2012 elections, acting on political lessons

I am surprised when I hear pundits express surprise about A: The absence of top GOP names like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie in the 2012 primary race; and B: The acute rancor of Republican candidates' attacks on one another.

The answer to both seems pretty obvious to me. Republicans are more interested in keeping and extending their power in Congress and weakening President Obama's influence over policy than in gaining the presidency. They've learned from George H.W. Bush's daunting task of economic recovery post Reaganomics and Barack Obama's unprecedented challenges in cleaning up George W. Bush's legacy of near total economic disaster. The cleaning crew that comes in after a parade of elephants gets little credit for holding down the stink. It doesn't matter whether the uniforms are red or blue.

One key to control of Congressional politics, particularly in the House, is to energize as many mini-constituencies as possible. That's more easily accomplished in a mid-term election with no presidential coattails involved for good or ill. In 2010, when Republicans took control of the House, they did so with two million fewer votes than Obama garnered to win the presidency in 2008. To sustain that success, the GOP needs to ensure the Tea Party as well "moderates" go back to the polls in November. Unified allegiance to a presidential candidate is not as likely to accomplish that as is the rough and tumble Republican candidates are now experiencing. None of this means their big money guns won't be trained on Obama or that the GOP wouldn't take a presidential victory, just that faced with a choice, they'll take Congressional might.

Many Democrats secretly breathed a sigh of relief when they lost the presidential race in 1988. Someone was going to have to take the fall for the costs of rescuing the economy from the S&L crisis and other "supply side" economic craziness. That someone was "Read My Lips" George H.W. Bush, who was forced to suck up the blame and approve new taxes to counter recession in the early 1990's.

The Democrats' 1988 primary field ranged from Klansman David Duke to solidly liberal Paul Simon and perennial Democratic nut-case candidate Lyndon Larouche with Michael Dukakis as the eventual nominee. Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo, (Sr.), who both gained considerable political coinage after their national convention speeches in 1984, sat out the '88 presidential primary. Notably, so did the party's rising star, Bill Clinton. Thus Clinton avoided a loss to the elder Bush that likely would have significantly weakened the Democrat's chances of claiming victory in 1992. With the fallout of economic decline solidly tagged to a Republican administration, Clinton was able to work with both Democratic and a Republican Congresses to craft an economic recovery complete with tax breaks and eventually, a budget surplus.

Democrats had taken back the Senate in 1986. They already had a significant majority in the House. With such as diverse field of candidates at the top of the ballot, they held, and made small gains in both houses in 1988. And with that power over George H.W. Bush's policy objectives, the Democratic Party was poised to take the whole ball game in 1992.
Defending against a takeover of the Senate and continued GOP power in the House in 2012 will require Democrats to mount a deep, broad and costly campaign in every state. With some of the shine off Obama's message, deserved or not, stimulating the kind of grass-roots, social-media movement for the Democratic message will be much more difficult this time around. Although drawing a well-financed liberal third party opponent could spell disaster for the president, an in-party leftward leaning challenger would help Obama articulate his message. Such a development also would invigorate the national debate over how to proceed with fixing the many things that ail us. Otherwise, we're stuck with a Republican dialog that ranges from radical right to reactionary right vs US.

So, for the time being, the likes of Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are keeping their powder dry, watching the melee, making safe choices and stockpiling their political capital for 2016.

Dear Legislature: Great care needed for budget

Dear Texas Legislature,

As Texas music icon Stevie Ray Vaughan laid it out, "It's raining down in Texas and all the telephone lines are down." Heck, it's storming; a hurricane's hit; blizzards and ice storms are raging through. The bridges are down; cities and school districts are sinking. We are at the bottom of so many important indexes of civilized society and global competition we have to reach up to touch Mississippi and maybe even Guatemala. We're $16 billion to $27 billion off the budget mark for 2012-2013.

Even the disparity between those two numbers indicates real emergency. The first number maintains spending at the current level and the second maintains services at the current level. Neither includes about $3.3 billion shortfall in the current fiscal year, which must be addressed first, according to Center for Public Policy Priorities' senior fiscal analyst Dick Lavine. He added that the $16 million figure represents spending in 2010 and maintaining that level is just irrelevant in 2012-2013.

It's time to open up the Rainy Day Fund and it's time to raise taxes and fees in addition to making tough decisions on spending. It's time to seek the balanced approach that many organizations, including faith-based groups like Impact Texas and the broad-based coalition Texas Forward are advocating.

