Every now and then, I like to shine a spotlight on the shenanigans of our beloved U.S. Congress and its members. After all, there’s so much “news” being generated in this town that it’s nearly impossible to catch it all. So with this feature, I’ll try and call attention to items that should really make Americans’ blood boil. Rest assured, this column will be an equal-opportunity critic — challenging both Democrats and Republicans.
This week’s spotlight looks at a story that barely registered a blip on Washington’s audacity-meter last week. I’m referring to a story in Congress Daily reporting on turmoil within the House Homeland Security panel.
Apparently, Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) likes the work of a staffer named Lanier Avant. In fact, he likes the 30-year-old aide so much that he made him not only the chief of staff for his congressional office, but also for the entire committee. What chafes me and most readers is Avant’s admission to Congress Daily that he does “the bulk of [Thompson’s] political work.” Whoa! Time-out … Since when did a pedigree on campaigning prepare a staff director to draft national security legislation?
I’m not the only one bothered by this. The Congress Daily piece goes on to quote unnamed sources who (legitimately) have a problem with Avant’s lack of a security clearance. C’mon, folks. Chairman Thompson wouldn’t go to a surgeon without a medical degree, no matter how much the referring physician liked him; so why does he jeopardize the integrity of his committee with such a move?
I’m sorry, but “fitting the qualifications of the chairman” does not constitute competency, as Thompson argues. Further, because he doesn’t even have a security clearance, Avant is seemingly unfit to create policy decisions that require classified details. I recognize the media and Internet offer Americans a sense that they know every threat detail to America, but legislating requires information beyond pedestrian reaches. Avant’s lack of access fundamentally risks the decisions executed regarding homeland security.
Since Avant has taken over the committee, Rep. Thompson’s pet issue — the treatment of small, disadvantaged businesses — has apparently become the committee’s chief issue, causing many to question the use of committee resources. Of course, equal opportunity for small businesses is important, but making that the focus of policy ignores a host of specters that threaten the homeland.
Even Avant has admitted his knowledge of the military, intel and the Department of Homeland security is absent, but he still believes all that can be ignored because he “know[s] Washington.” Well, I disagree. If you are a staff director to the Homeland Security Committee, you ought to know a little bit about the subject — or at least have access to all the information (like maybe having a security clearance). But I guess these days, policymaking and America’s security aren’t defined by what you know about the issue, it’s what you know about politics.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
From Iraq with Love
I can’t get over the media circus surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Never mind that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) didn’t even whiff the rarified air of the network anchors on his multiple trips overseas. We’ll just chalk that up to another instance of media bias. But something deeper is being established here.
Apparently, Obama’s handlers have deluded themselves into believing their guy can transform into some über-diplomat simply by visiting the country for a few hours. Need to burnish some foreign policy credentials for your presidential campaign? No problem, just hit the road to the remotest regions of the world and voilà — instant international policy expert.
I’m not saying that Sen. McCain is completely innocent of such tactics. Many in Washington were scratching their heads while he was traipsing through the jungles of Colombia last month — burning precious time reserved for the campaign trail. But then came the freeing of hostages held by the FARC Colombian rebels, and McCain looked, well, presidential.
Perhaps these moves are more sophisticated than they first appear. Maybe Americans appreciate the fact that their candidates are traveling beyond the confines of America and seeing the world firsthand. Perhaps … but do not be deceived, these are trips staged to the finest detail, with little left to chance and happenstance. Sen. Obama knows this, and has treated it as such — an extension of his political campaign. Why do you think the network anchors are along for the ride? It’s surely not because of the news quotient that the “surge” is working.
And while I’m on the subject, would the senator from Illinois please stop trying to ride both sides of the troop withdrawal issue? For as long as I can remember, Democrats have chided, goaded and even threatened the government of Iraq into a timetable in order to get them to “take more responsibility” for their security situation. For months, these individuals were practically insulting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his ability to lead, implying they knew what the prime minister needed to turn the ship of state around. And now, when Maliki hints a timetable is in his country’s best interests, Sen. Obama is all too eager to sit down and praise the Iraqi leader’s prescience and wisdom on the matter. Somebody cue the commercial …
Never mind that all of Maliki’s statements have added the corollary that when the conditions are right, and the entire country is stabilized from a security perspective, then a timeline is appropriate and in order.
The old saw that politics stops at the nation’s shores no longer seems to apply in today’s campaigns. Only the voters can decide if that’s a good thing or not. I just wish the candidates weren’t so politically opportunistic about it.
Apparently, Obama’s handlers have deluded themselves into believing their guy can transform into some über-diplomat simply by visiting the country for a few hours. Need to burnish some foreign policy credentials for your presidential campaign? No problem, just hit the road to the remotest regions of the world and voilà — instant international policy expert.
