Welcome to my humble home in the blogosphere. Expect posts on politics (lifelong Democrat who likely will be an independent from now on), religion and spirituality (United Methodist with unconventional views), sports (ex hurdler and fan of Cowboys, Astros, Red Sox, Stars, SMU, and WF Wildcats), the law (civil appellate and trial litigation attorney), music (play tenor and bass trombone), comedy, cartoons, Texas, and life its ownself.
I plan on discussing this issue in more detail, but until then, here's some of what has been rattling around in my brain the last few months.
Here's my basic take: true reform of health care will never happen until the insurance companies' grip on the system is broken.
It seems that in this country we have determined that "health care" and "health insurance" are the same thing, and that is just bullshit.
I am generally in favor of a public option. I don't even mind spending a ton of money on it--IF it can help reduce actual health care costs. And as I understand the CBO report of the current House bill, that bill does nothing of the sort. Indeed, the ultimate result is that our health care system will still be dominated and controlled by insurance companies--and as long as insurance is the dominating and determinative factor in the delivery of health care, costs will never go down.
And there are some other things that really piss me off about some of the current proposals, but that will have to wait. And I would say something about the Republican's proposal--except those craven cowards have not really made one. And I can tell you why...Anything they can come up with would not really be any different from what the Democrats have put forth.
And I'm so glad I can annoy people first thing on a Friday. :-)
If, like me, you happen to be a "South Park" fan, you have probably seen the episode entitled "Margaritaville." If you either 1) are not a South Park fan, or 2) have not seen the episode, I recommend you watch it. You can do so by going to the South Park Studios website. Here is the link to the entire episode. Here's a summary of the plot. The people of South Park collectively have a rather odd reaction to current economic events, and they stop spending money, especially on frivolous items. Kyle, one of the kids who is a main character, sees this as a ridiculous overreaction. Meanwhile, Stan, another of the kids who is a main character, tries to return for a refund a Margaritaville margarita machine that his dad bought. In the process, Stan learns about some of the things that caused our current economic circumstances. And while that is going on, Kyle sums up economics in a speech to the citizens of South Park.
Now, I realize that some folks will find South Park generally and parts of this episode specifically offensive, particularly because of some language (4th graders cussing) and the fact that the Kyle arc of the episode is based on some of the Gospel stories about Jesus. So maybe some folks will not want to watch the whole episode. If that is the case, you can go to this link, which has clips from the episode. The key clips are as follows: Improbable, But Not Impossible; Yeah, No. Yeah.; Plastic Cards and Paper Money; 90 Trillion Dollars; and Bailout!; "Plastic Cards and Paper Money" is really the most important one for my purpose, but the others are also important.
My purpose is to follow up on my previous post and help explain some of what I will be writing in the near future regarding the economy. Kyle's speech in "Plastic Cards" is one way to explain my "can opener."
For several months I have had many ideas for posts, and while I felt that I needed to write those posts, I instead did not do so. One reason for my silence is that all these ideas, while covering a variety of issues, have a common underlying theme, and I was having difficulty figuring out how to present all of them in a way that stayed focused on that theme. Another reason is that in order to state my case on all of these issues in the manner I generally require of myself, a lot of research and proper citation is needed, and for the last few months I have not had the time and energy needed to accomplish those tasks. However, I have decided that now is the time to start trying to posting again. I will apologize now for 1) what will be a slow (slower than usual) process, and 2) my initial lack of research. Sometimes in life you have no choice but to go with what you have at the moment, and at other times, even though there might be a choice to do otherwise, you just need to go ahead anyway.
So with that in mind...
I will explain my basic theme by reprinting a post from October 11, 2005, entitled "My favorite economist joke."
There is a tragedy at sea in the form of a shipwreck. As the ship sinks, three survivors manage to climb aboard a lifeboat. To their delight, they find that the boat is stocked with some fresh water and several crates of canned food. There is, however, a slight problem. They have no can opener (or any other tools). As two of the survivors ponder possible starvation, the third announces that he is an economist and he has come up with a solution. As the other two look on in amazement, they beg the economist to explain the solution.
The economist looks at them with total sincerity and says, "First, assume a can opener..."