It's the economic policy equivalent of lambs lying with lions when F. Scott McCown of CPPP, Bill Hammond of the Texas Association of Business and State Sen. Florence Shapiro agree we need to open up the Rainy Day Fund. Trying to meet the state's constitutional mandate to balance its budget with cuts alone -- as Gov. Rick Perry and both your houses have proposed -- likely would collapse the economy. It certainly will cripple human services and education. And let us be clear, it is neither melodramatic nor alarmist to state that such severe cuts would cause great suffering and possibly deaths among the sick, children and the elderly.

State government and public education employees make some of the better middle class salaries in the state. Balancing the budget by cuts alone, what the Legislative Budget Board has planned in both houses' preliminary budgets, means lopping off about 25 percent of spending. To cut that much could mean a loss of nearly 9,000 state workers' jobs and nearly 100,000 public education jobs.

When economic development corporations and other entities project the benefit from creating a job, they attach a "multiplier" to each salary dollar. The estimate takes into account taxes paid, meals bought, housing purchased, all the things a person with a job buys. Multipliers range from about 1.5 to 7.

Any economic evaluation includes the point of diminishing return: That point at which cost begins to exceed benefit. What is the point of diminishing return of cutting 109,000 well-paid jobs with great benefits?

Recently Politifact, a non-partisan, economic-policy agnostic, fact-checking arm of the St. Petersburg Times evaluated Gov. Perry's statement that Texas created more jobs last year than all the other 49 states together. They looked at Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's claim that we lost 300,000 more jobs than we created last year. Both claims rang solid green "true" on Politifact's Truthometer.

Texas also is number one among the states in creating minimum wage jobs and 31st in offering jobs requiring bachelor's degrees. So what are the chances that the jobs we created paid salaries better than the ones we lost?

So please, dear legislators, think twice or 10 times before letting go of all those jobs. If Sherman's economic development guidelines were applied, creators of those 109,000 jobs would qualify for about $436 million in local incentives. Of course, Texas' economic development law doesn't allow investment in many 21st century jobs. We're still betting on 20th century manufacturing jobs and "call centers" (strong lobby?) and that's something you could change. If you truly believe that the private sector can handle all the health, education and human services responsibilities of our communities, then let us local folks decide whether to use our sales tax dollars to entice those jobs.

Hammond, although stating a belief that this budget can be balanced without raising taxes and fees, urges you not to be "penny wise and pound foolish."

Texas economist Ray Perryman, the man on whose opinion most Texas cities relied in getting local voters to pass sales taxes, has even stronger words for the legislators of the 82nd Session. He warned you in the Waco Tribune Monday, "Don't eat your seed corn foolishly." He said his firm has studied both Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, mental health and substance abuse services several times.

"Findings from these analyses have consistently shown that adequate funding can yield savings that are multiples of the state's investment," Perryman wrote.

"For Medicaid and CHIP, we found that cuts to the programs were a very inefficient way to achieve fiscal balance. Such reductions lead to loss of federal funds, higher costs to those who purchase insurance, more uncompensated care for hospitals and clinics, and reduced business activity."

In the past two sessions, you've produced all the "blue smoke and mirrors" budget razzle dazzle possible. And in so doing, you've created what Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and others have called a structural deficit. You created most of the structural deficit when you swapped new business franchise tax dollars for property tax dollars in school funding to make good on your promise to lower property taxes by a third. The franchise tax brings in about $5 billion a year less than property taxes did.

You inappropriately appropriated $14.4 billion in federal stimulus money and about $8.2 billion more of stimulus money has come into the state coffers. Most of this you used to disguise the state's budget deficits in 2009, 2010 and 2011 rather than to stimulate the economy as intended.

Not one Texas Republican in Congress voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Yet Republicans skated on that far-smoother budget picture into total control of Texas governance. Texas is at your mercy. I'm begging you: Please raise my taxes, open up my Rainy Day Fund and cut services and jobs with great care.

KATHY WILLIAMS is co-city editor of the Herald Democrat. E-mail: kwilliams@heralddemocrat.com.

