A strong circumstantial case can be made that there is a link between vaccines and Autism.
Exhibit A:
From 1960 to 2007 there was a 100x rise in the incidences of Autism. This timeframe was coincident with a dramatic increase in the amount of infant vaccinations. Compare this 1983 CDC vaccination schedule (8 vaccinations) with the 2008 equivalent (29 vaccinations).
http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/cdc1983.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2008/08_0-6yrs_schedule_pr.pdf
*note – some of the increase in incidences is attributable to the way Autism diagnosis has evolved.
Exhibit B:
Prior to 1970, Autism was primarily a white middle class disease (again, the population that was getting vaccinations). Today Autism affects all races and classes equally. Again this is coincident with CDC efforts to vaccinate %100 of the population.
Exhibit C:
Non-scientific studies between non vaccinated and vaccinated populations show marked differences
http://www.generationrescue.org/olmstead.html
http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/Articles/UPI-The_Age_of_Autism-Amish_ways_6-6-05.pdf
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Health/2005/06/28/the_age_of_autism_homeschooled/9829/
To date, no scientific study has been done by the CDC.
It should be understood that there is no scientific evidence to support a direct vaccine-Autism link. What has been recently proven is that vaccines can potentially exacerbate a genetic weakness in the mitochondria in the brain which can then result in Autism (the CDC argues that this is “Autism-like symptoms”). The Govt. just settled a highly publicized lawsuit of exactly this scenario.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-vaccineautism-court-_b_88558.html
It is not well understood exactly how many Autism cases are caused by this condition. Initial studies show that it’s anywhere from near zero to 40%.
Vaccine proponents argue the benefits to public health, and that they outweigh the risks. However, one in every 15 children is affected by Autism Spectral Disorders and Autism. This is a potentially huge risk that vaccine proponents typically discount. In fact when compared to the worst case risk of the diseases the vaccines are designed to prevent, Autism is typically on par and Autism + ASD is an order of magnitude greater risk.
So what should we do about this if we have infants? Obviously there is a risk tradeoff here. I highly recommend that an alternative to the CDC’s vaccination schedule be at least considered. I came across this link and it seems like a reasonable approach to mitigating the risks of being vaccinated and not being vaccinated:
http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/user_friendly.pdf
Admittedly, I don’t know much about the risks of live viruses so I can’t vouch for that part. But the rest of the advice seems to be pretty prudent.
Other things about Autism to consider:
Very few health care plans currently cover Autism, although a number of States are considering bills requiring coverage.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/government_affairs/index.php
80-90 percent of parents with an Autistic child eventually divorce.
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/htmlpages/divorce.htm
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Bear Stearns: What happened and what to do about it
The subprime mortgage crisis and the failure of Bear Stearns are two painful examples of vulnerabilities in our financial system. I’ll explain both of these events using kitchen table examples. I’ll then discuss what went wrong and what can be done about it.
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Fundamentally, the subprime mortgage crisis is a liquidity crisis. Financial institutions are reluctant to write loans and they have less ability to buy and sell the loans they already own.
Loans are tremendously important in our financial system. Most people could not afford to own a house or a car without them. Most businesses could not be created and could not function without them. So when loans are more difficult to obtain, many other areas of our economy will take a hit.
So what causes a bank to become reluctant to write loans? Imagine that you buy a $200,000 home. You put a down payment of $40,000 and take out a loan for the remaining $160,000. Now imagine that the value of your home goes up to $220,000. You now have $18,000 in equity against which you can borrow (most home equity loans require that you hold at least 20% equity in your home). You might decide to enhance the value of your home by reinvesting that $18,000. Maybe you would remodel your kitchen or build a deck.
But what happens if the value of your home goes down? Say it’s only worth $180,000 now. You still owe your bank $160,000 so your equity is only $20,000. Since you have less than 20% equity, you probably won’t try to borrow more money against the value of your house. Now you have to wait until you make enough payments so that you have more than $36,000 in equity OR the value of your house goes back up before you can think about a home equity loan again.
For the last 20 years, the housing market has been going up, and therefore most of the financial institutions that wrote mortgages were making money and happily borrowing more money to reinvest (like you remodeled your kitchen in the first secenario).
