Well... not 24 hours after Senator Barack Obama became President-Elect all eyes have shifted from victory celebrations to the possibilities for the positions of the Obama Administration's Cabinet positions. Word on the street (aka in the Beltway) is that Obama will be making his decisions very quickly and will push to hit the ground running with his political mandate. Unlike President Clinton in 1992 there is an urgency to today's economic problems and if something isn't done quickly Democrats will be heavily punished in 2010 and 2012. But who could possibly serve in an Obama Administration? Who will it be?!
Let's focus on the three "big ones", listing a few names for each and in bold will be the one I believe that would be truly best suited for it and in italics the one that is most likely of those listed to actually get it.
Secretary of State:
Strobe Talbott - Brookings Institution president, former deputy sec. of state; honest, focused and very intelligent man with a real grip of the issues and problems America faces abroad
James Baker - Sec. of State under H.W. Bush, one of the best at the job in the past 20 years and a great deal maker and *bonus* is an actual international realist and a Republican
Richard "Dick" Lugar - Knows his stuff and there's no drama around this expert Senator who is the ranking minority member on the Foreign Relations Senate Committee, *bonus* is a Republican from a state Obama carried
Chuck Hagel - Senator widely admired for his straight-talk and positive vision *bonus* Republican, a realist
John Kerry - Long-time democratic Senator, former Presidential candidate, No. 2 Democrat on the Foreign Relations Cmte.
Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates - Current Secretary. I have written previously about his courage and true patriotism in helping our troops and keeping America safe in every way he can, *bonus* is well respected on both sides of the aisle, won't seem like changing horses midstream
Robert Zoellick - Former president of the World Bank, knows the ins and outs of foreign- policy as well as being a Washington insider
Secretary of the Treasury
David Lipton - Former under secretary of the Treasury
Hillary Clinton - Remember her? Yup, Her name has come up for this position because she's from New York (sorta) and knows how to play hardball with Wall Street, *bonus* A conciliation gift from the victor, get her out of the Senate - an enemy is best kept close
Warren Buffet - Maybe the Sage of Omaha will know how to invest America's money in such a way that businesses don't disappear and the taxpayer is protected from Big Business's foibles, *bonus* Everybody knows and respects this guy.. he is the American dream - Midwestern No one into Richest Man on Earth
Unknown - a Wall Street Veteran with some Government experience, probably from the Big Bank sector
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
President-Elect Obama
Barack Obama passes 270 electoral votes, defeats John McCain, and will become 44th President of the United States.
Wow. Just let it sink in for a moment.
Wow. Just let it sink in for a moment.
Monday, November 3, 2008
2008 Election Campaign almost over.. finally!
It almost over. You won't have to sit through political ads or get annoying volunteer phone calls or even more annoying robo-calls. No more half hour political infomercials. No more intense negative advertisements. No more mailboxes full of glossy postcards telling you that if you vote for Candidate B the terrorists win.. or your taxes will go up. No more yard signs popping up faster than weeds. No more 3rd Party supporters shouting at you near the intersection that "they both stink!" Aaah, none of that.
Just a 3 month wait until the pomp and circumstance of a Presidential Inauguration. The interest of waiting for a Cabinet to be formed and a super-lame ducked President handing out pardons and signing Executive Statements like its Republican Christmas. Then we start anew..
But think... if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain or applaud. The privilege of voting bestowed upon you by the Constitution be lost by your own laziness or apathy. Even if your Vote doesn't count for much.. it does count to YOU. Vote your conscious. Vote your values. Vote your wallet. Whatever it is, Just VOTE.
It isn't difficult. It doesn't cost much (just gas or a fare to get you to the polling station). Ask right now where your polling place is if you aren't sure. Then go out and vote tomorrow. Vote for the sick man who can't cast his ballot. Vote for the young girl who is just a few days too young to vote this time around. Vote for the mentally disabled. Vote for the soldier far away who hasn't had the chance to cast his or her ballot because they fight for their survival with no time to spare. Vote... For goodness sakes, Vote.
Vote for the good candidate. Vote for the honest candidate. Vote for the open candidate. Vote for your candidate. Make a decision about their values, their policy, and their ability. Vote.
I think that will suffice but I wish to reiterate one last time:
Just a 3 month wait until the pomp and circumstance of a Presidential Inauguration. The interest of waiting for a Cabinet to be formed and a super-lame ducked President handing out pardons and signing Executive Statements like its Republican Christmas. Then we start anew..
But think... if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain or applaud. The privilege of voting bestowed upon you by the Constitution be lost by your own laziness or apathy. Even if your Vote doesn't count for much.. it does count to YOU. Vote your conscious. Vote your values. Vote your wallet. Whatever it is, Just VOTE.
It isn't difficult. It doesn't cost much (just gas or a fare to get you to the polling station). Ask right now where your polling place is if you aren't sure. Then go out and vote tomorrow. Vote for the sick man who can't cast his ballot. Vote for the young girl who is just a few days too young to vote this time around. Vote for the mentally disabled. Vote for the soldier far away who hasn't had the chance to cast his or her ballot because they fight for their survival with no time to spare. Vote... For goodness sakes, Vote.
Vote for the good candidate. Vote for the honest candidate. Vote for the open candidate. Vote for your candidate. Make a decision about their values, their policy, and their ability. Vote.
I think that will suffice but I wish to reiterate one last time:
VOTE
Conservatives for Obama?
Conservatives for Obama... that doesn't make much sense, does it? Let's remind ourselves of some of the key positions that Senator Obama has taken: Government provided health care for all, support for Big Labor, support for abortion rights, opposition to the limitations of "marriage" benefits to homosexual couples, and the expansion of nearly every government entity he can get his hands on. Sounds grim. Then why are so many Republicans and Conservatives voting for him?
The answer is simple, he is running for the Office of President of the United States. The President occupies a very unique space in the American body politic, he (for this election) not only represents America to the world but he also is the chief executive of all things Political and Military. The President has the power to appoint and remove every high official in the Executive Branch and appoints all of the Judges in the Federal Judicial Branch (including the Supreme Court).
It is because of this that you find more cross-party voting in the Presidential race then you do any other type of partisan race in this country. Conservatives aren't voting for policies when they vote for Obama on Nov 4th, they are voting for a type of President that they'd like to see after eight years of "Us vs. Them" Republican rule. "Republicons" are hoping that an Obama Administration will not be vengeful one especially seeing as how (in a very modest estimate) Democrats will probably gain 6-8 seats in the Senate.
Another "positive" that conservatives are hoping for is a collapse of the Republican Party as it has existed in the past eight years. Why? Are they all self-hating Republicans? Nope. They want to reshape the GOP into a winning coalition once again. Depending on rich white folks, big business, evangelicals, and rural whites just isn't enough. The politics of fear that the Bush Administration worked up into a victory in 2004 are good for a one-time win but not good enough for continual electoral success. The Republican Party is hoping for a Reagan Revolution (or at the very least a Gingrich one) with new energetic leaders, preferably young ones so they don't have to reinvent themselves every 15 years. These leaders should be able to attract new young voters, the "base" - whatever it looks like, and capture Independents as well. What pro-Obama Republicans are looking for is a political calm where they can safely attack liberal policy while repairing and re-inventing themselves into a "cool" moderate conservative party with clear party planks that will endure. Now is the time for Republicans to start thinking about how to hold ground in 2010 and gain Congressional seats in 2012.
It is for the above reasons and so much more that I support the candidacy of Barack Obama. I do hope he gets elected, but don't think for one moment I have wavered from my values or beliefs because I will attack him any day if he is elected 44th President of the United States tomorrow. Good Luck Sen. Obama!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Palin Disaster
My friends, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has turned out to be quite the disaster.
There are so many reasons why after a couple month acting as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has failed. First off let me say that she did a great job energizing the Republican base. I'm talking about those die-hard Republican voters who were a little apprehensive of Senator McCain's maverick attitude and record. She brought those Republicans into the fold and gave them a person to cheer on as well as well as acting as a symbol of John McCain's efforts to reach out to evangelical and far-right Republicans. She was needed to rally the (relatively new) base of the Republican Party and liven up the Convention. Then...
What happened after that?
Negativity - Sarah Palin came out swinging at the Convention... although I didn't appreciate some of her more unfair attacks, I understand that is a part of her job as a Vice-Presidential candidate. Remember, I just said "part" of her job, not ALL of it. Since the RNC she has not stopped and the attacks are getting a wider scope. Wat started with attacking Obama has widened to include Biden, the Democrats, people who vote Democratic, and finally all people who live in states that vote Democratic. I can understand the first two but attacking voters who don't live in "Real America" (the part of America that votes "R") is just plain ridiculous. McCain ought to smack her upside the head and remind her that he needs Democrats and Independents to vote for him if he wants to beat Obama. Remember, in most large campaigns the key is Independents.
