Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

I’m becoming more and more impressed with Congressman Tim Walz all the time. I really liked what he had to say about the FISA bill HR 6304.

“When Richard Nixon said that “when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal,” many Americans were horrified that any President would consider himself above the law. This legislation is even worse, because it essentially says ‘if the President tells you do so something, it’s not illegal,’ even if it violates the plain letter of the law. The process set out in this bill to rubberstamp the actions of the Bush Administration is contradictory to the rule of law in this country.

Sadly though, I am way less than impressed with Barack Obama’s stance on the FISA bill. Granted, this is a tough one.. if he would have rallyed the troops in opposition, its likely McCain and crew would use such to indicate a soft spot on defense. Yet, because he chose to not do so, it really comes across he is soft on the constitution…. and that is very very discouraging. Sure, he will try to rally the senate to remove the immunity provisions, but likely that is just a token thing at this point…. he could have made a difference, yet no doubt except for political expediency and politics as usual, he did nothing.

Sure, Obama will come up and put up a fight against immunity, but short of a fillibuster, its unlikely to do a whole lot of good… the ship has sailed, and with it a part of our constitution. Otoh, it may well be he still has some cards to play, and that is my hope.

Yet, the same cards dealt to Barack also came to Tim Walz…. and he made a choice, the right choice, the one to uphold his oath of office, even though it likely will not be all that popular. Ie, many folks are not versed in constitutional matters… and some I perceive would rather sell out the constitution if it meant they would be safer, or at least have an illusion of safety.

This is perhaps best illustrated in an example Karoli presented about a fellow who exudes so much fear its scary in and of itself. Some comments from her blog.

The FISA and torture issues have been framed to prey upon people’s fears, and it’s worked fabulously. Until these issues can be reframed in a way that exposes and resolves those fears, pushing back isn’t an option if one wants to have a political career that actually succeeds and gets them elected.

Opposing this ‘compromise’ is too nuanced a position to take in a country where people decide who to vote for based upon whether they’d have a drink with them, or gender, or race, or whatever other superficial excuse is made for their surrender to the dark place where fears grow.

And that is what I think is cool about Congressman Walz…. he does not run, nor settle for political expediency, nor business as usual. Its a risk he is taking, yet it is also a risk he must take to uphold his office, irrespective of the consequences. Thats a whole lot of courage he has to take such a stand, and I applaud him for it. I also know, should this come back on him during election time, he won’t back down, and likely any mud thrown, is going to come back at the thrower in a huge way, if not from Tim, by a bunch of us supporters who will not stand for those who throw the constitution under the bus for expediencies sake.

For reference, we also have a few other Minnesota folks to be proud of.

Nay MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D]
Nay MN-4 McCollum, Betty [D]
Nay MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]
Nay MN-8 Oberstar, James [D]

Clintons push a Hillary/Obama ticket | U.S. | Reuters

Its a recent strategy of the Clinton campaign to suggest Barack as VP to garner votes, but not only are the framing of the issues so vastly different, the brands won’t mesh. In addition, the campaign infrastructures are totally incompatible. In one case we have top down command and control, and in another buttom up grass roots. If a strategic mixed branding plan were in case 2 years ago, perhaps it might have made sense with a ton of work behind the scenes… but today, the only thing they share is a base set of policy, and the rest is vastly incompatible, at least from an operational and electability pov.

Barack Obama’s campaign has a rather amazing consistency in branding, and its truly amazing, even so far as to include grassroots diy graphics. I’m not sure how it came to be, but certainly any marcom group would jump up and down to have this level of consistency across their corp, much less across a geographically and sociologically diverse group of volunteers. Certainly there is a high risk of mis-steps and mixed messages when you take command and control out of the equation, especially in the pr domain. Yet, when mistakes happen, folks take ownership very very fast, as evidenced by Samantha Power and Kirk Watson. Granted, I think Samantha’s resignation was overkill, yet in her choosing to do so, an even stronger message is sent concerning her commitment to the message.

Yet, I contrast the consistent message and branding of Barack’s grass roots campaign, with the mixed and variable messages sent by Hillary’s top down command and control. Within a weeks time frame, Hillary’s messages and the framing of such have swung back and forth and sideways. Barack’s campaign on the other hand canges very slowly and deliberately, in part probably due to real time feedback via the social network combined with the bottom up messages from the field. Its fascinating to watch how changes on the network affect the message presented. It is very subtle effect, but causality is definitely there.

I almost wonder if perhaps the Clinton campaign is measuring impulse response followed by Bayesian analysis…  intentionally creating ripples for predictive modeling while cool from an academic pov, would seem to be too risky to use in a high stakes campaign. Yet, if such ripples are not intentional, the only other option suggests a scatter gun approach perhaps out of desparation, and I sort of doubt that as well. Either way, this campaign and its associated social dynamics would make for a fascinating paper.