But right now, most financial institutions are in a position that’s analogous to the latter case. Their equivalent of “percent of equity” is below where they want it to be. They feel overextended and therefore they will try to build up their equity and/or reduce their debt. So the only loans they want to write in this situation are those where the down payments are relatively high. In fact, the only real difference between financial institutions and you is that they set their target of debt to equity arbitrarily. The 20% figure that they apply to you is typically more like 12% for them. In the case of Bear Stearns, it was more like 2% … but I’ll get to that later.
So why are they all in this situation? There is a two-part answer to this question. First, financial institutions wrote a lot of low down payment loans. The housing market was generating good returns and a lot of folks we’re speculating (aka “flipping”). Furthermore, the mortgage market was such that most mortgages were written and then immediately sold so that the actual mortgage writer often didn’t do due diligence. Second, the housing market turned downward, and then homes purchased using low down payment loans were underwater. For example, someone might have paid $10,000 down and financed $190,000 on a $200,000 house. But then the value of the house went down to $180,000. So, now the homeowner has a $180K house and a $190K loan. In this situation, default on the loan becomes much more likely. Of course in a default, the financial institutions then get to foreclose and recoup some of the losses, but they often lose a substantial amount of the value of the loan in the process.
The bottom line on all this is that the assets (and therefore the equity) held by all the institutions participating in this market took a huge hit. The total loss has been estimated at around $400 Billion. The other problem is that the mortgage market is huge and just about every bank in the country was participating to some extent. So now most banks are feeling that they are over-extended and therefore that they don’t want to write any low down payment or otherwise risky loans. And now this problem is starting to be felt in other areas of the economy.
A detailed analysis of all of this can be found here:
http://www.brandeis.edu/global/rosenberg_institute/usmpf_2008.pdf
Bear Stearns
Bear Stearns was of course a big participant in the mortgage market. What made their situation catastrophic was that they were heavily leveraged. In other words, they were doing the very same thing that the low down payment house flippers were doing. They borrowed billions of dollars with a “down payment” (aka corporate equity) of only 2% as I alluded to earlier. So when they lost 10-15% of the value of their mortgages, they were tens of billions of dollars underwater.
Much like the homeowner that owes much more than his house is worth, Bear wanted to declare bankruptcy. But unlike the homeowner, Bear Stearns manages retirement accounts for tens of thousands of citizens. These accounts could not be frozen for 10 years while all the Bear stakeholders fought over Bear’s Assets in bankruptcy court. Also, Bear Stearns has Billions of dollars of obligations to other banks and so if Bear were allowed to fail, a chain reaction could occur.
So the FOMC re-wrote their rules to allow themselves to step in and engineer a buyout of Bear Stearns. In the process, the Fed had to guarantee tens of Billions of dollars in risky loans. The terms of the buyout were that the stock would be sold for $2/share which in theory was going to punish Bear shareholders (aka be the “moral hazard” for Bear’s bad investments).
However, the Bear bond holders went unpunished for making those “2% down” loans to Bear. This is analogous to the Government stepping into the subprime mortgage crisis and allowing borrowers to be foreclosed on, but then reimbursing banks for any money that they lost.
Conclusions
Loans are an important tool in our financial system and therefore we need to be very careful with respect to any kind of regulation.
However, clearly we need to understand how loans go wrong and minimize the associated risks. Bear Stearns and the subprime mortgage crisis are both examples of the kind of failure that can occur when a borrower has no stake in the repayment of a loan. This situation is MUCH more likely to occur when the borrower’s initial stake in a loan is low. But it can also occur if the lender overvalues the collateral of the loan.
I don’t think that we want to limit what lenders can do across the board. Lenders need to be able to take risks and fail. But in markets where many banks are exposed to large losses should a downturn happen, risks need to be mitigated. The 30 year fixed mortgage model seems to have stood the test of time. A borrower should have to put 20% down or buy payment insurance. Perhaps there needs to be some legal recourse against loan originators if collateral has been overvalued and the loan has been re-sold.
Bear Stearns points out the need to legally insulate retirement accounts from the failure of the financial institution that manages them. Furthermore, a means for punishing lenders to a failed institution without doing major damage to the financial system has to be put in place.
