kirkwalsh.com

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. If you have any questions, please see my policies page or if you would like to contact me, you can do so here. You can find out more about me here. I sincerely thank you for visiting!

If you had told me two weeks ago that the Democrats would take Denny Hastert’s seat, I would have openly mocked you. Having grown up in that district, I knew that the likelihood that any Democrat would take the seat would be about the same as me being named King of Ireland.

Well, I’m booking my ticket now.

Bill Foster, a Democrat with zero political experience, defeated three four-time loser Jim Oberweis in the race for the seat, which encompasses the extreme western ex-urbs of Chicago and points west. Mr. Oberweis already lost bids for US Senate in 2002 and 2004 and Illinois Governor in 2006. His campaigns are nasty and he uses his wealth (from the greatest dairy in the known world) to run ads that do little but try to smear the competition. The Tribune runs down some of these ads on their Swamp blog.

I simply can’t believe it. The GOP is pointing the finger (and I do mean “the finger” at this point) at Oberweis and saying he’s the reason they lost. Of course, he’s their nominee in November when Foster and Oberweis will be running again for the same spot so they don’t want to say it too loudly. This could be a harbinger of things to come. I know that one result does not a trend make, but this is so out of left field and so unlikely that the GOP may need to just duck and cover in November and be thankful for whatever seats they do manage to keep.

It’s funny how quickly fingers begin pointing when a campaign is imploding. The LA Times has an article on the fussing and fighting in the Clinton camp over the weekend.

As the campaign faces a make-or-break moment, some high-level officials are trying to play down their role in the campaign. Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had “no direct authority in the campaign,” describing himself as merely “an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me.”

“I have had no say or involvement in four key areas — the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas.”

Howard Wolfson, the campaign’s communications chief, answered that it was Penn who had top responsibility for both its strategy and message. Another aide said Penn spoke to Clinton routinely about the campaign’s message and ran daily meetings on the topic.

Everyone is blaming everyone else for the performance at a time that is critical for the campaign. I’d love to see the internal polling at the Clinton campaign on Friday. I don’t imagine the campaign will last beyond tomorrow, but I’ve been surprised before.

Being in Missouri, we get bombarded by robocalls (yeah, thanks for exempting yourselves when passing the Do Not Call list). I have to wonder, do they work? Are they like spam and work for X% of people and piss off everybody else? Or are they just so cheap that it really doesn’t matter if it works. I mean, it’s not like spam where you can track that X% of the e-mails resulted in sales because there is no sale and no way to track who changed their behavior because of the robocall.

We’ve gotten several right at naptime the past couple of days. Nothing to piss off a parent like calling at naptime (usually for both the parent and the child).

So, Senator Brownback I couldn’t care less who you want me to vote for (I’m guessing Huckabee, but I hung up long before then). I also don’t care what the push poll has to say. Leave me alone, especially at naptime (and if I’m not napping it’s the two hours of peace I get a week).

So, the primary is less than a week away and I still haven’t decided who to vote for. With Edwards and Giuliani dropping out, I have basically six choices now.

Clinton
Obama
Huckabee
Paul
McCain
Romney

Clinton- My feelings about the Clinton campaign are well documented. I think she’s run a dirty campaign while trying to remain “above the fray” by always disavowing the whisper campaigns started by her campaign, which she has basically run the past couple of months according to media reports. Any affinity I may have felt to the Clintons has been dashed by this campaign and I find myself unable to vote for her.

Obama- He wants to pull out of Iraq immediately and make the tax system more complicated. That’s two big strikes against the Obama campaign. He’s done well not to take the bait of the Clinton campaign all that often, but I wonder if America is ready for a black President. He’s a wonderful speaker that seems to have good ideas but he has no experience. We really have no idea how he would do as President, he’s a wild card and that makes me nervous.

Huckabee- Likewise, I’ve written often of my feelings about the Huckabee campaign. He’s a nice enough guy and I’d probably like to hang out with him, but that’s how we ended up with the last President. His policies leave a lot to be desired. He has no respect for the separation of church and State. The Flat Tax is completely unworkable and would be a giant tax increase for anyone paying less than a 23% effective tax rate. I have a lot of issues with Huckabee the candidate that I don’t have with Huckabee the person. But, I’m electing a President and I don’t think Mike is up to the task.

Paul- Yeah, I don’t think so. His racist rantings (oh wait, the racist rantings that went out under his name that he knew NOTHING about) were just the tip of the iceberg. He’s a nutcase without Perot’s personality. I think a lot of people that are supporting Paul will look back and shake their heads someday.

