Rumors of a GM-Chrysler merger.
General Motors shares gaining more than 60% in just three days -- but still trading at a paltry $6.50, off 85% from a year ago.
A world that includes Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Sarah McCain Palin Ciptak, and a world without Charlton Heston, George Carlin and Paul Newman.
Citizen slackers complaining about celebrity activists.
"The Original Mavericks."
Light beer, drive-thru flu shots, and The Indoor.
Four U.S. Supreme Court justices who actually believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
The name of "Mickey Mouse" appearing on a voter-registration form submitted by ACORN.
ACORN, Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn, RightChange and every other §527, union and church that shields its politics with its tax status.
Citizens who object to Joe Biden saying that wealthier Americans paying higher taxes is the "patriotic" thing to do, but who evade paying their own taxes -- and yet reap benefits paid for by those of us who do.
John McCain being booed by at his own rally because he called for "a respectful campaign."
An American company closing a plant and moving its operations outside the U.S. -- and then requiring its lame-duck employees to train their overseas replacements.
American taxpayers funding the government's corporate bailout so that banks can afford to foreclose, at great loss, on homes owned by American taxpayers -- that is, a bank foreclosing a mortgage and then auctioning the property for less than half the market value, a tactic made possible because the bank got a taxpayer-funded bailout and the taxpaying homeowner didn't.
"It will take time for our efforts to have their full impact, but the American people can have confidence about our long-term economic future."
The Electoral College.
"I call on my opponent to repudiate..."
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Point of agreement
"What a beautiful part of the world you all live in." (Sen. Joe Biden, speaking today in Lancaster, Ohio)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sound & fury
As a long-suffering fan of the Cleveland Browns, I'm still pinching myself over their 35-14 upset of the New York Giants last night.
The Browns looked promising this time last year, eventually notching ten wins and sending six players to the Pro Bowl, but in 2008 it's all come to tears -- an 0-4 pre-season record and an 0-3 start to the regular season, along with a rash of injuries and a roster full of underachievers.
Then this dysfunctional squad squashed the Super Bowl champs. Maybe it's time to dust off our dreams of the Browns making the playoffs -- after all, it's fundamentally the same team that raised our hopes so high a year ago. Would that be wrong?
Yeah, probably.
I can imagine investors asking themselves similar questions this morning. Last October the markets were flying high, only to crumble over the next 12 months and burst into flame last week. But given yesterday's record-setting gains -- 936 points on the Dow, more than double the previous one-day jump -- would it be wrong to be optimistic that the worst is behind us?
Probably so.
The markets aren't the economy -- they're only one indicator of one segment of the economy. Market forces almost certainly will correct the irrational gains we saw yesterday, especially in light of investors' overall skepticism. Most of the rest of the U.S. economy is weak and getting weaker, and it'd be naive to predict that we're headed for anything but an unprecedented global recession, one that'll hit hardest right where you and I live.
I mean, I can tell myself that "The fundamentals of the Cleveland Browns are strong," but repeating the mantra is an exercise in delusion. That surprise whupping of the Giants, momentarily inspiring, was "sound and fury signifying nothing." Likewise yesterday's move in the markets -- both the Browns and our economy have more losses ahead.
Probably.
The Browns looked promising this time last year, eventually notching ten wins and sending six players to the Pro Bowl, but in 2008 it's all come to tears -- an 0-4 pre-season record and an 0-3 start to the regular season, along with a rash of injuries and a roster full of underachievers.
Then this dysfunctional squad squashed the Super Bowl champs. Maybe it's time to dust off our dreams of the Browns making the playoffs -- after all, it's fundamentally the same team that raised our hopes so high a year ago. Would that be wrong?
Yeah, probably.
I can imagine investors asking themselves similar questions this morning. Last October the markets were flying high, only to crumble over the next 12 months and burst into flame last week. But given yesterday's record-setting gains -- 936 points on the Dow, more than double the previous one-day jump -- would it be wrong to be optimistic that the worst is behind us?Probably so.
The markets aren't the economy -- they're only one indicator of one segment of the economy. Market forces almost certainly will correct the irrational gains we saw yesterday, especially in light of investors' overall skepticism. Most of the rest of the U.S. economy is weak and getting weaker, and it'd be naive to predict that we're headed for anything but an unprecedented global recession, one that'll hit hardest right where you and I live.
I mean, I can tell myself that "The fundamentals of the Cleveland Browns are strong," but repeating the mantra is an exercise in delusion. That surprise whupping of the Giants, momentarily inspiring, was "sound and fury signifying nothing." Likewise yesterday's move in the markets -- both the Browns and our economy have more losses ahead.
Probably.
Monday, October 13, 2008
One more cat to herd
In delivering the invocation at this morning's McCain-Palin rally in Davenport, Iowa, Rev. Arnold Conrad said this:
This is getting more absurd by the day. Sen. McCain needs to either rein it in or pack it in.
(Watch Rev. Conrad pray to his really big political god here.)
Here, in the interest of balance, is how Rev. Conrad later backpedaled:"I would also pray Lord that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their God -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [Sen. John McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons.
"And Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you would step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."
"My prayer had nothing to do with either candidate. My point was these people are praying that the person of their choice wins. If that happens, then they’re going to ascribe to their God that power, that their God made it happen as opposed to the God of the Bible."The invocation was outrageously arrogant; the explanation falls far short of credibility.
This is getting more absurd by the day. Sen. McCain needs to either rein it in or pack it in.
(Watch Rev. Conrad pray to his really big political god here.)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Friend or foe?
John Lewis was born a sharecropper's son. In the 1960s, he played a prominent and active role in the civil-rights movement, enduring dozens of arrests and suffering countless beatings. John Lewis is now Rep. John R. Lewis, a Democrat elected by the citizens of Georgia's 5th District to the U.S. House of Representatives.