One subject upon which I will be musing is the economy, and one point I will assert thereon is that no matter what economic theory one espouses, one must "assume a can opener." And speaking of economic theories and systems, I generally prefer a free market approach. However, I do not see eye-to-eye with my raging libertarian friends on this point. They feel that "the market" is a benign entity that naturally reaches a rational result--and I say that is not and never will be true. Why? The answer is very simple: "the market" depends almost entirely on the conduct and decisions of people, AND people are basically stupid, greedy, selfish, and shortsighted. And that is the basic theme of many posts to come.
I saw this story at Talking Points Memo, and it inspired me to start blogging again.
Newt Gingrich is the General Chairman of an organization called "American Solutions for Winning the Future." In actuality, this organization is a Gingrich 527 group, meaning it is a soapbox for Newt, a way for him to call more attention to himself, and a way to raise money (indirectly, of course) for Newt. And, to be fair, that description applies to most 527s, not just Newt's.
Anyhoo, American Solutions is big on private enterprise, and to show that, Newt's organization recently selected Allison Vivas to receive it's Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Here's the letter she received notifying her of this oh so prestigious award.
Just to refresh some memories and inform new additions to my vast reading audience, to say that I am not an admirer of Gingrich is a huge understatement. So why am I writing about this award? Well...
Allison Vivas is the president of a very successful company...and that company is...wait for it...
Pink Visual, a porn studio.
That's right--porn.
When I first saw this story I laughed 'til I stopped--and that took a while.
I am not going to link to the Pink Visual site because those who are able and allowed to do so can easily find it on their own. ;-) I will, however, tell you that Ms. Vivas has posted a story about the award on the site, and here it is:
In a truly unexpected move, the Washington, DC-based political action committee "American Solutions for Winning the Future" (ASWF) has named Allison Vivas, President of the adult entertainment studio Pink Visual, recipient of its Entrepreneur of the Year award for 2009.
The organization, which is headed by noted conservative politician Newt Gingrich, notified Vivas of the honor via fax on Wednesday, September 9.
"I'm honored, and more than a little surprised, to receive this prestigious award," Vivas said. "It never occurred to me that Newt Gingrich, one of the principal architects of the conservative 'Contract with America' in the 1990's, would be willing to brave criticism from the far right of his party in order to recognize good work done on the part of an adult entertainment professional."
According to the notice from ASWF, should Vivas attend a private dinner being held on October 7 at the historic Capitol Hill Club in Washington, she will "dine privately with Newt," who will then take the occasion to present Vivas with her "well deserved award" and pose for a photo with her.
The notice from ASWF also informed Vivas that Gingrich is "looking forward to finally meeting you (Vivas) face to face and get your thoughts on Cap and Trade and Obama's Tax Policy."
"Rest assured, I'll take the opportunity to inform Mr. Gingrich of some of the major challenges facing the adult entertainment industry in the current market," Vivas said. "From obscenity prosecutions to content piracy, I'll make sure he walks away from that dinner educated about the realities of the online porn market. While else would they have invited me but to hear such feedback, right?"
In addition to a certificate recognizing her as Entrepreneur of the Year, ASWF stated that Gingrich will also be presenting Vivas with a replica of the "gavel that changed America," whether she attends the dinner or not.
No word yet on whether the gavel will be put to use in a future video from Pink Visual, although Vivas acknowledged that it would "make for a pretty cool prop for a 'Milf Seeker' episode."
American Solutions quickly backtracked once this story broke. As reported by Washington City Paper, the award to Vivas was withdrawn because it was given "by mistake."
I could make some crack like "I guess politics really does make for strange bedfellows," but I am way too classy for that. Actually, I am not that classy, but I do have some sense of decorum, so I definitely will not state the veritable plethora of great jokes that could be made (and have been made by others). Instead, I will point out that Gingrich supporting porn is not really out of character.
And--aside from the obvious humor--that gets to the point of this post. Gingrich has in the recent past focused a lot on substantive issues, and that's generally a good thing (even though I disagree with him on many issues). However, Gingrich's activities are also, in my opinion, an attempt to set the stage for a run at the White House, and that is not a good thing. For further explanation, go to the Cosmic Wheel Index, scroll down to "Gingrich, Newt," and click on the links thereunder.