Lastly, there is the I or We factor I previously blogged about… and to some extent, I think that sets the tone of the major incompatible differences between the campaigns. Branding, framing, consistency, command and control vs grass roots bottom up, all tie to the I or We factor. Short of one or the other party completely jettisoning their principles and operating practices, a mixed ticket is just not workable. I hope it never happens, as effectively it kills off the participation of the strongest activists on both sides. Ultimately, I go back to Seth’s analysis, that stepping aside may be the best course of action for Hillary as well as the party.

Daily Kos: I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype now a supporter

This is one of the best, least biased reviews of legislative records I’ve read. Significant insight can be gained by the legislative records in and of themselves, much more so, than debates, sound bites, or tv ads. It really shoots holes in the argument that Barack doesn’t have much substance.

However, looking at successful bill passage, as well as co-sponsorship of bills likely doesn’t show the whole story. Certainly, Hillary’s supporters are very vocal of her accomplishments, albeit the public records don’t seem to correlate very well with that pov.

Yet, what if successful legislation is not the desired outcome? Perhaps Hillary’s success potentially lies more along the lines of stopping legislation rather than moving forward. Doing so could be viewed as a successful approach, albeit not the way we normally think of success. Ie, how many roadblocks did she put up, how many really bad bills were killed off or put on hold due to her efforts. Granted, I am an Obama supporter, and in no way am trying to defend her, but there has to be a reason for the level of support she has. Perhaps a negative approach is the key. Of course, trying to ferret out that information makes navigating the Library of Congress legislative info website seem simple. Its a huge unknown, at least to me, as to why her supporters are so positive, when the published track record doesn’t back up such an assertion.

Ultimately though, roadblocks to progress, while a laudable approach, and one I shared years back, no doubt has contributed to much of the mess we find ourselves in today. Ie, in the past, I always liked to see a mixed legislative and executive branch, as such a combination likely decreases the potential for radical legislation on either side. Yet, the lack of forward action, combined with poor decisions and judgment, has resulted in absolute disaster, both in foreign and domestic policy arenas.

—Hello?

–Hi, Mr./Mrs. Doe?

–Yes.

–Hi, my name is ____, I’m calling from the Barack Obama for President campaign….

(First hurdle right here–Repubs, not interesteds, hangups, etc.)

…and I wanted to remind you of the Democratic primary on Tuesday the 19th…

(This sounds dumb, nice and honest, and I’ve found it works. Give them a quick pause for an “uh-huh”)

…we’re calling to say we hope you’ll consider voting for Barack Obama on the 19th. We believe he has the best chance to beat John McCain in the general election in November.

(By now, without asking them any threatening questions like “who you gonna vote for”, you’ve found out everything you’ll need to know. They’ll either hang up early, or they’ll disagree with you on the electability question and say they’re supporting Clinton, or they’ll clearly be undecided and you can say why you are drawn to him, or they’ll chime right in and agree about Obama, etc.)

Its pretty funny reading some of the comments on HRC’s phone bank ticker… Ie, at the rate they are going, its likely they will run out of potential voters to call in the near future. Thus, either the numbers are wild estimates, calculated based upon pledged activity time, the result of robocalls, so some combination of the above.

And we all hate robocalls, yet for some odd reason, they must be at least somewhat effective… maybe, or else the robocaller sales guy is one amazing sales dude.

Ultimately, though, what I think makes a difference with the Barack campaign, is the average Joe getting on the phone, and making calls. The website walks you right through the process, although I must admit the script may come across a bit stilted…. but its likely there to get over the initial fear factor of cold calling,  and how to go about doing so.

Granted, when I started, I only knew a few of the issues Barack had talked about, but over the past few days, I’ve been spending a lot of time on the issues and getting up to speed on both sides. For one, it reinforces why I am campaigning for him…I agree much much more than disagree with his views. Secondly, with confidence on the issues, phone banking is loads easier. Ultimately, I know personal phone banking is effective, despite my aversion to the phone, (I prefer text) and its actually not that hard… even on the early days, when I was quite the novice on issues, the scripting process made it pretty easy. A lot of folks rarely ask issues questions, but at least now, I can respond with a level of confidence, rather than saying, well uh, you can go to www.barackobama.com and then click on issues.

The other thing I found incredibly helpful, was this blog entry by marytnurse. It also is helpful to read some of the comments, both by folks who have had success, and others who ran into a difficult character. It is quite the encouragement and help.