No more pork calling

OK, I've had it up to here (hand extended over head.) No more calling, "Pork!" No more simple-minded characterizations of what various economic recovery proposals will and won't do. No more false distinctions between “jobs” and “work.” If it pays a salary, it’s work. We are way past that now; way, way over the cliff. We're at the point where the balloon above the coyote says, "Uh Oh!" And we all know that's just seconds before a long plunge toward a barely visible point of dirt below. Unlike Wiley, of course, we will not be OK in the next frame, dusting ourselves off and looking for new boxes marked "Acme Economic Disaster Preventer."
It's time to admit A. No one knows exactly what to do or exactly how bad it is or will become. B. Almost any spending has the potential to create jobs in the short run and that's we need: Jobs. C. Delay means disaster. D. There are no good solutions, so anyone who sits back, throws stones and says no, eventually be able to say, "I told you so." We need jobs and guts and patriotism. We need leaders with enough gumption to serve one term and get fileted by the other side for the effort.
No matter what caused it: "It was the derivatives; it was the housing market; it was greed; it was de-regulation," we need jobs. And while all the criticisms of how we got here probably hold some truth, we will have decades to unravel that. But we have days, seriously, days, to begin to dig out of this hole. We have an economy based on consumerism. Jobs, preferably jobs that pay a living wage, but jobs are what we need. People who have jobs buy things. And for there to be things for people to buy, there have to be people working to make things. And, because so many people have lost their jobs, 4 million in a year, we need to help them before we work on all the other stuff so they can afford to stay in their homes, buy food, buy clothes, be consumers. In essence, we need to help those who have most recently lost jobs because they are yet to lose their entire life's provision. We need to help them so we can avoid the enormous costs of rebuilding lives from the ground up. It just costs us less collectively, in money and in pain.
I'm weary of the GOP party line about spending. Why are "Democratic Party Wish List" spending items not stimulative? Building solar batteries is one often cited. What could be a better kind of spending? It would create jobs up and down the educational line. We need some brainiacs to invent and perfect their design. We need even brainier folks to take those ideas and designs and turn them into plans and working models and others, with technical skills to translate the models into actual products. We need people to make all the little parts and put all those together into the finished product. We need people to make the equipment to make the parts and we need people to clean up the shop. All of those people will be making money. They will need to order parts from other people who will then have jobs. See how it works? Jobs are jobs, even government jobs, which actually are a little better because they pay a little better, so they bring about recovery faster.
Take the argument about Pell Grants, if I had a day or two, I could get you precise figures on this one, but we don't have the time to get these precise figures. Austin College is a big employer in a small city. Its payroll "rolls over" in the economy to produce a dollar benefit to other businesses much greater than the size of that payroll. Professors, clerks, janitors, professional staff members, adjuncts, all must buy food, and gasoline and clothes, etc., etc. Some go out to eat; some have pets. All this means dollars helping keep grocery stores, department stores, pet stores, restuarants, etc., in business. Those businesses in turn will be able to keep their doors open and employ people who buy food and clothes and television services. This keeps other people in business and it keeps sales tax dollars flowing to keep city and state services going.
This year, Austin College experienced a shortage of new students and failed to retain as many upperclassmen as it had hoped. Why? I don't know for sure, but part of that has to be that Pell grants top out at a figure much lower than AC's tuition and student loan aid has all but dried up. This year, AC has frozen hiring, cut some jobs and lowered or cut raises. If there's not some serious relief in the form of more Pell Grant money and unfrozen credit, what will get cut next? And how many other Sherman and Grayson County jobs will that affect. Just as the roll over of jobs created at AC is a plus, so the roll back when they lose jobs is a minus.
Ditto the argument about the "socialism" involved in giving income tax money to "those people who don't make enough to pay taxes." I'm betting that those 4 million people who have lost their jobs and the other millions who have either given up, taken low paying jobs, or work part time because of the economy, aren't going to make enough to pay taxes. I'm also betting that any money given to them will be used to buy things, and yes, to pay mortgages and bills. So some of it might not be as stimulative as say a grant to create a solar panel construction business, but it certainly helps.
The upshot of all this is we should not care whether the plan contains pet projects, or "madeup work," what we should care about is that it creates jobs, and by the way, it must create a lot of government jobs, an ahem, bureaucracy, to make sure that we know where every dime goes, and wherever that is, it is used properly. Otherwise it could evaporate as the $350 billion bailout during president #43, the Freddie Mac and Fannin Mae funds, the Iraq war money, the Iraq reconstruction funding has.
What we need are leaders with the intestinal fortitude to take a leap of faith to avoid falling off the cliff.