The insulation of retirement accounts should be straightforward. The punishment of lenders needs to be stretched out over time to soften the blow to the system. Perhaps in the event of another Bear Stearns, the Fed could immediately create a pool of cash that could be used for no-interest loans to bond holders to be repaid over a 5 year period. Thus, bond holders would still lose their money but it would happen much more slowly.
The Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Fundamentally, the subprime mortgage crisis is a liquidity crisis. Financial institutions are reluctant to write loans and they have less ability to buy and sell the loans they already own.
Loans are tremendously important in our financial system. Most people could not afford to own a house or a car without them. Most businesses could not be created and could not function without them. So when loans are more difficult to obtain, many other areas of our economy will take a hit.
So what causes a bank to become reluctant to write loans? Imagine that you buy a $200,000 home. You put a down payment of $40,000 and take out a loan for the remaining $160,000. Now imagine that the value of your home goes up to $220,000. You now have $18,000 in equity against which you can borrow (most home equity loans require that you hold at least 20% equity in your home). You might decide to enhance the value of your home by reinvesting that $18,000. Maybe you would remodel your kitchen or build a deck.
But what happens if the value of your home goes down? Say it’s only worth $180,000 now. You still owe your bank $160,000 so your equity is only $20,000. Since you have less than 20% equity, you probably won’t try to borrow more money against the value of your house. Now you have to wait until you make enough payments so that you have more than $36,000 in equity OR the value of your house goes back up before you can think about a home equity loan again.
For the last 20 years, the housing market has been going up, and therefore most of the financial institutions that wrote mortgages were making money and happily borrowing more money to reinvest (like you remodeled your kitchen in the first secenario).
But right now, most financial institutions are in a position that’s analogous to the latter case. Their equivalent of “percent of equity” is below where they want it to be. They feel overextended and therefore they will try to build up their equity and/or reduce their debt. So the only loans they want to write in this situation are those where the down payments are relatively high. In fact, the only real difference between financial institutions and you is that they set their target of debt to equity arbitrarily. The 20% figure that they apply to you is typically more like 12% for them. In the case of Bear Stearns, it was more like 2% … but I’ll get to that later.
So why are they all in this situation? There is a two-part answer to this question. First, financial institutions wrote a lot of low down payment loans. The housing market was generating good returns and a lot of folks we’re speculating (aka “flipping”). Furthermore, the mortgage market was such that most mortgages were written and then immediately sold so that the actual mortgage writer often didn’t do due diligence. Second, the housing market turned downward, and then homes purchased using low down payment loans were underwater. For example, someone might have paid $10,000 down and financed $190,000 on a $200,000 house. But then the value of the house went down to $180,000. So, now the homeowner has a $180K house and a $190K loan. In this situation, default on the loan becomes much more likely. Of course in a default, the financial institutions then get to foreclose and recoup some of the losses, but they often lose a substantial amount of the value of the loan in the process.
The bottom line on all this is that the assets (and therefore the equity) held by all the institutions participating in this market took a huge hit. The total loss has been estimated at around $400 Billion. The other problem is that the mortgage market is huge and just about every bank in the country was participating to some extent. So now most banks are feeling that they are over-extended and therefore that they don’t want to write any low down payment or otherwise risky loans. And now this problem is starting to be felt in other areas of the economy.
A detailed analysis of all of this can be found here:
http://www.brandeis.edu/global/rosenberg_institute/usmpf_2008.pdf
Bear Stearns
Bear Stearns was of course a big participant in the mortgage market. What made their situation catastrophic was that they were heavily leveraged. In other words, they were doing the very same thing that the low down payment house flippers were doing. They borrowed billions of dollars with a “down payment” (aka corporate equity) of only 2% as I alluded to earlier. So when they lost 10-15% of the value of their mortgages, they were tens of billions of dollars underwater.
Much like the homeowner that owes much more than his house is worth, Bear wanted to declare bankruptcy. But unlike the homeowner, Bear Stearns manages retirement accounts for tens of thousands of citizens. These accounts could not be frozen for 10 years while all the Bear stakeholders fought over Bear’s Assets in bankruptcy court. Also, Bear Stearns has Billions of dollars of obligations to other banks and so if Bear were allowed to fail, a chain reaction could occur.
