More blaming and dividing than solving and compromising

Instead of how can we work together being talked about and embraced, the atmosphere in the nation's capital is more centered around how can be the lesser of two evils essentially. Both parties are not exactly popular and the other tries to point more blame on the other. There will always be disagreements among members of both parties but that has not stopped them from working together for the betterment of the country in years past. That attitude is no longer viewed as acceptable or preferred.

That aspect of creating more division than unity was highlighted by Gary Shapiro with this piece in Forbes:

Growing up, I felt our nation was united by several core beliefs: Opposition to communism, pride in our space program and agreement in the greatness and goodness of America. Sadly, today we have a horribly divided country with little that binds us other than history, geography and language.

Today’s fractured America is reflected in our political leaders, who are locked in a battle of blame. The Republicans blame big government and high taxes as the source of our problems. The Democrats blame big business and the wealthy as the scourge of the nation.

The intransigence of both sides sheds little light on a solution. The Republicans’ “no tax pledge” and the Democrats’ “no entitlements cuts” both reflect principled positions – but neither will solve our problems. They simply encourage agreements to kick the financial can on to our children.

Leadership is easy when times are good. But times are not good today and they may get worse. The irony is that these are the times when America needs leadership the most, and leadership starts at the top.

President Obama had — and still has — the opportunity to unite the nation. Most Americans want their President to succeed. Unfortunately, over the course of the last year, which has been the most critical moment for the White House, Obama has not stepped up to offer visionary leadership.

On spending, President Obama ignored the bipartisan recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission, a commission he created. Instead, he bowed to political pressure and cut a deal with Republicans to extend all the Bush tax cuts, thus only adding to our deficit woes. The Supercommittee, charged with providing the leadership on spending the president has all but abdicated, is unlikely to agree to a passable deal. This means that in 2012, the nation will have to confront the brutal prospect of mandatory cuts to defense ($454 billion) and Medicare ($123 billion).

On jobs, President Obama submitted a bill to Congress that he and his advisors (and the whole of the city of Washington) knew would not pass the House. As it happened, it didn’t even pass the Democratic Senate. Where’s the leadership in proposing a bill whose intent is aimed at reelection rather than putting Americans back to work?

Yet White House advisers believe the path to election is by rallying the public against the “rich” – the one percent who must be further taxed. Ironically, the proposals barely touch the Warren Buffets and other super-rich who derive their revenue from capital gains and dividends and keep the bulk of their wealth from taxation by setting up private charities and foundations. The proposed new taxes would fall only on the working wealthy who put in long hours to run businesses and employ Americans.

Not all politicians are so one dimensional as to avoid risks to solve national problems. Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner and some of his colleagues are urging entitlement cuts and tax increases, because they understand that we must all sacrifice to solve our national problems. And Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, math whiz, actually got most of his House colleagues to approve a politically risky spending-reduction bill with modest cuts to Medicare.

Even some business leaders have stepped up to fill the leadership gap. For instance, AOL founder Steve Case helped lead a presidential advisory committee whose recommendations included a series of good ideas which would jump start jobs and investment. These leaders recognize that a growth economy is absolutely vital and reduces the extremes by which government must cut spending or raise taxes. Growth would also help our states recover from their own budget shortfalls, which are forcing local governments to cut vital services.

Americans are also taking leadership and responsibility for their future. Certainly, the Tea Party has made spending restraint the focus point of all political debates. The Wall Street protests have fuzzier demands and seem consistent with the President’s attacks on business and the wealthy, but reflect a similar frustration with the status quo.

One group, No Labels, which is a bipartisan organization of politicians, activists and regular Americans, insists that all politicians put the nation before their parties. The group asks all Americans to urge politicians to solve our problems rather than blindly follow pledges or party platforms.

The Consumer Electronics Association, which I head, has also stepped up and created the Innovation Movement, which is focused on innovation as an engine of growth. Through trade, strategic immigration, broadband spectrum investment and sound fiscal policy we advocate that a strong national economy is essential not only to innovation but to the future prosperity of the nation.

Our nation is in trouble. Our political leaders are failing us and dividing the nation. It’s time every American stood up and demanded better leadership from our politicians. It is trite but true that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Congressional redistricting fallout: 10 incumbent against incumbent contests to watch

Every ten years, a census is taken. It generally produces one of two results with a third neutral option. Most talked about and monitored are the states that witness a growth in population and hence more membership in the U.S. House of Representatives and the states that witness a shrinking in population and hence less membership in the U.S. House. As is the case in most states, populations might shift; but overall totals do not warrant gaining or losing any seats. Additionally, as part of those scenarios; when a state loses membership it forces two incumbents to likely oppose one another in either a primary or general election.

With all that said, the Washington Post's "Fix" has provided ten races to watch in 2012 that involve two incumbents against one another.

To the top ten:

10) Steve Austria (R-Ohio) vs. Mike Turner (R-Ohio): This may be the biggest jump ball of all, but it’s also a matchup of back-benchers and lawmakers who most in Washington don’t really know. Republicans reshuffled the Ohio map to shore up Columbus-area Republicans who had increasingly difficult districts. The solution was to create a new Democratic-leaning district, but in the process, Austria and Turner had to be paired. The two men both currently represent a good chunk of the new district, and they have about the same amount of cash- -on-hand, with just more than $400,000 each.

9) Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) vs. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.): Washington Democrats wouldn’t be terribly sad to see either of these incumbents lose, as Hahn under-performed in a recent special election and Richardson’s personal troubles have mounted. The good news for the establishment is that they could both lose. State Assemblyman Isadore Hall (D) outraised both in the third quarter and already has more cash-on-hand. But if Hall and Richardson split the black vote, that could open things up for Hahn, who is white. The district is 28 percent black and 49 percent Hispanic.

8) Gary Miller (R-Calif.) vs. Ed Royce (R-Calif.): These two were the odd men out as four Republican-leaning Orange County districts were reduced to three. Miller has framed the race as between two ideologically similar candidates, but suggests he is the doer in Washington. Royce, meanwhile, is closer to House Republican leaders and has a huge early advantage in fundraising, with $3 million in his war chest compared to Miller’s $1 million. Miller doesn’t look like a guy gearing up for a tough campaign, either, as he raised just $58,000 in the third quarter.

7) Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) vs. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.): The freshman Kinzinger just decided that he would challenge ten-term lawmaker Manzullo, but the Democratic-drawn map didn’t give him much choice. While Manzullo has represented this territory for years and has a staunch conservative record, Kinzinger has quickly developed a national profile and has more money than Manzullo. The freshman raised $788,025 this cycle and has $567,012 cash-on-hand to Manzullo’s $433,588 raised and $483,994 on hand. Manzullo also hasn’t faced a tough race in over a decade, while Kinzinger unseated an incumbent Democrat last fall.

6) Jeff Landry (R-La.) vs. Charles Boustany (R-La.): The freshman Landry is trying to frame his looming primary fight as the tea party (him) versus the establishment (Boustany). The centerpiece of that argument is that Landry voted against increasing the debt ceiling in August while Boustany, who is close to House Republican leaders, supported the legislation. Boustany also supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout, which has been a liability in GOP primaries. But Boustany currently represents much more of the new 3rd district and has a longer history with the constituents. Landry slightly outraised Boustany in the third quarter, but Boustany ended September with $1.1 million on hand, as compared to $402,000 for Landry.

5) Gary Peters (D-Mich.) vs. Hansen Clarke (D-Mich.): Peters comes into the fight for Michigan’s most oddly-shaped new district with one distinct advantage: cash. He has twice as much money as Clarke ($839,000 to $423,000) and is a very strong fundraiser. Neither lawmaker is an old hand, as the map pits two rising stars against each other. But Peters can argue that he helped save the auto industry by taking on House Republicans. Peters’s biggest obstacle is the district’s slight black majority — Clarke is the son of an African-American mother and Bangladeshi father, and Peters is white — and that racial gap will be exaggerated in a Democratic primary. But both lawmakers have multiracial constituencies already, and another black politican — Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence (D) — is planning to run and split the black vote.

4) Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) vs Tom Latham (R-Iowa): Boswell has survived a series of heated races in recent years, but this matchup against Latham in the new 3rd district will be his toughest to date. Latham raised more than twice what Boswell brought in over the past three months and ended September with $1.7 million in the bank, as compared to $376,000 for Boswell. Latham moved from the new 4th district into this seat, and the district is about two-thirds Boswell territory. But the numbers suggest a jump ball.

3) Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) vs. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.): This matchup of freshmen could be one of the most entertaining. Walsh announced a month ago that he would run against Hultgren rather than in the Democratic-leaning 8th district. Walsh, who has been arguably the most outspoken tea-party freshman and a surprise winner last year, has already signaled that he will run against all of Washington — including his party leaders — and play up his vote against the debt- ceiling deal. But he’s got problems; namely, that his ex-wife says he owes $100,000 in back child support. Hultgren, meanwhile, has compared Walsh’s leadership style to none other than convicted former governor Rod Blagojevich (D).

2) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) vs. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio): The map here favors Kucinich; two-thirds of the new 9th district is in the Cleveland media market. But Toledo-based Kaptur is very popular with constituents, and she can argue that she never considered leaving the state, as Kucinich did when he flirted with running in Washington state. She’s also dominating Kucinich in cash right now -- $604,916 to $90,253 -- although Kucinich’s national support base should be able to easily close that gap. Even so, the former presidential candidate doesn’t have this one in the bag.

1) Howard Berman (D-Calif.) vs. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.): This could well be the single most expensive House race in the country before it’s all said and done. While state and national party leaders have tried to talk each of the men out of the clash, both are girding for battle. In the last three months alone, Berman, a veteran Democratic lawmaker, raised an eye-popping $819,000 — the third-highest total in the House — and ended the period with $2.25 million in the bank. Sherman collected just $174,000 in the third quarter but had $3.7 million on hand. This race, which will be fought in the in­cred­ibly expensive Los Angeles media market, is going to be expensive, nasty and long.

A need for a solution with the two party gridlock: a third party?

There is a growing atmosphere for less compromise and more partisanship. That is a formula that might be embraced and celebrated by party bases but counteracts the ability for members of both parties to come together to solve issues. It has been utilized by members of all over the political spectrum in years past. It has created an element for a need for the two parties to rise above petty arguments and for a voice to emerge to force that.

One voice is Mark McKinnon who provided the following insight and opinion in Politico:

Support for the two major political parties in America is hemorrhaging. It’s not hard to see why.

The politerati point to the 1992 presidential campaign as the last time public dissatisfaction with the political environment was so pervasive that a disruption to the status quo was even possible. Third-party independent candidate Ross Perot briefly led incumbent President George H.W. Bush and challenger Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. If he had maintained credibility, Perot might well have won.

But discontent today is far deeper. In 1992, just 39 percent of the public was dissatisfied with government. Today, a record high 81 percent is dissatisfied. Satisfaction has plummeted from 59 percent to just 19 percent. We are in uncharted waters.

If we were ripe for disruption in 1992, today most Americans must be damn close to grabbing their pitchforks and storming the barricades of the nation’s capital. King George was more beloved.

This thirst for dramatic change isn’t just Republican voters unhappy with the Obama administration’s policies. Democratic guru James Carville told CNN’s Erin Burnett last week: “There is a real yearning for something different in this country. It is going to produce something, I have no idea what, but something is coming here, I promise you.”

What accounts for this dramatic shift? Obviously, there is deep concern about a terrible economy and long, costly foreign conflicts. But there is something more dangerous: a fundamental breakdown in trust in government.

We send our representatives to Washington to fix problems. Yet every day offers examples of opportunities lost. We’ve gone from statesmanship to brinksmanship. Compromise means victory for the opposing party. Consensus means the loss of political leverage. And scoring political points seems more important than progress on policy.

Americans now have largely negative views of both parties. The public sees little difference between the effectiveness of either party when it comes to tackling the economy. And only 9 percent of likely voters rate Congress’ performance as good or excellent.

Republicans in Congress refuse tax increases, labeling them job-killing. (It’s hard to negotiate when you’ve signed a pledge, as most Republicans and a few Democrats have, binding you to no new taxes and linking subsidy elimination to rate decreases.) Democrats refuse spending cuts, also labeling them job-killing.

Yet, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support doing both, increasing taxes and cutting spending.

Unable to negotiate the policy changes necessary to avert the next financial crisis, Congress has deferred responsibility to a supercommittee. If an agreement is not reached there, automatic and dramatic across-the-board cuts kick in. The public is not hopeful: 74 percent think the committee will not reach agreement.

Voters feel increasingly disenfranchised. No party represents them. Fringe groups with microphones dominate the conversation. Super PACs with unlimited funding exert unlimited influence. Powerful political advocacy groups skirt disclosure rules.

I helped co-found No Labels to fight back against the hyper-partisanship and special interests now holding the system hostage. What we hear from voters is they want members of Congress to put their labels aside — and work together.

Often it’s not policy outcomes that are problematic — the very nature of the debate is contributing to the loss of confidence.

The debt-ceiling debate caused the consumer confidence index to collapse to its fourth lowest level since first measured in 1952, according to the pollster Bill McInturf,. The index today sits at 55. That’s more than 20 points below the average when a sitting president loses reelection.

The debt-ceiling debate was just one in the seemingly never-ending examples of the parties’ inability to forge consensus on anything — from contentious stimulus spending and health care reforms, to simple continuing budget resolutions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), by triggering the “nuclear option” in the Senate this week to block GOP amendments, only escalated the party standoff.

If the Republicans and Democrats in Washington cannot set aside their party loyalty, then the people are most likely to declare their independence again. Almost a third of voters today do not affiliate with either party, and 55 percent of Americans say a third party is needed.

Skeptics cite all the usual reasons why a third-party or alternative nominating process won’t work. But it’s mostly just pattern recognition. It’s the same reason they said we’d never elect an African-American president. Because we hadn’t, they said we wouldn’t.

These are different times. I don’t know how it’s going to happen. It could be the Americans Elect platform, or it could be in a self-funded independent candidacy, or a tea party candidate.

But, I’m with Carville on this one: Something is coming.

A call for a third option and party in Congress?

There has been a lot of dissatisfaction with both Democrats and Republicans. Between 2006, 2008, and 2010; voters expressed their fickle opinions with those in Congress and it would not be surprising if there were at least minor shake ups next year. With that in mind, it might becoming closer and closer to the day when a serious third party can emerge and give disenfranchised voters a third option. With that in mind, the Washington Post's Matt Miller presents an argument for a third option.

For Miller:

The more I talk about the need for a problem-solving third party in the “extreme” center, the more people come out of the woodwork to tell me they've reached the same conclusion. But some in high places have to keep their views secret, at least for now. That’s the case with one public policy leader who sent me a memo on how today’s polarized gridlock in Washington could be shaken up by a third party that targets Congress, not the presidency. As the Great American Disruption unfolds, from Occupy Wall Street to Americans Elect, this person’s ideas need to be in the mix. 

For starters, this person notes, it’s very hard in our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral college system for a third-party contender to win. The last one was Abraham Lincoln — but only a decade after Republicans (or their predecessors) started winning seats in Congress. There’s the risk of being a spoiler. And even if he or she won, how would a president elected this way be able to govern?

The better route to power is to target Congress, this person says. With Congress so divided — and voters mad, hurting and short-tempered — we’re in an era in which every election or two could see a swing of control back and forth between the parties. Yet the margins remain narrow enough that a third party could gain a decisive toehold by denying either party a majority. Imagine, this person posits, how the recent debt-ceiling debate would have played out if a third party controlled 25 seats in the House and four or five in the Senate.

How many states and districts could be in play? Research suggests that, thanks to partisan geographic “sorting” in recent decades, the bulk of states and districts are represented by senators and representatives with predictable ideologies. But 20 states and 100 districts look competitive. With the right effort, it’s conceivable that a third party could win enough of these seats to hold the balance of power.

Indeed, analysis suggests that today’s Congress represents the views of only about 40 percent of American voters. An economically conservative, socially liberal party focused on problem-solving could appeal to many who feel left out.

Sounds like someone needs to call a meeting. This person thinks a new organization (or 10, or 50) should raise money to do the research and polling to refine a list of promising states and districts; develop the associated agenda and messaging; and recruit and help finance candidates, with a view to running a slate as soon as 2014.

My own view is that fed-up patriots don’t have to pick between Congress and the White House. Why not both? Though the challenges are daunting, the megaphone (and organizing platform) of a presidential race is unparalleled. The right campaign could be the vehicle for championing and organizing around the broader structural changes the country needs in order to get serious about our problems, even as it exposes the hoaxes both parties are peddling.

Americans Elect is explicitly not a third party — but it’s developing the technology, procedural and ballot-access infrastructure that could enable new third-party congressional contenders in years to come. That infrastructure will get meatier Thursday with the release of AE’s “Briefing Book for Candidates and Draft Committees” on the group’s 2012 presidential nominating process.

The 39-page document is fascinating. These folks are rethinking from scratch how presidential nominations ought to work in the Internet age.

In a nutshell, AE candidates will qualify by meeting certain thresholds of “clicks” of support from delegates, many of whom they or draft committees are expected to recruit.

Several rounds of national convention voting will take place between April and June. By June 26, 2012, AE hopes that millions of delegates (including you, if you sign up) will nominate an independent ticket that has 50-state ballot access.

Being liberated from candidates selected through the usual pandering to a handful of party activists in Iowa or New Hampshire would be an incredible prize.

Whether the goal is Congress or the White House, something big is brewing. And, as with flustered financial executives confused about the protests on Wall Street, or party regulars who pat Americans Elect on the head for being a sweet little Internet idea, the powers that be are always the last to know.

