Hint to Merkley campaign

This would get my vote

Late stage political advertising runs the gamut from simply annoying to absolutely dispiriting. We’re now hunkering down in the midst of a blitzkrieg of escalating negative commercials on the tube, tabloidized mini-dramas in which one’s opponent is portrayed as the main attraction to a Halloween haunted house. The photo of the poor candidate always has a black background and his or her skin is a ghastly yellow. The TV’s volume mysteriously rises, yet the voiceover sometimes sinks to a stage whisper. Partial quotes are sprinkled around like blurbs from a movie trailer.

The worst thing, though, is that the same commercial is shown six million times. Frequently, it’s run two or three times in a five-minute programming break. The goal is for each and every viewer to memorize the entire attack ad to the point of having bad dreams about it.

These ads eventually disgust a small but significant percentage of the voters to the point of not bothering to vote. This typically turns out to be a Republican advantage, because the base treats an election like a gladiator event that they cannot afford to miss.

Here’s what would get my vote:

Audio: Vivaldi’s “The Four Seasons,” or Pachobe’s “Canon.” Something light and soothing.

Video: Scenes of Oregon’s beaches, mountains, wooded wilderness areas, free-flowing rivers, an elk herd, a salmon jumping, the sun rising over the Wallowa’s and setting at Cannon Beach. Or a bunch of puppies playing.

Voiceover: No voice over.

Text overlay: No text overlay.

Political message: No political message.

Nothing but nice music and pictures. And at the end, “I’m Jeff Merkley and I approved this interlude between negative campaign ads.”

Campaign funds couldn't be spent more wisely.

Modal Matrimony

Biking into the Sunset

I was out riding my bike on Saturday when I encountered one of those “only-in-Portland” events: a wedding in which the bride, groom, maid of honor, best man and a large number of guests arrived and departed by bicycle. And all dressed up, too.  It was at Sellwood Park.



Bride on a bike                                  Most of the guests, too.


Took a few snapshots but didn’t intrude on the festivities. I searched The Oregonian today for the announcement, but could not find the lovely couple.

Didn’t see any tin cans or other debris tied to the backs of their bikes.

Convention center lodging for our times

Who brought the s'mores?

The juxtaposition of two news stories just gave me an idea. The first is an article in the Business Journal about the proposal for a $240 million convention center hotel, a proposal that is still alive despite misgivings by a lot of people that it will never pencil out.

This story says that Metro is extending its review of the project for another 75 days because of “uncertainty of current market conditions, the commitment to fund the hotel using only existing funding sources and the need to coordinate multiple inter-governmental and public-private agreements” in bumping the project.

The second is the big news that the economy is going crash if American taxpayers don’t chip in $700 – 800 billion to save failing financial services companies. You have read all about that, I’m sure, but this account sums it up best.

Bailout or no bailout, the economy is going to suck for quite awhile. A lot of businesses will feel a pinch, if not a cramp. Consequently, their trade associations will be forced to cut back on their lavish annual conventions. In this economic climate, finding a private party willing to erect a luxury hotel in Portland will be harder than finding an optimistic Mets fan in Queens.

Instead, Metro ought to look to an outfit like REI or G.I. Joes to operate the Portland Convention Center Campground.

Most major conventions are held in the summer, which in Portland, after the Rose Festival is over, is usually gorgeous. Rather than check into a bland, generic hotel room at $400 a night, conventioneers would pitch a tent in a lush green meadow, shaded by towering fir trees for a tenth the cost. They could bring their own tents and camping gear or rent them from the park host. There’s some vacant land down by the river not far from the convention center that would work, as well as some blocks north and south of the center that could be converted to campground land.

Think of the green brownie points Portland—and the convention sponsors—would receive.

Those convention goers who can’t handle sleeping on the ground could check into the adjacent Portland Convention Center RV Park. Plenty of pull through full hookups with satellite dish television and either wifi or broadband cable to each site. The RV park would have plenty of motorhomes available to rent. Now is the time to jump on this idea, since dozens of RV manufacturers are going into bankruptcy because consumers are no longer buying their 50-foot, six-miles-to-the-gallon behemoths. A lot of these motorhomes are being unloaded at very reasonable prices, according to a friend who manages the annul RV Show at the Expo Center.