So the FOMC re-wrote their rules to allow themselves to step in and engineer a buyout of Bear Stearns. In the process, the Fed had to guarantee tens of Billions of dollars in risky loans. The terms of the buyout were that the stock would be sold for $2/share which in theory was going to punish Bear shareholders (aka be the “moral hazard” for Bear’s bad investments).
However, the Bear bond holders went unpunished for making those “2% down” loans to Bear. This is analogous to the Government stepping into the subprime mortgage crisis and allowing borrowers to be foreclosed on, but then reimbursing banks for any money that they lost.
Conclusions
Loans are an important tool in our financial system and therefore we need to be very careful with respect to any kind of regulation.
However, clearly we need to understand how loans go wrong and minimize the associated risks. Bear Stearns and the subprime mortgage crisis are both examples of the kind of failure that can occur when a borrower has no stake in the repayment of a loan. This situation is MUCH more likely to occur when the borrower’s initial stake in a loan is low. But it can also occur if the lender overvalues the collateral of the loan.
I don’t think that we want to limit what lenders can do across the board. Lenders need to be able to take risks and fail. But in markets where many banks are exposed to large losses should a downturn happen, risks need to be mitigated. The 30 year fixed mortgage model seems to have stood the test of time. A borrower should have to put 20% down or buy payment insurance. Perhaps there needs to be some legal recourse against loan originators if collateral has been overvalued and the loan has been re-sold.
Bear Stearns points out the need to legally insulate retirement accounts from the failure of the financial institution that manages them. Furthermore, a means for punishing lenders to a failed institution without doing major damage to the financial system has to be put in place.
The insulation of retirement accounts should be straightforward. The punishment of lenders needs to be stretched out over time to soften the blow to the system. Perhaps in the event of another Bear Stearns, the Fed could immediately create a pool of cash that could be used for no-interest loans to bond holders to be repaid over a 5 year period. Thus, bond holders would still lose their money but it would happen much more slowly.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Color on the Pastor Wright Issue (Pardon the Pun)
I read a ton of articles on Pastor Wright and Black Liberation Theology in the process of doing homework for my "Thought Experiment" blog. Much of what I read, particularly on Black Liberation Theology, didn't make me very happy.
I convinced myself that BLT wasn't anti-American so much as anti-oppressor and pro-oppressed. Give credit where credit is due. BLT is pro-Gay (tolerance is goodness). Also Trinity United Church of Christ was one of the first organizations in the US to openly condemn Apartied (while the US govt. still suppoted it) and support Nelson Mandela. Today they support the Palestinians and are anti-Israel. Again, the rationale is because one is the oppressed and the other is the oppressor. Obviously this is not in line with American policy, and by supporting the democratically elected Palestinian leadership (Hamas) TUCC is supporting what the US considers to be a terrorist organization. But at one time the US considered Nelson Mandela to be a terrorist.
However James Cone, the father of BLT, lays a foundation that is fundamentally anti-white. Some of Cone's statements will be quite shocking to white folks ... a great deal of whom apparently aren't watching FOX news these days. There's a %100 chance we will all become intimate with Mr. Cone's ideas in the fall through 527 ads. But before anyone get's too upset, I recommend the linked article below. In the context of a statement by Frederick Douglass, Pastor Wright and his church might make a little more sense.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/07/080407fa_fact_sanneh?currentPage=1
I convinced myself that BLT wasn't anti-American so much as anti-oppressor and pro-oppressed. Give credit where credit is due. BLT is pro-Gay (tolerance is goodness). Also Trinity United Church of Christ was one of the first organizations in the US to openly condemn Apartied (while the US govt. still suppoted it) and support Nelson Mandela. Today they support the Palestinians and are anti-Israel. Again, the rationale is because one is the oppressed and the other is the oppressor. Obviously this is not in line with American policy, and by supporting the democratically elected Palestinian leadership (Hamas) TUCC is supporting what the US considers to be a terrorist organization. But at one time the US considered Nelson Mandela to be a terrorist.