I’m not saying that Sen. McCain is completely innocent of such tactics. Many in Washington were scratching their heads while he was traipsing through the jungles of Colombia last month — burning precious time reserved for the campaign trail. But then came the freeing of hostages held by the FARC Colombian rebels, and McCain looked, well, presidential.
Perhaps these moves are more sophisticated than they first appear. Maybe Americans appreciate the fact that their candidates are traveling beyond the confines of America and seeing the world firsthand. Perhaps … but do not be deceived, these are trips staged to the finest detail, with little left to chance and happenstance. Sen. Obama knows this, and has treated it as such — an extension of his political campaign. Why do you think the network anchors are along for the ride? It’s surely not because of the news quotient that the “surge” is working.
And while I’m on the subject, would the senator from Illinois please stop trying to ride both sides of the troop withdrawal issue? For as long as I can remember, Democrats have chided, goaded and even threatened the government of Iraq into a timetable in order to get them to “take more responsibility” for their security situation. For months, these individuals were practically insulting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his ability to lead, implying they knew what the prime minister needed to turn the ship of state around. And now, when Maliki hints a timetable is in his country’s best interests, Sen. Obama is all too eager to sit down and praise the Iraqi leader’s prescience and wisdom on the matter. Somebody cue the commercial …
Never mind that all of Maliki’s statements have added the corollary that when the conditions are right, and the entire country is stabilized from a security perspective, then a timeline is appropriate and in order.
The old saw that politics stops at the nation’s shores no longer seems to apply in today’s campaigns. Only the voters can decide if that’s a good thing or not. I just wish the candidates weren’t so politically opportunistic about it.
Is Obama a Trojan Horse?
Armstrong Williams says that Sen. Barack Obama has changed his positions so much that he may not be as liberal as he appears to be.
Relevance of the NAACP
Armstrong Williams says the NAACP is loosing its relevance in today's society, and he wonders why presidential candidates are compelled to speak at their annual convention.
Greed Gone Wild
As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac flounder around on the verge of collapse, who do they turn to as the lender of last resort?
Why, the American taxpayer, of course.
At the beginning of his administration, President Bush made it clear that the government would not provide guarantees against the risk associated with these companies’ activities. The firms’ leaders balked as this because, after all, they had the sweetest of sweetheart deals going. They would share in millions of dollars in executive options and bonuses if things went well, while shouldering none of the risk if things went badly. After all, the government would never let the nation’s largest mortgage lenders fail.
To these guys, making money at Fannie and Freddie seemed almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Only now is the picture becoming clear. The massive risks that these corporations shouldered, including accounting irregularities used to overstate profits (and thus increase executive compensation), are now coming back to haunt these institutions and compound the crisis facing the U.S. mortgage industry.
Corporations that traditionally acted much more conservatively than private institutions, Fannie and Freddie were once the bulwark’s of the mortgage lending system. Now they stand as stark examples of greed run amok.
Why, the American taxpayer, of course.
At the beginning of his administration, President Bush made it clear that the government would not provide guarantees against the risk associated with these companies’ activities. The firms’ leaders balked as this because, after all, they had the sweetest of sweetheart deals going. They would share in millions of dollars in executive options and bonuses if things went well, while shouldering none of the risk if things went badly. After all, the government would never let the nation’s largest mortgage lenders fail.
To these guys, making money at Fannie and Freddie seemed almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Only now is the picture becoming clear. The massive risks that these corporations shouldered, including accounting irregularities used to overstate profits (and thus increase executive compensation), are now coming back to haunt these institutions and compound the crisis facing the U.S. mortgage industry.
Corporations that traditionally acted much more conservatively than private institutions, Fannie and Freddie were once the bulwark’s of the mortgage lending system. Now they stand as stark examples of greed run amok.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
A Gramm of Truth
Could it be that Americans have brought this economy to the brink of recession simply by thinking it? Could it be that our nation’s leaders have failed to repudiate the assumption of economic failure even though they knew it to be false? Could it be that Phil Gramm is right — have we become a nation of whiners?
Last week, Gramm was denounced for commenting that our country is not suffering an economic recession, but a mental one. The fact of the matter is, he’s on the mark. Did his candor lack compassion? Perhaps. But any basic Econ 101 student could tell you America is not in a recession. By definition, a recession is when an economy shrinks two quarters in a row. In reality, the United States grew 0.6 percent each of the past two quarters, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, 0.6 percent is nothing to write home about, but it’s growth; and that means the “recession” definition need not apply.
Sadly, members of Congress have done nothing to convince us we aren’t actually in a recession either. After all, it doesn’t fit their MO going into Election Day. If they can blame someone or something else and sidestep the tough choices (and tough words) to avoid blame, then you can bet they’ll do it. If everyone’s the victim, then no one’s the perpetrator, and that includes the policymakers. So they step carefully, often avoiding the decisions that would make a difference, and walk the path of least resistance.
