In the break room at work we have a TV that runs news programs throughout the entire day.Since the office is primarily Republican, I get an earful from Fox News every second away from my desk. Fox News retains 25% of the population’s attention, and appears to have a clear understanding on whom to market their outrage to. Listening to their undertones and self promotion demonstrates one firm conclusion; the Republicans are starving for an identity.

What exactly do Republicans stand for? Under the Eisenhower era military prudence was tied directly to Republicans. In the Regan era conservatism was embraced. Under the Clinton era Newt Gingrich led the Republican New Deal urging smaller government. Over the past several decades, all of these ideals have been forgotten. George W. and his Republican dominated leadership increased the size and scope of government to record levels. The federal budget under his watch jumped 38% as President Bush did very little to control this rise in spending. Yet when I watch Fox news, I am led to believe that the Conservative ideals are alive and well.

To agree with Frank Rich, Fox News and the Republican Party are screaming into an echo chamber. The louder they scream, the more they believe themselves. Take for instance the stimulus bill that just passed congress. To the Republican right an absolute disaster; to 51% of Americans, a step in the right direction. Or how about Obama’s cluster of tax cheats nominated to cabinet positions? To Rush Limbaugh, a strong demonstration of Obama’s inept decision making ability. To 68% of Americans a forgivable offense in which they still offer support for the president.

Besides identity fallout, what hurts the Republican platform is the negligent insistence on tax cuts to solve all economic problems. We tried that in 2002 and 2003. How did we fare? Many on the right will incorrectly point to the tax cuts as the key driver of the four year boom from 2002-2006. The truth is that falling interest rates and leveraged equity were the real contributors. The tax cuts in 02-03 put money back into the pockets of the super wealthy, who then proceeded to watch it disappear in the securities fallout. Many still cling to the supply side theories of Reagan’s policies to bolster their tax cut claims. Two problems with this belief: Jimmy Carter had already started lowering tax rates on the upper class with little success, and two, Reagan was the recipient of Paul Volkner’s rate-slashing Federal Reserve. What has been forgotten by Republicans is that conservatism at its root does not drive tax cuts. Conservatism preaches smaller government, in which tax cuts are a byproduct.

The GOP’s lack of identity and shrinking base impacted the elections of 2006, 2008, and most likely 2010. The extreme big government policies of the last eight years, coupled with an unfavorable war, pushed moderates to the left. However, the biggest problem for the Republicans going forward is their shrinking base, which is wedging out the younger demographic. Fox News and the Republican leadership had a field day teeing off on Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries. But it was Dean who inspired many of the college age kids who turned out in droves in 2006 and 2008 to vote Democrat. The GOP has kept a single eye on big business and the religious right, and has failed to court their future base.

Republicans need to regroup and tell America what they stand for. The American people are ready for extended dialogue and genuine conversation from both sides of the aisle. If the GOP can’t embrace a persuasive identity, and continue to use tax cuts as a substitute for thinking, change will continue.Unfortunately, it’s probably not the change the Republicans desire.

Tax and Spend Liberals. If I had a nickel for every time I heard this phrase, I would be writing this post from an exotic hut with glass bottom floors somewhere in the French Polynesia. This negative connotation has been associated with the Democratic Party for several decades, and will be an effective talking point for elections to come. The irony: I would much rather be a tax and spend liberal, then a free charging conservative.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend whose number one disagreement with the current Democratic candidate was his commitment to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire (one might ask, why were the Bush tax cuts passed with an expiration date?). This, in essence, would be raising taxes.I followed up with a question regarding the consequences of deficit spending; their response, “government needs to be cut.”

There is not one current presidential candidate who shares this conservative ideology. Although Obama’s proposals are beyond McCain’s in cost, McCain’s proposals will increase deficit spending much faster that of Obama ($5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade -- source: CBO). Why?McCain is proposing vast tax cuts including voiding the AMT, doubling child credits, and lowering the corporate bill. This would be like cutting my salary by 20%, and not changing my spending habits. Needless to say I would rack up vast amounts of debt forcing me to leverage every asset I could to support my current lifestyle.

