The Centrist Dude

One Question

2011-07-29T23:38:00.005-04:00

If all of you people who thought putting in Tea Party candidates was such a good idea, let me ask you one question:

If they weren't in Congress, would we be having this meaningless and destructive showdown over the debt ceiling?

"Anybody but..." is a stupid way to elect your representatives, especially when it's a bloc that combines ignorance with arrogance. Too late now, though, as you're reaping what you sowed. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with it as well.

Dumbing Ourselves Down

2010-09-03T15:43:00.004-04:00

I’m going to start by saying that this new blogging journey that the CW and I are on is an interesting one. Any blogger, or even most national opinion writers, can sit at their computers and spout. To back up your positions with factual information requires a great deal of time and research. Despite the time-suck the CW and I are determined to stay the course. If every blogger in America did the same we’d probably have better discourse in this country. Alas…

Onwards.

For whatever reason, there seems to be strong empirical evidence that Americans have surprisingly little knowledge of current political issues even as they seemingly have incredibly black and white views on political positions. Proving or disproving this beyond the empirical is a difficult, if not impossible proposition, although one can easily find enough evidence to comfortably say that Americans are woefully ignorant of political realities and facts. Examples: Barack Obama is a Muslim, who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and who the top military commander is in Afghanistan. So we (“we” being me and the CW) chose to do some research on how people today are getting their political information.

To do this, we had to make some suppositions. We started with the way news is reported, and we looked at 1) political and news magazines, 2) local and national newspapers, and 3) cable and local television news.

-Our first supposition was that news magazines (e.g., Time, U.S. News, Christian Science Monitor Weekly, Business Week, Forbes) have the most in-depth coverage of stories based on their area of interest when compared to the newspapers and TV.
-The second supposition is that both national (e.g., USA Today, Wall Street Journal) and local newspapers cover topics that are more widely varying than magazines or TV, especially local newspapers since they also are attempting to cover stories of local interest.
-By nature, if these suppositions are true (which seem reasonable that they are based on empirical evidence and common sense), then TV news reports little more than an overview of a small number of stories. Even 24/7 cable news does not spend the in-depth time on most issues, outside of opinion and tabloid shows.

-According to this synopsis by the Pew Research Center of a survey concluded in February 2009, readership of newspapers in any form has fallen among all age groups. The WWII generation (the “Greatest Generation”) dropped to 53% from 65%, and Baby Boomers dropped from 48% to 38%. Gen X & Gen Y apparently never started reading newspapers in any form, as their numbers over the same time went from 31% & 22% respectively to 26% & 21% respectively.

-During this same time period news gathered from TV sources has remained stable.

-Even for those getting their news online, online cable TV news sites (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) are visited consistently higher than the entire aggregation of local newspaper sites, which also suggests that people’s understanding of local issues, arguably more important in people’s day-to-day lives than national issues, is declining rapidly.

Pew also breaks the country down by how they get their news into Integrators, Net-Newsers, Traditionalists and Disengaged, with Traditionalists being by far the largest segment (46%). This is the only segment that is almost solely reliant on TV for their news. However, the Integrators (23%) also use TV as their main news source. Integrators are defined as those who use traditional sources (TV, magazine, newspaper) and the internet. They tend to be middle-aged Americans who are “well-educated and affluent.” This means that, taken as an aggregate, 69% of all Americans rely on TV for all or most of their news.

This might be ok if TV were a reliable source for accuracy in a “headline news” sort of mode, or if the 24/7 news channels were to take the major stories of the day and give them a journalistic analysis. But that’s not the reality of what national news coverage has become; certainly not with the cable news stations, which have become more and more politicized over time. CNN, which was once thought of as both the bastion of TV journalism and ironically as the mouthpiece of the left is now foundering as not being politicized enough, and therefore 3rd in the cable news ratings.

So if TV news is a brief overview of issues, is overtly politicized instead of being journalistically sound, is rewarded (by ratings) for assuming a political stance, and people are picking and choosing what network to watch based on their political affiliation, then the viewership is being rewarded for continuing to believe what they want to believe. Along the same line, the network or station in question is rewarded for giving their viewership “red meat” along the political lines they hold. To the medium of television news, journalism is all but dead, true dissent is dead, and by nature, the truth is dead. Yet this is what 69% of all Americans choose as their primary news source.

Is it any wonder that we are becoming more polarized and more intractable? If this climate continues, will we ever be able to compromise for the good of the country? Ask yourself, whatever you believe: can you see any point in listening tothe other side? Or do you believe that the other side is so out of touch that there’s no sense in listening to them?

Regardless of the answers, it seems reasonably clear that to have some grasp of the truth you must turn off the TV.

Silent No More

2010-08-29T15:41:00.001-04:00

My blogging absence has been purposeful. In trying to keep above the toxic rancor it seemed better to be silent than to add to the cacophony. However, there have been several occurrences that have convinced me that silence is the wrong option, and that now more than ever is the time to voice concerns and thoughts.

Because there are voluminous topics which need exploration, I’m going to consider this particular posting to be a preview of what will be written in detail over the next few weeks. So, somewhat Larry King-style and in no particular order, a smattering of topics and my POV that will be covered:

-How a segment of the population is rationalizing that the 1st Amendment, specifically the separation of church and state, can be summarily tossed out the window, and the long-term damage this does to our economy.

-The hypocrisy of newly-minted “constitutionalists” who claim to want a strict interpretation of a “dead document,” while at the same time express a desire to toss out that which they don’t like, such as the 14th Amendment.

-How a large swath of evangelical Christians are being led down a blind alley by disingenuous and dangerous “leaders” who prey on their worst fears, and what this likely means for them and for the country if they continue.

-The venom and negativity of conservatives and Republicans is matched only by the vacuum left from the lack of any positive direction or ideas they have.

-The failure of Democrats to have a unified message or to fully get behind Obama has been almost as detrimental as the negative spewing coming from the right.

-Why Obama needs to abandon his natural state of reasoned debate, as no one’s paying attention to sane dialog. Instead he must change his tactic to lay out his vision in overly simplistic terms while doggedly attacking Republicans. The question becomes whether or not he has the temperament to do so.

-The irony of the continued cry of “activist judge” as a slur against the left, while the current conservative Supreme Court has reached for decisions that are just as activist and also have the side effect of being damaging instead of merely polarizing.

-A definition of facism, since few people seem to understand exactly what that is, and why it is both more of a threat to U.S. style capitalism than socialism and also far more likely of an occurrence.

-The continued and arguably accelerating “dumbing down” of America. Everyone seems to think it’s happening, but few look in the mirror to see if they’re part of the problem or take personal responsibility to do anything about it.

-Why TV news is the single worst place to get information and, since the 24/7 news cycle is here to stay, how we must re-train ourselves in its wake.

-The rise of fringe candidates and how they disrupt or even derail governmental effectiveness.

-Racism is alive and well, only society and the right has gotten better at sending coded messages so that their followers can convince themselves that they’re not actually racist.

-Why it doesn’t matter whether you believe in climate change or not, since failure to change our energy policy will remove the United States from its perch as both the economic, military and political superpower, presuming the damage is not already irreversible.

-Why taking policies further that conservatives parrot (e.g., lower taxes, less regulations, relaxing of antitrust laws) will have a detrimental effect on the overall economy.

-An examination of how, as individuals, our personal habits have made us responsible for the mess we’re in, even though no one wants to admit or accept any blame for it; also, the way forward out it.

I will be trying to remain calm and factual. When opinion is necessary, I will strive to remove as much emotion as possible. I am not a journalist, nor an economist, nor a politician. I am just an interested observer who tries to do his homework. A good dialog would be nice, but it’s not really my aim. If I can serve in some small way to educate, inform and make someone think who otherwise is just aping buzzwords and re-hashing talking points, even if they retain their ideological position, then I will feel that this has accomplished something positive.

I've Had Enough

2010-02-23T01:27:00.025-05:00

There comes a point when one has had enough with both sides of the aisle. Ok...there comes a point when THE CENTRIST DUDE has had enough with both sides of the aisle. And those not in an aisle as well.

Can we reintroduce some sanity?

Tea Partiers:

If you're really taking "fiscally conservative" as your mantra, then put our expenditures in Afghanistan and and Iraq on the table. If balancing the fiscal budget is truly your cause, and you cannot acknowledge the drain on our federal budget that comes from those conflicts and at least enter into a debate about how to better spend our defense dollars, then it's very difficult to believe that you're sincere. And therefore, the logical conlusion is that you only care about fiscal restraint for things you don't agree with, but are fine with pouring it down a sinkhole for things that you like. And by the way, that doesn't make you any different than most individuals, much less infer that you're special or justifying of a "movement." That is why there's so much hue and cry that all your bluster is covering for a bunch of anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, and/or anti-black white people who won't voice their true views in public.

Democrats/liberals:

Have you figured out yet that the country hasn't suddenly bought into your way of thinking? That maybe 2008 was more anti-Republican/anti-Bush than pro-anything-you believe? The country doesn't want the federal government to solve all of our woes.

You have missed a golden opportunity to be viewed as the adults in the national conversation. While Republicans did nothing but obstruct, which may I remind you was your tactic when you were the minority party, instead of rising above it and taking your case to the public you seemed to be more interested in pushing your agenda forward at all costs. Yes, we have problems in this country that need solutions, and some are so big that the federal government is the only plausible largesse available. But politics is the art of the possible, not the art of ram-it-down-their-throat, even if you are convinced that your beliefs are correct. By the way, that conviction doesn't separate you from anyone else.

If you can't bring the conversation back to the center, then you are as much of the problem as that which you rail against. Centrists and independents do matter. Quit shouting louder from your corner.

Republicans/conservatives:

Wow. How short your memory is. And how big of a pox you have left on this country. Do you realize that you got rightly butt-whipped in 2008? So don't confusing the current animosity towards Democrats as an acceptance of your agenda. Quite frankly, you're way more lost than the two entities above. You seem to have no road map out of the mess you have largely created, other than "Democrats suck." You rail against big government, but can't show how the lack of government is going to help people who you seem to be hell-bent on leaving in the lurch. Government won't solve all our ills, but get a grip: lack of government won't solve them either.

You won't or can't acknowledge how much damage has been done by your conservative Supreme Court (let's just start with the ruling that corporations have rights on par with individuals when it comes to political contributions), and the destruction of our political standing with respect to the rest of the world. In fact, you are so clueless that you demonize our President as being on an "apology tour," like we don't actually have issues to answer for. And now you suddenly think the country is coming around to your way of thinking? I would laugh if it weren't so sad how clueless you actually are.

Yes, there does need to be a "re-start" button, but I'm not referring to the health care debate. The best scenario would be to explode both parties, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So the next thing to do is to start eliminating incumbents until we have a plurality that understands a few things:

We have a fiscal deficit that badly needs to be addressed, but we also have investments that need to be made that can't just be put off. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that investing in our infrastructure, mass transportation, green energy and other industries of the future is a bad thing? If you own a company, would you stick your head in the sand and ignore new markets and improving your products? No, unless you're not very bright. You'd understand that is the key to being relevant and growing. This country is no different. If you don't get the concept of "spending money to make money", then you're truly stupid.

We have systemic greed on Wall Street that is a major part of our landscape, and it needs to be checked. There are bad people who want to break rules. That's what antitrust is all about. That's what regulation is for. Yes, in the late 70s we had too much regulation and too much bureaucracy. The pendulum has swung. Recognize it.

Our health care system is in ruins, and only those who have their heads in the sand can't see that. On several levels: loss of work force, cost of medical treatment, cost of insurance, an aging populous, this current "system" stands to wreck our country faster than Social Security, taxes, terrorists, or any competing cause. If we don't address it, it's going to be horribly ironic that the America we think we know will be destroyed by a social issue that right-wingers refused to acknowledge. Get off your high horse and bring solutions to the table. (And by the way, the most plausible solution here is to make health care insurance the responsibility of individuals, not employers. But like so many things, we all know that's not going to happen, either.)

You might still be an environmental skeptic or believe that climate change is bogus. Fine. But at least acknowledge that there's a ridiculous amount of money to be made in being on the forefront of "green" energy. This is the next dotcom boom. So why would you rail against it? And while we're on the subject, can those of you on the right please drop the "China and India aren't playing nice" talk as justification for doing nothing? Using that logic, if m neighbor doesn't take care of his yard I'm supposed to let mine go as well. That's got to be in the running for the single stupidest argument ever made.

While there is plenty of blame to go around, it's the current crop Republicans who disappoint and disgust me the most. I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly right-wing politics have become the safe harbor for nutcases and lunatics. I don't hear the constant chatter of crazy talk from the left any more; it's all coming from the right. What happened? How, without my views significantly shifting, has the landscape changed to a place where in my world "Republican" equals Nut Job? Democrats circa 1979 = Republicans circa 2010. If you're a Republican or conservative, you might want to think about that. I haven't fundamentally changed. But you certainly have.

As for the voters, if we really want change and for Washington to be once more about public service, then quit thinking your current congressional rep or senators are doing you any favors. Vote 'em all out. Dick Lugar and Lloyd Doggett aren't helping the cause, either, so why keep them around? Vote against every incumbent, starting with the primaries this week. Time to put the fear of God into any currently elected office holder. That's the only way anyone's going to start working for the good of the country.

Our Selective Ideological Memories

2009-07-16T11:02:00.003-04:00

I’m sure most people recognize this scenario:

New president, following an increasingly unpopular regime, is elected in a major electoral referendum as the populous wants a directional change for the country. Quickly, the new administration moves to reverse the course of the past several years and completely change the federal government’s focus. A massive stimulus package is passed within the first 100 days. The government steps in to dismantle and remake a sector of the transportation industry, to the hue and cry of a segment of the population, and it brings claims of government overreach. The President goes on the offensive to reclaim America’s prestige in the world and undoing the damage done by the previous administration, revamping relationships with both allies and enemies, and reclaiming the mantle of world leadership. The President has strong weapons: he is charismatic, a world-class orator with an easy smile and a disarming personality. Even his detractors can’t help but find him likeable, though they strongly disagree with his policies.

But…after a year and alarmingly mounting debts, the popular tide begins to turn. Congress, formerly seeming to be just a pawn doing the administration’s bidding, now has its eye on the midterm elections, and with the mood of the country casting doubt begins to buck the administration. Reforms that the President deems vital to finishing the job that he started are thwarted by Congress, usually with the excuse that the country’s deficits are already too big, and both the House and Senate routinely block further changes to any existing programs. Unemployment runs over 10% for 9 months, and that’s only among those who haven’t given up looking for work. Predictably, the midterm elections are a bloodbath for the President’s party, rolling back all of the gains made on his coattails in his election year.

Surprisingly to some, this scenario isn’t a hypothetical about Obama, but is a recounting of Reagan’s first two years in office.

If you’re like most Americans, and especially most Republicans, the details of the days from January 1981 to December 1982 are largely forgotten; only the ultimate result of the Reagan years are in most people’s memory banks.

What Reagan did isn’t really that different from what Obama is doing. Reagan’s version of the Recovery Act was to cut the crushing income taxes the country was under across the board (the top tax rate was initially cut from 70% to 50%, while the middle class also received huge tax relief), but the net result was the same: money went to the economic stimulus at the expense of the federal government’s coffers, meaning that the government had a huge budget shortfall. Reagan fired the PATCO workers in what was deemed an unprecedented federal intervention and abuse of power (and arguably putting the air transportation industry’s safety in jeopardy for a time period). Even with the decreased federal coffers, Reagan felt it essential to ratchet up the country’s spending on defense in an attempt to outspend the Soviet Union and ultimately end the Cold War, but at a price that was astronomical (and with no guarantee of success at the time).

The point is this: remember what actually transpired during the Reagan years, and if you don’t remember, do a little research. This isn’t just about the ideological debate of larger government vs. smaller government, but about economic reality and what is best for the needs of the country. What ailed the country in 1980 was overregulation of business and high federal taxes. That can hardly be argued to be the case now, yet we’re in just as severe of an economic crisis. What Obama proposes is essentially the same formula: deliver a huge injection of money into the economy, which drives up the nation’s debt; make a sweeping investment in parts of the economy seen as necessary for long-term survival, which drives the deficit up further still, all in the expectation that the changes will be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing and will ultimately bring new economic growth.

I’m not going to take up space belaboring the obvious differences; I find the similarities more striking. It’s simply ironic that many of the same people who loved Reagan’s solution decry Obama’s now, even though the consequences of Reagan’s policies are exactly what they claim to fear today. The only difference is a belief that what methodology worked then is the same methodology that should be applied now, even though the details and problems have changed.

A little ideological agnosticism and a bit more pragmatism might do a large part of the country a great deal of good.

Centrist Dude Manifesto

2009-03-04T01:00:00.011-05:00

Because I’ve heard from both sides about how wacky I’ve been in the past few months (note my blurb that resides right above this posting) I think it’s time for me to state for everyone what I do and do not believe. I am neither a socialist nor a monarchist, neither a fascist or a communist, and certainly neither a Democrat or a Republican. So it’s time for a personal manifesto of my political beliefs --

One of my fiercest fights has always been for personal liberty, and the biggest concern being laws that destroy it, because once taken away personal liberty never returns. Gay marriage laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws…these might please special interests but they are bad laws. The government is supposed to protect me from others, not from myself.

The second soapbox I’ve been on all of my adult life and much of my teenage years is the use of energy and our ostrich-like approach. We saw that OPEC could bring us to our knees in the early 70s. What have we learned? Apparently zero. Driving a big-ass SUV that gets 12mpg in the city is wasteful, destructive, irresponsible, and quite frankly feeds the machine abroad. And don’t tell me “that’s all I can fit in comfortably” or “but I can haul so much.” Sit in my Matrix and tell my 6’3” frame that you don’t have room. Watch me bring home a tree. I get 30mpg. We had a station wagon that got 20-25mpg. We brought 3 trees home in it once.

The main point is that we have had ample time to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and we’ve neither had the will nor the foresight to do it. This doesn’t even mention the damage to the planet. Which leads me to:

Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it, it’s a reality. Most people that rail against the concept are invested in maintaing the status quo, or they simply don’t want to take any personal responsibility to change their habits. Note that all of the major scientific communities in the world are alarmed by climate change and are in general agreement with the causes and changes that are happening. Advocacy scientists don’t count, folks; if Exxon paid for the research and it contradicts an independent study who do you think is likely to be telling the truth? We're hearing from people who have invested their lives in the pursuit of scientific truth and have a hell of a lot of schooling. Think of the scientists you know; they're an odd bunch but motivated by the search for truth on an almost religious level. I think they know what they’re talking about, and we should listen to them.

I am all for fiscal responsibility. Way for it. And one of the things I always expected the Republicans to do would be to watch my nation’s pocketbook, maybe even too much. ("So you’ve been out of work and you can’t feed your family? Too bad, maggot!") Yet, the Neocons believed only in tax cuts; they never met a spending bill they didn’t like, domestic or foreign. Unless it was against their religious beliefs, of course. And you know what? The party faithful bought it. So long as “their guy” was spending the money, deficits didn’t matter (remember Dick Cheney saying that exact quote?) and it all went to things the faithful liked…like faith-based initiatives, a two-front war, and “No Child Left Behind.” Ok, NCLB became an unfunded mandate that bankrupted the education budget of several states, but you get the point.

Conversely, the typical 70s Democrat who stereotypically couldn’t accept personal responsibility for any group….not my people, either.

To further this, I believe in the Ayn Rand concept of “personal greed is good” but only to a point. There are unscrupulous people in the world who aren’t in it for their own gain by the rules, but rather will lie, cheat, steal and seriously damage others. Pure capitalism is fine if we all are on the same page, but to not recognize that oversight is required (like referees in sporting events) is just silly. Yes, we’ve had too much regulation in the past. Usually it’s regulation about the wrong things for the wrong reasons. But we’ve seen basic regulations removed to the point to where it’s almost every person for themselves and Caveat Emptor seems like a quaint little poem.

Regulation is not a dirty word. It is often the only protection between you and Bernard Madoff, the difference between your portfolio thriving and an abnormally large investment in Enron, between your insurance company deciding to operate as a hedge fund or arbitrarily denying your life-saving surgery. It doesn’t take a genius to know when regulation is silly (all fire extinguishers must be between 3’8” and 4’2” from the floor or you get fined) and when the regulations are common sense. Right now, common sense has been zoned out. We’re way past the pendulum point.

The federal government is too large, too bloated, and too bureaucratic, but that doesn’t mean that it has no role. It’s the sledgehammer in the tool arsenal. You pull it out sparingly, but when you do pull it out don’t be afraid to whack away, and understand that there’s a lot of residual damage and the edges aren’t nice and neat. That’s because it’s a sledgehammer, not a chisel. And I do believe that now is the time to use the sledgehammer, because the time it will take to recover and the damage that will happen if we don’t re-open the faucet is greater than the damage we’ll wreak by banging open the wall to unstop the leak & get the water flowing again.

The Supreme Court is there for a reason, and it’s not to passively sit by. They are to render judgements when there is no clear direction by the law. That’s why the issue has come through the appellate courts in the first place. This does mean that sometimes they will, in effect, create law by creating precedent rulings. This whole “activist judges argument” quite frankly is pushed by people who do not apparently understand what the role of the judiciary is at its most basic level.

Both parties find a messiah every so often, then don’t really understand his (and someday her) message in the context of the time. So Democrats worship FDR and take his emergency save-the-country programs and turn them into public policy for 30 years. Republicans worship Reagan and take his lower taxes and keep-government-out-of-your-lives message past the point of relevancy. This is wrong, but this will happen again. That doesn’t mean that FDR or Reagan were wrong. They were right for their time, and it's not their fault that they eventually begat LBJ and GWB. (Maybe the problem is Texas presidents. But that’s not my point.)

Our system is flawed, like all systems and people. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong system nor that the world is coming to an end. However, blind following of ideologies is cute but childish. No ideology covers every contingency, and sometimes you have to take drastic measures to re-right the train. We all agree that murder is wrong, but we can all come up with a scenario that justifies killing someone. So why can’t we do the same with our governmental system? Why can neither side see that there really are evil people in the world across the spectrum? To the left I say: that person might not be a misunderstood pauper, they might just be a terrorist. To the right I say: that investment banker was actually exploiting and circumventing the system with no regard for anyone else and that makes him a criminal. It’s all the same in that they’re still evil. Neither Ayn Rand nor Ghandi have THE answer. Nor does anyone else. Ideology as a guide with a strong dose of pragmatism as a rudder is a much more effective way to enter into any situation.

I’ve held roughly these same beliefs for the last 30 years or so. If I'm guilty of anything it's not having a singular ideology and someone else to preach it to me. Maybe you can understand how I have come to the same conclusions as President Obama. We need to infuse capital into the system, but not in handouts. Rather, they should be investments in our future. This means investing in our educational system like we did in the 50s, rebuilding our infrastructure to give the country a competitive advantage (like that wacky liberal Eisenhower), overhauling our energy economy to give us independence over our own lives again AND to build a brand-new economy….just like that ideologue FDR electrifying the rural Midwest and crazy Kennedy with his silly space program. Last time I looked, all of those paid major dividends.

And for the record, much of this crisis was caused by arrogant white-collar executives who, now that they’ve seriously screwed up, STILL don’t want to give up power.

Other things that have nothing to do with “manifesto”, but are instructive as to where I lie on the political spectrum:

Best President in my lifetime? Ronald Reagan. He was the right man for the time. No, his administration didn’t cut spending, which was a cornerstone of his entire smaller government argument, and would have solidified him as maybe the 2nd best President behind Lincoln or 3rd behind FDR. Unfortunately, that gave Democrats fodder for years to poke holes in his administration, and on the other side led Dick Cheney to famously and regrettably utter the phrase “Deficits don’t really matter.”

Worst President in my lifetime? Well, GWB has come remarkably close, but it’s probably still Jimmy Carter. He neither inspired confidence nor had good policy. He was simply a reaction to Nixon, which turned out to be horrific. Reflection over the next few years may make me change that, because Bush has sent us on a path that might prove to be more disastrous than we know. For the record, both are admirable human beings. That doesn’t make them good Presidents. And no, regardless of how quickly we pull out of the economic crisis, history will not be kind to W.

2nd best? Eek. My choices are LBJ, Nixon, Ford, GHB, Clinton. Sadly, I have to say that it’s a toss-up between Clinton & Nixon, with both having serious flaws. You might see a glimpse of why I have a bit more faith in Obama.

If you are only listening to pundits and news sources that believe as you do, and you’re only soliciting opinions from people in your socioeconomic strata, regardless of where that strata lies, then you’re part of the problem of divisiveness in this country. You’re not educating yourself, and you’re not helping make things better. All you’ve done is join a club.

Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner deserve each other. Sadly, we deserve neither of them. West Chester OH and San Francisco should both be ashamed and vote these two divisive, petty, vindictive losers out. But given the polarized and ideologically blind demographics of both communities, that probably won’t happen. And that, too, is sad.

My summation is this: I believe in capitalism and democracy. I also recognize that there are times that both have failings. That doesn’t mean that we abandon either, but we do need to recognize that both need tweaking from time to time, and maybe more importantly, sometimes things get so out of control that you need to temporarily throw the book out.

We must make America stronger by being more independent (e.g., controlling our own energy resources) but by also understanding that we cannot be an island. The world is looking to us for leadership, and if we create a void someone WILL come to fill it, and it might not be a someone we want to see. With leadership comes great responsibility, so any actions we take had best be considered carefully, and not just shot from the hip. Unless, of course, the situation dictates that we don’t have time to deliberate.

In other words, give me the smartest guy in the room who’s got a definite direction. I don’t give a flying you-know-what which side of the aisle he comes from.

Stop the Crazy Talk

2008-11-15T22:14:00.001-05:00

The rhetoric coming from both sides is unbelievable. I’ve got an incredulous friend on one side who can’t believe that I could even suggest that Obama will be anything other than the most glorious thing to ever grace the Oval Office. I’ve got another alarmist friend on the other side who seems to think that Democratic rule will turn us into 1917 Russia, or at least 2002 France. And everyone else seems to be generally lining up in some varying degree in one camp or the other.

People, please. Obama is neither the second coming of Jesus nor the Antichrist. He does not possess the keys to the land of Utopia, nor does he have an inside track into the 7th circle of hell. We will not be forced into a One World Order, and he probably won’t re-establish the U.S. as the Most Powerful Country In the World. He is not going to fall under Nancy Pelosi’s power, nor will he be eaten for dinner by Putin and Medvedev.

Here’s the reality: the Obama administration is being left something of a scorched earth. You know this already, but it might be good to see it all laid out again –

-a recession that could spiral into a depression
-banks unwilling or unable to lend money as they try to save themselves
-manufacturing industries screaming for help lest they go belly up and take large segments of the economy with them
-state and city governments that have been trying to ‘make do’ for years seeing visions of bankruptcy
-unemployment threatening to hit levels last seen in the late 70s
-a health care system that can charitably be called inadequate and dysfunctional
-an unpopular war in Iraq that he’s pledged to end, but that we can’t just run away from
-a possibly unwinnable war in Afghanistan that is seen as something we can’t turn our backs on
-an international reputation where allies no longer trust America as a financial symbol or as a beacon of goodness
-a national debt that is threatening to top $13 trillion, much of which is borrowed from a country that is looking to unseat us as the pre-eminent world power
-an economy that relies heavily on a natural resource that largely comes from countries that are either hostile politically or in danger of a power shift to more unfriendly regimes, and we have no backup plan
-mortgage defaults that do not seem to be slowing down
-a national infrastructure that has been neglected for years and is now starting to crumble

And this doesn’t even take into account the extra monies already committed by the Bush administration in the form of “stimulus packages,” the increased size of the federal government, the oncoming retirement of the baby boomers and the strain on the Social Security system, Israel, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad, immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, potential Supreme Court nominees, the airline industry….need I go on?

Anyone that can look at that list and predict a rousingly successful presidency is so optimistic that Pollyana is calling you a nutcase to your face.

But make no mistake: Obama has shown himself to have the temperament, the vision, the organizational ability, a great ability to spot and attract talent, and the leadership skills to be someone who can make sense out of the mess we’re in and at least point the country in the direction out of the morass. It’s not about what he’s “accomplished” with respect to governmental legislation. All you have to do is look at what he accomplished and the way that he did so with his assault on the presidency, with all the odds stacked against him, to know that he has more than a fighting chance to see his way through.

Malcolm Forbes wrote a commentary about Ronald Reagan after he was elected but before he took office that struck me in 1980 and still resonates now. “He will neither be the savior that his followers believe him to be, nor the demon that his detractors expect him to be. In a way, he will disappoint them both.” That seems to be sage advice when one views the Obama presidency from this vantage point.

Election Night Projections

2008-11-03T09:26:00.001-05:00

At the risk of either being overconfident, arrogant, impudent, or some other word ending in ‘nt’, I’ll make a prediction about tomorrow’s results.

The closest it gets is Obama 274, McCain 264, but that really seems unlikely. That would mean McCain picks off every realistic swing state, plus holds on to Virginia. Likewise, it is conceivable but improbable that Obama gets as many as 394 electoral votes. I predict Obama 349, McCain 189, which is enough of a spanking to force the GOP to re-examine itself and start becoming relevant again.