I haven't posted anything for three months, and what brings me out of dormancy? The political scene? The economy? Any of the myriad issues of global importance?
No.
The one thing that prompted me to want to share my feelings with the world is...the Dallas Cowboys FINALLY got rid of terrell owens. I waited until now to say anything because I wanted to make damn sure that he was in fact gone, and now that he has signed with another team (Buffalo), I know he is gone.
As I said here when Jerry Jones signed t.o., "As long as t.o. is on the team, the Cowboys are dead to me." For all the details, read that entire post. And here's one excerpt: "One more thing...I was in Texas Stadium in 2000 the day t.o. did his TD celebrations on the star at midfield. I have watched--just like everyone else--what a punk ass he has become since then."
Allow me to elaborate on that: t.o. is a no-class punk-ass little bitch. And I am thrilled that he is gone from Dallas. And my sympathies go out to Buffalo Bills fans because he's their problem now.
For any Cowboys fan who wants to defend t.o., answer me one question...How many times did t.o. make the big play to win any game for the Cowboys? I'll answer it for you--ZERO. The Cowboys never needed him in the first place, and he never delivered the goods when it counted.
And now he is gone, and I can be a Cowboys fan again.
Wes Clark's take on Robert Gates--and a very important Obama theme
I know that some Democrats are either nervous or upset over Obama deciding to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. I am not among them. I think it is a very good decision, and I found a good explanation from someone who certainly knows more about military matters than me. On November 26, 2008, Wes Clark was a guest on the Ed Schultz radio show, and Gates was one of the topics they discussed.
Ed Schultz: Fantastic. Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates, looks like he's going to stay in that position. What are your thoughts on that?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's a, it's a good move. I think he's been a very effective, pragmatic Secretary of Defense. He's only been on the job a couple of years. There's some big issues that are going to be coming up for this administration right away, including both Iraq and Iran as well as a new strategy for Afghanistan. The President's clearly going to be in charge. Hillary's going to be the Secretary of State working the overall policy directions. Why not have an experienced guy who's got his, his feet on the ground for a few more months in the Secretary of Defense's position?
Ed Schultz: Has he been a good Secretary of Defense?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, by my view he has.
Ed Schultz: And is there anything that President-Elect Obama would be risking if he were to make a move at this critical time?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that when you look at, at the way the Defense Department is organized, what you have typically had and what Rumsfeld had was a big problem at the transition coming in. He became the Secretary of Defense. It took him six months, eight months to get the team in. He didn't have a first quality team in there when he first got there. This was during the, the, the lead up to 9/11. I think that may have had some impact. And I think it makes sense to have Gates stay there. Gates is going to be loyal - he's going to have to be loyal - to a new Commander in Chief, and, and that's alright.
Ed Schultz: That was word that I used in the last segment. I mean, loyalty is awfully big when you've got a person in your cabinet. And the fact is, is that Mr. Gates has been against a timeline in Iraq, and we all know where Barack Obama stands on winding our involvement down in Iraq. How do you think that's going to work out?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I, I think that the Iraqis themselves will want the timeline. Now, it may turn out that the timeline doesn't work for reasons inside Iraq that the Iraqis themselves recognize, but I think the issue's gone away. So, I don't think it's an issue at this point.
Ed Schultz: What do you think this means for involvement in Afghanistan?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think there's going to be in increase in troop strength certainly in Afghanistan, but I hope that the Obama team - and I have reason to believe they will - will have a different strategy for national security, and that strategy will en-entail (inaudible) Afghanistan a great deal more emphasis on the non-military elements of the situation.
Ed Schultz: What does this tell the American people about President-Elect Obama that he would keep on the Secretary of Defense and, a-and having been very clear as to what he wants to do with Iraq and Afghanistan? What do, what do, what does this signal to the American people, General?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it, it, it might signal that he's a very confident President-Elect who believes that he can count on the loyal support of a cabinet member, even one who has served a different master.
Ed Schultz: How long do you think Gates would stay in this position?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I'm told that, that actually (chuckles) he's not looking for lifetime employment. He'd be really happy to go back to his home and his other private pursuits, and I, I think maybe a year, maybe less.
Schultz then asked Clark about the possibility of becoming Secretary of Defense.