A presidential winning strategy

The 2012 presidential election is a little more than a year away. The GOP field is starting to finally solidify and there will debate after debate as they try to distinguish themselves from one another and target President Barack Obama at the same time. The president will have a much harder road ahead of him going into 2012 compared to 2008, but there might be some promising news in the form of a tried and proven reelection math strategy.

Allan Lichtman, an American University professor, has created an election formula that has correctly called each election since President Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection. For Lichtman,

“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose."

In 1981, Lichtman developed a 13 Keys guide. Areas like incumbency and a scandal-free administration give him an advantage while a bit of a charisma and leadership challenge he is encountering this time around on top of issues like the Affordable Care Act make his road harder.

Under Lichtman's keys, the president or incumbent party needs to avoid six or more of the keys going against them in order to stave off defeat. Lichtman adds,

“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit. They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.
4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key.
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

College Football Week 2 Power Rankings

Due to the top 5 matchup to kickoff the year, one team was guaranteed to drop after just one week. That unfortunately for them was Oregon; the runner-up in last year's national title game. Besides that other top teams were able to avoid potential early stumbles as most romped their way to victory. Auburn, the team that beat Oregon, probably looked possibly the weakest out of those in top 20 (besides Notre Dame of course). Not surprisingly, the top two teams; Oklahoma and Alabama; had little trouble maintaining their rankings heading into Week 2.

Now for the Week 2 rankings (with previous week):

1)(1) Oklahoma (BYE)
2)(2) Alabama (at Penn State)
3)(5) LSU (vs Northwestern State)
4)(4) Stanford (at Duke)
5)(6) Boise State (BYE)
6)(7) South Carolina (at Georgia)
7)(8) Florida State (vs Charleston Southern)
8)(9) Oklahoma State (vs Arizona)
9)(14) Wisconsin (vs Oregon State)
10)(3) Oregon (vs Nevada)
11)(10) Texas A&M (BYE)
12)(11) Nebraska(vs Fresno State)
13)(12) Virginia Tech (at East Carolina)
14)(13) Ohio State (vs Toledo)
15)(15) Arkansas (vs New Mexico)
16)(20) Mississippi State (at #21 Auburn)
17)(16) Michigan State (vs Florida Atlantic)
18)(21) Florida (vs UAB)
19)(NR) Baylor(BYE)
20)(23) Arizona State (vs #22 Missouri)
21)(19) Auburn (vs #16 Mississippi State)
22)(24) Missouri (at #20 Arizona State)
23)(NR) West Virginia (vs Norfolk State)
24)(22) USC (vs Utah)
25)(NR) Texas (vs Brigham Young)

Dropped from the rankings: #17 TCU, #18 Notre Dame, #25 Georgia

Next best 5:

1) Penn State (vs #2 Alabama)
2) Georgia (vs #6 South Carolina)
3) TCU (at Air Force)
4) USF (vs Ball State)
5) Iowa (at Iowa State)

College Football Week 1 Preview

The long wait is over! Roughly 8 months after QB Cam Newton led Auburn to the national title over Oregon, a season begins with questions surrounding those two teams and several others. Multiple top teams like Oklahoma and Alabama begin a quest to a national title with warm ups. Notable programs Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida begin with similarly easy games with new head coaches at the helm. And, there is some speculation that Notre Dame might be able to rebound this year after a series of tough years since QB Brady Quinn left South Bend. Add to that troubles at LSU and Miami (FL) as well as some early make or break games around the country.

The first week of the season will be headlined by Oregon against LSU in Dallas, TX and Boise State against Georgia in Atlanta, GA. Boise State, like last year, has a favorable schedule to run the table after this one if they win. Last year was another fairly successful year with picks and I begin a quest for a similar season of picks.

Like in the past, besides the top 5 games of the week; I will run down a few other interesting ones featuring top 25 teams as well as unranked matchups.

The intriguing other games of Week 1:

Thursday, September 1
North Carolina Central at Rutgers: This one will not jump off the page unless you, like me, went to Rutgers...or happen to be from North Carolina Central. Rutgers continue the quest to obtain that elusive Big East title and BCS bowl birth under head coach Greg Schiano. That prospect looks very challenging this year, but if they take one game at a time; you never know considering the Big East has had a revolving door of conference champions.

Saturday, September 3
Akron at No. 18 Ohio State: The post Jim Tressel-Terrelle Pryor era begins and it should start very good. How well they might do this year could be dictated by how sharp they are in this one.

Utah State at No. 23 Auburn: Auburn begins its defense of their national title without Newton and DT Nick Fairley. The two led the team is many ways last year. Utah State is not a push over game and if Auburn is not sharp they could flirt with being upset.

Kent State at No. 2 Alabama: Alabama is the early favorite for many to win the SEC and that usually means a birth in the national title game. HB Trent Richardson will now be the featured back with Heisman Winner, HB Mark Ingram, off to the New Orleans Saints.

Appalachian State at No. 13 Virginia Tech: Last year they started 0-2, which included a tough loss to Boise State at Fed Ex Field in Landover, MD. They would win the rest of their games after that. The Hokies could be a team outside the top 10 that makes a run and situates itself on the bubble of the national title game. Oh, and for those who forgot Appalachian State went to the Big House in Ann Arbor, MI and upset Michigan. Blacksburg is a similar tough environment, but this time around; an upset seems even less likely.

USF at No. 16 Notre Dame: South Florida head coach Skip Holtz returns to Notre Dame, where he played and his dad, Lou, coached. Notre Dame has some higher expectations this year and needs to avoid an upset to start their season. There is decent talent on the Notre Dame offense, but the defense must also play well and keep USF QB B.J. Daniels in check. He has speed and can be accurate when needed. The light will shine again in South Bend. The Irish will disappoint many with a loss and could set up another tough year.

San Jose State at No. 7 Stanford: Stanford only has Oregon standing in front of them on their path to a Pac-12 title in its inaugural season. That could mean Stanford and not Oregon goes to the national title game this year. QB Andrew Luck can further improve his stock this year and expect lots of points in this one by him.

East Carolina vs. No. 12 South Carolina (in Charlotte, NC): South Carolina had one of its best seasons ever as it fell just short of winning the SEC championship and likely garnering strong consideration for a national title birth. The expectations are high and they need to avoid trap games like this one before they even start their conference schedule with even more twists and turns.

Tulsa at No. 1 Oklahoma: Oklahoma starts the year as the top team in the nation. They run the table, they are guaranteed a shot at the national title. That has not happened for a No.1 since the USC glory days of the 2000s. Games ahead will be more challenging than this one, but getting the dust off now will go a long way.

Rice at Texas: Texas had its first lose season in a long time and head coach Mack Brown will have this squad fired up to start against Rice, but how they operate without Will Muschamp as their defensive coordinator could be telling if they do struggle again.


Now onto the top 5 of Week 1:

Top 5:

5) Indiana vs. Ball State (in Indianapolis, IN): A showcase type of game on neutral ground. Both teams want to start strong and ties and back and forth battles could be part of this one. In the end, Ball State scores late in the game to seal the win. PREDICTION: BALL STATE

4) Miami (FL) at Maryland (Monday, September 5th): The lights of Monday Night Football ascend on college football again for Labor Day. And it features an ACC team once again as two potential sleepers to Florida State's path to the conference crown set up for a key game. Miami (FL) has had to deal with a major off the field issue for the better part of the last month and will not have a few starters for this one. A new era begins in Maryland and they finished so so last year with some promise. They look to improve on that, but there are still a few crafty guys on Miami (FL) to potentially edge this one out; however the missing guys will hurt them in the end. Close one! PREDICTION: MARYLAND

3) No. 14 TCU at Baylor (Friday, September 2nd): I am not expecting a defensive struggle as Baylor's Robert Griffin III has the potential to put on a showcase on the national stage while TCU is breaking in a new quarterback in Casey Pachall with Andy Dalton's departure to the Cincinnati Bengals. TCU dominated this game last year, but TCU's defense will have much more pressure on it especially as Griffin matures as a big player. TCU ran the table last year, but potentially could start 2011 0-1. However, they will do enough to keep Griffin's damage to a decent minimum as they make a late defensive play that seals the game. PREDICTION: TCU

2) No. 5 Boise State vs. No. 19 Georgia (in Atlanta, GA): Boise State's quest for more respect takes them to Atlanta, GA and a game against No. 19 Georgia coming off a losing season. The Bulldogs will have that on their mind on top of the pressure of the SEC schedule ahead. Boise State downed Virginia Tech last year and fell a couple kicks short of an undefeated season and potential title game birth. Their schedule looks good again after Georgia. Georgia has something to prove as well as they have gone from top tier program in the SEC to bottom half embarrassment. Boise State QB Kellen Moore will be the difference maker in this one. He plays big in big games and barring an unusual performance by him; they should find a way to do it again. PREDICTION: BOISE STATE

1) No. 3 Oregon vs. No. 4 LSU (in Arlington, TX): Not often do you start a season with a top 5 battle. It usually takes a season of games to get to that point (not counting the SEC sometimes). Speed, speed, speed is the thing to watch in this one. They both process a lot of it. LSU's recent off the field issues has put a big warning sign up for them as they turn to QB Jarrett Lee to help guide them to a big premier victory. The turnover battle could be of extra importance as in games like this; turnovers are much harder to overcome against superior talent. A trick play is also not out of the question with both of these head coaches. Lead changes will also be the norm here. LSU scores late, but leaves enough time for LaMichael James to put an early stamp on his run for a Heisman with a final score. PREDICTION: OREGON

College Football Week 1 Power Rankings

The excitement that was Oregon against Auburn for the national title is about to finally be put in the rearview mirror. QB Cam Newton of Auburn is now in Carolina with the Panthers and they will need to rebuild after his departure. Oregon on the other hand loses poised to potentially return to the title game and finish what they started. However, a few former BCS champions look prepared to add another trophy to their case.