However James Cone, the father of BLT, lays a foundation that is fundamentally anti-white. Some of Cone's statements will be quite shocking to white folks ... a great deal of whom apparently aren't watching FOX news these days. There's a %100 chance we will all become intimate with Mr. Cone's ideas in the fall through 527 ads. But before anyone get's too upset, I recommend the linked article below. In the context of a statement by Frederick Douglass, Pastor Wright and his church might make a little more sense.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/07/080407fa_fact_sanneh?currentPage=1
Friday, March 28, 2008
Dewey Defeats Truman!
OK, apparently reports of Obama's demise were premature. All of a sudden NC looks like it will be a rout.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_032508.pdf (Obama by 21 pts)
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/downloads/uploaded/31_InsiderAdvantage_%20Majority_Opinon_NC_Dem_Poll_(3-27-2008).pdf (Obama by 15 pts)
Splits along racial/gender/age/income lines look pretty much like they did coming out of Texas and Ohio. Basically ... polls are indicating a full recovery from the Pastor Wright flap.
Also there is today's daily Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx?loc=interstitialskip (Obama by 8 pts nationally)
I should caveat this by saying that we still can't rule out the "Bradley Effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
But I would expect that we'll see a boatload of superdelegate commitments to Obama based on these polls alone. Perhaps that will be followed by Clinton bowing out. This thing may be over folks.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_032508.pdf (Obama by 21 pts)
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/downloads/uploaded/31_InsiderAdvantage_%20Majority_Opinon_NC_Dem_Poll_(3-27-2008).pdf (Obama by 15 pts)
Splits along racial/gender/age/income lines look pretty much like they did coming out of Texas and Ohio. Basically ... polls are indicating a full recovery from the Pastor Wright flap.
Also there is today's daily Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx?loc=interstitialskip (Obama by 8 pts nationally)
I should caveat this by saying that we still can't rule out the "Bradley Effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
But I would expect that we'll see a boatload of superdelegate commitments to Obama based on these polls alone. Perhaps that will be followed by Clinton bowing out. This thing may be over folks.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thought Experiment: A speech Obama might give on Pastor Wright
My fellow Americans, I stand before you today to describe how spirituality informs my life, and may someday inform my presidency. Let me start by saying that I’m a proud Christian, I’m proud to be a member of TUCC, and I’m proud to have had Jeremiah Wright as my pastor. My faith and my church are integral to my hopeful outlook, my belief in my fellow man, and my desire to serve my country as a proud American.
Ironically, my church and my relationship with its Pastor, Jermiah Wright, have caused many to question these characteristics which I consider the hallmarks of my candidacy. Therefore, I feel it is important to talk about what is in my heart so that the missing parts of this story can be better understood. I believe that when the full measure of my spirituality is taken, Americans will be confident in the core values and ideas that I take away from my church – even if they aren’t completely comfortable with the way those values and ideas are delivered.
Many of you had never heard of TUCC prior to my candidacy. Your first exposure to my Pastor was a series of outrageous sound bites played over and over on network and cable news. Most of you now struggle to understand why I would be a member of this congregation for 20 years. You struggle to understand why I would want my children raised in this church.
Let me say that first and foremost, I am a member of TUCC to enter into a covenant with the Lord through his son Jesus Christ, to celebrate and reaffirm that relationship through communal worship and conversation, and to use Christian values to guide my choices. These are the core motivations held by Christians all around the world.
But TUCC offered me an approach to Christianity that was uniquely empowering. TUCC presented scripture and spirituality in a way that a person with African heritage such as me could more closely identify. TUCC’s Africentric approach allowed me to fully realize a relationship with God that heretofore did not exist.
But TUCC’s Africentic approach … the very thing that attracted me … is a nuance that can be misunderstood. Critics charge that Africentrism is tantamount to black separatism. But this charge is not true. Black separatism violates the fundamental Christian value that we are all equal in God’s eyes. Africentrism is akin to Europeans painting Jesus to look like them in spite of the fact that most scholars believe that he was a Semite.
But Pastor Wright was also a major factor in my decision to join TUCC. I respected his service to his country in the Marines, his scholarly work, his service to God and to his community, and his ability to grow TUCC from an 87 member congregation to over 8000 today. His sermons had a deep emotional impact which translates into a powerful spiritual fervor. And though he occasionally went over the top, the positive far outweighed the negative.