Despite whatever your favorite news coverage implies to keep you glued to your TV, the outcome will likely be telegraphed early. If Obama wins Virginia, the rout is on; the only discussion will be ‘how big.’ If McCain holds Virginia and Ohio, then it will be a close Obama victory. The only way McCain wins is if he takes those two states and Pennsylvania, in which case you can say that an upset is about to occur.

That being said, I’ll probably still be irrationally glued to my TV until way past my bedtime.

Fear vs. Inspiration

2008-10-30T01:35:00.000-05:00

I’ve finally figured it out: after months of trying to get any McCain supporters to tell me why they are voting for them without simply telling me everything wrong with Obama, it is time to state the obvious. We have a large segment of people who are so afraid of a change, no matter how dire the economic and political realities appear, that they will desperately believe all the fear-mongering and hate-spewing being thrown out. They are not the only ones voting for McCain, but they make up the largest bloc along with the Christian Conservatives.

As Joe Biden might say, Ladies and Gentlemen, is this what we have become? Are we really a nation of people who so swallow fear as a motivator that we’ll believe anything, even outright lies and slanderous accusations, if only we can believe that the other person will make our fear go away?

It is on this premise that John McCain and the GOP are emptying the ammunition clips. Obama is a Marxist. He’s for reparations. He’s going to take your guns. Don’t let the Democrats control everything. They’ll change the Supreme Court so that activist judges will destroy your independence. In short, we’re all doomed.

If you actually believe all of this, you might wish to re-read the accusations above and ask yourself if there is any realistic shred or historical precedent that would suggest that this has any inkling of occurring. The answer is emphatically no. So if that’s not going to happen one has to ask what’s really going on here?

McCain and the GOP are bereft of ideas. Having sold their souls to the Christian Conservatives (pun noted) and their only true guiding economic philosophy being “the market will take care of everything, so take the shackles off and watch it go” we have arrived here. And make no mistake: it is the GOP who is to blame. They controlled the House from 1994 until 2006; they controlled the Senate from 1998 to 2006, and the Presidency from 2000 until the present. Read that again if you have not digested it.

Now tell me why we are supposed to fear the Democrats again? Tell me what they are going to do to exacerbate our difficulties? Because the other solution we have as a choice is to continue down that same path. And anyone who believes that McCain is not going to be beholden to the Christian Right and the same financial wizards that got us into this mess don’t understand politics.

So if you’re going to vote for John McCain and you really believe that he is the decisive, insightful leader to lead us through a time when the U.S.’s position as the world’s economic and political leader is at a crossroads, then by all means that’s how you should vote. But if you are voting for McCain out of fear of Obama, maybe you should reconsider why.

Now go vote.

The Destruction of Sarah Palin

2008-10-02T14:10:00.004-04:00

There is increasing evidence that the United States has absolutely had it with the social conservatives in this country, but none more compelling than the fervent, almost mob-like mentality that is passionately committed to destroying Sarah Palin. And, they are succeeding.

There is plenty of ammunition to work with. Palin is clearly not intellectually curious. She has no in-depth knowledge of global issues, or even a clear sense of why she believes many of the ideological things she does. She is inarticulate in a way that makes GWB look like a grand orator. But her biggest sin is her far-right social leanings; the Republican right calls her “one of us.” And for that, she is going to be made an example.

To some degree, critics are correct when they say that she is under scrutiny like no candidate in a long, long time. But they are incorrect when they suggest sexism. If this was a good-looking and rugged candidate named Sam Palin acting and saying the exact same things, the scrutiny would be also be the same. (To that end, if she was plain-looking, male or female, nothing would change.) It has nothing to do with her gender or appearance, although those become convenient excuses. This country has become collectively tired and even angry at the social conservatives driving every agenda in this country. Even many Republicans are finally understanding that part of the reason that the party has left its fiscally responsible roots is because fiscal policy no longer drives the GOP: it’s repealing Roe v. Wade; it’s electing “conservative” judges (also strictly a Roe v. Wade issue); it’s “good Christian values”; it’s cleaning up the airwaves; it’s protecting marriage from gays.

Reality check: the Christian Conservatives have worn out their welcome just as labor unions did back in the 70s. You could almost hear millions of people cheer as one when Reagan disbanded the PATCO workers in 1981. That single act arguably solidified his hold on the presidency from that point forward and doomed unions to the also-ran status from which they are just now emerging. In that same way, you can hear millions holding their breath and getting ready to cheer Palin’s hoped-for debacle in the VP debates tonight.

Whether that comes to fruition or not remains to be seen. But even if it doesn’t, social conservatives everywhere should be taking note of the country’s reaction to their poster child. Like the labor unions in the 80s, if they don’t use it to constructively criticize and reinvent themselves, it’s going to be a long time before they have any influence again.

For that matter, it may already be too late. You can bet the Republican Party is already taking notes on what's happening and will take a hard look at who's influence they'll listen to if they get routed in November.

The problem with Hail Marys

2008-09-26T15:58:00.008-04:00

Woody Hayes, legendary and fiery coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, once said about passing plays: "If you pass the ball, three things can happen and two of them aren't good." Since McCain's personality somewhat resembles Woody's, but his "playbook" is anything but 3 yards and a cloud of dust, it's ironic that tonight's debate has the same spectre. There are reasonably three things that can happen:

1) McCain out-debates Obama and keeps the entire conversation alive. That's probably the best he can hope for, because with the events of the past two weeks it is unlikely he locks up the undecideds.

2) Obama out-debates McCain, causing a majority of "undecideds" to make their decision and McCain effectively losing the election (barring some game-changing mistake by Obama or his campaign). This seems like the most likely outcome.

3) McCain does lose his temper or directly confront Obama or Jim Lehrer in a somewhat out-of-control manner. This is not out of the realm of possibilities. If this happens, you will see a mad rush away from him like you've not seen since all the people supporting Ross Perot fleed after his "space aliens and dirty Republican tricks" comments followed by James Stockdale's deer-in-the-headlights performance.

Unfortunately for McCain, Sarah Palin's already provided half of the 3rd scenario.

By now, anyone that honestly thinks that Palin isn't scarily out of her league hasn't been paying attention. She can't deal with softballers like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. She couldn't even deal with a totally friendly audience when she was "interviewed" by Sean Hannity. She can't answer reporter's questions. For the love of God: this woman is a complete incompetent. This isn't the media being unfair, and this isn’t sexism. This is a person who has no grasp of national issues.

So the pressure is almost entirely on McCain, and there isn't enough time to hand the ball off any longer. He is now forced to open the game up. Oh wait....that's already what he's been doing.

It isn’t often you have the opportunity to watch something implode before your eyes. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen. After all, Door #2 above seems the most likely. But America should tune in tonight, because there is at least the possibility of a “where-were-you-when” moment.

Blocs of Non-Critical Thinkers

2008-09-20T16:14:00.003-04:00

If people think that John McCain:

-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,

then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.

The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:

-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.

Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?

Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:

Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.

Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”

Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.

Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.

Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.

What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.

I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.

Tired But Dangerous Ideology

2008-09-06T11:24:00.007-04:00

Peggy Noonan, thinking she’s off-microphone, laments the “bullshit” selection and stunt of choosing Sarah Palin. Charles Krauthammer, a week after Palin is chosen, writes quite candidly of how Palin undermines McCain’s argument against Obama. David Gergen continues to be stunned at why McCain would choose someone who ignites the base but doesn’t seem to reach a significant number of people in the middle.

What these 3 people have in common is that they are all Reagan Republicans, people who either worked for the Reagan presidency or who’s views were forged and sculpted in the early 80s. They are not of the current era of the bitter political landscape and the rhetoric of social conservative dogma, which is why they see this for what it is: a dumb move.

McCain has completely pulled out the underpinnings of an argument that not only had a great deal of resonance, but one that he's spent lots of time and money pursuing: that Obama is too young, too idealistic, and too inexperienced to lead. Now, one can argue that Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not, or which one actually has more experience. From the point-of-view of political strategy, it's still mystifying. McCain may have charged up the base, but they were going to vote for him (or against Obama) anyway. Whether they're voting for him with a 51% conviction or a 100% conviction, it still just counts as one vote per person.

Additionally, McCain runs a grave risk and high probability of energizing some large centrist voter swaths…to vote AGAINST him. Does anyone really think that, if they know what Palin’s stance is on abortion, women’s rights and sex education that Hillary voters will vote for Palin just because she’s female? She’ll get the 27% that are die-hard social conservatives, plus around 10% who will actually vote for any woman, leaving just under 65% who will be energized to make sure she doesn’t come within sniffing distance of any influence on the next Supreme Court justices. Anyone who has felt a little uncomfortable about the fervent organization of family-values-or-die Republicans over the past several years is likely to get very nervous when those same types are foaming at the mouth in droves. People who were hoping for a civil election can now blame Palin as the person who is driving the negative rhetoric.

Let’s presume she doesn’t mobilize women and the middle against her, that she just energizes the Republican base. (And when did the “base” actually become so one-issue, that of social conservativism?) Other than perhaps raising more money, which, by the way, can no longer be spent since McCain is taking public funds, then her net effect is close to zero. So McCain has to figure that she energizes the base, and he plays for the center. Risky at best, dumb at worst, since it’s awfully tough to separate yourself from your running mate. And if he does, this again bespeaks to his judgment.

It's not fashionable right now to suggest that exposing this strategy is a huge opening for Obama because everyone sees this as a razor-close election, and it could turn out to be just that. But I still stand by my thoughts that ran through my head as I was hearing the announcement at 11am Friday the 29th: this move by McCain has more than a decent chance of destroying his candidacy and being one of the biggest political gaffes in my lifetime. That's not meant to be an indictment of Palin as a person or as a politician, but as the choice of the running mate for this candidate at this time.

Palin is a gifted speaker, at least in front of a teleprompter with several days to rehearse. But for all of the glow and for all of the publicity you’re seeing now, she has to be near-perfect between now and November. She has to be at least able to stand up to Joe Biden politically. Because while she may be forgiven for any failings, any mistakes or questionable comments and remarks she makes will all stick to McCain and speak to his judgement, or lack of it.

Obama’s campaign has made very few missteps to this point, and I’m guessing that they won’t start screwing up now. They can't panic because McCain has gotten a bounce; it's likely to be very temporary. If they stay on message and don’t let McCain remake himself as some sort of maverick above the fray while his minions deal in innuendo and labels, Obama should have opened up a decent lead in key battleground states within the next 30 days.

Dem convention - Day 1

2008-08-26T11:59:00.003-04:00

7:15 Will someone please teach Nancy Pelosi how to speak in public? No wait…don’t. Just tell her to go away. How ironic is it that she’s Speaker of the House? She’s the anti-Obama.

7:22 Pelosi actually made me utter “I wonder what Bill O’Reilly is talking about now.” Even worse, I turn it to Fox for comedic relief. And it is funny. Bill O’Reilly and some dough-faced boy are trying to prove that Barack Obama is the person who is more vulnerable on charges of personal corruption than John McCain. Fair and balanced.

7:27 The Jimmy Carter video about New Orleans. This is what he does well. But he has really hurt his image with his perceived criticism of Israel. Is that why they did the video but he wasn’t allowed to speak?

7:40 Jesse Jackson Jr. He looks nothing like his father, but he sure sounds like him without the mushmouth. But he strikes a slightly different tone. He’s a better speaker at this point in time. He doesn’t come off as what a lot of people identify as a stereotypical African-American; like Obama he strikes me simply as American.

7:55 Back to Jimmy Carter, Gloria Borger on CNN (I’m bouncing around a lot) is suggesting that Carter wasn’t allowed to speak because of the Jewish vote that is supporting Obama and that Carter runs the risk of alienating them. Interesting factoid: Joe Biden’s net worth is about $200K. Yep, $200K, not $200M. Guess that’s what happens from a lifetime of public service. If the Democrats don’t exploit that, they’re dumb asses. Now you’ve got someone that people can believe when he talks about real Americans and fiscal worries.

8pm They’re now announcing that Ted Kennedy will speak. I have had so many fundamental disagreements with him, but he has certainly become a statesman in the past 10 years, and it’s virtually impossible to question his patriotism, even when his policies have been at odds with much of the country.
David Gergen is making the very good point that things are going stupidly slowly and the Dems are missing a golden opportunity to grab the audience with a serious message instead of “letting the hours slip away.”

8:13 Ted Kennedy momentum is building. The man has been given a death sentence; it won’t shock me if he says something really profound and maybe something that no one else could get away with. Like: “Hillary supporters, get over your bad selves.”
Caroline Kennedy…Maria Shriver. I never realized they looked alike until they switched from one to the other.

8:21 I’m not sure how she’s keeping it together with what she’s saying about Ted. Maria’s not.

8:30 Ted does indeed take the stage. I get the feeling this will be the last time we see him speak publicly. Listening to his speech, I can hear the Rush Limbaughs tomorrow, who can’t see past the human element of a dying man making a stand and will make disparaging comments about him. If my supposition turns out to be correct, that speaks volumes about him as a human being, doesn’t it?

8:37 Teddy didn’t actually say anything profound. Too bad; he had carte blanche.

8:50 Chris Dodd is being interviewed on MSNBC about Ted Kennedy. I want to like him; for some reason I just don’t. Or maybe it’s more appropriate to say that I don’t trust him, and he struck me the same way in the Democratic debates last year. But I’ll also admit that I don’t know much about him.

9:00 Tom Harkin is introducing former Republican Jim Leach. Jim Leach’s problem is with our standing in the world and the lack of political ethics. Hence, he’s crossing party lines. That’s great and that needs to be the story, because Jim Leach could make a caffeinated insomniac on crack sleep for days.

9:08 Has anyone else noticed that Brit Hume is actually a basset hound? Fox News has Juan Williams from NPR, and then Bill Kristol, a reporter from Fortune, and a reporter from The Weekly Standard. So much for fair and balanced: 2 conservatives and a reporter for a publication targeted at the wealthy. Thanks for putting the black liberal NPR guy on the panel. Are you sure his name isn’t Token?

9:14 James Carville is speaking on CNN. I am suddenly ill. David Gergen is rightly criticizing the structure of the “show” as not understanding how to grab the audience. He’s rightfully critical about Jim Leach’s speech as being boring and losing the audience signing on at the top of the hour.

9:20 Chris Wallace & Brit Hume are debating about Ted Kennedy and both waxing poetic about him even with their disagreements with his policy. Thank you for being human instead of partisan.

9:24 The video of Michelle Obama begins. I switch to CNN to watch in HD.

9:35 I listen to Michelle’s brother Craig. This is not a “black” family, this is an American family. How much can Michelle Obama do, just by her mere presence in the White House? What a role model for the all-too-frequent African-American family with no father, just by default.

9:45 This is an amazing speech that Michelle is giving. If you’re not moved, you don’t have a heart. You don’t have to agree with her, but you have to believe that she’s sincere. And if you don’t, please leave.

9:55 Barack Obama speaks via video. He missed what city he was in initially (St. Louis instead of Kansas City), but they put his daughters on, and Sasha said “Daddy, what city are you in?” That was classic.

10:06 I am amazed at the analysis on Fox. They are trying to spin Michelle Obama’s speech as a wasted opportunity. Chris Wallace is proving to be just another partisan ass. He’s questioning the decision to have Michelle Obama leave her “stump speech” to give a background on their family, suggesting that people are more interested in the future. Chris, you dumb ass: these are people that are BLACK in case you haven’t noticed, who need to convince the WHITE people of this country that they’re like them and ok to vote for. I’m sure that his father would like to disown him, or at least disown his intellectual grasp. NOTE: All of you people who are watching/listening to Fox as a “news” source, just get over your bad selves.

I'm playing poker on Day 2, but I'll likely DVR at least Hillary's speech so I can watch/listen without the talking heads' spin.

Which Is It?

2008-06-19T12:19:00.003-04:00

Barack Obama is The Most Liberal Member of the Senate.

Barack Obama is a Blank Slate. How do WE know what he is really thinking?

Surely the mutual exclusivity of these two statements is patently obvious....isn't it? Is the electorate stupid enough to not see that you can't be both of these things? Maybe if you're an outfielder who comes to the majors from Tripe A and goes 6-10 in his first two games of the new season. ("He's batting .600 & leading the majors in hitting, but do we really know what he's got?") Outside of something that ridiculous, both of these statements cannot be true.

No, what we have here is the Republicans using the same tactics they've been using for several cycles: give the people multiple negative soundbites about the opposing candidate and let people pick up on whichever one scares or disgusts them enough to vote against the object d'insult. This is less offensive and more effective if it's coupled with "and here's what our candidate will do for you."

Uh...are you seeing the second half of this? Because I'm not.

McCain has become a weak candidate in the blink of an eye. Not so long ago we all believed we knew where he stood: strong defense, fiscal responsibility, a free trader who supports NAFTA, and a man who makes his decisions based on a strong inner moral compass. While the first points haven't necessarily changed, the last couple certainly have. Add to the fact that he has courted the conservative Christian right, which was NOT part of his M.O., and you have disappointed centrists such as myself -- not because we disagree with his views, mind you. Centrists probably are as divided as the rest of the country on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, violence in video games, etc. Our disappointment stems from the obvious pandering to a segment of the base that it's fairly obvious McCain doesn't belong to.

This might be ok from a political point of view if it were effective. It is, in fact, ineffective for the same reasons: the Christian right sees McCain as disingenuous, perhaps because he is.

So now you have a candidate that isn't going to energize the base (a la, GWB) and isn't going to grab the centrists, which is what the winning candidate must have to win this election. The Republicans, sensing disaster, do what they do better than the Democrats: smear. Only this time, there's no "and here's what our candidate will do that's better" to follow the mudslinging.

So just remember: the next time you hear catch-phrase A or catch-phrase B and it gets you worked up, consider the simple little fact that it might not be wholly accurate.

Economic Myths Abound

2008-04-10T19:09:00.004-04:00

So I bring up the housing crisis to Conservative Cali Dude, who then proceeds to climb up on a 2-story soapbox and pontificate on the unfairness of the presumed bailout that's coming. Fact is, though, he's right. 5 or 6 years ago, when we were both still in Indianapolis, we talked about how utterly ridiculous the housing market was becoming and that there would be a serious correction coming. It wasn't if, it was when. And we were both right.

So now what do we do? Well, since both Democrats are in favor of some sort of a bailout, the reality is that there will likely be one. John McCain can't afford to be seen as insensitive, even if that's not the case. So we are all going to share the brunt of propping up a fair share of people who made bad decisions.

Here's the problem: we are panicking as a nation. The sky is falling. This is the worst recession since The Great Depression. Someone please help us.

Here's the reality: we are experiencing a market correction with respect to housing prices in much of the country. It needed to happen. Perhaps it could have/should have happened sooner, but it didn't. But that's all that's happening. Yes, it's going to affect a large number of people, but before everyone goes off their rocker about the problems with Predatory Lenders and Bad People...don't you think that this was telegraphed a long time ago? Are the CCD and me so omniscient that we could see this coming before the rest of the 300 million people in the U.S.? Somehow, I doubt that.

Housing prices have been out of line in certain markets (L.A., Vegas, Phoenix, south Florida) for a long time. C'mon; if you're paying $1MM for a 1000 square foot home on a zero lot and think that you're making a good investment, you're an idiot. Add in that you entered into that mortgage with no money down and took an ARM loan that states pretty clearly that your interest rate could rise as much as 2% per year...you're now just gambling. It didn't matter when this correction happened, you were going to have a significant number of same said idiots that were going to get burned.

So the question becomes, how much do they actually burn the economy back, and how much obligation do we have to bail them out? Personally, I don't think we have much obligation to these people or the institutions that lent them the money. The only reason to jump in with taxpayer money is if the hole left by this segment of the population will destroy the economy.

The new argument goes that unscrupulous lenders are somehow to blame, that they took advantage of people by not disclosing the actual loan terms, which has now caused this crisis to careen out of control. Couple this with investment banks and other lending institutions who traded the paper these loans were written, under the assumption that mortgages were relatively safe gambles, and look at where we’re at. In other words, no one’s at fault except for these crooks that wrote the loans in the first place. The argument then gets taken further to say that if we don’t rescue these poor people, the economy is going to collapse on itself.

People, are you all still in first grade? Do you really believe this?

Why is it not patently obvious that this is just a salve? An easy excuse so that those that got themselves into this fix can feel that they bear little to or even no blame? And the sad fact of the matter is, we’re all buying it! To the point where we’re doing the economic equivalent of overreacting and buying all of the stores out of bread, batteries and water before a snowstorm hits, like that’s really going to make a difference.

Some people are going to say that the true problem is that credit is tightening up to the point where it’s going to destroy the economy. While there is some veracity to that argument, don’t you think that’s masking another problem, that perhaps credit has been a little too easy? If you want to look for predatory lenders, how about credit card companies? Why have they been allowed to get away with the interest rates and practices that they have been utilizing for over 20 years?

What needs to happen right now is for everyone to take a deep breath and examine this a little more thoroughly. Unfortunately, we have our government rushing in to throw money at the problem….your money, I might add…to what end? And once the government gets control of an economic sector it becomes permanent.

That might be ok if they had a history of good management.

LET'S BLOW OFF A TOE

2008-03-08T20:26:00.006-05:00

What is it with this large faction of the Democratic Party that are at best blinded by ideology and at worst are complete morons? This is the 3rd election in the row that the Democrats not only can win, but will win...if only they put up a candidate who a) has vision, b) isn't tied to a previous administration, and c) can pull the independents and centrist voters in.

Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton is actually in a position where she gets enough votes to steal the nomination (yes, steal) away from Barack Obama. Looking at the list above, she fails on all three points.

Are you people really that stupid?

Oh, so you think I'm being harsh or perhaps I just simply don’t see the magic or the significance of HRC. Ok, try this on for size: let's forget for a moment that the Republican in this race is John McCain. Let's pretend for a moment that it's Jeb Bush.

Tell me, Democrats, how that very idea turns your stomach. Tell me how determined you are to make sure that he doesn't get within sniffing distance of the White House. Tell me how much money you are willing to contribute to make sure that he loses, even more determined than you are to make sure that whatever Democrat is running wins.

Do you get the idea? Jeb might actually be the best politician and the most centric of the 3 Bushes. It doesn't matter; his name alone is polarizing and renders him unelectable. And yet, there are a large number of you out there who don't seem to understand just how much the name "Clinton" produces venom-laced saliva in this country. And no, they're not all right-wing wacko Republicans. Those of us in the center have absolutely NO desire to see anyone named Bush or Clinton hit the White House again. Ever. Not now, not in four years, not in eight years.

If Hillary is the nominee, you will in effect be electing a Republican yet again. Oh, I know you don’t think so. “She’s a fighter. She’s tough. The Republicans really don’t like John McCain, and the country is ready for a change.”

Don’t kid yourself. Because if you do, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot yet again. The only control you might have is which foot and how many toes you can blow off.

And quit any comments about the idiocy of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. You need to look in the mirror.

Not So Random Musings

2008-03-03T14:10:00.001-05:00

WHY IS HRC TOUTING EXPERIENCE?
It’s interesting noting that Hillary touts her “experience” and Obama’s lack thereof as reasons she is more prepared. In a speech on Monday excerpted in the Chicago Tribune: "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can't let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."
So how does that jibe with Bill Clinton in 1992? And why does this argument supposedly work against Bush? Clinton was wet behind the ears when it came to national governance. GWB had the advantage of a close family member having been in the White House 8 years earlier. So, who does Hillary’s resume most resemble of the two? Call me silly, but I fail to see Hillary’s argument in any positive light, and I’m betting most of America that has more than an 10th grade education does too.

SPEAKING OF WHICH
We have 3 Senators left in the race. No governors or big-city mayors; only McCain spent time as a congressional representative, serving two terms. None have run a business, though again McCain spent time as VP-Public Relations of an Anheuser-Busch distributorship (due to his current wife Cindy’s familial ownership). Both Obama and Clinton majored in Political Science. McCain attended the Naval Academy. There is a clear winner in the “experience” game, and it’s not Clinton.

TRULY LIBERAL?
Obama is now being touted as an extreme liberal. And I do see some policies that raise my eyebrows. (Raising the cap on FICA taxes, for instance, which could put a serious chill on small businesses.) But when compared to Clinton, the gap between them seems larger than the media is touting. Clinton has this idealistic and naïve zeal, a la Lyndon Johnson, towards a society where the government takes care of everything. Obama seems to recognize the reality of the issues. Hence, if you don’t want to pay in to the federal health care system, in Barack’s world you don’t have to (unless you have children). And don’t come crying when you’re sick and can’t afford to pay, either.

Obama asks for two years of service back to the country in exchange for college subsidies. Yes, he wants out of Iraq immediately (which I also question) but then wants to redouble efforts in Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda. This isn’t your typical tax-and-spend Democrat peacenik. After 8 years of a Republican who never met a spending bill he couldn’t get behind, I’m not sure we’re going to be committing more federal funds.

AN ELECTION OF ISSUES
McCain offers sharp differences in what he proposes. The problem with Clinton is that she seems to be operating without an apparent logic behind them other than a push towards a much larger welfare state. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have more of an agenda than to have the government taking care of everything. So if it’s Obama-McCain this election might actually be a referendum on the direction we wish to go as Americans. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Findings from Friends & Acquaintances

2007-12-25T20:09:00.000-05:00

I’ve endeavored to join as many political discussions with as many different people as possible over the past month or so. My intent has not been to offer my opinion, but rather to ask just enough questions to get the other person or people to open up about what they see with the current landscape. Here are a few of my (admittedly unscientific) findings:

1) The depth of hatred for Hillary Clinton inside the Democratic Party. This one really surprises me. Even though I’ve long held (and still do) that she’s unelectable, I figured that Democrats would largely have a neutral or resigned position about her, if not a positive one. Wrong, at least among the people I’ve been able to engage. They’re using words like “evil,” “Satan,” “power-hungry” and other less pleasant and…ahem…descriptive terms. In fact, I have yet to find more than a single person who rallies around her. (And that person is a female in New England who has traditionally been a Republican.) Now that may say a great deal about the people I can and do rub elbows with, but wouldn’t you think I could find at least one supporter, especially in a place like Austin?

2) Republican support for Mitt Romney. This one’s also a bit of a surprise to me. I’ve heard a lot of this, too: “If (the candidate I support) doesn’t win, Romney would be ok.” Does this mean he’s the actual leader to get the nomination, as he’s the one guy the party can agree on across the board?

3) And the virtual winners are Obama and Giuliani. Centrist Democrats like Giuliani. Centrist Republicans like Obama. Since neither one’s actual history or views jibe with the opposite party’s, I have to believe there are other factors that lead to their current popularity with would-be enemies. In Giuliani’s case, my guess is that it’s his name recognition, plus his perceived legacies of turning around NYC and his handling of 9/11. Obama? Must be because he’s likeable as a person and not being Hillary, because his political stances really don’t align with Republicans one iota. Once the majority of the party faithful actually see where each one stands, their support will waiver. (To me, this is supported by the lack of support for Giuliani among northeastern Democrats, who know him a bit more than the rest of the country.) Nonetheless, will we see some people voting outside of their party’s primary to help nominate these two? And if so, will it be in significant enough numbers to help?

4) Bill who? Fred who? John who? John who again? Again, I have to qualify: there is a limited number of people I’m able to come in contact with, no matter how many I perceive it to be. But since I do converse with people from all over the country and of virtually every political stripe, I find it interesting that everyone not named Romney, Obama, Clinton, or Giuliani has been virtually written off. Does this mean that someone’s campaign could be revived by an early win or two? Sure. But don’t hold your breath.

NOT SO FAST

2007-11-09T09:57:00.001-05:00

Beware the easy prognostications of "here come the Democrats" because one can look to Kentucky, Virginia, and Indianapolis and see a trend. And it’s not necessarily the trend that the Dems think they see, nor the trend the GOPers think they see.

The trend in all probability is “throw the bums out, regardless of affiliation.”

See, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you hail from. If an incumbent's constituents are the least bit unsettled the signs are saying that the bar is much lower than normal to bounce them from office. What I don't see is a mandate for Democrats to re-take power, nor an “all-clear” signal for Republicans that a significant slice of the electorate is still in their camp. The electorate as a whole is very dissatisfied, and if you appear to be part of the problem, regardless of party, you are in deep doo-doo.

Indianapolis is a great case study. Marion County has been becoming increasingly Democratic for the past 15 years to the point where it was the only county in Indiana to vote for Kerry in 2004. But a relative unknown and underfunded Republican upset Bart Peterson, 2-term Democratic mayor, the City-County Council turned majority Republican, and the large suburb of Lawrence ousted its Democratic mayor.

I don’t mean to suggest that this possible groundswell doesn’t favor Democrats, but that's only in places where they don't currently hold office AND there is an incumbent. All bets are off in races where the incumbent isn't running. This feels like the same simmering disappointment that turned into voter anger in both 1976 and 1980. And its roots are not just Iraq or worries about the economy. The general sense is that the country is foundering and people are wanting a clear direction.

In other words, don’t be so sure that any one of us knows the outcome of any race, especially the presidency. And don’t rule out a third party candidate suddenly coming on full force after the Dem & GOP candidates are known.

WHY SPORTSMANSHIP IS STILL IMPORTANT

2007-10-30T14:40:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of talk about the New England Patriots this season, to say the least. I think they're providing a great metaphor. Let's start with just the football aspect:

Right now, there seem to be two camps on the Patriots running up the score: those that think they are and see it as a very bad thing, and those that either don't think they are (ahem) or that because it's pro football, there need be no mercy. No surprise, Group 2 is comprised almost entirely of Patriots fans.

