Nervous about the Election

Everywhere I go, people are confiding that they're losing sleep over the election. I didn't hear that four or eight or twelve years ago; in fact, I've never heard so many people blurt immediately that they're frightened about voting outcomes.

People I know, most of them conservatives, have a real fear of the implementation of Obamacare and its attendant tax and premium increases. They genuinely recoil at the thought of the fiscal cliff, which would devalue homes, cause businesses to go under, cost huge numbers of jobs and put our nation in jeopardy due to burdensome debt to such "frenemies" as China.

Many of my friends are religious Christians, who see the values on which our nation was founded--God-centric concepts that honor biblical direction--in peril. Foremost among these is the primacy of traditional marriage. I keep hearing in radio ads the term "homophobia" as a code for anyone who wants traditional man-woman marriage to stand as the norm. It would be an oxymoron for a gay person in my state of Washington, therefore, to reject the ballot measure approving gay marriage and dissolving all current Domestic Partnerships. Already, these partnerships are the legal equivalent of marriage, just by a different name, ie "everything but marriage." But should this measure pass, existing Domestic Partnerships cease, forcing presently registered gay couples to either marry or have no official status. What's a believing Christian or Jew or Muslim to do?

Many tell me that though they're not Mormon, they're fervently praying for the candidate who's dedicated 40 years' time and 20% of his money to furthering his good-neighbor-making faith.

Sleepless nights leading up to November 6. It's not just finances, it's values. It's not just style, it's competence. The conservatives I know see such a clear difference in principles and ability between the presidential candidates that they can't accept a loss.

I was disheartened about the Superstorm, not only feeling for the losses and hardships of those directly affected, but fearing its impact on the presidential outcome. I imagined copious views of a sympathetic president lifting photogenic children from the muck, with attention removed from his challenges in the campaign, especially questions about the handling of the Libya embassy terrorism. But now, a week after Sandy left its devastating mark on the East, there appears far more difficulty in rebounding from the storm, and so less savior-worship than expected (though a Libya coverup seems the exclusive purview of Fox News).

Democrats Are Different. I don't see the same kind of fretful reaction to this election among my Democratic friends. They're sleeping fine. In fact, some are so disenchanted with the present administration (for whom they voted last time) that they're sitting out the process all together. I predict a much-reduced Democratic turnout from four years ago. Many of these friends can't bring themselves to support Romney, but they also can't abide endorsing the disappointing Obama. That leaves the default of "skipping" this election, and feeling sanguine should others' balloting bring a change. The die-hard Democrats I know are mostly confident that they'll succeed, which leads them to relaxed nights, as well.

Still, most I know remain jumpy. My husband wrote The Odds Against Obama, a historical and logical look at election indicators that add up to a likely Romney victory. But even he is nervous, piqued by conflicting polls and signs. Until Wednesday, we suffer an undercurrent of uncertainty, the result of a heavy intuition that the results forthcoming will make more difference in our lives than any election outcomes before.

The Task for McCain in Tonight's Debate

Could the economic news be more depressing? The stock market is at its lowest in five years. This is giving my husband anxiety, and the thought of Barack Obama trying to implement his spending proposals and consequent tax increases on the people who provide the jobs only deepens the nausea.

It's in this climate that we await the debate tonight. Barack got points (and his echo, Joe Biden, repeated the trick) when he stared into the TV camera at the first debate and swore that "Under my tax plan NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF YOU would get a tax cut!" The other five percent, the obscene filthy rich who of course need to be coerced under threat of imprisonment to part with any of the loot they hoarde, clearly owe their underlings a further chunk of their earnings.

Now, 40% of the population pays NO income tax, so giving them a "cut" would mean a gift from the eeeevil wealthy 5% in the form of a government check. And the vast majority--70% to be exact--of that 5% are owners of small businesses. You know, like the corner laundry, the neighborhood restauranteur, the quick-print store where you get your xeroxing done--these are the guys who would be taxed more, WAY more than the at LEAST 35% they already pay. That will really stimulate the economy, because then these guys will be unable to expand and create more jobs. Make sense?