Lack of Experience - Gov. Palin's lack of experience and knowledge robbed the McCain camp from their most honest and sincere attack of Barack Obama, his lack of experience. Obama has had a few years in the Illinois State Senate and four more in the US Senate, not a whole lot when lined up side by side to the Senior Senator of Arizona. Obama has never been a Committee chairman or had a leadership role within the Senate unlike Sen. McCain. I know, I know.. some say this argument is weak because of other factors that can make up for experience.. but the attack is a honest and clean one. When Gov. Palin arrived at the scene this argument disappeared. I know one of the talking points often used by Palin fanatics is that she has more "executive experience" but let's face it small town mayor, PTA member, an undergrad degree (barely) from 5 different colleges/universities/community colleges, and then two years as Governor do not stack up nicely against Law School, State Legislature and US Senate experience. Remember folks, quality not quantity. Her lack of experience and knowledge of federal government and its inner workings in certainly something that could be remedied with a few months on the job but the same could be said of Sen. Obama and that takes away all the experience attacks that we heard between the end of the Democratic nomination and the pick of Palin.
Scandal/Ethics - Adding someone as your running mate whose name is already embroiled in a scandal involving family and government firing in her home state by well-respected members of the state is risky. Same goes for someone is known for clearly rewarding friends with government positions is also risky. Doing both is well... plain stupid. The Palin disaster really begins with her actions in Alaska, which although seems far away, from the "lower 48" as they call us, is still going to get into the news. Sen. McCain's image is that of a reformer who wants to change Washington and sweep out dirty deals and dirtier politicians not pick one who has used millions in earmarks, fires state troopers at will, and hires cronies. He bruised his own image and once again opened up an attack route that the Obama campaign could use on him without fear of much of a counter-attack.
Not Press Friendly - When a candidate is ahead in the polls they suddenly make like a clam and shut up when it comes to the press - no need to give the press material to snipe you with. When you are behind you talk, talk, talk until the press give you free coverage and buddy up to you.
Celebrity - Sarah Palin came up too quick. Usually the position of Vice President means that after the President serves his/her four or eight years, the Vice President can run with all of their new found experience and support. That's why an experienced Presidential nominee would pick a less known person to be their running mate, to bolster their own weaknesses and sort of give future direction to their own party. By the selection of John McCain of Palin he has for all intents and purposes rocketed Sarah Palin to rock star status amongst Republicans and that's not good. Sarah Palin is a rural white who governs a rural mostly white state in its own region, that doesn't play well with the majority of the electorate. Come 2012 if McCain doesn't win or 2016 if he does, the Republican nomination is almost certainly going to include Sarah Palin's name and with her popularity already she may just win... which means that unless a miracle occurs or the demographics of the US suddenly and rapidly go to the rural areas (and non-whites disappear), Republicans will lose again. She is now a political celebrity, and why? What has she done to deserve Republican recognition? When did she do something impressive or gutsy that earned her major political cred? Why should I listen to her? She is a Governor. I would even venture to say a pretty good one for Alaska (outside of the ethics scandal). That shouldn't make her a star in a political party, that makes her semi-important but not a star
Conclusion - In conclusion, I wasn't a big fan of Palin, then I got to know her and I have decided that I both like her a lot less and that she is losing this election for John McCain, a man I respect very much.
There are so many reasons why after a couple month acting as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has failed. First off let me say that she did a great job energizing the Republican base. I'm talking about those die-hard Republican voters who were a little apprehensive of Senator McCain's maverick attitude and record. She brought those Republicans into the fold and gave them a person to cheer on as well as well as acting as a symbol of John McCain's efforts to reach out to evangelical and far-right Republicans. She was needed to rally the (relatively new) base of the Republican Party and liven up the Convention. Then...
What happened after that?
Negativity - Sarah Palin came out swinging at the Convention... although I didn't appreciate some of her more unfair attacks, I understand that is a part of her job as a Vice-Presidential candidate. Remember, I just said "part" of her job, not ALL of it. Since the RNC she has not stopped and the attacks are getting a wider scope. Wat started with attacking Obama has widened to include Biden, the Democrats, people who vote Democratic, and finally all people who live in states that vote Democratic. I can understand the first two but attacking voters who don't live in "Real America" (the part of America that votes "R") is just plain ridiculous. McCain ought to smack her upside the head and remind her that he needs Democrats and Independents to vote for him if he wants to beat Obama. Remember, in most large campaigns the key is Independents.
Lack of Experience - Gov. Palin's lack of experience and knowledge robbed the McCain camp from their most honest and sincere attack of Barack Obama, his lack of experience. Obama has had a few years in the Illinois State Senate and four more in the US Senate, not a whole lot when lined up side by side to the Senior Senator of Arizona. Obama has never been a Committee chairman or had a leadership role within the Senate unlike Sen. McCain. I know, I know.. some say this argument is weak because of other factors that can make up for experience.. but the attack is a honest and clean one. When Gov. Palin arrived at the scene this argument disappeared. I know one of the talking points often used by Palin fanatics is that she has more "executive experience" but let's face it small town mayor, PTA member, an undergrad degree (barely) from 5 different colleges/universities/community colleges, and then two years as Governor do not stack up nicely against Law School, State Legislature and US Senate experience. Remember folks, quality not quantity. Her lack of experience and knowledge of federal government and its inner workings in certainly something that could be remedied with a few months on the job but the same could be said of Sen. Obama and that takes away all the experience attacks that we heard between the end of the Democratic nomination and the pick of Palin.
Scandal/Ethics - Adding someone as your running mate whose name is already embroiled in a scandal involving family and government firing in her home state by well-respected members of the state is risky. Same goes for someone is known for clearly rewarding friends with government positions is also risky. Doing both is well... plain stupid. The Palin disaster really begins with her actions in Alaska, which although seems far away, from the "lower 48" as they call us, is still going to get into the news. Sen. McCain's image is that of a reformer who wants to change Washington and sweep out dirty deals and dirtier politicians not pick one who has used millions in earmarks, fires state troopers at will, and hires cronies. He bruised his own image and once again opened up an attack route that the Obama campaign could use on him without fear of much of a counter-attack.
Not Press Friendly - When a candidate is ahead in the polls they suddenly make like a clam and shut up when it comes to the press - no need to give the press material to snipe you with. When you are behind you talk, talk, talk until the press give you free coverage and buddy up to you.
Celebrity - Sarah Palin came up too quick. Usually the position of Vice President means that after the President serves his/her four or eight years, the Vice President can run with all of their new found experience and support. That's why an experienced Presidential nominee would pick a less known person to be their running mate, to bolster their own weaknesses and sort of give future direction to their own party. By the selection of John McCain of Palin he has for all intents and purposes rocketed Sarah Palin to rock star status amongst Republicans and that's not good. Sarah Palin is a rural white who governs a rural mostly white state in its own region, that doesn't play well with the majority of the electorate. Come 2012 if McCain doesn't win or 2016 if he does, the Republican nomination is almost certainly going to include Sarah Palin's name and with her popularity already she may just win... which means that unless a miracle occurs or the demographics of the US suddenly and rapidly go to the rural areas (and non-whites disappear), Republicans will lose again. She is now a political celebrity, and why? What has she done to deserve Republican recognition? When did she do something impressive or gutsy that earned her major political cred? Why should I listen to her? She is a Governor. I would even venture to say a pretty good one for Alaska (outside of the ethics scandal). That shouldn't make her a star in a political party, that makes her semi-important but not a star
Conclusion - In conclusion, I wasn't a big fan of Palin, then I got to know her and I have decided that I both like her a lot less and that she is losing this election for John McCain, a man I respect very much.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Tim Clare: Humorist par Excellance & Candidate for NE Regent
I know that I haven't posted here in awhile (over two months actually) but I've been working on a doozy of a story about the State Department as well as actually physically working for a campaign this election cycle.
There was something though in my inbox that caught my eye and I had to share. It seems that I receive regular emails from nearly every campaign, PAC, and political party in Nebraska and I try to read most of the ones I get. (That being said, DO NOT sign me up for Scott Kleeb's email list, I will find you and I will laugh in your face)
So, I was rummaging through my spam folder when I found an email from one Tim Clare, candidate for University of Nebraska Regent. He seems like a decent and knowledgeable guy and I opened his email. It was titled "NU Regent Candidate Tim Clare sets the Record Straight", alright.. he has been hammered by his opponent recently. Then I go on to read a long diatribe or rhetoric about his conservative position on stem-cell research (that he shares with all of the Nebraska Congressional delegation.) Wonderful.