We all want an excuse as to why our team or our own actions are justified. But when you do things like going for it on 4th down with a 5-touchdown lead and leaving your starters in when the other team has no chance is difficult to defend. The reason? They are on a mission to prove they're the best team despite the "Spygate" incident earlier in the season and they seem to think this is the way to remove all doubt. Hmmm...

All the Pats are doing is ensuring that the rest of the nation loathes them, and that other teams will stick it to them when they can. That probably won't be this season, but coaches, fans and players have very long memories when it comes to this sort of behavior. And so do GMs, owners, and front office personnel. Don't be surprised if next year or the year after that some team injures Tom Brady with a purposeful late hit. Or, GMs consistently refuse to make trades with the NE brass...or every road game in a down year (which will happen) turns into “how much can we embarrass the Patriots,” Essentially, Bellichick is threatening to create 20 years of paybacks with one season of a raised middle finger.

Now the non-football portion: how much does this translate to our lives, our politics, our interactions with others? Are we ever truly in a place where "it doesn't matter so long as you win"? Yet from our foreign policy to CEO compensation to presidential campaigns, sportsmanship seems to have taken a back seat. Unfortunately, it does come with consequences.

Also, it is very difficult to build up a great reputation, but extremely easy to destroy it. Witness political figures, celebrities, and others who fall from grace. But once a reputation is destroyed, it is an even longer process to remake it, if it can ever be done.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be done in the utmost manner of politeness, but there does deserve to be some simple respect, even when the stakes are high. Maybe especially when the stakes are high. But somewhere we seem to have forgotten that if you're going to tread on someone in any arena that they will make it their mission to take you down. And they, too, have long memories. Even armies who are bent on killing each other understand that once you've defeated your opponent, you have to give them some grace in defeat, or it will come back to haunt the victors.

So root for your team, Patriots fans. You may even go undefeated and win a championship. Just remember that when your team is being taken apart unmercifully in a few years. Unless your team's ownership starts thinking about their long-term future.

IF AL GORE IS SERIOUS

2007-10-19T22:08:00.001-04:00

Let’s start with a reality check: Al Gore is not going to win the presidency in 2008. He will not be able to get organized, raise enough money, or campaign fast enough to make a dent in the front-loaded primaries, and he’s certainly not going to enter the fray as a 3rd party candidate. The question should be: does Gore ever run for public office again? His eventual answer to that will tell you whether he’s really in it for public service or for ego.

Forget personal prejudices about Gore’s ability (or lack thereof) to often walk the walk he talks, or what his real purpose was about agreeing to make “An Inconvenient Truth.” He has still been an important part of raising the consciousness in this country about climate change, and has caused the debate to intensify. If he is truly interested in serving the public and effecting a change, then he needs to continue to make his case as Al Gore, Private Concerned Citizen. But if this is just a ploy to re-make himself politically, then he’s not interested in public service at all, but power.

I don’t know the answer here. Gore has always championed environmental protection as his #1 cause, and that makes you want to believe that he’s really in it to educate the country and make a difference. But if you watch his movie with a critical eye, you don’t just gloss over all the references to the 2000 election. Instead, you wonder why it’s included. After all, if this is about raising consciousness on what we’re doing to the planet, who cares about how you lost the election?

That is the dichotomy with Al Gore, and why a lot of people struggle with or discount what he stands for, or what he purports to stand for. If you’re really in this for environmental change, why do you try to show how “unfair” the 2000 election was to you? And if the environment is that fragile, why do you live your extremely environmentally abusive lifestyle and think that by buying “carbon credits” you can excuse your behavior?

See, this is the problem with career politicians. They think they’re above the fray, and they think they’re entitled to positions of privilege. Hey…I’m an agoraphobic person who has partially been rewarded by a lifetime of being on stage instead of down with “the rabble.” So on some level I understand. The difference is that I’m not in a position to make policy. I’m just saying that whatever you see Al Gore do in the future with respect to seeking public office should tell you a great deal about his true motivations.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ADVERTISING (or lessons from working in gaming)

2007-10-04T11:05:00.000-04:00

Some of you know that my company works with ad agencies in addition to video game companies. I was just forwarded an article where an agency owner who thinks very highly of himself was pontificating on what's wrong with the industry.

Yeah, this is beyond the normal scope of this blog, but since I haven't been posting anything lately, I thought I'd offer my own take on what seems utterly apparent, and it's considerably different than what Johnny Loveshimselfalot has to say.

For ad agencies to be socially relevant again they must --

1) Have independence. This means freedom from shareholders. One of the single dumbest ideas was to collect agencies in these big holding companies and go public. A creative company needs an environment that allows that it to sink or swim based on taking some chances with ideas, otherwise there will never be "big ideas' or because no one will be willing to allow the potential risk. Nothing sucks the life out of creativity like Wall Street.

2) Hire actual creative types. Virtually every ad agency is now populated by account executives who dress funky to show how creative they are. In reality, most of them are simply immature bad salespeople, more Herb Tarlick than J. Walter Thompson. Scratch that: Herb could at least sell. Agencies don't need more AEs who pretend to be creative: they need CDs and Producers and Copywriters who actually know what they're doing. Which means you might need to hire some weirdos who want to crawl into a corner and draw. Take the gaming approach -- throw a twinkie over the cubicle wall and leave him to his craft. Don't worry...he'll come out eventually.

3) Have a SMALL number of people over the creatives (like one or two) who have proven that they a) know what good creative is and b) have some business acumen. This is where the David Ogilvys and Lester Wundermans of the world really made their mark. They weren't writing all the ads or going on all the shoots -- they were letting the weirdos do their thing and acting as the filter, THEN bringing the best ideas to light. Or, in a gaming scenario, they were the publishers, the creatives were the developers. Somehow, that very simple idea has been lost.

4) When something is working, DON'T SCREW WITH IT. In the gaming world, how much money has Blizzard made on World of Warcraft? How much money has EA made on Madden, Need for Speed and The Sims? How much money has Midway made on Mortal Kombat? How much money has Activision made on Spiderman, World Series of Poker, and Guitar Hero? And it doesn't matter if the producer changes -- you don't mess with the formula until it stops working. This is even MORE imperative with advertising, yet every new AE-who-thinks-he's-a-producer has to stamp out the life of what was happening before and do something new. And it never, ever, ever works. Why? See 3) above.

Also note that this does not mean that new ideas aren't encouraged or allowed to surface. It simply means that change for the sake of change is misguided.

Until then, advertising will continue to decline. If they get to the point where they're irrelevant (and that's not very far away) then nothing will resurrect the trade. It will become the equivalent of used car sales.

You know, I always thought the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" was so ridiculously obvious that anyone who read it should have been saying, "Well, duh." The advertising industry is making me reconsider that opinion....but I'm scratching my head the entire time.

The Early Debates

2007-05-04T11:01:00.000-04:00

On consecutive Thursdays I've watched 8 Democratic and 10 Republican declared presidential candidates "debate" the issues on MSNBC. (A better term than debate might be...outlined their stump speeches?) Lots of takeaways and impressions. In no particular order:

-Everyone should donate $20 to Mike Gravel's campaign. Of course he has no chance of winning, but where else are you going to see James Stockdale melded into Peter Finch and saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more! Now, if I could only remember why I'm mad as hell!!"

-Dennis Kucinich was looking at Mike Gravel going off and a big smile crossed his face. I know what he was thinking: “I’m not finishing last THIS time!”

-Mitt Romney looks and sounds like the perfect Republican candidate. Which is why he has no chance of getting elected, unless he's running against Hillary Clinton.

-HRC will beat no one in a general election. She exudes smarmy and drips with venom, no matter how nicely she talks. Her latest accent, a hard-core northeastern clip she has developed, is emblematic of the distrustworthiness and charade of her entire being. It's quite amazing to me how she has been able to go from Chicago nasal to Arkansas drawl to midwestern accentless to New York in very short periods of time. And no one seems to notice. (But then, no one else seemed to notice what a low-class hoodlum Michael Vick was until now, either.) Trust me on this one, folks: she won't be your next president.

-The pundits at MSNBC don't want Guiliani to win for some reason that I haven't yet figured out. I'll bet his poll numbers don't take a hit after this debate, though, which tells me the rest of those paying attention don't share their reasoning.

-Bill Richardson was a major disappointment. He seemed largely ill-prepared. When he did give confident answers, he came off as naïve and simplistic. Definitely not presidential.

-Obama is able to hold himself in a debate. I no longer doubt his ability to sway opinions to many of his points-of-view.

-John Edwards is much better prepared than he was 4 years ago. Which makes sense since that’s the only reason he has even been in politics is to run for president. Again…I don’t think he’s electable, especially since his message is to those ‘disadavantaged’ in America. Oops…they don’t vote in large numbers.

Joe Biden would be very electable if he weren’t so arrogant and played loose with facts. Alas…

I still see nothing that sways me from my early prediction of Guiliani vs. Obama.

A much needed road trip

2007-04-22T23:26:00.000-04:00

It's amazing what hitting the road for a couple of weeks will do for your soul, or at least for my soul. Hence, an overdue travelog blog.

After a slow 1st quarter, the CW and I have been graciously slammed with work. Two of these projects have required me to travel to the west coast to do a bunch of voice-over talent direction & recording. Because I had to be in 3 different places (San Jose, L.A., Las Vegas) I used that as an excuse to drive instead of fly. As much as I've driven around the country, going west from Austin was an excursion I had not had the opportunity to make.

There is something about driving cross-country in America that makes one reconnect with being American. The independence, the vast differences in landscape, the way the sky changes, the things you glean by talking to various people in bars, restaurants and hotels. Plus, there is the learning experience when you watch and listen to people who aren't native to the place you're visiting, whether they're tourists or transplants. It's even more fascinating to talk to transplants who are originally from the various areas of the country you call home, and understand what they want out of life and their new locale. It's a fabulous eye-opening education.

One of the things I had the opportunity to do was to drive up the Pacific Coast Highway from L.A. to San Jose. All I can say is...wow. I've had some fantastic drives in my years of road trips, but I think that one ranks at least #2 if not taking over the top spot in "breathtaking drives I'd take again." (The others on that list would be driving the Florida Keys, going through Yoho & Banff National Parks in the Canadian Rockies, and driving down the Outer Banks of North Carolina.) I could spend paragraphs describing it, but there is no camera or even an IMAX that could do it justice. It was an unbelievable experience.

I stopped at Monterrey to get some seafood. Unfortunately, I hit Fisherman's Wharf, which is not to be confused with the same place in San Francisco. The SF version is fabulous; Monterrey's....not so much. More of a tourist trap for overweight, underflavored midwesterners to go for the "California experience." My wine was crap (especially for NoCal), my eggplant appetizer was old and bitter. However, the oysters I had were to die for. And they were blue points! No one's doing blue points any more; how come? They were meaty, sweet, and had that taste of the sea that you can only get from oysters. Plus, I was sitting outside on the bay. How bad could life be?

San Jose has always held a lot of charm for me. It's the centerpiece of Silicon Valley, but it's also in a verdant valley between two mountain ranges with the ocean just over the western coastal range. It's big enough to have culture, yet small enough to be accessible and not overwhelming. Go Sharks.

Even with its flaws, California is probably the greatest state in the union, at least in terms of beauty. However, every state has its asshole, and California's is the biggest: L.A. How and why people continue to move and exist there is beyond me. The metro area is huge, overcrowded, and ugly. The people are pretentious to an absurd point. The traffic is probably the worst in the world. The real estate is so out-of-bounds that it makes the Bay Area and NYC look like bargains. Even the "beautiful people" have the help of silicone and surgeons.

However, the drive I took north out of L.A. through the mountains (California Hwy 2, mostly) was another breathtaking display of what Cali has to offer. I love being in Texas, I love the landscape of Austin, and at times I miss the verdancy of the midwest. But man...the varied vistas, the greenery, the floral displays, the ocean scenes, the canyons...it's an unbelievably gorgeous state.

Vegas is another world unto itself.

This was the CW's first visit to Sin City, and it figured to to be interesting to see it through her eyes; I expected that she was going to hate it. I can't say that she did, but I can say that it isn't going to be a destination for either of us. Neither of us are gamblers (unless you want to count my love of very-low-stakes home poker games). The food in Vegas, quite frankly, sucks. At least it used to be cheap, but now you don't even have that to recommend it (and it's expensive not only in the casinos but also far away from The Strip). And there's something sadly amusing about the blatant sex. Maybe it's because of my years on the road and having it shoved in my face, but something about the advertising of it basically says "if you don't get it anywhere else, at least you can get it here." And frankly, that is sad. Based on the tourists I see whenever I'm there, though, the message is hitting the target audience.

The drive back on the back roads of Arizona and New Mexico was extremely interesting. The deserts were in full bloom, so it was probably the most beautiful time of the year to traverse them. The most fascinating part is how often they change; every 20-30 miles the vegetation is different, the mountains are different, and the temperature is different. I found myself wondering, though, about the people who live in this area of the country. How did they get here, why do they stay, and what the hell do they do for a living? It's hard not to answer that with "they were born here, they know of nothing else, and look at their abodes; they're on welfare." I'm sure that's not the majority of the backroads desert denizens, but it's got to be a high percentage.

The trip also confirmed something else: Austin is indeed home. As much as I enjoyed (and probably needed) the excursion, it was exciting as we got closer to the ranch. This is where I belong.

WATCH THE BELT BUCKLE

2007-03-29T14:08:00.000-04:00

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....

Republican straw poll

2007-03-27T13:39:00.000-04:00

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

Mashing Up Hillary...or Who's Afraid of Barack?

2007-03-21T15:42:00.000-04:00

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.)

A Little Perspective, Please

2007-03-11T15:35:00.000-04:00

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.

Sad State of Affairs

2007-02-28T12:55:00.000-05:00

I was reading an article in my old town newspaper (the IndyStar) yesterday, when I happened upon a story about the Indianapolis Museum of Art's new foray. Essentially, they are going to revamp part of the grounds into a nature park and have commissioned 10 original sculptures to be integrated into the landscape, each one by a different artist. What caught my attention is that there were artists from New York, from The Netherlands, San Francisco, Chile, even Cuba...but not one from Indiana.

This probably wouldn't be an issue if it was one piece, or three pieces. But ten?? And there was no way they could justify one person from Indiana to do a piece? Let's take an even wider scope: there was not one person chosen from the Midwest. The closest is a sculptor from Richmond VA.

I found this to be so illustrative of one of the main reasons I finally gave up the fight in Indy. Here is one of the gems of the city, a truly world-renowned art gallery. And yes, they do showcase local artists, mostly in short-term showings (although they do have a permanent area devoted to local artists). But when something "really important" comes along, the Board of Governors didn't even look close to home.

I've seen this time and time again in all of Indy's creative industries. More unbelievable, the same people that go to New York, L.A. or elsewhere for their art or talent will decry the lack of local talent and wonder why no one with any skill stays around unless they're stuck in Indy. And then wonder why their creative businesses lose clientele.

It pains me to read about this. I know talented people back in Indy who want to stay and try to do all they can to change the culture. One by one, they're all fleeing or getting out of the creative business they love altogether. Being in Austin and seeing a culture that nutures and heavily supports local artists, as well as being a cauldron of creative energy, the gulf that Indy and the Midwest have to leap seems more daunting than ever, because the problem and the viewpoints are so systemic and engrained.

The most depressing part was reading the forum postings in the Star, and how many people thought that criticism of the IMA was misplaced...because there's no good talent in Indiana. In essence, IMA has given credence to the stereotype. I'm sure they don't see it that way, and their decision to commission the sculptors they did was not intended to send this sort of a message (at least I hope it was unintentional); nonetheless, it still speaks volumes.

Watching events like this punctuate how glad I am to be in Austin, and how much long-time residents here take for granted. That doesn't mean it doesn't sadden me to see such myopic, provincial behavior in my old hometown.

Obama Rally Recap

2007-02-24T09:14:00.000-05:00

When one is going to go to a political rally, there are a few things one should remember.

First rule of thumb: don't stay up until 3am when you're going to do something that requires thought the next day, even if you're having a really good time.

Second rule of thumb: when it's 70 degrees in Austin bring a jacket. 70 degrees isn't really that warm here, especially if there's wind.

Third rule of thumb: 20% chance of rain means that there IS a chance of rain. And it's not a warm rain in February, even in central Texas.

Sadly, the CW and I ignored all three.

Despite all that, this was quite the interesting event. The setting was at Auditorium Shores, which is actually a field on the south shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin. It could easily be called "Dog Shit Smelling Field at Town Lake" or "Nice View, No Seating Park" or something else more readily identifiable.

Other than Obama merchandise and 658 people soliciting everyone in sight to sign up and work for the Obama campaign, there was nothing to eat or drink besides soft drinks, water and $2 packs of junk food. This wouldn't have been an issue, except that the local paper, The Statesman, published press releases that said they were going to limit the crowd to the first 10,000 people; since there were already requests for over 16,000 tickets we figured we needed to be there early, so we arrived a little before 1pm (Obama being scheduled to speak at 3pm). Two hours without any place to sit or food to speak of was a bit tiring (especially given the breaking of the aforementioned rules of thumb), and as it turned out, wholly unnecessary. We could have shown up at 2:55 and been fine. No one limited the crowd and there was plenty of room to put more people in. The final tally came in this morning as "at least 15,000 people."

The crowd had an air of Woodstock about it. The average age couldn't have been over 26, and they were all enthused, engaged and...well...very 1968. Long hair, loose clothes, tie-died T-shirts, frisbees, live bands playing protest songs, artists & poets mingling, old hippies, braless women, everyone talking of love and change, teenage parents with $8.34 between them playing with their kids. All that was missing was the smell of pot and a couple or two getting it on in a tent. It was almost surreal. I'm not a stranger to standing out in a crowd, but usually it's not because I'm the one who looks like the wealthy Republican plant.

One thing that struck me soon after walking in was how difficult it was going to be to secure this area. (See some of the photos at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/photos/02/022307_reader_obama.html ). Not only was the stage in an open field, there were tall buildings all within relatively easy rifle range. Behind us (south of downtown) were an entire construction crew building a new structure, as well as the Palmer events center, all within 1000 yards of the venue. And the security to get in was lax as well: women's bags were searched before entry, but we saw people who came in with backpacks (which you weren't supposed to be able to bring), umbrellas, food (would have been nice to have), and one person even got in with her dog. Anyone could have walked in with a small weapon without a problem.

I saw exactly two police officers, a male and a female, who stayed together the entire time, one sheriff's deputy, and one Secret Service agent patrolling the crowd, who stuck out like a sore thumb way more than I ever could with his tailored suit, Secret Service pin on his lapel and shoes polished to blinding. Nice undercover work; I wonder if the feds are that stealthy all the time. Oh, and a police helicopter circling for about 10 minutes before Obama hit the stage. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign is just naive enough to be reckless about his safety.

For some reason, there was an almost constant running dialog from the stage about New Orleans. Yes, there are still evacuees in Austin, and yes it's fashionable to talk about the failing of the government there. (No one ever referred to the grotesque failings of the Lousiana & NOLA local officials; to hear it from this forum GWB is responsible for everything.) Given that Obama barely brought it up, I have to wonder what purpose there was to grinding that axe.

The final band relocated to Austin from NOLA, which is the only reason I can figure out why they were allowed to play. The horn section was tight...by the 2nd verse of every tune, the female singer was consistently 1/4 step sharp and kept "going for it" in vocal places that she should have left unexplored. As CW said about their self-penned protest songs: "Generally speaking, protest songs are quite badly written." Note to band: there are more lyrical choices than a recounting of what happened. We all know the story of Katrina, we all know the story of Rosa Parks. Don't give us a blow-by-blow recap and expect anyone to pay attention when your lyrics are along the lines of "She was just tired/and needed a well-deserved rest/ so when they asked her to stand/ she just sat." Thanks for the history lesson...now go take some music lessons. When they played their one cover, Stevie Wonder's "I Wish," there was a lot of wishing all right -- wishing they would go away. They did accomplish one thing, though: I have now seen a bad Austin band.

After another girl got up to speak about Katrina, Obama finally hit the stage to..."Rock and Roll Part 2." That's good. Pull out that burnt back catalog of British pedophiles. Always a crowd-pleaser.

Of course, Obama is extremely charismatic and articulate. It's also easy to see that he's very early in his crafting of a stump speech. I was kind of surprised at how many times he said 'uh,' and paused and seemed to have to gather his thoughts. He's so smart and has his positions so well organized in his head that he probably still believes that he can get up on stage and wing it extemporaneously, and to some extent he can. But I will be very surprised if he doesn't start forming a much better template soon. He's in for the long haul and he's going to start getting tired. There are times that it's better to perform than to think, and I think he has yet to learn that.

Obama's four main points were 1) universal health care, 2) rebuilding the country's infrastructure (including broadband access to everyone), 3) more funding for education, specifically more money to teachers, and 4) getting the country out of Iraq. As with any set of campaign goals, the "how do we pay for it" portion was left out, but a campaign stop is not necessarily the forum to go over the details. Finally, he ended with an explanation of what "The Audacity of Hope" means and the emotion of what he wants to accomplish; very powerful and compelling. He left the stage to "Long Train Running" which kind of made sense.

Now the true problem: he has fired up the youth, but despite all the talk to the contrary this is not who you court to win the presidency. They have no money. They don't get registered to vote. They don't vote when they are registered. For all of the "change" in the 60s and the nostalgia of how politically connected everyone was, the last time I looked Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern did not occupy the White House; instead it was Richard Nixon. If this is Obama's sole crowd he has no chance to win, no matter how much enthusiasm is generated.

All in all, my opinion remains the same: Obama is intriguing, likeable, and passionate. There seems to be very little pretense about him; he is the real deal. But there are places where we have fundamental differences of opinion on the issues, and there are little clues that leave me wondering if he is ready to truly lead. (For instance, he doesn't talk about winning, he talks about being an agent of change.) But he has the two qualities that make an effective leader: charisma, and a clear direction on where he wants to go.

I wonder who else will be coming to town...

WHERE ARE THE PATRONS OF THE ARTS?

2007-02-21T17:19:00.000-05:00

Living in Austin often makes some "eureka" moments occur. One happened recently. After having various creative discussions, visiting some new theaters, listening to the plights of some artists it hit me that we've lost a serious creativity avenue.

A lot of us pay lip service to patronizing the arts. Some of us go farther, buying season tickets to the theater or the symphony, purchasing local bands' CDs, or buying a painting here and there from local artists. A few souls do a bit more by becoming "patrons" of various organizations.

What isn't happening is the nurturing of individual artists. There's no modern-day replacement for an artist taken under the wing of a wealthy patron or even a government and then allowed the freedom to simply create. Instead, artists compete for a fickle public's ears and eyes, or surrender themselves to bureacracies that might mean well but need to turn a profit, or just go all the way and try to bend to the whims of the corporate culture. If they don't, they are faced with the unexpected choice of making their passion and talent a side hobby, or starving for their art. But how much would this change if even a small percentage of talented artists were allowed to create for the sake of creation, without financial worries?

Don't misunderstand me. There are lots of pitfalls: giving someone a full-time job to create art ain't cheap. People sometimes donate to organizations they wouldn't otherwise for tax breaks and to feel good about themselves while they're being entertained; they're not going to cotton to the idea of sponsoring a playwright or poet. And I'm not suggesting some sort of charity ride for people simply because "they wannabe a painter or a songwriter." But the point is this: few of us ever consider giving a promising artist or even a more mature artist the opportunity for a period of time to work on their craft while being able to live a normal life.

We've all seen the person that we believe is talented enough to "make it" or change the way their chosen craft is performed in the future. But usually, years later we're either wondering what happened to them or why they've changed so much. Perhaps those of us who have been a bit more fortunate financially might wish to consider an alternative to blindly throwing money at an entity, and instead giving more support to an individual that needs the opportunity to free themselves from that which takes them away from their craft.

THE ROMNEY FILES

2007-02-14T14:51:00.000-05:00

-Mitt Romney: right-wing conservative.
-Mitt Romney: centrist Republican who can win blue states.
-Mitt Romney: Mormon out of step with America.
-Mitt Romney: Can-do businessman who understands how to lead.

Is he any of these? All of the above? None of the above? Unless you're from Massachusetts or possibly Utah, you likely don't know either. As it is, I'm just now beginning to even find snippets of information deep enough to chew on about the man. Here's the thumbnail:

-Romney made his fortune as a successful venture capitalist in Massachusetts. He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, putting the fear of God into Teddy before losing a close race in which Romney spent over $6MM of his own money. In 2001 he was brought in to salvage the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and took the Games it from a looming financial disaster into a successful and profitable venture. He parlayed that into the governorship of Massachusetts the same year.

Romney's biggest hurdle seems to be convincing voters where he actually stands on issues, and like McCain and Giuliani where he lands may be more crucial to his chances in the Republican primaries than the general election. Romney has been pro-choice for his entire life, but seems to have recently undergone a "conversion" based on a conversation with Harvard scientists who Mitt says horrified him with things they're doing in the lab with human embryos. Whether it's true or not, it rings of a conversion of convenience.

Also hot on his heels is Mitt's religion: he's a Mormon. Most people in the U.S. don't know what Mormons are all, so about stereotypical images are often associated with the religion, such as polygamy. Many fundamentalists apparently don't even see it as a Christian religion, even though they worship Jesus.

Now in my book, neither of these have squat to do with the major problems facing the country. Abortion especially is a hot-button issue that continues to obfuscate other issues and disproportionately dominate the conversation. This is not to suggest it's not important to a large segment of the population, but we are rejecting or electing candidates based on their abortion stance, and it's far from the only issue that is crucial to our lives and well-being. Yet, this may be where Romney's success will be predicated on his ability to walk that line, because if he falls too heavily on one side or the other of the abortion issue he offends that same number on the other side. And there's a real danger that no one believes whatever he says because of his "conversion," even if it's for real, in which case his candidacy is doomed. Sad, but true.

On the actual legislative side of things, Romney has had success as a conservative in an ultra-liberal state where Democrats control both houses. He signed a universal health care plan into law that, among other things, allows employees to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs; it also provides vouchers for the poor. It's probably too early to tell where the successes and pitfalls of his plan will be (and I don't live in Massachusetts so far be it from me to have any insight), but in an era where everyone acknowledges that the system is broken it's a welcome sign of action. He also successfully fought the state Supreme Court's efforts to legalize gay marriage. Score one for each side of the red-blue divide.

My early impression is that most of us don't know enough about Romney to draw any real conclusions; I certainly do not. He reminds me of what ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote about New Orleans Saints rookie Reggie Bush at the beginning of the NFL season, which paraphrased was "No one comes in with more expectations in every direction. If he lives up to the hype, most won't be surprised. If he fails miserably, most won't be surprised. In short, all things and no things are considered possible or even probable, sometimes by the same people."

12 months away from the first primaries, that seems an apt description of Mitt. However, if he takes the bait and goes hard after the right wing of the Republican Party, I'll lay lots and lots of money that he will never come within sniffing distance of the White House. The country has tired of the right-wing rhetoric.

EXORCISING DEMONS, PART 3

2007-02-05T10:23:00.000-05:00

As I told the Conservative Wife, savor this for you may never see it again.

The Colts have slain another dragon. It's unfair that one game carries so much weight, but that's the reality. Among the things that will or might come out of this:

-Marvin & Peyton were already going to the Hall of Fame. (So is Vinatieri, but he'll go in as a Patriot.) Now, Tony Dungy and Bill Polian will likely join them. Dungy validates his years of success not only with the Colts but with rebuilding the culture at Tampa Bay. Polian is no longer a man who can build teams to put up regular season numbers only to falter. Now, he's someone who builds teams to go the the Super Bowl. All because of this one win, the 90s Bills are no longer failures but are now part of a winning pattern orchestrated by Polian. All because of a championship.

-If they continue to perform at a high level, this win provides a road map for Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday and Dwight Freeney to the Hall; it also opens the door a crack for Tarik Glenn, Dallas Clark and Bob Sanders. Kind of like the difference between the Cowboys and Bills of the 90s. Without this win, it's only Harrison & Manning who get in. All because of one game.

-On the flip side, the performances by Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes will put Edgerrin James's career in doubt. James seemed a lock for the Hall, but his performance with the Cardinals and his replacements' success make him look much less worthy. He could have come back to Indy for slightly less money. Now, his apparent greed for the extra $1MM might not be worth it to him in 20 years. All because of one game where his former team didn't miss him.

-The clock is ticking on Rex Grossman. Yes, it's his first full season, but does anyone really think the Bears don't have a chance to win the game if they add a quarterback they could rely on? Pick any QB from any of the other playoff teams and ask yourself if you feel more comfortable with them behind the center at 22-17. Trent Green? Chad Pennington? Even Tony Romo or Eli Manning? Those are the four that got bounced in the first round. How about Jeff Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve McNair or Philip Rivers? Not to mention Tom Brady or Drew Brees. Lovie Smith may be saying all the right things to support Grossman, but at best Rex is on borrowed time. All because of one horrible performance on the biggest stage.

-A new legion of Colts fans has just been born. People who wouldn't have watched will now pay attention. Those previously sitting on the fence will make the Colts their favorite team. And kids who grew up with mild interest will turn into rabid, hard-core fans as they get older. Because their ranks will grow outside the city the Colts will turn into a regional and semi-national team. All because of one win.