With all due respect to the long, difficult and admirable road he's traveled, Rep. Lewis is still John Lewis, Civil Rights Icon -- and that, for better or worse, means that the incendiary issue of race infuses (or is imposed upon) everything he says.
Yesterday, Rep. Lewis issued a statement saying that he's "deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign."
Many of us are; many of us have said so. But when John Lewis says so -- and when he draws parallels with the civil-rights era, especially when he compares the toxic air of McCain-Palin rallies to the "atmosphere of hate" cultivated by former Alabama Gov. George Wallace -- it's bound to provoke a defensive response.
Sen. John McCain took exception to the idea that his campaign "could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked," calling the accusations "unacceptable" and asserting that they have "no place in this campaign." Naturally, he called on Sen. Barack Obama to "repudiate" what Rep. Lewis said.
"Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies," said Obama-Biden -- but the campaign's statement went on to say that "John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked...as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate...."
Enough already with the dueling statements -- it's time to call this the way it is.
Rep. Lewis, for his part, spoke like he'd forgotten who he is. He couldn't possibly have been unaware that he was lobbing racially charged grenades into a climate that's already strayed too far from issues that should preoccupy the candidates. Rep. Lewis is no freshman -- he should've known better.
Sen. McCain's indignation, however, is only so credible. His campaign has relied on and, in the case of Gov. Sarah Palin and other surrogates, actively encouraged flamethrowing. Only recently has Sen. McCain tried to douse the fires.
Oddly enough, McCain-Palin actually does beg a parallel to George Wallace, although not specifically in terms of fostering outright racism.
"I don't have much strategy," Gov. Wallace once said of his 1972 bid for the Democratic nomination. "I'm just putting the hay down where the goats can get it."
In my view, that's an eerily apt description of McCain-Palin’s quiet tolerance of supporters' fear and hatred.
Finally, how does Sen. Obama come out of this weekend's back-and-forth? Only with a pressing need to control the damage -- most of which, ironically, was inflicted by a friend, not a foe.
With all due respect to the long, difficult and admirable road he's traveled, Rep. Lewis is still John Lewis, Civil Rights Icon -- and that, for better or worse, means that the incendiary issue of race infuses (or is imposed upon) everything he says.
Yesterday, Rep. Lewis issued a statement saying that he's "deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign."
Many of us are; many of us have said so. But when John Lewis says so -- and when he draws parallels with the civil-rights era, especially when he compares the toxic air of McCain-Palin rallies to the "atmosphere of hate" cultivated by former Alabama Gov. George Wallace -- it's bound to provoke a defensive response.
Sen. John McCain took exception to the idea that his campaign "could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked," calling the accusations "unacceptable" and asserting that they have "no place in this campaign." Naturally, he called on Sen. Barack Obama to "repudiate" what Rep. Lewis said.
"Sen. Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies," said Obama-Biden -- but the campaign's statement went on to say that "John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked...as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate...."
Enough already with the dueling statements -- it's time to call this the way it is.
Rep. Lewis, for his part, spoke like he'd forgotten who he is. He couldn't possibly have been unaware that he was lobbing racially charged grenades into a climate that's already strayed too far from issues that should preoccupy the candidates. Rep. Lewis is no freshman -- he should've known better.
Sen. McCain's indignation, however, is only so credible. His campaign has relied on and, in the case of Gov. Sarah Palin and other surrogates, actively encouraged flamethrowing. Only recently has Sen. McCain tried to douse the fires.
Oddly enough, McCain-Palin actually does beg a parallel to George Wallace, although not specifically in terms of fostering outright racism.
"I don't have much strategy," Gov. Wallace once said of his 1972 bid for the Democratic nomination. "I'm just putting the hay down where the goats can get it."
In my view, that's an eerily apt description of McCain-Palin’s quiet tolerance of supporters' fear and hatred.
Finally, how does Sen. Obama come out of this weekend's back-and-forth? Only with a pressing need to control the damage -- most of which, ironically, was inflicted by a friend, not a foe.
Beggar's game
When it comes to the sheer volume of direct-mail solicitations -- a.k.a. "junk mail" -- no organization in my experience comes close to the National Rifle Association.
I get one or more "urgent" pitches from the NRA every week. Multiply that by three NRA members in the KintlaLake household and it's easy to see why our shredder is holding out for overtime pay.
I support the work that the NRA does in defense of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and once or twice I've supplemented my annual dues with a contribution. Having worked for a non-profit membership organization myself, I understand the importance of soliciting "voluntary" donations, but the NRA is verging on postal overload.
The organization recently added a telephone campaign to its fundraising strategy. Last night, I finally quit ignoring the "NRA" caller ID that's been appearing on my phone for the last couple of months.
With practiced cordiality, a woman's voice asked me if I had time for a recorded message from NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre. After listening to Mr. LaPierre preach a one-minute sermon to my personal choir, a live human returned to the line, this time a male voice. Our exchange went like this:
The rest of the conversation consisted of him offering me a commemorative Charlton Heston knife, in return for a donation, and me politely declining -- three times.
I didn't play well with the NRA script because I know what Sen. Obama actually said back in April:
I believe that an Obama-Biden administration would pose serious threats to my Second Amendment rights. The fact remains, however, that Sen. Obama didn't say what the disembodied NRA voice claimed he said.
I'll continue to support the NRA and its mission, but I don't need to be misled in order to do so -- disinformation, in fact, only feeds my natural skepticism. All last night's call really accomplished was to further heighten my scrutiny of the NRA's pitches.
I don't think that's what the organization had in mind.