He also list a bunch of doctors that support him. Here's a copy of what he has written:
[Note: Emphasis is mine]
So, let's see here, Mr. Clare. Amongst the 55 doctors that "locally" support you:
Links:
The original press release on Tim Clare's website is here
There was something though in my inbox that caught my eye and I had to share. It seems that I receive regular emails from nearly every campaign, PAC, and political party in Nebraska and I try to read most of the ones I get. (That being said, DO NOT sign me up for Scott Kleeb's email list, I will find you and I will laugh in your face)
So, I was rummaging through my spam folder when I found an email from one Tim Clare, candidate for University of Nebraska Regent. He seems like a decent and knowledgeable guy and I opened his email. It was titled "NU Regent Candidate Tim Clare sets the Record Straight", alright.. he has been hammered by his opponent recently. Then I go on to read a long diatribe or rhetoric about his conservative position on stem-cell research (that he shares with all of the Nebraska Congressional delegation.) Wonderful.
He also list a bunch of doctors that support him. Here's a copy of what he has written:
Locally, please note that the following doctors are supporting my candidacy:
Dr. Deepak Gangahar
Dr. Mike Duggan
Dr. Alan Berg
Dr. Susan Hansen
Dr. Dave Clare
Dr. Tim Govaerts
Dr. Cory Friesen
Dr. Marc Koenig
Dr. Kurstin Friesen
Dr. Steve Ackerman
Dr. Doug Netz
Dr. Walter Duffy
Dr. Steve Nagengast
Dr. Phil Essay
Dr. Paul Petersen
Dr. Joe Petty
Dr. James Gallentine
Dr. Bill Johnson
Dr. Sandy Gallentine
Dr. Chuck Reese
Dr. Keith Miller
Dr. Clark Antonson
Dr. Jeff Tomjack
Dr. Rob Rhodes
Dr. Pat Clare
Dr. Rex Largen
Dr. Marlon Weiss
Dr. Mike Ferris
Dr. Steve Martin
Dr. Ameeta Martin
Dr. Mark Heibel
Dr. Scott Noel
Dr. Scott Strasburger
Dr. Nate Green
Dr. Alan Nissen
Dr. Sushil Lacy
Dr. Tom Tegt
Dr. Bob Byington
Dr. Greg Sutton
Dr. Kent Reckewey
Dr. Mike Germer
Dr. Eric Crimmins
Dr. Doug Dalke
Dr. Scott Donkin
Dr. Tom Heiser
Dr. Dave Hilger
Dr. Mark Hinrichs
Dr. Max Linder
Dr. Bill Nye
Dr. Herb Reese
Dr. Bob Shoettger
Dr. Jerry Spethman
Dr. Jerry Tanner
Dr. Harry Tolly
Dr. Don Walla
Dr. James Weesner
Dr. Paul Zuercher
[Note: Emphasis is mine]
So, let's see here, Mr. Clare. Amongst the 55 doctors that "locally" support you:
- Two are related directly to you [See Dr. Pat Clare, Dr. Dave Clare
- Several of these "doctors" are actually people with MDs- such as Dr. Bob Schoettger - notice it is mis-spelled above without the 'c', who is a great guy and gifted dentist
- A comedian - Dr. Steve Martin - just kidding, he is the CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield Nebraska who lives in Omaha and has donated the max ($2,000) to President Bush in 2000, is a lukewarm supporter of McCain '08 ($500), as well as an enormous supporter of Ben Nelson 2004-06 ($5,500)
- and, Dr. Bill Nye (not, the science guy!) Who it turns out, along with his wife, are huge Chuck Hagel fans (they give him 500+ & 1000+ dollars in his elections, respectively) as well as being McCain 2000 fans
Links:
The original press release on Tim Clare's website is here
CNN Commentary: So what if Obama was a Muslim or an Arab?
I was in the middle of writing a new post about Gov. Palin when I went to the CNN website.. and read Campbell Brown's commentary.
Please click the link, read it in its entirety and comment back here on what you think of it.
Commentary: So what if Obama was a Muslim or an Arab? - CNN
Please click the link, read it in its entirety and comment back here on what you think of it.
Commentary: So what if Obama was a Muslim or an Arab? - CNN
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Palin.. in Omaha
Who: Sarah Palin
What: A pep rally with your favorite moose hunter/hockey mom/pit bull/Alaskan Governor/Energy expert/Vice presidential candidate/Average Joe Six-Pack/Russian expert/woman
When: 6pm - Sunday, October 5th, 2008
Where: Omaha Civic Auditorium
Sarah Palin is coming... to Omaha? Yes that's right. The second district, where Obama has recently moved paid staff to try to capture their single electoral vote, will be receiving a visit from Gov. Sarah Palin today.
Why? The McCain campaign is looking to appear strong ever since they pulled out of Michigan and abandoned that state to Democrats. Now that Obama has the upper hand in the election the McCain camp is looking to hit him in other places in order to either strengthen areas that were thought to be solid or areas beginning to drift in the "wrong" direction.
Some have said that it was because the NE Republican party was somehow scared of a defeat of one or more of the Congressional offices going to a Democrat. Don't believe that bunk. Mike Johanns is looking to defeat Scott Kleeb in the Senate race by a margin of at least 15 points and Lee Terry is looking strong in the District 2 House race without much chance for defeat.
If you go look for "maverick" Palin to talk about bipartisanship for a little while before slamming Obama for the next hour. It is very possible that she will use her Obama is a "pal" to William Ayers for a third time in her speech. Mostly, if you go - enjoy yourself, listen, and tell us what you thought of it.
What: A pep rally with your favorite moose hunter/hockey mom/pit bull/Alaskan Governor/Energy expert/Vice presidential candidate/Average Joe Six-Pack/Russian expert/woman
When: 6pm - Sunday, October 5th, 2008
Where: Omaha Civic Auditorium
Sarah Palin is coming... to Omaha? Yes that's right. The second district, where Obama has recently moved paid staff to try to capture their single electoral vote, will be receiving a visit from Gov. Sarah Palin today.
Why? The McCain campaign is looking to appear strong ever since they pulled out of Michigan and abandoned that state to Democrats. Now that Obama has the upper hand in the election the McCain camp is looking to hit him in other places in order to either strengthen areas that were thought to be solid or areas beginning to drift in the "wrong" direction.
Some have said that it was because the NE Republican party was somehow scared of a defeat of one or more of the Congressional offices going to a Democrat. Don't believe that bunk. Mike Johanns is looking to defeat Scott Kleeb in the Senate race by a margin of at least 15 points and Lee Terry is looking strong in the District 2 House race without much chance for defeat.
If you go look for "maverick" Palin to talk about bipartisanship for a little while before slamming Obama for the next hour. It is very possible that she will use her Obama is a "pal" to William Ayers for a third time in her speech. Mostly, if you go - enjoy yourself, listen, and tell us what you thought of it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailout fails and Congress keeps failing us!
Hmm.. there is a financial crisis.. that just got waaaay worse because House Democrats and Republicans can't get their rhetoric out of the way and actually work towards a little thing we like to call a compromise.. also referred to as a solution. In Washington though.. they believe that spitting rhetoric in 30, 60, and 90 seconds slots on the House floor can take the place of sitting down and hammering out a deal that may actually benefit us, their constituents.
I hope everyone takes a hard look at their Congressperson and decides whether they proved to you why they voted Yes or No to the bill because of partisan bickering or real qualms/hope for the bill. I don't care their party affiliation, show them that their time is up if they can't get their acts together and work for us, the taxpayers, instead of working for themselves and their party leaders.
Oh boy.. that bunch was really disgusting today. Horrendous. Then they all came out of it whining and pointing fingers at each other like a room full of children. Scratch that, children don't deserve to be associated with that bunch. In fact, scummy lawyers and dirty used car salespeople are more kin to many of those Congresspeople.
Meanwhile, Wall Street lost about 1 trillion dollars, let me repeat that in caps.. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS due to the stupidity and infantile actions of the House of Representatives. Clearly, both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner thought there was a deal.. until a bunch of Congresspeople decided to vote differently. Some, no doubt, were brave individuals who bucked their party's leadership to show their true stance on this very important issue while others were selfish self-serving politicians with an eye only on that 50%+1 in November - no matter the damage done.
Perhaps you can tell from the slightly ranting and rambling nature of this post but I am very angry and frustrated with the House of Rep.s right now. Also I'm disappointed. Very disappointed. I figured that the true villain of this crisis would end up being the Senate. The House of Rep.s is meant as a quicker moving organ of government - beholden to their constituents - to react to a crisis and avert it through quick and decisive action. Meanwhile the Senate is meant as an Upper chamber for contemplation as for what is truly better for "we the people" in the short and long term. As it turns out, the Senate were the brave ones.. they put in long hours and fought against dissatisfaction with the bailout idea to create a more manageable bill that addresses our financial institutions, creates protections for taxpayers, and creates some oversight so the Treasury Secretary doesn't go immediately shovel all the money into his former employer, Goldman Sachs, pockets.