Think of the national debt as one giant Black American Express. Where does this limitless credit card come from? This is the scariest question of them all.We are currently expanding our money supply by borrowing from foreign countries. We are allowing Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China to become our shareholders. So, during this Olympic season when you are complaining about China’s human rights violations, just remember they are making our mortgage payments.

Looking at the last four presidents, government spending increased 36% under Reagan, 17.2 % under Bush I (only 4 years – 34% for 8 years), 21.2% under Clinton, and 32.4% under Bush II. What is most interesting from this comparison is that the economy was expanding at the fastest rate under the Clinton administration, providing them with the strongest justification to increase spending (higher tax revenues). Yet it was the tax and spend liberal who balanced the budget and kept the National Debt basically stagnant his final year in office.

Two major consequences of a rapidly expanding money supply (national debt) are declining currency value and inflation. When your two dollar milk now cost three, or the gas prices skyrocket at the pump, thank deficit spending and a weakening dollar. This is exactly why economists call inflation “the hidden tax”. However, we should take comfort that the current administration has passed sizeable tax cuts to off-set these cost to households making more then 250,000 a year.

In the upcoming election when sizing up candidates, don’t be so quick to dismiss the tax and spend liberal. Just remember over the last 30 years it has been the tax and spend liberals who have made the most progress on limiting governmental spending, keeping the national debt in check, and maintaining responsibility with America’s money.

With the 2008 presidential election coming into play, I thought I would write five reasons why each candidate will win in November:

Barack Obama:

1. Money.Money wins elections. Money allows the candidate to reach even the most remote constituents, and control the strategy of the election. Barack Obama is on course to raise more money from donors then any other presidential candidate. Even more remarkable, is his refusal to take lobbyist and PAC money. Many are projecting him to double the intake of opponent John McCain. Barack’s war chest will allow him to play in states previously deemed Republican strongholds. The most recent whisperings is that Obama is trying to putArizona, McCain’s home state, into play!


2. Voter Turnout. Perhaps the most remarkable statistic in this year's primary season was voter turnout. The Democratic primaries recorded 40 million voters compared to 20 million Republican voters. It is fair to say that the main driver of the vast amount of Democratic votes came from a tight race between Obama and Clinton, however, voter turnout was astounding.


3. State of the GOP. The GOP’s popularity is alarmingly low. Scandals over the past several years have predominantly come from the GOP side, and President Bush’s approval ratings are at an all time low. History shows that incumbent parties with low popularity numbers have a daunting task toward reelection.


4. Voter’s number one concern. Barack is favored when the economy is America’s number one concern. Democrats have always been associated with a stronger economy. This can be attributed to two reasons: theory and luck. If there is one positive aspect of the Bush presidency, it will be the crumbling of supply side economic theory. Democrats have always followed a Keynesian approach to the economy, which offers a more stable solution to our economic woes. Luck is also a factor, as the association of a Democratic president controlling the White House through the tech stock boom of the 90’s offer voters a false sense of security.


5. Lack of experience. I have been approached with concerns from friends and family about Barack’s experience. From my point of view this is one of his greatest assets. When the elections heat up, Obama will have more of McCain’s votes to scrutinize then McCain will have of Obama’s. Many political pundits believe this is exactly why Kerry lost in 2004. There is a reason that the last five of six presidents never served in congress. Compromise and activity are fundamentals of Senate members, each leaving a political trail that can be dissected and rehashed. Obama’s lack of experience also allows him to be painted as an outsider. With Americans disenchanted withWashington’s current political state, electing an official (McCain) deemed part of the problem is favorable to the inexperienced.

John McCain:

1. Voter turnout (I know I put this for Obama):Over the past several elections Republicans are better at turning out the vote in November. This is largely due to the voter population and key constituents of the Republican Party. Many voters assume that the lower class would provide a boost to the Democrats, given their dedication to bigger government. This is incorrect. The dirty little secret is that the poor do not vote. Republican turnout is also strongest where needed most, in swing states.