A great deal of the college football talk leading up to the opening kickoff has been about the Oklahoma Sooners. They field talent around their offense led by QB Landry Jones and have a schedule that could favor their chances of playing for the title. However, Alabama looks like they could reign again in the SEC now that Auburn will take a step back. The Tide will need to keep one eye on LSU and an another on South Carolina along the way. And, one cannot forget about Boise State, who could find themselves in the title hunt again.

Now to get to the Week 1 rankings as another season prepares to start

Top 25

1) Oklahoma (vs Tulsa)
2) Alabama (vs Kent State)
3) Oregon (vs #5 LSU)
4) Stanford (vs San Jose State)
5) LSU (vs #3 Oregon)
6) Boise State (at #25 Georgia)
7) South Carolina (vs East Carolina)
8) Florida State (vs Louisiana-Monroe)
9) Oklahoma State (vs Louisiana-Lafayette)
10) Texas A&M (vs SMU)
11) Nebraska (vs Tennessee Chattanooga)
12) Virginia Tech (vs Appalachian State)
13) Ohio State (vs Akron)
14) Wisconsin (vs UNLV)
15) Arkansas (vs Missouri State)
16) Michigan State (vs Youngstown State)
17) TCU (at Baylor)
18) Notre Dame (vs South Florida)
19) Auburn (vs Utah State)
20) Mississippi State (at Memphis)
21) Florida (vs Florida Atlantic)
22) USC (vs Minnesota)
23) Arizona State (vs UC Davis)
24) Missouri (vs Miami (OH))
25) Georgia (vs #6 Boise State)

Next best 5:

1) West Virginia (vs Marshall)
2) Texas (vs Rice)
3) North Carolina State (vs Liberty)
4) Penn State (vs Indiana State)
5) Iowa (vs Tennessee Tech)

Myths that lurk in the political dark

Probably every field has some myths and theories. Politics and conversely history have some of their own. This week a collection of 11 political myths was published by CNN's Ed Hornick. Here are those 11 for your consideration and understanding.

1) The myth: George Washington wasn't the first U.S. president.

The facts: Theorists say it was actually John Hanson, the president of the Continental Congress, who served as the nation's first president, not George Washington. That claim is simply false. The office of "President of the United States" was created under the Constitution in 1787, long after Hanson died.

2) The rumor: George W. Bush has the lowest IQ of all the presidents.

The facts: A report by the Lovenstein Institute in 2001 found that George W. Bush had the lowest IQ of any president in the past 50 years. The report was discovered on the website lovenstein.org. The problem? There is no Lovenstein Institute and no report.
Case solved.

3) The myth: Washington Redskins always predict the presidential winner.

The facts: The claim is that, since 1936, the outcome of the Washington Redskins' last home game before the presidential election has predicted the outcome of who wins the White House. The way it works: If the Redskins lose, the incumbent party loses; if they win, the incumbent wins. Although the circumstances have worked out for 17 elections in modern history, it is just another political superstition that pundits love to use -- or maybe to fill time. In 2004, the Redskins lost to the Green Bay Packers 28-14 on October 31. Under the myth, incumbent President George W. Bush should have lost to Democratic Sen. John Kerry. That was not the case. Kerry lost, too.

4) The myth: Sarah Palin didn't give birth to baby Trig.

The facts: Soon after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was announced as Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential running mate, rumors abounded that her newborn son, Trig, who was born with Down syndrome, was not hers. The McCain campaign, along with Palin herself, shot down the rumor. Conspiracy theorists, now called "Trig Truthers," point to photos taken in late March of that year in which Palin's stomach appears, they say, to be flat -- not the image of an expectant mother. But other photos show her with a round stomach. Then there's the question of why Palin waited so long to seek medical attention after her water broke during a trip to Texas. Reports indicate that it took more than 15 hours for her to get to a hospital after flying back to Alaska. Some claimed that the baby, born in April, might have been that of teenage daughter Bristol. But Bristol gave birth to her own child, Tripp, in December. Myth busted.

5) The theory: The government was behind the September 11 attacks.

The facts: The September 11 terrorist attacks have become a lightning rod for conspiracy theorists who have offered alternative explanations to the horror of that day. Some of the theories include that the U.S. government was behind the entire terror plot, including taking down the World Trade Center, in order to take the country to war in the Middle East; the Pentagon was not hit by a commercial plane but rather by a missile; and United Flight 93 did not crash after passengers stormed the cockpit, but an Air Force jet took it out. Popular Mechanics magazine looked into the claims and was able to "debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense."

6) The myth: Sen. John McCain had an illegitimate black child.

The facts: There was an effort during the 2000 GOP presidential primaries to start a smear campaign against John McCain, who was running a tight race against George W. Bush in South Carolina, saying the Arizona senator had an illegitimate black child.
In an interview with NBC's "Today Show" last year, political operative Karl Rove, who was said to have been behind the story, shot down the claim. He said he had "nothing to do" with the rumor, adding that it came from "a professor at Bob Jones University" and not the Bush campaign. McCain and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Bush ended up winning South Carolina 53% to 42%.

7) The charge: The Clintons were responsible for the death of Vince Foster.

The facts: In summer 1993, Vince Foster, deputy White House counsel in the Clinton administration and close friend to the first couple, was found dead in a federal park in northern Virginia. Investigators ruled it a suicide. In 1994, the Arkansas Project -- an effort to discredit the Clintons -- raised the idea that the couple was responsible for the murder of Foster and others who may have had incriminating evidence against the former Arkansas governor. Three investigations into the death turned up no evidence of a link. The Clintons have emphatically denied any involvement. The rumor, however, found its way into the media and GOP circles.

8) The charge: Rep. Gary Condit was involved in Chandra Levy's disappearance.

The facts: The 2001 disappearance of Chandra Levy, an intern for the federal Bureau of Prisons, drew national attention after her parents discovered a connection with then-Rep. Gary Condit, D-California. He was never a suspect in the case but was questioned intensively for details as to Levy's whereabouts. Condit was also rumored to have had a sexual relationship with Levy an allegation he repeatedly refused to answer. But Condit's semen was found on her underwear, according to an FBI biologist who testified at a trial in 2010. Levy's body was found in a Washington park more than a year after her disappearance. Salvadoran immigrant Ingmar Guandique -- who was in prison for another crime -- was convicted in her killing and sentenced in 2011 to 60 years in prison.

9) The theory: Someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

The facts: Decades after President John F. Kennedy's assassination in Dallas, the shooting and the events that followed continue to fascinate many Americans.
Much of that interest rests on the theory that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy -- not the act of a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Theories include that Kennedy "was killed by CIA agents acting either out of anger over the Bay of Pigs or at the behest of Vice President Lyndon Johnson," by the KGB or by "mobsters mad at Kennedy's brother for initiating the prosecution of organized crime rings," according to Time magazine. But the Warren Commission, established to investigate the assassination, found that Oswald was the lone gunman -- and that there was not a second shooter.

10) The myth: President Zachary Taylor was poisoned to death.

The facts: Taylor, the nation's 12th president, was rumored to have died after being poisoned with arsenic, possibly by his wife. But the claim was debunked by DNA scientists in 1991. Medical officials in Kentucky ruled that he was not poisoned but rather died because of natural causes, such as gastroenteritis. The results were obtained after testing Taylor's tissue samples. "The question of whether he was poisoned or not will no longer hang over us," Coroner Richard F. Greathouse of Jefferson County told the New York Times. "We've put that to rest once and for all."
Arsenic was found, but state officials said it was in levels too low to be considered deadly.

