Archive for October, 2008

First-Ever World Cultural Economic Forum a Resounding Success

I just returned from an incredible two-day event in New Orleans, the first-ever World Cultural Economic Forum, hosted by Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu.

The forum featured 83 different international ambassadors and diplomats, all of whom convened with Louisiana officials to discuss the economics of culture and the ways in which Louisiana can create international alliances to spur growth and development.

Kudos to Mitch Landrieu, and thank you for the opportunity.

Yesterday, Daniel and I, along with Mayor Roy, had the unique privilege of engaging in direct bilateral talks with the Deputy Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China (thankfully, Daniel speaks fluent Mandarin) and, most incredibly, the Ambassador of Iraq, who shared some astounding knowledge with us. To be sure, Daniel and I listened; the Mayor actually engaged.

Iraq, said the Ambassador, needs printing presses. They need to rebuild their libraries. He mentioned that, until very recently, not a single book had been imported into Iraq in decades. And importantly, he noted that Americans need to begin translating Iraqi (Arabic) books into English. We need to learn everything we can about their culture, if we are to understand the dynamics of the situation on the ground. An obvious truth that must be taken seriously.

This afternoon, while the Mayor had lunch with a contingency from Mexico and Haiti, Daniel and I had the chance to speak with a Deputy Consulate of France, the Ambassador to Grenadines and St. Vincent, and a dignitary from Brazil. We discussed everything from the production of biofuels and the Port of Alexandria to the economics of Mardi Gras and Carnival.

Notably, this wasn’t some type of exclusive event (tickets were $100 and open to the public), though because Mayor Roy was a co-chair and assisted in planning, we probably were afforded a closer look.

Again, a great opportunity and a fantastic start to what should become an annual event.

Obama Appears to Have Edge in Louisiana: Early Voting Up 169%

H/t FiveThirtyEight.com

Even excluding the totals from today’s turn-out (which was the final day for early voting in Louisiana and was, by all accounts, the busiest day so far), the Great State has already experienced a 169% increase in early voters, compared to the 2004 election.

As illustrated below, a substantial portion of that increase is likely due to African-American voters, who are already voting in record numbers:

These are remarkable numbers, and they certainly undercut any argument supporting a double-digit McCain victory in Louisiana.

It would be naive to ignore our State’s demographics and even more naive to downplay the significance of early voter turn-out, as evidenced by the three to four hour waits that many of my friends experienced when voting in New Orleans today.

Although, empirically, early voting (previously known as absentee voting) favored Republican candidates, the enthusiasm gap coupled with Louisiana’s voter demographics would seem to favor Senator Obama and down-ticket Democrats.

Already in Rapides Parish more than 7,600 people have cast votes in this election, nearly 42% of whom are African-American. Indeed, well over 58% of early voters in Rapides Parish are registered Democrats.

The same trends can be found throughout the State.

Secretary of State Jay Dardenne’s numbers indicate the following:

Total: 264,361 votes

Whites: 161,603 (61.1%)

African-Americans: 95,197 (36.0%)

Democrats: 154,368 (58.4%)

Republicans: 75,423 (28.5%)

Independents: 34,570 (13.1%)

I may not need to state the obvious, but I’ll do it anyway: This looks great for Obama and the Democrats. If the early voting trends hold steady, Obama will win Louisiana. If Obama receives between 10% and 20% of white voters, assuming the turn-out numbers remain consistent, he will win Louisiana.

Even if one applies the internals of the latest Rasmussen poll in Louisiana (which are, understandably, proprietary and prohibited from being republished without expressed consent), Obama will win Louisiana, provided the trends remain substantially the same. (And remember, that same poll had McCain up by over 15 points).

Simply put, the polls here may be proven to be woefully inaccurate, having dramatically discounted the dynamics of an increased turn-out.

With A Week to Go, Two Things

1. This video:

2. And this, the closing argument:

Town Talk Absurdity

I have the utmost respect for Cynthia Jardon, the editor of the editorial page of The Town Talk, but her most recent Sunday editorial regarding Senator Barack Obama misses the mark so severely that I am compelled to respond. Ms. Jardon begins her editorial:

Does Barack Obama really want you to have a piece of the American dream? Have you noticed that he doesn’t much reference Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?

No, Ms. Jardon. I have not noticed that. In fact, when Senator Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, it was on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, a fact that was repeated over and over. Two of Dr. King’s children both delivered powerful speeches that day.

Indeed, Senator Obama spent the final moments of his historic acceptance speech paying tribute to Dr. King. To suggest Senator Obama hasn’t referenced Dr. King much is, with all due respect, to admit that you’re simply not paying much attention, and it appears as if this claim is only being made in order to propound a very tenuous argument about Senator Obama’s intentions and prerogatives.