-Even as a northern city, Indy has a shot at hosting a Super Bowl. The joyous and notably peaceful celebrations in Monument Circle after the game and the parade later today will show Indianapolis as a city that knows how to celebrate. The city had virtually no shot to host the 2011 game before. Indy still can't be favored, but now it's a legitimate contender. All because they just won a Super Bowl.

No matter what does happen, it was wonderful to see a team win with the type of character and grace that the Colts exhibited, not only this season but throughout the past 5 years. In an era of screaming coaches who compete with their players for face time, demonstrative wide receivers who seem to want attention more than victory, and fans who have more hate for opponents than love for anything, this team did it the right way. They outworked, outplayed, outcoached and outclassed everyone else. Even in victory there was very little gloating, save Robert Mathis's comment asking "the haters to please shut up." Much like the Patriots of 2001, they won as a team, not as individuals.

Now, for the Colts to be spoken in the same breath as the legendary great teams, they're going to have to do it again. And that might be harder than getting there in the first place. So Colts fans, you may be witnessing the birth of a dynasty, but it's also likely that this is it. So savor it, because you may never see it again.

HILLARY CLINTON - THE EASY ONE

2007-01-26T10:01:00.000-05:00

Unelectable.

Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.

On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.

Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.

Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:

-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality

One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.

Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)

Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.

EXCORCISING DEMONS, PART 2 (of a 5-act play)

2007-01-16T00:19:00.000-05:00

The Indianapolis Colts have wished for this for years: a home field playoff game to go to the Super Bowl against the New England Patriots. And now, their wish has been granted.

There are more angles for media stories to this one than an origami swan: Peyton Manning trying to win "the big one", Tony Dungy's playoff failures, the comparisons of Brady & Bellicheck to Montana & Walsh, Adam Viniateri now a Colt instead of a Patriot, a playoff game in Indy instead of Foxboro, etc.

Here's one I want to know: why do Patriots fans (and for that matter most of the northeast) hate Peyton and the Colts? Baltimore I can understand (although after stealing the Cleveland Browns their gripe is one of duplicitious hypocrisy), but Patriots fans? I mean the Pats have owned the Colts until recently, and went through the playoffs on Indy's backside. The national media certainly has annointed Brady as the superior QB, and why not? He's got 3 rings, Peyton hasn't even been in The Game. So what's to hate? The Colts are stocked full of classy players and coaches who's only sin with the media is generally not giving anything quotable or controversial.

Maybe it's because the northeast is so full of people who work in absolutes: the Yankees HATE the Red Sox and Boston HATES New York. Philadelphia HATES the Giants (and anything else that steps into their stadiums). Baltimore Ravens fans apparently just HATE. It's as if somehow those fans believe that their actual lives are bettered by their team beating another team, even though they neither know or control any of the players on the field. Or do they just have a deep-seated need to hate something?

Maybe that's it: they don't understand that in most of the midwest, people don't actually have a high culture of hate. They can love their team and passionately want to beat the opponent, but can also sit next to an opposing fan without coming to blows. Maybe Patriots fans think Indianapolis fans must be filled with hate and must be targeting it at the Patriots, so they have to defend themselves by sending that hate back.

If that is indeed true, then note to New England: the Colts aren't the Yankees and their fans aren't from New York. The Indianapolis fans aren't sending evil thoughts back at you or even your team.

If that's not it, then I'd love a better explanation than "Because I just hate Peyton Manning" or by listening to someone recount stats as an actual justification to hate another human being. Obviously, I've missed something.

Here's another question: just like the above seeming unending vile thrown from The Corridor in the general direction of Indiana, is there really a point where Manning can ever stop hearing the pundits trying to tear him apart? They've beaten the Patriot the past two games (both in Foxborough)...actually, they dismantled them...but still the story of the upcoming game is 'the Patriots have the Colts number.' Apparently, it's now just an ownership in the playoffs, so the other two games don't really count. If Peyton wins this game? 'Well, he hasn't won a Super Bowl.' If he wins the Super Bowl it's kind of hard to believe the next one won't be 'he's only won one' or if he doesn't throw for 300 yards with a QB rating of 135 it will be 'the Colts won in spite of Manning.' I guess if he wins 3, the critics will be spouting something like 'he didn't do it in a 4-year stretch.'

The only thing that the Colts in general and Peyton in particular can hope to put to rest with a win this Sunday is to exorcise the demons of New England once and for all. Nothing more. And they can do it if they remember one thing that San Diego apparently forgot: for all the hype and all the head games, Indianapolis is the better team. If Indianapolis plays with the fervor and passion they did last year in the Monday night drubbing of the Patriots they will go to their first Super Bowl. They will permanently end any talk about NE owning them on any level or at any venue. And really, there should be no additional pressure on Indy, because what if they lose? They simply are back to the same spot they've been for years. It doesn't get any worse.

It does kind of makes one wonder, though: if they can summon a bit of disgust and distaste for their opponent and the critics, just this once, perhaps it would be a good thing.

OBAMA: LINCOLN, TRUMAN OR CARTER?

2007-01-11T18:53:00.001-05:00

I'm more than halfway through Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and it is some of the most compelling reading of any political manifesto in decades (unless you're firmly in the religious right/ultra-conservative/Atilla-the-Hun-was-a-wimp camp). He is articulate in the expressions of his views. He posesses great intellect; he thinks and speaks well on the fly. What is most compelling is that he shuns any sort of divisive qualities. He speaks well of George Bush the man, even as he disagrees with his policies. He bemoans his party's inability to find anything of value in Republican viewpoints, and praises those who find common ground. Even in his "rebuttal" interview after Bush's address about increasing troops in Iraq, Barack went out of his way to say that, even though he disagreed, the President was doing what he truly believed is the best for the country. He also singled out Republicans who feel as Obama does. He is charismatic, articulate, reasoned, and sincere. But...

Obama is also young, inexperienced, and what experience he has is a few years as a senator and a few more as a member of the Illinois state house. As my liberal Colorado friend says, that qualifies him membership in the world's greatest debating club, but it doesn't identify whether he has the credentials to be President. He's never held office as a mayor, governor, or any other political job that could be considered a sort of minor league proving ground for the presidency. So that begs the question: is he a modern day Abraham Lincoln, an erstwhile Harry Truman, or is he the next Jimmy Carter?

All three of these past presidents were radical politicians for the time, vastly different than their predecessors. They all posessed new approaches and fresh idea of how to shape the country, and all came to the office at a time of great turmoil and transition. They conveyed large amounts of charisma and were able to speak to the common man as a colleague. They also came from what is now referred to as flyover country (Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia). But their results were vastly different: one truly changed a nation for the better (albeit by fire), one was unpopular during most of his tenure, only years later being seen as a great president, and one was...well, let's say that Jimmy Carter wasn't much beloved for anything he ever did in office. And that's the dilemma of Obama: he could be anything from a presidential legend to a political disaster.

Obama has come out of academia, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Is someone who debates ethical questions about the Constitution with college students ready for the maniacal gloves-off fervor of someone who passionately believes differently, while also posessing a "damn the facts, I know what I believe" attitude? This same man was soundly defeated in a bid for a congressional representative seat, and were it not for Jack Ryan's sex club/swinging marriage fiasco would probably have been soundly defeated in his Senate race as well. And yet, Obama makes so much sense when you listen to him, and does so without defiling the opposition that it's no wonder that he is achieving rock star iconic status. He is a breath of fresh air, the voice of reason that has been so absent for 12 years or more. He represents both the fear of the unknown on one hand, the hope of a better brand of politics on the other. He is an idealist, and he is a blank slate.

Obama is the wild card this presidential season. He will likely run and he is the antithesis to Hillary Clinton, as well as to any jaded politicians. I don't agree with many of his positions, but who does jibe perfectly? He seems to have a moral compass and a grounded sense of self, with the capacity to listen and assimilate. Unlike how the right is likely to paint him, he does not come across as a left-wing liberal, but as someone who understands and fits more within the center. He may or may not get my vote, but he has my attention.

THE COLTS AND INDY

2007-01-07T23:50:00.000-05:00

Fond though I may be of the place, I have in many ways divorced myself emotionally from Indianapolis. My friends, strangely enough, are not associated with Indy even though many live there. Maybe that's because several were friends before any of us moved there, or maybe it's been my nomadic existence for the bulk of my life that keeps me from identifying a friend with a point on the map. Regardless, one thing keeps me still caring about the city and its well-being: the Indianapolis Colts.

I can still watch the RCA Dome, Peyton, the crowd, Monument Circle at game time, and put myself there. I realize how much that team means to the city, and what it was like when it seemed that they might leave for L.A. (Oh, and I remember my thoughts about them coming there from Baltimore, which happened well before I was a resident, but that's a different discussion.)

If there is a city in this country that deserves a championship, it has to be Indianapolis. It's not like Indy is downtrodden or fighting for its economic survival, but it's not special. Don't get me wrong; Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Birmingham, Phoenix, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee...there are lots of cities that are very liveable and have good people, but despite the best efforts of their local politicians, media, and citizenry they cannot escape the fact that there is and probably never will be a real reason for large scales of people to seek out and fall in love with their town. Living in Austin has made me face this. But it also makes me understand why Indianapolis deserves and needs a champion, especially if it comes from a team like the Colts.

The midwest doesn't do well with thugs, loudmouths, or lazy bums. Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress...dare I say Mike Vanderjagt?...these are not the kind of people that are welcome. I understand this because I am a midwesterner. The work ethic and plethora of good people is as engrained in my soul as the distaste for slackers and chest-thumpers. And this is why the Colts need to win a championship for those good people of not only Indianapolis, but also all the other perceived also-ran cities of the midwest.

Tony Dungy, Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Tom Moore, Ron Meeks, Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Rob Morris, Tarik Glenn: these are players who personnify class and hard work. They are people who mesh with the general ethics and personalities of the population of central Indiana, people who often want nothing more than to raise a good family, be around friends, and have some interesting diversions, and are willing to work hard to get it. The Colts may not be America's Team (and God please tell me that the Cowboys aren't either), but they are Everyman's Team.

This is a team built around doing it the right way: outwork your competition, study harder and be smarter. Don't be dirty, don't cheat. Don't say or do stupid things away from the field or on it. Be pleasant to the media: give them your time as well as being available for the fans. And win and lose as a team, not as individuals.

Yes, the Patriots are the other team that seems to have these qualities, and you can also make the argument that the Saints have picked that persona up this year. But the Saints are a newcomer to the good guys scene. New England? A big city team, as well as the 800 pound gorilla in the NFL. Would anyone be shocked if they unseat the #1 seed Chargers next week? Contrast that with this year's Colts, who are given the same labels generally reserved for the midwest: no one's darling, not from big city, and perceived as flawed and soft. How perfect.

The Colts are going to have their work cut out for them this week, going into their old home of Baltimore, playing against a team of players that not only wouldn't be saleable in Indianapolis but would previously have never been saleable in Baltimore, either. And should they survive that test, they will have to either face this year's most balanced team (the Chargers) or their old nemesis New England. It's not an easy road. But perhaps there should be no easy road for a midwest champion.

It won't surprise me if the Colts bow out before reaching the Super Bowl. Last year was when everything had reached its nexus that would vault the Colts not only to a championship but into a pantheon of great teams, until James Dungy's suicide cast a pall that trivialized and ultimately seemed to undo everything. Fast forward to the 2007 playoffs, and the Colts being almost off the radar. Their defense played the game of the season against Kansas City, but does anyone truly think they can keep it up? Still, there seems to be something special about this team, if only because they are now playing from the same point on the field that Indianapolis the City always seems to be playing: not quite good enough for prime time.

Would it not be fitting if this was the year that the Colts reached for that place deep within their souls, and won one for all the good guys?

E-MAIL ALERTS

2006-12-30T13:09:00.000-05:00

The "new" Blogger is live, and one of the new features is that readers can receive e-mails when a new post is published.

So, for those who are interested, let me know if you'd like to be put on the Centrist Dude e-mail list, and you'll know whenever there's a new posting. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you can set this up yourself; the blog publisher has to submit the e-mail address.

FUN WITH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

2006-12-23T20:52:00.000-05:00

One of the wonderful things about a blog is the potential for feedback. So that’s what I’m going for here: your opinions.

It may be two years out, but we’reseeing the current presidential hopefuls shake out. Evan Bayh has sadly (but wisely) already taken his hat out of the ring, as has Mark Warner. (Well Mark, if you can’t keep your current job you probably shouldn’t seek the boss’s job.) But the following have either formally declared their candidacy, formed exploratory committees, or are generally expected to run:

DEMS
-Hillary Clinton
-John Edwards
-Dennis Kucinich
-Barack Obama
-Bill Richardson

GOP
-Rudy Guiliani
-John McCain
-Mitt Romney
-Newt Gingrich

Let’s take it as a reasonable assumption that no dark horse candidate will enter the fray (I mean, isn’t Kucinich dark enough??) So let’s have some fun: I’m going to take each candidate separately, but let’s start with something basic: who do you like, who do you not like, and (of course) why?
We’ll take each one separately over the coming months, but let’s take this one as a tiny pulse.

I AM STUPID. SO SAYS THE MEDIA.

2006-12-12T10:34:00.000-05:00

In my morning readings I came across this gem:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-12-11-seattle-reading_x.htm

The summation of the articles is that it's a listing of the "10 most literate cities in America," along with a bit of explaining of the criteria used to determine who made the list and some tidbits masquerading as factoids.

At first glance, this might seem like a bit of harmless fluff that allows people in the top cities to pat themselves on the back. But something didn't ring right with this, so I read it a second time a bit more carefully. In doing so, several things seemed a bit odd:

1) With the exception of Atlanta, every city at the top is in a cold climate. Isn't it quite probable that people in San Diego, Durham, Austin and Charlotte might be doing less recreational reading because they're not confined indoors?

2) Newspaper circulation and checking out library books (as well as the number bookstores) are the main factors in how literate your city is. So... if you're getting the paper online instead of subscribing, how are you being counted? It's the same for podcasts and audiobooks winning out over library subscriptions. I, as an example, read quite a bit daily: periodicals, books, and online news. (I do declare that I got this article came from USA Today online!) I haven't seen the inside of a library nor subscribed to a newspaper in 8 or 10 years.

I am not alone. The public's habits have changed; how can John Miller even suggest that newspaper circulation is "one of the best indicators of literate behavior," and that if you don't subscribe to a newspaper that the next best source is whether you go to the library for news? What kind of a dinosaur is this guy? In his world, I'm not even counted.

3) What kind of agenda is being pushed forward by trying to imply that "literate" cities voted for Kerry and, therefore, "illiterate" cities voted for Bush? News flash: urban areas (sometimes known as "cities") largely vote Democratic. C'mon; Marion County (Indianapolis) IN voted for Kerry! It's more news that any major metropolitan areas vote Republican.

It's troubling that this snippet made it through the editorial department. Not only was the last presidential election was 2 years ago (ahem...get over it) but politics are a bit deeper than "dumb asses vote Republican while geniuses vote Democratic." What we have is a blatant example of finding some piece of evidence and using it to make a sweeping judgement to attempt to subtly sway public opinion. Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial complex. I say that equally troubling is the media/educational institution complex.

I certainly don't doubt that the cities mentioned have extremely literate people as they all have high levels of college graduates and people in creative and technical fields. But this study is not just flawed; it shouldn't even be given credence.

LONG TIME, NO POST

2006-12-09T13:59:00.000-05:00

I think a year is a long enough time to go without a new post. Time to begin anew, especially now that I'm no longer in Indianapolis, having relocated to Austin, TX.

Topics you can reasonably expect me to comment on:

-why Austin might be the coolest and most creative city in America
-fixing America's political landscape
-a newcomer's view of Texas politics, values, and misconceptions

To those of you who actually come back to read after this long of a hiatus, thanks.

An Opportunity to Fix New Orleans

2005-09-07T14:42:00.000-04:00

Other than extreme partisans or idiots, it should be clear to everyone that there have been failures at every level in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including FEMA and Bush. Mayor Ray "dont-blame-me-for-anything" Nagin and Governor Kathleen "when-and-how-should-I-ask-for-help" Blanco are equally culpable, if not more so.

This has been one of the most disappointing events in my lifetime, and there are loads of examples pointing to things most of us have known for decades about this country: the cowardice and failure of people in "public service" to plan for anything beyond their watch; the attentiveness of politicians in an election year contrasted with their unconcern when not up for re-election; the culture lawlessness a citizenry acquires when personal responsibility is zoned out and it's-not-your fault platitudes become the norm; the idiocy of not paying attention to obvious environmental problems in the name of progress...I could, of course, go on.

You can easily ascribe which ostrich holes one party or the other will stick their heads into, which is again a problem in itself: no one speaks for me, no one speaks for you, no one seemingly speaks for America. Most politicians only speak for themselves and their "base." Until we quit electing career politicians and start electing true public servants we will continue to have severe problems in crisis situations. 9/11 was different in a sense, because we actually came together as a country. With respect to New Orleans, all there seems to be is finger-pointing and Soviet-style blame-passing.

Since I try to follow my own advice of give solutions, don't just point out the problems, here goes:

1) Shoot the looters and the roaming gangs. Period. They're bad for the country and they're not going to be the ones rebuilding.

2) Ask for the resignation of FEMA Director Michael Brown. If he won't give it, fire him. This is not all his fault, but he's not blameless, and there are times that a leader makes a change to restore confidence to workers and constituents. FEMA isn't like being the ambassador to Sweden, or some other non-important cushy post; appoint someone with a job history of crisis management, not someone who needs a political favor.

3) Bush needs to apologize for the failure of FEMA and not split hairs about it. However, since lots of people seem to want to blame the federal government for not bailing them out all along, the federal government gets to have a very heavy hand in restoring the city. As in:
3a) Put Bernard Karik (or another corruption-reducing big-city police chief ) in charge of restoring the New Orleans police force. Fire the current idiot police chief who can't even speak the English language or accept any share of the blame. The idea is to permanently change the image of the NOPD.
3b) Create an enterprise zone to encourange re-development of the area that will be in place for a minimum of 5 years.
3c) Send the Army Corp of Engineers in to rebuild the levees AND reclaim the wetlands; they get to set the parameters after sending a contingency to The Netherlands to look at how people actually build dikes & seawalls that work. Houses and businesses in the former wetlands will have to be eliminated. (This is when eminent domain is not only acceptable but necessary.) That will upset both environmentalists and industrialists. Too bad.
3d) Impose 90 days of martial law. If you're in the city and out past sundown, you get arrested. If you resist, you get shot. That will hasten the evacuation a bit.

4) Tourism must be restored, and the first place to start is by imposing new rules on the French Quarter. It needs to be a safe place to bring your family. Mardi Gras will never be the same, but again...too bad. If you're that hard up for debauchery, go to Vegas and spend your money on gambling or a prostitute. At least you aren't likely to get rolled.

5) Create a new slogan for the city. No more "Big Easy." I don't have a name (nor am I qualified to come up with one), but it should harken to the history, the people, or the natural beauty. There are plenty of places to head with this (jazz, cajun, creole cooking, blues, the delta), but it needs a new feel and a new direction that isn't rotten and sodden.

6) Offer discounted (or even at-cost) housing to anyone who left the city and wants to come back to rebuild. This will take care of whatever insurance doesn't cover and/or encourage people to rebuild even better structures. In return, participants must sign up to work for the reconstruction of the city for a minimum period (2 years seems good). There will be lots of positions needed: construction workers, office workers, logistics people, even low-skill jobs like clean-up crews. Bottom line, if you're serious about working, the jobs will be there for you. If they are not completely filled up by people who were displaced, offer the same deal to outsiders so as to repopulate the city with fresh blood.

As bad as this situation is, here is a golden opportunity to improve an entire city, while showing the rest of the world as well as U.S. citizens what America can do when crisis strikes. Anything less is unacceptable.

This Land is NOT Your Land

2005-06-25T11:25:00.000-04:00

As has been said, the United States is an idea. We are not held together by common ethnic backgrounds, geographical similarities, or even a connected reason for leaving our homelands to come here. What binds us together as a nation are a few basic ideas: the right to own property, the personal freedom to succeed or fail at whatever we choose, and the expectation of living without undue interference from our government. So when the Supreme Court rules that a developer in New London, Connecticut can take people’s homes to develop a shopping center, I have to ask: what is going to continue to keep us united as Americans? How many more slaps in the face of this magnitude can we as citizens take?

(To read the actual judicial ruling, opinions and dissenting opinions, go to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108.)

To put this in perspective, how easy is it to leap from a developer clearing out some lower income people in a blighted neighborhood (as the current story coming out of New London goes) to seizing and bulldozing homes in a growing area simply to make it easier to develop? And by the way, who in their right mind has ever counted on construction companies to use reason? These are the same people who have the temerity to mow down forests and eliminate acres of natural habitats so that they don’t have to build around those pesky trees.

Worried about corruption in politics? How tempting will it become for developers to line the pockets of politicians in exchange for carte blanche to do what they want? If it's legal to push people off of their land for "economic reasons" the ethics become increasingly fuzzy. And since this is more likely to happen in growing areas how will you give people a fair market value for their properties?

Let’s pretend this is happening in an upside-down real estate market such as Los Angeles. How do you take someone who paid $95,000 for their 2-bedroom home 25 years ago, bulldoze it, and expect them to find a place to live in the same market where you can no longer get that same house in a safe neighborhood for under $950,000? Not to mention the emotional wrenching of forcing someone off of their land. It brings to mind pictures of Tevye in ‘Fiddler On the Roof’ when his Russian “friend” is telling them they have to leave.

There has been a steady erosion of personal civil liberties over the past 30 years, and surprisingly many of them have come during Republican administrations and from a conservative-leaning court. If this is conservative politics, then I wish no part of it. I expect conservatives to try to chip away at my civil liberties by restricting abortion, allowing cops to beat my ass for no good reason, and to force me to worship their god. I certainly don’t expect them to protect me from myself by making me wear a seat belt or ride a motorcycle with a helmet; I don’t expect them to tax the holy hell out of my business; and I don’t fathom them allowing people to take my land for questionable reasons. Yet, all of this has happened under the administrations of Bush Sr. & Jr.

I expect Democrats to be wacky and lean towards a socialistic communal utopia. I expect conservatives to be wacky and lean towards “every person for themselves.” That’s ok; they kind of balance each other out. But they both have to exist; otherwise, there is no balance. Therefore, if this is the new brand of conservatism, then kiss America the Idea goodbye.

Something can be done. Now is the time for Americans to overrule the Supreme Court by pressing their state and federal representatives to pass laws restricting the scope of eminent domain.

MEDIA BIAS IS ULTIMATELY YOUR PROBLEM

2005-01-25T10:43:00.000-04:00

I’m probably the last person on earth to read Bernie Goldberg’s “Bias.” What is striking to me is how little real information I’ve gleaned from it. The anecdotes are funny, the bias is both real and sad, but I’ve constantly found myself saying “Well…duh!” Perhaps the only eye-opener is the degree to which the majority of journalists can’t see that they are completely out of touch with mainstream America.

What amazes me more is how most of my liberal friends can’t see how biased journalism is. To them, the Wall Street Journal is a right-wing nut collection and Fox News is downright evil. But somehow, CNN is fair. National Public Radio is centrist. The New York Times is a voice of authority and reason. They'll start commentary with “I was reading in the Boston Globe this morning and it said…”, without it even crossing their minds that maybe, just maybe, there’s a serious agenda behind the story.

As for the conservatives and their new Bible, talk radio, all I can say is that while I disagree with the vitriol and some of the short-sighted “all big media is evil” speak, they at least should be applauded for coming out up front and admitting their political leanings and objectives. I find the Sean Hannitys and Bill O’Reillys of the world to be unlistenable, but you can’t say they’re misleading the listener by acting as if they’re objective, and I respect that a lot more than Maureen Dowd or Peter Jennings trying to convince me that they have any inkling of objectivity. However, that doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh et al should be your information source, because it's just as short-sighted and ludicrous when someone starts with "Rush was talking about..."

If we are truly going to be an informed society, then it is incumbent upon us to start holding the media’s feet to the fire. Since I don’t expect any major news organization to suddenly start hiring capable reporters & commentators of the other side or even true centrists (since they all think they ARE centrist), then we must actually start pulling news from a variety of sources, even ones we might disagree with initially. If all you’re reading is the Hartford Courant or the Indianapolis Star, and all you’re watching is the local & network news, then it’s time to broaden your horizons a bit. A few suggestions, all of which are online in part or in full:

-The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). They are pro-business, and they are definitely conservative when it comes to world politics. However, they are still New York City journalists, and there is a lot more liberalism in their slant than most people realize.

-U.S. News and World Report. (www.usnews.com ) Possibly the single best print publication in America when it comes to balanced reporting. Gloria Borger, Michael Barone, John Leo, Mortimer Zuckerman and Lou Dobbs are regular columnists. It doesn’t get much more diverse politically than that without retaining extremists.

-The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com). Yes, Matt does lean conservative. However, there are regular links to Maureen Dowd, Dick Morris, Helen Thomas and other liberals, as well as the BBC and the major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.).

-NPR (www.npr.org) – They’re liberal and yes, they have an agenda. But they do try hard to present both sides of the story and they keep alive what liberalism is supposed to be about, instead of the elitist version that is currently practiced by the Democratic Party, the Bay Area, and the entire northeast corridor.

The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com) – Liberal by Midwest standards, conservative by coastal standards. Enough said.

INAUGURATION OBSERVATIONS

2005-01-20T23:28:00.000-04:00

Ahhh, the 2nd Bush term. Panacea if you’re a hard-core Republican, the end of the world if you’re a hard-core Democrat. Almost like the 2nd Clinton term in reverse.

Watching the inauguration yesterday was an interesting character study. The behaviors and images shown may not tell the whole story, but they do shed light into a few likely future and past politicians:

Hillary Clinton – Could she have looked more bored? It was quite obvious that at best she was taking mental Cliff’s notes. It was as if she felt too smart to be there and besides, what would that evil man at the podium have to say of note anyway? To all of you Bush haters who think Hillary is a savior, examine your criticisms of Bush’s personality and tell me where Hillary’s style is going to be an improvement. You may not wish to believe it, but she’s unelectable and will bring the Dems down further nationally if she’s nominated. Or as the former Indianapolis city treasurer diplomatically told me today, “She’ll definitely ensure a big turnout.” And he wasn’t talking about Democrats.

Bill Clinton – A study in contrast from his wife. Say what you will about him, but as he hung on every word Bush had to say. Not because he may have agreed, but because he understood: the place, the reason for the message, the gravity of what Bush is dealing with. A prediction: unlike what I previously believed, Bill Clinton will continue to grow in stature as an ex-president.

Rudy Giuliani – He was visibly freezing, but also paying close attention. Rudy seems to be unpretentious (for a New Yorker), and no-nonsense. He’ll tell you what he thinks, but he’s extremely smart, and his mannerisms at the inauguration say the same thing. He’s my early pick to win the GOP nomination.

John McCain – Looked confident and statesman-like. Quite electable on the national stage. If I only believed that the RNC would actually fund him I’d have more confidence in his chances. But I don’t think the conservative wing of the Republican Party will allow it, and that’s too bad. He deserves a shot. Note to Republicans: quit paying undue attention to the religious right. They will be your albatross, just as the fringe groups are to the Democrats.

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter – They both looked like ministers, especially Jimmy, as if the weight of the day was all they felt along with compassion for the man behind the microphone. Side note: I know she’s at least in her 70s, but Rosalynn looks like 55. What is she eating? Or not eating?

John Kerry - Gracious but extremely tense. Only Al Gore, on the podium as the outgoing Vice-President at the last inauguration and in full glare of the cameras, could have been in a worse spot. Teresa should have suggested he not show up to this one.

Jenna and Barbara Bush – I’d like to see them replace Paris & Nicole on “The Simple Life.” Seriously, they seem imbued with a great mix of confidence borne out of both worldliness and youthful ignorance; Jenna seems to possess it in spades. As with all presidential children, it will be interesting to see where they end up in a few years.

NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION - BLOG MORE

2005-01-11T07:00:00.000-04:00

It’s amazing how much havoc the holidays can wreak on your everyday routines. ‘Tis way past time to get back to my regular postings.

Watching a new Indiana state administration (Mitch Daniels) and a returning national administration (George W. Bush) already has me looking ahead to 2008. Some early predictions:

-Hillary Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats wish to re-take the White House they must find someone who can win in the Republican strongholds, like Evan Bayh. I must say though, even being from Indiana, there is something about Bayh that makes me question whether he’s actually presidential material. But he is a Democrat who can win in normally Republican country. Unlike John Edwards, who had zero influence even in his own home state (as was also the case with Al Gore), Bayh would likely take Indiana and swing Ohio over to the Democrats, which would almost assuredly win the race.

-The game is no different for Republicans, even with the apparent success in the last election. The country is almost white-knuckling over how conservative it’s become. A centrist candidate would have wiped the mat with Bush, and only the provincialism of the Democrats kept any real candidates from even getting into the game. It will take a Republican who can grab the center. Since I don’t believe that John McCain will actually get the financial support from the GOP coffers (for lots of obvious reasons), look for someone like Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani merely holds the current “red states” and takes New York out of the Dems column (which he would) it would a 62-point electoral vote swing…a landslide. One downside of Giuliani: I doubt that he has national coattails.