Beyond pointing out that we are only in a mental recession, Sen. Gramm called America a nation of whiners. Well, are we? Let’s see, we whine because we don’t go to work. And when we do have a job, we whine because it won’t pay enough. We whine that some people have too much money. We whine that we don’t have enough. We whine because some guy says we whine! I’m just saying — maybe he has a point.
There is no denying our economy is not growing at the pace of a China or India. But simply because we aren’t growing quickly enough does not mean we’re receding. We have scared ourselves into thinking the economy is headed toward depression; and Congress is doing nothing to change our minds or the policies. They have simply accepted our whining and helped us pass the buck to the president, to immigrants, to outsourcing, to anyone but themselves.
If we want to talk about the loss of American competitiveness, let’s blame our own ineptitude that is keeping us from researching, analyzing and thinking for ourselves. Our parents and grandparents didn’t just sit back and let others tell us what to do or think. Perhaps we should follow their example and ignore what Washington thinks is best.
Last week, Gramm was denounced for commenting that our country is not suffering an economic recession, but a mental one. The fact of the matter is, he’s on the mark. Did his candor lack compassion? Perhaps. But any basic Econ 101 student could tell you America is not in a recession. By definition, a recession is when an economy shrinks two quarters in a row. In reality, the United States grew 0.6 percent each of the past two quarters, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, 0.6 percent is nothing to write home about, but it’s growth; and that means the “recession” definition need not apply.
Sadly, members of Congress have done nothing to convince us we aren’t actually in a recession either. After all, it doesn’t fit their MO going into Election Day. If they can blame someone or something else and sidestep the tough choices (and tough words) to avoid blame, then you can bet they’ll do it. If everyone’s the victim, then no one’s the perpetrator, and that includes the policymakers. So they step carefully, often avoiding the decisions that would make a difference, and walk the path of least resistance.
Beyond pointing out that we are only in a mental recession, Sen. Gramm called America a nation of whiners. Well, are we? Let’s see, we whine because we don’t go to work. And when we do have a job, we whine because it won’t pay enough. We whine that some people have too much money. We whine that we don’t have enough. We whine because some guy says we whine! I’m just saying — maybe he has a point.
There is no denying our economy is not growing at the pace of a China or India. But simply because we aren’t growing quickly enough does not mean we’re receding. We have scared ourselves into thinking the economy is headed toward depression; and Congress is doing nothing to change our minds or the policies. They have simply accepted our whining and helped us pass the buck to the president, to immigrants, to outsourcing, to anyone but themselves.
If we want to talk about the loss of American competitiveness, let’s blame our own ineptitude that is keeping us from researching, analyzing and thinking for ourselves. Our parents and grandparents didn’t just sit back and let others tell us what to do or think. Perhaps we should follow their example and ignore what Washington thinks is best.
A Citizen’s Dream Deferred
Many D.C. residents are breathing a sigh of relief now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the city’s longstanding handgun ban. Finally, we are free to protect ourselves from the tyranny of crime!!!
Some of us can’t wait to begin the process of taking our homes back from the thugs and murderers who terrorized the city for years without repudiation. However, D.C.’s proposed regulations, while allowing residents to keep registered handguns in their homes, nonetheless contain restrictions that will keep them from using them for their intended purpose.
Incredibly, the regulations stipulate that the guns have to be kept disassembled and unloaded when not being used. What is the point of having a gun for self-protection when you’ll already be dead and gone by the time you get a chance to use it in self-defense?
Not only does D.C.’s proposed law run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision, it runs afoul of common sense. It’s akin to legalizing cars but outlawing fuel.
It is preposterous to believe that the majority of residents who will keep handguns in their homes will store them disassembled and unloaded. The D.C. government has to know that a court challenge will likely result in the repeal of this provision. But that could take months, and in the meantime D.C.’s political posturing would be putting residents at increased risk.
The law will unfairly burden legitimate gun owners with potential criminal liability in the event of an accident. Not to mention the fact that it will continue to give criminals all the time they need time to draw, aim and fire.
Some of us can’t wait to begin the process of taking our homes back from the thugs and murderers who terrorized the city for years without repudiation. However, D.C.’s proposed regulations, while allowing residents to keep registered handguns in their homes, nonetheless contain restrictions that will keep them from using them for their intended purpose.
Incredibly, the regulations stipulate that the guns have to be kept disassembled and unloaded when not being used. What is the point of having a gun for self-protection when you’ll already be dead and gone by the time you get a chance to use it in self-defense?
Not only does D.C.’s proposed law run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision, it runs afoul of common sense. It’s akin to legalizing cars but outlawing fuel.
It is preposterous to believe that the majority of residents who will keep handguns in their homes will store them disassembled and unloaded. The D.C. government has to know that a court challenge will likely result in the repeal of this provision. But that could take months, and in the meantime D.C.’s political posturing would be putting residents at increased risk.