11) The myth: Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

The facts: CNN has investigated these claims by "birthers" who say the nation's 44th president was not born in America and thus is not eligible to be president. The Obama team and the state of Hawaii released a certification of live birth that documents the president's birth on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu. This is not the original birth certificate but is a valid legal document. In Hawaii and other states, original birth certificates are not released when requested later. The certificate, officials say, allows a person born in Hawaii to get a driver's license, purchase land and obtain a U.S. passport. The "birthers" claim that Obama doesn't want to show the birth certificate because it may claim that he wasn't born in America. But state officials -- including Gov. Neil Abercrombie and Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health -- said they saw the document, and Obama was born in the U.S. In addition, his birth announcement appeared in two Honolulu papers. The announcements are provided to the newspapers by the Department of Health and not members of the public, according to officials.

Foreign Policy v. the Economy: Where should Obama focus in 2012

Each electoral cycle, candidates must figure out where to position their priorities when it comes to the issues. Sometimes it is based on the candidate's opponent(s). Sometimes it is based largely on their strengths and accomplishments. As President Obama stands roughly 18 months away from the 2012 presidential election, he must decide where to focus his campaign on. He has had accomplishments and setbacks during his two plus years in office. The New York Times' Michael Shear posed the question of where President Obama should focus more on in 2012: foreign policy or the top issue facing the country, the economy. Whomever emerges as the Republican challenger to Obama and the White House could influence where Obama puts effort and focus on. Nonetheless, despite the candidate, there are arguments that could be made for both.

As Shear presents, the case for putting the primary focus on foreign policy is:

1) The lack of foreign policy credentials on the Republican side is a historical aberration for a party that has traditionally gravitated toward candidates whose primary credentials relate to America’s role abroad. (The two with some experience this year: Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and the current China ambassador; and John Bolton, the former United Nations ambassador. Neither has said for sure he is running.)

2) While the economy is improving slowly, many economists predict that unemployment is likely to still be above 8 percent by the time Election Day rolls around. Asking to be returned to the White House because things could have been worse is a tough message to sell, as the 2010 midterm elections showed.

3) Arguments over the debt and the deficit look deadlocked and politically dangerous, at least in the near term. Already, Democrats are split as to whether voters will reward or punish politicians for confronting Social Security and Medicare directly. Meanwhile, most Republicans have refused to even entertain the idea of raising revenue, otherwise known as taxes. Mr. Obama is likely to be caught in the middle of that issue.

4) Shifting the conversation toward foreign policy heightens the contrast between a candidate with presidential stature and his out-of-office rivals. The images of Mr. Obama in the Situation Room or standing shoulder-to-shoulder with world leaders make the Republicans who are campaigning in Iowa look small.

5) Mr. Obama generally earns higher marks for his adventures overseas than he does for his domestic accomplishments. He has made good on his promise to begin a significant troop withdrawal in Iraq. He has negotiated a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. However, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, where the president has increased American involvement, has become increasingly unpopular.

6) A decade after the September 11 attacks, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on his watch — a statistic that was often cited by President Bush as evidence that his administration was winning the war on terror.

Just as those make a case for focusing primarily on foreign policy, the case for putting the primary focus on the economy is:

1) The truth about wars and disasters is that they command attention at first, and later fade as the public turns back to their daily concerns. It’s already happening with the crisis in Japan. And the conflict in the Middle East and North Africa will seem more distant if forces from the United States really do hand over operations to European and regional forces.

2) Even when they are in the news, foreign events are unpredictable and difficult to manage. Mr. Obama found that out when he pledged on his first day in office to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. It remains open today chiefly because the administration has had difficulty finding allies willing to take the detainees into their countries. Basing a campaign on the whims of foreign interactions would be dangerous at best.

3) The economy continues to struggle, but the news has been steadily, if slowly, improving on the economic front, with more than a year of modest job growth each month and economic measures like the markets, consumer spending and income growth have been moving in a positive direction. That improvement has not yet translated into a lot of optimism among the public. In an Associated Press-GfK poll released on Wednesday, Americans said they were growing more pessimistic — not less — about the future. But the same survey suggested that Mr. Obama was not the target of the pessimism and that his approval ratings over all and on the economy were holding steady, at 50 percent and 47 percent respectively. (Other recent polls, however, have shown his approval on the economy lower.)

4) Even if the president wanted to talk about foreign affairs, the political conversation in Washington is being driven by lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who are gearing up for a yearlong battle over the nation’s debt and deficits. Mr. Obama is all but certain to be drawn into that conversation.

5) The president’s first year in office largely set the tone for his administration, whether he liked it or not. The stimulus program, the bank and auto bailouts, the fights overfinancial regulation legislation and health care provided Mr. Obama with a record that he now has to sell to the public.

6) The lack of foreign policy credentials for most of the likely 2012 Republican candidates offers an opportunity for Mr. Obama. But it also means that the men and women who are running for the Republican nomination will focus on what they know: domestic issues like immigration, gas prices, job losses, taxes, government spending and the debt. Candidates like Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, or Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, will all seize on the economy’s weaknesses to call for an end to Mr. Obama’s administration. His challenge will be to construct a narrative that pushes back against their charges.

7) The 2010 midterm campaign offered Mr. Obama a clear example of what can happen when Democrats don’t successfully control that narrative. Republicans captured the House and made big gains in the Senate almost exclusively by tapping into anger about the economy, health care and jobs.

Much of what candidates do during a campaign depend heavily on whomever one's challenger(s) is, but also what issues grip the public's attention and concern. Both foreign policy and the economy will be major parts of presidential debates and the campaign cycle. How Obama decides to juggle them and other issues could impact how the election might unfold.

Statuary Hall Battle: Hanson v. Tubman

During the tail end of the Civil War, a commission was created to liven up the U.S. Capitol. The decision was made to contact all the states and allow them to donate two statues to the U.S. Capitol building. The statues were to be dignities and important individuals in a given state's history. By the early 1900s, the building began to start filling up the old U.S. House chambers with statues donated.

One of the states that sent their pair at the dawn of the new century was Maryland. For their choices, they sent two important founders not only for their state, but the country as a whole. Charles Carroll, the last living signer of the Declaration of Independence, and John Hanson, an early President of the Continental Congress. Over a hundred years after Hanson's statue was placed in the U.S. Capitol; there is a stir brewing to replace him with a much more notable Marylander. That individual is Harriet Tubman.

Since 2000, three states have decided to switch one of their statues for a more notable member of their state. Now, Maryland could be teetering with becoming the four state to switch a statue up.

The Washington Post gave a nice summary and focus this week:


Harriet Tubman has history on her side. But does she have the votes?

The famous abolitionist is locked in a historical steel-cage match with the increasingly forgotten patriot John Hanson - one that's playing out not far from John Hanson Highway in Annapolis, where Maryland lawmakers, historians and activists have been debating whether to refresh the state's history by dumping Hanson in favor of Tubman.

At stake: one of 100 marble pedestals in the exclusive if not always accessible National Statuary Hall Collection at the U.S. Capitol.

For the past 108 years, Hanson, a leading advocate of American independence, has been honored at the Capitol with a larger-than-life statue that the public almost never sees. Wearing a tricorn hat, waistcoat, breeches and other colonial-era clothes, the old Southern Marylander's 7-foot, 3-inch bronze likeness peers down at lawmakers and legislative aides rushing through a restricted-access corridor outside the Senate chamber.

Hanson was a member of the Continental Congress and in 1781 was elected as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled." But as time marches on, he slips deeper into the margins of history, his legacy imperiled even in his home state.

"I don't even know who he is," Leslie Rowland admitted from College Park, where she teaches mid-19th-century American history at the University of Maryland.

Now Hanson could be in jeopardy of fading even further into obscurity, with Maryland lawmakers considering a proposal to replace the former slave owner with a hero of the Underground Railroad.

Tubman, who was born into slavery in Dorchester County, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, would be the first African American and the 10th woman in the 100-member marble-and-bronze club that Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) has called a "diversity embarrassment."

"The collection reflects basically a white male view of history," said Linda Mahoney, president of the Maryland chapter of the National Organization for Women, which has lobbied for the Tubman statue. "It's time to update Maryland's representatives in National Statuary Hall and take a different look at history. . . . Harriet Tubman is the ultimate icon, especially for women and African Americans. She's an obvious selection."

The bill, which was sponsored in the House by the chair of the women's caucus and in the Senate by the chair of the black caucus, could face its first test in a Senate committee vote Tuesday.

Tubman has some prominent backers, including Gov. Martin O'Malley (D). But several lawmakers, including one of Hanson's own descendants and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Calvert), have argued vigorously against ousting the largely forgotten patriot, even if it's to make way for a widely admired name-brand historical figure such as Tubman.

Racial and gender divide

The debate is fraught with potential land mines on race and gender. The key players for the most part have spoken cautiously about the bill, which has considerable support among women and African Americans, Mahoney said.

Will it be enough? Maybe not.

"There's a certain part of the legislature that's less forward-looking and progressive - good old boys who've been in power for so long," Mahoney said.

Upon hearing of the comment, Miller was furious. "To talk about 'good old boys' is just nonsense," he said. "This is not Mississippi. This is Maryland."