Clinton:

    * Observe a foreclosure moratorium of at least 90 days on subprime, owner-occupied homes. The moratorium will stop foreclosures until lenders and servicers have an opportunity to implement the freeze in mortgage rates. The moratorium will also give state and city organizations as well as community groups the necessary time to provide financial counseling to at-risk homeowners.

* Provide status reports on the number of mortgages being modified. Resolution of the foreclosure crisis will require that large numbers of unworkable mortgages be converted to stable loans. To date, however, despite pressure from Congress and the press, lenders and servicers have modified only about 1% of subprime mortgages. This obviously has to change. We cannot take the industry at its words that it will follow through on an agreement to convert loans expeditiously. Accordingly, the agreement must impose on lenders and servicers an obligation to regularly report their loan modifications.

My analysis:
Investors will loose in a huge way, they were depending upon contracts and a fairly well known, and low risk return. Now, their return will be quite limited, and likely, unless banking becomes nationalized, banks will no longer be favorable investments, and may fail. Thus precipitating a greater spiral, with potential global ramifications.

Homeowners with arms and other marginal mortgages get 5 years, to either sell, or refinance. However, with the banking industry unable to secure investment, will funds even be available to do so…. and if credit is tightened even further, real estate valuation will likely spiral downward. In fact, it could be a much needed correction. Sadly though, should anyone ever need to sell, or depend on their real estates valuation, they will loose big time.

Existing homeowners will see their real estate valuation crash. Not so much an issue if they have a steady income, and were not depending upon their home as a short term investment. Although, having their neighbors paying a much smaller monthly mortgage for an equally valued house will stick in the craw of some.

Real estate investors get bailed out, and this gives them time to re-evaluate their options. However, as real estate declines, so will rental rates, thus their cash flow will drop. At some point, even with low interest rates, they will be forced into foreclosure.

As real estate value declines, so do property taxes in a huge way… thus, local and state govt stand to loose in a huge way and fast.

The winners, banks with cash available, especially those not tied to foreign investors. People with cash available, looking for bargains in real estate. It may well be a reversal in class structure, where the lower end of the middle class are able to procure homes should they have a substantial down payment. Homes they could not even thought of in years past will sell for 20-40 cents on the dollar.

Obama:

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

My analysis:
For those homeowners in a world of hurt, they will receive help. Perhaps with greater allowances in lending practices and help for those subject to fraid, conversion may be a possibility. Real estate will drop in value, although not as much with the Clinton plan. A slow drop in valuation can be a good thing as part of overall market correction.

For those who are speculating, the writing is on the wall. Bogus mortgages and inflated valuation will likely cause these individuals to loose their shirt. Mortgage fraud will be dealt with. Rental prices will drop as these guys go under.

Banks who are cash shy, or mismanaged and dependent upon landfall profits from the subprime are likely to loose money, a lot of money, as will their investors. However, such risk was well known to those in the industry. It is likely the subprime investment pool will dry up, but funding will likely still be available for conventional mortgages.

As property values fall, state and local revenue will decrease, albeit over a longer period of time. Thus there are ways to plan for reductions in spending.

Summary:
Obama’s plan is more sustainable, and has fewer unintended consequences. Either plan will result in the devaluation of real estate in many areas, and a loss to investors. However, the devaluation will likely be a lot less, as will be the investors loss than maintaining the status quo, which likely will result in massive numbers of foreclosures, followed by bank failures sooner or later. The big question, is it enough, and will it happen soon enough.

A quote taken from Barack’s speech yesterday really makes a lot of sense. “We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control.  The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle.  It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it’s produced.” reference

I remember watching this, and saying to my wife…. That is the guy, if only he were running for president.

And then, here I am 4 years later, no longer a Republican, but actually calling folks for Barack, and a county delegate. Amazing how things can change. Whats even more interesting, is having walked into the caucus with somewhat neutral feelings, and then a bit of paranoia after being chosen a delegate, now I’m excited about that too. I’m already sign up as a volunteer for Tim Walz, and just signed up for Jack Nelson Pallmeyer’s newsletter too. Quite a change from the days, when I was more aligned with the neocon crowd than the liberals.Yet, I don’t really think I’ve changed a whole lot, but more so, the parties and their ideals have changed, or perhaps my percpetions of what their ideals actually were. I was in state govt many years ago, so I have a sense, albeit a dated one of the internal workings of politics. And somehow or another, so much today is not really what it seems. Ultimately, I think it comes down to vision, more so than a specific ideology. Barack has vision, Coleman used to, Walz does, and I tend to think Nelson Pallmeyer does as well, although it is likely a bit early to make the call on him.Its going to be a bit uncomfortable telling Norm, and my other republican friends, but alas I an on board, and ready to roll for these folks. It will be interesting for sure.