I get one or more "urgent" pitches from the NRA every week. Multiply that by three NRA members in the KintlaLake household and it's easy to see why our shredder is holding out for overtime pay.
I support the work that the NRA does in defense of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and once or twice I've supplemented my annual dues with a contribution. Having worked for a non-profit membership organization myself, I understand the importance of soliciting "voluntary" donations, but the NRA is verging on postal overload.The organization recently added a telephone campaign to its fundraising strategy. Last night, I finally quit ignoring the "NRA" caller ID that's been appearing on my phone for the last couple of months.
With practiced cordiality, a woman's voice asked me if I had time for a recorded message from NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre. After listening to Mr. LaPierre preach a one-minute sermon to my personal choir, a live human returned to the line, this time a male voice. Our exchange went like this:
Apparently that wasn't what he expected, because an awkward silence followed. I swear I could hear him flipping through his script, looking for a place to resume his pitch."Mr. KintlaLake, are you proud to be a gun owner?"
"Yes, absolutely."
"Good. Mr. KintlaLake, did it offend you when Barack Obama said that the only reason you own a gun is because you're bitter?"
"No, not at all."
The rest of the conversation consisted of him offering me a commemorative Charlton Heston knife, in return for a donation, and me politely declining -- three times.
I didn't play well with the NRA script because I know what Sen. Obama actually said back in April:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."Typical of Sen. Obama, it was a sharp intellectual observation on the psychology and sociology of abandonment -- and it was a colossally dumb thing for a candidate to say in the middle of a campaign for President.
I believe that an Obama-Biden administration would pose serious threats to my Second Amendment rights. The fact remains, however, that Sen. Obama didn't say what the disembodied NRA voice claimed he said.
I'll continue to support the NRA and its mission, but I don't need to be misled in order to do so -- disinformation, in fact, only feeds my natural skepticism. All last night's call really accomplished was to further heighten my scrutiny of the NRA's pitches.
I don't think that's what the organization had in mind.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Holy Toledo!
Between 1835 and 1836, long before the football rivalry between the Buckeyes and the Wolverines, the states of Ohio and Michigan fought a real shooting war (well, sort of) over a narrow piece of land called The Toledo Strip.
Ohio won the bloodless conflict -- and once again, we're glad we did.
The Toledo Rockets football team walked into Michigan Stadium today and swaggered out with a 13-10 win -- the first time Michigan has ever lost to a MAC team.
To every Toledo fan, and to all those WVU Mountaineers who join Mrs. KintlaLake in praying nightly that Rich Rodriguez will fall flat on his ass in Ann Arbor, party on!
Ohio won the bloodless conflict -- and once again, we're glad we did.
The Toledo Rockets football team walked into Michigan Stadium today and swaggered out with a 13-10 win -- the first time Michigan has ever lost to a MAC team.To every Toledo fan, and to all those WVU Mountaineers who join Mrs. KintlaLake in praying nightly that Rich Rodriguez will fall flat on his ass in Ann Arbor, party on!
Dong-ding, dong-ding...
Beginning last weekend, McCain-Palin rallies have taken on a decidedly negative, desperate tone -- pouring from the candidate and his running mate, from local officials invoking "Barack Hussein Obama" and from increasingly angry supporters hurling cries of "Terrorist!" and "Kill 'im!" against Sen. Obama.
It's the sort of ugliness that can happen when a foundering campaign is running out of time. And Sen. John McCain, who long ago vowed to run "a respectful campaign," did nothing to throttle the tide of ignorance and vitriol -- until yesterday.
At a town-hall event in Lakeville, Minnesota, an audience member told Sen. McCain, "Frankly, we're scared. We're scared of an Obama presidency."
Sen. McCain responded, "I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States."
The crowd rewarded their candidate with a chorus of boos.
Another supporter, an older woman, told Sen. McCain, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab."
Sen. McCain, shaking his head emphatically, took back the microphone and replied, "No, ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not."
An even louder round of groans and boos.
"No, no. I want everyone to be respectful. And let's make sure we are."
More booing.
"We want to fight and I will fight. But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him."
"Booooooooooo..."
Sen. McCain is in double trouble of his own making. On the one hand, his right-wing base doesn't want to be respectful -- they want to be angry, they want to be afraid, they want to absolutely hate the liberal-evil opposition. These folks are sustained by the inflammatory rhetoric of talk radio, and dammit, they expect the same on the stump. The bloodier the meat, the better they like it.
By attempting to diffuse the dark atmosphere he's allowed to gather around his campaign, however, Sen. McCain risks losing his grip on this fragile base -- which may not be all that significant in terms of numbers, but at this point the GOP ticket needs every vote it can get.
McCain-Palin's recent negative push, on the other hand, reportedly cost it support among independent and undecided voters -- me, for example -- who are far more crucial to its chances. No doubt that's why Sen. McCain is trying to un-ring this disturbing bell.
Either way, and despite belatedly honorable intentions, Sen. McCain now further exposes himself to Obama-Biden's charges of being "erratic" and exercising questionable judgment. Not good, perhaps even no-win.
Speaking for myself, it was encouraging to catch a brief glimpse of a John McCain who's worthy of my respect. Between now and November 4th, we'll see if he means what he said, if his calls for a more respectful tone extend beyond a few rallies and through the rest of his campaign.
Time is short. I'll be watching.
It's the sort of ugliness that can happen when a foundering campaign is running out of time. And Sen. John McCain, who long ago vowed to run "a respectful campaign," did nothing to throttle the tide of ignorance and vitriol -- until yesterday.
At a town-hall event in Lakeville, Minnesota, an audience member told Sen. McCain, "Frankly, we're scared. We're scared of an Obama presidency."
Sen. McCain responded, "I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States."
The crowd rewarded their candidate with a chorus of boos.