The law will unfairly burden legitimate gun owners with potential criminal liability in the event of an accident. Not to mention the fact that it will continue to give criminals all the time they need time to draw, aim and fire.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Fractional Reserve Disaster
There is no question that the financial markets are facing a liquidity crisis of unimaginable proportions. But the federal government seems to be sending a clear message: It will only save some of these institutions on the condition that stringent new regulatory oversight rules are passed.
Normally, laissez-faire business types decry such government intervention, claiming that it interferes with a free market. But sadly, none of them seems to have a problem accepting a handout from the government when they find they can't back the risky plays they called.
Yet it seems almost hypocritical for the government to go around pointing fingers, when its own chartered institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also teeter on the verge of collapse as a result of risky lending practices. Astoundingly, although only a small percentage of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans are in distress, the institutions are so over-leveraged that they can't cover the bill.
Furthermore, the failures of large regional banks, including last week's FDIC takeover of Indy Bank, point to a much deeper problem: the failure of fractional reserve banking as a whole. Despite a concerted last-ditch effort to save the bank, and despite having over $20 billion in deposits, less than $1 billion of which was uninsured by the FDIC, there was still a run on the bank that caused it to be closed Friday by the Office of Thrift Supervision. The question is whether there were really so many panicked depositors seeking to withdraw funds, or whether the cash reserve ratios of large banks are too low to justify the risks they are taking with their investments.
Normally, laissez-faire business types decry such government intervention, claiming that it interferes with a free market. But sadly, none of them seems to have a problem accepting a handout from the government when they find they can't back the risky plays they called.
Yet it seems almost hypocritical for the government to go around pointing fingers, when its own chartered institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also teeter on the verge of collapse as a result of risky lending practices. Astoundingly, although only a small percentage of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans are in distress, the institutions are so over-leveraged that they can't cover the bill.
Furthermore, the failures of large regional banks, including last week's FDIC takeover of Indy Bank, point to a much deeper problem: the failure of fractional reserve banking as a whole. Despite a concerted last-ditch effort to save the bank, and despite having over $20 billion in deposits, less than $1 billion of which was uninsured by the FDIC, there was still a run on the bank that caused it to be closed Friday by the Office of Thrift Supervision. The question is whether there were really so many panicked depositors seeking to withdraw funds, or whether the cash reserve ratios of large banks are too low to justify the risks they are taking with their investments.
Sad McCain
Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) rather embarrassing conversation onboard a bus recently, in which he was left speechless when asked whether insurance companies’ coverage of Viagra and not of birth control constituted gender discrimination, revealed a surprisingly timid and indecisive side of the prospective president.
McCain’s inability to stand up for his belief is a disturbing flaw that is hard to reconcile with real leadership. The simple answer to the question should have been “absolutely not.” Insurance companies should be in the business of protecting people’s health, not enabling people’s lifestyle choices.
While widely misused, Viagra is designed to cure a diagnosed condition affecting millions of people: erectile dysfunction. Birth control does not cover any pre-existing condition, and merely protects against the consequences of bad decisions about sexual conduct. While Viagra has a marginal medical purpose, it is probably over-prescribed.
Both of these drugs end up being harmful to society because they facilitate, if not promote, the focus on animalistic, base desires in people. In the case of Viagra, it has become a runaway success even among people without diagnosed erectile dysfunction, a kind of recreational drug that, when used outside of its intended purpose, can have dire effects.
Birth control has become synonymous with unprotected sex between unwed partners — sex without responsibility. Both should be highly curtailed in insurance coverage. While there are definitely issues about which politicians can refrain from deciding under the media’s glare, McCain’s painful waffling suggests a deep insecurity about his own past voting record. That is what’s inexcusable here.
McCain’s inability to stand up for his belief is a disturbing flaw that is hard to reconcile with real leadership. The simple answer to the question should have been “absolutely not.” Insurance companies should be in the business of protecting people’s health, not enabling people’s lifestyle choices.
While widely misused, Viagra is designed to cure a diagnosed condition affecting millions of people: erectile dysfunction. Birth control does not cover any pre-existing condition, and merely protects against the consequences of bad decisions about sexual conduct. While Viagra has a marginal medical purpose, it is probably over-prescribed.
Both of these drugs end up being harmful to society because they facilitate, if not promote, the focus on animalistic, base desires in people. In the case of Viagra, it has become a runaway success even among people without diagnosed erectile dysfunction, a kind of recreational drug that, when used outside of its intended purpose, can have dire effects.
Birth control has become synonymous with unprotected sex between unwed partners — sex without responsibility. Both should be highly curtailed in insurance coverage. While there are definitely issues about which politicians can refrain from deciding under the media’s glare, McCain’s painful waffling suggests a deep insecurity about his own past voting record. That is what’s inexcusable here.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Jackson’s Graceless Exit
Jesse Jackson’s remarks suggesting he wanted to castrate Obama not only demonstrate his self-loathing and envy over Obama’s ascendancy to the national stage, they are a stark reminder of the vast difference between the two. Jesse Jackson, who is supposedly a man of the cloth, should never have made such remarks privately — although, as far back as his “Hymietown” remarks about New York Jews, he has been known to issue nasty personal attacks.