For the first time, Pride

Pride. I'm beginning to understand what it means to be truly proud of my nation. Michelle Obama drew the wrath of million when she said — at the time when historic numbers of voters turned out to send the momentum of the presidential election in her husband Barack's direction — for the first time in her life she was really proud of her country.

I defended her at the time because, I thought I understood, that it's hard when you live in a nation that is really two nations, that people of her background have fewer opportunities. I empathized with the notion that too few people exercise their rights and responsibilities to fully realize the vigorous ideal and in peril of Lincoln's warning, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

But there's more to the realization of a full measure of pride in my country. To perfect our union we must work consistently toward the notion that all human beings are created equal. This is larger and grander than the simple fact that today a man of African American descent takes the oath of office. Barack Obama is, after all, exactly as much white Kansan as he is black African. His life past birth place and genetics has gathered knowledge and sensitivities of cultures distant and exotic from most of ours.

Since Nov. 4, I've noticed that I can take a deeper patriotic and human breath. Suddenly I can dare to believe that my children and grandchildren can inherit a world community that has evolved spiritually. In the past few years we've heard over and over that this might be the first generation of Americans that won't hand a better world to their children. Mostly that is meant in the material sense. And that might be the case. But, for the first time in decades I believe that we will be able to pass to them a better world: One in which we believe we share a destiny with other lands; one in which we believe all of our fates are intertwined; one in which we believe that democracy will not continue to exist without each of us working to perfect our union.

What Michelle was expressing, as I understand it now, is that up until this moment, every hope of African Americans had an asterisk by it. Either ascendancy to an office or activity or recognition happened because they were black or didn't happen because they were black. African Americans have lived in a kind of suspension: Their responsibility was to chip away at barriers of thought and spirit: Next time, be patient, work hard, work harder. Today Obama raises his hand, and the asterisk is gone.

I am so proud of this nation. Not because we have conquered racism or partisanship in any sense. (We have yet to elect a woman or a non-Christian.) I'm proud because people of every color, age, creed, party identity, gender, gender identity, religion and philosophy came together under Barack Obama's banner. We each worked hard, then harder. We each invested according to what we had to make this moment possible: Talent and time, money, even begrudging respect. In the end it had less to do with race and party than it did to intelligence, ideas and inspiration.

I am so proud of this nation because what is taking place at this moment in Washington, D.C.: A peaceful transfer of power, the nature of which proves that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream was aspiration not fantasy.

My post on Change.gov

I have yet to see articulated the notion that developing, updating and improving alternative transportation modes are essential to energy independence, slowing global climate change, reinvigorating the economy and enhancing independence for elders.

If we are working on the puzzle of energy independence in transportation focusing on more fuel efficient or alternative fuel passenger and freight vehicles, then we're merely postponing real change. Moving people and goods around in individual pods, even big ones, perpetuates poor practices and planning. It continues the need for ever more miles and lanes of concrete. That requires huge amounts of polluting manufacturing, eats land that could revive the environment and only shifts the discussion of sustainability. It also concentrates economic recovery in one industry, making prospects for sustainable recovery unnecessarily narrow.

The Obama Administration is proposing a huge investment in putting people back to work, establishing energy independence, creating jobs, healing the environment. I believe that those tremendous goals, plus creating more livable communities, can be achieved through investing in building high speed passenger and freight rail. We must build new lines, increase capacity and separate rail and passenger lines for safety and efficiency. We have a 19^th century rail system and a 20^th century highway system. We should think differently and holistically about this. Highly urbanized cities in the north and east have some, antiquated rail systems and some southern cities like Dallas have limited light rail. We should keep, improve and expand what is working. We should create new solutions to what is not working.

I have a parallel but almost reverse suggestion for alternative energy. Although we, of course, need an updated electrical grid and renewable source generating plants, (not including poisonous and wildly expensive nuclear power) we also must help individual power users and small groups be able to afford home and neighborhood power creation. And we should help more individuals with energy efficiencies and savings. This means direct subsidies or tax credits that don't require income tax itemization, so they are available to those at the bottom end of the income scale. Again, reliance on huge systems that only get larger brings a wealth of problems. It also increases the incidence of unintended consequences. For example, T. Boone Pickens wind energy farms make a lot of sense, but the other side of that: Converting freight vehicle fleets to natural gas use brings some major problems.