Furthermore when Pastor Wright is put in context, it becomes easy to interpret his sermons differently. Pastor Wright was a product of the 1960’s civil rights movement. He watched the leaders of the day overcome injustice by directly challenging the people of America. And so, when he sees what he believes to be injustice today he is not hesitant to do the same. He sees this as his patriotic duty. When he unfortunately analyzes public events in the context of race, I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality. The power of his ideas is not lost in the translation.
This is not to say that Pastor Wright never offends me or that I am apologizing for his transgressions. The idea that we somehow deserved 9/11 was an egregious error, as was the honoring of Louis Farrakhan. Furthermore, I view his race-centric views as wrong-headed. However, I understand that some of this is a product of his experiences.
I understand that even after I have explained all this, that some will still think badly of Pastor Wright. Hopefully most will understand that I think highly of him even though I know he has to be taken with a grain of salt. And hopefully most will understand that Pastor Wright and TUCC are my pathway to a deeply rewarding relationship with god. This is why I stand by them.
Ironically, my church and my relationship with its Pastor, Jermiah Wright, have caused many to question these characteristics which I consider the hallmarks of my candidacy. Therefore, I feel it is important to talk about what is in my heart so that the missing parts of this story can be better understood. I believe that when the full measure of my spirituality is taken, Americans will be confident in the core values and ideas that I take away from my church – even if they aren’t completely comfortable with the way those values and ideas are delivered.
Many of you had never heard of TUCC prior to my candidacy. Your first exposure to my Pastor was a series of outrageous sound bites played over and over on network and cable news. Most of you now struggle to understand why I would be a member of this congregation for 20 years. You struggle to understand why I would want my children raised in this church.
Let me say that first and foremost, I am a member of TUCC to enter into a covenant with the Lord through his son Jesus Christ, to celebrate and reaffirm that relationship through communal worship and conversation, and to use Christian values to guide my choices. These are the core motivations held by Christians all around the world.
But TUCC offered me an approach to Christianity that was uniquely empowering. TUCC presented scripture and spirituality in a way that a person with African heritage such as me could more closely identify. TUCC’s Africentric approach allowed me to fully realize a relationship with God that heretofore did not exist.
But TUCC’s Africentic approach … the very thing that attracted me … is a nuance that can be misunderstood. Critics charge that Africentrism is tantamount to black separatism. But this charge is not true. Black separatism violates the fundamental Christian value that we are all equal in God’s eyes. Africentrism is akin to Europeans painting Jesus to look like them in spite of the fact that most scholars believe that he was a Semite.
But Pastor Wright was also a major factor in my decision to join TUCC. I respected his service to his country in the Marines, his scholarly work, his service to God and to his community, and his ability to grow TUCC from an 87 member congregation to over 8000 today. His sermons had a deep emotional impact which translates into a powerful spiritual fervor. And though he occasionally went over the top, the positive far outweighed the negative.
Furthermore when Pastor Wright is put in context, it becomes easy to interpret his sermons differently. Pastor Wright was a product of the 1960’s civil rights movement. He watched the leaders of the day overcome injustice by directly challenging the people of America. And so, when he sees what he believes to be injustice today he is not hesitant to do the same. He sees this as his patriotic duty. When he unfortunately analyzes public events in the context of race, I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality. The power of his ideas is not lost in the translation.
This is not to say that Pastor Wright never offends me or that I am apologizing for his transgressions. The idea that we somehow deserved 9/11 was an egregious error, as was the honoring of Louis Farrakhan. Furthermore, I view his race-centric views as wrong-headed. However, I understand that some of this is a product of his experiences.
I understand that even after I have explained all this, that some will still think badly of Pastor Wright. Hopefully most will understand that I think highly of him even though I know he has to be taken with a grain of salt. And hopefully most will understand that Pastor Wright and TUCC are my pathway to a deeply rewarding relationship with god. This is why I stand by them.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama Damage Control Watch
Finally a poll that shows good news for Obama.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx
"Clinton moved 7 percentage points ahead of Obama in Gallup's March 19 report and sustained a significant 5-point lead on March 20. Her gains were coincident with the controversy over Obama's former pastor and "spiritual mentor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. However, the surge in Democrats' preference for Clinton that Gallup detected earlier in the week has started to move out of the three-day rolling average, and the race is back to a near tie. It is possible that Obama's aggressive efforts to diffuse the Wright story, including a major speech about race on March 18, have been effective.