Ed Schultz: If you were ever approached for this position, would you consider it?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Of course, but there are a lot of good people in the Democratic Party who could do this job, that-. We're so rich in talent, and I think that he's assembled a great cabinet thus far.
Ed Schultz: But no one has your resume. I mean, (chuckle) who could match that?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:Well, it's not about resumes. It, it's really about picking people who are congenial, work together well and, and meet the President's needs. Those needs are both substantive and political.
(emphasis added). What I want to focus on here is not Clark's downplaying of him possibly getting the job in the future (and it couldn't happen until 2010 anyway). What I want to focus on is the emphasized portion of the above excerpt. It is important to first and foremost have competent, skilled people in cabinet positions. There are partisan, political factors to take into account, but the first priority is to get good people. I think a second major factor is to get people who are not ideologues, regardless of their party affiliation. Gates fulfills both those factors, and Clark's comments reflect that Obama is placing an emphasis on getting the job done and doing it well.
Many Democrats have criticized the Gates selection because they think it reinforces the stereotype that Democrats can't handle military and national defense matters. I think it is far more important to choose someone that can do a good job, especially given the totality of the circumstances now. This is one instance where I applaud Obama's efforts to avoid partisanship (and another example showing why some Democrats need to temper their expectations). And for those Democrats still worried about this selection, keep in mind that it will likely be temporary, and, as Wes said, there are plenty of good people in the Democratic party that could be a very effective Secretary of Defense.
Reasons why Republican fears about Obama are unfounded and why Democrats need to temper expectations
Overview
During the campaign I really grew tired of hearing all the Republican predictions of the end of civilization in the event of an Obama victory, AND I also was displeased with what some Democrats were expecting if Obama won and the Dems kept control of Congress. This post will attempt to explain why both sides now should just take some time to think things through and adjust accordingly. To me what is rather funny is that the same reasons as to why Republicans' fears are unfounded are the same reasons why Democrats must temper their expectations. To illustrate this, I will first address the one Republican concern that I think was at least semi-reasonable.
Electing Obama would put Democrats totally in charge of the federal government.
One common concern I heard from Republicans as the election drew closer (and Obama's lead in the polls grew larger) was the prospect of having Democrats control both Congress and the Executive branch. What this really boiled down to was a concern that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would then run the country. I considered this to be a legitimate, but unlikely, concern. Even I would not want Pelosi and Reid running the country, but I never thought that would happen. One way that could happen is for Obama to be submissive to Pelosi and Reid, and I just do not see nor ever have seen that happening. Everything I saw from him in the long campaign showed me that he was not going to be pushed or pressured into following someone else's agenda, but rather that he would call the shots. If anyone out there saw something different, fell free to share. Otherwise, I'll stick to my conclusion that Pelosi and Reid will not be bossing Obama around.
Another way this concern could become reality is if Obama's policy goals are identical to those of Pelosi and Reid. Again, I do not see that as likely. I reiterate what I said in ...and now for the Democrats: "Given that (Obama's) main objective appears to be...a change (in the process and procedure)[.] If I am correct, my prediction that there will not be wholesale policy change will also likely be correct, meaning that the far-left views of Pelosi and (possibly) Reid will not come to be implemented.
What this means for Republicans is that you should not obsess over Pelosi and Reid taking over the government. What this means for Democrats is that you should not expect the federal govrnment to become far left wing, ultra liberal.
Now let's get to one specific Republican fear...
An Obama administration will be anti-Israel.
As Joe the Plumber put it, some Republicans felt that electing Obama would mean "death for Israel." Even if that extreme view was not widely held, many Republicans were convinced that an Obama administration would be anti-Israel (and, of course, that was in part due to the "fact" that Obama is Muslim). When Shepard Smith of Fox freakin' Newsrefutes such an idea, you would think that might carry some weight with Republicans, but for those who still have doubts, just take a look at the first person Obama chose for his administration. The first position he filled was White House Chief of Staff, the one person that will have constant access to the President and have the job of implementing his agenda. That job now belongs to Rahm Emanuel, Congressman from Illinois. Emanuel is Jewish. And here are some more facts I found in this article. His father emigrated to America from Israel, and his father was part of the pre-Israel Jewish underground led by Menachem Begin (which was fighting against the British and Arabs). In 1933 his uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, was killed in a skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem, and the family changed its last name to his first, as a tribute. Rahm and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel. And in 1991 he volunteered "for a few weeks in a program run by the Israeli army where civilians could help the Israel Defense Force with support work on an army base." Now if Obama was so anti-Israel, why would he select Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff?