Another supporter, an older woman, told Sen. McCain, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab."
Sen. McCain, shaking his head emphatically, took back the microphone and replied, "No, ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not."An even louder round of groans and boos.
"No, no. I want everyone to be respectful. And let's make sure we are."
More booing.
"We want to fight and I will fight. But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him."
"Booooooooooo..."
Sen. McCain is in double trouble of his own making. On the one hand, his right-wing base doesn't want to be respectful -- they want to be angry, they want to be afraid, they want to absolutely hate the liberal-evil opposition. These folks are sustained by the inflammatory rhetoric of talk radio, and dammit, they expect the same on the stump. The bloodier the meat, the better they like it.
By attempting to diffuse the dark atmosphere he's allowed to gather around his campaign, however, Sen. McCain risks losing his grip on this fragile base -- which may not be all that significant in terms of numbers, but at this point the GOP ticket needs every vote it can get.
McCain-Palin's recent negative push, on the other hand, reportedly cost it support among independent and undecided voters -- me, for example -- who are far more crucial to its chances. No doubt that's why Sen. McCain is trying to un-ring this disturbing bell.
Either way, and despite belatedly honorable intentions, Sen. McCain now further exposes himself to Obama-Biden's charges of being "erratic" and exercising questionable judgment. Not good, perhaps even no-win.
Speaking for myself, it was encouraging to catch a brief glimpse of a John McCain who's worthy of my respect. Between now and November 4th, we'll see if he means what he said, if his calls for a more respectful tone extend beyond a few rallies and through the rest of his campaign.
Time is short. I'll be watching.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Poster boy
"I don't know how many ways you can interpret it. If you're an Obama supporter, you've got an Obama sticker on your car, you're not welcome to park here...I take offense at Mr. Obama running for President..." (Tim Henderson, owner of a parking lot in Gibsonville, North Carolina, to WFMY TV)
Signs of the Apocalypse
Joe Biden owns two shotguns, John McCain went an entire debate without saying "maverick," and Vanderbilt's football team is 5-0.
The U.S. government spends $85 billion to bail out AIG, learns that the company used $443,000 of that money for a spa weekend, and the next day hands AIG another $38 billion.
Paying $3.25 for a gallon of gas is a bargain, and investing in a money-market fund is a risk.
Lou Dobbs.
Bottled water, ethanol subsidies, hybrid pickup trucks, and the two-party system.
"Fair and balanced."
More conservative outrage over Barack Obama's middle name than over the government's trillion-dollar corporate bailout.
The decriminalization of illegal immigration, and the socialization of capitalism.
Cindy McCain's $500,000 convention wardrobe, and John McCain's $300 billion proposal that the government buy all bad mortgages.
The People's Republic of California.
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Gun owners who support Obama-Biden, and gun owners who believe that a vote for McCain-Palin will guarantee our Second Amendment rights.
Incumbents.
Placing a higher value on a lapel pin than on judgment.
Sarah Palin.
Insisting that candidates be specific -- and then actually believing what they say.
"I approved this message."
The U.S. government spends $85 billion to bail out AIG, learns that the company used $443,000 of that money for a spa weekend, and the next day hands AIG another $38 billion.
Paying $3.25 for a gallon of gas is a bargain, and investing in a money-market fund is a risk.
Lou Dobbs.
Bottled water, ethanol subsidies, hybrid pickup trucks, and the two-party system.
"Fair and balanced."
More conservative outrage over Barack Obama's middle name than over the government's trillion-dollar corporate bailout.
The decriminalization of illegal immigration, and the socialization of capitalism.
Cindy McCain's $500,000 convention wardrobe, and John McCain's $300 billion proposal that the government buy all bad mortgages.
The People's Republic of California.
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Gun owners who support Obama-Biden, and gun owners who believe that a vote for McCain-Palin will guarantee our Second Amendment rights.
Incumbents.
Placing a higher value on a lapel pin than on judgment.
Sarah Palin.
Insisting that candidates be specific -- and then actually believing what they say.
"I approved this message."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Debate II: The Bingo Card
Since last night's Presidential debate covered no new substantive ground, we might as well entertain ourselves by scoring what the candidates did (and didn't) say. To that end...
- Began a sentence with "Well": Obama 13, McCain 12.
- Began a sentence with "Look": McCain 4, Obama 4.
- Mentioned Pres. Bush: Obama 10, McCain 5.
- Mentioned Vice Pres. Cheney: McCain 1, Obama 0.
- Mentioned Sen. Biden: McCain 0, Obama 0.
- Mentioned Gov. Palin: McCain 0, Obama 0.
- Mentioned Iraq: Obama 8, McCain 7.
- Mentioned Osama bin Laden: Obama 7, McCain 1.
- Mentioned al Qaeda: McCain 3, Obama 3.
- Mentioned the Taliban: McCain 3, Obama 2.
- Called his opponent "Senator": Obama 45, McCain 31.
- Referred to his opponent by first name: Obama 1, McCain 0.
- Referred to his opponent as "that one": McCain 1, Obama 0.
- Addressed audience as "my friends": McCain 19, Obama 0.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Losing battle
Expecting Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama to keep their answers short -- or, for that matter, to answer questions directly -- is like stashing a keg of beer at a frat house and trusting the brothers not to tap it 'til after exams.
Forget about it, especially four weeks before Election Day.
Moderator Tom Brokaw lost control of tonight's debate early on. Truth is, he probably never had a chance -- the candidates knew what they wanted to do and did it. The "town hall" format, along with Mr. Brokaw pleading for compliance with agreed-on rules, made for a bumpy 90-minute ride.
Most of what we heard tonight was recycled from stump speeches and campaign talking points -- so once again, we learned virtually nothing of substance. A disappointment, but not a surprise.