What a waste. To think that even a penny of my taxes go to pay for some of these people then they go out and put our economy in further peril. The Dow plunges nearly 780 points. The markets lost about 11 percent of their worth. The dollar is being set up for a nice devaluing slide very soon, mark my words.
Phew.. that left a bad taste in my mouth just thinking about it. Enough is Enough.
Later!
I hope everyone takes a hard look at their Congressperson and decides whether they proved to you why they voted Yes or No to the bill because of partisan bickering or real qualms/hope for the bill. I don't care their party affiliation, show them that their time is up if they can't get their acts together and work for us, the taxpayers, instead of working for themselves and their party leaders.
Oh boy.. that bunch was really disgusting today. Horrendous. Then they all came out of it whining and pointing fingers at each other like a room full of children. Scratch that, children don't deserve to be associated with that bunch. In fact, scummy lawyers and dirty used car salespeople are more kin to many of those Congresspeople.
Meanwhile, Wall Street lost about 1 trillion dollars, let me repeat that in caps.. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS due to the stupidity and infantile actions of the House of Representatives. Clearly, both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner thought there was a deal.. until a bunch of Congresspeople decided to vote differently. Some, no doubt, were brave individuals who bucked their party's leadership to show their true stance on this very important issue while others were selfish self-serving politicians with an eye only on that 50%+1 in November - no matter the damage done.
Perhaps you can tell from the slightly ranting and rambling nature of this post but I am very angry and frustrated with the House of Rep.s right now. Also I'm disappointed. Very disappointed. I figured that the true villain of this crisis would end up being the Senate. The House of Rep.s is meant as a quicker moving organ of government - beholden to their constituents - to react to a crisis and avert it through quick and decisive action. Meanwhile the Senate is meant as an Upper chamber for contemplation as for what is truly better for "we the people" in the short and long term. As it turns out, the Senate were the brave ones.. they put in long hours and fought against dissatisfaction with the bailout idea to create a more manageable bill that addresses our financial institutions, creates protections for taxpayers, and creates some oversight so the Treasury Secretary doesn't go immediately shovel all the money into his former employer, Goldman Sachs, pockets.
What a waste. To think that even a penny of my taxes go to pay for some of these people then they go out and put our economy in further peril. The Dow plunges nearly 780 points. The markets lost about 11 percent of their worth. The dollar is being set up for a nice devaluing slide very soon, mark my words.
Phew.. that left a bad taste in my mouth just thinking about it. Enough is Enough.
Later!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Questions for our future Vice President
After watching the first Presidential debate, I was hungering for the next one. How would Obama and McCain change their rhetoric or positions? Of course, I'll have to wait an extra week before I find out because there just happens to be a Vice Presidential debate this week in St. Louis. I got to thinking how sad it was that we only get one VP debate. I mean, that only gives us one glimpse of the two candidates and only one chance to see them head-to-head. I know they aren't as important as the Presidential candidates, but I'd like to see them twice so they both have a chance to redeem themselves in case of an epic failure or misspoken phrase (or more).
We get only one shot however this year and it should be a doozy. Gwen Ifill, senior corespondent for the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, will be hosting the event that pits Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) against one another at the same table, eye to eye.
What questions should be asked, I was thinking to myself.. I mean if there is one thing that we've learned over the past eight years it is that Vice Presidents can be VERY powerful. So here's a little list of a few questions I came up with:
I'm sure there are many more.. and I may add a few later as an Update but... What do you think? Anything you'd like to see asked? Think of a few questions that would apply to both candidates and submit them and then we'll see if Ms. Ifill asks anything similar.
We get only one shot however this year and it should be a doozy. Gwen Ifill, senior corespondent for the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, will be hosting the event that pits Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) against one another at the same table, eye to eye.
What questions should be asked, I was thinking to myself.. I mean if there is one thing that we've learned over the past eight years it is that Vice Presidents can be VERY powerful. So here's a little list of a few questions I came up with:
- What non-American person of the past century do you look to for inspiration and how do you believe you've followed their path?
- What Vice President of the past 100 years do you think has made the most difference and which do you think you would like to emulate?
- What person in the past 25 years, who is of the opposite party, do you admire and what do you think can be learned from them?
- As Senate President you have the tie-breaking vote, in what situation would you use that vote to go against the President or your party?
- What issue do you believe will define your tenure as Vice President?
- In a crisis situation, what position do you see yourself fulfilling for the President, if elected?
- In the past two years there has been much talk about the institutional position of the Vice President, do you see the Vice President primarily as a member of the Executive or Legislative branch?
- What role do you think experience should play in the selection of our next President of the United States?
- What mistake that you have made so far in your career will help you be a better Vice President?
- What is one thing about your party's candidate that you would change or dislike?
- What makes you want to serve your running mate and what made you apprehensive?
- What advice would you offer the other candidate for the remainder of election?
- What about your financial plan/Iraq plan is better than your opponents and how do you see yourself passing it in a bipartisan fashion?
- How important will bipartisanship be for your Administration, and how will you prove to Americans that you are working for them as Vice President?
I'm sure there are many more.. and I may add a few later as an Update but... What do you think? Anything you'd like to see asked? Think of a few questions that would apply to both candidates and submit them and then we'll see if Ms. Ifill asks anything similar.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
1st Debate: Evasion of the Image Changers
I watched the debate as I'm sure 30 or 40 million other Americans did.. then I watched it again.. then I read the transcript and I read it again. My only question was, is this 2008?
Here's why. Both Senator John McCain and
Overall Impression of each Candidate:
Obama: Came out strong, showed economy was his issue, faltered on national security, basically let McCain win on a few foreign policy questions because he didn't have any substance to go off of
McCain: Sounded wobbly and ambiguous on the economy, strong suite came out nicely - international relations, used a few underhanded scare tactics but not too overtly, tried to show off his earmark reform work
Both candidates were playing an old game of trying to gain big leverage by doing a face-to-face image change. What do I mean? Did you notice how many times they both accused the other of saying one thing and doing another? Both candidates were trying desperately to go for the knockout punch: the image change. They pointed out what their opponents image is now.. and what they believe it should be. That kind of tactic, if successful, can lead to BIG jumps/drops in the polls especially amongst independents. There is a problem with that though...
WE KNOW THE CANDIDATES! WE HAVE HEARD/SEEN THEM EVERYDAY FOR a touch under TWO YEARS! That game worked back when the primary seasons were shorter, the budgets were smaller, and the debates might be the first time undecided voters got serious about choosing who to vote for. In recent years though, with a President or Vice President running in every election since the turn of the century, there has been a strong connection between the "history" of a candidate's image and their election image.
This election though we have two candidates who are both running against the sitting President and have told us time and time again that we should focus on the issues. Guess what? Most Independents already do. So to stand at a podium and try to change the other candidates image is a waste of time.. instead contrast yourself against their positions and tell us why you are any better than the other guy.
It boils down to this: McCain has most to lose by being linked to Bush and he has avoided him and his positions like the dickens, but McCain has no real way of linking Obama to failed policies in the same way because there just isn't that long of a record! McCain should link Bush to Obama through the (in)experience attack route. Wait... that would also be a bigger slam of his own VP though (who by the way is totally in over her head, has anyone seen the Couric interview?!).
For the next debate I think seeing a decisive defeat is very possible for Obama. Town hall meetings are the places you find McCain the most comfortable. He has the knowledge and has the ability to start out slow on any response then ramp up into the rhetoric and get a crowd behind him with very little effort Obama on the other hand hasn't held too many Town halls and he tends to sort of stutter when he is thinking through his response. Hey, I'm glad he is thinking but stuttering makes him sound weak and wobbly.
The only upside for the Obama campaign until the last debate should be Biden scoring a clear victory in the Vice Presidential debate. Biden does face a few problems though, he doesn't want to seem too knowledgeable (or he risks overshadowing Obama), or too mean (gives Palin the sympathy vote), or talk too much (because he is a gaffe-machine). Palin on the other hand is trying too hard to seem like an expert on foreign policy but it backfiring because she is trying to be someone she isn't. Her key to success will be making a connection to the audience and staying within her own league and only going out to bat on information she feels comfortable with. (Also, not repeating the moderator and her opponent's first names a million times would help.. Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, etc...) Other bad news for Palin is that she has has more difficulties when dealing with women questioners/interviewers and it just so happens that Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent for the News Hour, is the moderator for her debate. She not only focus her prep on dealing with the political veteran across the table but also with being able to handle Ms. Ifill when questions start flying about Woman's issues. Palin would be best prepared should she take lesson from McCain's performance and change her tune to one that will seem sympathetic considering she is not a major player in foreign policy and her party is feeling the heat due to the financial crisis. For the first time she will not be dealing with either a one-on-one interview or a sympathetic crowd, so she has to be able to play to a neutral audience and try to win them over. Should be fun to watch anyhow!