And then there's another thing Obama did that would not seem to fit the profile of someone who is anti-Israel, namely insisting that Senate Democrats keep Joe Lieberman in the Dem caucus and let him remain as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, which is a topic unto itself.
Obama's actions toward Lieberman should quell Republican concerns AND temper Democrats' expectations.
I have to say that I don't like Joe Lieberman. I used to, but not anymore. On matters of national security--particularly the Iraq war--I generally disagree with him. I think he has turned into a bitter, cranky old man who lapses into childish behavior. And then there's the matter of what I found to be his loathsome behavior in campaigning against Obama. For those who might have forgotten, Lieberman went along with and reiterated the GOP talking points that Obama is in league with terrorists, that Obama endangered our troops, and that Obama hasn't always put the country first. And he did some of that as a speaker at the Republican National Convention! Why the hell should he be allowed to stay in the Democratic caucus, and why should he be allowed to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee?
Indeed, most Democrats wanted Lieberman tossed out on his sorry ass. At the very least, they wanted him stripped of his plum position as head of the Homeland Security Committee--and they said so publicly. For instance, Patrick Leahy, one of the senior-most Dems in the Senate, said the following:
I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did. I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama...went way beyond the pale. I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama.
And even Harry Reid wanted to put the screws to Lieberman. As reported by the AP, "Reid...was initially inclined to strip him of the Homeland Security Committee chairmanship[.]" After the whole affair was resolved, Reid said "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."
And in spite of everything, Barack Obama wanted to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and allow Lieberman to keep his prized chairmanship. Indeed, it was pretty much Obama's wishes that kept Lieberman in the Dem caucus and preserved his chairmanship. As Sen. Tom Carper put it, "The Senate Democratic caucus has decided that if President-elect Barack Obama can forgive, so can we. If Barack can move on, so can we." Howard Dean, DNC chairman, put the matter more succinctly when he said that the Senate had acted "in the spirit of unification, which is what the President-elect wanted. He called the shots, and that's fine."
So, the Lieberman affair provides evidence that indeed Obama is primarily committed to bringing about the change in process and procedure as I have described. It also shows that Democrats should not focus on revenge. And it also shows that Obama, not Harry Reid, is going to be the one to "call the shots," which supports my conclusions in the second section of this post.
Another example of Obama's efforts to work with Republicans--Robert Gates
It looks like Obama is going to keep current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in that position. Personally, I think this is a good move because I think Gates has done a good job--especially since he had to deal with the abject mess left by Rumskull, Wolfowitless, Feith, and the rest of those neocon criminal assholes. As the Washington Post analyzed this choice,
Gates is well respected on Capitol Hill and within the military as a non-ideological, decisive leader willing to consider alternative views. He is credited with putting the Defense Department back on an even keel after the turbulent years under Donald H. Rumsfeld and with helping revise the Bush administration's failing policy in Iraq. Gates served for a time on the Iraq Study Group, which issued recommendations in fall 2006 on how to revise the U.S. war strategy, including a call to explore "constructive engagement" with Iran and Syria.
Gates is a Republican and a current member of the Bush administration. How's that for "reaching across the aisle"?
Conclusion
There are other examples , but I think the above analysis shows that the fears of Republicans are largely unfounded AND that Obama is going to try to get Democrats to work with Republicans, which means that Democrats should not expect massive changes to very liberal policies.
Will Obama stay true to what I consider to be his vision of change? I don't know, and if he does not, I will be concerned. However, his actions so far indicate that he will stick to and implement that vision, and that's a good thing.
I will update this post with details later today...
And here we go...
Let's start with the first message. Yes, Democrats scored definite victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections. First, we regained majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006. Then in 2008, we increased those majorities AND won the White House. However, the majorities in Congress still are not large enough that Democrats can do whatever they want. More to the point, Democrats are still going to have to get some Republicans to work with them, especially in the Senate. Also, those majorities could be reduced or eliminated in 2-4 years. Now that Democrats basically have control of the federal government, they had better produce some positive results. Failure to do so could very well lead to a change in the elections in 2010 and 2012.