2. Independents. Rewind four years prior and you will find a very different John McCain. McCain was very persuasive in the Senate and deemed the title of Maverick. He worked across party lines and was the first to blast incompetent members of his own party and their policies. It was during this time that he won the respect of Independents, and has managed to keep their loyalty through his current positions. Independents are the sole group that determines the presidency, and McCain has their ear.


3. Security. The GOP and John McCain are associated with stronger security. With the War on Terror resonating in voter’s minds, McCain is viewed as the candidate tougher on our enemies. The vast stance on Presidential visits to rouge nations between McCain and Obama is one disagreement that will be capitalized this election season.


4. A Real American Hero. What US citizen is not enchanted with John McCain’s POW story? The son and grandson of Admirals, McCain comes across as the more patriotic candidate and a leader in times of fear and distrust. McCain will prey on Obama’s lack of military experience and paint his opponent as soft on crime and terrorism.


5. Republicans are better at politics. From Swift Boat malice, to talking point propaganda, the Republicans are better at controlling the conversation. Their sales pitch is sweet and direct, while Democrats are more theoretical and not as constrained. Media outlets are Republican controlled and influenced. Cutting taxes, banning abortion, and stopping gay marriage are direct and unmistakable. WithAmerica’s short attention span, Democrats do not carry the ear of the voter long enough to explain their position.

There you have it, five reasons as to why each candidate will win in November. It will be interesting to watch the election unfold, and I am sure I will have many more posts in the months to come.

Opening up My Yahoo! this morning yielded quite a surprise. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Iraq? The surprise was not due to the event, but the low attention paid by the conservative media. This event is a witness to how poorly we have progressed in Iraq.

A little history… In the Iraq – Iran contra back in the 1980’s, over one million Iraqis and Iranians lost their lives in a war which brought national attention. Guns were sold to Saddam Hussein to advance America’s denouncement of Iran. One of the more interesting photo ops was snapped, the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld greeted Saddam in a friendly handshake signifying America’s support of the conflict. With our current involvement and the events leading up to the war, our press and presidency have portrayed Iraq as a longstanding enemy of the US. In the 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush’s reinvented “Axis of Evil” tied Iraq in with the likes of North Korea and Iran. How did the relationship of the United States and Iraq fall out of sync so quickly? The answer is Desert Storm, the early 90’s conflict between the US and Iraq in which Kuwait was proclaimed Iraqi territory.

When Iraq decided to repossess the small oil-rich country, they did so with the understanding that the United States would remain neutral in the takeover. What happened next was quite surprising to Saddam and the Sunni controlled government. The conflict was sold to the American public as a bloodied takeover by the Iraqis, when in reality the truth was less dramatic. The Kuwaiti defense was minimal at best, and the Iraqis met little to no resistance (some estimate that 200 died in the skirmish). Unlike our current Iraq war, this was actually about oil. Iraq wanted to take back possession of Kuwait and their rich oil fields (in the mid 1900’s, England decided to split Iraq and Kuwait and annexed the country), and America realized the increased scale and power Iraq would possess with the expanding commodity (actually, I am not sure we really understand the underlying driving force).

When the US became engaged in the conflict, Iraq must have felt betrayed by their previous ally and cowardly started firing scud missiles toward Kuwait and Israel. America’s offense increased (Operation “Desert Shield” became “Desert Storm”), and thousands of unequipped and poorly trained Iraqi soldiers lost their lives. America’s casualties numbered in the hundreds, with the majority resulting from accidental weapons malfunctions. Iraqi forces were driven back into Iraq, and the conflict ended as quickly as it began. This was the beginning of the third member of the “Axis of Evil”, as Saddam felt betrayed by the US and revolted against imposed UN sanctions later in the decade.