I'm really nervous. Tonight I'll be watching the debate hoping John McCain explains why his approach--lowering taxes on business--trumps the tax business plan of Obama. It's a hard sell to those 40% who pay nothing and would get free money. McCain has to show how it's a small consolation when stocks and jobs suffer as a result.

McCain-Obama Debate: Quite Agreeable

Just got back from watching the first McCain-Obama debate on a friend's huge-screen HDTV. It started about an hour before Shabbat on Friday, so that was all I really heard of the two-hour event. I was in my pre-Shabbos cooking mode, frantically hoping all my oven-items would emerge before candle-lighting time, while listening on radio.

Hearing the debate added to my stress.

I entered our day of rest quite unsettled by the interchange I heard. It sounded to me, amid stove-timer beeps and last-minute phone calls and chopping and pan-rattling that Obama sounded knowledgeable and presidential--more than I'd expected. But I was willing to withhold judgment until I saw the guys onscreen, complete with body language and facial expressions.

Well, tonight I saw them up close in multi-pixel'd intimacy. I was in the company of others--two women, four men, who occasionally commented. But I was by far the most distressed and affected by the debate, sometimes unable to hold back from telling the faces on the screen, "You just said that!" or worse.

Talking points were obvious. Obama again hammered that the troubles of Wall Street must be addressed on Main Street by giving people all sorts of goodies. He knows the hot-buttons: high gas prices, mortgage pinch, envy of the eeeeevil CEOs and especially corporations. And he gets a double whammy by slamming the oil companies.

McCain started by echoing Obama's use of Main Street--a mistake, I thought--but then got to his own agenda, emphasizing his role in creating a bail-out package that both Democrats and Republicans can support. McCain repeated "the point is..." throughout his answers, as if to remind himself to stay on track, but neither guy, in my view, provided more than platitudes in their responses to solving the economic crisis. Obama kept blaming poor Bush for everything, and McCain smartly turned that around to imply Obama's whining and obsession with the past rather than initiative for the future.

Here's an example from Obama's response to how to deal with the financial crisis:

"The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place? Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.
Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it."

Obama's implying he was important and involved in these issues for a long time, and a beacon of sanity "warning" people at that. Wow, the Secretary of the Treasury was stupid not to listen to the prophetic instruction of Barack Obama when he wrote last year!

Of course, McCain aces Obama in experience and involvement at every turn. And he didn't hesitate to mention it. Perhaps his best talking point recalled his long-time opposition to earmarks, noting Obama's support for them at the rate of "a million dollars for each day he's been in the Senate." Score.

Or, Spar--because Obama tried to make light of McCain's disdain for special funding. "Now, 18 billion is important, 300 billion is really important. And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out."

Those eeevil CEOs! Just because they earned that money is no reason they should KEEP it! Why, they should have to FIRE the cook and three gardeners and chauffeur! THAT will help the economy!

Both candidates want to make more jobs for people, and it appears both want to do it the same way. Obama: "What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we're giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States."

McCain: "Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera. I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in -- in the United States of America and create jobs."

In fact, Obama said "You're right," or "I agree with John" about ten times. The two agreed on energy, both wanting alternative fuels and nuclear plants. They agreed, amazingly, that more troops need to be sent to Afghanistan (how are Obama supporters going to whitewash THAT?) They both say they'll look at each budget line, or veto bills to prevent "pork" in the budget. They quibbled interminably but ultimately agreed that a president doesn't sit down with bad guys unconditionally, or without having diplomatic underlings do a lot of "preparation" work first. They both want to tread carefully with Pakistan, and they both wear bracelets they received from tearful mothers of veterans. They both want to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and they both strongly opposed Russian aggression into Georgia.

So, where was the debate? McCain accused Obama of desiring to add billions in spending on new programs; Obama accused McCain of wanting to give CEOs and corporations millions in tax breaks. McCain emphasized his experience; Obama tried to tie his opponent (unsuccessfully, I thought) to Bush, and blame the "last 8 years" for the nation's financial woes and a muck in Iraq.

Bottom line: they both looked rather nervous, neither was spectacularly articulate, and most viewers probably enjoyed a snooze during the second half. But who won? Obama, thankfully, came across as a moderate with a social twist--not the big reformer. He never mentioned either the words "change" or "hope."