Keep in mind also that while Obama won a decisive victory, it was by no means a landslide, and in more than a few states he won, the margin was very close. What this means for Democrats is that while there might be a mandate of sorts, it is not so great that Democrats can now simply do whatever they want without regard to the Republicans, which leads to the second and third messages.
The foundation of (Obama's) campaign was "change." And as I have explained time and time again to people, the "change" he was talking about did not address policy (and Democrats need to remember that I said that). The "change" he was talking about from the start was a change in the process and procedure. The change he was talking about was changing all the bullshit that has been going on under Republican rule (and that included some same type of behavior by Democrats--remember that I said that). The change he was talking about was trying to get both sides to work in a way where actual meaningful discourse would occur which could lead to things getting done. The change he was talking about was trying to get Democrats and Republicans to have some respect for each other and try to work together.
This means that seeking revenge on Republicans for all the bullshit of the last eight years is not an option. See, that is not part of the President-elect's plan. Moreover, seeking revenge would be a continuation of the "party first, country second" crap that has been the SOP for at least the last ten years. As I tried to explain in Post-election lessons for Republicans, the prospect of changing that SOP was what really put Obama over the top, and a failure by Democrats to at least attempt such change will not set well with voters. Furthermore, such a failure will result in another failure, namely actually getting things done (which, again, could lead to Democrats losing power in 2010 and 2012).
And now for the third message...Obama did campaign in part on policy differences between the past eight years and his objectives, but I reiterate that policy was not the basis of his campaign. Policy was not what really resonated with voters. The change in the process and procedure was the basis of his campaign and why (in my opinion) he won. Given that his main objective appears to be (and more on that in upcoming posts) such a change, wholesale policy change is not likely. The only way to undertake such big policy change would be to completely disregard and marginalize Republicans, and that apparently is not part of Obama's agenda. Also, as mentioned, the size of the Democratic majorities in Congress and the lack of a definitive mandate make such disregard and marginalization not possible as a practical manner. Consequently, Democrats, don't think that suddenly everything is going to change on the policy front.
And that is another lesson Republicans need to keep in mind, as will be explained in a subsequent post.
Face it, Republicans--you have been beaten in the last two elections. You lost majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006, you lost even more ground in Congress in 2008, and a Democrat will soon be in the White House. And he got there by winning some key "red" states.
There are reasons why your party is out of power, and if you don't recognize and accept those reasons and then change, your party is going to stay out of power for a long time.
Here are the reasons in a nutshell...As a party, Republicans have offered nothing of substance. Instead, they have used negativity and fear to gain and try to retain power. As a party, the GOP has made the following standard operating procedure: hypocrisy, corruption, and cronyism (as in party and personal loyalty are relevant while competency and ethics are irrelevant). As a result of all of this, the Republicans have basically done a crappy job.
And just in case you think I am wrong, consider the list of "accomplishments" of the Republican party: most of the policies that caused the current economic crisis, vast expansion of the federal government, record government spending, record budget deficit, the Iraq war (and all that involves), systemic disregard of constitutional rights (domestic spying, torture, and other violations), blatant politicization of the Department of Justice, the response to Katrina, drastic diminishing of our standing internationally, and on and on...
Let me be clear here...it was not so much what the Republicans did as how they went about it. Slowly more and more people saw through the bullshit, and then they got sick and tired of it.
And into this setting came Barack Obama. Some Republicans do not realize why Obama won the election. Here's a news flash--it was not because those of us who voted for him were mesmerized and failed to see what an evil heathen bastard he is. The foundation of his campaign was "change." And as I have explained time and time again to people, the "change" he was talking about did not address policy (and Democrats need to remember that I said that). The "change" he was talking about from the start was a change in the process and procedure. The change he was talking about was changing all the bullshit that has been going on under Republican rule (and that included some same type of behavior by Democrats--remember that I said that). The change he was talking about was trying to get both sides to work in a way where actual meaningful discourse would occur which could lead to things getting done. The change he was talking about was trying to get Democrats and Republicans to have some respect for each other and try to work together.
That is the message that attracted people--plain and simple.
