What does START mean to you? For many of the new generations it means the little button you click in Microsoft Windows that gives you access to a bunch of programs not sitting on the desktop...
For older generations and the slim minority of newer generations that care about history, START is the STrategic Arms Reduction Talks that began on June 29, 1982 and culminated in an agreement with the USSR about Nuclear missile and material reduction in 1991. START II began in June 1992 and ended with President H.W. Bush and President Boris Yelstin's agreement in January 1993. START III was dead on arrival in 1997 and dealt a death blow by the George W Bush Administration's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Before I mention why I'm bringing up START let's talk about a strange trend that you can notice in that last paragraph.. did anything about the culmination of the START talks strike you as odd or telling? START I: Pres. Reagan brings it up, pushes it until it passes. START II: Pres. George HW Bush brings it up with the Russians, Pres. Clinton pushes it until it passes. START III: Offered by Russian diplomats, agreed to in principle by sane State Dept. diplomats, killed by Pres. GW Bush. Sad.. It is like we this Bush Administration has taken pride in wasting and throwing away all the good will and soft diplomatic power the US possessed and worked hard to gain. Hard work by Presidents and proud American men and women who toiled to step America up just one more step so that the next global generation would see America on a pedestal not in the dirt. Thanks, Dubya - you have spoiled and deserted their ideals then threw them out all in the name of a new American "power" - force and terror.
Well... Where was I before my diatribe? START! That's right, START is going to expire! START expires in December 2009. The United States and Russia are trying to come together to come to an agreement. There are a few, uh how to put this.... problems.
First, US diplomats have zero credibility or power because they represent a lame-duck President with less than 90 days to serve.
Second, this Bush Administration is more interested developing ABMS (Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems) and antagonizing the Russian Bear than it is willing to actually doing something truly courageous - working towards a more peaceful world.
Third, the Russians are looking to regain the Soviet glory of military power with no international restrictions (obviously they have rose-colored glasses on their hindsight along with a severe case of selective amnesia).
Fourth, there is a general disagreement as to exactly what a new START would cover - US diplomats want to limit the number of missiles period, the Russians would like to see a limit on warheads (there can be many of these per missile) and they want a limit on ABMS.
I hope that in the 11 months following the Presidential Inauguration that (then) President Obama will have the ability to multitask effectively and deal with the START talks seriously and with great care. As an aside - I do not believe that total disarmament should neither be a possibility nor a goal. The reduction of nuclear weapons will lend a hand to a more effective security between nations and will reduce the ability of rogue states or terrorists of getting their hands on Nuclear materials.
Have ideas? Share them here! Comment!
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
DOW under 10K & Cronyism Watch!
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped below 10,000 for the first time in four years. Guess that means that bailout/rescue bill didn't suddenly ignite the investing engine of the United States middle/upper class. Kind of a sad time with all the bouncing up and down of the stock markets. With the future of the market looking so rocky, this definitely isn't the best time to get in.
Nancy Gibbs writes a very poignant and well thought out article for Times magazine about the true winners of the financial crisis: frugal financial conservatives. I agree with her, the fact that there have been few voices that have encouraged the American people to do something that led to our financial might, save money, is disconcerting. After 9/11 we all remember President Bush telling us that the best way to fight back against the terrorists was to "go shopping". Now, while we are in a crisis it has still been the Administration's message that a reduction in spending is a sign of our economies weakness although our US savings rate has been going negative since late 2000. The only other time the US went negative in their savings rate was a period during the early 1930's... remember how that turned out? Not Pleasant.
Maybe more people should be listening to the Concord Coalition, one of personal favorite groups, when they talk about how saving and paying down the national debt instead of adding on 4 trillion (thanks, President George W Bush) can lead to a return to financial safety. Who would have predicted that spending more than we earn would lead to a credit crisis? I mean.. who'da thunk it?
The last item is today's Cronyism Watch:
Treasury Secretary fresh off his victory in passing a bailout bill (although not quite as empowering as he'd have liked) has decided that with that legislative mandate he'd do something that has become commonplace in this Bush Administration, hire friends and people from the industry to regulate themselves.
Paulson hired Neel Kashkari to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the newly created Office of Financial Stability. Mr. Kashkari worked as assistant Treasury secretary for International Economics and Development and had joined the Treasury Dept. in July 2006 and worked on several of Treasury's initiatives in response to the housing crisis - including the formation of the mortgage industry alliance Hope Now.