In my home state of Indiana, big changes are afoot. Mitch Daniels has come in with the same vigor and mandate for change as Ronald Reagan did some 24 years ago. The difference in Daniels case is that he must break the pattern of behavior of Indiana residents borne out over the past 200 years: provincialism, distrust of outsiders, resistance to new industries, and self-deprecation. (Or, to use one phrase, Hayseed Hoosierism.) I have no doubt that he can do it, though, as I watched Evan Bayh shift the mindset for 8 years, only to be undone by the tragically late-but-still-incompetent good-ole-boy Frank O’Bannon. For those outside of Indiana this might be a sideshow for you to watch. If Daniels is able to re-make the economy of this state, as I believe he will, it will mold new-style Republicans out of previously staunch Democratic areas and industries. This, in turn, will catch the attention of the GOP and become a model for economic and political growth across the country. IF…Daniels is successful.

On a personal side note, I met now-embattled Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell some 20 years ago. My stepfather was the chair of a Cincinnati community cable TV company, and Blackwell and Jerry Springer (yes, the Jerry Springer) came to this very small gathering to preside over their awards show, and I'm sure they weren't compensated for their time. If they were, it couldn't have been much. I found them both to be personable and very giving of their time. This from two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle who were then the most recent Cincinnati ex-mayors. I have no moral or conclusion to the story, other than to be fascinated by the paths their lives have since taken.

Go Colts.

TROUBLE AFOOT...HOW DO WE HANDLE IT?

2004-12-01T02:35:00.000-04:00

So Bush voters thought his re-election would send a message to the rest of the world that would ultimately make us safer, while anti-Bush voters believed that ousting Bush would make us more secure. A quick spin around the world says that no one was right; the world is in flux regardless of current U.S. policy. Consider the bad:

-Unless you’re an idealistic ostrich, it’s fairly obvious that Iran is trying to move towards a nuclear arsenal. Did they speed the program up because of U.S. involvement in Iraq? Perhaps, but except for the tunnel-visioned who blame everything on Bush, the history of their nuclear program says that this was going to happen regardless of U.S. policy.

-Russia is trying to re-exert its power in the region, as evidenced by the Ukranian election. Couple that with the Chechnyan conflicts and the U.S./European/Soviet history, and it’s pretty tough policy figuring out how to deal with the Russians.

-Al-Qaeda has likely been weakened, but is far from being torn asunder.

And, consider the good news:

-It’s early, but Palestinian leaders seem to be softening their stance towards Israel since the death of Yasser Arafat. Recently, Abbas personally has called for Palestinian media to quit broadcasting and publishing anti-Jewish pieces.

-Kofi Annan is finally being exposed for the trough-feeding bureaucrat that many people have suspected him to be, and his leadership is perhaps about to end. If that happens, a strong leader at the U.N. could actually give that organization one more shot at being something other than a debating body that squanders and bleeds Western money.

-Say what you will about Bush, but the Fallujah offensive in Iraq is a smart moved that should have been done a long time ago. We’re not looking at the end of the insurgency, but the Arab community has a long, long history of only responding to force. It’s time we apply a bit more of it, and by winning the election Bush has some time to use it.

The future could take a million different paths. However, here are some realistic and credible things I believe we can do as a nation to insure that we head down the right one:

-Err on the side of military pressure in Iraq. Again, Arab culture has historically responded to force. Don’t think of Al-Qaeda, Palestine and Iran with American and European values. To them, diplomacy is a sign of weakness; just witness Yasser Arafat turning down the Palestinian homeland, the assassination of Anwar Sadat after the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and miles of history in the brutality of those who ascend to leadership in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, King Farouk, the Ottoman Empire, and Syria's Hafiz Assad of Syria’s, just to name a few in the 20th century). These are people who respect little other than the big stick. Use it.

-Recognize Russia as an opponent, but not an enemy. Russia has centuries as a powerful nation, which is something the U.S. cannot relate to. (We could perhaps counsel England for some insights.) Neither the Russian people nor their leadership has taken kindly to their reduced role in the world, and we’re starting to see them play a heavy hand in their own region. If left unchecked they will start doing the same on a wider scale.

This is a delicate situation. Russia will be a world player just due to the size and population of their nation. Throw in their history and you have a country that will be willing to fight to regain supremacy for years, decades, or even centuries. We need to treat the Russians as you would a colleague in the same situation; with a mixture of deference, camaraderie, and a firm understanding of both the power you hold and how to use it without waving it in their face. Lots of neo-con haters have their concerns misplaced. The arrogance this administration is capable of will actually work well vs. the Middle East. Russia, however, is a different story. Perhaps Bush recognizes this, which is why he refers to Vladimir Putin as his friend. It will take a long, concerted effort, but we can make Russia our friend as well if they see us as allies on the world stage for the long haul. Not an easy proposition, but not impossible, either.

-China is Russia times 10. And the Chinese seem to have a way of “doing business” that would make the most ruthless capitalist blush. Take that into account, and add in their history: China was the most innovative culture for 1000 years before being decimated by the upstart Europeans and by internal problems (drugs, corrupt government); the tentatively re-built government was torn asunder by WWII; they underwent a short revival of sorts under a brutal Communist regime; they are now embracing their own hybrid form of government again, a quasi capitalist-socialist mix.

Going back to the “colleague” analogy above, what would you do with a business associate who had built a successful company, was ousted, had a new company that failed, and was now going back to the old company to revive it? (See: Steve Jobs & Apple.) You would greet this person with reverence, but also with a certain amount of skepticism in both your policy and your tone of voice. This isn't easy, because China can bluster like Arabs (as does North Korea), but in reality they are still re-finding their feet. But it's the right course. We shouldn't thwart the Chinese from re-finding their footing, but we don’t need to help them either. Make it known that we aren't interfering, and stand back while they make mistakes, which they will. Just look at how their handling their own AIDS epidemic.

It doesn’t look to me like the world is coming to an end, but the USA, like the rest of the globe, is at a crossroads. We have the mantle of supremacy at the moment; how we deal with the other world players will determine whether we keep that mantle in the next 20-50 years. I would like to know what those of you out in blog-land think. Comment below or e-mail me.

MOTOWN BRAWL AND WHAT IT MEANS

2004-11-23T02:50:00.000-04:00

Being in Indianapolis, the Pacers-Pistons brawl has personal significance, and has hit me like it has many other people: shock, disgust, and anger. It has also brought up a flurry of thoughts.

1) Character matters. Along with a lot of the national media, I believe that Ron Artest had justification to go after the fan(s) throwing things at him, especially after he was hit in the face. In a lot of respects, though, that didn’t ultimately matter because it doesn't excuse him.

Unlike many other sports cities, Indianapolis doesn’t deal well with prima donnas or spoiled brats, and the local franchises have always stuck with high-character players. Artest, though, has been an anomaly. He's a loose cannon, and he needed to be traded as soon as possible for whatever the franchise could get; otherwise, he could blow up in the team’s face. Well…guess what? The bomb went off. Now the Pacers, who have been as clean as any team in professional sports, have an indelible stain that may never be wiped away.

In my years on the road playing music, I learned that, although there are a lot of extremely talented musicians, talent is not what matters. Yes, there has to be a minimum level of talent, but once someone has reached that threshold the most important thing is their character. Do they buy into the system of the organization? Can they get along with the other members even in times of adversity? Do they have bad habits (e.g. substance abuse, temper problems) that will cost you down the road? I don’t think that’s much different in any other organization, including sports teams. If your choice is between a guy with incredible talent but character flaws vs. the guy who is workmanlike but is a team player, take the latter without hesitation.

2) There has to be culpability for ALL organizations. Yes, the Pacers were the ones who went into the stands. But the conflict started because a) Piston center Ben Wallace shoved Artest, b) the Piston bench emptied prompting the Pacer bench to do the same, and c) the Pistons fans started throwing beer, ice, and anything else they could get their hands on at the Pacers. Then, the fans excerbated the conflict by coming onto the court, and continuing to throw objects and pour beer onto the Pacers. Yet it’s the Pacers who have had their season ruined by the suspensions that have been doled out. The Pistons are essentially getting off scot-free. How about a fine so large that it prevents them from signing players? Or banning them from selling beer for the remainder of the season? Or something novel, like a $100 million dollar fine, which is reduced $1MM for each offending fan they identify and prosecute (there were easily 100 fans involved)?

Without coming down hard on the Pistons the NBA punishment is hollow, unfair, and it will come back to haunt them, perhaps in ways they don’t even see now.

3) Society needs to clean itself up. What is the parentage of people who think it’s ok to show up at a sporting event and behave that way? How has violence become a solution in situations that don’t call for it, whether it’s at a sporting event or on the highway? At some point, we need to examine ourselves in the mirror and change a few things about our daily lives, and acknowledge that it's not always "the other guy." Perhaps that’s what was meant by “moral values” at the polls.

4) Why the hero worship of those who aren’t heroes? Ron Artest isn’t the kind of athlete who engenders hero worship because he’s a strange combination: a normally quiet loner with tremendous talent, and an anger management problem. But other “self-promoters” have had legions of followers, such as Dennis Rodman, Terrell Owens, Warren Sapp, and Randy Moss, while having questionable to serious character flaws. Why? What has happened in our society where these people are actually revered? And no, it’s not lost on me that all of the above are black. Is that just me as a white person missing something about the black community that allows or even encourages this type of behavior to flourish?

I don’t have all the answers, but I do see the problems. And I know we need to start finding and focusing on answers, without prejudice as to what and where the problems and solutions are found.

DANGER AT THE POLES

2004-11-16T15:26:00.000-04:00

Let’s start with a few postulations:

1) On a national scale, the country has moved so far to the right that it has become uncomfortably conservative for a majority of the populous. Yet,

2) the country continues to march ever more rightward, re-electing Bush by a greater margin than in 2000, and increasing the Republican margin in Congress.

3) Just as in nature, when everything gets out of balance politically, there are often violent and unforeseen “corrections.”

This spells a lot of trouble for this country. Republicans apparently see no reason to be anything other than extremely conservative. Democrats, instead of trying to put up candidates that are palatable to the moderates and independents in the electorate, are instead running liberal candidates who are also unpalatable to the mainstream, as well as being offensive to conservatives. This would explain how the country can continue to shift rightward.

It’s not hard to see the potential for some confrontations in the not-too-distant future similar to the late 60s. I’m a bit too young to remember, but it sure feels like what I imagine 1964 must have been, only in reverse: a long string of Democratic presidents with a popular 2-term Republican stuck in the middle. A winnable and controversial election gone awry in 1960; an almost unelectable GOP candidate in 1964; a “just” war gone sour….all leading to tremendous social and political upheaval in 1968 and the ultimate election of an even more divisive President.

Are we doomed to play out the same scenario? Of course things aren’t exactly as they were in the 60s, but I believe the answer is yes if we continue to get our candidates from opposite poles of the electorate.

The concern here is that Dem & GOP leaders fail to see this, and yet each can unilaterally avoid it. Both parties need to be less concerned about their “base” and concentrate on grabbing people in the middle. Yes, a lot was made this election about “turning out the base,” but let’s be real. EVERYONE turned out: base voters, independent voters, fringe voters…anyone and everyone who was actually inclined to vote did so. If the Dems had been able to grab the middle they would have wiped out Bush, no matter how many right-wingers got out to vote Republican.

The challenge is on us as well to ensure that we let our local party leaders know that we need politicians that represent the majority of the country, not its loud-mouthed fringes. If we fail, we run a grave risk of internal upheaval that, just like 40 years ago, no one saw coming and no one knew what to do when it did indeed rear its ugly head.

P.S. If you're on the political fringe, get over your bad self and recognize that retaining or finding your political voice rests with being able to claim the middle first.

IT'S 1964 ALL OVER AGAIN

2004-11-09T12:50:00.000-04:00

It has dawned on me. Maybe everyone else has figured it out, and I’m a bit slow. But it has dawned on me why the country continues to shift rightward; the reason why liberals are scratching their heads today, still trying to come up with ridiculous reasons why they lost.

There are no moderates at the helm of the Democratic Party.

For crying out loud, Howard Dean is bidding to chair the DNC…and it appears he's being taken seriously. For those of you who are so far left that you can’t see the forest for the trees, this would be like Pat Buchanan becoming the RNC chair.

I grew up a Democrat, a party that used to stand up for the little guy. Then, the party was about correcting injustices in the system, such as racism and antitrust legislation. The Dems stood for exposing abuses of power, whether political or social, and keeping the playing field level for the common person. They voiced a clear vision of what was right and wrong in the world, and how they saw to correct it.

But not any more. Now the Dems are best embodied by their congressional leader, Nancy Pelosi. This is a party that has no clear direction other than opposition, that paints Republicans and those who vote for them stupid...and then actually tries to prove it. This is a party that represents people on the fringe but will ignore those in the center. This is a party that accepts defeat with the grace of a 2-year old, and instead of turning the mirror inward looks for spurious reasons why its candidates continue to lose. In 2000, it was a “stolen” election. In 2002 it was "knee-jerk voting." This time, it’s “stupid, dangerous Christians.” What’s it going to be next time, “stupid dangerous knee-jerk Christians that prefer red,” so they vote Republican?

Here’s the real problem, Party of My Youth: you are putting up lousy national candidates that don’t represent anyone outside of San Francisco, Hollywood, New York, and disenfranchised inner cities. Look at the county-by-county map of how the country voted. Your candidates are getting shelled. Quit patting yourselves on the back about how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is, and educate yourselves about what is really happening in the rest of the country. Maybe (gasp) visit the Midwest. Or Atlanta. Or if you have to leave the safe, fake-world reality of Liberal-Land in baby steps, head to Austin.

Barry Goldwater, who would be considered a moderate Republican today, could not win in 1964 when the country was leaning extremely left. Hear me well, my fellow Democrats: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards and Howard Dean cannot win in today’s environment, nor can anyone that looks and sounds like them. If you do not put up a centrist candidate, you will continue to get the living crap beat out of you.

Turn the mirror on yourselves for once.

POST-ELECTION ANGER/OBSERVATIONS

2004-11-04T20:35:00.000-04:00

48 hours after the general election, I have a few observations. I am warning the wary that this is possibly the angriest column I will ever write, but there are some things I have to publicly get off my chest because I'm listening to coastal liberals telling me why I voted the way I did. And they just don't get it:

-BIG MEDIA IS NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY
Reporting that the exit polls showed a Kerry victory??? At 6:01pm??? Not only were they wrong, the major news organizations (other than Fox) exposed themselves yet again: They Are Not Objective!! Come on people, they so wanted to either a) believe that Kerry would win or b) influence the Central through Mountain time zone states into not voting if you were for Bush (because it was over) or insuring you’d vote if you were for Kerry (to make sure that he won). No other way to say it: that’s horse shit. Shame on NBC, shame on CBS (doubly), shame on ABC, and shame, shame, shame on CNN. I hope you all get your just rewards for hijacking a once-proud institution.

Consider this: the major news organizations were talking about how South Carolina, West Virgina and Virginia were too close to call, even though every single poll for weeks had showed them strongly in the Bush camp. The final results? Bush wins Virginia by 9%, West Virginia by 13% and North Carolina by 13%. These races were never, ever, ever in doubt, and it’s disgraceful that B.M purposely spun them as such.

At 10:00 Eastern Time I could tell that Ohio was Bush’s, yet no network would call it or even paint a grim picture for Kerry like they did with the states above for Bush. Why was it obvious? Because Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) was 80% in, with Kerry winning 65%-35%...and that’s the single most Democratic county in Ohio. Also, at that time, Bush already had a 90,000 vote lead, and they hadn’t even gotten 30% of the returns from Hamilton County (Cincinnati), the most Republican area of the state. It was obviously over, yet the networks wouldn’t call it. Some didn’t call it until Wednesday, even after Bush’s lead grew to over 130,000. So…you think there’s an obvious bias there? Do you think that B.M. is going to win any fans? Make any new Democrats? Give me a break; this makes me more Republican than ever, even if it’s just to spit in the face of so-called journalists.

-THE DEMOCRATS DON’T GET IT
How disappointing is it to someone like myself that the Democrats put up a pansy-ass blueblood liberal with not a political conviction in his body, who chooses a disingenuous, economically ruinous running mate because he might be glib? At the federal level, Republicans are running dangerously to the right, which makes them ripe for being picked off. But the Democrats inexplicably think that the best response is to yell louder from the opposite corner.

How could a party who had success with a centrist President in Bill Clinton so quickly revert to the formula that brought us Walter Mondale, Lyndon Johnson and Michael Dukakis is mystifying. This is the party that skewered Bush Sr. for being out of touch with real lives. So their answer is John Kerry? Vietnam-bashing, sushi-eating, French-speaking, ultra-millionaire, ultra-liberal Kerry? Who brings along an ambulance-chasing used-car salesman for a running mate?

And they wonder how they lost Ohio.

-LOTS OF COMPLAINERS, BUT NO DOERS
Those who think that George W. Bush didn’t deserve a return to office have a point. Yet how many of them are involved in their local political scene? Can they even name their state representative and senators? Not their congressperson or U.S. Senators, but the state and local folks. How many of the complainers are politically involved on any level other than voting once in a while? How many don’t even bother to vote in the primaries, much less know what they're voting for in their local officials?

The local level is not only the place where people affect your daily life, it’s where the candidates get chosen from. It’s Precinct Committemen/women, ward chairs and state representatives. No, they don’t decide who to choose for President, but they do decide who to choose for governor, U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House, which are the only places that Presidential candidates realistically come from. So if you don’t like your choices, you might want to start paying attention to local races and actually electing people who not only are there when you actually need a politician, but who will choose who runs this country.

IT’S NOT RELIGION
I live in the “God-Fearing Vast Wilderness of the Midwest,” which is what the coastal liberals seem to believe is everything between East Orange, NJ and Las Vegas. Well guess what? I’m hobnobbing with the local hayseed Indiana pols, who have spouted all sorts of reasons they either hate John Kerry or love George Bush. You know what? Not a single one has ever brought up a religious or moral reason for why they’re vote is going in a certain direction. Oh, there have been plenty who talked about Clinton as amoral, but not a single one who has ever mentioned voting for Bush because they like his religious stance, or won’t vote for the Democrats because they hate the prospect of gay marriage, or think that Kerry is untrustworthy because he’s divorced, Catholic, or any other religious reason. Their reasons for voting the way they did are usually partisan and political, and some are downright simplistic and even ill-thought out, but they’re not religious.

One final note: for 44 years every elected President, regardless of party, has come from Texas, Arkansas, Georgia or southern California. (I’m leaving Ford out because he was not elected). And since the 2 from California were both Republicans, this means Orange County and San Diego, not Hollywood.

The northeast may want to believe it’s still the center of the universe, but the rest of the nation doesn’t buy it. Democrats, it’s pretty simple: give the voters a candidate with an actual stance who hails from someplace other than the Corridor, and you will probably win. But all you have to do is look at that red & blue map. If you put up Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, you're going to get soundly defeated. And you'll be scratching your heads in 2008 looking for other spurious reasons as to why you can't reach the majority of Americans.

GLOAT, GLOAT, GLOAT, GLOAT

2004-11-03T19:19:00.000-04:00

How could I predict more correctly?

-The youth vote: non-existent. Unless you think that 17% of registered voters 18-30 turning out is significant. Which Jehme Kwausfoeuo1ruroeu, or whatever the leader's name of "Rock the Vote" is, apparently believes. That's fine, keep investing your time and justifying your existence. And while you're at it, why don't you make your fortune in the lottery, since that's equally likely?

-Say it with me: which state was down to the wire in deciding the election? A hint: it's round on both sides and high in the middle....

-Despite the ridiculous media hype at the beginning of yesterday evening, were there any surprises in where the states fell? Noooooooo.

-Uh...where is New Hampshire? 24 hours after the polls closed it's too close to call. See last blog posting.

As I gloat on my predictions (which I am, at least today), why was I able to be successful? Luck? Stupid coincidence? Knowing that the Redskins now play in Maryland, not D.C.? I think it's because I listen less to spin and actually read, watch and digest a bunch of different info from a wide array of sources. I don't just listen to what I wish to believe or sources that tell me what I want to hear. And some of that are the people that read this blog.

As promised, what occurred while I worked the polls in Middle Earth (Indiana) yesterday:

4:10 The alarm goes off. Part of my brain is excited. A larger part simply says “crap.”

5:00 The Precinct Inspector, the Republican Judge and Republican Clerk were already there. We start setting up the books, turning on the voting machines and generally getting ready.

5:43 The first voter shows up, well ahead of the opening of the polls. He makes it clear that he wants to be first to vote. Only 3-4 minutes later, a line starts forming behind him. The Inspector says this is normal.

6:00 The polls open on time and the line stretches 50 feet into the lobby. The inspector now says that's unusual. I make the mistake of passing out flyers to an already assembled crowd. It’s apparent that these people don’t need help. Not knowing what else to do, I pass out flyers until I run out and vow that I won’t be doing that again for a while.

6:15 Even though it’s raining, the line stretches all the way outside. Now the Inspector acknowledges that’s abnormally heavy. This could be interesting.

6:20 An African-American woman comes up to me to question whether I was able to be passing out flyers. I show her evidence that I was within the rules and assure her that I am very sensitive to the rules. She seems to believe me. Nonetheless, note to self…don’t pass out flyers. It makes me uncomfortable in the first place, I'm not a "true believer," and I'd rather not be partisan.

6:25 The Democratic Clerk finally shows up, allowing the Democratic Judge to quit working the poll book and actually do her regular job of observing. It’s good to note that people on both sides know each other and are friendly, even though they’re working for opposite parties. The Centrist Dude’s heart is filled with hope.

6:35 My Ward Chairman, who is also running for Township Board, stops by to say hello.

7:12 The lines are still streaming out the door. People are already asking “what if it’s 6pm and you’re in line to vote?” Someone observes that they’re voting at about 100 people an hour (they may have been in line that long, I suppose). Yikes...that’s only 1200 people in a 1400 people district. Hope they don’t all show up late.

8:05 The official machine counts show that 194 people have voted. There have been 2 people who wanted to vote that weren’t in the poll book. The 2nd one is a local on-air reporter from Channel 6, Doug Harvey, who appears to be wanting trouble. I have found out that he reported from here after the primaries because this was one of the districts (of many) that ran out of ballots. Today, he didn’t want to wait for his problem to be resolved, instead leaving in a huff to call Doris Ann Sadler, the Marion County Secretary. My take is that he is purposely angling for a story to report on how “disorganized” the election is being run. What an ass.

9:20 The Democratic Judge asks if we can set up more voting booths. I set a couple up to move the total number of booths up to 8.

8:35 I call my Ward Chairman to explain what transpired with the TV reporter. He calls back later to say that everything was taken care of. Apparently he was able to diffuse the problem at the Election Board by alerting them to what really happened. Good.

9:02 I get a machine vote count; we pulled 130 last hour, so the extra booths are speeding things up. A weirdo phenomenon: this district has way, way more people with A-M than N-Z. This is a problem, because the poll books are alphabetically broken down this way, and the lines are really long for A-M.

10:00 120 votes processed last hour. A quick count of this district shows 1482 registered voters, so over a quarter have already voted. There have been 3 people turned away for not being in the poll book, and 1 person who wasn’t in the book but proved his eligibility to vote.

10:30 The line continues to extend outside. Amazing.

10:40 I happen to be outside as Mitch Daniel’s RV pulls up. (Mitch is running for governor of Indiana against incumbent Democrat Joe Kernan). I get to at least introduce myself & shake his hand. He’s got this Southern Indiana lilt he’s picked up while campaigning. I’ll be curious to see how long it lasts if he’s elected.

10:46 The absentee ballots arrive. There are 92 in one stack, 4 in one, 41 in another, and one by itself.

11:00 A total of 557 have voted, plus the 138 absentees for a total of 695 (barring duplications in the absentees).

12:05 It’s slowed down enough for the Centrist Dude to leave, pick up the Conservative Wife and vote in our district.

12:50 Coming back, things have actually slowed down. Maybe the clerks & inspector can actually get some of the absentee ballots caught up so that we’re not here until 8:00.

1:30 By comparison, things have really slowed down. Of course, since over 60% of the district has voted it can only be so heavy from here on out, at least until that expected final rush.

3:00 Voting machine tally is 863. With absentees we’re at 1001.

4:00 The tallies keep climbing; machines are now at 948. The final rush should start sometime in this hour. The good news is that the inspector & the clerks are getting the absentee ballots sorted & ready to tally.

5:12 The inspector & I have finished putting all the absentee ballots through the machines. Two provisional ballots were accidentally sent to us and 2 ballots were improperly marked so the machine can’t read them, but are pretty obvious as to what the votes were meant to be. Not my department to deal with. We’re now at a total of 1160 out of approximately 1480 registered district voters. We may not have a late rush at all.

If the absentees are any indicator, Evan Bayh and Mitch Daniels are both going to win handily. Evan’s no surprise, and I expect Daniels to win, but there are a surprising number of otherwise straight Democratic voters who are splitting their ticket for Daniels.

5:50 Miraculously, there is no one late; they have all come here early. We’re already more than halfway broken down.

7:10 Leaving to go pick up the C.W., who is already spelling gloom & doom for Bush because she’s listening to the NBC reporters. Apparently they’re rubbing their hands in glee over the downtrodden people in the Bush camp and calling this for Kerry. I am unconvinced.

7:40 forward - We go to the "victory party," which turns out to actually be somewhat victorious, mostly because Mitch Daniels wins by a fairly substantial margin. As I suspected, the presidential race is not breaking down the way the media wants it to, but is instead breaking the way the Centrist Dude saw it in the first place. We left to come home & watch the rest of the returns some time ago. Around 11:30 I could see that Bush is going to win: he's taken Florida and is going to take Ohio, although no one wants to admit it. We'll get up tomorrow & see how things have shaken out. Hopefully, Kerry isn't stupid enough to drag this out legally for a battle he'll end up losing anyway.

The Liberal New Hampshire Uncle owes me a 6-pack.

BOLD ELECTION PREDICTIONS

2004-10-30T14:36:00.000-04:00

Since this is likely my last column before the election, I’ll make some bold prognostications now:

1) Despite hype to the contrary, the 20-somethings who only have cell phones will not decide this election. Young people were more motivated than ever in the late 60s & early 70s and they still didn’t get out and vote. Eligible 18-30 year old voters have consistently fallen from 50% in 1972 to less than one-third in 2000. They didn’t swing an election then, and they won’t now.

2) Ohio will be this year’s Florida, as both candidates realize that they will likely have to win that state to win the election. Not to say that Florida won’t be close, but it looks like it will go for Bush in a narrow but decisive enough margin to avoid the debacle of 4 years ago. Ohio, on the other hand, appears to be so close that it may come down to some obscure county that’s working with an abacus to tally their absentee votes.

3) There won’t be any big surprises as to where states fall, contrary to what many people are predicting. In other words, Connecticut isn’t going to go for Bush and Indiana isn’t going to go for Kerry.

4) If you’re watching the returns and looking for an early indicator, keep your eye on New Hampshire. The state will probably go for Kerry, but if Bush wins it again, that spells real trouble for the Dems. Likewise, if Kerry wins NH by 8 or more percentage points (i.e., 54%-46%) an alarm should sound for the GOP.

5) Since I’ve been badgering others for their opinions for a few weeks now, here is how I see it falling:

Since April, it’s seemed that this has been Bush’s race to lose, not Kerry’s to win. Most of the vitriol and anger towards Bush has been from young people and those who are traditionally Democrats to begin with. This is not a large enough voting bloc to oust Bush by themselves, even if they turn out in record numbers. Therefore, they must get swing voters to rally to their cause; one could say that ultimately this is the only voting bloc that matters. And it doesn't seem like the middle is falling in any direction. When that happens, take the incumbent.

Bush wins the popular vote, the states other than New Hampshire, New Mexico and possibly Iowa fall where they were in 2000, and Bush wins the election by a slightly greater margin than in 2000 with an electoral tally of 291-247. But, it's tenuous: if Ohio goes to Kerry, this swings the EC to 271-267, which is still a Bush win; however, it's also a sign there will be another state (i.e., Colorado) that will also switch from Republican to Democratic and change the outcome in favor of Kerry.

I’ll be reporting from the Republican HQ here in Indy sometime later this week. Should be fascinating, regardless of the results.

IS IT THE NATION, OR IS IT JUST ME AND MY CIRCLE?

2004-10-25T02:26:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, I started soliciting feedback about the upcoming presidential election from my various friends & family about who they thought would win and why. As you might expect, people had a whole host of opinions. What I was not prepared for was the common thread in the answers I got, at least not until I saw them all put together. Only a few were based on reasoning or issues, and some were downright nothing but negative emotions. Some anonymous excerpts e-mailed to me:

“I believe that Kerry will win because I can’t handle the other thought.”
“I believe Bush will win. It is hard to beat a president during times of war. Personally I truly don't like either.”
“If Bush wins, it will be because people don’t want to change administrations in the midst of turmoil. If Kerry wins, it will be because the people are gullible, and would rather stick their heads in the sand & not be willing to defend our country.”
“My belief that Bush will win was best articulated by Bill Maher: ‘John Kerry is a crummy candidate.’ ”
“Voting for either one of these guys is like asking you how you want your broccoli prepared - boiled or steamed. You gotta eat it but either way is repellant.”
“John Kerry is on nobody's side but his own and his only goal is an avaricious desire to hold power in this country. He will say, and has said, ANYTHING he thinks will bring him that power on election day.”