And then Obama largely conducted his campaign in accordance with that message. On the other hand, McCain's campaign was almost nothing but negative attacks, and they did not work (just as they did not work for Hillary in the primaries). Obama offered substance and a change in the system that people wanted. McCain offered none of that. Instead, McCain played to the base of the Republican party, which was to go negative and try to scare everybody about an Obama presidency. In other words, the McCain campaign was almost entirely about why people should have voted against Obama rather than for McCain.
And here's one of the lessons the "base" of the Republican had better learn: you are out of touch with the clear majority of this country. The last two elections prove that. A good number of Republicans are recognizing this, but unless the "base" wakes up and accepts this, the Republican party will be out of power for a long time. During the 2004 campaign and up until this election, I said repeatedly that any Democrat wanting to be President would have to get some Republican votes. Obama did just that. And guess what, Republicans? The tables have turned. From now on, "turning out the base" is not going to be enough for you to win elections. You are going to have to get some Democratic votes. You are going to have to offers ideas of what you are going to do rather than try to demonize Democrats.
And here's a related lesson: cut the hypocrisy in general but specifically in the slogan you started using in this election regarding "country first." The GOP has put the party and retaining power first and the country has been a distant second at best. Either show that you are actually putting country first and party second or face an extended time in the wilderness. In other words, practice what you preach (and maybe don't "preach" so much).
Another lesson goes back to why Obama won the election. The message of change in the process and procedure was not merely the central theme of Obama's campaign. In my opinion, it was the unifying factor among his supporters. It was the one thing upon which all of them could agree. What this means for the GOP--particularly the base--is that ultra-partisan, divisive tactics are not going to get you anywhere. Does that mean you have to just give up and never stand up to the majority party (like most of the Democrats did during the last eight years)? No. But it does mean that you are going to have to at times cooperate and almost all of the time you are going to have to focus on why your ideas and positions have merit instead of doing nothing but attacking the other side.
And speaking of ideas, many of you Republicans would benefit from learning the actual principles of "conservatism," for as has been discussed some on this blog and in many, many other venues, the GOP of the last 8-10 years has had little to do with conservatism.
I am sure there are other lessons to be learned, but the major point, Republicans, is that your party has got to adapt and change from what it has been or you are going to be out of power for a long time.
And by the way, Democrats better take heed of this lessons lest they become applicable to us in the near future...
The day after the election I said, "I will have much to say (to both Republicans and Democrats) in a few days," and I will do that via a series of posts. Here are the basic themes: 1) all the Republicans claims and fears are not likely to happen (to put it mildly), and 2) any Democrats who think that they will get everything they want are mistaken.
Up first--lessons Republicans damn well should learn and apply.
When the news of Hillary possibly being offered the job of Secretary of State, my first thought was "Are you kidding me?" I still don't particularly like the idea, primarily because I think that out of the other names that have been mentioned, Bill Richardson would be a better choice. Then again, I wish my man Wes Clark was in the running, but back on topic... I have other reasons why the choice of Hillary is not one I like. For instance, in terms of the major foreign policy issues of the last few years, there are huge differences between Obama and Hillary, like, oh, the Iraq war. Personally, I don't want anyone as Secretary of State who vigorously supported going to war and was doggedly unrepentant about that until way into the Democratic primaries.
And on top of that, why would Obama want someone like that as Secretary of State? Why would he want anyone who chided and derided him as being wrong and naive on many foreign policy matters? Why would he give such a prominent position to someone who wants to run against him in 2012 (and you know she does)? In short, why in the hell would Obama want Hillary as Secretary of State?
And then I started seeing some answers to that question. If she turns him down, neither she nor her supporters could ever claim that he disrespected her or failed to make her a big part of his administration. If she turns him down and stays in the Senate, she will have to work with Obama on almost everything or it will seriously look like she is doing nothing but trying to sabotage Obama so that she can run against him in 2012. And if she works with Obama, she won't really be in a position to run against Obama. If Obama's administration is unsuccessful, she will be seen as no different from Obama (much like McCain couldn't separate himself from Bush). If Obama's administration is successful, she will not be able to convince people there should be a change. On the other hand, accepting the cabinet post could create huge obstacles to her running in 2012. As Secretary of State, she would have no opportunity to impact domestic policy. That means she could not take any credit if the economy improves, health care improves, etc. If there are foreign policy failures, she can't point the finger of blame at Obama. If there are foreign policy successes, how could she claim that there should be a change in 2012? In other words, by offering Hillary Secretary of State, Obama is not merely "keeping his enemies close," he is making an effective move to keep Hillary out of the 2012 picture. And the best part is that he is making Hillary make the decision...