Neither candidate was shy about attacking the other, usually at the expense of answering the question asked. Provoked or unprovoked, punch and counter-punch, an adversarial thread ran throughout the debate. The audience wasn't allowed to settle on what the two might have in common -- it was all about differences, such as they are.
The town-hall format was believed to favor Sen. McCain's familiar, guy-next-door style. A chair was set up for each candidate, presumably to give the on-deck person a place to light while the other spoke. Sen. Obama followed that etiquette, but more than once, Sen. McCain actually stalked his opponent around the stage.
It was at once embarrassing and hilarious to see the Republican, wearing that inimitable grin of his, shadow the Democrat while he was answering a question. In all my years working around public speakers and on-stage events, I've never seen anything like it.
As I did for the first two debates, I tuned-in to CNN with its real-time "dial tester" graphs. Again I watched the reactions of men vs. women, 25 undecided Central Ohioans, and I found their responses far more interesting than the debate itself.
Even when Sen. McCain "hit all the right notes," positive reactions were slow to build and seldom matched the highs achieved repeatedly by Sen. Obama's answers. Negative attacks and look-what-I've-done rhetoric cost the Republican quickly and more dearly than they did the Democrat. In both cases, I suspect that Sen. McCain's struggles trace to the economic crisis and the negative tone set by the GOP ticket over the last several days.
Most viewers will judge that Sen. Obama won this debate, and that's a reasonable conclusion. Sen. McCain, for all his experience in town-hall meetings, never found his game tonight. Even if he'd debated his opponent to a draw, it still would've been a battle lost -- he needed a win, not a standoff.
Forget about it, especially four weeks before Election Day.Moderator Tom Brokaw lost control of tonight's debate early on. Truth is, he probably never had a chance -- the candidates knew what they wanted to do and did it. The "town hall" format, along with Mr. Brokaw pleading for compliance with agreed-on rules, made for a bumpy 90-minute ride.
Most of what we heard tonight was recycled from stump speeches and campaign talking points -- so once again, we learned virtually nothing of substance. A disappointment, but not a surprise.
Neither candidate was shy about attacking the other, usually at the expense of answering the question asked. Provoked or unprovoked, punch and counter-punch, an adversarial thread ran throughout the debate. The audience wasn't allowed to settle on what the two might have in common -- it was all about differences, such as they are.
The town-hall format was believed to favor Sen. McCain's familiar, guy-next-door style. A chair was set up for each candidate, presumably to give the on-deck person a place to light while the other spoke. Sen. Obama followed that etiquette, but more than once, Sen. McCain actually stalked his opponent around the stage.
It was at once embarrassing and hilarious to see the Republican, wearing that inimitable grin of his, shadow the Democrat while he was answering a question. In all my years working around public speakers and on-stage events, I've never seen anything like it.
As I did for the first two debates, I tuned-in to CNN with its real-time "dial tester" graphs. Again I watched the reactions of men vs. women, 25 undecided Central Ohioans, and I found their responses far more interesting than the debate itself.
Even when Sen. McCain "hit all the right notes," positive reactions were slow to build and seldom matched the highs achieved repeatedly by Sen. Obama's answers. Negative attacks and look-what-I've-done rhetoric cost the Republican quickly and more dearly than they did the Democrat. In both cases, I suspect that Sen. McCain's struggles trace to the economic crisis and the negative tone set by the GOP ticket over the last several days.
Most viewers will judge that Sen. Obama won this debate, and that's a reasonable conclusion. Sen. McCain, for all his experience in town-hall meetings, never found his game tonight. Even if he'd debated his opponent to a draw, it still would've been a battle lost -- he needed a win, not a standoff.
Must-flee TV
Thanks to 24-hour news, American voters have an unprecedented opportunity to hear directly from the two major parties’ presidential candidates -- or to hear their canned stump speeches ad nauseum, anyway. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the same media can't fill 24 hours with Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama alone, so most of the political yammering we hear comes not from the candidates themselves, but from an army of paid strategists, professional surrogates and programmed supporters. It's "death by talking points," and it's not at all pretty.
Some of these mouthpieces are more appealing than others, or at least more tolerable, while a few practically beg us to run screaming from the room. Here, in my opinion, are the most annoying of an annoying breed.
(And no, James Carville isn't on the list.)
#5 - Mark Penn
Strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton
Mr. Penn's on-camera appearances were rarer than other Clinton surrogates', but during the primary season he was largely responsible for what they said. Widely regarded as the Democrats' version of Karl Rove, his take-no-prisoners tactics nearly crippled his party. Not my cup of latte.
#4 - Tucker Bounds
Spokesperson for McCain-Palin
To be the go-to talking head for a major presidential campaign at the tender age of 29 is quite an accomplishment -- unfortunately, Mr. Bounds lacks the chops to pull it off with any credibility. Clearly out of his depth, he puts my cringe reflex into a full-on cramp in 30 seconds or less. Come back in 2016, Mr. Bounds.
#3 - Nancy Pfontenhauer
Senior adviser to McCain-Palin
One by one, Sen. McCain's spokespersons are falling from favor, and these days Ms. Pfontenhauer is in the barrel. With no knack for disagreeing without being disagreeable, the statuesque surrogate always seems to level an implicit "You idiot!" at her opposition. Stop already. Click.
#2 - Lanny Davis
Surrogate for Sen. Hillary Clinton
Mr. Davis needs neither an introduction nor any help practicing political pyromania. During the last primaries, he peddled scorched earth with vigor and glee, a reminder of what's wrong with our politics. His fading from the national scene is a blessing, and should he someday reappear on my Sony, his immediate disappearance is assured.