Feel free to leave comments!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
McCain Suspension - Analysis
Wow. Democrats really asked for it on this one, didn't they?!
All this complaining about the negative Rove tactics.. then Senator McCain pulls out a real great maneuver that I'm sure has the Obama people either scratching their heads or running around like they don't have any. John McCain just schooled the young Democrat about how you turn a disadvantage into a huge (free) PR campaign and put the opponent on the defensive.
The move to his suspend his campaign was so brilliant... I can scarcely believe it. It works on so many levels in so many ways... Senator McCain, my hat is off to you.
That being said.. his plan does have some (major) drawbacks but we'll get back to those later. First, let's talk positives:
Oh boy.. I'm sure I've missed quite a few more, but as you see the move really was an excellent one politically and strategically. Whether you think it was all political or you believe that John McCain is putting "Country First" by suspending his campaign to focus on the economy, it doesn't matter. You have to agree the move was brilliant.
Brilliance, however, comes at a price in this case. There are a few drawbacks that have occurred.
I'm not sure if that list is quite complete yet either.. but time will tell.
So tell me what you think of my lists, and tell me what you think: Political Stunt or Patriotic Selflessness?
P.S. Go Huskers, beat those Hokies!!!
All this complaining about the negative Rove tactics.. then Senator McCain pulls out a real great maneuver that I'm sure has the Obama people either scratching their heads or running around like they don't have any. John McCain just schooled the young Democrat about how you turn a disadvantage into a huge (free) PR campaign and put the opponent on the defensive.
The move to his suspend his campaign was so brilliant... I can scarcely believe it. It works on so many levels in so many ways... Senator McCain, my hat is off to you.
That being said.. his plan does have some (major) drawbacks but we'll get back to those later. First, let's talk positives:
- "Bipartisanship" is the key to winning over Independents who are the key to winning elections
- Why not dominate a day with free press? (Especially when behind in fund raising numbers)
- Take the wind out of the Obama's campaigns sails after recent surge in the polls
- Take pressure off of Sarah Palin and give her some time to prep for interviews, press conferences, and a show down with Joe Biden in next weeks VP debate
- Show how deeply McCain cares about the economy (a topic he has admitted he knows little about)
- Cast a few votes in the Senate, try to rally House Republicans around your cause
- Throw a monkey wrench in the Democratic Party's strategy of linking McCain to Bush by opposing some of the Bush Administration's bailout measures
- Have I mentioned FREE press?
Oh boy.. I'm sure I've missed quite a few more, but as you see the move really was an excellent one politically and strategically. Whether you think it was all political or you believe that John McCain is putting "Country First" by suspending his campaign to focus on the economy, it doesn't matter. You have to agree the move was brilliant.
Brilliance, however, comes at a price in this case. There are a few drawbacks that have occurred.
- Senate/House Republicans weren't expecting the sudden media focus/scrutiny into the politics of the bailout
- Makes McCain look like he cannot multi-task, focusing on the economy and other things
- Why cancel Letterman and then go show up on CBS News with Katie Couric? You know Letterman is going to air out his concerns to his multimillion person audience!
- Was suspension necessary? Does McCain not believe Palin could take the helm of the campaign ship while he's in DC? What does that say about what he thinks about her abilities and weaknesses.
- I know McCain wants to take the attention away from the Democrats' blame for the bad economic conditions on Republicans but is saying that this crisis is so bad that everything is the world (aka the election cycle) but come to a complete halt because of the enormity of the problem really the right message to send?
I'm not sure if that list is quite complete yet either.. but time will tell.
So tell me what you think of my lists, and tell me what you think: Political Stunt or Patriotic Selflessness?
P.S. Go Huskers, beat those Hokies!!!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
BREAKING NEWS: McCAIN SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN!
This just in:
He has also asked for a postponement of the debate scheduled for Friday (on Foreign Policy, set for Oxford, Miss.)
He has asked Senator Barack Obama to also suspend his campaign.
He reasons that the "historic" crisis on Wall Street should lead both candidates to focus on the economy for a bit instead of campaigning. It is possible that he wishes for time to have a big hand on the 700 Billion dollar bailout being crafted in the Senate because Republicans are largely being punished in the polls for the crisis.
Barack Obama has spoken and he has let the American people know that he will NOT be suspending his campaign so far and that he wishes to keep the debate on Friday going because there's only 40 days left until the election.
The White House and many Senate Republicans are applauding the move by John McCain and his call for bipartisan compromise to get the bailout passed as early as possible.
In response to the question about if he would consider participating in the debate if the bailout passes on Friday, his answer was "Yes".
More UPDATES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
Links:
McCain suspends campaign, calls for Obama to do same - CNN
McCain Suspending Campaign, Asks for Debate Delay - Washington Post
McCain to 'Suspend' Campaign Amid Crisis, Return to D.C. - Wall Street Journal
McCain seeks to delay Friday's debate - MSNBC
Senator John McCain has suspended his campaign.
He has also asked for a postponement of the debate scheduled for Friday (on Foreign Policy, set for Oxford, Miss.)
He has asked Senator Barack Obama to also suspend his campaign.
He reasons that the "historic" crisis on Wall Street should lead both candidates to focus on the economy for a bit instead of campaigning. It is possible that he wishes for time to have a big hand on the 700 Billion dollar bailout being crafted in the Senate because Republicans are largely being punished in the polls for the crisis.
Barack Obama has spoken and he has let the American people know that he will NOT be suspending his campaign so far and that he wishes to keep the debate on Friday going because there's only 40 days left until the election.
The White House and many Senate Republicans are applauding the move by John McCain and his call for bipartisan compromise to get the bailout passed as early as possible.
In response to the question about if he would consider participating in the debate if the bailout passes on Friday, his answer was "Yes".
More UPDATES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
Links:
McCain suspends campaign, calls for Obama to do same - CNN
McCain Suspending Campaign, Asks for Debate Delay - Washington Post
McCain to 'Suspend' Campaign Amid Crisis, Return to D.C. - Wall Street Journal
McCain seeks to delay Friday's debate - MSNBC
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Palin is an insult to the American people - Hagel
Politics is not for the weak minded or easily upset.
These days we see politicians tiptoeing around issues, being evasive and ambiguous, and giving us party lines that obscure the real issues. There are a few exception however.. one of them is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
I give a minimal amount of respect to every elected official then I either add or subtract admiration based on their behavior. For the gold standard in today's political world for a true statesman, I turn to Senator Chuck Hagel. That being said, I listen to what he says.. and boy, did he say a lot!
Sen. Hagel may be a close personal friend of Senator John McCain but Hagel doesn't pull punches when it comes to his views on the McCain campaign and especially, as we found out, about Gov. Sarah Palin's readiness to take the No. 2 job in the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government.
His major bone to pick with Palin was that she was trying to appear knowledgeable on foreign policy and international relations. I suppose Hagel, like the rest of reasonable Americans, doesn't believe that the proximity of your state to another country counts as "experience". He had this to say:
Next, he slammed her so-called international experience which includes a visit to Kuwait & Germany (to visit the Alaska National Guard troops), and a fueling stopover in Ireland. [After this interview it was confirmed that, at the request of John McCain, Sarah Palin will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in New York] Senator Hagel definitely wasn't impressed with her 'traveling experience' with that either:
His argument against Palin was definitely not one based on her domestic issue understanding or social values but more about her ability to lead. These next two quotes say it all:
Think about it... and tell me if you agree/disagree.
Links:
Sen. Hagel doubts Palin's ready - Omaha World Herald
These days we see politicians tiptoeing around issues, being evasive and ambiguous, and giving us party lines that obscure the real issues. There are a few exception however.. one of them is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
I give a minimal amount of respect to every elected official then I either add or subtract admiration based on their behavior. For the gold standard in today's political world for a true statesman, I turn to Senator Chuck Hagel. That being said, I listen to what he says.. and boy, did he say a lot!
Sen. Hagel may be a close personal friend of Senator John McCain but Hagel doesn't pull punches when it comes to his views on the McCain campaign and especially, as we found out, about Gov. Sarah Palin's readiness to take the No. 2 job in the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government.