Now maybe the American Bankers Association is unlikely to choose Portland with its back-to-nature facilities, but then again, the bankers may not even be holding a convention for awhile. Who might go for it? Obviously, camping equipment businesses. Also other industries involved in outdoor recreation. Probably the trade association for bicycling companies, organic foods, alternative health care and green energy. These, by the way, are all growth industries.

Kindergarten Sex Ed?

This Bill Needs No Lipstick

So the McCain campaign runs an ad accusing Obama of supporting a bill that would teach sex education to four-year-old children.  People are aghast.

Then it turns out the bill in question had a provision that would allow kindergartens to teach kids about inappropriate touching by adults or older children.

Now if the Rovians were running Obama's campaign instead of McCain's, they would have come out with an ad accusing McCain of opposing a bill aimed at protecting kids from sexual predators.

Not advocating.  Just sayin'.

Obama vs. Palin

Are You Experienced?

Experience is a comb which nature gives to men when they are bald.” …Chinese Proverb

Lately I have been rummaging through the vastness of the World Wide Web in search of quotations on “experience.” The one above may be my favorite, although it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for.

In the 1960 presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy’s lack of experience, compared to Richard Nixon, was constantly questioned. At one point, JFK told a little story about a banker who had been in the financial business for 40 years, but whose bank had gone bankrupt. “This man knew the banking business up and down, but you wouldn't hire him to run your bank,” Kennedy said. Or at least, I recall him saying something like that. I doubt if I remember it from his debates with Nixon. It probably was in something I read several years later.

There’s also this pearl of wisdom from another politician: “Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.” That is attributed to former Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood. Let's hope he learned from his.

But the one most pertinent to this year’s campaign comes from Mark Twain (as if there was any doubt): "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

Or as Aldous Huxley wrote, “Exoerience is not what happens to you, it is what you do with what happens to you."

Now the opposing camps in this year’s presidential warfare are firing shots at the rival ticket over “lack of experience.” Barack Obama has been a U.S. Senator for less than three years. McCain’s choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, has been governor of Alaska for a little over a year. Obama is just three years older than Palin (47 to 44), so neither has a full lifetime of experiences from which they have learned lessons.

Are neither of them ready for the high office they seek? Does one have better experience than the other? Or does none of it matter? What experience is relevant to the job?

The Republicans claim Sarah Palin is the only candidate among on either ticket who has executive experience. That discounts Obama's stint as president of the Harvard Law Review, director of Project Vote in 1992 and serving on the boards of directors of several foundations, including being chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. None of these roles are as large as being a governor, but they add breadth to his experience. On top of that, he has put together a crack campaign organization that numbers 2,500 paid staff. This is a very disciplined and savvy organization that totally outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton's manager.

Another argument is that McCain has all the experience and he's the one running for president, while Biden, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, is the one with deep experience. This is supposed to be a positive for McCain. But look at it this way: if McCain suddenly dies, the reins are turned over to a raw rookie.

The thing I like best about Obama is that he has a very confident management style that allows for extensive debate and challenge among his subordinates. He chose Biden not so much to help win the election, but to help him govern. He realizes that for all his talk of change, there are going to be real hurdles to it and a guy like Biden has the connections to surmount many of those hurdles, not to mention the moxie to tell Obama what he really thinks.

Some people are able to take more from experience than others, and thus may not need as much before getting into a high profile position. Kwame Brown and LeBron James were both number one NBA draft picks out of high school, Brown in 2001 and James in 2003. (The Blazers' Travis Outlaw was also a first round pick in 2003). As things turned out, Brown had tremendous potential but never has lived up to it. Outlaw definitely was not ready to play professional basketball and took several years to develop. James was an instant star. It was his play in the Olympics that produced a gold medal for the U.S. team.

In this election, it's obvious which candidate is most like LeBron James.

So let's just stuff it about experience.

Sizing Up Former Presidents

Let’s take a look at presidents over the past 60 years as to how much experience they had before taking office:

Harry Truman: U.S. Senator for a decade before being selected as FDR’s vice president in 1944. So gobs of experience. He’s regarded now as a pretty good president, though his approval rating upon leaving office was just 22 percent.

Dwight Eisenhower: No conventional political experience, but a great deal of experience in managing an enormous operation—as supreme commander of allied forces in World War II. Considered a “do-nothing” president when he left office, he now is considered one of our better presidents.