Fast forward to 2008: Iran has always been at odds with the US as well as with the Sunni controlled Iraq. Saddam, though a terrorizing dictator, was able to keep Iran suppressed and stabile in the region. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites stems from thousands of years of in fighting and civil unrest. Through America’s influence, control in Iraq was transferred from the Sunnis to Shiites. The majority Shiites are now looking to avenge the Sunni oppression, with civil war appearing inevitable. Currently American troupes stand in the way of widespread chaos, offering stability. However, this proves a tough situation for the Sunnis, who fear retaliation from the majority power Shiites and their once bitter neighbor, Iran.

Enter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The anti-American dictator now possesses a greater influence within the new Government of Iraq. There have already been reports of Iran supplying weapons to Shiite extremists, a real problem for the US. Ahmadinejad’s growing relationship with Shiites defies America’s best interest, and is an alarming bi-product of the Iraq war. However, it not unreasonable to believe that this specific situation was foreseen and ignored by the White House in making the decision to go to war. Perhaps we underestimated the deep routed conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis, or downplayed the real possibility of civil war. Regardless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Iraq, and He is there to stay.

As many of you have probably guessed, the change in the control of the House and Senate is welcomed by me. Oversight, balance, and hopefully bipartisanship will be restored to the federal government, in hopes that the divided America will champion both sides of the argument.

I have also discussed with friends and family the expectations of the new Democratic powers. Interestingly enough, other perspectives are a bit more extensive then mine. I suspect that Democrats will work with President Bush to raise the minimum wage, find common ground on immigration, and work out a plan to fix the Medicare system. For those who believe that the Iraq policy will be reversed, or that taxes will increase, you have watched one too many campaign commercials. There is a larger focus of the Democrats’ control of congress, November of 2008.

Waiting for the Clinton/Obama ticket (just guessing), Democrats in the House will be careful with their oversight. They will not cut funding for the Iraqi war to change policy, as was done withVietnam, and they will not use any pre-war miscalculations to punish President Bush. They will use their political soapbox to weed out corruption, and try to exploit findings involving their Republican colleagues. They will not try to pass any drastic legislation that will hurt their popularity with the moderate voter. Plus, the President maintains veto power, and will probably use it more than just once as in the previous six years. The Democrats will use their renewed power to restage committee heads, and bring legislation to the floor that benefits their agenda. The leadership might sponsor wedge issues that hurt the President’s popularity, like stem cell research.

I believe that the congressional changing of the guard is not a vote for the policies of the Democrats, but a referendum of the actions of the Republicans. Democrats have earned about as much “political capital” as Bush in 2004, and hopefully will maintain a better track record. As Jon Stewart put it, “Democrats played the role of the boy who left the room as his brother is punished for burning the garage down”. I am excited to see the power shift, and hopefully it will lead to a better America.

One of the most controversial moves of President Bush’s presidency occurred last year. While Congress was on break, President Bush’s nominee of UN Ambassador slid in the back door. During the confirmation hearings John Bolton was accused of harsh treatment of his subordinates. His record was challenged by Democrats and Republicans alike. His nomination left committee not with a stamp of approval, but with a washing of hands. Sending the nomination to the full Senate allowed the committee to play the political game; support the President, but avoid responsibility for his decisions. Bolton was highly unpopular with the minority Democrats and the nomination was resented by the Republicans. The Ambassador’s hearings quickly approached winter recess, which came with no resolve. President Bush played an unusual presidential card, and placed the new US Ambassador without confirmation through an emergency appointment.

Due to the rules of such an appointment, Bolton’s Ambassadorship expires at the end of 2006. President Bush has asked the lame duck session of Congress, to renew the appointment alienating Democrat’s opposition. This interesting political move might backfire on the President. With Republicans crippled by the policies of the President, such a controversial nomination will become a wedge to the congressional body. Even if the nomination is approved within the next two months, Democrats will look at this appointment as partisan politics. They will believe President Bush’s comments about bipartisanship and compromise a media event, with actions speaking louder then words.