McCain kept referring to his meetings with world leaders, his being on the scene for previous wars, his shaping of legislation over decades. He was clearly the better prepared to be president, and so I think he came out ahead.

But neither guy has the warmth of Clinton. I'll be interested to see the Palin-Biden debate Thursday.

Preparing for the Jewish New Year

Next Monday night is the first night of Rosh Hashana, the beginning of the New Year 5769. Some say the dating began when Adam ha Rishon (Adam the first man) was fully created; some say the clock started ticking when Adam spoke. Nobody I know who's Jewish thinks the world began just six days (as we know them) before that--and I've been taking a fascinating class on the classic Jewish scholar known as Ramban or Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman Gerondi, 1194-1270) who describes biblical creation in surprising and complex detail. In fact, one of his points is that when God made the world, on the fourth "day" (whatever its length), He embedded seeds in the world that only sprouted and became plants once there was rain and somebody there to use/eat them. Interesting, eh?

In any case, I'm trying to prepare for the occasion next Monday night when we'll be judged and get our year's prescription by listening to cassettes by Rabbi Akiva Tatz (I have the complete set of his lectures up to three years ago--hundreds and hundreds of tapes) on many aspects of the holiday, but alas, the more I listen, the more I realize I cannot adequately repent and repair and get in the proper frame of mind. In fact, I can't even remember all the people to whom I need to apologize, much less all the infractions and offenses I've racked up that need redressing. I'm doomed to failure, and really need to count on God's attributes of mercy (and my associates' mercy as well as lack of recollection) if I stand any chance at all to make it through the next year unscathed. Awk, life was sure easier before I became serious about Judaism!

In the meantime, it seems even Barack, Biden, McCain and Palin are getting in the spirit of the holiday. You'll love this YouTube! L'Shana Tova (Happy New Year)!

Emotion trumps Logic in Obama's Convention Speech

Due to some faulty information, I tuned in to hear Obama's speech after it was over. But I have read it, and, admittedly, the words on paper don't have the same punch as Barack's preacherly delivery, but I did have some reactions.

Overall, it was long, and its themes repetitive and predictable. But, it offered that inspirational political style that, when delivered with Obama's usual emulation of Martin Luther King, zings right into the emotions that are his and the Democrats' central appeal. It's a clever trick, bringing pity and righteous indignation for the present government, while insisting that the same government structure under him will be contrastingly kindly and paternal. The Dem theme of the "mean and selfish Republicans" versus the "compassionate and supportive Democrats" gets the visceral arousal that logic and specifics on issues don't.

I'm a psychologist. From years of practice I've learned that when you pit reason against emotion, emotion wins. Barack is so emotionally engaging that he summons adherents with platitudes and, in this case, unassailably universal values and visions.

What is it he plans to do that is such a change from the present Democratic congress' direction? From Nancy Pelosi and the other lawmakers who have blocked innovative legislation that George Bush desired? Well, one change is that Obama's black, and that is huge. But from tonight's lovely generalities, "change" might just be skin-deep.

Obama naturally presented statements that bothered me. Regarding McCain, the nominee said, "For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is, you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."

Aarrggh. Since when does any politician "give more and more to those with the most"? What does he mean, "give"? The federal government doesn't have any of its own wealth--every penny of its resources are forcibly confiscated under pain of imprisonment--from those who work to earn it. Whatever the government "gives," it first must take. When the government takes less from people who have enough to then hire other people, that's not "trickling down," that's allowing expansion.

The "Ownership Society" gives individuals control, or "ownership" over their own resources--to choose their children's schools, to control their retirement plans and funds, to make their own health care decisions--that's empowerment, not abandonment.

Obama misuses the term and smirks that Republicans say "tough luck" to the unemployed. What would he prefer--that the government say "I'll hire you?" When people don't have health care, why does he think it more efficient to create a huge national bureaucracy to intervene between peoples' earnings and their health insurers? And as far as giving "boots" to those "born in poverty," they're only valuable if the footwear's used to regularly walk to class, punctually show up for work, and wear out the soles striving to advance--gifts the government just can't give.

But overall, Obama used cute phrases to describe what everybody wants, a speech of the ilk used to unite the nation after a candidate's already won the presidency.