John F. Kennedy: Six years in the House and seven years in the Senate. Compared to Nixon, he was called “inexperienced.” Actually, he had a lot of experience. Since he was assassinated in office, the jury is out on how good a president he was or would have been.

Lyndon Johnson: In 1964, when he was 58 years old and running for president against Barry Goldwater, he had spent exactly half of his life in national politics. That included 13 years in the House, 11 years in the Senate, six years as Senate Majority Leader, almost three years as vice president and one year as president. That’s hard to beat. Many regard him as a great president who was able to maneuver the landmark civil rights laws through Congress, as well as his Great Society programs. But his lack of judgment resulted in the U.S. getting deeper into the quicksand pit of Vietnam.

Richard Nixon: Before becoming Ike’s pick for vice president, Nixon has served in the House and Senate for a scant six years, so he didn’t have that much experience for that post. When he ran for president, however, he could claim eight years as vice president. He is always ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history, though he was pragmatic enough to go along with many liberal causes, such as the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and imposing wage and price controls.

Gerald Ford: Spent 25 years in the House before becoming Nixon’s vice president. A great deal of experience, and yet not much to write home about.

Jimmy Carter: One term as governor of Georgia (after a couple of terms as a state senator). Had executive experience, but his downfall was alienating a Democratic Congress. Conventional wisdom deems Carter’s one term as a failure, but I think he was pretty good and definitely visionary. He definitely is our best ex-president.

Ronald Reagan: Two terms as governor of California is what he had. Plenty of executive experience if you believe Reagan was running the show. Turned out to be fairly pragmatic while adhering to an ultraconservative agenda. He got what he wanted most of the time, but it's questionable that what he accomplished was good for the country.

George H.W. Bush: You want experience? Bush I had more than anyone. Six years in the House, ambassador to the U.N., envoy to China, CIA director and of course, Reagan's VP. So with all that, he turned out to be a poor to mediocre one-term president who only looks better in comparison to his son.

Bill Clinton: Arkansas attorney general for two years and the state's governor for 12, giving him extensive executive and domestic policy experience. He was first elected governor in 1978 and embarked on very liberal policies, which led to his defeat two years later. When he won in 1982, he was more careful. He remained politically cautious in the White House (with the ill-fated exception of Hillary's health care plan). A Republican-controlled Congress and his own foibles may have kept him from being a great president.

George. W. Bush: As a kid, he was exposed to the political experiences of his father, but he must not have payed attention. His business career brings to mind the old joke: What's the easiest way to make a small fortune?* He did have a fairly successful six-year run as governor of Texas. He is now generally judged to be one of the worst presidents in history.

So what does that tell us? That experience is no indicator of presidential greatness, or even competence.

We all know that, of course. Abraham Lincoln, considered our greatest president, had just two years in the House and four terms in the Illinois legislature. In fact, he hadn't been elected to anything for the 12 years prior to winning the presidency.

*Answer: Start with a large fortune.

Fear & Loathing Time Again

Girding for the Rovian Onslaught

The Rovians have landed again, laying waste to the nation's political climate like alien monsters out of War of the Worlds.

Already you can see their slimy tentacles going after Obama. To his credit, he's responding immediately, unlike Kerry in 2004. The problem with this approach is that he's always playing defense.

Obama—and all Democrats—need a Strategic Defense Initiative, essentially an umbrella ad that defuses the Republicans' smear tactics.

I'm not an advertising guru, but the SDI would go something like this:

Flash through clips of some of the Republicans' most egregious television ads. The Willie Horton ad that brought down Dukakis. The Swift boat ad. Maybe the ad that linked former Geogria Sen. Max Cleland, a war hero and triple amputee, to Osama Bin Laden. Heck, there might even be some kind of ad that Rove used against McCain in 2000. There's also a lot of opportunities to fine tune the ad with local examples in each market area.

While the clips are running, an authoritative voice is saying, “Back in 1988, they castigated Gov. Michael Dukakis for a prison furlough program that let a dangerous man out of prison, when the program had actually been started under his Republican predecessor. In 2002, they questioned the patriotism of war hero Max Cleland. Two years later, they did the same to John Kerry. All lies. It's easy to lie and spread rumors in a 60-second ad. The truth, though, takes a little longer. If you want the whole truth, you can find it here:

http://www.factcheck.org

That would be pretty gutsy for the Obama campaign, since FactCheck also criticizes some of Obama's ads. Overall, McCain's lies and distortions have been worse.