#1 - Sarah Palin
Way-overexposed hockey mom
No contest here. Dick Vitale may still be the best argument for the MUTE button, but Gov. Palin is the best reason to memorize the location of the nearest fire escape. I've been watching her populist-pabulum act for about six weeks now and I've had entirely enough -- I mean, Tina Fey isn't the only one who's tired. I think my sock drawer needs attention.
The bad news is that the same media can't fill 24 hours with Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama alone, so most of the political yammering we hear comes not from the candidates themselves, but from an army of paid strategists, professional surrogates and programmed supporters. It's "death by talking points," and it's not at all pretty.
Some of these mouthpieces are more appealing than others, or at least more tolerable, while a few practically beg us to run screaming from the room. Here, in my opinion, are the most annoying of an annoying breed.
(And no, James Carville isn't on the list.)
#5 - Mark PennStrategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton
Mr. Penn's on-camera appearances were rarer than other Clinton surrogates', but during the primary season he was largely responsible for what they said. Widely regarded as the Democrats' version of Karl Rove, his take-no-prisoners tactics nearly crippled his party. Not my cup of latte.
#4 - Tucker BoundsSpokesperson for McCain-Palin
To be the go-to talking head for a major presidential campaign at the tender age of 29 is quite an accomplishment -- unfortunately, Mr. Bounds lacks the chops to pull it off with any credibility. Clearly out of his depth, he puts my cringe reflex into a full-on cramp in 30 seconds or less. Come back in 2016, Mr. Bounds.
#3 - Nancy PfontenhauerSenior adviser to McCain-Palin
One by one, Sen. McCain's spokespersons are falling from favor, and these days Ms. Pfontenhauer is in the barrel. With no knack for disagreeing without being disagreeable, the statuesque surrogate always seems to level an implicit "You idiot!" at her opposition. Stop already. Click.
#2 - Lanny DavisSurrogate for Sen. Hillary Clinton
Mr. Davis needs neither an introduction nor any help practicing political pyromania. During the last primaries, he peddled scorched earth with vigor and glee, a reminder of what's wrong with our politics. His fading from the national scene is a blessing, and should he someday reappear on my Sony, his immediate disappearance is assured.
#1 - Sarah PalinWay-overexposed hockey mom
No contest here. Dick Vitale may still be the best argument for the MUTE button, but Gov. Palin is the best reason to memorize the location of the nearest fire escape. I've been watching her populist-pabulum act for about six weeks now and I've had entirely enough -- I mean, Tina Fey isn't the only one who's tired. I think my sock drawer needs attention.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Today's riddle
Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified today before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, enduring the first lashes of a public flogging.
Mr. Fuld and his associates are being "investigated" for (allegedly) misleading the public about the condition of the company, inflating executive compensation and committing outright criminal fraud. Mr. Fuld himself walked away from Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy last month, with almost $500 million.
Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman said, "Mr. Fuld takes no responsibility for the collapse of Lehman," calling the investment bank "a company in which there was no accountability for failure."
"It seems like the system worked for you but it didn't seem to work for the rest of the country," said Rep. Waxman.
The irony here is inescapable.
Greedy Wall Street execs may deserve to be castigated, even indicted -- but self-righteous lawmakers, along with this President and his administration, likewise ought to be held accountable for gross mismanagement of the enterprise we call the United States of America.
The body of evidence includes crippling deficits and out-of-control spending. For personal gain and political advantage, our elected representatives have misappropriated funds and misrepresented the state of The Union. They've continued to dismantle the free market. Worst of all, they assault our Constitution and dilute our very independence.
The riddle is as obvious as the answer: What makes our government officials any different from the corporate barons they're investigating?
Mr. Fuld and his associates are being "investigated" for (allegedly) misleading the public about the condition of the company, inflating executive compensation and committing outright criminal fraud. Mr. Fuld himself walked away from Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy last month, with almost $500 million.
Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman said, "Mr. Fuld takes no responsibility for the collapse of Lehman," calling the investment bank "a company in which there was no accountability for failure."
"It seems like the system worked for you but it didn't seem to work for the rest of the country," said Rep. Waxman.
The irony here is inescapable.
Greedy Wall Street execs may deserve to be castigated, even indicted -- but self-righteous lawmakers, along with this President and his administration, likewise ought to be held accountable for gross mismanagement of the enterprise we call the United States of America.
The body of evidence includes crippling deficits and out-of-control spending. For personal gain and political advantage, our elected representatives have misappropriated funds and misrepresented the state of The Union. They've continued to dismantle the free market. Worst of all, they assault our Constitution and dilute our very independence.
The riddle is as obvious as the answer: What makes our government officials any different from the corporate barons they're investigating?
A decade's difference
This morning, my mind drifts back to a time when I worked in the executive suite of a Fortune 50 financial-services company. Specifically, I'm remembering a conversation I had with the business editor of a major-metro newspaper on the day that the Dow Jones Industrial Average first closed above 10,000.
It was a time of great optimism -- we had no reason to believe that our economy would do anything but continue to grow.
I was quoted on page one of the next morning's edition, and that clip graced the wall of my office for many years thereafter. It wasn't displayed as a feather in my professional cap -- rather, it was a symbol of personal pride in my country's economic promise.
That was in March of 1999. Over the next eight-and-a-half years, albeit with a few setbacks, I watched the index claw its way to an all-time record close of 14,164 -- almost exactly one year ago today.
Now, scarcely 90 minutes into this trading week, I've seen the Dow dip as low as 9,738. It's certain to go lower than that.
Ok, so the day isn't over...and it's only one day...and one day doesn't constitute a trend...ya-da, ya-da, ya-da. If I hadn't traded my Pollyanna doll on a bullshit detector, I might still be singing that old song.
