it all.

As it turns out, this particular young man went on to a lifetime of political successes over the years without ever succumbing to the lure of money or becoming corrupt. But I offer this anecdote to show how I suspect it does happen to some.

So when it’s about money — wealth — I kind of get it. Given a taste of what it means to have money, it must be natural to want more of it, or at least to try to make sure that when your current source dries up you are going to be able to maintain the lifestyle to which you’ve become accustomed.

Some people invest wisely and plan well. Here and there, however, there are some who succumb to the temptation of kickbacks, bribery, payoffs and even building campaign war chests far in excess of future need that they get to take home when they retire. (Along with lifetime medical coverage, of course.)

So, I get money.

And these folks go to great lengths to hide what they’re doing, to bury the facts as deep as they can, often successfully for a good long while, until we are shocked, SHOCKED, when they are finally undone.

But now we have the misfortunes of Eliot Spitzer, outbound Governor of the great state of New York, to make us consider, once again, the matter of sex.

What is it with these guys?

Public servants who pilfer at least make an effort to conceal what they are doing; public servants who get caught in sex scandals seem oblivious to the danger of discovery. And of course they get found out.

I don’t agree with the pop-psychology suggestion that underneath it all they really wanted to be found out. A case could be made that anyone who runs for high public office is ipso facto a risk-taker, but taking risk does not preclude thinking about it first.

Do they really think they won’t be found out? Is it that they think they are invincible, powerful enough to withstand any consequences?

Maybe there is something about power that breeds hubris — “excessive pride or defiance of the gods, leading to downfall.”

I’m inclined to think there’s an element of mid-life crisis — after all, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, David Vitter, Mark Foley, JFK and FDR were every one of them of that certain age when they turned foolish.

At which point it’s just, as Bill Clinton explained, because they could.

Better think again!

Tomorrow is the big day. Some might say it’s the biggest day for presidential politics in Texas that any voter can remember. For the first time, it seems that Texas voters may actually choose the next president of the whole United States.

You may think it was Texas who gave us our current President, but I have news for you: It was Iowa and South Carolina, my friends. Thank them or not, it was all over before we even got to vote.

Since it wasn’t until the late 1970s that primaries replaced the parties’ conventions as the controlling means of selecting candidates, and since until very recently Texas didn’t get to vote until May, the fact is that Texas primaries have never mattered.

Yup, but this time we’re important.

Not that we’d want to enter an era of the perpetual campaign, but the truth is that the extremely long races -- races so long that we think we’ve heard all the speeches before and are convinced we know more than we could possibly need to know about the candidates -- have been enormously informative in terms of what they unintentionally reveal.

John McCain is about to become the Republican nominee, it appears. It also appears that he has remarkable stamina for a man of 72, a slightly edgy persona, and an almost consistently conservative record.

Almost?

Well, he did say last week, at a town hall meeting, that “I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica- -- conservative Republican." He caught himself, demonstrating a healthy sense of humor: "Hello?" he said, drawing laughter, mockingly reassuring his audience, "Easy there."

Barack Obama has demonstrated an unflappability that must be maddening to his opponent. He gracefully accepts Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she really, really honors his presence after calmly batting back the slings and arrows of her attacks on his truthfulness, readiness and campaign tactics, and pulls out her chair for her when she stands.

Those attacks have begun to reveal much about Senator Clinton, just as his responses have revealed much about him.

Last week a new TV ad for Clinton was seen throughout Texas. Called, appropriately, “red phone moment,” the ad opens to a home straight out of Norman Rockwell; it is dark and quiet; inside the home, we are shown 3 or 4 (or 5? hard to tell in the dark) cherubic children in their beds, sleeping.

A spooky-sounding narrator begins: “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep.” Suspenseful music. A telephone begins to ring, softly.

The narrator: “There’s a world crisis and the White House phone is ringing.” And it keeps on ringing throughout the ad, a longish photo montage of sleeping children, a mother looking in on them near the end.

By now the viewer desperately wishes that SOMEONE would answer the phone. The narrator intones: “Your vote will decide who answers that call.” The ringing finally stops. Cut to a still photo of Hillary, wearing glasses (in an ultra-modern style we've never seen her wear, no doubt intended to convey youth and strength), holding a phone receiver to her ear.

Well, let me first say this about that: If it takes that long to answer the White House red phone, we are all doomed.

But where I am going here is to ask the reader to think:

Do you really want that phone answered by someone whose campaign has been bouncing from tactic to tactic, desperately in search of a winning message? Think about it: The Clintons have gone from inevitability to attack to charm to doggedness; from “strength and experience” to “change agent” to “vulnerable” to her “own voice” to “solutions” to “realist” to “underdog” to “victim” – making it clear not only that she was unprepared for the possibility that she might not win by Super Tuesday, but, most important, that she was miserably unprepared for an unexpectedly strong and talented opponent.

Sort of tells you something, doesn’t it?

Barack Obama, speaking at a town hall meeting, responded within minutes of the ad's release, saying that Hillary already had “her red phone moment” when she voted to go to war in Iraq; then his campaign had a counter-ad up and running on TV within just a few hours. In all, we were shown not only an ability to react rapidly and creatively, but with a useful sense of humor, perhaps.

The Obama “red phone moment” ad used the same narrative, the same imagery and sound (though his phone had a sharper ring and went blessedly silent after just a few moments). There was a warm classic view of the White House at night, followed by several shots of Obama on the job – not on the phone, but in various leadership moments -- while the narrator reminded us that “in a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters.”

Maybe you’ll want to think again. Then go vote!

The perfect ticket: Obama/Webb

From American Prospect's editorial, "The 2008 Veepstakes," dateline February 26, 2008:

Webb's high standing may say more about the party and its search for an identity than it does about Webb himself. There is a rugged quality to Webb, and some Democrats see in him attributes they long for in their party -- conviction, strength, and a willingness to fight. The brawler in him is barely concealed, and unstated in every one of his arguments is an undercurrent of, "you wanna take it outside, asshole?" Days after he narrowly defeated Allen, Webb endeared himself to the party faithful by telling the president off at the White House.

Read the whole piece and see if you agree with me.