Or they could play it safe and refer voters to this:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

That URL uses a lot of words for a television ad, either verbal or on the screen. The web page isn't that dynamic, either. It also has a bunch of bad links.

Instead of the sleazy political ads, they also could do it funny by recalling some just plain stupid TV ads (think the Budweiser farting horse ad or the poor Kenyan runner forced to wear running shoes). Dredge up an ad for Enron or Countrywide. New York's Crazy Eddie (is he still around?). At the end, if it's legal, slip in a clip of the worst attack ad on Obama. Have the voice over say, “A lot of what you see on TV is ridiculous. That's okay for a brand of beer or a running shoe, but this year, there's a big difference between presidential candidates. To make an informed decision, forget what you see on TV and look here:”

Then run one of the web pages listed above.

A problem, of course, is that some of the voters Obama is trying to reach may actually like those ads.

If this all-purpose strategic wall is put up, it will foil a lot of the attack ads. The same kind of spot can be developed for radio, as well.

Still, this is playing defense. The Rovians are going to do whatever it takes to win the election, and that means making voters afraid. They won with an all-out fear offensive in 2004 and they will try it again. Fear trumps all other emotions when it comes to electing the next president. They will find a way to make people think that electing Obama will be tantamount to turning the United States over to the radical Islamic hordes.

On this one, though, Obama can take the offensive, and should. McCain's lack of judgment, ignorance of facts and volatile temper render him a loose cannon should he land in the White House.

The video is there; it doesn't have to be made up: McCain at a town hall meeting saying it would be fine if the U.S. was in Iraq for 100 years. McCain singing, “Bomb Bomb Iran” to the old Beach Boys tune. McCain having to be corrected by Joe Lieberman about Iraqi factions. And then there are all those quotes from fellow Republican senators who question is temperament.

Come September, the Obama campaign should be playing a compilation of McCain's greatest gaffes non-stop. If not the Obama campaign directly, then one of the 527s, like MoveOn.org, has to step up. I like the fact that Obama is taking the high road in this campaign. But if his opponent is truly dangerous—or as dense as the current occupant of the White House—it's important to let people know.

After all, the most effective political ad in history was the classic “Daisy” commercial that made voters think Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war if elected. It was pretty devastating, but Goldwater was really out on the fringe and had openly talked of using “tactical nuclear weapons.”

Goldwater, a maverick senator from Arizona, got trounced by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Let's hope history, this once, repeats itself.

The "Nanny State"

Enlightened Self-Interest?

About a decade ago, I went shopping for a pickup truck. My old one had been T-boned by a speeding car and was totaled. The insurance payoff wasn’t enough to buy a new truck, but it did give me the wherewithal to buy a good used one.

I spent several days scouring the lots on 82^nd and McGloughlin and yet couldn’t find the exact truck I wanted—a strong and sturdy half-ton with a fuel-efficient six cylinder engine and a manual transmission. So after enduring the sales vultures at several lots, I’m at one on McGloughlin and the sales guy is so laid back that I had to start talking to him. He showed me a couple of trucks and neither of them impressed me, but as I was walking away from the lot, a silver Mazda RX-7 sports car caught my eye.

Wouldn’t hurt to take it for a test drive, I figured. Not gonna buy it, but I might as well have some fun. So the sales guy gets the keys and we get in. It had dark maroon leather seats, a sun roof and it really drove well. I zipped it up and down a series of Milwaukie’s back roads. By the time I pulled it into the lot, I had sold it to myself. I dickered with the sales guy and his boss for awhile and got a couple hundred bucks off the sticker price, which means I left a lot more on the table. Then I drove it away.

It might have had something to do with having just gone through a divorce. My ex-wife had just bought a BMW. Whatever the rationalization behind buying the sports car, it was a totally irrational decision.

I’m recalling this misadventure now because so-called conservatives are nattering again about the “nanny state,” particularly here in Portland. `In Sunday’s Oregon, David Reinhard wrote: “Folks who think that individuals cannot be trusted to protect their own interests or make the best decision for themselves and their world will always find plausible, if attenuated, excuses to turn a traditionally private matter into a public cause celebre.”

