For A Change

After being ignored all these years, it looks like the chickens have finally come home to roost. Always too moderate to be "true" conservatives and too grounded to be "true" liberals, the independents will get to have their say in 2008, and not be forced to choose between a bible-thumping Republican or a matronly Democrat as we have in the past. This time, it seems like both sides may come a-courting.

I'm not sure why. It seems like the Democrats would have to shoot themselves in both feet, and both hands and all twenty fingers and toes as well, to lose the presidential election this time, but then these are. Maybe they need us because both of these candidates seem to at least have some passing acquaintance with the middle-of-the-road moderate types, and are each unwillingly to cede their vote to the other.

Being the independent type myself, I'm glad for their attention and happy that this election seems to promise some interesting changes. That's why I was watching the Obama speech last night, and I have to say he gave a hell of a speech. He's definitely got the gift of oratory and, you know, he kind of reminds me of those other two great Democratic orator presidents from Illinois - Stephen Douglas and William Jennings Bryan.

Problem is, despite all his speechifying, I'm never quite sure if Obama really understands the implications of all he's promising to deliver or if he's just playing us. For some reason I just kept thinking "if this guy hadn't decided to go into politics he would have made a great mortgage broker." You know, promising people that they could have the house of their dreams right now for no money down and low, low payments for the first 5 years. Yeah, sounds great, until your 5 years are up.

McCain, on the other hand, well...who knows. I always liked the antecampaign McCain, the fiscally responsible one who was strong on defense and sensible on immigration, but this new McCain sees to be drifting more and more towards that same old Republicanism that seems to be is such good favor around the country these days. If I were him I'd just run as myself, but then I never claimed to know anything about political campaigns. I guess the thing to do is solidify your base and then try to win the votes of independently minded people like me.

The unfortunate thing for McCain, of course, is that the surge in Iraq seems to be working - not spectacularly, mind you, but steadily in the right direction. You'd think that would be a good thing for both McCain and the country, but I don't think the country (and particularly the Democrats) really want the surge to work right now. At least it seems that way because the only time the Iraq War ever makes the news is when an American dies or somebody blows themselves up. The rest of the time the war is back there on page A33 next to the liposuction ads. For some reason only defeat and setback make the news. Success just seems to stick in our craw. It's almost like this war isn't even our war anyway. Nope, it's Bush's war, and we've got nothing to do with it. Hell, it'd probably serve Bush and Cheney and all those other warmongers right if we got the hell kicked out of us, and doesn't it just piss us off when things start to go right.

Funny how things can get turned around like that sometimes. Ever see The Bridge on the River Kwai?

Well, the war is a whole different topic and I don't want to get into it right now. All I'm saying is that either way the war is a no-win situation for McCain. If America makes some progress in Iraq, it's not news. If America suffers a reversal, then the headlines make him look blustering and misguided. Personally, I think foreign policy under McCain will look more like Bush I then Bush II, but that's neither here nor there because in the end reality will settle in and Obama foreign policy won't be much different either. I could be wrong of course. Obama is pretty liberal and if he's anything like the liberals we have around San Francisco then that would be something to worry about. I tell you what. If Obama's first acts as president are to disband the military, raise tariffs and turn the Pentagon into a big homeless shelter, then we'll know just how liberal he really is.

(then everyone around the world will join hands and sing folk songs and form a giant human chain for peace)

Anyway, did you catch that reference to education in the Obama speech. I think it went something like "more money." Now wasn't it just yesterday that we got some report telling us that America ranks number 2 in the world in per pupil eduction spending? Was I just dreaming that? No, it was the 2003 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study that found that although America trails only South Korea among the industrialized nations in per pupil education spending, it continues to decline and rank near the middle in student performance. Remember that report? The one that the education establishment dismissed as flawed for failing to take into account America's diverse student population (it must be all those Asian immigrants who are dragging America's ranking down)?

Yeah, you remember it because it got a lot of people wondering why it is we spend all this money on schools for such meager results. In a way it's kind of what the whole "No Child Left Behind" movement was all about. That is, instead of just shoveling more money into our schools, why not ask them to be accountable in some way for the results they achieve? If I understand Obama correctly, we're going to scrap that idea and just start dealing out the dough.

If I were going to ask Obama a question then I'd ask him what he thinks of merit pay for teachers. I know what his response would be. He'd be opposed to it. Why? Because the teacher's unions are opposed to it, that's why. The idea that good teachers should be paid more than bad ones is anathema to teachers. Their position has always been that it's unfair to punish teachers if their students aren't learning to read and write and do math. It's a thankless job and all teachers should be paid more, regardless if they are any good or not.

To their credit, the teacher's unions have been very effective in getting parents and the public to buy into this concept, and you don't have to look very hard to see the results. You ever hear parent's talk about teachers? Why it's a wonder that the Pope doesn't canonize the whole lot of them when you hear parents talk about them. "Why Mrs. Jones is so wonderful and dedicated and committed and selfless and never receives any thanks from anyone for all the sacrifices she makes. My little Suzie just loves her and has learned so much, and I don't mind a bit that she's still reading at 4 years below grade level." Well, instead of putting them on pedestals maybe some parents should start being a little more critical and demanding. Sure, there are lots of good teachers. I was a student once, you know, and I had some good teachers, and some real clunkers too. So why not reward the good ones and get rid of the bad? Why shouldn't teachers be accountable to the taxpayers for their job performance? How do you feel about merit pay for teachers, Obama? That's what I'd like to know.

And my question for McCain? Why not universal health coverage? Why not join the rest of the advanced nations of the world and declare health care a basic human right? No, just don't dismiss it as "big government". That doesn't answer the question. What do you do if a major illness strikes and you don't have insurance or your insurance isn't adequate to cover the expenses or if the insurance company declines coverage? What do you do if you can't pay for that expensive operation or if your insurance company won't pay for it? Are you supposed to be comforted by the knowledge that somewhere there are shareholders who can take comfort knowing their United Healthcare dividend is safe? Tell me Senator McCain, why is universal healthcare really so awful?

Questions, questions...sure voting's easy when all you have to know is the red from the blue, but we independents have some questions.