To develop the huge natural gas fields in the Burnet Shale in Texas, which I believe is what he has in mind, requires fracturing. Fracturing uses huge quantities of water, which he most likely plans to get from the Trinity and Woodbine aquifers. Many North Texas communities depend on the aquifers for drinking water. So we will, at some point, suffer unreasonably high water prices. To save water in the fracturing process, the water is mixed with chemicals to bulk it up. This polluted water must then be stored in underground spaces that keep them separate from other ground water.

Thank you for your time in considering these suggestion. I am hopeful of a reply.

Sincerely, Kathy Williams

Musings on economic philosophy

 This piece is in response to a friend's sending me an e-mail discussion among her family members. I will not mention who that is because I haven't asked her permission to do so. I must say the back in forth was vigorous, but respectful. Would it were so that all families and communities could have such debate. As a reader you will be at a disadvantage from not having read the earlier opinions and definitions set out, but I think you can get the gist off it.

 This is my reply to her:

If I were responding to your family members, I would say that the U.S. economy does not conform to the definition of capitalism, and has not for at least since the Reagan era. What we have is more of a global oligarchy, or what I would call corporatism or corporate socialism. In the examples of the businesses of human services you cite, a free market because cannot exist because there is no free choice. The buyer cannot beware, for the reasons you cited and because government has established rules for conduct in those markets that preclude competition. Obama is not in philosophy a socialist, however he has been branded. Reading his book, "Audacity of Hope" brings one a much clearer idea of just how much of a free market person he is. Even his health care proposals are market based. As a person who could most accurately described as a Democratic Socialist, I find Obama to the right of my beliefs. He espouses the notion corporations should be allowed profit, but that the value of those on the factory floor should be compensated a little closer (than 1:286) to what those in the board room earn. Such was a proposal in AT&T's stockholder meeting several years ago. The problem is that the way corporations work, and the amazingly entertwined nature of corpoarte boards and officers, preclude sanity and morality arising from individual stockholders. Ever more concentrated ownership of corporations globally move capital and labor in ways that no mere mortals can grasp. Witness the recent $700 billion bailout of an industry with up to $57 trillion in exposure. To the vast majority of us, saying those numbers is like a 3-year-old saying 40-11, nonsensical. Even Greenspan admits to being clueless. Profit in a truly free-market economy rewards risk. Salaries and bonuses reward competence and success. What we have done more and more since the mid-1980s is socialize risk and reward. Now they are both meaningless. We keep hearing that such and such a business is too big to fail. I wonder if they are not too big to succeed. The labor side of the free market equation has held up its side of the bargain: productivity has increased steadily as corporations and other economic entities have become more profitable. However, labor has not shared in this benefit. The disparity between the median salary in corporations and executive compensation has grown, literally, exponentially. Because of the global nature of the economy, we have our best educated workers losing engineering and technology jobs to overseas workers and reduced to selling pizzas or finding telemarketing jobs. To replace the high salaries in fueling the ecomonic engine, we loosened credit, over and over. We produced "commodities" out of air, then traded that air, combined it with other air, and traded that. We know now what happens when that house of cards collapses. We are engaged in the first set of wars, ever, in which we did not raise taxes to pay for our defense. Even in the conduct of this war, we are stoking the coffers of global corporations, paying private contractors' employees 10 times more than our soldiers in combat. Instead of hiring out of work Iraqis or U.S. citizens, those contractors are bringing in workers from Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Phillipines. Lots of government money, our money, goes out to benefit no one here but those who fill the corporate boardrooms. During World War II, Frank Sinatra paid 90 percent of his salary in taxes. He thrived financially, and talked with pride about his support of the war effort (Paying taxes is patriotic.) And I believe he thrived opulently in the years after the war. Because of the corporate and governmental excess and waist, stupidity and greed, failure to refree the game, particularly in the past eight years, we face the future with almost no resources, unthinkable debt and foreign challenges. Why anyone would even want to be president to inherit this mess is beyond me. In probably too simplistic terms: We face a future of either tax and spend or borrow and spend. So when we start tossing around philosophical tags like "socialism" and "capitalism" we need to decide if those are concepts that even apply to today's world. We must figure out how we can capture our brightest minds to invest whatever resources remain to produce a future for ourselves and our children. Who offers that kind of hope?