Our economy has bled off 32% of market capital in less than a year, almost a third of that in the last ten trading days -- but if the stock market seems too remote to be relevant, consider that during the same period, unemployment is up 23% and payrolls are down by more than a million jobs.
Credit is frozen, wages are down, and the housing crisis threatens to swallow hard-working Americans who haven't already been devastated by the loss of a job or the higher cost of commuting to work, keeping the lights on and feeding a family.
(Without descending into detail here, let's just say that I have first-hand experience with all of the above -- despite working hard and making sound financial decisions all of my adult life.)
Against that backdrop -- three days after taxpayers were fleeced of a trillion dollars, and with a war in Iraq that's a parasite both on our economy and on our national security -- McCain-Palin wants me to care about some '60s radical?
I call bullshit.
(Edit at 4:20pm: The Dow ended today's session at 9,955.50, a loss of 369.88. By 2:45pm, the index had fallen to 9,503 -- a record single-day loss of 800 points, eclipsing the mark of 777 set a week ago -- but picked itself up off the floor in the last hour. McCain-Palin, of course, continues to sling meaningless mud and give short shrift to the issues. Bullshit.)
It was a time of great optimism -- we had no reason to believe that our economy would do anything but continue to grow.
I was quoted on page one of the next morning's edition, and that clip graced the wall of my office for many years thereafter. It wasn't displayed as a feather in my professional cap -- rather, it was a symbol of personal pride in my country's economic promise.
That was in March of 1999. Over the next eight-and-a-half years, albeit with a few setbacks, I watched the index claw its way to an all-time record close of 14,164 -- almost exactly one year ago today.
Now, scarcely 90 minutes into this trading week, I've seen the Dow dip as low as 9,738. It's certain to go lower than that.
Ok, so the day isn't over...and it's only one day...and one day doesn't constitute a trend...ya-da, ya-da, ya-da. If I hadn't traded my Pollyanna doll on a bullshit detector, I might still be singing that old song.Our economy has bled off 32% of market capital in less than a year, almost a third of that in the last ten trading days -- but if the stock market seems too remote to be relevant, consider that during the same period, unemployment is up 23% and payrolls are down by more than a million jobs.
Credit is frozen, wages are down, and the housing crisis threatens to swallow hard-working Americans who haven't already been devastated by the loss of a job or the higher cost of commuting to work, keeping the lights on and feeding a family.
(Without descending into detail here, let's just say that I have first-hand experience with all of the above -- despite working hard and making sound financial decisions all of my adult life.)
Against that backdrop -- three days after taxpayers were fleeced of a trillion dollars, and with a war in Iraq that's a parasite both on our economy and on our national security -- McCain-Palin wants me to care about some '60s radical?
I call bullshit.
(Edit at 4:20pm: The Dow ended today's session at 9,955.50, a loss of 369.88. By 2:45pm, the index had fallen to 9,503 -- a record single-day loss of 800 points, eclipsing the mark of 777 set a week ago -- but picked itself up off the floor in the last hour. McCain-Palin, of course, continues to sling meaningless mud and give short shrift to the issues. Bullshit.)
Clip joint
"...the Fresh Prince vs. Fred Mertz. At least they talked in complete sentences." (Comedian Robin Williams, performing last night at the Palace Theatre in Columbus, Ohio, on the first Presidential Debate)
"Where did they find her, some political reality show? 'Project Running Mate'?" (Williams, on Gov. Sarah Palin)
"I don’t know about you, but I want that dream back. I want my America back. I want my country back." (Singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen, during a free performance yesterday at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, in support of Sen. Barack Obama)
"No, this is not a man who sees America as you and I see America. We see America, as a force for good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism. [sic] Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who target their own country." (Gov. Palin, at a rally on Saturday in Orange County, California, on Sen. Obama's "relationship" with Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers)
"The heels are on, the gloves are off." (Gov. Palin, on her campaign wardrobe)
"We're going to get a little tougher. We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here." (unnamed senior Republican operative, on Sen. Obama, to The Washington Post on condition of anonymity)
"We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans...." (Greg Strimple, McCain-Palin campaign adviser, to The Washington Post)
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Desperate? Darn tootin'!
Late last night, I was basking in the afterglow of my Buckeyes' come-from-behind win over the band-less Badgers, a classic punch-in-the-mouth Big Ten football game. Surfing from Dispatch.com to ESPN.com and finally over to SI.com, I inadvertently clicked on the CNN logo, launching the headline story: "Palin hits Obama for 'terrorist' connection."
What a buzz-kill.
At a time when these candidates have no shortage of relevant issues to talk about, McCain-Palin has resorted to pandering to gullible voters with the myth of Sen. Barack Obama's "relationship" with Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers -- a contention roundly debunked many months ago.
It's the latest in a string of desperate moves by the GOP, intended to divert support away from Obama-Biden. The campaign seems to be ignoring, however, that these frantic ploys will work only if votes shift directly to (or turn out specifically for) McCain-Palin. With polls indicating growing support for the Democratic ticket, it could be that McCain-Palin's negative attacks are having precisely the opposite effect.
See, I'm one of those people who won't vote for Obama-Biden, period, and given a choice between a Democratic or a Republican victory, I'd prefer (reluctantly and by default) that Sen. John McCain be elected the next President of the United States -- but McCain-Palin keeps giving me reasons not to cast a so-called "defensive vote."
It's no secret that I view Sen. McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as an egregious tactical "hail Mary" and nothing more. Instead of being asked to consider a running mate who's actually qualified, American voters have been treated to a bad remake of Fargo -- a winking, babbling, you-betcha darlin' who makes Dan Quayle look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
On September 25th, Sen. McCain announced that he'd temporarily suspended his campaign to devote all of his time, energy and "influence" to the corporate-bailout legislation -- a transparent political antic that completely backfired when House Republicans went south and the markets followed. I won't get into Sen. McCain's dishonorable conduct surrounding the announcement itself, but let’s not forget his proposal that the first Presidential debate be pushed back by a week and the Vice Presidential debate scheduled for that day be postponed indefinitely -- for obvious reasons.