Obama, who had to lighten the sandbags on his sagging presidential hopes by casting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church overboard, nonetheless continues to enjoy overwhelming popularity in all communities across the American spectrum. Moreover, his recent play to faith-based initiatives could further endear him to the Christians.
All this must be highly disturbing to Jackson, a former Clinton backer, who suddenly finds himself without a card to play (i.e., delivering the black masses to a white politician). His vitriolic statements are rooted in his disappointment over becoming irrelevant on the political stage.
Let’s face it: Jackson represents a strategy for political empowerment that long ago lost its effectiveness. But instead of embracing the new generation, what does he do? He decides to turn on them instead. Jackson’s offhand remarks stating that Obama is merely the latest leg in a 54-year relay echo remarks by some black leaders about conservatives such as Justice Clarence Thomas. Why can’t these once-dominant power players and policy shapers realize that the time has now come for the changing of the guard?
Obama, who had to lighten the sandbags on his sagging presidential hopes by casting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church overboard, nonetheless continues to enjoy overwhelming popularity in all communities across the American spectrum. Moreover, his recent play to faith-based initiatives could further endear him to the Christians.
All this must be highly disturbing to Jackson, a former Clinton backer, who suddenly finds himself without a card to play (i.e., delivering the black masses to a white politician). His vitriolic statements are rooted in his disappointment over becoming irrelevant on the political stage.
Let’s face it: Jackson represents a strategy for political empowerment that long ago lost its effectiveness. But instead of embracing the new generation, what does he do? He decides to turn on them instead. Jackson’s offhand remarks stating that Obama is merely the latest leg in a 54-year relay echo remarks by some black leaders about conservatives such as Justice Clarence Thomas. Why can’t these once-dominant power players and policy shapers realize that the time has now come for the changing of the guard?
Is There an R in the House?
Is there a Republican in the House? After this November’s elections, that question might be more apt than amusing. The party continues to suffer debilitating setbacks, if for no other reason than its poor brand, based on a poor track record. Yes, America still has a political hangover from the decade-long Republican rule, and unless they get some elixir fast, they’ll take it out on the party again this fall.
Last week, President Bush was named by National Journal’s political insiders as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) largest vulnerability. This week, his candidacy is further bogged down by the congressional races. The Cook Political Report — the political bible of electoral races in this town — “downgraded” 27 solid Republican congressional districts, moving them a stage closer to an uncertain Republican outcome. As if Sen. McCain’s charisma didn’t pose enough of a threat to the campaign, his own party’s congressional nominees are putting yet another crimp in the Arizona senator’s express. In fact, I believe this is the first cycle in as long as I can remember where the candidates down-ticket will actually drag down the prime heavyweight contender.
There’s always the potential that each lost vote on the congressional level translates left on the presidential as well. Not only were 27 districts moved left, but many were in key battleground states like Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes). Although you never really know what will spoil a Florida election, losing the state could spoil a run for the presidency.
Even if voting Democrat in a congressional race doesn’t mean switching a presidential vote, the shift leftward will have an indirect but significant impact on McCain’s race — fundraising. Congressional contenders will be more agile than ever, trying to grab each donor to win their own election, leaving little cash for their financially deprived presidential candidate.
Like A-Rod’s marriage, Sen. McCain’s campaign is breaking up because of a bad emotional connection — the negative feelings and baggage carried by the right-leaning party. It’s truly unfortunate that issues carry less weight in this election than a party name or a candidate’s fundraising tactics, but these third-party forces are nonetheless distracting voters from the candidates’ agendas. And although the ramifications of the leftward shift in congressional voting are not yet known, it will have an effect come November —directly by party-line voters or indirectly through fundraising. Either way, candidates this year will find that it’s getting hard to be a Republican.
Last week, President Bush was named by National Journal’s political insiders as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) largest vulnerability. This week, his candidacy is further bogged down by the congressional races. The Cook Political Report — the political bible of electoral races in this town — “downgraded” 27 solid Republican congressional districts, moving them a stage closer to an uncertain Republican outcome. As if Sen. McCain’s charisma didn’t pose enough of a threat to the campaign, his own party’s congressional nominees are putting yet another crimp in the Arizona senator’s express. In fact, I believe this is the first cycle in as long as I can remember where the candidates down-ticket will actually drag down the prime heavyweight contender.
There’s always the potential that each lost vote on the congressional level translates left on the presidential as well. Not only were 27 districts moved left, but many were in key battleground states like Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes). Although you never really know what will spoil a Florida election, losing the state could spoil a run for the presidency.