So, this fellow was suppose to be stopping the sub-prime mortgage crisis from developing further.. by forming an alliance of the people who got us into the mess to begin with. Wonderful. I guess his HUGE success in stopping any further problems from erupting got him his promotion to assistant Secretary and now his throne as the dispenser of 250 BILLION dollars by December 31st, 2008. Nice. So failure has been rewarded with promotion and powers never thought possible in US Financial history.
Seems like a typical Bush Administration story.. but something doesn't seem right.. It just isn't dirty enough. Was he someone important's roommate? Did he help someone cheat or hold great parties? Did he give/raise huge amounts of money for someone's campaign? Nah.. not really. Hmm.. well what did Financial Czar Kashkari do before he dedicated his life to public service at the Treasury Department in 2006? What's that? OH, HE WAS AN Vice-Presidential EXECUTIVE AT GOLDMAN SACHS! It seems as though Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, himself a former topman at the Goldman Sachs firm, has been filling the Treasury chock full of his former buddies from Goldman Sachs. Paulson’s inner circle already includes former Goldmanites Dan Jester, a financial institutions banker, and retired banker Steve Shafran, who focused on corporate restructuring at Goldman. It also included Robert Steel, who has since left Treasury to become CEO of Wachovia.
I know that a bit of cronyism is perfectly normal in politics. Every politician, and in fact normal person, wants to surround themselves with people they trust. When it comes to the government though that person should also be able to do the job they were hired to do in a fair and competent manner. One would think that the ultimate picture of cronyism and nepotism was JFK appointing his brother, RFK, to be Attorney General but guess what? RFK was competent and did an OK job. FEMA headman Micheal "Heckuva Job Brownie" Brown was not.
What a joke this Administration has become. We have come to expect the worse from the Government and not even hope for a change. Whoever the next President may be, I wish them luck cleaning up that mess. They are going to need it.
Paulson taps bailout chief - CNN Money
Feel free to comment, I'd love to hear what you think!
Nancy Gibbs writes a very poignant and well thought out article for Times magazine about the true winners of the financial crisis: frugal financial conservatives. I agree with her, the fact that there have been few voices that have encouraged the American people to do something that led to our financial might, save money, is disconcerting. After 9/11 we all remember President Bush telling us that the best way to fight back against the terrorists was to "go shopping". Now, while we are in a crisis it has still been the Administration's message that a reduction in spending is a sign of our economies weakness although our US savings rate has been going negative since late 2000. The only other time the US went negative in their savings rate was a period during the early 1930's... remember how that turned out? Not Pleasant.
Maybe more people should be listening to the Concord Coalition, one of personal favorite groups, when they talk about how saving and paying down the national debt instead of adding on 4 trillion (thanks, President George W Bush) can lead to a return to financial safety. Who would have predicted that spending more than we earn would lead to a credit crisis? I mean.. who'da thunk it?
The last item is today's Cronyism Watch:
Treasury Secretary fresh off his victory in passing a bailout bill (although not quite as empowering as he'd have liked) has decided that with that legislative mandate he'd do something that has become commonplace in this Bush Administration, hire friends and people from the industry to regulate themselves.
Paulson hired Neel Kashkari to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the newly created Office of Financial Stability. Mr. Kashkari worked as assistant Treasury secretary for International Economics and Development and had joined the Treasury Dept. in July 2006 and worked on several of Treasury's initiatives in response to the housing crisis - including the formation of the mortgage industry alliance Hope Now.
So, this fellow was suppose to be stopping the sub-prime mortgage crisis from developing further.. by forming an alliance of the people who got us into the mess to begin with. Wonderful. I guess his HUGE success in stopping any further problems from erupting got him his promotion to assistant Secretary and now his throne as the dispenser of 250 BILLION dollars by December 31st, 2008. Nice. So failure has been rewarded with promotion and powers never thought possible in US Financial history.
Seems like a typical Bush Administration story.. but something doesn't seem right.. It just isn't dirty enough. Was he someone important's roommate? Did he help someone cheat or hold great parties? Did he give/raise huge amounts of money for someone's campaign? Nah.. not really. Hmm.. well what did Financial Czar Kashkari do before he dedicated his life to public service at the Treasury Department in 2006? What's that? OH, HE WAS AN Vice-Presidential EXECUTIVE AT GOLDMAN SACHS! It seems as though Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, himself a former topman at the Goldman Sachs firm, has been filling the Treasury chock full of his former buddies from Goldman Sachs. Paulson’s inner circle already includes former Goldmanites Dan Jester, a financial institutions banker, and retired banker Steve Shafran, who focused on corporate restructuring at Goldman. It also included Robert Steel, who has since left Treasury to become CEO of Wachovia.