"Unfortunately, it seems like a line is being drawn in the sand, and I don't like that," said Sen. Thomas "Mac" Middleton, a direct descendant of Hanson's brother and a Democrat from Charles County, where John Hanson was born nearly 300 years ago, in what was then the British Province of Maryland.

The proposal is something like a historical Sophie's Choice to Middleton. "This is really causing me a lot of heartburn," he said. "In no way do I want to diminish Harriet Tubman. I'm very supportive of efforts to memorialize her."

"But removing the statue of John Hanson takes away from the significance of who he was. He's a very important part of our history - the first president of what became the United States."

Most historians say that Hanson's role as President of the United States in Congress Assembled was more akin to House Speaker than POTUS. Still, Middleton likens the proposal to removing George Washington from the collection.

Maryland legislators sent Hanson's likeness to the Capitol in 1903, along with a statue of Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Virginia sent Washington and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The District is still lobbying for inclusion somewhere in the Capitol's lineup of statues, which includes some, such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s in the Rotunda, that aren't part of the Statuary Hall collection.

The collection began in 1864 through an act of Congress, which invited the states "to provide and furnish statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each state, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military service."

In 2000, Congress empowered the states to swap out their earlier selections and reshape the statuary view of American history. Kansas replaced George Washington Glick (who?) with Dwight D. Eisenhower in 2003. In 2009, Alabama sent Helen Keller in place of Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry (who?) while California sent Ronald Reagan to replace Thomas Starr King (who?), whose descendants and supporters were aggrieved.

Moving history's spotlight is a touchy process; somebody always feels slighted.

Miller, who presides over the state Senate while standing next to a smaller version of the same Hanson statue that sits at the U.S. Capitol, acknowledged the need to memorialize Tubman in Washington. "She is a hero who belongs to the whole United States, not just the state of Maryland," he said.

But the proposal to get Tubman into Statuary Hall at Hanson's expense is "unacceptable," he said. "John Hanson was a great patriot and an important part of Maryland's history and of America's history. He needs to be honored, not removed."

When Miller's predecessors in the statehouse took up the business of considering Maryland's candidates for Statuary Hall more than a century ago, Hanson wasn't even on the short list, according to an 1897 story in the Baltimore Sun. The nine in contention were: Charles Carroll; Roger B. Taney; Francis Scott Key; Thomas Johnson; John Eager Howard; Cecilus Calvert; General William Pinkney; William Smallwood; and Stephen Decatur.

Lawmakers settled on the selection of Carroll, who lived longer than any other signer of the Declaration of Independence. They they began to whittle the candidates for the second slot, focusing primarily on Johnson, the state's first governor and a former Supreme Court justice, and Howard, a former governor and U.S. senator.

But Hanson's dark-horse candidacy, promoted by the Maryland Historical Society, began to take shape, and eventually he won out - though he was nearly replaced in a committee vote by Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner."

"He was not exactly an overwhelming choice in the first place," said Kenneth Cohen, a St. Mary's College assistant history professor. Hanson was an important historical figure and worthy of inclusion in the collection, Cohen said - but the homogeneous composition of Maryland's statuary delegation could stand to change.

"I don't want to use the word redundant, but we have two Revolutionary political leaders representing Maryland, and you wonder if there were great Marylanders who did anything apart from the Revolution," Cohen said. "Certainly there were. That should bear on their decision, which will be significant because it reflects how the representatives - and through them, the people of Maryland - remember their past. It matters because it reflects our public memory."


Time will tell if Tubman or Hanson supporters will win out. Hanson despite lacking the name recognition of Tubman played a huge role not only in Maryland's early history, but the nation's. Something that should be weighed highly next to Tubman's role with the Underground Railroad and her contributions throughout her life.

Lincoln Addresses the Nation

150 years ago, President-elect Abraham Lincoln had arrived in Washington, DC and was prepared to address the nation as he assumed the mantle of the presidency with a looming Civil War on the horizon. Times have probably never been tougher up to then and since. America was never and has not been as divided as it was in the early part of 1861.

The New York Times has taken a closer look at the road to the Civil War and that includes Lincoln's inauguration. They gathered opinions here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/lincoln-addresses-the-nation/?ref=opinion&nl=opinion&emc=tya1

Furthermore, here is Lincoln's speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/04/opinion/20110304_Lincoln_Inaugural_Speech.html

Lincoln spent that March day preparing himself and the nation for the road ahead.

Mayor Bloomberg's Common Sense Perspective on Union Debate

With last fall's midterm elections came a new batch of Republican governors. One, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, has assumed a national spotlight this month as he has literally attacked unions' rights. Most would agree that unions' benefits need to be adjusted in order for states to function during a recession in order to budget for other necessities while still trying to boost job creation. Some on the far left and others on the far right are at times poisoned the debate with a lack of common sense perspective. One side is not willing to budge on anything and the other side wants to strip unions of all of their rights and "privileges" that come along with someone who serves the public. With all that in mind, an opinion article by New York City Michael Bloomberg caught my eye. He is an Independent and with that comes a perspective that often is balanced. In the following article, he outlines the tough decisions and the best balanced way to approach them. Governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and even right here in my home state of New Jersey can learn from what Mayor Bloomberg proposes. It creates a path that all can be open and willing to discuss that solves the problems that face states and the country.

Here is Mayor Bloomberg's article:

IN Ohio, Wisconsin and other states facing budget deficits, some elected officials assert that closing those gaps requires achieving labor savings and weakening labor unions. They are half-right.

Across the country, taxpayers are providing pensions, benefits and job security protections for public workers that almost no one in the private sector enjoys. Taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue paying these costs, which are growing at rates far outpacing inflation. Yes, public sector workers need a secure retirement. And yes, taxpayers need top-quality police officers, teachers and firefighters. It’s the job of government to balance those competing needs. But for a variety of reasons, the scale has been increasingly tipping away from taxpayers.

Correcting this imbalance is not easy, but in a growing number of states, budget deficits are being used to justify efforts to scale back not only labor costs, but labor rights. The impulse is understandable; public sector unions all too often stand in the way of reform. But unions also play a vital role in protecting against abuses in the workplace, and in my experience they are integral to training, deploying and managing a professional work force.

Organizing around a common interest is a fundamental part of democracy. We should no more try to take away the right of individuals to collectively bargain than we should try to take away the right to a secret ballot. Instead, we should work to modernize government’s relationship with unions — and union leaders should be farsighted enough to cooperate, because the only way to protect the long-term integrity of employee benefits is to ensure the public’s long-term ability to fund them. In Wisconsin, efforts to rein in spending on labor contracts have included proposals to strip unions of their right to collectively bargain for pensions and health care benefits.

Yet the problem is not unions expressing those rights; it is governments failing to adapt to the times and act in a fiscally responsible manner. If contract terms or labor laws from years past no longer make sense, we the people should renegotiate — or legislate — changes. Benefits agreed to 35 years ago that now are unaffordable should be reduced. Similarly, work rules that made sense 70 years ago but are now antiquated should be changed.

In New York City, we share the same goal as cities and states across the nation — less spending and better services. We, too, are seeking to legislate changes to reduce pension and benefit costs and modernize our labor laws. But in some cases, we believe expanding collective bargaining would be more beneficial than trying to eliminate it.

For example, in New York, state government — not the city — has the authority to set pension benefits for city workers, but city taxpayers get stuck with the bill. The mayor cannot directly discuss pension benefits as part of contract negotiations with unions, even though pension benefits could be as much as 80 percent of an employee’s overall compensation. In addition, members of the State Legislature pass pension “sweeteners” for municipal unions that help attract support for their re-election campaigns.

These are problems that mayors around the country also face. In New York City, taxpayers will be forced to pay $8.3 billion in pension costs this year, up from $1.5 billion 10 years ago. Our proposal to the state is simple: legislate lower costs this year and, going forward, give us the authority to negotiate fair pension savings ourselves.

Pensions are not the only area where we would like to expand our collective bargaining authority in order to modernize government. New York is one of only a dozen or so states with a law requiring layoffs of teachers based strictly on seniority — a policy that’s known as “last in, first out.” In New York City, we are preparing to lay off workers across city agencies, including 4,500 teachers. And the only thing worse than laying off teachers would be laying off the wrong teachers — some of our very best.

That’s why we are asking the state to give us the legal authority to collectively bargain a layoff policy with the teachers’ union — and in the meantime, to conduct layoffs based on common-sense factors like eliminating teachers who have been rated unsatisfactory, found guilty of criminal charges or failed to meet professional certification requirements.

To the extent that collective bargaining agreements or state laws are no longer serving the public, we should change them. That is what democracy is all about — and that is our responsibility. The job of labor leaders is to get the best deal for their members. The job of elected officials is to get the best deal for all citizens.