Even if voting Democrat in a congressional race doesn’t mean switching a presidential vote, the shift leftward will have an indirect but significant impact on McCain’s race — fundraising. Congressional contenders will be more agile than ever, trying to grab each donor to win their own election, leaving little cash for their financially deprived presidential candidate.
Like A-Rod’s marriage, Sen. McCain’s campaign is breaking up because of a bad emotional connection — the negative feelings and baggage carried by the right-leaning party. It’s truly unfortunate that issues carry less weight in this election than a party name or a candidate’s fundraising tactics, but these third-party forces are nonetheless distracting voters from the candidates’ agendas. And although the ramifications of the leftward shift in congressional voting are not yet known, it will have an effect come November —directly by party-line voters or indirectly through fundraising. Either way, candidates this year will find that it’s getting hard to be a Republican.
Will the Worst Presidential Candidate Lose?
Today’s presidential nominees are not comparable to tennis star Venus Williams or golf’s Tiger Woods. Rather than an outcome where the best player wins, this election is shaping up where the worst candidate will lose. Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) inexperience and overall image is only slightly countered by his adroit campaign skills; whereas Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) clumsy campaign efforts are only somewhat improved by his experience and character. Frankly, this race is shaping up to be not about who is the best individual to lead our country, but rather a test to see who will make the fewest mistakes.
If campaign management were the major and final determinant of this presidential race, McCain wouldn’t even make it on the field. He would be blown away, as evidenced even this early in the cycle (yes, America, this is early …) with Obama’s fundraising and mobilization prowess. McCain’s recent staff shake-up shows voters that even he recognizes the danger his campaign strategies pose in winning this election. Initially, McCain’s disjunctive arrangement of 11 regional managers proved to create an incoherent, malfunctioning strategy. I believe he’ll have trouble even with able-bodied Steve Schmidt now at the helm.
However, simply because McCain’s campaign tactics are in a losing battle doesn’t mean the election is a foregone conclusion for the Republican Party. Sen. Obama’s issue stances and inexperience create a significant problem despite his advanced campaign tactics. Let’s think back to 2000, when President Bush commanded a much better campaign than his opponent, former Vice President Al Gore. Despite his superior plan and execution, Bush still lost the popular vote.
Unfortunately for America, neither party has selected a superstar candidate. Instead, the Democrats have chosen a candidate with little experience and unproven policies; and Republicans selected a nominee with little charisma and failing campaign abilities. Rather than choosing the best leader for our country, voters may see this race as a contest to select the lesser of the two evils — voting against a candidate instead of for the other simply allows the worst candidate to lose.
If campaign management were the major and final determinant of this presidential race, McCain wouldn’t even make it on the field. He would be blown away, as evidenced even this early in the cycle (yes, America, this is early …) with Obama’s fundraising and mobilization prowess. McCain’s recent staff shake-up shows voters that even he recognizes the danger his campaign strategies pose in winning this election. Initially, McCain’s disjunctive arrangement of 11 regional managers proved to create an incoherent, malfunctioning strategy. I believe he’ll have trouble even with able-bodied Steve Schmidt now at the helm.
However, simply because McCain’s campaign tactics are in a losing battle doesn’t mean the election is a foregone conclusion for the Republican Party. Sen. Obama’s issue stances and inexperience create a significant problem despite his advanced campaign tactics. Let’s think back to 2000, when President Bush commanded a much better campaign than his opponent, former Vice President Al Gore. Despite his superior plan and execution, Bush still lost the popular vote.
Unfortunately for America, neither party has selected a superstar candidate. Instead, the Democrats have chosen a candidate with little experience and unproven policies; and Republicans selected a nominee with little charisma and failing campaign abilities. Rather than choosing the best leader for our country, voters may see this race as a contest to select the lesser of the two evils — voting against a candidate instead of for the other simply allows the worst candidate to lose.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Addressing the Inexperience Gap
Everyone knows Sen. McCain’s attempt at the presidency is covered with obstacles left behind by President Bush. Everyone knows Sen. McCain’s worst issue is the economy — I mean, he told us as much! Yes, Sen. McCain has acknowledged his weaknesses and addressed how he will strengthen them.
Sen. Obama has neglected to do the same, instead attempting to camouflage his largest vulnerability as “change." The Illinois senator’s inexperience ranks among Democrats and Republicans alike as the most significant liability, according to a poll of Washington political insiders released by the National Journal this week.
Although Gen. Wesley Clark believes experience — in the military or otherwise — is virtually worthless, others may disagree. The recent poll revealed over 60 percent of well-connected (and well-heeled) Democrats believe their candidate’s inexperience is a serious problem — the top concern, mind you. The polling revealed another 30 percent of Democrats view his perceived elitism as a significant weakness. Characteristics such as inexperience with a perceived superiority complex historically produce candidates who don't know what they are doing and refuse to ask questions — a dangerous combination.