McCain-  I might have voted for 2000 McCain, but that’s not the man running now. His about face in 2002 and 2004 to fall behind the man that only won because of a disgraceful campaign just infuriates me. A lot of independants talk about “the hug” when McCain hugged Bush during the 2004 campaign to show his support for Bush in the race as a turning point when they turned away from him. I, likewise, don’t understand why he did it and can’t forgive him for that. I like his stance on Iraq and most military matters, especially the use of torture (why more people aren’t asking the guy that was tortured if we should be doing it is beyond me). He’s now for the Bush tax cuts rather than overhauling the system and has no real plan on health care. McCain may be the closest candidate I have on major issues, but I just can’t do it. I can’t vote for him. He’s a wonderful man and he should have been President for the last eight years, but his time has passed. He’s also 71. Will he be alive in eight years? Statistics tell us maybe, but I want more than maybes. McCain is out.

Romney- Likewise, I would probably have voted for Massachusetts Mitt, but that ain’t the person running. He’s made a rightward tack and has made John Kerry looked stout and resolute in his positions. I know it’s become a campaign tactic, but I’m not sure if there really is an issue that Mitt hasn’t taken two (or more) positions on. He’s a really smart guy and has excellent executive experience. Those are two things that I want in a President. But I also want to know where he stands, and for Mitt it seems to be wherever I’m standing. And where you’re standing. And where the person next to you is standing. It’s okay to change your mind on an issue or two, we’ve all done it. But when you change your spots to get elected, it throws up a really big red flag that you’re in it for the power and not the service. No thanks.

So, where does that leave me? I guess I’ll vote for Obama by process of elimination. He seems like the least evil candidate.

*sigh* Call it an endorsement, call it what you like. It’s certainly not enthusiastic.

It seems that the huge loss in South Carolina is affecting the Clinton campaign. First, they took great pains to point out that Jesse Jackson won the primary twice in an attempt to smear Obama to white voters by comparing him to Jackson. Then, Clinton flew to Florida, breaking her own promise not to campaign there.

In the AP article Clinton mentions that she’s working hard to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at the Convention despite the fact that the Party came through with the threat to take away their delegates if they moved their primaries up. Why is she “working so hard”? Because she was the only one that didn’t take her name off in Michigan and now she’s the only one to break her promise not to campaign in Florida.

Like I said this weekend, she’ll do anything to win. She can’t even keep her own promises within the campaign. She promised not to campaign in Michigan and Florida to try and make Iowa and New Hampshire happy and now that they’re over she’s going right on with the campaigns. Nice.

Like I said, I’m no Hillary fan at this point and it seems like every day she’s intent on reinforcing that. I hate to sound like a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and I was a fan of Bill), but I really, really, really hope she loses at this point. The smear machine isn’t working and she’s forced to do bald-faced turnabouts in an attempt to win.

I think we’ve gotten to the watching sausage being made stage with the Hillary campaign. I don’t know if she can dig any deeper, but I bet we’re going to find out between now and next Tuesday.

Kevin over at Exurban League posted a link to an opinion piece wondering if the Right was right on the Clintons. While his reason for posting the column is different than mine, I had to laugh at the coincidence. See, I posted this on an online forum just yesterday.

The crap that the Clinton campaign has spewed in South Carolina eerily reminds me of the anti-McCain campaign in the same state eight years ago. For the Bushies, it worked. For the Clintons, it appears to have backfired.

My state is one of the Super Duper Tuesday states that vote in two weeks. I am no closer to picking a candidate. All those stupid online quizzes get confused when I fill in my information. I’ve had everyone from Sam Brownback to Dennis Kucinich show up as the candidate I’m closest to depending on the weighting of the questionnaire. I just took the Electorial Compass one, and I’m pretty close to the middle on both axes, which means there are no candidates anywhere near me.

I know one thing, I won’t be voting for Ms. Clinton. I also won’t be voting her if she wins the Democratic nomination. As I said in the post, if it’s Clinton-McCain, I’ll write in Mickey Mouse for the third campaign in a row. He’d be a better President.

I don’t get lit on fire by Obama and I don’t know why. I really should. The comparisons of him to JFK are right on the mark, in my opinion. He’s young, attractive, and making people reassess their traditional ways of thinking (Kennedy towards Catholics, Obama towards African-Americans). Both could be seen as a breaking point in American politics. And yet, I just can’t get excited about Obama.

He seems to want nationalized health care, even going as far as to point out if he was starting from scratch he’d pick single payer, but he won’t go for it in the campaign. His tax proposals really turn me off and he’s for abortion, though I’m used to ignoring that by now. He also wants to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq, which is a no-go for me (I was completely against going in, but now that we’re stuck we’ve got to do the right thing).

So, I disagree with the Democrats on Iraq, taxes, and abortion and with the Republicans on all other social and economic issues. And that’s why I have no idea who I should vote for. We need a party for all those liberal Christians out there that are sick of compromising on abortion or social issues to fit into one of the two current parties.

*sigh* Maybe someday.

In what must be the quickest agreement in the history of Congress, Democrats and Republicans agreed on a stimulus plan. It includes business and personal tax incentives.