His concept of "change" sounded far too broad and moderate to please his base, but who cares--they're so emotionally fired up they'll cheer anything The One says. Here's what Obama pledges to do: Eliminate capital gains taxes for startups (while increasing taxes on larger corporations), and cut taxes "for 95% of working families" while steeply raising them for those who earn more than $150,000.

His pie-in-the-sky energy plan is to stop depending on middle eastern oil in 10 years (not mentioning that 75% of our oil today comes from South and Central America), and "invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy; wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced." Aside from nationalizing something that private industries are falling all over themselves trying to accomplish right now, his energy innovations are pretty much what McCain wants, too.

Obama's Princeton education sure was a boon for him, so he wants to federalize schooling down to the lowest levels, taking control for local districts away from those closest and making Washington the watchdog. This was a flop in George Bush's administration--his "No Child Left Behind" act now saddles teachers with gearing lessons to tests rather than to students, but Obama plans to "recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support" so they'll be even more directly controlled by the Feds.

Yep, Obama will lovingly embrace you, cradle to grave. He says he'll cut your health care premiums but at the same time guarantee coverage for those already chronically, expensively sick. He'll force employers to give family leave time even when disruptive and financially crippling to business, and magically "protect social security for future generations." He's going to do it all, with swaddling, enveloping, socialistic governmental paternalism. Who's going to pay for it? Dunno, cuz MY taxes are going to be lowered, remember?

I sure hope McCain picks somebody really electrifying, because the GOP needs its own strong dose of emotion in order to beat the Obama feel-good hope machine. Only with some ecstatic energy can McCain get the momentum to let reason, experience and logic prevail.

Obama's Scary Ego makes Convention Appearance

Obama? Oh-BUM-uh! (or, could be "Oh, Bummer!" but that would be dating me).

Tonight at the Democratic convention we saw some interesting stuff. Well, I heard it--I chose to fold laundry with the dulcet tones of Bill in the background. That is, of course, Bill, as in "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." which is his most famous of speeches. Tonight's rates a C in comparison. I'll give you my review of Bill and then get to my main point.

But first, the guy who must have been really depressed when Hillary had to concede. His speech was what you'd expect. It had a couple of cute phrases: " People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." And, after bashing Republicans with straw men: "They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks. In this case, the third time is not the charm." Well, this time Bill was not so charming himself, and by offering just about exactly what everyone would've guessed, he actually came across to me as a sore loser doing his perfunctory best to look like a good sport. But Bill always loved the limelight, and losing this shot to be back in the White House just doesn't thrill him. His obviously staged mouthing of "I love you" during Hillary's speech last night, while the red light of the camera was on, also didn't ingratiate him much.

But more relevant to the campaign and the nation's future was the introduction of the Vice-Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. This was his first nationally-televised platform as the nominee--his one shot to impress the party and convert the undecided. As I read over the transcript of his remarks, I felt my muscles tighten and my ire rumble. Biden's speech was filled with outright lies, and misrepresented John McCain's positions and their outcomes. But, I kept telling myself, that's the Veep's job: attack dog against the opposition. Biden, too, did exactly as expected, and not in such a clever or masterful way, either. He's just not Mr. Charisma. And, he didn't succeed in his limp effort to make Barack look like a master statesman and unafraid warrior ("Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan? The fact is, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban — the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 — have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Barack's call for more troops.") Like the Joint Chiefs heard Barack and only THEN decided, "Gee, this guy's RIGHT! We need more troops!" Um, I thought Obama was running as the bring-'em-home candidate!

OK, I'm not going to go through Biden's speech; my sanity's too precious. More important is what followed his speech: Obama himself. In a move never before seen at any political convention, Barack decided to "drop in" on Biden just when the VP nominee was to have basked for the first time in glory. Just when Biden was to be feted for his individual, separate contribution to the ticket, Barack "drops in" to steal his thunder. What a friendly gesture.