I also find it interesting that as little as a week ago I was hearing from a number of people that they were voting for Candidate X, but they thought their man would lose. That has changed in the past week, as almost everyone now believes that whoever they’re supporting will win, and a few think their candidate will win in a surprise landslide.
(There were 2 people who sent in their musings who had not yet decided whom to vote for.) I also spoke with a number of others who expressed similar opinions, ranging from “I hate to think what will happen to this country if Kerry wins” to “It doesn’t matter who wins because both parties look alike. All you’re doing is choosing your executioner.”

Wow. I thought I could be cynical.

What’s more disturbing to me is that people are angry, but doing little about it other than voting (which is admittedly better than what 45% of the country is likely to do). And, we’re voting in many cases without actually knowing what we’re voting for or against. Just to be clear, I don’t think nor am trying to intimate that those that responded knows nothing about the issues because I’ve discussed issues with some of the respondents who gave me an emotional answer this time. I even got 3 e-mails that were extremely detailed, remarkably free of vitriol, cynicism or fear, and focused on nothing but issues. But seeing all the responses lumped together (and I got a lot), I can say that most of the people that I got answers back from aren’t making their decisions based on much past emotion, whether anger, fear, or hatred. And if we can’t make decisions based on anything factual, then why should our candidates give us anything other than fear-mongering, finger-pointing, and pandering to the lowest common denominator?

So, instead of me drawing conclusions or offering suggestions, how about this: let’s go for another round of feedback.

1) What issues are you most concerned about, and how will your candidate fix or improve those issues?
2) What can we as individuals do to get better candidates at the national level that we’re not doing now?
3) What will you personally do to help make a difference, however small, that you are not currently doing now?

Hit the “comments” link below, or e-mail me at Randall@hamsterballstudios.com. Again, no names will be used. Note even code names.

THE SHIFT THAT IS STUCK IN NEUTRAL

2004-10-22T02:13:00.000-04:00

Over the years, I have received a lot of astute political gems from the Liberal-In-Denial Dad, even if they didn’t seem to sparkle at the time. My favorite recent one was, a week or so prior to the 2000 election, he predicted that whoever won Florida would win the White House.

One of his observations, made somewhere in the late 70s, was that the country’s views were historically like a pendulum, swinging politically from left to right on roughly a 40-year cycle. So, about every 20 years the U.S. hits a new point on the pendulum: conservative, then 20 years later centrist, 20 years later liberal, 20 years later back to the center, etc. The reason for this is that whichever side was in power would focus on one set of issues while ignoring those they didn’t deem important. When the country felt that the neglect on certain issues became too great, the other side would gradually take over until the country became uncomfortable with their agenda, and so on. And this has for the most part proven to be true. Look at the last century: 1900 the pendulum was centrist, 1920 swinging to the right, 1940 swinging back to the center, 1960 swinging to the left, 1980 back to the center.

Note that this is what state the country is in, not the candidate that was elected. Roosevelt, while a liberal, was elected as a reaction to the mostly Republican policies of the past 20 years. Reagan was elected as a reaction to the mostly Democratic policies of the past 20 years. They were, in effect, the result of the shift taking place.

If this trend held, then somewhere around 2000 would be when we would have moved as far right as the center would allow, and would now be shifting back. But this hasn’t happened, at least not yet. So you have to ask: is the L-I-D Dad wrong or is there something else at work? I think he’s still correct, but 3 things have occurred to make this pendulum turn slower than it has historically:

1) The liberal left doesn’t represent the middle. The political shift has always occurred because the extreme positions of the ruling party causes them to lose touch with the center, which starts the pendulum back. The Republicans have done their part. They’re proposing a gay marriage amendment, they’re blurring the lines between separation of church and state and they’re pre-emptively striking nations in Neo-Conservative nation building. But for whatever reason, the Democrats have stopped being the party of the little guy. Instead, they're viewed by many as the party of the liberal elites, who have put up a candidate that looks and sounds just like them. This is especially maddening to the middle, because those in it are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the right.

2) Debates, whether presidential or pundit, are increasingly about attacking people's core beliefs. Liberals and conservatives alike aren't just debating issues, they're attacking how people choose to live their lives. This doesn't do anything to make the middle comfortable, but when both sides are attacking core beliefs it simply divides the middle as well as those who would be polarized to begin with.

3) We have become trained to go for style over substance. This is what people are saying when they are choosing their candidate: "Kerry looks better in debates." "Bush is more presidential." "Kerry sounds more in control." "Bush comes across as a real guy." Is anyone listening to what actually is coming out of our candidates mouths? We're not choosing Mr. America, we're choosing our nation's leader. At some point we have to re-train ourselves to see the window dressing for what it is. Unfortunately, until we do we’re not going to get real choices, because why would a major party put up a person with a real plan when we're willing to vote for a right-sounding/looking/speaking puppet with no substance? It's much easier to find that guy than someone with real credentials.

The country is ready for a shift because the conservative movement has now gone uncomfortably right; people feel it and want to vote against it. But the liberal faction is giving the country an unpalatable alternative of hedonisitic “do-as-you-please” social agendas, “we’re against your way of life Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average” rhetoric, and “we know best how to take care of you because you can’t care for yourself” socialism. The middle is as uncomfortable with this as they are with the conservatives.

If the Democrats can ever figure out that "it's the candidate, stupid" they can dominate for the next 20 years or so. Give the populous a candidate that wants a shift back to inclusiveness, helping the little guy, and putting a gentler face on America. But, if they keep serving up the likes of Kerry, Hillary and Pelosi, there is nothing to stop the rightward shift from being the lesser of two evils. And in the long run, that can be very dangerous indeed.

HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS POLARIZES THE COUNTRY

2004-10-18T14:03:00.000-04:00

The Political Correctness movement is no longer about making people sensitive to the problems and differences of others, if it ever was. Instead, it is a technique to promote disadvantaged groups and kill any dissenting debate. The purveyors of P.C. do this by labeling anyone who challenges their viewpoints as “insensitive” and even advocating censuring of those people. This is not just in politics or with social issues. In fact, a great example of how pervasive this is in America can be found in the National Football League.

Michael Vick has been made the poster boy for the current NFL version of “superstar.” A black athlete blessed with great physical skills, he has struggled as an NFL quarterback. Announcers continue to praise Vick and, 3 years into his NFL career, talk about what a star he will blossom into. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be a man who doesn’t appear smart enough to grasp the mental aspects needed to be a successful NFL quarterback.

Right there is where the debate ends with the PC crowd because “black athlete” cannot be uttered in the same breath with “not smart enough". Yet, the comment has nothing to do with Vick’s race, it is simply an observation of the individual. (As a contrast, another black quarterback, Donovan McNabb, is one of the three best in the league, and still another young black QB, Byron Leftwich is a budding NFL superstar. Both posess the mental acuity required to run their offenses.)

My view of Michael Vick may prove to be wrong; he could turn out to be one of the greatest stars the game has ever seen, but that's not the issue. Sports analysts are not allowed to talk about his inability to read coverages, grasp a new offense, or react to defensive changes. In the current climate, no one can even intimate that a black athlete is not smart, even if it’s so obvious that only a fellow idiot would think otherwise.

The acceptable coverage of Vick is but one small example of the P.C. view of the world. Communities let the KKK hold rallies and we defend it as “free speech,” yet the same people will shut down any conversation if the opposing ideas are not P.C. Apparently, if you’re really on the fringe, then the P.C. crowd will let you speak because they know virtually no one will be listening. But if you might have a valid argument that is at odds with politically correct thinking, then you are demonized. And when dialog is stifled and discussions are taboo, people polarize their viewpoints by forming opinions which will sometimes be wacky and out of touch with reality; there's nothing to expose them as being out of touch with reality.

Back to the NFL: about this time last year, Rush Limbaugh was bounced from the ESPN “Gameday” show for intimating that black quarterbacks in the NFL are getting a free pass from the media. Black players and broadcasters were supposedly so incensed at this that Limbaugh was dropped by ESPN just a few days later. Now, Rush is a controversial guy who I often disagree with. However, his “crime” was bringing up this question for debate; in his segment the other panel members, two of which are black former NFL players, were expected to rebut. No one did. Later, they expressed that they were too “shocked” to say anything. That's garbage; they had no argument for it because they hadn’t previously considered it. In fact, they were exposed as being part of the very same media that was taking a hands-off approach to critizing any black quarterback. The real message: P.C. isn’t open for discussion, especially when it comes to race relations.

How ironic that Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect" was kicked off the air because Maher dared to call America cowardly for "launching missiles from afar." I guess it goes to show that it doesn't matter where you lean politically; if you offer an opinion without going through the "P.C. filter" you are not allowed to continue speaking.

If we, the citizenry, and our political and social leaders don’t start allowing more unfettered discussion of our differences then we’re going to be even more polarized, possibly leading to a divided America that could wreck our nation. This cannot be allowed to go on; Political Correctness has got to go away. We can, and should, be sensitive to other people's lives and conditions. But how can you understand people who are different from you if you won’t hear what they truly believe? And how can you expect them to understand you if you don’t speak your mind, or if you shut others out entirely?

DEBATE #3, OR, THE SHOTS DRANK ROUND THE WORLD

2004-10-14T10:45:00.000-04:00

For those that don’t know, the Debate Game is in full swing. The intial idea came from the Winged Conservative, but was brought to full bore by the Liberal Colorado Friend. The gist of the game: pick a candidate. If it’s Kerry, you’re drinking whenever he says “middle class” or “I have a plan.” If it’s Bush, you’re drinking whenever he says “liberal” in reference to Kerry, or “It’s Hard Work.”

The Liberal Colorado Friend has already made 2 observations: when the presidential debates sink to the level of the game “Hi, Bob”, we’re not talking about Lincoln vs. Douglas. “You know, the one thing about the quotes ‘I have a plan’ and ‘It’s hard work’…I at least buy that it’s hard work.”

PRE DEBATE
Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan, has already said “John Kerry has a plan.” Kerry supporters, call in sick now.

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) says they’ll be covering John Edwards on the campaign trail tomorrow. The Conservative Wife wants to know where he’ll be so she can bring her shotgun. The Centrist Dude locates the gun and shells for her.

Tim Russert has fallen from my good graces. He might as well join hands with Gwen Ifill and say “we’re voting for Kerry, and here’s what he needs to do!” His latest patter is how Kerry needs to have a 10-point bulge with women voters, and they’ll have their opportunity tonight because “there’s a baseball game on the other channel.” Right, Tim, because those silly women can’t think for themselves with their husbands in the same room. And so long as we’re playing the chauvinist stereotype game, have you considered how many of these women who apparently can't think for themselves are going to say “You watch baseball, honey, I’m going to turn the debate on in the other room.” Does this mean Kerry shouldn’t speak to African-Americans because they’re all going to watch the sporting event? Thankfully, Tom Brokaw seems to be a voice of sanity & reason.

Andrew Card talks about Bush inheriting the “dotcom bust” and then the shock of September 11th. Why have the Republicans waited until now to talk about that? They’ve had 3.9 years to bring that up. Andrew Card then says “Being the President is more than winning on style.” ACCK! That’s close enough to “It’s hard to be President” that I’m setting up multiple shot glasses for myself & the C.W. at the next ad break.

I’m 0-2-1 on my debate predictions, but we’ll make one more:

The St. Louis Cardinals will beat the living crap out of the Houston Astros.

Chris Matthews: “Tonight’s moderator, Bob Schieffer, was on Hardball the other night. He said he’s going to be kind of liberal in his questioning.” You’ve got to be kidding! I don’t care what your political leanings are, if you are in journalism, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL! Big Media needs a wake-up call. One has to wonder if the media was of a different political makeup, would we have any Democrats? B.M. needs a wakeup call. Bloggers, unite.

DEBATE BEGINS
Ahhh…Bob Schieffer’s with CBS News. No wonder he’s a pansy-ass liberal who doesn’t care about non-partisanship.

NOTE: CD & CW’s Debate Game beverage of choice is Jagermeister. God help us all.

Howdy Doody shakes Alfred E. Neumann’s hand once again.

8:05 Howdy Doody takes the first question (“Will we ever be as safe as we when we grew up”) and doesn’t actually answer it.

Alfred E. Neumann “has a comprehensive strategy.” Good thing that didn’t come from Doody or we’d have to have called a technicality and made the Doody supporters drink.

8:07 C.W. notices the 2 candidates are dressed exactly alike! They have the same color suit, the same tie, and the same American Flag pin in the same spot.

8:10 Bush takes an apparent blindside question about the flu vaccine shortage and does a great job of answering it, turning it around to how the lack of tort reform is why we’re not getting enough vaccine from our own country, and had to rely on a British company.

Kerry, predictably, says nothing about this issue, but turns it around to how health care is bad because….oh wait…KERRY says I HAVE A PLAN!! All Kerry supporters to do 2 shots.

8:15 Kerry says “my plan” 3 times. The Liberal Colorado Friend is at 8 shots and we’re only 15 minutes into the debate. He’s in trouble.

Bush talks about Kerry’s record without using the word liberal…can he keep it up? Bush says ‘middle class.’ He’s co-opting Kerry’s drinking points.

8:20 Bob Schieffer, you’re a liberal old prune. He’s doing the Gwen Ifill moderating technique: lob Kerry softballs, throw Bush overhand fastballs. I’m offended. Bush has spittle in the corner of his mouth. Someone needs to give him the sign to wipe his mouth.

I guess the networks have decided that they’re just going to split screen full time.

8:23 Bush is rebutting Kerry’s softball question. I’ll bet Schieffer gives Kerry rebuttal time back, unike the last question where he didn’t give Bush a counter-rebuttal. And…yes he does.

Kerry said that there were fewer Pell Grants, Bush rebuts with “Kennedy is the Conservative Senator from Massachusetts.” Close enough. C.W. & C.D. drink their shots.

8:27 Bush takes a question about marriage and does something brilliant: “By proposing a Constitutional Amendment to defend gay marriage we get to involve the citizenry instead of activist judges.” In essence, the Amendment won’t get passed, but citizens will be the ones determining that.

8:33 Bob Schieffer “The Washington Post says that the health care costs have risen over 36% in the last 4 years.” There’s a non-partisan news source. Another liberal move: the cameras are tighter on Bush than they are on Kerry, so a) he looks shorter, and b) the viewers can see every nuance of his face.

8:39 Houston 4, St. Louis 2.

Kerry says “I have a better plan.” I think that’s worth 3 shots, but the rules only say 2. Debate Game update: Kerry supporters: 10 shots consumed. Bush supporters: 1.

8:41 Bush tells Bob Schieffer “I don’t think it’s wise for my opponent to quote large media sources because…oh never mind.” That’s funny! I’m not sure whether that’s really smart or really stupid. Schieffer will certainly lob no softballs his way now (like he has been), but that could also point out that Schieffer & CBS are in Kerry’s camp. Not sure how that will play out; kind of a risky gambit.

8:44 The new question is about Social Security and paying for it. At some point, will someone have the balls to stand up and say “We must change the retirement age for those below the age of X.” We all expect it, and that should be the case. How about anyone below the age of 50? They can’t retire with full benefits until the age of 68? And those under the age of 35 will get full benefits at age 70?

Kerry says that “letting young people invest their own money is ripe for disaster.” His argument is that they are the ones paying for the current system. That’s insulting, and it should be for those young idealogues who support him. He’s basically saying you’re too dumb to know what to do unless you give the federal government your money. For those of you who are above the age of 30 that also believe that young people don’t know what to do with their money, shame on you. Too many people believe that everyone else isn’t smart enough to mind their own money, but of course, that doesn’t apply to them. If this is you, you’re a disingenuous, pompous ass. Drink a shot!

8:49 Kerry: “I have a plan” and “middle class tax cuts.” 13 shots and counting.

8:50 All of the Kerry supporters say, through a drunken haze, ‘Hoowcommme Bussh’s code phrassse ain’t ‘taax cutsss?’

8:53 Bush is really playing for the Hispanic vote by suggesting that Mexican workers can come here and work “with a special card.” That won’t play well in union halls.

8:55 Bush’s little “I’m done speaking” nod is cracking us both up. He looks like a 12-year old.

8:56 Kerry: “We allegedly have people coming across our border from the Middle East.” Gee, John, you allegedly have a plan.

8:58 “We had an initiative to raise women’s pay. They stopped it.” John…what was it, and who exactly is ‘they’?

9:02 Bush calls Kerry a “liberal Senator from Massachusetts.” We do shots, 13-3. Kerry starts talking directly to Bush, this could be the “special rules shots”….ahh, but Schieffer cuts off Bush from any rebuttal. All Debate Game players are grateful.

9:04 Kerry claims he is going to cut National Guard and Reservists so they won’t have extended tours, but will increase the Special Forces to make up the difference. Is anyone listening to this? What are you going to do, John, post classified ads?

C.W. thinks that Kerry is getting so much support from certain European countries that he’s speaking to them with comments like that. Interesting point-of-view.

9:08 Houston 4, St. Louis 4, bottom of the 5th.

9:09 Kerry says something very un-Al Gore-like: “I am a hunter, I am a gun owner.” Another smart comment: “Terrorists can go into a gun show and buy an AK-47 without a background check.” I don’t agree with him: I’ve been to gun shows, and I don’t think someone of Middle Eastern descent will be sold anything by the people who man the booths. However, it will play well with soccer moms.

9:16 Good Bush answer about religion: “You are equally an American if you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, or choose not to worship. That’s the great thing about this country.”

Kerry understands that this is dangerous territory and says “I respect the President and his views and share them.” Good job. Move along.

9:21 Kerry is using John McCain as a pawn, saying that “I’ll work with my good friend John McCain who is sitting here in the audience.” I’m sure that McCain will have something to say about that in any post-debate interviews.

9:23 Schieffer closes on the feel-good question of the night: “We all are married to strong women. Talk about them.” But Kerry, after a good and funny start, brings up his dead mom, and said that right before she died 2 years ago he told her about what he was thinking of running for President. “She told me ‘integrity, integrity, integrity.’ “ John, there’s no one to refute you, but that comes of as really disingenuous and highly unlikely.

9:26 In Kerry’s closing statement: “I believe the greatest hopes of our generation are out there, for us to reach for them and just grab them.” Yeah…there’s one on the wall! Ooh, and there’s another one that we’ve all missed. How could we not see these golden opportunities just under our noses?

9:28 In Bush’s closing statement: “We live on the sunrise side of a mountain, not the sunset side, so we can see the coming day and look to the future.” Yeah, that was probably the #1 criterion when you were looking for a home. Give me a break.

George continues to spout Neo-Con rhetoric. The Liberal Colorado Friend, already woozy, drains the rest of his ouzo.

St. Louis 7, Houston 4. I might win one.

POST DEBATE
Bob Schrum, Sr. Kerry Advisor is spouting the same stump lines that Kerry does. This reminds me that handlers on both sides don’t seem to have any original thoughts of their own. If all you can do is restate what has already been said, then why are you being interviewed?

Chris Jansing: “I just witnessed an interesting debate between Ralph Reed and Jesse Jackson going toe-to-toe on an issue.” Too bad someone wasn’t available to take them both out at that moment.

CENTRIST DUDE ANALYSIS
This debate showed me that Kerry can’t keep his focus even over a 3 week span (unless you're considering "focus" his ability to spout the same catch-phrases), but he still performed well visually. Bush was as good as he’ll ever be in a debate, which is to say he didn't suck. Both seemed to be playing to their constituents instead of swing voters, which is probably the best course of action at this point: get your supporters to turn out.

If Bush had performed like this in debate #1, we’d be looking at a landslide in 3 weeks. Instead, we’ll be watching Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, and possibly Missouri.

St Louis wins 10-4. I am 1-2-1.

2ND DEBATE RECAP

2004-10-09T20:25:00.000-04:00

PRE DEBATE My pre-debate evening routine was a bit different this time, as I was engaged in a 3-way conversation with the Liberal Colorado Friend and the Conservative Wife. That’s ok…they substituted well for Pat Buchanan and Ron Reagan’s commentaries.

By the way, today’s NY Times had published “sample questions” from readers that were so visceral to Bush and such softball lobs to Kerry that they should be banned. There needs to be a credible ranking of newspapers in this country, similar to what U.S. News does with hospitals and colleges. Despite their reputation, I think the Times journalistic ranking would be just ahead of Massachusetts Communism Daily and the Texan Cowboy Chronicle. It should no longer be referred to as “The Gray Lady.” How about “The Red Daily”? Much more appropriate.

DEBATE BEGINS

Once again, a reminder. I'm typing this in real-time, so my quotes may be paraphrased. If you want the actual quotes, read the transcripts. Now...

9:00 Charles Gibson is moderating, which is a welcome choice. He at least gives the appearance of impartiality, unlike Gwen “your 15 minutes were up 75 minutes ago” Ifill. Kerry comes out looking like Howdy Doody. Bush continues with his Alfred E. Neumann impersonation.

8:02 It’s the first question and the network is already showing Bush reaction shots. Whether reaction shots are “breaking the rules” or not, he doesn’t seem to understand that they’re going to be shown. As a contrast, Kerry remains cool and composed in his reaction shots.

8:09 Bush says that “we’ve brought 75% of Al Qaeda to justice.” Big opening if Kerry can ad lib…wait, we’re talking about Wooden Johnny here. My bad. Bush is still on the WMD argument, and he’s strident and shrill. He seems to be picking up where he left off. Who’s his debate trainer, his mom?

Kerry is offering a panacea: “I would have gotten more allies into our coalition.” Yes, John, I keep forgetting the force of your personality. You’re a veritable Kennedy and all countries of the world will fall right in line behind you.

Bush rebuts with the WMD argument yet again. Clueless, meet Dumb Ass. Kerry rebuts by looking at Bush and speaking directly to him. It doesn’t matter what they’re saying; Bush is angry and he doesn’t know why. Kerry is controlled. Both are dreaming.

8:15 Kerry continues his line of crap (“If we’d brought NATO into this”) while looking directly at Bush. Bush has an opening, and unlike Kerry he exploits it. “My opponent says ‘let’s have a summit. ‘ And what’s he’s going to say? Let’s get you into a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time? They’re not going to follow him!” Kerry counters with the same “Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora.” I am rubber, you are glue.

8:18 Bush finally acknowledges that Saddam had no WMD. And, he’s saying that the war is about terror. Will he talk about the money trail from Saddam to Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Alas…almost…almost, George.

8:19 A woman asks Bush how to repair diplomatic relations with other countries. Tough question, yet Bush is calmed by it. Then he gets shrill again. Kerry, but he, unlike Bush, has been talking directly to whichever person asks the question. On the other hand, Bush is looking around the room after each question. Bush is now riding the “I am the president and presidents do X” horse over and over and over. How tenuous was Bush’s lead? After having a chance to close out Kerry last Thursday he’s now in danger of losing this election right here.

8:26 Bush finds his rhythm with North Korea. This is reminiscent of the Cubs clobbering the Reds after losing 2 of 3 to the hapless Mets, only to miss the Wild Card by losing their next 5 games.

8:28 Kerry is now talking about the generals who support him and mentions “Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo.” Invoking Wesley Clark as winning anything other than the Peter Principle Award is fairly stupid. I guess Kerry thinks it’s valuable to keep those 12 people that actually voted for Clark in his corner.

8:32 Bush interrupts Charles Gibson when Gibson is offering him a rebuttal opportunity. This will be a pivotal moment later and could be spun a variety of ways. Hard to say how it will be spun. In my view, Bush has lost it to the point where Republicans need to hope everyone’s watching the baseball playoffs. There’s an hour to go; Bush is starting to resemble Ross Perot, only less in control.

8:33 Kerry is asked why there haven’t been terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. He talks about how the intelligence needs to be revamped…and then talks about tax cuts. Bush is finally not shrill and rebuts the question well.

8:37 Kerry is trying to show that the tax cut is somehow tied to the President not doing everything he can to make the country safe, i.e. “Rich people get a break instead of putting that money towards security.” That’s a stretch and encapsulates why I can never be a Democrat again. Their philosophy seems to be “Are you successful? Don’t worry, we can fix that.”

8:38 Next question: “Why did you block the importation of drugs from Canada?” Bush’s answer is that drugs imported from Canada need to be safe and he’s not sure they are. That’s disingenuous, but it will probably play. Bush is now saying that we need to speed up generics. The Liberal-In-Denial Dad now has a reason to vote for Kerry.

Kerry: “The President didn’t level with you just now. The reality is that they’re drugs made right here in America, and they are safe.” Yes, John…that IS one of the points. And do you know why they’re so cheap? Price controls. Ah, but that's a story in and of itself, is it not? (e.g., Why do drug companies sell drugs to countries like Canada where they know the price controls are below a reasonable profit margin?)

SIDE NOTE: If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, I would be exploring every way possible to not sell drugs to Canada. Yes, they’ll make knock-offs. But at least then the safety argument is a valid one.

8:43 Kerry is actually talking that he and Edwards support tort reform. OH, PLEASE. 8:46 Bush: “He (Kerry) says that it (malpractice insurance) is only 1% of health care costs? Defensive medical practices are part of the cost. His plan is the largest increase in federal spending in history.” Correct; I believe the figure is $620B according to U.S. News. That makes the cost of the Iraqi War pale just a bit. How are you going to pay for that one, John?

8:49 Bush talks about the recession that he inherited and when it happened (starting in late 2000). He talked about winning the war. He also says that he gave a tax increase to everyone and it was necessary to jump-start the economy. Good, solid answer. “Like you, I’m concerned about the deficit, but I’m not going to short-change troops and I’m not going to tax the economy when it’s going to cost us jobs.”

Kerry says that the President was handed a huge surplus. Uh…no. The economy had already gone south, and whatever surplus was left was dwindling in a big hurry.

8:55 Some guy in the audience seems to be a plant. He asks Kerry to look into the camera and say that he won’t raise taxes on families below $200K. Kerry acted as if he knew this was coming. That guy was a plant. But I’m not sure that this was a good idea for Kerry. He has now officially entered “Read My Lips” territory.

Bush is finding his stride. He’s less shrill, and he’s talking about what’s wrong with Kerry’s plan in a credible, logical way. “Look at the man running for the President. They don’t name him the most liberal in the Senate because he doesn’t show up. He shows up and he votes to raise taxes.” Kerry internally says “oof.”

9:00 Bush is asked about what he’s done to improve the environment. He talks about “Clear Skies” where Kerry will likely skewer him. Oh, no….Kerry’s response has NOTHING to do with the environment. After rambling for 90 seconds of his 2 minute allotment he does talk about Clear Skies. But he doesn’t say what’s wrong with it. Sigh.

Bush skewers Kerry on this. “He must be talking about the Kyoto Treaty. We would have lost jobs. But the fact is, our air is cleaner since I’ve been President.” Kerry…you have reclaimed the moniker of the current dumb ass.

9:05 A woman asks a question about how we can remain competitive wage-wise in manufacturing. Kerry doesn’t answer the question: he talks about how he’s going to give a break in other ways, like health care. “I have a plan.” Of course you do. That seems to be his talking point of the night: “I HAVE A PLAN.” He has yet to mention anything about how he’s going to help manufacturing wages.

Bush counters with various ways to help small business, including pooling small businesses into health care plans and tax breaks. The Centrist Dude and the Conservative Wife both clap and pull the imaginary Republican lever.

EDITORIAL: In the 50s through the 70s(pre-global economy) we could get away with paying a ridiculous wage to people who put Bolt A on Nut C. But the reality is that we can no longer do that. You want to stop a major amount of outsourcing? Quit giving people false hope that they can get a middle class wage for lower class work. I'm not being partisan here, that's reality. 9:10

Next question is about the Patriot Act and how he thinks it takes individual rights away. Bush gives a great answer: “Whoever is President has to take care of your individual liberties. I hope you don’t think that’s what it’s about. The Patriot Act gives the FBI and the CIA the same power it takes to get to white collar criminals and the Mafia.” Might not be true, but it’s a good answer.

Kerry: “We can’t let the terrorists change your rights.” Great retort.

9:15 Woman asks Kerry about embryonic stem cell research. Kerry looks at her the entire time, even though his answer is against what she wants to hear. That was smart. Bush: “Science is important, but so’s ethics.” George, I can’t believe your grammar is that bad.

9:19 Question is asked of Bush who he would pick for the next Supreme Court nominee. He made a joke, and then said "someone who interpreted the Constitution as opposed to someone who would try to make law." He should have stopped there, but nooo…he goes on to give Kerry points to debate by expanding on his views ( “someone who wouldn’t strike down the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the words ‘Under God’ in it.”) George…you should take a cue from your VP and stopped when you were ahead.

9:23 Kerry: “I’m a Catholic….but I can’t take what is belief for me and legislate it for someone else.” That’s a great American statement. Bush needs to respond by saying what his faith can do. Even the Conservative Wife agrees on this one. Bush is talking the Right-to-Life stance. The Conservative Wife disagrees, and so does the Centrist Dude. This is a major reason why the Centrist Dude can’t be a Republican.

9:28 Last question comes from a woman who asks what 3 decisions Bush has made that were wrong. Bush doesn’t answer. He paraphrases by saying “You were asking about big decisions and I didn’t make any wrong decisions there.” Kerry: "I voted the way I voted because I wanted accountability, and I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision.Kerry: “I have a plan….I have a better plan.” It’s pretty obvious that he has no plan. The Conservative Wife says he’s trying to invoke MLK:” I have a dream.”