Dr. King never once suggested that African Americans were unable or unwilling to reach for the brass ring. He never hinted that perhaps African Americans would be better off if they just sat back and took government handouts.

Obama wants us less-than-average Joes to believe we are entitled to money we haven’t earned. That’s about as un-American as you can get.

This is simply irresponsible: An attempt to distort the legacy of Dr. King in order to advance the false assertion that Obama is “un-American” and believes “we are entitled to money we haven’t earned.”

Furthermore, it suggests that Obama’s tax plan, which would simply reinstate the structures under Reagan and Clinton, is somehow exclusively intended to address some type of African-American entitlement agenda, comparing his plan to sweeping “government handouts.”

Why are we entitled to wealth others have earned? Does Obama believe we aren’t ambitious enough, smart enough, strong enough or in any other way capable of taking care of ourselves? If he can grab his piece of the American dream, why can’t we?

Because he would like us to give up. He would like to convince us that the American dream is dead.

Frankly, I have no idea what Ms. Jardon is talking about. As someone who has religiously followed this election, I can’t understand how any journalist could possibly believe that Senator Obama thinks the “American dream is dead.” Honestly, I find such language to be absurdly and rancorously partisan.

Ms. Jardon hopes Americans will believe that Senator Obama is “as un-American as you get” and that he also thinks the “American dream is dead.”

I guess it is, if the American spirit is so weak that it cannot see that his “change” will only bring us to new lows. We are to aspire to mediocrity because, in his world, without government handouts, we will not survive.

Until this morning, I have never heard of anyone speak of Obama’s tax plan as a “hand-out” plan, and I find it to be an astoundingly ignorant interpretation.

What is it about America that has changed so much that you cannot reach for the stars?

The opportunities still abound for a person, no matter what his origins, no matter what his family or socio-economic class, to get his or her piece of the dream. All it takes is ambition, education, dedication, a willingness to work and commitment.

In fact, ironically, Barack Obama is the perfect example of a man who is living the American dream.

How, exactly, is this ironic?

Yet he believes you can’t do it without him. He wants us all to believe that this country’s rich are tyrants. Obama wants you to believe that the rich, because they are rich, deserve to be punished.

Why? They got rich the same way anyone else can — dedication, hard work, education, ambition, etc.

In Obama’s economic plan, he’d like you to believe that 95 percent of the people will get a tax cut. That’s not accurate. 95 percent of the people may not pay more taxes, but there is no actual “cut” figured in. In fact, he makes no bones about the fact that he will raise taxes.

If you make $250,000 a year you will pay higher taxes. He and Sen. Joe Biden would like you to believe that there are not a lot of people who make that kind of money.

Ms. Jardon, practically all of what you’re saying about Senator Obama’s tax plan is a lie. Again, with all due respect, you have fundamentally misrepresented his tax plan and the intentions behind his plan. First of all, despite what you claim, there IS, in fact, an actual and substantial cut “figured in” for people making less than $250,000. From the Boston Globe:

As this clearly illustrates, Obama’s tax plan offers significant tax breaks for people making under $603,403 a year, particularly for people making less than $111,645 a year. This is public and readily-available information, and it’s absurd and irresponsible for anyone to build a counter-argument without addressing the facts.

This isn’t about “punishing” anyone. A progressive tax structure simply responds, fairly and equitably, to the needs of our country. Town Talk reporters beware: You’re getting a tax break.

The irony isn’t Senator Obama’s perspective; the irony is that so many Americans have allowed themselves to believe it’s in their own economic best interests to vote against their own economic best interests.

In Obama’s world it is the patriotic duty of those who work and succeed to pay for those who do not. What? What has paying an inordinate amount of taxes so more people can go on the dole got to do with patriotism?

Who do you think will suffer in the long run? Those who pay more will find a way to even the playing field. They will raise prices, cut jobs, cut benefits or whatever. That’s how it works.

How will Obama’s wealth spreading help you? All of the extra money you get will be absorbed by the higher food and product prices. Lots of pain, no gain.

But Obama does not want you to see that. He wants you to believe that you are sticking it to “the man.” Who is that?

“Sticking it to the man”? What?

And what does Ms. Jardon mean by “inordinate”? I wonder what she thinks about Warren Buffett’s objection that his tax bracket is actually lower than his secretary’s. It’s as if she is arguing for an economic system that has already demonstratably been proven as a failure.

“Voodoo economics,” as George H.W. Bush called it.