Rather than declare war on unions, we should demand a new deal with them — one that reflects today’s economic realities and workplace conditions, not those of a century ago. If we fail to do that, the fault is not in our unions, or in our stars, but in ourselves.

As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Virginia

Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, California, Nevada, and....now Virginia. The first eight have been looked at, analyzed, discussed, and focused on. Republicans can see gains in some while Democrats can see the same in others. While there could be limited movement overall due the sticky circumstances that involve redistricting. Now, Virginia and its map find itself under the spotlight. Virginia was a big win for Democrats in 2008 then a huge loss in 2010. Redistricting in 2012 could impact if the elections end up more like the latter or the former.

What might occur in Virginia in the coming year:


Virginia officially kicked off its redistricting process at the end of January/start of February when the Census made it one of the first states to receive detailed population data.

The Commonwealth and three other states got their data first, since they hold state legislative sessions in 2011 and need to get their maps drawn fast.

But Virginia Republicans may be in no rush -- especially when delaying the process could reap some real benefits.

Control over the redistricting process is currently split in the Commonwealth -- a set of circumstances that often leads to compromise between the two parties. But some Republicans say there may be a way for the GOP to gain full control of the process, and all it requires is a little time and a successful 2011 election.

Virginia's state Senate is still controlled by Democrats and is the one thing standing in the way of total Republican control of redistricting.

With the governorship and the state House firmly under GOP control, Republicans will be gunning for the state Senate in November's election, when they will have a good shot at taking three of the Democrats' 22 seats and grabbing a majority.

The question is whether Republicans try to push off the redistricting process until after the election.

They can definitely wait to draw the congressional map, since no federal elections will be held in 2011. Whether they can wait to draw the state legislative districts is an open question.

The Virginia constitution appears to require the state to draw new state legislative districts in the odd-numbered year, and a state guide to redistricting notes that the law "has been understood to require redistricting in advance of the November 2011 elections for districts electing representatives at that time."

But the guide goes on to note that such a requirement provides a very tight timetable for the state legislature to get things done.

And therein may lie Republicans' opportunity.

With the two chambers controlled by different parties, it's going to be difficult for lawmakers to reach an accord on the new district lines. Virginia is also a Voting Rights Act state, which means its plans must be pre-cleared by the Justice Department. The process, in short, could take a while under any circumstances.

If the legislature can't come up with a plan in 2011, the matter would have to go to court.

Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a veteran of redistricting who oversaw the GOP's national efforts during the 2002 election cycle as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, noted that the courts are generally reticent to infringe on the state legislature's right to draw the map.

What's more, the courts may not even act until the end of the year, since the law doesn't specifically say anything about doing redistricting before the November elections.

"Even if the legislature's late, the courts I think would be reluctant to impose their plan over a legislative plan," Davis said.

Democrats disagree.

"The majority of the precedent you'll see is the courts stepping in when the legislative process starts bumping up against a hard deadline," said one Democrat, speaking anonymously in order to discuss strategy.

So far, reports indicate that Republicans haven't shown much interest in working with the Democrats on redistricting, which could lead to a (convenient) slowdown.

Democrats are dubious about the possibility and say the law requires that state legislative redistricting be done in 2011 -- period.

But even if they do have to redraw their state legislative districts in 2011, there is nothing in the law that says they can't wait to draw congressional districts. Even Democrats acknowledge that Republicans could put that off until 2012 and still be in the clear.

"Theoretically, the legislature could push off congressional redistricting," said another Democrat who works on redistricting. "But it would set a new precedent and would be another Tom DeLay-like situation." (DeLay led a re-redistricting last decade in Texas.)

Gamesmanship aside, it's important to look at the actual implications of such a move. And, the reality is that the timing of the line-drawing might not have that much effect on the partisan breakdown of the congressional delegation.

Right now, Republicans control eight of 11 seats in Virginia, including three districts that went for President Obama in 2008 and three districts that were held by Democrats last cycle. That means Republicans will want to shore up their newest members.

If the map is a compromise between the two parties, it would likely result in lines that make all 11 incumbents safer -- along the lines, ahem, of what happened in California during the 2001 redistricting.

If Republicans control the entire process, they can shore up their eight members and potentially go for a ninth seat.

But given the current state of play, that ninth seat would be pretty hard to get, and could put other Republicans at risk.

Here's what the GOP would be shooting for, district by district (and be sure to follow along on the congressional map here.):

* 2nd district: Republicans could shore up freshman Rep. Scott Rigell (R) in his Virginia Beach-based swing district by adding some of Rep. Rob Wittman's (R) strongly Republican 1st district running up the east coast of the state. Wittman's seat needs to shed about 50,000 people, while Rigell needs to pick up about 60,000, so it's a relatively easy call.

* 5th district: Despite going Democratic for one cycle in 2008, freshman Rep. Robert Hurt's (R) district in south-central Virginia is pretty conservative. He could be made safer, though, if his district takes in some Republican territory from neighboring districts held by Reps. Eric Cantor (R) and Bob Goodlatte (R). There are lots of options here, and lots of conservative territory.

* 9th district: Freshman Rep. Morgan Griffith's (R) district is very conservative, and it's hard to see Democrats winning it back, barring a repeat bid from longtime former Rep. Rick Boucher (D). But the district needs to add lots of population. The easiest and most likely solution is to draw in Salem, which would have the dual benefit of adding Republican-leaning population and putting Griffith's home into the district (he currently lives in the neighboring 6th district).

* 10th district : Rep. Frank Wolf (R) is a survivor -- big time. His northern Virginia district went for Obama by seven points in 2008, but he still won by 20 despite being outspent by his opponent. That said, Wolf just turned 72 years old in January. And if he can't serve 10 more years, Republicans will have to defend the seat at some point. His district has grown a lot and needs to shrink, but since he is from the eastern part of the district (closer to D.C.), it's going to be hard for him to pick up territory in the GOP-leaning Shenandoah Valley to the west. He could grab some more Republican parts of the two other Northern Virginia districts -- the 8th and the 11th -- but that might ruin GOP attempts to reclaim the 11th.

* 11th district: This seat is really the x-factor in the redistricting process. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) narrowly survived 2010, but his district as it stands is pretty safe for a Democrat. If Wolf gets shored up, Connolly could benefit by taking on some of the Democratic territory from Wolf's district. If Republicans control the process and want to get ambitious, though, they could try to add some more Republican parts of Wittman's 1st district to at least keep the 11th competitive. With Wittman already ceding some ground to Rigell, though, it could be a tough balancing act.

Republicans control every other competitive district in the state, so the 11th is the final frontier.

Rep. Bobby Scott's (D) Richmond- and Norfolk-based 3rd district is majority-African American, and Rep. Jim Moran's (D) suburban Washington 8th district is also very Democratic.

The most likely result of a compromise map is that everyone gets safer -- including Connolly -- and the map stays at 8-to-3 with a handful of somewhat competitive districts. If Republicans control the process, though, they could potentially stretch for a 9-to-2 map.

But that's risky, said Mike Whatley, the editor of the Rose Report at Claremont-McKenna College.

"Republicans need to keep in mind that they need to keep 10th district Republican," Whatley said. "They'll struggle with that if they want to make 11th a Republican district."

The practical implications of a GOP power grab might not be great. But if you're a Republican member of Congress, you'd be much happier to have your party drawing all the lines.

The question for the GOP is whether it wants to push the envelope.

As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Nevada

The redistricting talks thus far has taken us to Texas, Indiana, http://audacityofcovin.blogspot.com/2011/01/as-redistricting-maps-turn-next-stop_20.html, Illinois, http://audacityofcovin.blogspot.com/2011/01/as-redistricting-maps-turn-next-stop_31.html, Ohio, and California. For the next stop, we cross the border into Nevada; a state that recently has become a major player in elections.

Turning to Nevada:


Explosive growth in the Las Vegas area means Nevada will gain a congressional seat in 2012. And that's likely to benefit Democrats.

A Democratic-controlled legislature and a Republican governor mean the redistricting process will be split. But whether state legislators work out a deal or the courts wind up drawing the map, Democrats should have a good opportunity to at least even the score in the state, where Republicans currently hold two of three congressional districts.

Nevada, the fastest-growing state in the country, is a Democratic-trending swing state at the presidential level, having gone for President Bush in 2004 and President Obama in 2008.

And, since neither side has full control of the drawing of the map, the logical solution would be to split the map -- either create two Republican districts and two Democratic districts, or draw one safe district for each party and two competitive districts.

"Republicans and Democrats both believe that they can draw three-to-one maps, and the truth is either one could," said Republican consultant Ryan Erwin, "But neither of them could get it through the legislature and get the governor to sign it."

Democrats could try to get an edge, though The party might cite its registration advantage in the state -- it has about 70,000 more active voters than Republicans thanks in large part to the ultra-competitive 2008 Democratic presidential primary -- to push for only one safe Republican district.