His major bone to pick with Palin was that she was trying to appear knowledgeable on foreign policy and international relations. I suppose Hagel, like the rest of reasonable Americans, doesn't believe that the proximity of your state to another country counts as "experience". He had this to say:
"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,' that kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
Next, he slammed her so-called international experience which includes a visit to Kuwait & Germany (to visit the Alaska National Guard troops), and a fueling stopover in Ireland. [After this interview it was confirmed that, at the request of John McCain, Sarah Palin will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in New York] Senator Hagel definitely wasn't impressed with her 'traveling experience' with that either:
"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
His argument against Palin was definitely not one based on her domestic issue understanding or social values but more about her ability to lead. These next two quotes say it all:
"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."
"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.
Think about it... and tell me if you agree/disagree.
Links:
Sen. Hagel doubts Palin's ready - Omaha World Herald
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Why the polls don't matter
I know.. you might be expecting a lecture here about the inherent faults of a system that has become "too" democratic, a system that has morphed into a sick popularity contest instead of a competition of values and ideas.
Instead.. I'll actually be talking about polls. Recently there has been a lot of talk about John McCain's sudden jump (up) in the national polls and how that could effect the outcome. The main stream media is talking about comeback from behind winning or a possible Sarah Palin or Convention bump. All this talk about national polls is just misleading the American public. It is disgusting.
We live in a representative democracy not a direct one. Like it, love it, or hate it that is the truth. So what the media should be focused on are electoral votes and individual states (specifically battleground ones) and their leanings. I'm sick of hearing that such and such candidate has a 2.1 lead or questioning if Barack Obama "losing his lead" in "nationwide" polling... it DOES NOT MATTER!
Obviously polling matters for candidates, it shows them where they excel and where they lag in certain segments of the population. Polling can unlock the secret for candidates to win a certain battleground state by working on segments where improvement is possible. Polling, however, is not everything. I do not constantly look up and memorize polling stats like Dick Morris or Karl Rove nor do I simply not pay attention to them like... every democratic candidate because they believe in the "power" of their "message." Idiots.
To conclude, the Electoral college is the way we currently elect our president so that's the only way to truly handicap or predict the winner/loser of this race.
By the way in case you are wondering, at the time of this post's publishing the count according to Pollster.com is:
Strong Obama:179
Leaning Obama:59
Total Obama:238
Strong McCain:133
Leaning McCain:91
Total McCain:224
Toss-Up:76
Meanwhile, Realclearpolitics.com says:
Strong McCain:172
Leaning McCain:55
Total McCain:227
Strong Obama:157
Leaning Obama:50
Total Obama:207
Toss-Up:104
Instead.. I'll actually be talking about polls. Recently there has been a lot of talk about John McCain's sudden jump (up) in the national polls and how that could effect the outcome. The main stream media is talking about comeback from behind winning or a possible Sarah Palin or Convention bump. All this talk about national polls is just misleading the American public. It is disgusting.
We live in a representative democracy not a direct one. Like it, love it, or hate it that is the truth. So what the media should be focused on are electoral votes and individual states (specifically battleground ones) and their leanings. I'm sick of hearing that such and such candidate has a 2.1 lead or questioning if Barack Obama "losing his lead" in "nationwide" polling... it DOES NOT MATTER!
Obviously polling matters for candidates, it shows them where they excel and where they lag in certain segments of the population. Polling can unlock the secret for candidates to win a certain battleground state by working on segments where improvement is possible. Polling, however, is not everything. I do not constantly look up and memorize polling stats like Dick Morris or Karl Rove nor do I simply not pay attention to them like... every democratic candidate because they believe in the "power" of their "message." Idiots.
To conclude, the Electoral college is the way we currently elect our president so that's the only way to truly handicap or predict the winner/loser of this race.
By the way in case you are wondering, at the time of this post's publishing the count according to Pollster.com is:
Strong Obama:179
Leaning Obama:59
Total Obama:238
Strong McCain:133
Leaning McCain:91
Total McCain:224
Toss-Up:76
Meanwhile, Realclearpolitics.com says:
Strong McCain:172
Leaning McCain:55
Total McCain:227
Strong Obama:157
Leaning Obama:50
Total Obama:207
Toss-Up:104
Monday, September 15, 2008
Blinking... sometimes a good thing!
During Sarah Palin's ABC interview with Charles Gibson she responded to a question about her style of response to terrorism with this gem: “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”
Then the blinking came up again when asked about how she responded to being asked to be the VP on the GOP ticket: “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, you can’t blink.”
So what's the deal with all this blinking, or lack thereof? Is blinking so bad? Does she want us to all get dry, irritated eyes?
Sarah Palin was talking about resolve. The resolve she believes she and John McCain have in the face of any problem. That however causes me to stop a moment and wonder.. is not blinking really the best thing for our country?
I'll first deal with her second quote about she couldn't blink because she is "wired in a way of being so committed to the mission." What mission is that Gov. Palin? If I was being asked to possibly become the next Vice President of the United States, one heart beat away from the most powerful office in the world, I'd be sweating it! Am I ready? Am I the best fit? Am I doing this for me and my political career? What about my family? What about my children? Is this the best thing for the country?
It seems that Ms. Palin didn't ask herself those questions. She just said Yes because she is committed to her "mission." Now depending on what exactly that mission is I'm not sure what to say.. but I would suggest to her that she clarify her remarks.
To reply to those critics who will wonder if I'm treating her too harshly.. I say this: If you want to take the job of VP, hey, that's your decision but remember, we are voting for a ticket because we believe that not only do they have the right answers now but they also will have the right kind of judgement to make good decisions in the future.
To address her comment about leadership in the face of terrorism being exemplified in her viewpoint in "not blink[ing]... in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." That sounds great.. but is that really what you want? I hate to equate terrorism with any other action in a metaphor but I'll make an exception this time... If you are driving along and you realize you need to fill up your tank with gasoline do you: a) find the shortest route from your location to the gas station, and start driving like a maniac? b) try to get to the gas station as quickly as possible, following the posted signage and obeying speed limits?, or c) stop, idle the car,ponder the pros and cons of fossil fuels,slowly draw out a map to several gas stations, double check it, ask all your friends about it, sing with the radio, head to a fast-food joint and get some burgers, then if you remember, head to one or more of the gas stations?
If you chose A, then you are dangerously low on intelligence and will be involved in an accident or will end up in a lot of trouble before you get to your destination.
If you chose B, then you will get to your destination OK, although it may take a little longer you will still be alive, well, and safe.
If you chose C, then you overthink things, waffle, can't be trusted to be quick on your feet, and will probably fail to make any important decisions - in turn letting existing problems get out of hand while you are distracted with yourself.
To me Republicans seem to be gravitating to the bravado and feeling of real rapid response of choice A while Democrats in a move to accentuate their differences are moving towards choice C. Let's not forget that Democrats have gotten and kept the US in a lot more wars then Republicans.. Think about it, Democrats: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam vs. Republicans: Civil War, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq II. I know many of those were provoked.. but it just goes to show that the word democrat didn't always translate into 'peacenik'.
Back to McCain/Palin and their aversion to blinking... they seem a little to eager to prove themselves as great generals instead of trying to prove to us that they are a good statesman/stateswoman team. I know there aren't fireworks or a parade when you negotiate and deal to avert disaster or war but it sure beats the sorrow knowing that your failure to do so meant even one scratch on a soldier, whose job it is to protect the United States not fight for presidential legacies. I am by no means saying that I'm a pacifist, what I am saying is that sometimes words and a carrot and stick can do wonders that a sledgehammer can't.
In conclusion, taking a moment to think can be a good thing.
Links:
Gov. Palin’s Worldview - NY Times
Then the blinking came up again when asked about how she responded to being asked to be the VP on the GOP ticket: “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, you can’t blink.”
So what's the deal with all this blinking, or lack thereof? Is blinking so bad? Does she want us to all get dry, irritated eyes?
Sarah Palin was talking about resolve. The resolve she believes she and John McCain have in the face of any problem. That however causes me to stop a moment and wonder.. is not blinking really the best thing for our country?
I'll first deal with her second quote about she couldn't blink because she is "wired in a way of being so committed to the mission." What mission is that Gov. Palin? If I was being asked to possibly become the next Vice President of the United States, one heart beat away from the most powerful office in the world, I'd be sweating it! Am I ready? Am I the best fit? Am I doing this for me and my political career? What about my family? What about my children? Is this the best thing for the country?
It seems that Ms. Palin didn't ask herself those questions. She just said Yes because she is committed to her "mission." Now depending on what exactly that mission is I'm not sure what to say.. but I would suggest to her that she clarify her remarks.
To reply to those critics who will wonder if I'm treating her too harshly.. I say this: If you want to take the job of VP, hey, that's your decision but remember, we are voting for a ticket because we believe that not only do they have the right answers now but they also will have the right kind of judgement to make good decisions in the future.