Now, Sen. McCain is plagued with President Bush’s unpopularity — something he has little control over. And although he tries to distance himself and point out their differences, the general populace associate the two because of the (R) behind their names. Still, other than the economy, the National Journal Insiders poll discovered that none of the issues Bush is perceived to have failed on are strict indictments against McCain. The Illinois senator faces different problems as his inexperience directly correlates with him and his potential leadership.
I know I’ve said this before, but inexperience gives no indication of what to expect. It gives no indication of how he may act in a management position. It gives no indication of how he will actually handle the economy or even if he will be able to. This comes as no surprise, but politicians continually talk the talk and Sen. Obama is giving little indication of whether he will walk the walk.
Sen. Obama continues to ignore that voters — and now the elite in his own party — recognize his inexperience as a vulnerability — possibly revealing his arrogance as well. As he continues to try to spin a lack of experience as change, he perpetuates the weight of the weakness. Sen. McCain has faced his liabilities head on, addressed them, and is letting the country decide. Sen. Obama is simply ignoring it, hoping the weakness goes unnoticed which is, frankly, another sign of inexperience.
Sen. Obama has neglected to do the same, instead attempting to camouflage his largest vulnerability as “change." The Illinois senator’s inexperience ranks among Democrats and Republicans alike as the most significant liability, according to a poll of Washington political insiders released by the National Journal this week.
Although Gen. Wesley Clark believes experience — in the military or otherwise — is virtually worthless, others may disagree. The recent poll revealed over 60 percent of well-connected (and well-heeled) Democrats believe their candidate’s inexperience is a serious problem — the top concern, mind you. The polling revealed another 30 percent of Democrats view his perceived elitism as a significant weakness. Characteristics such as inexperience with a perceived superiority complex historically produce candidates who don't know what they are doing and refuse to ask questions — a dangerous combination.
Now, Sen. McCain is plagued with President Bush’s unpopularity — something he has little control over. And although he tries to distance himself and point out their differences, the general populace associate the two because of the (R) behind their names. Still, other than the economy, the National Journal Insiders poll discovered that none of the issues Bush is perceived to have failed on are strict indictments against McCain. The Illinois senator faces different problems as his inexperience directly correlates with him and his potential leadership.
I know I’ve said this before, but inexperience gives no indication of what to expect. It gives no indication of how he may act in a management position. It gives no indication of how he will actually handle the economy or even if he will be able to. This comes as no surprise, but politicians continually talk the talk and Sen. Obama is giving little indication of whether he will walk the walk.
Sen. Obama continues to ignore that voters — and now the elite in his own party — recognize his inexperience as a vulnerability — possibly revealing his arrogance as well. As he continues to try to spin a lack of experience as change, he perpetuates the weight of the weakness. Sen. McCain has faced his liabilities head on, addressed them, and is letting the country decide. Sen. Obama is simply ignoring it, hoping the weakness goes unnoticed which is, frankly, another sign of inexperience.
Vigilante Justice
Many people have come out in anger against the death in police custody of cop-killer Ronnie White, citing a violation of his civil liberties.
But few have spoken up for the family of Cpl. Richard Findley, who died in the line of duty while trying to protect the public against a murderous car thief. I am sick and tired of people coddling criminals who have no regard for the lives of law-abiding citizens.
The truth of the matter is that White committed a horrible crime that incited the justifiable rage of the slain officer's grief-stricken comrades. I am an uncompromising advocate of law enforcement officers adhering to the rule of law and under no circumstances should they become the judge, jury and executioner of these gun-toting thugs. However, one can certainly understand the frustration and rage of officers who put their lives on the line to protect the public.
The accused in this country are offered unparalleled access to due process, legal representation and the presumption of innocence, and vigilante justice is rarely, if ever, justified. However, some communities are becoming so rife with crime and wanton disregard for human life that there may come a time when vigilante justice is necessary.
But few have spoken up for the family of Cpl. Richard Findley, who died in the line of duty while trying to protect the public against a murderous car thief. I am sick and tired of people coddling criminals who have no regard for the lives of law-abiding citizens.
The truth of the matter is that White committed a horrible crime that incited the justifiable rage of the slain officer's grief-stricken comrades. I am an uncompromising advocate of law enforcement officers adhering to the rule of law and under no circumstances should they become the judge, jury and executioner of these gun-toting thugs. However, one can certainly understand the frustration and rage of officers who put their lives on the line to protect the public.
The accused in this country are offered unparalleled access to due process, legal representation and the presumption of innocence, and vigilante justice is rarely, if ever, justified. However, some communities are becoming so rife with crime and wanton disregard for human life that there may come a time when vigilante justice is necessary.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A Town By Any Other Name
What’s in a name? An age-old question with what’s become a rhetorical answer — character, beliefs and emotions cannot be masked by a name. However, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) continues along the campaign trail, it appears as if he doesn’t understand the concept of the metaphorical question, choosing locations for no other reason than to legitimize his speeches and hoping his locations’ names create the images his actions dispel.
