There are lots of pundits, both amateur and professional, making all sorts of predictions about the 2008 presidential race. I'm no different in that regard. And, we all probably think we see things that allow us to draw conclusions that may or may not have any shred of reality to them by the time the election rolls around. However...
...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:
"Randy, watch the belt buckle."
This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.
This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?
Watch the belt buckle.
In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.
We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.
We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.
I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.
So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.
Watch the belt buckle.
By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Republican straw poll
There's another blog I visit frequently, and they're conducting a straw poll of the Republican candidates. (You don't have to be a Republican to participate.) It might be interesting to see where it leads.
Go here to vote: http://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com
Go here to vote: http://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mashing Up Hillary...or Who's Afraid of Barack?
So how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination? She's definitely making the news...as the butt of a very clever joke in the mashup of the 1984 Apple commercial...and it doesn't help her cause. (NOTE: For the 5 people in the country that may not have seen the ad, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo )
Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.
This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.
The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.
Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."
Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.
So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?
(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)
Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.
This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.
The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.
Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."
Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.
So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?
(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
A Little Perspective, Please
Just got back from a week in San Francisco, a city that is a lot like Austin except someone has secretly put caffeine in everything the populous consumes and tripled the rent on anyone that’s farther right than George McGovern to drive them out. Oh…and has the worst homeless problem in the country, if not the world.
SF is truly an international city, at least by American standards. One hears more languages and sees more ethnic diversity walking down the street than even in New York, where things often are a bit more segregated into ethnic neighborhoods. Yet for all of the international flavor, I’m not sure that very many residents ever leave the bay area. If they did, there might be a bit more diversity in thought about how to solve the proliferation of homeless people. Instead, it seems that the problem is made worse due to the lack of any dissenting voice.
(Austin, are you listening?)
First, most Bay Area citizens don’t seem to understand that this is NOT the way it is in all major cities; other places simply do not have the same numbers of homeless roaming the streets. But because SF citizens seem to think that this is just the way it is everywhere and because there doesn’t seem to be any diversity of political thought, their solution is “more of the same,” which is to throw more money at social services and give the underbelly a dollar or two when walking by. I find it sadly amusing that the same people who will accuse Bush of intractability can have this same “stay the course” mentality in the face of abject failure.
How bad is it? The homeless are sleeping in every 3rd or 4th doorway. They’re sleeping in the parks. They panhandle mercilessly. When they congregate in groups they intimidate passers-by. They stink because they see no reason to bathe, change clothes, brush their teeth, or wipe themselves. Despite all of the homeless shelters, government and private institutions that provide clothes, meals and job training and all of the dollars that are thrown at it, the majority refuse to work, help themselves or find any shame in being homeless. In short, no one seems to recognize the obvious: most of these people are not down on their luck, they are mentally ill and/or socially checked out. Like a family member with a drug habit, the solution is not to enable them. Yet, due to any voices to the contrary and, sadly, no conception of what things are like elsewhere, San Francisco is making their problem worse and worse. Societal dropouts actually MOVE to San Francisco so they can remain homeless. The weather rarely changes, so it’s liveable outside virtually year-round. And if things ever get too bad they can hit a shelter for a day or two to get themselves fed or get free medical care.
It’s unfortunate because SF has so many wonderful things about it; it’s easily the greatest culinary city in North America, if not the world; the green rolling hills, the bay, and the cliffs of the Pacific make it stunningly beautiful; it has managed to resist the homogenization that most of the U.S. has undertaken. And I'm not suggesting that all of these people get locked up or thrown into mental institutions (although that is the correct answer for some of them). But there has to be some accountability. Other cities have taken some novel approaches, such as making it a crime to panhandle without a license, having to check in with social services daily, etc. Once it's no longer easy and their presence isn't simply tolerated, it's amazing how many people move on. Again...99% of these folks are NOT people who are simply down on their luck.
I don’t see this changing any time soon, so like other travelers, I’ll continue to live with this as just one of the aspects of San Fran. But I can’t help but think how much they are hurting themselves economically by this systemic acceptance of the homeless as part of the landscape.
SF is truly an international city, at least by American standards. One hears more languages and sees more ethnic diversity walking down the street than even in New York, where things often are a bit more segregated into ethnic neighborhoods. Yet for all of the international flavor, I’m not sure that very many residents ever leave the bay area. If they did, there might be a bit more diversity in thought about how to solve the proliferation of homeless people. Instead, it seems that the problem is made worse due to the lack of any dissenting voice.
(Austin, are you listening?)
First, most Bay Area citizens don’t seem to understand that this is NOT the way it is in all major cities; other places simply do not have the same numbers of homeless roaming the streets. But because SF citizens seem to think that this is just the way it is everywhere and because there doesn’t seem to be any diversity of political thought, their solution is “more of the same,” which is to throw more money at social services and give the underbelly a dollar or two when walking by. I find it sadly amusing that the same people who will accuse Bush of intractability can have this same “stay the course” mentality in the face of abject failure.
How bad is it? The homeless are sleeping in every 3rd or 4th doorway. They’re sleeping in the parks. They panhandle mercilessly. When they congregate in groups they intimidate passers-by. They stink because they see no reason to bathe, change clothes, brush their teeth, or wipe themselves. Despite all of the homeless shelters, government and private institutions that provide clothes, meals and job training and all of the dollars that are thrown at it, the majority refuse to work, help themselves or find any shame in being homeless. In short, no one seems to recognize the obvious: most of these people are not down on their luck, they are mentally ill and/or socially checked out. Like a family member with a drug habit, the solution is not to enable them. Yet, due to any voices to the contrary and, sadly, no conception of what things are like elsewhere, San Francisco is making their problem worse and worse. Societal dropouts actually MOVE to San Francisco so they can remain homeless. The weather rarely changes, so it’s liveable outside virtually year-round. And if things ever get too bad they can hit a shelter for a day or two to get themselves fed or get free medical care.
It’s unfortunate because SF has so many wonderful things about it; it’s easily the greatest culinary city in North America, if not the world; the green rolling hills, the bay, and the cliffs of the Pacific make it stunningly beautiful; it has managed to resist the homogenization that most of the U.S. has undertaken. And I'm not suggesting that all of these people get locked up or thrown into mental institutions (although that is the correct answer for some of them). But there has to be some accountability. Other cities have taken some novel approaches, such as making it a crime to panhandle without a license, having to check in with social services daily, etc. Once it's no longer easy and their presence isn't simply tolerated, it's amazing how many people move on. Again...99% of these folks are NOT people who are simply down on their luck.
I don’t see this changing any time soon, so like other travelers, I’ll continue to live with this as just one of the aspects of San Fran. But I can’t help but think how much they are hurting themselves economically by this systemic acceptance of the homeless as part of the landscape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