Still, Obama has yet to recover fully from the apparent damage done by the Wright controversy. It was only one week ago that Obama led the race by a significant six-point margin over Clinton, 50% to 44%. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)"
As we all know, you can't really trust polls. The acid test will be NC. If Hillary beats Obama there, then the Obama coalition has been damaged.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx
"Clinton moved 7 percentage points ahead of Obama in Gallup's March 19 report and sustained a significant 5-point lead on March 20. Her gains were coincident with the controversy over Obama's former pastor and "spiritual mentor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. However, the surge in Democrats' preference for Clinton that Gallup detected earlier in the week has started to move out of the three-day rolling average, and the race is back to a near tie. It is possible that Obama's aggressive efforts to diffuse the Wright story, including a major speech about race on March 18, have been effective.
Still, Obama has yet to recover fully from the apparent damage done by the Wright controversy. It was only one week ago that Obama led the race by a significant six-point margin over Clinton, 50% to 44%. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)"
As we all know, you can't really trust polls. The acid test will be NC. If Hillary beats Obama there, then the Obama coalition has been damaged.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama Disqualification and the Return of the Dream Ticket
Early returns on Obama’s damage control of the Pastor Wright/TUCC issue are not good:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105205/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Moves-Into-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx
Plus these polls taken prior to Obama’s “More Perfect Union” Speech indicate that the damage done was extensive.
http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keymar08_1.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=45313abe-4220-409a-bc6c-5159d0751f46
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_031908.pdf
Obama is apparently losing the middle and lower class swing voters that he’s worked so hard to cultivate. If Obama can’t recover in this demographic, he will not only lose the general election … he will lose by a landslide.
Superdelegates and Obama supporters are holding their breath waiting for more post-“Perfect Union” polling data. Without a significant recovery, Obama will lose a string of primaries going into the general election. In North Carolina, where Obama was up 5-10%, there is now a virtual tie and trending for Hillary Clinton. The Clinton lead in PA has nearly doubled.
The nightmare scenario for the Democrats is that a mortally wounded Obama limps into the convention with a big lead in elected delegates. Superdelegates will be faced with a decision: Do we stick with Obama and risk a huge loss that not only loses the presidency, but potentially hurts lower level candidates as well? Or do we shift to Hillary Clinton and risk losing big because the Obama supporters stay home?
If the nightmare scenario comes to pass, there will be only one course of action that can save the Democrats … Obama has to drop out of the race and throw his support to Clinton. Most likely, Obama will have to be the VP candidate. I’ve previously written that Obama wouldn’t take this position, but this situation would pretty much require that Obama be a team player so that the Democrats could have a chance in November.
Why is the Pastor Wright Issue Such a Big Deal?
I’ve talked to many Obama supporters that seem bewildered that this is such a big deal. After all, how is this different than any of a number of other issues that were all over the news and then flamed out after a few days?
The difference is that the issue of spirituality is always incredibly sensitive in presidential politics. In 1960, candidate John F. Kennedy had to give a speech to assure the country that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Pope because he was Catholic. In the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney had to give a speech to reassure Republicans that his church of Latter Day Saints was not a cult religion and in fact that they worshipped Jesus Christ.
It is my belief that if Obama was just buddies with Pastor Wright and not a member of his congregation, he would easily survive this controversy. The thing that’s killing Obama is that swing voters are looking at his church and they are saying … “Sorry, that won’t work for us”.
So What Does All this Mean? What’s Going to Happen?
It’s hard to say what will happen as we are in uncharted waters. I can tell you that if Obama was a white candidate, he would be disqualified with no chance to come back. Obama is banking on white America giving him a pass on what they consider to be a “bad” church (at least in presidential terms) based on the sordid history of racial injustice in this country. The bottom line is that I’d rather be in Clinton’s position than Obama’s right now.
