Obama's Gay Marriage Announcement

Yesterday (May 9, 2012), President Obama stated in an interview with ABC Television that he thought gay couples with healthy long-term commitments should be allowed to get married. What may have been lost in the reporting of this comment is that he called it his personal viewpoint. What he said is not official policy of the United States, but only a personal view that undoubtedly will influence many other people to have either a more positive or more negative opinion of the President. This was a classic Damned if you do and damned if you don't moment. It did show a lot of courage, but it may turn out to have been foolhardy from the viewpoint of political success in the next election. So long as Obama didn't define his stance, it was open to interpretation by all shades of the political spectrum. By declaring his position, he enhanced his standing with half of the voting public, but alienated the other half. This would have been true even if he had declared himself as being on the other side of this thorny debate. Therefore, I have to believe that Obama's public support of gay marriage has to be a statement of his conscience rather than being a political ploy. He gains nothing from it and may very well lose a lot. Whether or not this President gets re-elected, he has shown that he will take a stance on issues that most other politicians would remain ambiguous about.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Super Bowl

News Items:
The Chicago Bears will play the Green Bay Packers in the NFC Championship football game.
President Obama begs for more civil discourse among politicians and others who disagree.

I have been a Chicago Bears fan ever since I moved to the Chicago area many years ago. I have accepted and enjoyed the traditional rivalry and buildups before battles between the Bears and the Packers, two teams that consider each other hereditary enemies. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I respect the Packers and their traditions. Over the years, a significant number of Bears players have moved on to the Packers, and the reverse is true also. On occasion, I even root for the Packers when they are playing someone other than the Bears.
In political, religious, and economic matters, why can't we respect the opposition even though we disagree with them? One of the differences and problems is that in football both sides play by the same rules. If one side tries to gain an advantage over the other, it has to work within the framework of those rules. In politics and economics there are too many opportunities for people to go outside the very minimal framework of rules to gain advantages by making false and misleading statements, inciting an emotional population, and branding someone as an enemy. Maybe we need more referees and fact-checkers in our national discourse and our media as well as in our sports. There are many reasons to stick to the facts when debating our future. Too many times we have trouble even sticking to the facts when we discuss our past.

Why Would Anyone Want to Be President?

Anyone wanting to be President of the United States defies logic. First, the job pays a lot less than it costs to get elected. Second, you have to endure large groups of people doing everything they can to destroy your reputation and ability to achieve your goals (Whether your name is George W. Bush or Barack Obama, your position on the issues will anger a large portion of the electorate.). Third, you are speaking fervently to people who don't want to hear what you have to say and who are speaking more loudly than you are. Fourth, you are trying to address the needs of the country as you see them, and many people are only saying, "Don't make any changes that intrude on my comfort zone."

President Lyndon Johnson wanted to keep track of poll results on how people thought he was doing. If you worry about what others think of you all the time, you will never get anything done, and you will have trouble sticking to your principles. This applies even to those of us who will not ever try to be elected for anything. If you are comfortable with the decision you make, stick with it, at least until someone comes up with a logical modification of that decision that makes even more sense to you. Our outlook has been influenced too much by the media. Ratings really don't matter. If you follow your principles and feel comfortable with your decision, then go ahead with it. As Commander David Farragut once said, "Full speed ahead! Damn the torpedoes!"

Post-Election Limerick O

There was a young man named Obama
Who always debated much calmer.
He pulled out the race
With a smile on his face,
and a loving goodbye to Grandmama.

Mystery People

Within a very short time the presidential race will move into its next stage with the naming of the two vice-presidential candidates. Obama is expected to announce his running mate by Saturday of this week in order to have everything in place for next week's Democratic convention. McCain will follow shortly afterward in order to take some of the press coverage away from the Democrats and their convention. Right now, the favorite media sport is speculating on the VP candidates. The press is narrowing in on three possibilities for the Democrats and three or four for the Republicans. Frankly, I would like the answer to be "None of the above" for this one, both because the people touted by the press are far from capable of shifting the campaigns into higher gears (and who needs more of the same?), and because I would like to see the presidential candidates outsmart the press. At this point I'm hoping that we're in for a pair of surprises...but maybe not of the Dan Quayle type.

The Year of the Veep?

The race for president is tightening up, and both sides need something that will generate a boost in the poll ratings and in voter interest. John McCain has succeeded in turning the media's attention to nitty-gritty details as opposed to Obama's long-term "Change" philosophy. They also both have potential liability aspects as voters weigh the impact of age and race on their decisions. The key to victory in this election may well be the identities of the two VP candidates. Each presidential candidate needs to choose someone who will: enhance their combined impact and stature (1+1=3); bring additional votes to the ticket that would not be likely for the presidential candidate alone; give geographic and/or demographic nationwide appeal to the ticket; and offset one or more perceived weaknesses of the top candidate. The selection of VP candidates who cover all of these criteria will be very difficult, but it very well may be critical to the results of the general election and to the perception of the electorate of the worth of each party's ticket. There have been several elections when I voted one way or the other because of my feelings for the vice-presidential candidate, and one or two where I wished the VP candidate was the one running for president. This year the election is going to be extremely close, and the VP candidates may make the difference. I also think that this year's election competition will go right down to the wire and will feature some high-impact last-minute surprises.

Figures Can Lie and Liars Can Figure

Every time you read an article about the forever ongoing presidential election campaign you see citations of statistics from the latest polls. Always remember to take these with a bit of scepticism, even when they show the result you prefer. If I were taking a poll of these matters, I could get totally different results from the same group of people if I simply changed the wording of my questions. For instance, "How troubling will Bill Clinton's presence in a new Clinton White House be for Hillary?" will lead to a totally different result from "Does Hillary Clinton have a great advantage because of Bill being with her in a new Clinton White House?" Similarly, "Does Barack Obama's having lived among people of many ethnic and national backgrounds give him an edge in understanding people from other countries?" will yield a different result from "Do you consider Barack Obama's limited experience in international negotiation meetings a liability?" Going to John McCain, you could ask "Do you think that John McCain's willingness to disagree with George Bush about tactics and spending shows that he would be an independent-minded President?" or you could ask "Do you think that John McCain's continued support of the Iraq war shows that his presidency would be more of the Stay the course mentality?"

Always remember to read the questions (if they even show them) when you examine poll results. In addition, you should look at as many polls as possible, and average the results to get more realistic figures.

Vice Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race to the finish for the Democratic presidential nomination. Many have suggested that the winner select the loser as vice-presidential candidate. Things are clearer on the Republican side, but do you think John McCain should take Mike Huckabee as his vice-presidential candidate? Is it a good idea to have someone you have criticized to be your running mate? Will a Vice President who thinks he/she should really be the President be loyal and supportive. We have had cases in the past where this was done, and where it worked out well. There have also probably been some cases where it was a disaster. A Vice President who had tried for the top job is certainly more likely to be acceptable to the people as President if succession is necessary than a complete unknown who was selected for loyalty rather than for competence. On the other hand, does a President feel safe and secure with an ambitious rival in the number two job? What do you think?