POST DEBATE “Coming up in this hour….Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The Conservative Wife flips off the TV, saying it’s too early for Halloween.

IRAQ, WMD AND HOW TO FIX IT

2004-10-08T17:32:00.000-04:00

My liberal friends and relatives continue to ask me how I can support the U.S. going into Iraq. My conservative friends and relatives will occasionally ask how I can be critical of our operations. (Admittedly, the conservative crowd asks fewer questions. They seem to be happy to have anyone around who supports the war.)

The answer to this seeming dichotomy is simple, and it’s also at the root of why we’re having trouble and may ultimately fail in the Middle East. Our case for war was, of course, Iraq’s possession or willingness to make biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons to use indiscriminately. Let me repeat this for what has been a 2-year mantra, because maybe someone will even listen this time:

The elimination of a terrorist regime that also supports terrorism financially was the sole reason to go to war. WMD only throws up a smoke screen, obfuscating our real reason for invading Iraq, and can actually do more harm than telling the truth.

18 months later…do you think I might be right on this one?

If Bush loses the election, and I still believe that it’s his to lose, it will boil down to the administration’s mind-boggling decision to make the case for war based solely on WMD. Why, to get the world on your side?? Well, that failed. Was it to get the people of the country behind you? Unnecessary. All the reasoning was to follow the years of money funneled from Saddam to families of Hamas suicide bombers and Islamic Jihad. All the ammunition was in Saddam’s willingness to use chemical weapons to subjugate his own country.

This was low-hanging fruit. Saudi Arabia may be more guilty of underwriting terrorist organizations, but as twisted as it may be they’re still our strongest Arab ally. Iran may make more strategic sense, but the conflict would be bloodier and the people of the country have no love for the U.S. (There was at least some reason to believe that the Iraqis would see us as liberators. There is virtually no chance of that in Iran, nor has there ever been.) Going after Syria would simply exacerbate the problems we already have in the Arab world simply by our support of Israel.

So our 2 choices were this: clean up Afghanistan, declare victory, and say that’s it. Bad move on a lot of levels. Or, go into Iraq, take down a dictator that no one likes, and cut off a major terrorist funding source, as well as a visible supporter. Bush didn’t go to war because of WMD any more than Kerry voted to go because of it. The naivety of the argument was that without something that would strike fear to the rest of the world (e.g., WMD), no one would support us.

Kerry will not change our Iraq policy; only people who haven’t been paying attention to what he’s said believe that he will. So, I submit once again the same thing I’ve been saying for 18 months. Guys, the following path is up for grabs: any candidate bold enough to seize on this will win the election:

- Admit that the real reason for the war was because Saddam was funding terrorist organizations. Show the money trails and how they’ve dried up.

-Without pointing a finger at the other candidate, acknowledge what we all know: the WMD info was faulty. Reiterate that this was not the primary reason for going to war.

-Re-state that our war is a war on terror. The more that terrorists pour into Iraq, the more steadfast we’ll be and the more aggressively we’ll go after them, their families, and if need be, their home countries.

I wish I believed that Kerry had the courage or Bush had the vision to adopt that strategy. Sadly, we’ll probably just watch them spar with each other over half-truths and red herrings, each one not having the guts to believe that Americans and the world can actually handle the truth.

THE UNDERCARD DEBATE

2004-10-06T09:16:00.000-04:00

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that the VP debate often has memorable lines (“I knew Jack Kennedy and you’re no Jack Kennedy.”), but rarely persuades anyone to change their vote. On to the undercard:

PRE-DEBATE (As before via MSNBC)

9:16 Joe Scarborough – “The Republicans are hoping that Edwards talks about Cheney and Halliburton, because that’s attacking the #2 guy. Cheney is going after Kerry. Edwards isn’t going to make any more scar tissue on Cheney.”

9:22 Ron Reagan, Jon Meachem (the Newseek guy) and Joe Scarborough all say that if it’s a “tie” that Edwards win. I find that interesting.

9:50 All predictions are that Edwards goes after Cheney for his involvement in Iraq and Cheney goes after Edwards for not being up to the task to hold the VP or presidency. It’s just fascinating how little all of these people seem to think of Edwards as a debater. I have a knee-jerk reaction against Edwards the politician, but he is used to public arguing. Don’t they have the debate thing backwards?

9:53 There’s an anti-Cheney sign behind the MSNBC desk that says “Leave no billionaire behind.” Have they looked at the bank accounts of Kerry and Edwards lately?

9:57 Chris Matthews: “You’re not supposed to bring in notes, but they can bring in memorized lines & write them down! Look at these two!” No doubt, the flurry of notes 4 minutes before the opening bell is quite astonishing.

DEBATE
NOTE: Since I’m typing in real time, some of the quotes may be off by a word or two. Don’t quote me; check the transcripts.

9:00 Edwards flashes a smile at his introduction. The Conservative Wife has already barfed.

9:01 How do two liberal moderators from NPR get the job in both debates so far, and get to choose the material? Who is this Gwen Ifill, other than Jim Lehrer’s cohort? Gee, how do you think she’s going to skew this?

9:03 Cheney is spouting the NeoCon line immediately. “We had to establish democracies in these places where state-sponsored terrorism was occurring.” 1000 miles away, I can hear the Liberal Colorado Friend retching.

9:09 Edwards says again that “we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora.” He might be in trouble here repeating what Kerry said about “outsourcing to Afghan warlords who were working with bin Laden a few weeks ago.” It makes him sound like a puppet, and that scenario is also questionable in its accuracy. He also sounds like a lawyer. “Listen to what the Vice-President says because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein & bin Laden.”

9:10 Cheney sees the opening: ‘The Senator has his facts wrong. This is what I said.” He just made mincemeat of Edwards to anyone that’s listening. Edwards should have known better. And, Cheney changes his tack to go after Kerry, not Edwards. Very smart.

9:13 Cheney talking about democracy in Afghanistan and how democracy will change the region. Edwards comes back to the “outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords.” Edwards is good at changing the subject to the place he wants to keep the focus. Even if Cheney actually eats him up on facts, Edwards looks like he’s going to hold his own. This one is shaping up to a draw, where the only people that won’t think so are the partisans.

9:16 Cheney: “20 years ago I was an observer in El Salvador and the drive for democracy was so great that they are so much better off.” Wow. El Salvadorians everywhere cheer at being recognized once every 20 years.

9:17 Edwards talking about how Iran & North Korea are greater threats now than they were 4 years ago. Gwen Ifill’s next question should be about what he is going to do about this. But it won’t be. She’s partisan, she’s not a credible journalist, and she doesn’t want to focus on Edwards fudging.

9:19 Edwards: “We’ve taken 90% of the casualties in Iraq, and we’re at 200 billion dollars and counting.” Cheney jumps on that immediately and talks about the Iraqi casualties (not civilians, but the Iraqi police that are working with us), & the number being $120 billion, of which a large chunk has gone to Afghanistan. Smart, quick answer. Cheney somehow makes Edwards look like a kid arguing with his dad when his dad has all the facts. It doesn’t even matter who’s actually correct.

9:22 Cheney: “I’m not challenging John Kerry’s patriotism. I’m questioning his judgement.” This is a heavyweight fight with 2 guys like Rocky Marciano and Mike Tyson going toe-to-toe. They can both take a lot of hits, and no one’s likely to get knocked down, much les knocked out.

9:24 Cheney just threw Edwards by talking about why Kerry changed his Iraq vote. “Howard Dean was ahead as an anti-war candidate & his team decided they needed to change his stance.” Edwards did a good job in redirecting, but he was for a moment really thrown. Don’t know why I think so but I don’t think most people will likely catch that.

9:25 Ahh…Edwards plays the Halliburton card 25 minutes in. Cheney doesn’t seem to be taking the bait. Cheney: “These are 2 guys who were for the war when the polls were good and against the war when the polls were bad.” “Oof!” says Edwards inwardly.

9:27 Edwards: “The (administration) didn’t just reject the allies leading up to the war, they rejected them in the reconstruction.” Wow…that’s putting a spin on it. Yes, if you’re naïve enough to actually think that France and Russia were potential allies in Iraq, they did indeed keep them out of reconstruction. Ahh…here comes the “body armor” statement that everyone knew was coming. Somehow, when the press has lines verbatim ahead of time those just don’t resonate.

9:30 Edwards seems to see something in what Cheney just said: he’s got this smirk on his face that I haven’t seen that seems to say “I’ve got a zinger coming.” Let’s see.

Edwards: “The Vice-President suggests that we have the same coalition we had in the first Gulf War. Regardless of what he says, this has cost this country $200B and we have taken 90% of the casualties.” That’s his zinger?? Cheney counters with “There’s what they do. They won’t recognize the enormous contribution that the Iraqis are contributing in lives and economics to their own cause. It’s their country, and they are making enormous sacrifices and contributions.” Point: Cheney.

9:35 Cheney is talking about Zarqawi and how long he’s been in Baghdad. Pretty powerful defusing of Edwards argument.

9:36 Gwen Ifill: Back in 1991 when you were still CEO of Halliburton…” Oh, please. Stamp liberal on your forehead and call it the Bill Maher Hour because that was completely uncalled for. Would she have said to Edwards “Back in 1987, when you were still chasing ambulances…”? Why was it ok for Halliburton to win a no-bid contract under Clinton to do essentially the same thing in Yugoslavia that they’re now doing in Iraq? I say again: how do 2 obvious liberals get to not only moderate the first 2 debates but also choose the questions? Are they going to even things out by allowing Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to moderate the next 2 debates? Where’s Edward R. Murrow, or at least Ted Koppel?

9:39 Edwards is now trying to draw parallels between Enron and Halliburton. That’s just disingenuous. To his debating credit, Edwards is smart enough to know that most people won’t research to find out the truth about Halliburton; they’ll take his word because everyone wants to believe that Halliburton and Dick Cheney are eeeevil. The Centrist Dude is being pushed to be a temporary Republican partisan.

9:44 Kudos to Cheney! He’s gone after Edwards and his senate record. “You’ve missed 33 of 36 Judiciary Committee meetings. Your hometown paper has started to call you Senator Gone. I’m the head of the Senate as Vice-President. The first time I ever met you was when I walked on stage tonight.” This has absolutely rattled Edwards into an “I am rubber, you are glue” debate. Edwards suddenly looks and sounds petulant and immature. Cheney is amazingly starting to eat Edwards alive.

9:47 As the moderator turns things to economics (no surprise, since she thinks this is where the Dems will shine & she wants to close) Cheney is talking about the burden of lawsuits and legislation in this country, as well as his other talking points.

9:49 “Cleveland has done lots of wonderful, important things, but it leads the country in poverty.” Really, John. Tell me those wonderful, important things Cleveland has done. I’m not saying it hasn’t, I’m saying he doesn’t know them. If Cheney knows any (other than the Rock and Roll Hall), this would be a good time to bring it up and ask Edwards to name some.

9:51 Edwards: “The cost of everything is going up.” Really? Amazing how Edwards knew to throw this out when Cheney couldn’t rebut due to debate rules. Do people buy this crap?

9:52 Gwen Ifill isn’t even close to being impartial. It is criminal the softball questions she throws at Edwards and the fastballs she throws at Cheney. The fact that Cheney is actually on the attack speaks volumes, though. Too bad Joe Beer Can is probably telling Mary how “them Dems gonna give it to them richies.” Fortunately, Joe doesn’t vote often and neither does Mary.

9:55 Cheney: “Small businesses create over 90% of new jobs in this country. They want to tax anyone making $200,000 a year or more, which are largely small business owners. Taxing small businesses is the wrong way to go in this country. The Senator during the Democratic debates said that his current partner’s plan would kill the economy.”

10:00 Edwards is doing something very smart by including Dick Cheney with himself as not believing that a Gay Marriage Amendment is a good idea. Cheney doesn’t take the bait, and just thanks Edwards for his kind words about his family and his daughter.

10:02 Gwen tries to bait Cheney with getting into a dogfight about whether John Edwards is endemic of the lawsuit problem in this country. Cheney recuses himself by saying he’s not familiar with Edwards’s cases. He is one smart hombre, regardless of what you think of him and his policies. Republicans should think it’s a shame that he’s not considering the presidency.

10:04 Edwards: “Let me say I am proud of my record for families against big insurance companies… But we do have too many lawsuits in this country.” Smart way to deflect and connect.

10:07 Edwards: “The malpractice part is ½ of 1% of the costs in this country, and we have double-digit inflation in health care costs.” Cheney: “We think that malpractice costs are a big problem in this country and we seriously need tort reform.” He goes on to talk about an airplane mfg in MN that could hire more people except that they have to pay so much in insurance (non-health care, of course). He talks about other things I’ll read in tomorrow’s transcripts because he’s bullet-pointing them too fast to type. Cheney really has a command of the facts. Edwards retort is to go back to Halliburton.. Again, point Cheney

10:11 Gwen asks a pointed question about the government’s failing in AIDS in this country. She is so partisan that I can now predict (as the Conservative Wife has so decently pointed out) that she will never, ever host anything like this again. Why doesn’t she just stand up and say “I want the Democrats to win!”

10:12 Edwards: “We think we should be spending double what we are in Africa to fight AIDS, and we should also be taking care of what is going on in Sudan (Darfur).” Uh…how do you propose to fund that, Mr. Edwards?

10:15: Edwsrds: “A long resume doesn’t a good record make.” Another line everyone knew was coming. And Edwards gives simplistic answers on what he would do.

10:16 Cheney: “You want me to answer questions about his (Edwards) qualifications? When President Bush asked me to sign on last election, it wasn’t because we needed to carry Wyoming, it’s because he wanted me to be a part of the team. He also knew that I had no political aspirations to be the President, and I wasn’t beholden to some Precinct Committeeman in Iowa.” Edwards is again rattled.

10:22 Gwen asks a stupid question with a stupid rule: “Don’t use your running mate’s name and talk about the differences between you and your opponent.” This is some stupid playground game by Gwen. Edwards can’t do it. The Conservative Wife thinks it makes Edwards look like a puppet instead of a member of the team. I think Gwen Ifill is a high school cub reporter posing as a journalist.

10:24 Edwards is fumbling. I wonder if he’s ever been this rattled. He’s good at trying to hide it, but you listen to him now vs. what he said at the beginning: he’s using phrases and pauses to give himself time to think, he’s making grammatical mistakes. Cheney is just cool and composed. I’m 0-2 in predicting what would happen in each debate. The American public who watched is going to come away saying “Edwards isn’t ready to lead.” Of the 4 people in this campaign, Dick Cheney is far and away the most in control and has the best grasp of the issues.

10:28 Gwen is now lost. “Senator Edwards, you have 30 seconds.” Edwards is thrown because he’s not supposed to have it. 15 seconds in, Ifill realizes it too and says “I’m sorry that you had an additional 15 seconds.” Gwen, meet Phil Luckett. He’s no longer an NFL referee, and you will never again moderate a debate.

10:32 Edwards: “We believe that we should allow imports of drugs from Canada. They’re against it because they’re with the drug companies.” Do you realize what this will do to our economy, you dumb ass?

10:34 Edwards closing statement is talking about “the light going out in America” and the “empty chair by the table.” Where’s Tiny Tim? Does this guy live in reality? As the Conservative Wife says, “This is so obsequious.” Yes it is.

10:35 Cheney’s closing statement: “I’ve worked for 4 presidents and watched 2 up close, and I know there’s no such thing as a routine day at the Oval Office.” He gives the NeoCon line and says “This is the challenge of our generation.” Wow.

POST DEBATE

Andrea Mitchell – I think that Dick Cheney did a great job of putting Edwards in his place, saying “I didn’t meet you before tonight.”

Ron Reagan – “There was a stature gap between them, but I’m not sure the public will see this.” HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh…you partisan, you.

Joe Scarborough: “Cheney obliterated Edwards. And he got it on domestic issues.”

Chris Matthews: “Edwards would take a squirt at Cheney, and then Cheney would come back with a howitzer.”

Tom Brokaw: “Dick Cheney was, as I have always seen in my years of covering him, extremely well-prepared. I liken him to George Foreman who shuffles across the ring and then unleashes a powerful blow when you aren’t expecting it. Cheney had any number of sound bite lines that will be repeated over the rest of the campaigns.”

Brian Williams is talking about fact-checking, & they’re going to show things that contradict. Predictably, the first thing they’re trying to show is Cheney contradicting himself. Unfortunately, the clip they show doesn’t contradict what Cheney had to say. Now they’re going after Edwards talking about the contract to Halliburton. They’re now going to say the same things that the few who checked knew: Halliburton was the only company with infrastructure to do the job in Iraq.

FINAL NOTE
The online voting poll is heavily skewed to Edwards, so much so that there is obviously some sort of planned Democratic trick going on. The MSNBC guys know this, too, as they are already making snide remarks about the Democrats obviously getting the word out to go vote for Edwards no matter what. No matter; anyone who paid attention or didn’t already have their mind made up will see what happened, just as they did on Thursday.

WHO WERE THOSE 2 GUYS?

2004-10-01T10:39:00.000-04:00

Last night's debate was supposed to feature George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. Instead, we got "Insomnia Guy" vs. "Clear Concise Guy." My on-the-spot diary from last night:

PRE-DEBATE ON MSNBC
6:40 Tim Russert has already set the tone for Big Media: talk in non-partisan tones about what needs to happen, but have a look of panic and urgency on your face. I like Russert, but there’s no doubt where his political loyalty lies.

6:53 They’re arguing about the time limits for the debate questions. You know what? If you can’t articulate your point-of-view to the public in 2 minutes, you’re not fit to lead the country. Do you really think that Joe and Mary Beer Can can listen past 2 minutes and repeat the substance back?? Early prediction: Kerry isn’t going to gain ground, he’s going to LOSE ground. Bring on the landslide.

6:58 The Conservative Wife almost has a heart attack when I say “part of me wants to see Kerry smoke Bush in this race so I can believe in him.” After receiving a sound beating, I stand by the comment. Not that I expect it to happen.

7:05 Andrea Mitchell and Jack Nicholson’s version of The Joker from Batman….separated at birth. The Conservative Wife says this has nothing to do with her ability to comment on the news. True, but in the morning she’ll still wake up ugly.

7:09 They quote The Centrist Dude!!! “Kerry has to deliver a knockout blow tonight or he won’t beat the champ.” Ok…they didn’t quote me, but they at least stole my metaphor.

7:13 Who the hell is Tucker Askew?? He’s part of the Bush-Cheney team. He sounds like John Edwards as a televangelist. YEESH!

7:22 Ty Devine…Kerry Sr. Advisor. Who from the Kerry camp let this guy on TV? He’s a grease-head who speaks 50 miles per hour, which is the norm in Boston, but it doesn’t play well in a large part of the country. I am continually amazed at how massively incompetent Kerry’s team is.

7:32 Tim Russert: “There hasn’t been a close incumbent race since Woodrow Wilson. They either lose big or win big.” Ok…which way do you think this one will fall?

7:39 Chris Matthews is speaking into an SM-57! That’s a $50 microphone!

DEBATE BEGINS
8i:03 First question: I thought Kerry came out well…until I heard Bush. Bush is reasoned, even and speaks more slowly than Kerry. Period. You get a calming, reasoned, in control guy. It’s a huge disparity.

8:08 Smart comment by Kerry: “Bush outsourced the job of getting Osama Bin Laden to other warlords.”

8:10 Kerry’s talking about opium??? What the *#$%?? He actually can’t keep on topic. Bush will eat him up on rebuttal.

8:11 Yep. Bush says he decided on his own to go to the U.N. Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Kerry has, in chess terms, lost a tempo.

8:13 Kerry has an opening. Bush transposed Saddam for bin Laden. If Kerry has a single ad lib bone in his body, this is the time to use it.

8:14 Nope. Kerry missed the opportunity to say something like “I understand why the President confused bin Laden with Saddam. He also didn’t understand why one was more important than the other.” If I can do that on the fly, why can’t Kerry?

8:20 This is Kerry’s next opening. He suddenly looks confident, and Bush looks like he needs to refresh his notes. He’s playing into the hands of the critics who say “He’s using terrorism to cover for everything.” Bush is fumbling, he’s stumbling, and he’s vulnerable. Can Kerry take advantage?

8:23 Look at how long the cameras stay on the split screen (that they’re not even supposed to use) when Kerry is speaking. That’s unconscionable! B.M. once again being partisan.

Bush’s response says he’s regained himself.

8:33 Bush is now flustered. His answers are stuttering, where Kerry is controlled. It’s as if Bush has been exposed on something, though he hasn’t. Stand up for yourself, you pansy!

8:37 Kerry has taken the upper hand, no question.

8:41 Bush is now talking about a troop death vignette. Comes off as disingenuous to me, especially the Neo-Con lecture afterwards. The Conservative Wife has a different take. “That was pretty powerful.”

8:43 Kerry: “Never confuse the war with the warriors.” That’s a great line. Ahhh…but then he says that he’s got specifics for Iraq. And he doesn’t lay it out. You dumb ass. You’ve missed the single chance to lay it out and opened it up for Bush.

8:46 the 64MM question: Lehrer to Kerry: “Can you give us specifics for what you will do in Iraq?” I loved what Kerry had to say, but again he didn’t answer the question.

8:50 Bush: “The reason my opponent says insurgents are coming in is because they understand that this is the battleground. If we win, they lose.” Bush regains control.

8:53 Kerry: “They outsourced the job of finding Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who were just weeks earlier against us.” There’s the line that the press will pick up tomorrow.

8:57 Bush is talking about not joining the International Criminal Court. He’s lost Joe and Mary Beer Can. I didn’t think that was possible. He’s in trouble.

9:12 Bush has blown this debate. All he had to do was to be confident in his responses. He has failed to do that. Kudos to Kerry. Game On unless Bush can close this convincingly.

9:14 Here’s the thing: I listen to what Kerry is saying, and I have the distinct feeling that (as I hear Bush stumble again) he is saying what he believes we want to hear, not what he actually feels in his gut. That’s still a problem that he’ll have to overcome, which is why his winning this debate just makes it “game on” instead of “game over.”

9:18 Bush “Vladimir (Putin) and I have talked….” Oh, please. Call him Mr. Putin, but don’t show me how “presidential” you are because you know his first name.

9:22 Kerry: “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as your President.” Without listening to Bush’s closing argument, he has done his work to make this election a race.

9:25 Bush sounds phenomenal when he is quoting a script, as he does in his closing statement. (Shades of Reagan…except Reagan could ad lib.)

Jim Lehrer’s eyes freak the Conservative Wife out.

POST DEBATE
What’s interesting is that the Newsweek guy is defending Bush. “He’s tired, he comes off as tired of defending the same old thing.”

Joe Scarborough: “Don’t underestimate the President. He’s confounded everyone, including me, in the days after the debates. People say ‘he speaks like me’ and ‘I trust him.’” Could be.

9:13 Brian Williams: “We looked it up, and the President is right (about the numbers spent in Iraq)” Call this the post-CBS/Dan Rather effect.

10:25 Ok, she’s biased. But Karen Hughes made a better case for re-electing George Bush did than George Bush did. Who was coaching Bush? Fire them fast, banish them far.

KERRY'S LAST STAND

2004-09-30T10:00:00.000-04:00

John Kerry has one last chance to control his own destiny in the first Presidential debate later tonight. By now it's clear to all but only the most optimistic supporter that Kerry is both behind and in big trouble. (And for those of you that think differently, call me: I have a fresh round of swampland to sell you in Florida.) But he has one last chance to change the momentum with a big victory in the first Presidential debate tonight. Make no mistake: it has to be tonight, because the viewership will go way down for any future debates, absentee votes are being cast, and if there's no shift by tomorrow there will simply not be enough voters left to sway.

Because of this, Kerry can’t go into tonight to just “win” the debate any more than an up-and-coming heavyweight boxer can expect to win a decision in a closely-fought contest. Human nature works against him in several ways:

1) The majority of voters have made up their minds, and once people make a decision they tend to look for things to reinforce it, not change it.

2) The few remaining undecided and “leaning” voters know what they’re getting with Bush. If they hated him, they would already be in the Kerry camp. So they might as well be assumed to actually be leaning towards Bush. If it’s a tie in their minds, that’s where their votes will go.

3) Regardless of the reason, Kerry’s negative numbers are almost as high as Bush’s. He isn't going to get someone’s vote because they like him personally, as might happen with John Edwards. (Though for the life of me I can’t understand why Edwards gets such high likeability ratings.)

So if I were on Kerry’s coaching staff, here’s the gameplan that I would draw up:

-Keep it simple. If you feel like you need to explain the nuances of your answer, it’s a bad answer.

-Forget about Vietnam. The people who can’t let Vietnam go have already made up their minds. No one else cares, nor will they vote for or against you based on what you or Bush did in Vietnam.

-Do not underestimate your opponent. George Bush is already taking the Lou Holtz strategy by telling everyone what a great debater you are, and how he hopes to somehow hold his own. Don’t believe it. Bush may not be a classic debater, but he’s a clever one. He’s fooled a lot of people into thinking he’s a dumb ass. He’s not.

-Outline your plan for Iraq. Not a wish list, and not some diatribe that conjures up memories of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Right now, there is not one person in this country who has an inkling on what you plan to do. Take a cue from the RNC: Bush outlined a plan for his second term. He didn’t give every specific detail about how it would be accomplished, but it did not come off as pie-in-the-sky either. (Except for how to pay for it.) This is the foreign policy debate! If you can’t articulate an Iraq plan that Joe and Mary Beer Can will be able to grasp you will be headed for the south end of a landslide.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t think his handlers appear smart enough to make leaps this basic and necessary. To use an NFL analogy, Kerry is being coached by the equivalent staff of Norv Turner, Dave Wanndstadt, Marty Morninwheg and Dennis Erickson. Too bad he’s Jay Fiedler instead of Joe Montana.

WHY SENATORS MAKE BAD PRESIDENTS

2004-09-28T23:15:00.000-04:00

Only 5 Presidents, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson were Senators before they were elected President. Of those Harding never held another elected position, and Truman only held a judgeship and the Vice-Presidency. Why?

Perhaps the reason lies in what makes a successful Senator: a diplomat. Unfortunately, “diplomat” and “leader” don’t make good bedfellows. Rare is the Senator that can a) strike the populous as a leader of the country, and b) can execute once they get there. History has not been kind to Harding or Lyndon Johnson, and the jury is out on Nixon and in some circles on Kennedy.

The point? John Kerry. He seems to have the makeup of a successful Senator: flexible, nuanced, a horse trader of sorts. Yet he doesn’t have what appears to be the makings of a good President: decisiveness and direction.

The Liberal Colorado Friend lamented a few days ago about the Democratic Party. “What happened to standing up for the little guy? That’s what the Democrats were always about. Instead, I have this eastern, blueblood, upper-crust pansy who seems to have absolutely no connection to the common man, and the guy that is connecting with them is another East Coast blueblood upper-crust pansy. One opted out of service, and the other took film of everything he did.”

Alas, I couldn’t agree more. Bush in a nose-holding landslide. Ahhh…shades of Nixon…the ex-Senator.

(Note to self: this one sounds like a true “blog” as opposed to an editorial. Must consult with the Conservative Wife.)

THE POWER OF THE MEDIA

2004-09-23T09:55:00.000-04:00

So, you don't think that Big Media actually has much sway on you, and if they are so bold as to tell you how to think you're smart enough not to buy it? Then explain the latest NBC News/WSJ poll on the presidential race. It offers some interesting fodder for just how much Big Media skews people's opinions, even to the point where the public ignores logic and their own observations in favor of what B.M. is shoving down their throats.

The best example I see in this particular poll relates to people's perception of the economy. We can all recite what B.M. has been telling us for the past 2 years: Bush runs up deficits, jobs are being outsourced overseas, the economy is horrid…translation: we are all doomed unless a change is made. Fair enough, maybe even accurate. But let’s take look at the polling data. (And incidentally, I will e-mail the entire .pdf file to anyone that wants it; that way you can look beyond these excerpts and draw your own conclusions.)

NOTE: Everything in blue is taken from the poll. The number at the front of each question is where it was in order on the actual poll:

10d. I'm going to mention two sets of issues. Please tell me which set of issues is more important to you in deciding for whom you will vote in the presidential election?
Set A: Terrorism and social issues and values
Set B: The economy and health care

Set A/terrorism and values more important...........44
Set B/economy and health care more important....44
Both equally important...............................................11
Not sure .........................................................................1

This establishes that the economy is at least on equal par with terrorism as an election issue. B.M. has intimated for over 2 years that Bush is lousy with the handling of the economy. And, the polling data seems to back that up:

9a. Overall, do you think the country is better off or worse off than it was four years ago?
Better off................................................35
Worse off............................................... 55
No difference/about the same .............6
Not sure ..................................................4

21. Over the past twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
Economy has gotten better.....................29
Economy has gotten worse.....................36
Economy has stayed about the same....34
Not sure......................................................1

14. Now I'd like you to compare George W. Bush and John Kerry on a few issues. For each one, please tell me whether you think that George W. Bush or John Kerry would be better on that issue. If you think that both would be equally good or that neither would be good on a particular issue, just say so:

Jobs and Unemployment
BUSH..........32%
KERRY.......48
EQUAL.......10
NEITHER....5
NOT SURE..5

The Federal Budget Deficit
BUSH...........28%
KERRY........45
EQUAL.........8
NEITHER....11
NOT SURE...8

So the public apparently agrees that Kerry would be better with the economy. But now, take a look at these 2 items:

22. During the next twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy will get better, get worse, or stay
about the same?