If the polls continue to go in a bad direction and if he loses this last series of primaries, Obama will be forced to drop out of the race. He can recover from this so long as he cuts ties with TUCC. He is too young to risk doing serious damage to his party and effectively ending his political career. Make no mistake about it, Obama understands how this might play out. And he still would have a very real chance of becoming president one day if he plays ball.
Of course another possibility is that the “Perfect Union” speech convinced voters that Obama is still the guy they like in spite of the fact that they don’t like his church. In that case, Obama is in great position to be the next president. Without a FL and MI re-vote, Obama has Clinton check-mated. With John McCain’s string of gaffes this week, he’s not looking like the guy that can pull off a miracle GOP win in the fall.
Conclusion
My take-away from all this is that in 2008 America is ready for an African-American President AND it’s ready for a Woman President. However, America may not be ready for a non-mainstream Christian candidate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105205/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Moves-Into-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx
Plus these polls taken prior to Obama’s “More Perfect Union” Speech indicate that the damage done was extensive.
http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keymar08_1.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=45313abe-4220-409a-bc6c-5159d0751f46
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_031908.pdf
Obama is apparently losing the middle and lower class swing voters that he’s worked so hard to cultivate. If Obama can’t recover in this demographic, he will not only lose the general election … he will lose by a landslide.
Superdelegates and Obama supporters are holding their breath waiting for more post-“Perfect Union” polling data. Without a significant recovery, Obama will lose a string of primaries going into the general election. In North Carolina, where Obama was up 5-10%, there is now a virtual tie and trending for Hillary Clinton. The Clinton lead in PA has nearly doubled.
The nightmare scenario for the Democrats is that a mortally wounded Obama limps into the convention with a big lead in elected delegates. Superdelegates will be faced with a decision: Do we stick with Obama and risk a huge loss that not only loses the presidency, but potentially hurts lower level candidates as well? Or do we shift to Hillary Clinton and risk losing big because the Obama supporters stay home?
If the nightmare scenario comes to pass, there will be only one course of action that can save the Democrats … Obama has to drop out of the race and throw his support to Clinton. Most likely, Obama will have to be the VP candidate. I’ve previously written that Obama wouldn’t take this position, but this situation would pretty much require that Obama be a team player so that the Democrats could have a chance in November.
Why is the Pastor Wright Issue Such a Big Deal?
I’ve talked to many Obama supporters that seem bewildered that this is such a big deal. After all, how is this different than any of a number of other issues that were all over the news and then flamed out after a few days?
The difference is that the issue of spirituality is always incredibly sensitive in presidential politics. In 1960, candidate John F. Kennedy had to give a speech to assure the country that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Pope because he was Catholic. In the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney had to give a speech to reassure Republicans that his church of Latter Day Saints was not a cult religion and in fact that they worshipped Jesus Christ.
It is my belief that if Obama was just buddies with Pastor Wright and not a member of his congregation, he would easily survive this controversy. The thing that’s killing Obama is that swing voters are looking at his church and they are saying … “Sorry, that won’t work for us”.
So What Does All this Mean? What’s Going to Happen?
It’s hard to say what will happen as we are in uncharted waters. I can tell you that if Obama was a white candidate, he would be disqualified with no chance to come back. Obama is banking on white America giving him a pass on what they consider to be a “bad” church (at least in presidential terms) based on the sordid history of racial injustice in this country. The bottom line is that I’d rather be in Clinton’s position than Obama’s right now.
If the polls continue to go in a bad direction and if he loses this last series of primaries, Obama will be forced to drop out of the race. He can recover from this so long as he cuts ties with TUCC. He is too young to risk doing serious damage to his party and effectively ending his political career. Make no mistake about it, Obama understands how this might play out. And he still would have a very real chance of becoming president one day if he plays ball.
Of course another possibility is that the “Perfect Union” speech convinced voters that Obama is still the guy they like in spite of the fact that they don’t like his church. In that case, Obama is in great position to be the next president. Without a FL and MI re-vote, Obama has Clinton check-mated. With John McCain’s string of gaffes this week, he’s not looking like the guy that can pull off a miracle GOP win in the fall.
Conclusion
My take-away from all this is that in 2008 America is ready for an African-American President AND it’s ready for a Woman President. However, America may not be ready for a non-mainstream Christian candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)