But for Ms. Jardon, unfortunately, it all comes back to Senator Obama’s race, a device she uses to thematically tie the article together:

Dr. King had a dream — it was that everyone would one day be able to capture their piece of the American dream. The dream is alive for Ice T, Ice Cube, Usher, Beyonce, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Spike Lee, Oprah, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Hudson, Clarence Thomas, Lil Wayne, Barry Bonds and the list goes on and on. All these people are living their piece of the American dream and all will be penalized for success. Many already donate millions of dollars a year to charities. Under Obama, you can bet they will donate less. Instead of those people deciding who gets their money, the government will decide.

In attempting to make her point, she lists sixteen African-Americans as examples of people who would ostensibly be “penalized” by Senator Obama. Ironically, the vast majority of the men and women she lists, including General Powell, are supporters of Senator Obama.

Although, out of respect, I refuse to express the obvious, I believe, with all of my heart, that Americans will not be so easily convinced that this election is about entitlement, in any of its forms.

When expressed honestly, this is about one thing: Our shared future.

Update: Thank you to Russell Henderson for sharing this with Louisiana Democrats, and thank you to Ryan McLeod for your own response, which includes video of Senator Obama speaking about Dr. King during his acceptance speech at the DNC. Quoting the transcript:

Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It’s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

“We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

Best Political Ad of 2008

Oui On Peut: “Yes We Can”

Today, the blogger WayDownSouth introduced America to “Oui On Peut,” a song by a group of Opelousas-based Zydeco musicians. Check it out:

Quoting:

Southwest Louisiana is quite a place —  it’s one of those areas that has fostered an incredible fusion of cultures.  As always when you have such amazing cross-fertilization you find those who recognize and celebrate it as well as those who deny and demean it.  I guess you can tell which camp we’re in!

Barack Obama represents the country that I want my children to grow up in.  He represents an America that sees itself as part of the world community rather than separate from it.  I may not agree with all his politics, 100%, but I know that if we had a chance to sit down he would repsect my opinions and discuss them with me openly and fairly.  (I’d count myself as further to the left than him.)  His promise is, to me, the promise of our country and our world.

Poll Louisiana!

Nearly a month has passed since Rasmussen released the latest poll on how the Presidential election is shaping up in Louisiana. On September 11, ARG had Louisiana up for McCain by 7 points, only to be followed, two weeks later by that Rasmussen poll, which showed McCain up by 15.

Based, in large part, on these polls, FiveThirtyEight.com has McCain’s odds of winning Louisiana at 90%, but obviously, there’s a problem here: Louisiana hasn’t been polled in a long time, and during the interim, many important and incredible developments have occured– the economic crisis, the Presidential debates, and a national media blitz by Mr. Obama.

Pollsters could do this State and country a great service by polling Louisiana again.

Kudos to Krugman

Congratulations to Princeton Professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for winning the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Daniel and I had a chance to hear Professor Krugman (center) at an event at the Big Tent in Denver (pictured above), which also featured John Podesta (right) and David Sirota (left). We coincidentally ran into Mr. Podesta a couple of days later on the street.

Krugman, a supporter of Senator Obama, won the Nobel for his research on the dynamics of global trade.

Mr. Krugman won the prize for his research, beginning in 1979, that explained patterns of trade among countries, as well as what goods are produced where and why.

Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange only the kinds of goods that they are comparatively better at producing — wine from France, for example, and rice from China.

This model, however, dating from David Ricardo’s writings of the early 19th century, was not reflected in the flow of goods and services that Mr. Krugman saw in the world around him. He set out to explain why worldwide trade was dominated by a few countries that were similar to one another, and why a country might import the same kinds of goods it exported.

In his model, many companies sell similar goods with slight variations. These companies become more efficient at producing their goods as they sell more, and so they grow. Consumers like variety, and pick and choose goods from among these producers in different countries, enabling countries to continue exchanging similar products. So some Americans buy Volkswagens and some Germans buy Fords.

He developed this work further to explain the effect of transportation costs on why people live where they live. His model explained under what conditions trade would lead people or companies to move to a particular region or to move away.

Landrieu Versus Kennedy: Round II: “Senator McCain’s Coattails Are Not Long Enough for You.”

Senator Mary Landrieu and State Treasurer John Kennedy met for the second of four debates tonight in Baton Rouge, an event that was televised statewide by Louisiana Public Broadcasting and sponsored by the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL).

I have to admit: I found Treasurer Kennedy to be a skilled debater, not necessarily in substance but in style. He displayed his ability to sound like a folksy government watchdog, which, of course, belies his high-fallutin’ education at Vanderbilt, UVA, and Oxford as well as his years in the high levels of state government, both as a Democrat and a Republican.

Which is why Mr. Kennedy’s angle seemed particularly disingenuous and bizarre. He began and ended the debate by reminding Louisianans that he is the “only candidate” in the race who is supporting Senator McCain and not Senator Obama, and he seemed, throughout the night, more focused on the dynamics of the national political landscape (which, ironically, currently favor Mr. Obama; it’d seem like a better strategy if Mr. McCain was the out-and-out front-runner) than on the issues that face the Great State of Louisiana.