Any Fox Network viewer will tell you that the consequences for Democrats taking back the two houses of congress are catastrophic. Partisan fighting would continue, the war on terror would take a massive blow, and the possibility of presidential impeachment would loom. And though each of these concerns are unfounded and almost laughable (do you think the Democrats would impeach President Bush to put Cheney in power?), there will be some major changes that will occur.

The legislation that will be introduced “within five minutes,” as Nancy Pelosi notes, is the proposal to let the government negotiate drug prices. In a country seeded with capitalistic roots, how does the largest purchaser of drugs forfeit negotiating power? The very idea is perplexing. In 2003 when the congress passed a bill banning governmental negotiating, the idea was to let the third party insurance companies use their understanding of the industry to navigate prices. However, what happened next did not surprise the minority party. The drug prices paid by Medicaid/Medicare increased 10% a year since the law went into effect. Even more startling, the Veterans Benefits, which are not part of this legislation, buy their drugs at 50%-60% of the prices Medicare pays, though they purchase a fraction of the volume.

Yes, Big Pharma is worried; and rightfully so. They have already poured $500,000 in to Rick Santorum’s close race (the leading proponent of the 2003 Medicare bill), and multiple others across the country. If the Democrats do impeach President Bush, it will be long after drug prices drop.

(A great article can be found in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Fearing a Democratic Victory, Drug Makers Fund Key Races.”)

As we continue to fight this global war on terror (actually, let me rephrase that), as we fight this war in Iraq it is alarming how many American’s have no idea of the power struggles between Sunnis and Shiites.

Who can deny that Saddam Hussein was an evil and malice dictator? However, would you be shocked to know that woman’s rights in Iraq, America’s relations with Iran, and partisanship in Iraq has become increasingly worse without Saddam?

Saddam is a Sunni, and Sunni’s are a minority party in Iraq. How, you might ask, if Sunnis are a minority power could Saddam remain as a dictator? Easy, fear. There were many attempts at taking Saddam out of power by the two other parties.The Kurds paid dearly for their attempt with the massacre fueled by chemical warfare. American’s determination to label this genocide is incorrect; Saddam was not interested in destroying the culture, but to send a strong message to those who opposed him. Shiites were just as scared, though they maintained the majority of the population, and watched the Sunni leader control Iraq for decades.

With Saddam out of power and the seeds of democracy now growing, the Shiites are using their majority to take back control. However, the Shiite’s are interested in intertwining religious ideals into their new constitution. One of those ideals is the lack of influence woman maintain in society. Iraqi woman can expect more oppression, less freedom of thought, and a non-existent role in any position of influence.

Over the course of Saddam’s administration, the Sunni controlled Iraqi government was at odds with Shiite dominated Iran. Saddam was a spoken enemy of Iran, and the Shiite Iraqis looked to Iran for strength and support. With Saddam removed from power and the Shiites now in control of Iraq, loyalties run deep and an alliance between the two great Middle East countries is being formed. Look past the soft media and you will find many Iran loyalists in the newly formed Iraqi government. America’s purpose of creating stability in the Middle East is being accomplished. Unfortunately it’s not the stability we were hoping for.

Another issue between Sunnis and Shiites is the great partisan divide that continues to widen. Shiites now in power are looking to avenge the many years of Sunni control over their nation. The problem with democracy in the Middle East is history runs deep and is not forgotten. Unlike America where the domination of power by one party can easily be ousted by the diversity of the population, Iraqis at the mercy of the united Shiite citizens. Many Sunni delegates have walked away from the new government in complete dismay because the Shiites propose and ratify legislation that opposes their group. This discontent between these two cultures is also what is sparking a civil war.

As we continue to watch Iran speak with more confidence and less remorse, know that we have made their position stronger by providing a friendly neighbor. The Sunni-controlled Iraq is history, and history the Shiites will not forget.

(There is a great article in the NY Times titled, "Can You Tell a Sunni From a Shiite?")