Then last week, McCain-Palin confirmed that it'd no longer spend time or resources in Michigan, all but conceding the state to Obama-Biden. For a campaign short of funds, it'd seem to be a reasonable decision -- except for the message it sends to voters enduring similarly dire economic conditions. Strategically, it was a terrible move.
And now McCain-Palin is coming back with the discredited Ayers canard -- what's next? The reappearance of Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Incriminating photos of those fake columns at the Democratic convention? Sen. McCain pledging to serve only one term? The mind reels.
If I object to Washington's spin-dominated culture and decry the lack of honor in government, and yet I support a ticket that relies so heavily on stunts, half-truths and disinformation, my vote is no less corrupt. Simply not being Obama-Biden isn't good enough for me.
Right now, McCain-Palin doesn't deserve my vote. Short of suffering a sudden spasm of integrity, the Republican ticket has no chance of earning it.
What a buzz-kill.
At a time when these candidates have no shortage of relevant issues to talk about, McCain-Palin has resorted to pandering to gullible voters with the myth of Sen. Barack Obama's "relationship" with Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers -- a contention roundly debunked many months ago.
It's the latest in a string of desperate moves by the GOP, intended to divert support away from Obama-Biden. The campaign seems to be ignoring, however, that these frantic ploys will work only if votes shift directly to (or turn out specifically for) McCain-Palin. With polls indicating growing support for the Democratic ticket, it could be that McCain-Palin's negative attacks are having precisely the opposite effect.See, I'm one of those people who won't vote for Obama-Biden, period, and given a choice between a Democratic or a Republican victory, I'd prefer (reluctantly and by default) that Sen. John McCain be elected the next President of the United States -- but McCain-Palin keeps giving me reasons not to cast a so-called "defensive vote."
It's no secret that I view Sen. McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as an egregious tactical "hail Mary" and nothing more. Instead of being asked to consider a running mate who's actually qualified, American voters have been treated to a bad remake of Fargo -- a winking, babbling, you-betcha darlin' who makes Dan Quayle look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan.On September 25th, Sen. McCain announced that he'd temporarily suspended his campaign to devote all of his time, energy and "influence" to the corporate-bailout legislation -- a transparent political antic that completely backfired when House Republicans went south and the markets followed. I won't get into Sen. McCain's dishonorable conduct surrounding the announcement itself, but let’s not forget his proposal that the first Presidential debate be pushed back by a week and the Vice Presidential debate scheduled for that day be postponed indefinitely -- for obvious reasons.
Then last week, McCain-Palin confirmed that it'd no longer spend time or resources in Michigan, all but conceding the state to Obama-Biden. For a campaign short of funds, it'd seem to be a reasonable decision -- except for the message it sends to voters enduring similarly dire economic conditions. Strategically, it was a terrible move.
And now McCain-Palin is coming back with the discredited Ayers canard -- what's next? The reappearance of Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Incriminating photos of those fake columns at the Democratic convention? Sen. McCain pledging to serve only one term? The mind reels.
If I object to Washington's spin-dominated culture and decry the lack of honor in government, and yet I support a ticket that relies so heavily on stunts, half-truths and disinformation, my vote is no less corrupt. Simply not being Obama-Biden isn't good enough for me.
Right now, McCain-Palin doesn't deserve my vote. Short of suffering a sudden spasm of integrity, the Republican ticket has no chance of earning it.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
'I'll come back for that'
One month from today, when I go to the polls, I'll remember that picture.
All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are up for election on November 4th. Yesterday afternoon, 263 members of "the people's house" defied the will of their constituents and voted in favor of the trillion-dollar corporate-bailout bill, two days after 74 members of the U.S. Senate approved the same pork-laden legislation. A total of 35 Senate seats will be contested in the upcoming election.
I can't speak for others, but the self-congratulatory smile on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's face is all the fuel I need to stoke my anti-incumbent ire.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Gekko's echo
The fictional Gordon Gekko, portrayed by Michael Douglas in the 1987 film Wall Street, had a way of cutting through crap. His "greed" soliloquy is studied in the halls of academia and repeated in the towers of corporate finance.
Were Mr. Gekko a member of the 110th Congress, however, I suspect he’d be thumping a different drum. As I watch the House join the Senate in lifting a trillion dollars from the American taxpayer's pocket, and with apologies to the screenwriter, I can imagine Mr. Gekko making this speech from the well:
What we've seen since Monday's unconsciously correct vote by the House is frenzied trading in the real coin of the political realm: fear. We watched 535 legislators, along with a tide of constituents, frightened from principled restraint into ill-advised action.
Last one to leave, please get the light.
Were Mr. Gekko a member of the 110th Congress, however, I suspect he’d be thumping a different drum. As I watch the House join the Senate in lifting a trillion dollars from the American taxpayer's pocket, and with apologies to the screenwriter, I can imagine Mr. Gekko making this speech from the well:
Never mind how we got here. Forget, at least for the moment, the sheer futility of this legislative stunt."The point is, ladies and gentleman, that fear -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
"Fear is right. Fear works.
"Fear clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
"Fear, in all of its forms -- fear for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
"And fear -- you mark my words -- will not only save this bailout, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
What we've seen since Monday's unconsciously correct vote by the House is frenzied trading in the real coin of the political realm: fear. We watched 535 legislators, along with a tide of constituents, frightened from principled restraint into ill-advised action.
Last one to leave, please get the light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