Their mantra goes like this: “You don’t need the government telling you what to do. And you know how to spend your money better than the government does.”

Except, actually, you don’t.

Predictably Irrational

At least not all the time. Virtually every psychological study of human nature over the past decade—and there have been plenty of studies—demonstrates that people rarely make decisions by doing careful research and weighing the evidence. All kinds of emotions, biases and behavioral conditioning come into play.

A recent best-seller, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, by Duke University economics professor Daniel Ariely points out a number of human foibles. Such as this one on the fallacy of supply and demand.

The book covers a number of relevant topics as to how humans make decisions. We overweigh negative consequences, we make foolish decisions based on whether or not something is labeled as "free," social norms will often trump cost-benefit calculations, anchoring of choices skews our decision-making, and so on. Ariely concludes ". . .we are pawns in a game whose forces we largely fail to comprehend."

Given this information, one could take public policy in two different directions. You could argue that if we act irrationally as individuals, then that irrationality is magnified in groups, such as legislative bodies. You could also observe perversely that people will irrationally ignore warnings and other information put out by the government. To a certain extent, these points are true. Almost all laws are the results of compromises that frequently fail to solve the problem at hand.

Warnings Heeded

People continue to smoke cigarettes, despite the Surgeon Generals' warning on the side of each pack for the past 44 years. The percentage of people who smoke, however, has declined dramatically since 1964—from 42 percent to 20 percent. Thus the package warning, along with other forms of government propaganda, seems to have had a positive effect (unless you happen to work for a tobacco company).

In his Sunday column, Reinhard takes on recent local issues, from the new county law requiring chain restaurants to supply calorie information on their meals to the proposed city law to tax plastic and paper bags by as much as 20 cents per bag.

Reinhard totally ignores reality when ranting about the law proposed by state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, which would require all adult bicyclists to wear a helmet. “Now, there's every good reason for bicyclists to wear helmets, but that's just the point: Adult bicyclists can recognize their own self-interest without the state's help.” Really? If he ever got out of his office and mingled with the bike crowds in town, he'd notice at least a quarter of all adult bikers are helmetless.

State governments had to enact laws to get people to wear seatbelts in cars, even though rational adults know seat belts save lives. Those legislative battles were fought 20 years ago. Nowadays, you don't think twice about instantly putting on your seat belt when getting in a car. The law has modified people's behavior.

Sometimes people do act rationally, given information. In cities which have enacted laws requiring restaurants to post calorie counts, customers are averaging 50 fewer calories per order.

As for the grocery bag law, both paper and plastic pose environmental problems and some of these problems cost the government and/or the public money in dealing with bags that are thrown away. (Or worse, plastic bags that people throw in the recycling bin that gum up the sorting machines.) It makes sense, then to provide consumers with an incentive to bring their own bags. I have one I bought from Fred Meyer several months ago and most of the time, I leave it in my house. And usually, it's still in the house the next time a do some grocery shopping. Being a cheapskate, you can bet I'll remember that bag if I'm going to be charged 20 cents for one of the store's flimsy bags.

A Game With No Refs

Government regulation, on the whole, is a good thing. Commerce without regulation is like playing basketball without a referee. That works okay in pickup games in the park, but can you imagine how nasty it would get in the NBA finals if there were no refs? There's be a lot of cheating, a lot of arguing and undoubtedly several fights. Eventually the game would be so degraded that only thugs and fools would play it—sort of like today's stock market.

If you look at the kinds of cars owned by liberals and conservatives. an ironic picture emerges. The car of choice for ardent liberals is the Volvo 240 station wagon, which may be the best car for the money ever made. This car is sturdy, reliable, extremely safe, wonderfully comfortable and pretty fuel efficient if you get the five speed, four cylinder model—yet boring. It's the ultimate nanny state car, although there are others, such as most Toyotas, Hondas and Subarus.

Meanwhile, the archtypical archconservative drives a Hummer or other macho behemoth, for no good reason other than he or she has the money to own one. Or maybe because in a collision, the SUV will crush whatever it encounters (although it is more likely to just roll over).

So it's weird. The kind of people who think government should be involved in helping people make decisions act rationally when they buy cars. And the people who think its not the government's business to influence individual behavior make stupid decisions about cars.

Go figure.