When Sens. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) declared their truce, they chose Unity, N.H., wishing the town’s name would camouflage the sour look on Sen. Clinton’s face. But declaring armistice in Unity did not transform Clintonites into Obama supporters, nor did it hide the trenches dug between the candidates during the primaries.
So now the senator moves his tour through Independence, Mo., as a way to somehow confirm his patriotism. Throughout this election cycle, critics have argued against Sen. Obama’s love for his country. His pastor condemned America. His lapel only bore a flag pin after criticism for its absence. Simply making a speech in Independence does not and should not prove patriotism. Would his message be different if he said the same words in Egypt? Texas? It shouldn’t be. Do the same criteria qualify other cities? Is he only serious about the economy if he speaks in Commerce, Ga.? Or alternative fuels in Energy, Ill.?
As he admitted in a recent speech, he’s made some verbal mistakes that have put his patriotism into question. However, showing up in a town with a unique name should not qualify as the action that clarifies his patriotism. Would a town by any other name be so patriotic? So Independence — or any American community — would; were it not called Independence.
When Sens. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) declared their truce, they chose Unity, N.H., wishing the town’s name would camouflage the sour look on Sen. Clinton’s face. But declaring armistice in Unity did not transform Clintonites into Obama supporters, nor did it hide the trenches dug between the candidates during the primaries.
So now the senator moves his tour through Independence, Mo., as a way to somehow confirm his patriotism. Throughout this election cycle, critics have argued against Sen. Obama’s love for his country. His pastor condemned America. His lapel only bore a flag pin after criticism for its absence. Simply making a speech in Independence does not and should not prove patriotism. Would his message be different if he said the same words in Egypt? Texas? It shouldn’t be. Do the same criteria qualify other cities? Is he only serious about the economy if he speaks in Commerce, Ga.? Or alternative fuels in Energy, Ill.?
As he admitted in a recent speech, he’s made some verbal mistakes that have put his patriotism into question. However, showing up in a town with a unique name should not qualify as the action that clarifies his patriotism. Would a town by any other name be so patriotic? So Independence — or any American community — would; were it not called Independence.
Primetime Politics
Have you noticed that the 2008 presidential race has gone primetime?
Thus far, it is evident by the dramatic increase in primary voter turnout that more people are participating and enthusiastic. In many states, this year’s primary elections ushered in more voters than 2000’s general election. Wow!
Further, these candidates are attracting larger audiences than even President Bush himself. Sen. Obama regularly speaks to excited crowds of 20,000-plus while President Bush often speaks with only a few hundred quiet individuals.
But does record-breaking participation mean a more knowledgeable voting demographic? Not necessarily. Sure, more people can identify the candidates' names by looking at their pictures, but many Americans are getting caught up in the glamor without delving into the issues.
This year’s news was filled with many more stories than just the hard-core political facts. For example, Vanity Fair recently featured a scathing, unflattering column about former President Clinton’s personal life, and at the worst time in the campaign.
Americans are still more informed about the social side than the policy side. A recent Pew Research Center poll found 84 percent of respondents knew talk show host Oprah Winfrey supported Sen. Obama while only half could identify what country Hugo Chavez was president of — illustrating international politics and the core of issues still haven’t hit the American mainstream.
The millions of dollars, thousands of screaming fans and hundreds celebrity endorsements have changed politics. Candidates are more than just political figures — they are superstars proving one thing: Politics is as much about entertainment these days than just standard governing. Is this progress, or is it troublesome for the American electorate?
Thus far, it is evident by the dramatic increase in primary voter turnout that more people are participating and enthusiastic. In many states, this year’s primary elections ushered in more voters than 2000’s general election. Wow!
Further, these candidates are attracting larger audiences than even President Bush himself. Sen. Obama regularly speaks to excited crowds of 20,000-plus while President Bush often speaks with only a few hundred quiet individuals.
But does record-breaking participation mean a more knowledgeable voting demographic? Not necessarily. Sure, more people can identify the candidates' names by looking at their pictures, but many Americans are getting caught up in the glamor without delving into the issues.
This year’s news was filled with many more stories than just the hard-core political facts. For example, Vanity Fair recently featured a scathing, unflattering column about former President Clinton’s personal life, and at the worst time in the campaign.
Americans are still more informed about the social side than the policy side. A recent Pew Research Center poll found 84 percent of respondents knew talk show host Oprah Winfrey supported Sen. Obama while only half could identify what country Hugo Chavez was president of — illustrating international politics and the core of issues still haven’t hit the American mainstream.
The millions of dollars, thousands of screaming fans and hundreds celebrity endorsements have changed politics. Candidates are more than just political figures — they are superstars proving one thing: Politics is as much about entertainment these days than just standard governing. Is this progress, or is it troublesome for the American electorate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