In other words, it appears as if Kennedy is amping up his upticket alliances, which is, again, bizarre, because Mr. Kennedy only recently switched to the Republican Party and had opposed Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, suddenly, he is a conservative Republican who seeks to exploit his newly-developed alliances in order to gain an election victory. Only two years after he was elected as a Democrat, he now embraces “conservative change.”

When addressing the trillion dollar market collapse and the government response, Kennedy suggested, with some degree of specificity, that the government would have been better off creating a “quasi-governmental” corporation with a nest egg of only $50 or so million to begin buying off “mortgage-backed securities from the banks.” With all due respect to our Treasurer, his plan, which sounds to be equally as “socialistic” as anyone else’s, appears to woefully misunderstand and underestimate the severity and the extent of this current financial crisis. And after suggesting a taxpayer investment of at least $50 million, Kennedy then says his plan would not call for any taxpayer dollars, a curious claim that was directly contradicted by his previous statement. How can anything be “quasi-governmental” and not involve the expenditure of taxpayer dollars? Now is not the time to be cute or to suggest that you alone know the panacea. I know I am not the only one who believes it is foolish and sophomoric to suggest that a $50 million project could solve a $1 trillion problem.

Landrieu, on the other hand, argues for taxpayer protection by suggesting government shares in the banks in which we all invest, which can ensure that we all receive a return on our investment, and by guaranteeing loans between banks, solid ideas that have bipartisan support.

Kennedy, in an attempt to attack Landrieu on FEMA, of all things, made the brazenly audacious claim that she alone was responsible for FEMA. With all due respect to Treasurer Kennedy, if he believes that the head of a Senate Subcommittee for Disaster Relief controls FEMA (a position we should be thankful to have represented by someone from our Great State), he should be immediately considered disqualified for the office. Such an expression fundamentally misunderstands the checks and balances of government and the nature of FEMA. He attempted to suggest that Landrieu “controls FEMA,” which is simply and patently absurd. President Bush controls FEMA. Period.

Landrieu took responsibility for her vote to authorize force in Iraq, recognizing that it was a mistake and expressing her belief that the money spent in Iraq could have been better spent here in the United States and on fighting the war on bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, while Mr. Kennedy preferred speaking about the “success” of the surge, when, in fact, he had supported timetables only three years ago.

Mr. Kennedy also rehearsed a litany of examples on the evils of earmarks, lambasting federal appropriations for scientific research and music education for children. Yet, when questioned on how he would address appropriations for university research here in Louisiana, Kennedy seemed to struggle, arguing, for the first time that I have heard in this election, that there were good “earmarks,” and, ironically, echoing Senator Landrieu’s call for transparency in the process. In doing so, Treasurer Kennedy undermined his entire argument against the “evils” of earmarks, while, at the same time, obviously and blatantly misrepresenting Landrieu’s beliefs on the subject.

Kennedy couldn’t offer an adequate answer about how to attract young people to government work, offering only a bland explanation about his infrequent joys of serving the public; whereas Senator Landrieu referenced specific examples of programs that work and the importance of groups like Teach for America.

Unfortunately, throughout the debate, Treasurer Kennedy consistently and overtly lied and misrepresented Senator Landrieu’s record as well as the implications of her policy positions, at several points falsely suggesting that her health care plans would strip Louisianans of their Medicaid coverage and would leave millions without insurance. This is not accurate, and it fundamentally misrepresents the bipartisan plan that Senator Landrieu and her “Gang of Fourteen” are promoting. Instead of debating specifics, Mr. Kennedy filled in his criticism with the standard tropes of “socialized healthcare.” He flat-out lied about the contents and the intentions of her proposals, and as the Senator noted, “he’s very confused about a lot of things in this race.” Kennedy also promoted the supremacy of the private sector in responding to health care problems, which the Senator strongly disputed and, in light of the recent market disaster, resonates.

Landrieu was strong, articulate, and effective in this debate, and by the end, she had pierced through Kennedy’s central claim to this election: An incredibly weak attempt to link himself to John McCain.

At the conclusion of the debate, after Landrieu had successfully confronted Kennedy for his opposition to a farmer’s relief bill for the farmers of Louisiana (which will prove to be permanently embarassing to Mr. Kennedy), he attempted to turn the conversation back to the national election, repeatedly asking Landrieu why she supported Mr. Obama.

Which led to the quote of this election:

“John, I know you’re trying very hard, but Senator McCain’s coattails are not long enough for you.”

- Mary Landrieu