The Sad State of the Union

I did not watch the State of the Union address, continuing the practice I started in 2001. I reasoned then that I had never cared what an illiterate redneck had to say before one stole an election, so why start now? Anyway, I did read about the speech afterward, and see that Bush placed a lot of attention on Social Security reform. He wants for people to be able to invest part of their money instead of just getting a handout. He’s talking about 1-2% or so, but that might just be a first step.

I’m not sure that it’s a good or bad idea yet. I’m glad to see someone thinking about ways to keep the program from going bankrupt. I am terrified of people investing in a market that does not always go up, up, up, and so possibly being left with less according to market fluctuations. If it’s only a small percentage that’s invested, that’s a different story. That also could give root to brokers and fees and all sorts of other costs for people, which could end up giving them less money when all is said and done. The jury is still out on the whole thing.

It should be noted that not only do many Democrats oppose Bush’s plan, but so do many key Republicans. They say that Social Security can possibly be fixed in other ways…tinkering with the retirement age, fiddling with taxes, etc.

This is my problem: Bush says there is a crisis, and that his way is the best way to fix it. Right away, an alarm should go off. This is a man who believes that our country is better off with record deficits, tax breaks for the wealthy, and an energy policy that benefits energy and oil companies instead of the American people. He believes that a swaggering, macho foreign policy that alienates our allies is in our best interest. Don’t even get me started [again] on Iraq. With all these precedents, why should we think that he actually has it right this time?

The Iraqi Elections & an Exit Strategy

As you might have heard, Iraq had its first free elections in 50 years. Iraqis rejoiced, Iraqi expatriates celebrated, and George W. Bush could barely hide his smirk behind his glee.

When the results are announced next week, not all Iraqis will be happy. It's hard to see Sunni and Shiite Muslims sharing power, and one group ceding power to the other. That's not to mention the Kurds, the country's "other" large ethnic group. Iraq's problems (and ours) are far from over. It is still a terrorist hotbed and breeding ground. Whether the problem is worse now than during Saddam Hussein's time is both an open question and a moot point. Bush pushed us into this war for vague and continuously evolving reasons, and now we cannot simply walk away and let the country continue to disintegrate. The elections are a first step and will hopefully put an exit strategy in motion. We cannot just start bringing troops home now simply because there were elections...that could make it all worse.

Is Bush capable of making an exit strategy? Well, he's done such a ridiculously poor job thus far that it's hard to see it. Let's hope a thoughtful moderate Colin Powell can figure something out. Oops, he's gone. Maybe some non-chicken hawks can put a plan in place. Oops, there aren't any in this administration.

After Bush pre-empts good TV programming for a State of the Union that will be filled with half-truths and manipulations, he needs to come up with a concrete plan and tentative timetable. He created this morass for reasons that are still unclear--- WMD's? Uh, no. Saddam connected to 9/11? Sorry, Dick Cheney, but the answer to that is still no. Spreading democracy? Um, OK, yeah, that's it!

You are our president. For real this time. Figure something out. And if Halliburton profits more from whatever plan you set up, people had better start screaming.

The United Purple States of America

A reader pointed out that that many Red States in the 2004 Election only went for Bush by a slim margin (and vice-versa for Kerry), and I have seen many columns which point out that the entire U.S. is really all comprised of purple states.

Look at a county-by-county election map. On November 3rd, a Republican I know chortled (yes, he actually did chortle) that Bush won in a landslide. He told me to look at how most of the country was red counties. He also said to get Mt. Rushmore ready for Bush, but I digress.

Well, let’s take a look. Just three states were 100% Red: Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Alaska. Only three states were 100% Blue: Vermont, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. The other 44 had varying degrees of mixture.

In Texas: we all knew Bush would win by a wide margin. He did (61% overall), but he did not win every county. The southern part of the state, the El Paso area, is lined with Blue counties.

In the South: Bush also won Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. However, there are a significant number of adjacent Blue counties, from Shelby County in TN (which has Memphis), down into Louisiana and encompassing both eastern Arkansas and western Mississippi. There are a number of adjacent Blue counties running through central Alabama.

Bush won most of the counties in Pennsylvania and Illinois, but lost the Philadelphia and Chicago areas, respectively, and that cost him each state. That pattern is evident throughout the country. If Bush wins ten counties of 5,000 people each, and Kerry wins one that has 500,000, which is more significant? Kerry won heavily in the Northeast, which is more heavily populated than, well, everywhere else.

The bottom line is that within each county there is an unknown number of swing voters. Bush appealed to enough of them to win. Kerry did not. In 2008, can any Democrat? Certainly. Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? Al Gore? Howard Dean? That’s a topic for another day, but suffice to say that very few states are only Red or only Blue.