"It's not a stretch to see how you could create a map with two strong lean-Democratic districts, one Republican district and one competitive district," said Tom Bonier, chief operating officer at the National Committee for an Effective Congress, which advises Democrats on redistricting. "The question is whether Democrats will propose it and whether the governor would stomach it." (Gov. Brian Sandoval is a Republican, and the Democrats cannot override a veto.)

The large growth in Las Vegas-based Clark County means that the new district will be based there. The county now contains nearly three-fourths of the state's population, so at least three districts will have to take in large parts of the county's population (while the fourth district will likely be headquartered in the state's other population center -- Reno-based Washoe County).

Right now, most of Clark County's population is contained in two districts -- the heavily Democratic 1st district held by Rep. Shelley Berkley in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, and the suburban 3rd district that is now held by freshman Republican Rep. Joe Heck, which is Democratic-leaning seat. The 2nd district, which is Republican-tilting, includes every other county in the state (along with a few voters in Clark County) and belongs to Republican Rep. Dean Heller.

The major changes that will be made are the creation of a new district and the shrinking of Heck's and Berkley's districts.

Heck's district is the biggest population-wise in the country, thanks to rapid growth, and has been estimated as the first congressional district to reach one million residents. Berkley's has also grown fast, and their two districts can essentially be morphed into three, if that's what the map-drawers want to do.

If you take the more Democratic parts of Heck's district and add parts of Berkley's district, it's easy to make two Democratic districts and one Republican district in Clark County. One of those districts (potentially Heck's) may have to take in some rural counties north of Clark County, but the areas between there and the Reno area are so sparsely populated that things wouldn't change that much.

If Democrats push for two Democratic seats and one competitive seat in Clark County, the new seat wouldn't take quite so many Democrats from Heck, leaving his district marginal but also leaving the new Democratic district less safe.

Nevada Democratic consultant Kami Dempsey, who works on redistricting matters, suggested Democrats could earn redistricting concessions from Sandoval (R) during the looming budget debate.

"We have about a $3 billion shortfall that we have to fill," Dempsey. "Who knows what deals will be struck through that process?"

Heller, meanwhile, could get safer by dropping the little territory he has in Clark County, which is slightly Republican but not as much as other parts of his district. Or he could give away more of northern Nevada to another district and take in some more GOP parts of Clark County.

Heller is popular and pretty safe, but his district almost went for President Obama in 2008, and Republicans may want to shore him up just to make sure they don't lose the district if Heller were ever to leave or run for higher office.

Which brings us to a major x-factor: Heller and Berkley are both looking at a run for the Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) seat in 2012.

If either or both make the statewide leap and do it soon (i.e. before redistricting is done), they may not be as concerned about keeping their districts intact. And Berkley's district, in particular, could undergo wholesale changes if she vacates it.

The subplot in all of this is a coterie of ambitious Clark County Democrats who will be looking to run for Congress in 2012 -- a list that includes, but isn't limited to, state House Speaker John Oceguera, state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, former Rep. Dina Titus, and 2010 Democratic governor nominee Rory Reid.

Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is already being floated for the seat. And Titus, who lost her seat to Heck in November, has said she's looking to run in the new district too.

"It will be a Democratic seat, a southern seat and will include part of what I represented, so I will definitely be looking at it," Titus told the Las Vegas Sun.

The question is whether Titus and Reid have one district to run in, or whether they have two or even three.

All of them will want the new district drawn for them, and its location could have a major impact on who wins the seat. They are all from different parts of the county, and by drawing those areas in or out of a new district, the map-makers could give one of those candidates a leg up on competitors in a Democratic primary.

But even if they don't get drawn in to the new district, there's still hope. If Heck's district remains competitive and/or Berkley retires, there would still be opportunities to run.

Another major question in Clark County is whether the map-makers try to create a majority-Hispanic district -- a growing possibility given the increasing size of that community. And if they do create such a district, it could benefit a Hispanic candidate.

Regardless of whether Heller runs for Senate, his district is still likely to be based in Washoe County. So we're going to see a similar cast of characters to the one we saw in 2006 when Heller first ran for the seat, beating 2010 GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle by less than 500 votes in the primary.

Keep in mind through all of this: Nevada is the first state that has been looked at in this series where control of the redistricting process is split between parties. That makes for a difficult negotiating process, and any failure to agree could pretty easily lead to the courts drawing the map.

The congressional delegation gets along well, and it's a common practice for the delegation to reach a compromise that the state legislature rubber stamps. But adding a fourth seat to the map complicates things, and certain state legislators will be personally interested in how the congressional map turns out.

"Most folks think it is quite likely, because of makeup in capital, that this will be decided by the judicial branch," said Nevada political guru Jon Ralston.

Even then, though, much of the above still applies. There will be three districts in Clark County, and the county has many more registered Democrats than Republicans. The GOP may not be able to count on getting a Republican-leaning Clark County district from the court, so it may be willing to make a deal with Democrats.

Whatever the outcome, the Democrats' days as a minority in the congressional delegation could be numbered.

Closing the wealth gap could aid the economy

There has been much conversation from both sides of the political aisle on how to get the country out of its current recession. The biggest focal points are lowering unemployment and creating jobs. Most of the time there is empty rhetoric if there is any focus on it by elected officials. One of the factors that affect the economy and how individuals feel during it is tax rates. Over time, the benefits of them have aided the upper 2% much more than the rest of the 98%.

That split was seen last year when Republicans refused to only help 98% of the country in order to protect the top 2%. Ultimately, 100% of the country had their current tax rates extended. However, the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson put the effect of taxes on the poor, middle class, and wealthy into perspective and how a more serious approach to closing the wealth gap might aid the economy's consistent struggles.


As Meyerson writes:

What ails the economy, various wise men tell us, is that we're not innovating like we used to. Personal computers and the Internet may look like a big deal, but their impact on our lives - and incomes - pales alongside the effect that electric power, the automobile and the airplane had on our 20th-century forebears. Much as onetime California Angels manager Lefty Phillips said of some overhyped rookies, "Our phenoms ain't phenominating."

As The Post's Steve Pearlstein discussed in his Wednesday column, there's a growing body of work - most prominently, that of George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, who has just published an e-book, "The Great Stagnation" - that argues that the stagnating incomes that most Americans have experienced over the past three decades have been caused by this decline in innovation.

Cowen's is an elegant theory and by no means entirely wrong. It fails to explain, however, why other nations with advanced economies, such as Germany and France, haven't experienced the same economic transformations the United States has - in particular, the upward redistribution of the nation's wealth to the very rich as everyone else's income flat-lined. That didn't happen in the other advanced economies, even though those nations' record of innovation isn't any better (and by many measures is worse) than ours.

But Cowen contends that the innovation gap is the real culprit. Since the early 1970s, he argued in last Sunday's Economic View column in the New York Times, "we are coming up with ideas that benefit relatively small numbers of people" economically. From 1947 to 1973, he wrote, "inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled." Since then, it has risen just 22 percent (and that small increase is largely the result of more members of the household entering the workforce).

The stagnation of median income, in Cowen's view, is the consequence of the absence of innovations on the scale of Henry Ford's assembly-line cars. "No one in particular is to blame," he wrote. "Until science has a greater impact again on average daily living standards, the political problem will be in learning to live within our means."

But is the absence of world-changing innovation really behind the economic stagnation that all but the wealthiest tenth of Americans have endured for the past 35 years? After all, during that time our gross domestic product expanded and our productivity rose. The difference between America pre- and post-1973 is that in the years preceding, the benefits from economic growth were widely shared, while in the years following, they increasingly went only to the top.

From 1947 through 1973, according to the Economic Policy Institute's State of Working America report, released this week, the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of Americans rose 117 percent, while the middle 20 percent saw a rise of 104 percent and the wealthiest 20 percent a rise of 89 percent. From 1973 through 2000, however, the income of the bottom fifth increased by a scant 9 percent, the middle fifth by 23 percent and the richest fifth by 62 percent. Since 2000, the concentration of income gains at the very top has grown only more pronounced. The share of income going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, which was less than 10 percent in the early '70s, reached 23.5 percent in 2007 - the highest level on record save for 1928. (Note: Both years preceded epic crashes.)

Lagging innovation may explain many things, but it doesn't explain the rise of the rich over everybody else. For that, we need to look at changing power relationships, something that most mainstream economists resolutely ignore. Surely, the shrinking of unions - from 35 percent of the private-sector workforce in the 1950s to less than 7 percent today - has decreased American workers' ability to win good wages. Surely, the offshoring of manufacturing has diminished both the number of good jobs and our ability to exploit our innovations productively. Surely, the deregulation of finance has diverted more and more resources to a relatively small circle of bankers and speculators. And that tiny cadre has chiefly enriched itself at the expense of the rest of the nation.

The great majority of Americans haven't been struggling just because our phenoms haven't been phenominating. They've also lost power to our corporate and financial elites. Until they can win it back, all the innovations in the world won't bring them their rightful share of the wealth they create.