To address her comment about leadership in the face of terrorism being exemplified in her viewpoint in "not blink[ing]... in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." That sounds great.. but is that really what you want? I hate to equate terrorism with any other action in a metaphor but I'll make an exception this time... If you are driving along and you realize you need to fill up your tank with gasoline do you: a) find the shortest route from your location to the gas station, and start driving like a maniac? b) try to get to the gas station as quickly as possible, following the posted signage and obeying speed limits?, or c) stop, idle the car,ponder the pros and cons of fossil fuels,slowly draw out a map to several gas stations, double check it, ask all your friends about it, sing with the radio, head to a fast-food joint and get some burgers, then if you remember, head to one or more of the gas stations?
If you chose A, then you are dangerously low on intelligence and will be involved in an accident or will end up in a lot of trouble before you get to your destination.
If you chose B, then you will get to your destination OK, although it may take a little longer you will still be alive, well, and safe.
If you chose C, then you overthink things, waffle, can't be trusted to be quick on your feet, and will probably fail to make any important decisions - in turn letting existing problems get out of hand while you are distracted with yourself.
To me Republicans seem to be gravitating to the bravado and feeling of real rapid response of choice A while Democrats in a move to accentuate their differences are moving towards choice C. Let's not forget that Democrats have gotten and kept the US in a lot more wars then Republicans.. Think about it, Democrats: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam vs. Republicans: Civil War, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq II. I know many of those were provoked.. but it just goes to show that the word democrat didn't always translate into 'peacenik'.
Back to McCain/Palin and their aversion to blinking... they seem a little to eager to prove themselves as great generals instead of trying to prove to us that they are a good statesman/stateswoman team. I know there aren't fireworks or a parade when you negotiate and deal to avert disaster or war but it sure beats the sorrow knowing that your failure to do so meant even one scratch on a soldier, whose job it is to protect the United States not fight for presidential legacies. I am by no means saying that I'm a pacifist, what I am saying is that sometimes words and a carrot and stick can do wonders that a sledgehammer can't.
In conclusion, taking a moment to think can be a good thing.
Links:
Gov. Palin’s Worldview - NY Times
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama/McCain and the end of Civility
There was once a time when everyday was a sunny day, you could leave your door unlocked all the time, and politicians had some sense and civility. Those days are over.
This election, as almost every election of the past 50 years, has turned to negative attacks and "gotcha" moments instead of issues and facts. Is this trend getting worse? Can it ever get better? Recently McCain released an ad admonishing Obama for supposedly calling Palin a pig... but if anyone listened to the phrase before and after it or listened to it within the context of what he was saying they'd know obviously that he was referring to the new "Change" bandwagon that Republicans have gotten onto. Now Obama has decided that due to the new more negative tone that Republican ads and stump speeches have taken that they will allow and no longer condemn 527's (which are independent political groups not under Federal Election Commission law) if they release ads attacking McCain-Palin in a very negative fashion. A kind of a signal that the gloves are coming off.. and the Obama campaign is ready to rumble.
You notice that? I just used a boxing reference. Boxing. Boxing is just the opposite of politics. In boxing you use brute physical strength to pummel your opponent, in politics you use words and ideas to convince the audience that you are more worthy and have their values and best interest at heart. I am not trying to say that politics has always been civil but there was once a certain measure of a person's honor that only allowed them to stoop so low. Today it seems that respect and honor are gone.. and instead we have the win-at-all-costs ideology. I would rather lose an honorable man than win hardly a man at all.
What are your thought? How can we as a populace force politicians to talk about the issues instead of focus on scandals and missquotes?
This election, as almost every election of the past 50 years, has turned to negative attacks and "gotcha" moments instead of issues and facts. Is this trend getting worse? Can it ever get better? Recently McCain released an ad admonishing Obama for supposedly calling Palin a pig... but if anyone listened to the phrase before and after it or listened to it within the context of what he was saying they'd know obviously that he was referring to the new "Change" bandwagon that Republicans have gotten onto. Now Obama has decided that due to the new more negative tone that Republican ads and stump speeches have taken that they will allow and no longer condemn 527's (which are independent political groups not under Federal Election Commission law) if they release ads attacking McCain-Palin in a very negative fashion. A kind of a signal that the gloves are coming off.. and the Obama campaign is ready to rumble.
You notice that? I just used a boxing reference. Boxing. Boxing is just the opposite of politics. In boxing you use brute physical strength to pummel your opponent, in politics you use words and ideas to convince the audience that you are more worthy and have their values and best interest at heart. I am not trying to say that politics has always been civil but there was once a certain measure of a person's honor that only allowed them to stoop so low. Today it seems that respect and honor are gone.. and instead we have the win-at-all-costs ideology. I would rather lose an honorable man than win hardly a man at all.
What are your thought? How can we as a populace force politicians to talk about the issues instead of focus on scandals and missquotes?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Another One Bites the Dust... Abramoff Crony Indicted
Kevin Ring was indicted today on charges of corruption and trying to bribe Legislators and members of the Executive branch with items of value. Kevin Ring prior to becoming a lobbyist with Abramoff worked as Chief of Staff for Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA). Rep. Doolittle himself is also under suspicion and is currently under investigation by the Abramoff probe.
This new arrest and indictment has some implications on the 2008 elections. First, it won't be hard to notice the "R" next to Representative Doolittle's name when it comes to scandal mongerers. It was this scandal and others (Mark Foley, etc..) that played a part in prompting the US electorate to vote democrat in 2006. Bring this scandal up again is going to remind them of their reasons to boot out what seemed to be a disproportionally corrupt Republican party from power.
On the flipside though, the probe that brought Abramoff to justice was initiated by the Committee on Indian Affairs, chaired by a Senator John McCain (R-AZ).. you may have heard of him, he is running for President. Sen. McCain has brought up this investigation countless times as proof that he is a straight guy (or at least since the Keating Five incident). If this story makes some heavy circulation in the MSM then it shouldn't be difficult for him to link himself to the Justice Dept's probe. If the story doesn't and he brings it up he risks seeming like he is overreaching to tie himself to the probe.
Keep an eye on this in the next couple days...
This new arrest and indictment has some implications on the 2008 elections. First, it won't be hard to notice the "R" next to Representative Doolittle's name when it comes to scandal mongerers. It was this scandal and others (Mark Foley, etc..) that played a part in prompting the US electorate to vote democrat in 2006. Bring this scandal up again is going to remind them of their reasons to boot out what seemed to be a disproportionally corrupt Republican party from power.
On the flipside though, the probe that brought Abramoff to justice was initiated by the Committee on Indian Affairs, chaired by a Senator John McCain (R-AZ).. you may have heard of him, he is running for President. Sen. McCain has brought up this investigation countless times as proof that he is a straight guy (or at least since the Keating Five incident). If this story makes some heavy circulation in the MSM then it shouldn't be difficult for him to link himself to the Justice Dept's probe. If the story doesn't and he brings it up he risks seeming like he is overreaching to tie himself to the probe.
Keep an eye on this in the next couple days...
Friday, September 5, 2008
John McCain accepts Republican Nomination
Now that I've had a day to let the John McCain nomination acceptance speech stew in my head.. I've made my decision. It was great. Not perfect.. but definitely as close as John McCain could have come.
McCain's speech, unlike Palin's, was geared almost 100% towards independents and moderates of both parties. The speech touched on a few subjects: the refuting of the current administration, the Maverick McCain, and reinvention of the Republican Party in his image. McCain talked about change in almost the same way he did in 2000 when he was talking about a change from the Clinton Administration. He managed to weave in his POW story in a artful way so that it added to the narrative instead of just coming across as boasting. John McCain also spoke almost admirably about Barack Obama, saying he respected him but said that their disagreements were clear and it was the job of the voter to choose the better person for the job.
McCain really pushed his theme of trying to make this election about the candidates themselves instead of the parties. His strategy is to say that if it came down to just two people and if you didn't know their party affiliations you'd pick McCain. He spoke to one of the most partisan audiences about the benefits of bipartisanship and going against the party when it served the country. The "Country First" perspective is being reinvented to appeal more to Independents who are sick of the deep partisan divide in Washington and the "do nothing Congress".
John McCain Acceptance Speech Grade: B+
The speech brought back the John McCain of 2000 and for many independents (myself included) that brought him back into competition for their votes. Thoroughly tired of partisanship and Day 3 of the RNC... the final speech was a breath of fresh air.