Here they're even moving the convention to huger quarters (INVESCO football field!) for Barack's speech Thursday, and the guy can't wait till then to step into the limelight. He's a control freak, clearly. Has to insert himself right in front when the lens is trained on the other guy. He's like the hammy kid who leaps in front of the camera just as it's snapping the well-posed portrait. This is worrisome to me. We've got two candidates here with zippo military experience (for the first time in several decades) and the lead guy is an egomaniac who can't wait his turn to speak.

We've seen just by the trajectory of Obama's career that he can't wait to take the lead in the school play--he jumped from "community organizer" to a local political slot, up to a short blink in the Senate--just enough to qualify him for national stardom. He's not a patient guy--he wants that big part. Of course, if he gets it, when answers to the tough questions aren't scripted, he won't be able to dodge responses with "that's above my pay grade."

Does the surprise appearance of the party nominee at the Convention tonight help or hurt? Given how livid Biden must be to have his big moment ruined by having to stand aside and grin like the Cheshire Cat while his benefactor upstaged him, I'd guess their relationship must be, um, strained. And few watching would think, "gee, I didn't like Obama before, but NOW he's my guy!" Also embarrassing and phony was Obama's need to praise his wife's, Hillary's, Bill's and Biden's speeches at this point. This was the time to play up the Vice Presidential selection, not to remind folks that everybody so far is just a warm-up act for The One.

(You might want to take a look at this excellent blog post on Obama's surprise appearance at the convention tonight: http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/)

How Would God Vote?

Today I attended a meeting of a book club where the author, David Klinghoffer, made a presentation about his new book, How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative (Random House), which I found not only controversial but thought-provoking.

I admit to not yet reading the book, but the discussion was less about specifics in the text (which reaches into traditional biblical and Jewish sources for precedents that Klinghoffer applies to 20 hot-button issues), and more about why it's not arrogant to suggest that God has a point of view that He offers for our use.

The conversation got interestingly impassioned as it rolled around to the presidential candidates, with Klinghoffer suggesting that Obama's appeal is in how he makes voters feel--like they're open-minded, forward-thinking, in with the in-crowd. It's that cool image Obama peddles, even as he eschews specifics on many issues (the only promise being that he'll raise taxes) and offers only ephemeral abstracts like "change" and "hope" as his mantras.

But David wouldn't give a public biblical stamp of approval on any candidate, shying away lest his employer, the think-tank Discovery Institute, lose non-profit cred as a non-partisan institution. I, however, see Jewish biblical guidelines that point solidly to McCain.

If, as Klinghoffer suggests, Obama's lure is in how his followers feel, and the sharp-looking, youthful black face spouting those well-crafted words, then despite his Democratic credentials, Barack's waving a red flag. We say every day (at least twice!) in the seminal Jewish prayer "the Shma," "v'lo taturu acharai l'vavhem, v'acharai anaichem, asher atem zonim aharaihem..." which means, "and not explore after your heart, and after your eyes, which (make) you stray after them."

Or, as Rashi, (1040-1105) the great Jewish scholar puts it, "the eye sees, then the heart covets, and the body sins." That's the appeal of Obama--the eye, the heart--rather than the mind.

That's where McCain comes in. When you close your eyes to the image and look at relevant criteria for leading our nation, what should you consider? Experience. Record on issues. Track record. Proven dedication.

Yesterday I was struck by an illustration of this. I was listening to my favorite radio talk show, now on in New York 3-6 pm on AM 970, WNYM, and heard a clip of Sen. McCain discussing the Russian aggression into Georgia. This was hours before the cease-fire. He said he'd just spoken to his long-time friend, President Mikheil Saakashvili, on the phone: "I've been to Georgia several times, and the lesson here is one which is larger than a tiny country. The lesson here is that we are seeing a reemergence of Russia as a major player... I do believe that we need to stand as courageously as we can on behalf of this little country.” Meanwhile, Obama continued his vacation in Hawaii.

Now, I'm sure Sen. Obama deserves his relaxation in the tropical isles. But using logic to evaluate this situation, it's clear that experience and dedication, exactly the credentials of Sen. McCain, are the tools we need on this volatile world political front. "Hope" and "change" are of little help.

Maybe that isn't romantic; maybe that isn't exciting, but the kind of "hope" we need now is that the sense of the American electorate will prevail, to let their minds take charge of their eyes and their hearts.