My Sunday column, extension of Palin blog

What did Sarah Palin accomplish in VP debate

Exceeded expectations. Really?

Exactly whose expectations for what did Sarah Palin exceed in Thursday night's vice presidential debate?

"She stanched the bleeding of the McCain-Palin ticket," GOP spin meisters said. "She has re-energized the base."

Liberal pundits said she made no huge gaffes, and neither did Joe Biden and gave the win to Biden.

Associated Press presidential campaign correspondent Liz Sidoti wrote in vapid analysis after the debate: "Joe Biden's job was to attack. Sarah Palin's job was to attack, connect and stick to her folksy script.

"While both vice presidential candidates succeeded in their only debate of the campaign Thursday night, the stakes were much higher and the bar was much lower for Palin. So, in the contest of low expectations, Palin won."

Really?

Let me get this straight: We are in the middle of a recession, which could turn into a full-blown depression. We just spent $700 billion as a down payment on who knows how much to keep the economy from totally imploding. We are fighting two active wars and are in precarious relationships with Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. We have a nearly $11 trillion national debt.

We face a global hunger crisis; genocidal campaigns in Sudan; insecure relationships with Western Hemisphere democracies many Americans don't like; global climate change; recovery from massive flooding along the Mississippi and three hurricanes; 45 million Americans without health care insurance; no consensus on immigration issues or border control; crumbling and inadequate infrastructure; an energy crises. Need I go on?

Given that five of the last 12 presidents first served as vice president and this will be the only time we see these two candidates together before one becomes a heartbeat away from the presidency, I think the American people had the right to expect more than "a contest of low expectations."

What I saw Palin demonstrate was that she could be on a stage without swooning or throwing up, she can read note cards, memorize some lines and cute (if fakey,) folksy lines, and deliver a stinging, rehearsed jab. And "ya betcha" she can smile, flash her dimples, bat her eyes and wink at every cute line as if it's an inside joke between her and the audience. I guess that is a step up from not knowing the titles of magazines or newspapers she reads or knowing what the Bush Doctrine entails. It beats having to come back later with an answer. But she did not debate.

She learned the tactic from her debate coaches of taking any question she didn't like and turning it to a quote from an earlier sound bite about energy independence or tax cuts. But she couldn't think on her feet, at all. She charged that Obama voted against funding for the troops and that was un-American. Biden came back with his charge that John McCain had voted against $1.6 billion in funding for up-armoring vehicles for the soldiers because McCain said the bill involved a timeline. Perhaps there was an explanation of why McCain voted against troop funding, but she didn't give it.

In his strongest moment of the debate, Biden refuted her charge that for a "change" ticket Obama-Biden certainly looked to the past a lot, talking about the failures of the Bush Administration. "Past is prologue," Biden said, and launched into a series of requests to learn of any plans McCain and she had advanced that differed from the Bush-Cheney line, "I haven't heard anything yet," he said. She flashed that deer-in-the headlights look, paused a long time and waited for Ifill to change the subject.

That brings up another point of reduced expectations for this debate. The trend over the past 12 years has been for more and more scripted debates, with more restricted formats every election cycle. Two days before the debate, McCain charged that Ifill was biased because she has just written a book about Obama. Perhaps she should have recused herself. She had a perfect out because she fell and broke her ankle a day or so before the event. Instead Ifill seemed to bend over backward not to confront Palin on failing to answer questions.

In fact, Palin looked directly into the camera and said that she might not answer questions like the moderator and her opponent wanted, but she would speak directly to the people -- an obvious tactic.

The McCain team has so "worked the refs" during this campaign that they have produced the most insipid and opaque vice presidential run in recent history. First they refuse to allow the press access to her. Then they negotiated the "scripted press conference" style for the vice presidential debate. Then they grant recorded, private interviews with selected commentators.

Fortunately for America, Katie Couric stood her ground and although she was polite and asked questions that any relatively bright high school graduate could have answered, she stumped Palin again and again. Will we ever see an actual press conference in public? We deserve to.

Biden's coaches, too afraid he would offend supporters of the gun-totin', wolf-shootin', Cutie Pie of the North, bound him to smile knowingly when he could have pressed points on which he had an obvious advantage, like how the economy works or the stakes of international diplomacy.

I think their job was to tell us how they would run the country and to explain to us how they would solve our real problems. Silly me, I expected substance.

KATHY WILLIAMS is assistant city editor of the Herald Democrat.