Let's talk about Day 3 for a moment.. it was disgusting. Absolutely abhorrent. ex-Gov. Mitt Romney attacked the "eastern elites" in his speech.. ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Mitt Romney need I remind you.. your father owned a big auto company and was a Governor himself of Michigan. You, his son, became governor of one of the most "eastern" style states and you are extremely wealthy... 300 Million Dollars is rich even by Cindy McCain standards! Next, they brought up some black guy to prove that they had a minority in their party too. Hmm... sorry guys, but the Republicans basically gave up on the minority vote this cycle - 93% of delgates were white. After that, came Rudy Guliani. Boy, Am I glad this guy did not have a chance! He ought to pursue a career in insult comedy. He got up to deliver a hundred punchlines in a sarcastic and bitter tone about Obama. Of course he mentioned 9/11 a thousand times, often followed by patting himself on the back. Then the insulter-in-chief acted as though there were basically no domestic problems due to the magic pefection of the Bush Administration. Any Independent or Reagan Democrat turned off their TVs at this point in disgust and decided they would never vote for this party. Sarah Palin of course was the highlight... and I have already covered that. All that Party energizing, playing to the base (and right-wingnuts), and scaring away independents and they had the audacity to name the night's theme "Peace"! What a joke... a sad, sick joke.
Day 3 Overall Grade: D-
What did you think? Share by adding your comments!
McCain's speech, unlike Palin's, was geared almost 100% towards independents and moderates of both parties. The speech touched on a few subjects: the refuting of the current administration, the Maverick McCain, and reinvention of the Republican Party in his image. McCain talked about change in almost the same way he did in 2000 when he was talking about a change from the Clinton Administration. He managed to weave in his POW story in a artful way so that it added to the narrative instead of just coming across as boasting. John McCain also spoke almost admirably about Barack Obama, saying he respected him but said that their disagreements were clear and it was the job of the voter to choose the better person for the job.
McCain really pushed his theme of trying to make this election about the candidates themselves instead of the parties. His strategy is to say that if it came down to just two people and if you didn't know their party affiliations you'd pick McCain. He spoke to one of the most partisan audiences about the benefits of bipartisanship and going against the party when it served the country. The "Country First" perspective is being reinvented to appeal more to Independents who are sick of the deep partisan divide in Washington and the "do nothing Congress".
John McCain Acceptance Speech Grade: B+
The speech brought back the John McCain of 2000 and for many independents (myself included) that brought him back into competition for their votes. Thoroughly tired of partisanship and Day 3 of the RNC... the final speech was a breath of fresh air.
Let's talk about Day 3 for a moment.. it was disgusting. Absolutely abhorrent. ex-Gov. Mitt Romney attacked the "eastern elites" in his speech.. ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Mitt Romney need I remind you.. your father owned a big auto company and was a Governor himself of Michigan. You, his son, became governor of one of the most "eastern" style states and you are extremely wealthy... 300 Million Dollars is rich even by Cindy McCain standards! Next, they brought up some black guy to prove that they had a minority in their party too. Hmm... sorry guys, but the Republicans basically gave up on the minority vote this cycle - 93% of delgates were white. After that, came Rudy Guliani. Boy, Am I glad this guy did not have a chance! He ought to pursue a career in insult comedy. He got up to deliver a hundred punchlines in a sarcastic and bitter tone about Obama. Of course he mentioned 9/11 a thousand times, often followed by patting himself on the back. Then the insulter-in-chief acted as though there were basically no domestic problems due to the magic pefection of the Bush Administration. Any Independent or Reagan Democrat turned off their TVs at this point in disgust and decided they would never vote for this party. Sarah Palin of course was the highlight... and I have already covered that. All that Party energizing, playing to the base (and right-wingnuts), and scaring away independents and they had the audacity to name the night's theme "Peace"! What a joke... a sad, sick joke.
Day 3 Overall Grade: D-
What did you think? Share by adding your comments!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Palin @ GOP Convention
Governor Sarah Palin's speech wasn't exactly what I expected.. and that's her fault. For a couple days now Republican talking heads have been trying to convince us that she is an aggressive reforming social conservative with expertise on just about everything that matters to the American people. She ruined her own coming out party.. for anyone who isn't a staunch Republican. In fact, the entire night had problems.. but that is for another post.
Sarah Palin came out swinging. Her speech could be broken down into three main themes: 1) Attacking Barack Obama, 2) Extolling the virtues of John McCain, and 3) Energizing the Republican base.
1) Attacking Barack Obama
She came out hard and she did not stop. In true attack dog form (she called herself a pitbull with lipstick), Palin lambasted and vilified Obama and his campaign to the very core. One of the main attack points was that she was a mayor and Obama was a Community Organizer. Palin told the crowd that the two are similar but that she "actually had responsibility". There were so many barbs and mud thrown that you'd have to actually read the speech to believe that it was given. I mean, it is one thing to attack your opponent.. but it is an entirely different thing to do it all the time, it hardly leaves any time for you to tell us why you are any better!
2) All Praise John S. McCain
The S stands for Sidney, in case you are interested. Anyone remember John Edwards acceptance speech in 2004? This is how it went: blah blah blah John Kerry blah blah John Kerry blah blah blah John and I blah blah blah John Kerry. Sarah Palin must have studied that speech and just replaced all the "Kerry"s with "McCain". Now I understand she basically owes her new career options to the man but it was more like she was a fangirl than a running mate. Supposedly she should be able to do his job if he is ever stricken ill or incapacitated but she made it sound as though he was an anomaly of service that we should worship instead of a man who is far better qualified than her but she is still within reach of (according to her party).
3) Energizing the Base
Is it not hilarious that "the base" in Arabic is "al quaeda"? Ok.. I crack myself up.. but seriously! She did a great job! There was not a single phrase or sentence that did not get huge ovation and recognition. Although the speech was better suited for a surrogate than a VP nomination acceptance it worked none the less and brought together a party that was honestly struggling when they arrived. As the days went on the cheers didn't grow much louder... but Palin really opened up the audience and got them going. From defeatists to optimists in under an hour... that's good delivery (although her voice has already begun to annoy me).
Problems with her speech? Oh yeah... she didn't talk much about why or how she is ready to be Vice President or act as President. That's HUGE. That should have been the bulk of her speech, instead of just just saying Obama isn't ready.. tell us why you are any better! Also, sometimes her attacks were so strongly worded that they were just not true. For instance, saying that you don't think Obama did anything useful is one thing but saying that he "never authored" any legislation of value is another. (Remember that bill to control nuclear material or the huge ethics reform bill?) Another thing that really bugged me was the negative tone that was used throughout... for a party that is suppose to be energizing the electorate they seemed more intent on just scaring it (worked in 2004, I guess...)
Overall Grade: C
Sarah Palin came out swinging. Her speech could be broken down into three main themes: 1) Attacking Barack Obama, 2) Extolling the virtues of John McCain, and 3) Energizing the Republican base.
1) Attacking Barack Obama
She came out hard and she did not stop. In true attack dog form (she called herself a pitbull with lipstick), Palin lambasted and vilified Obama and his campaign to the very core. One of the main attack points was that she was a mayor and Obama was a Community Organizer. Palin told the crowd that the two are similar but that she "actually had responsibility". There were so many barbs and mud thrown that you'd have to actually read the speech to believe that it was given. I mean, it is one thing to attack your opponent.. but it is an entirely different thing to do it all the time, it hardly leaves any time for you to tell us why you are any better!
2) All Praise John S. McCain
The S stands for Sidney, in case you are interested. Anyone remember John Edwards acceptance speech in 2004? This is how it went: blah blah blah John Kerry blah blah John Kerry blah blah blah John and I blah blah blah John Kerry. Sarah Palin must have studied that speech and just replaced all the "Kerry"s with "McCain". Now I understand she basically owes her new career options to the man but it was more like she was a fangirl than a running mate. Supposedly she should be able to do his job if he is ever stricken ill or incapacitated but she made it sound as though he was an anomaly of service that we should worship instead of a man who is far better qualified than her but she is still within reach of (according to her party).
3) Energizing the Base
Is it not hilarious that "the base" in Arabic is "al quaeda"? Ok.. I crack myself up.. but seriously! She did a great job! There was not a single phrase or sentence that did not get huge ovation and recognition. Although the speech was better suited for a surrogate than a VP nomination acceptance it worked none the less and brought together a party that was honestly struggling when they arrived. As the days went on the cheers didn't grow much louder... but Palin really opened up the audience and got them going. From defeatists to optimists in under an hour... that's good delivery (although her voice has already begun to annoy me).
Problems with her speech? Oh yeah... she didn't talk much about why or how she is ready to be Vice President or act as President. That's HUGE. That should have been the bulk of her speech, instead of just just saying Obama isn't ready.. tell us why you are any better! Also, sometimes her attacks were so strongly worded that they were just not true. For instance, saying that you don't think Obama did anything useful is one thing but saying that he "never authored" any legislation of value is another. (Remember that bill to control nuclear material or the huge ethics reform bill?) Another thing that really bugged me was the negative tone that was used throughout... for a party that is suppose to be energizing the electorate they seemed more intent on just scaring it (worked in 2004, I guess...)
Overall Grade: C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)