Economy will get better................... 43
Economy will get worse.....................13
Economy will stay about the same...33
Not sure.............................................. 11

23a. Would you say that you and your family are better off or worse off than you were four years ago?

Better off................................................44
Worse off ...............................................35
No difference/about the same .......... 20
Not sure....................................................1

How can this be? How can between approximately 65% of the people say that they are better off or holding their own AND believe things are getting better or staying consistent, yet also say in almost equal numbers how bad the economy is? Simple: B.M. has beat into their heads so much that the economy is awful and they're doomed that they actually buy it, despite their own personal observational and empirical evidence to the contrary!

There is plenty of polling data in the .pdf and we all know how easy it is to manipulate results if there is enough data to work with. I'm willing to listen to any of you who want to refute what I have to say. Keep in mind, though, this isn’t an indictment or an endorsement of any candidate or issue, but rather pointing out just how much influence we have allowed B.M., talk radio and others with an agenda to sway our thought process. To punctuate this further, note that NBC didn’t see fit to put their own poll on their site, opting instead to only give the readers their spin.

As thinking citizens of this country, we have to be more questioning and less gullible. And at some point, we have got to hold Big Media’s feet to the fire.

IN PRAISE OF BLOGGERS

2004-09-20T23:10:00.000-04:00

There’s a war going on internally. I have to admit that the Machiavellian side of me is thirsting for Dan Rather’s blood as an example of lousy, partisan journalism. He and CBS have been pushing forth an agenda for years that, regardless of your politics, is an insult to what journalism is supposed to be: impartial, fair, and balanced. Sadly, precious little of the media adheres to that criteria. We are in a code yellow: yellow journalism.

However, I did mention an internal war, and there is that other side: the side that’s embarrassed to watch the demise of true journalism. I suppose this is offset to a large degree because I'm proud to be in the blogging community. We the bloggers are now the ones who now are keeping the journalists honest, making a once-honorable-now-lazy-and-partisan profession have to re-examine itself for those journalistic principles that many of its reporters and editors have sadly lost.

Of course, bloggers aren’t subject to the same scrutiny that journalists are (or should be). Bloggers can, and do, write anything they want, no matter how outrageous. But this makes the whole Rather/CBS scandal even more stunning: “amateurs” are exposing a man and a network that so want to see Bush defeated that they skipped basic journalistic scrutiny and ran a story with so many holes in it that 30 Dutch boys couldn’t save it.

Bloggers have become the watchdogs of this lazy journalistic environment that we now live in. Their watchdog are others who read their columns and make public comments. And that’s as it should be. America is possibly coming to a new reality, where bloggers do the research that used to be done by ethical journalists, and are then checked by their readers. Unfortunately, those who continue to get their news solely from major networks and big city newspapers are the equivalent of dumb asses being led around by the nose.

IN PRAISE OF AUSTIN

2004-09-12T12:09:00.000-04:00

I wasn’t searching for it, but I have found a place that still seems to understand the basic principles that the Democratic Party has forgotten: Austin, Texas.

For those who haven’t been there, here’s a brief snapshot: Austin's population is similar to Indianapolis, Nashville or Baltimore, yet is vastly different from any of those cities. For starters, there’s a mass transportation system that actually makes sense, with buses that are clean and run logical routes and are very easy for tourists to navigate. The city has kept a lot of green space instead of wall-to-wall buildings. There is an outpouring of support for independent businesses, typified by the movement to “Keep Austin Weird”: support the little guys instead of the Wal-Marts and retail chains. There is live music everywhere (Austin bills itself correctly as the “live music capital”); a large percentage of the live players are doing originals instead of cover tunes. And unlike Nashville, local residents come out to actually watch performers, and there’s an absence of the wannabes that cities like Nashville and Los Angeles seem to have on every other corner.

So what does this have to do with the Democrats? The reasons that Austin is such a hip, easy, safe place start here: people actually care about their neighbor, they don’t just pay lip service to helping the underdog, and they don’t throw money at everything thinking it will help. Maybe the key is that there’s a blend of Texas independence thrown in. Differing opinions aren’t seen as taboo or stupid if you can back them up, and not every single person or group is actually considered deserving to feed from the public trough. The net result is that Austiners believe that some people need a support network to achieve their dreams and are deserving of it…if they’re willing to work for it. The residents and local governments of Austin are prepared to help in those circumstances.

Contrast that with the current Democrats who, at least at the federal level, have become elitists that believe they can come down from the mountain and help the “little people” without any clue as to what the “little people” are even all about. No wonder the Hollywood Democrats are so enamored with the current incarnation: they’re kindred souls. And there don't seem to be any filters when it comes to the groups the Democrats claim to represent. They are equally likely to cry foul for a group just looking for space at the trough as for one who is actually aggrieved.

To be fair in this analogy, Austin isn't free of problems. Too many people still refuse the mass transit option in favor of clogging the roads. The city planners attempted to control sprawl by not putting in infrastructure in outlying areas, and it didn’t work. Now they will have to put in roads, sewers, etc. with residences and businesses already in place: much tougher & more expensive. They’re going to have to figure out a balance between allowing large residences and corporate campuses to take desirable land and keeping that coveted green space for all.
But I have little doubt that most of these will become blips because the city and residents will find ways to grow and thrive without losing the sense of who they are and what Austin is all about. I’d love to think that federal Democrats could spend a few weeks there and maybe learn a little bit. Alas, I think that too many of them are so out of touch they wouldn’t even see the things at street level that the rest of us can enjoy.

CONSPIRACY THEORY PREDICTIONS

2004-09-06T14:08:00.000-04:00

Now that the conventions are over, the Spinmeisters will be in high gear. And given their normal proclivity for such things, look for the right-wing talk show hosts to begin a new round of Conspiracy Theories, and maybe even some of the liberals will have their own wacko scenarios.

Let me make very clear that I don't believe in the below conspiracy theories. (For starters, our government has to be the worst in the world at keeping secrets.) Nonetheless, I would wager on some versions of these being floated out by the nutcase talk-show faction, if Vegas is giving odds:

1) CLINTON'S SURGERY IS A RUSE
The motive: Bill Clinton wants Kerry to lose so Hillary can run in 2008.
The evidence: the heart surgery came out of nowhere, and everyone was trying to keep all details a secret; Clinton's support of Wesley Clark late in the primary campaign.
The spin: The Clintons were in a Catch-22: campaigning for Kerry and helping him win would negate any chance of Hillary running in 4 years, but not campaigning would lower the Clinton's stock (especially Hillary's) as selfish, non-team players. How else do you explain Clinton's sudden support of the ultra-weak Wesley Clark after Kerry was already steaming towards the nomination? So, the spin will go, that the Clintons want to do as little as possible in the hopes that it won't be enough to change the outcome of the election but will still be seen as being on board.

So, Bill shows up at the DNC, makes a marvelous speech. Dems get all excited about Bill campaigning. Then, immediately following the RNC, when it's apparent that the Republicans have all the momentum, Bill mysteriously has chest pains and is whisked away to a New York hospital for heart surgery. The word from the Clinton camp already is months of rest, no visitors, blah, blah, blah. In other words, Bill is off the hook! 2008 slogans already underway! With Hill and Bill we surely will!

2) CHECHNYAN TERRORIST ACTS ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THE U.S. TO RUSSIA'S AID
The motive: Russia wants to drag the U.S. into supporting its conflict with Chechnya.
The evidence: 2 plane crashes and an elementary school standoff come right on the heels of the RNC. The Russian government astonishingly lets the state-run press criticize the administration's handling, so as to get their citizens ready to fight.
The spin: Russians have had their problems with Chechnya for a decade, but because of years of hostility towards the Soviet Union the U.S. and most of Europe have been unsympathetic. Likewise, when Russia opposed the Iraq conflict the U.S. drew further away. But Putin and Bush are friendly. Bush could use help from Russia, and the Russians could be helped by U.S. support as well, even if it's just turning a blind eye to how they deal with Chechnya.

The planes that went down have been completely devoid of outside sources confirming what happened. Likewise, the news of the taking of the schoolyard and the subsequent loss of 350 (and counting) hostages and children have been filtered completely through the Russian news sources. And, with one exception, all of the terrorists who stormed the school have been killed, so no one can spill the beans about what really happened.

Americans now see images of Russians sorrowed and angered, eerily similar to what we went through after 9/11. Tass, which is run by the state government, openly critcizes the government for the slow handling of the situation. All reports from Interfax (a British puppet, the Spinmeisters will say) and Tass point to Wahabi Muslim extremists. Since these reports undoubtedly are orchestrated by Putin he must have a goal. And it's simple: to draw America's sympathy. In the long run, they'll end their rhetoric and help us with new information about our enemies and guarantee us oil. In return, we help them by not blowing the whistle on the heavy-handed way they are about to deal with the Chechnyans.

3) BIN LADEN CAPTURED & BEING HELD AS INSURANCE
The motive: News of Osama bin Laden's capture at the right time would go insure a Bush victory.
The evidence: There has been little news coming out of Afghanistan for months, and the Pakistani Army seems to have rounded up everyone else associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their area. Things are too quiet and peaceful for bin Laden to still be around.
The spin: The U.S. captured bin Laden months ago, but with the capture of Saddam Hussein hitting the news the Bush Administration decided to keep bin Laden's snaring a secret until a later date. They will release the news somewhere in mid-to-late October to further ensure that Bush wins the election. If Osama was still around, there would be new videos, audio messages, or coordinated attacks in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. However, everything has been peaceful. The Afghans are preparing to vote. The Pakistan government is cozying up to the U.S. This is all hard to believe unless bin Laden has actually been taken out of the equation.

Whether or not any of these are floated about remains to be seen. But you can be reasonably sure that some sort of conspiracy theories will hit the airwaves soon. That, unfortunately, is the state of our media and the people who swallow it whole.

Bush Speech part 2: the aftermath

2004-09-04T12:14:00.000-04:00

Continuing the Thursday night stream-of-consciousness diary. This was watching the Kerry-Edwards speech in Springfield, OH right after the RNC ended:

10:49pm – John Edwards is speaking in Springfield, Ohio. He’s a much better speaker than George Pataki. Yet, he still makes me feel like I need to bathe just for watching & listening.

10:53pm – John Kerry takes the stage. How stupid is this so-called intellectual and his campaign manager? No one is covering this except for MSNBC. That includes CNN, Fox News, PBS, and all of the major networks. Why would you make this speech right now when you’re competing against Bush’s speech? Why not wait 24 hours?

11:00pm – I can’t let this go. Kerry had the temerity to say the Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover who had lost jobs. What??? Gerald Ford?? Jimmy Carter?? Give me a break. The 70s were crappy on employment no matter what party you were from. Saying that no one since the 30s had “lost jobs” on their watch is so untrue that Kerry should be handcuffed now and led away. You know, here’s another thing. Kerry is wearing a wonderful suit coat and a reeeallly expensive shirt. He actually believes that by not wearing a tie no one will notice. Edwards is at least wearing a shirt & coat that look like he could be “one of us.” Kerry just doesn’t get it at any level. The Democrats have likely lost a very winnable election.

11:09pm – MSNBC has broken away. CNN has picked Kerry up. Back on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, who is no conservative, is giving up on the Democrats. “Democrats no longer have the numbers, and the Republicans are better at organizing and business.”

11:32pm – Ron Silver: “Bush gave a speech of moral clarity, which is what drives people mad. But we look back at the great speeches of our presidents and they’re all full of moral clarity.” Ahh….no shock here, “Convention Historian Doug Brinkley” is a friend of John Kerry’s who wrote a book about him. Doug Brinkley is telling us that this is Kerry's opening salvo of the campaign, and that historically this is where John Kerry shines: the last 60 days. The same sentiment is echoed by Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman. No collusion there. What’s funny is that Ron Reagan, Jr (a definite liberal) just has this defeated look on his face while he’s interviewing these 2 guys.

11:40pm – Jeanine Garofolo has the best response: “The RNC videos and their platform don’t speak to me. I have no proof of this, but I feel like he’s lying to me.” Ron Silver has a good response to her: “You might not like the man, but if you read the 9/11 Commission report, he did not lie to you. He might have been misinformed, but he didn’t fabricate information.”

12:11am – Ron Silver and Ron Reagan, Jr are debating. My conservative friends think Ron Silver is a ridiculous left-winger. I’m beginning to think that Ron Silver and I are kindred souls. Joe Trippi has really undergone a makeover. He used to look exactly like the guy who would run Howard Dean’s campaign: unkempt, bad diet, no sleep. He now looks like every corporate executive. He’s done better than his former boss.

FRIDAY Sept 3rd
2 new pieces of information: Time shows the Prez now leading 52%-41% among likely voters. So much for the dead heat, at least for a brief period of time. And how's this for bad news: the latest unemployment stats show an increase in jobs of 144,000 in August, and that unemployment is down to 5.4%, it's lowest since October 2001. Kerry actually tried to spin that today by quibbling over the 6,000 difference (the original estimate was 150,000). So, let me get this straight: the Democrats have now abandoned the war criticisms, at least temporarily, and have picked this day to switch to focusing on domestic agenda.

Any candidate that clueless does not deserve to lead the country. Maybe the Dems will put up someone in 2008 that I can actually respect and vote for. I'm not holding my breath.

Bush speech, Part 1

2004-09-03T02:27:00.000-04:00

Yes...there will be a second part tomorrow. You think this is long...

I’m watching MSNBC because a) the major networks have eschewed all convention coverage to date, b) CNN is a cheerleader for Kerry, c) Fox News is a cheerleader for Bush, and d) PBS leans so left that they’re sorry that Nader can’t get coverage. So, my evening online diary:

8:10pm – Since I haven’t looked, I ask out loud who might be speaking before Bush. The Centrist Dudette postulates that it will be George Pataki, because “it would make the most sense to continue beating the 9/11 drum.” Sounds plausible.

8:14pm – Tim Russert & Tom Brokaw have already conceded that there will be a big bump for the Republicans and they have stolen the momentum. They talk about how Kerry and Edwards are going to campaign in Ohio tonight so that the Republicans can’t define them. Well…there’s the pro-Kerry media spin. Too bad it’s too late. Now they’re talking about how Kerry is so great at closing and using Iowa as an example. One problem with that, of course: Dean’s numbers were inflated and he was less electable than Kerry or Bush on their worst days. This reminds me of the line from the book ‘Bias’ as relayed to my by Conservative Friend Bird earlier this week; it is attributed to a high-ranking executive at CBS News a few days after the 1972 Presidential election: “I don’t understand how this happened. Everyone I know voted for McGovern.”

8:34pm – George Pataki will indeed introduce Bush. Let the drum beating continue.

8:36pm – Convention Historian Douglas Brinkley is speaking with Chris Matthews about what Bush needs to do. How do you get that gig: Convention Historian? It’s not like there’s a college degree for it. Douglas is saying what he thinks Bush needs to do, which is Media Code for “let me tell all the swing voters where Bush has failed to date.” I love the media; they have no clue just how biased they are.

8:38pm – Oh, my God…as Pataki is introduced the cameras show a shot of the New York delegates. And in the middle is…Jim Kelly, former Buffalo Bills QB. ACCCK!! I’m now voting for Kerry.

8:39pm – So Pataki opens with all of the good things that other states did for NYC after 9/11. Of course…they’re all swing states: Oregon, Iowa, & Pennsylvania. How gauche. I’m trying to convince the Centrist Dudette to continue watching for the comedy value. She’s not listening. Frankly, I’m too busy quelling the urge to barf.

8:43pm – I’m now noticing that if you look away from the TV, Pataki sounds almost exactly like Al Gore. God, please don’t let this man ever run for President. The networks are missing the boat in their fight to unseat Bush. They should be putting Pataki on TV, and people would vote Democratic in droves.

8:49pm – A shot of Guiliani in the crowd. He has this look contemptuous on his face that says “Please let Bush shoot this man when he steps to the podium.” The camera focuses on 2 female delegates with long, bleached hair, facelifts, and fake boobs. The oft-overlooked “Porn Stars for Bush.” Seeing it in print, maybe that one should have been obvious. Wow…5 black women in a row with cowboy hats on screaming “Four More Years!” See…it’s the party of inclusion. Pataki says “I’m a New Yorker.” NOOOOO!!

8:58pm – Thankfully, Pataki is done. Rudy Guiliani is hugging Ron Silver. Guess that says just how far away he and Pataki really are.

8:59pm – Joe Scarborough (the token MSNBC centrist) has a great comment: why would Kerry come out with his big speech in Ohio tonight when he is guaranteed to have to share front-page space with the President? Could it be because he’s a dumb ass? Why didn’t he do it a week ago? Or at this point wait until tomorrow when he'll have the headlines to himself? Oh, now Fred Thompson is doing the opening for the video on Bush. Time to get serious and pay attention. NOTE: A quick flip through the stations, and all of the major networks are steering clear of this, so that we can hear George Snuffleuppagas (ABC), Tim & Tom (Russert & Brokaw on NBC) and some gray-haired guy (CBS).

9:11pm – Bush takes the stage in arena rock fashion. Think there’s a significance to the time? (Probably not, it’s in New York.) The Centrist Dudette realizes that Dick Cheney looks like an overweight version of The Conservative Mississipian Friend. She also suggests that W. hasn’t found out his mother is actually a transvestite.

9:18pm – “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.” I agree. So what’s with the Gay Marriage Amendment? “In our world and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.” My liberal friends recoil in horror at the Neo-Conservative reference.

9:21pm – "(Our institutions) were created for the worlds of yesterday, not the world of tomorrow.” This could be good if he gives specifics. “We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” You’d think after 31 years we’d actually have done that. “We must protect small business owners from the frivolous lawsuits that drag down our economy.” I agree. I wish I could believe him on that one. “In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.” Ok…I haven’t heard that yet from a serious candidate. It won’t happen in 4 years, but I’m all for opening the dialog for a change. “We’ll increase funding for our community colleges.” Great idea, but that’s at odds with reducing federal spending, though. Ahhh…details, details.

9:26pm - “More than half the uninsured are small business workers and their families. In a new term, we must allow small businesses to join together to purchase insurace at the discounts available to big companies.” George, you now have my undivided attention. “I will insure that every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.” Again…how does that jibe with reducing federal spending? “We must pass medical liability reform now.” Take that, John Edwards. “We will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.” Rhetoric. This is more like a State of the Union speech.

The Centrist Dudette takes exception to an increased home ownership plan: “That’s right, George. You just need to keep building more and more Stack-A-Shacks.” (This is a C.D. code phrase for “cheap-ass condo.”)

9:32pm – Bush has gone into “I’m really a Democrat” mode. For someone who talks about cutting federal spending, he’s sure got a lot of places to add money. However, I have a difficult time disagreeing with his comments about continuing to reintroduce and hold students and teachers to testing standards. His line about the poor Georgia school that expects their students to succeed as the answer to “ the soft bigotry of low expectations”…brilliant. Someone tip the speech writer.

9:36pm – “Anyone who wants more information on my plans can find the details online.” Again…brilliant. The Centrist Dudette is majorly impressed by his ‘plainspeak’ in this address. Bush is picking apart what Kerry wants to roll back item by item. Very smart. Denzel Washington is in the crowd. I'm amazed the cameras haven’t focused on him before. Oh, wait…the networks don’t want to show celebrities supporting a Republican. How stupid of me.

9:39pm – “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of charity and compassion….Because I believe in the union of a man and a woman deserves an honored place in our society... I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.” At least he’s smart enough to put all the religious crap in one paragraph. Ahh…quoting Kerry as saying “Ronald Reagan was 8 years of moral darkness” is another brilliant line.

9:42pm – Bush says he will never rest in how to better defend this country. The crowd cheers. Guiliani now looks like he’s thirsting for someone’s blood. “We are staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And we’re working to advance liberty in the Middle East.” This brings a disruption in the convention by some young female. Bush acts like he's ignoring it, but he’s been shaken a bit. He’d have been better off if he had Guiliani’s or Reagan’s penchant for ad lib.

9:47pm – Now, Bush discusses Iraq. Another disruptor, another removal from the building. (Note to self: how did these people get in? Who’s the head of RNC Security?) Bush rolls with this one better. “We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East.” The Liberal Friends all look for hurl buckets. Al-Jazeera looks for a friendly, popular dictator. A side note: According to the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, Afghanistan has 9 million people. So far, 9.9 million have registered to vote. Bush says 10MM. Who's quibbling? All liberals should be happy that Afghans have apparently learned democracy from Democrat Richard Daley.

9:52pm -“…and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” No Vietnam comments here. Nosirreee, Bobby. In reference to Kerry’s vote on funding troops, and his subsequent explanation of ‘It’s complicated’, Bush says “There is nothing complicated when it comes to supporting our troops in battle.” “My opponent says our coalition is one of the coerced and bribed” and then goes on to name well-known western allies. Good line.

9:58pm – “(Our enemies) know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate.” My anti-NeoCon friends now have the dry heaves. “Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel.” And the flames are re-lit. But a bloc of Florida voters are now happier.

10:01pm – A jab at the New York Times about a 1946 editorial referring to Germany: “Maybe that person is still around writing editorials.” Quite funny, and appropriate. Bush followed it with “fortunately we had a resolute president named Truman.” Ooops…followed that up with “freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” Maybe the religious references are just my knee-jerk reaction, but I can't help but think that he could back off of it.

10:05pm – “Even when we disagree, you know where I stand.” The crux of the Bush presidency, and arguably the crux of any true leader. “People have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do it.” Best line of the night. “People look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking.” Ok, 2nd best line of the night. Bush is now talking about the military and his families and is actually tearing up. It’s either a glimpse into his real self, or a great acting job. I believe the former, and it has nothing to do with what he’s done, just his real feelings recalling people who have lost people he sent to die and they still support him. No matter who you are, I can’t imagine.

10:10pm – Bush is now paraphrasing The Byrds “Turn, Turn, Turn.” Some speechwriter is very tuned in to the Vietnam generation. The Centrist Dudette says ‘Basically we are going to go around building nations everywhere.” My liberal friends hurl anew on reading this.

My take following the speech: Bush was predictably short on specifics, but at least he outlined an agenda with some basic direction, unlike Kerry. The speech was good, and I would expect that the polls will refute Kerry, at least in the short run.

10:29pm – Oh, my….the preliminary polls on the bounce: 7%. I had no idea that there would be a poll yet. That number is amazing, especially since “everyone’s made up their minds.” Kerry needs to hope for the gaffe of all gaffes from Bush.

More tomorrow.

PLATFORMS AND PERCEPTIONS

2004-09-02T09:49:00.000-04:00

First off, instead of e-mailing me with your viewpoint on this and future postings, click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this article. It will post your views for all to read and respond to, which is really the point of this blog: dialog. Hopefully sane.

I downloaded the Republican Party platform yesterday to read it undiluted by spin from talk radio or Big Media. Can you believe it's 92 pages long? Yikes! One would think that the party that calls itself pro-business would write it like a business plan, complete with an Executive Summary. Oh, no...you have to read the entire 92 pages to find out what the hell they're trying to say. Don't these people realize that no one in America is going to slough through that? They're guaranteeing that their written message will be heard by most people AFTER it's been spun, and probably by the the Republican's adversaries. (NOTE: If anyone's interested, I can e-mail you copies of both party platforms.) So this leaves the positive delivering of each party's message to the presidential candidates.

For all of the talk about how divisive George W. Bush has been, think of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Now, we all think of this man as one of, if not the greatest American President. But he ran almost as a one-issue candidate (the legal abolishment of slavery), and we all know the results. Let's say that George Bush ran as a one-issue candidate: pick one. How divisive would that be? And would he have any hope of winning? Doubtful. But Lincoln did win...with about 40% of the popular vote, although he had the majority of the 4 candidates. Still, Lincoln articulated a message and it resonated. Maybe a bit too much, but it resonated. And in the face of imminent Civil War he never backed down from his beliefs.

40 years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to be all things to all people. Remember hearing (or reading) his "guns and butter" talks, as in "we can have both"? 40 years later, who can tell me what Johnson stood for? He was bombing the hell out of Hanoi, yet building urban housing in the inner cities. He acted like he was still Senate Majority Leader, and appeased Republicans regulary to get social programs through, which doesn't really work when you're the President. He compromised, he waffled, all the while increasing taxes to pay for everything? This, of course, cost him the presidency and cost America 15 years of economic chaos.

I'm not suggesting that politics and public policy are simple, but the presidential candidates who can give their view in clear, simple terms are going to almost always defeat those who can't articulate their vision and think that things are too complex to lay it out in understandable terms. Would Johnson have beat Goldwater if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? I seriously doubt it. Ronald Reagan would have assuredly been the Republican nominee in 1976 had Watergate not put Gerald Ford in the White House. Would Jimmy Carter have beat him then, or would Carter have even been the nominee? Again, highly doubtful.

Bill Clinton might be a Rhodes Scholar, but he was also able to articulate his views clearly and concisely. Likewise Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about Nixon, but you knew where he stood on issues. And as divisive as he was, he also is the proud owner of the biggest landslide in presidential history.

Americans currently know where Bush stands on most everything and can sum him up in a few words, even if they're choice. John Kerry completely missed the chance to lay out his agenda. Anything he does now will be seen as reactionary. Could it actually be that he has no clear vision? My liberal friends and relatives keep telling me he does, but the same drum has been beating for months: what is Kerry's vision?

As a final statement, The Liberal Dad (who is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to predicting politics) told the Centrist Dude 2 months ago that the "bounce" after the conventions would tell the tale. Well, Kerry got zero bounce, which Big Media spun as "everyone's already made up their minds." What will their spin be when GWB gets a 4-5 point bounce?

Comments are encouraged. Click on the "comments" link below to post them.

Genuine Points vs. Disingenous Rhetoric

2004-08-31T11:20:00.000-04:00

While I find it difficult at times to watch either political party's 4-day infomercial, there are those occasional moments that are worthy of tuning in, especially if they have the opportunity to be free of the B.S. Factor. With John McCain and Rudy Giuliani scheduled to speak this seemed like a good opportunity for a rare moment or two of genuine dialog. So what did we get? Well, a few observations:

1) Michael Moore was in the hall as a columnist for USA Today. Forget the McCain "disingenuous filmmaker" line; do you really need to know any more about Gannett than that? With deference to Jeff Foxworthy, if USA Today is your news source you might be a Stepford liberal.

And speaking of that line, it was telling that McCain did not know that Moore was in the hall. But after he delivered his line and then realized Moore was there he did not back down, as some people will do when faced with their adversary. Instead, he repeated the line. Good stuff.

2) Painful as it was at times, it was smart to take everyone back to 9/11 and remind people why the administration chose its current course. It was a stroke of genius to have three "everywomen" speak, all of who had lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks (and one who also lost a son in Iraq). Simple, poignant, and unadulterated. And then...

...in a single moment, the message of these women was completely lost by the B-movie inclusion of the singing of Amazing Grace. What on earth was the purpose of that? Did someone think that swing voters were going to come in droves if you could wring every last tear out of them? Or that mixing more religion into the prime-time message was going to make fence-sitters comfortable with the Republicans? It was offensive and unnecessary and someone ought to be ashamed.

3) How strong would a candidacy of McCain and Giuliani be, regardless of who's at the top of the ticket? No election is certain but it's tough to see how those two would be defeated. But you get the feeling that viewpoint may be lost on the current core of Republicans.

McCain is seen by many Republican leaders as someone who doesn't play by their rules and therefore doesn't deserve to lead the Party. Some of those opinions leaking from the GOP also point to a bigger problem: if they're not careful the Republicans will move so far to the right that the view of the center becomes obscured. And while McCain may have been a Goldwater conservative at one point he has moved much more to center, not to mention that the center has also moved to the right of where it used to be. So if the GOP leadership sees McCain as outside the mainstream, look for the country to begin a shift leftward.

4) Watching all of the 9/11 recap cast my mind back to Guiliani immediately after the New York attacks. This convention is, of course, about Bush and his leadership, but here was a man who didn't have 2 days to compose himself before facing the public. It still stands as the truest moment of a leader under fire I've seen in my lifetime. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton unabashedly looking for photo ops in the days that followed the attacks, and then being caught on camera making snide remarks when Bush addressed Congress 2 weeks later.

5) In case anyone wonders whether Guiliani and McCain registered with swing voters, all you had to do was watch the protesters behind MSNBC's anchors, who were sitting outside. Every time the cameras went on they began chanting "Kerry, Kerry" or "No More Years." However, after McCain's speech and especially after Guiliani's they fell completely silent, as if their message was suddenly hollow or their candidate had just paraded naked around MSG. If they were affected that way, how about the rest of the country?

6) Immediately after the convention, the Centrist Dudette asked me to see what the initial soundbites were and who was being featured. In the American press it was running about 50-50 between Guiliani and McCain. Interestingly enough, the British press we visited (BBC, London Times, the Telegraph) all featured McCain and the Michael Moore line. While it was still front page, Le Monde didn't mention either speech, but talked about the convention in generalities. Most interesting of all was that Al-Jazeera didn't have the convention on the front page at all. However, it did lead with John Kerry promising Iran that if elected he'd consider allow them to continue operating their nuclear plants. Draw your own conclusions.

I don't know that the TV will come on in the Centrist Dude household until Bush speaks, as the next 2 days will likely be nothing but red meat for the True Believers and sugarless gum for anyone else.