I know that a bit of cronyism is perfectly normal in politics. Every politician, and in fact normal person, wants to surround themselves with people they trust. When it comes to the government though that person should also be able to do the job they were hired to do in a fair and competent manner. One would think that the ultimate picture of cronyism and nepotism was JFK appointing his brother, RFK, to be Attorney General but guess what? RFK was competent and did an OK job. FEMA headman Micheal "Heckuva Job Brownie" Brown was not.
What a joke this Administration has become. We have come to expect the worse from the Government and not even hope for a change. Whoever the next President may be, I wish them luck cleaning up that mess. They are going to need it.
Paulson taps bailout chief - CNN Money
Feel free to comment, I'd love to hear what you think!
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!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Feds: No Taxpayer Bailouts... except to my friends
There is nothing I love more than a "... but that was my last time I'll do it.. promise" approach to spending taxpayer dollars. It's like bureaucrats, Congress, and the President totally forgot that we actually work to send those their way (or that China is willing to spot us just a few more billion everyday).
Treasury Secretary Paulson said on Monday, September 15th, that two bailouts were enough. No more bailouts. Apparently he had already forgotten J.P. Morgan eat up Bear Stearns with the help of our tax dollars but I'll forgive him just this once... So, on Tuesday, September 16th, guess what your trusty government did?
It held its ground! For almost ONE WHOLE DAY! That is amazing. They deserve a big round of applause. Seriously, clap at your monitor, they deserve it! So, this Bush Administration can be boneheaded and completely committed to an unneeded and unwanted war (remember, NO BLINKING!) but can't keep its own promises on our economy for more than a day.
I'm going to let you all in on a little secret... a very shameful, scandalous one: I supported Bush in 2000 (begrudgingly after McCain lost on Super Tuesday) because although he wasn't the greatest mind.. he seemed to be very resolute on keeping government spending down and controlling an economy that was headed in a new direction "up". I thought hey... Republicans love fiscal conservatism. I hope this guy will save our money - keeping it for a rainy day, cut wasteful spending - even on defense, pay down our national debt (or at least some of the interest), and possibly even get Congress to stop spending so much on Pork Barrel projects. Boy, was I wrong, huh?!
So why would the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Treasury Department all get together to tell 20 CEOs from the biggest banks in America that after Bear Stearns/JP Morgan, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac they were done bailing out companies? Why were they letting Lehman Brothers die although it represented a HUGE 158 year old history of banking? Why were they letting Merrill Lynch go to the wolves? WHY?
Was it because all of a sudden, the Treasury Dept. was thinking? Had something finally clicked in Secretary Paulson's mind? Did President Bush wake from his 7 and 3/4 year slumber to replace his exact double? No. Not more than a 12 hours after sending this strong message to the Financial community, "No More Bailouts!", the Sec. Paulson was at it again. He had just decided it was in the best interest of the nation to spot AIG (American International Group) a measly 85 million... wait make that EIGHTY FIVE BILLION ($85B) dollars in federally insured loans to keep them afloat.
Again.. that nagging question, WHY? Why one company and not the other? Thankfully this all can be answered in one simple revelation. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's previous job: CEO of Goldman Sachs. He isn't exactly a balanced and unbiased player in the game. He was once top of one of the most powerful investment banks on earth.. and the majority of his friends (and more importantly, enemies) are still working on Wall Street. So, send a 2-year bailout to AIG.. and let Lehman Brothers (a chief rival) go to the dogs.. I just wished he would have used sound judgement and fiscal responsibility instead of party and personal politics in making these decisions.
Anyways.. Since when did capitalist economies not let companies you gambled and failed, actually fail? Ridiculous.
For a few more comments on the economy that I wrote four and a half months ago, click here
Links:
No Bailout: Feds Made New Policy Clear in One Dramatic Weekend - Washington Post
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
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Fannie, Freddie now under Feds
I reported awhile back about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac's slow but sure demise and the Federal plan to "rescue" it using hundreds of BILLIONS of tax-dollars. Well.. it quietly passed the Senate after my original post and has become law. Now.. SURPRISE, the Federal Government has announced its intentions to take over the two failing mortgage giants.