That scream you hear? It’s state tax departments all over the country. The business stimulus includes bonus depreciation, similar to what was done after 9.11. The problem is that about 30 states didn’t follow the Federal rules the first time. Some states simply said “pretend that bonus never existed”. Those states are okay. Some states said “add back X percent of your bonus depreciation and deduct it over X years beginning in year X”. Okay, that’s easy enough. But then you had states like Illinois and Pennsylvania that had this massively complicated system to reverse the bonus depreciation and take it during the life of the asset (apparently they didn’t think of the first way). Then, there were states like Iowa, Missouri, and New York that didn’t follow the Federal rules for certain years but did for other years. Oh, and New York City didn’t follow the Federal rules except for assets that were physically located in New York City.

Oh, the humanity! I’d like to think that given a second bite at the apple that states would get it right this time. I’m guessing we’ll get a second round of adjustments that are a mish-mash similar to the first time around.

I think we’ll be okay if Congress simply adjusts the Tax Code to reuse the same paragraph as the original bonus depreciation. Most states referenced that specific paragraph in the Code and said “we don’t like it” (which is why most states didn’t bother to adjust for the Hurricane Zone bonus depreciation, it’s in another section of the Code). But, now I’m betting that state legislatures *and* Congress get it right. I might as well be betting on the Cubs to win the World Series next year.

It’s job security, right? Right?

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has shocked just about everyone by announcing he’s done what he’s come to do and he won’t seek reelection.

The Governor has been dogged by an e-mail scandal that just won’t die. Basically, the Governor fired a whistleblower that said that e-mails should be kept and that they should be open to Sunshine Law requests. Of course, all e-mails relating to the whistleblower had already been deleted, but the Governor’s office helpfully released a smattering of e-mails that painted the whistleblower in a less than positive light. After the firings came to light, the Governor announced that he changed his mind and all e-mails should be kept.

Blunt had been very active in Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign, but I doubt that’s he’s quitting to be Mitt’s running mate. I hope that it is not a family illness or anything like that (he does have a small child). I’m guessing the e-mail scandal (or something else) is probably going to explode and he’s trying to get in front of the news.

How surprising is this? His main rival in the Missouri GOP announced just this morning that she wasn’t going to challenge him in the primary. I bet Steelman (the only Republican I have ever voted for) reverses course tomorrow.

Matt Blunt is the son of longtime Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt.

Like I’ve said before, I want to like Mike Huckabee, I really do. He’s a personable guy who has a sense of humor about himself, which is sorely lacking politics. Most of his religious social views mix with mine, as far as helping those that need it. While he’s against gay marriage, I don’t exactly fit in with Democrats on elective abortion.

But every time he opens his mouth, he makes me shudder. First, it was the interview with the NY Times where he spread lies about the Mormon faith. Now, he wants to amend the Constitution to fit his biblical world view?

This is a huge issue that I have with many in my church. They want the clock rolled back to the golden times of yesteryear where God ruled the country rather than men. Of course, it’s total bunk but a lot of people trace the downfall of American civilization to the date when prayer was taken out of school.

I agree with the Exurban chaps (that’s a first) that separation of church and state is there to protect the church rather than the other way ’round. Take a quick glance through history what happens when church and state are one (not only the current Islamic theocracies, but look 20 years ago at Latin America and many times in Europe over the last couple of milennia). I can’t fathom wanting to mix the two any more than we currently do, and I certainly don’t want to amend the Constitution to my particular Biblical worldview.

All this comes as the NY Times runs an article on how Huckabee is splitting younger Evangelicals from the old guard because of his support of environmentalism and other “liberal” issues. It reminds me of my favorite recent piece of satire, McSweeney’s Letter from Pat Robertson on the Presidential candidacy of Jesus. However, as long as Huckabee insists on merging church and state in this way there’s no way I can support him.

Maybe we can mix Huckabee and Obama and get the perfect candidate? A little of Huckabee’s message and Obama’s respect for the limits of faith and government? Please?

That should be the new motto for the Democratic Party (well, really both but my particular ire is with the Democrats on this one). When running in 2006, the Democrats promised “cross my heart and hope to die” to offset any new spending or tax cuts with a counterbalance in order to hold back the deficit. I guess they only meant in non-election years.

From BNA:

House Lawmakers Edge Toward Waiving Pay-Go for Stimulus Package

A bipartisan consensus to avoid applying pay-as-you-go budget rules to a possible economic stimulus package begins to bubble to the surface as House Majority Whip Clyburn says he does not believe offsets would be appropriate. Avoiding pay-go would eliminate a key barrier in Congress to quick passage of new tax cuts or potential spending increases meant to breathe new life into the economy, economic advisers say. Clyburn also says he expects the House Blue Dog Coalition-a group of roughly 40 fiscally conservative Democrats-to accept waiving pay-go for something as important as a stimulus package. …

I figured that when the AMT patch passed with offsets (even with the bs promise to counterbalance it this year after everyone forgot about it) that was the end of PAYGO. Well, get out the Kleenex and eulogies, ’cause it’s dead and gone. It had a nice, long run of 11 months.

As always, re-election trumps principles. And that’s reason #1 why I don’t think I’d ever get into politics despite my interest in it. I’m way too principled, even when the election comes.