This sort of news makes me sick. You realize that the government is heading in just the WRONG direction and there isn't much you can do about until November. What makes the Feds think that they can run the two mortgage giants any better than they were already run? Is it the massive deficits or multi-trillion dollar national debt they've been running? I would challenge anyone to come up with one.. just one example of a time the Federal Government took over an industry or company and succeeded in turning it around without either throwing gobs of money at it or tweaking the numbers.
I know I've been focusing on the 2008 Elections like much of the country has been and it seems that the House, Senate and President are trying their hardest to appeal to voters or create some kind of legacy. The legacy that they stuck us with will cost us billions of dollars, distracts us from other root causes of the current economic slowdown, and sets a terrible example.
Remember that slippery slope? Well.. it's here now and we are merrily rolling down it without looking back or fighting back. What's next? If as a nation we've decided to use our government and tax-dollars to save or salvage any industry that has trouble and any company that goes under (which we haven't) I'd like to know who is the next to be put under the supervision of the US Treasury Department. Hmmm... the US Auto Industry is having problems, Ford and GM are losing money by the bucketful, the vegetable market is always iffy, Housing construction is not doing too well, some tech companies are going under... the list goes on and on.
My rule is that unless we are at full-scale war (I'm talking World War III style) the government should regulate the economy by indirect means... don't let it put its grubby hands on your money.. they don't let go.
This sort of news makes me sick. You realize that the government is heading in just the WRONG direction and there isn't much you can do about until November. What makes the Feds think that they can run the two mortgage giants any better than they were already run? Is it the massive deficits or multi-trillion dollar national debt they've been running? I would challenge anyone to come up with one.. just one example of a time the Federal Government took over an industry or company and succeeded in turning it around without either throwing gobs of money at it or tweaking the numbers.
I know I've been focusing on the 2008 Elections like much of the country has been and it seems that the House, Senate and President are trying their hardest to appeal to voters or create some kind of legacy. The legacy that they stuck us with will cost us billions of dollars, distracts us from other root causes of the current economic slowdown, and sets a terrible example.
Remember that slippery slope? Well.. it's here now and we are merrily rolling down it without looking back or fighting back. What's next? If as a nation we've decided to use our government and tax-dollars to save or salvage any industry that has trouble and any company that goes under (which we haven't) I'd like to know who is the next to be put under the supervision of the US Treasury Department. Hmmm... the US Auto Industry is having problems, Ford and GM are losing money by the bucketful, the vegetable market is always iffy, Housing construction is not doing too well, some tech companies are going under... the list goes on and on.
My rule is that unless we are at full-scale war (I'm talking World War III style) the government should regulate the economy by indirect means... don't let it put its grubby hands on your money.. they don't let go.
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!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Bush/Cheney cancel GOP Appearances for Gustav
Hurricane Gustav prepares to make land fall on the Gulf Coast of Louisiana or Mississippi
In what seems like a stroke of bad luck, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are canceling their appearances at the GOP convention in St. Paul Monday night to deal with Hurricane Gustav. Many GOPers see this as a tragedy because that basically guts all of their star power from opening night. The McCain camp however may have been hoping that something would keep the President away.. some reports claim that there was a plan in place for the President to suddenly cancel due to any kind of "crisis". Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, Hurricane Gustav reminds many Americans of Hurricane Katrina of just three years ago.. and John McCain stands to lose the most from that memory.
Let's rewind to the fateful day of August 29th, 2005: An enormous hurricane has barreled past Cuba and is heading right up the coast at Mississippi. It is hurricane season and President Bush leaves Washington DC aboard Air Force One headed out to Arizona with FEMA in the hands of one of his incompetent friends, Michael D. Brown. President Bush arrives in Arizona to enjoy a birthday celebration for Senator John McCain, cutting the cake in front of Air Force One and enjoying a private party along with many GOP supporters and fundraisers. Hurricane Katrina batters New Orleans, Louisiana and the coastal regions of Mississippi as well.
Now, that story alone should give some pause to John McCain to take hurricanes lightly because Katrina certainly left a very bad taste in many people's mouths and may have led to a major part of the reversal of the Republican's fortunes in the 2006 elections. So, while the hurricane ensured that a President with near-record low ratings does not speak it also puts the pressure on a Republican Administration to help a Republican Governor in a redo of 2005. Will there be a big difference? Will even the slightest error give Democrats a lead and ruin the "bump" of the Republican convention? Will President Bush take the blame for Katrina's response as he did in 2005? Can Bobby Jindal prove he is the new young face of the Republican party with a stellar performance in dealing with Hurricane Gustav?
All great questions! Do you have the answers? If you do, comment... show us what you've got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)