And here's another possible reason...If Obama really wants to try to work with Republicans, don't you think they would be happy about Hillary not being in the Senate? Don't you think that Obama could score a few points with them by being the one that gets her out of the Senate?
I almost decided not to post this because I am aghast at all the speculation that is already happening about who is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 20-freakin-12. However, I wanted to go on record as to someone that folks better keep an eye on, and it ain't Sarah Palin.
It is John Cornyn.
Roll Call reported that Cornyn is all but certain to become the next chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That means that he will be in charge of the Republicans' efforts to regain a majority in the Senate in 2010. Trust me when I say that this will be a significant first step in Cornyn's attempts to increase his power.
My experience with Cornyn began when he was on the Texas Supreme Court. He was at one time my favorite judge on that Court. That changed when he became a key supporter of the adoption of the current Texas "no evidence" summary judgment rule (would take way too long to explain all that), and I haven't trusted him since. My next experience with him came when he was Texas Attorney General. I would love to tell that story, but the strictures of attorney-client confidentiality prevent that. Suffice it to say that my distrust of him grew.
Cornyn is very smart, very savvy, and very ambitious.
Even if the GOP does not regain a majority but gains seats in the Senate in 2010, expect Cornyn to be a serious contender for 2012.
NOTE: I began working on this post the day before the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. I kept working on it through the Beijing Olympics--and beyond. Then I hit the wall as to blogging. The Democratic primary season had exhausted me, and the prospect of blogging through the general election campaign sent me into full burnout mode. As I mentioned back in August, I feel this story is timeless. And maybe, in this time of transition and, for some, uncertainty, this story will have meaning.
I have never met Derek Redmond, and I am not claiming that I know what he was thinking or feeling. If any part of this post misrepresents him in any way, I apologize to him.
With that in mind...
I love the Olympics.
My love of the Olympics began when I was six years old watching the track and field events of the Mexico City games of 1968, and it has never diminished.
There are those who think the Olympics are irrelevant and/or unnecessary. For sure, there are myriad problems with the Olympics–and there likely always will be. However, I feel that the Olympics serve a tremendous, overarching purpose.
I have previously described what was for me a tremendous Olympic moment, namely The Miracle on Ice. However, the purpose of which I write today goes beyond what I wrote four years ago.
There are many examples showing that purpose, but for me the greatest example is Derek Redmond.
Derek Redmond's story was retold during the Beijing Olympics via a Visa advertisement. It was the ad which showed a 400 runner pulling up lame in a race and then finishing with the help of his father. While that ad told the basics of the story, there is so much more to tell.
In the event you do not want to read this telling of the story, just scroll down to the videos.
Setting the stage
Prior to the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, the U.S. had dominated the Men’s 400 and the 4 X 400 relay. In fact, the U.S. had won 13 of the previous 18 Olympic relays. [1]
But in the summer of 1992, the 400 runners in Great Britain decided that it was time for a change. At the world championships in 1991, the British team of John Regis, Derek Redmond, Roger Black, and Kriss Akabusi had taken the gold with the then second-fastest time in history,[2] and they were determined to end American dominance in the Olympics. And they were talking about it every chance they had.
At this point, I need to explain some things about the world of track and field (known as "athletics" outside the U.S.). While other events–the 100, 1500, mile, and others–might get more attention and glory, the 4 X 400 is in reality the premier event. Here in the States, almost every track meet has the 4 X 400 as the last event. Even in the Olympics, the last events on the track are the men’s and women’s 4 X 400 relays (the last track and field event is the men’s marathon, but only 500 meters out of 26.2 miles takes place on the track). In meets where team championships are awarded, this relay often determines the champion. There is no event in track and field that has more–or as much--drama. There is no event that is more exciting. If there was a 400 race in which four runners from one team faced four runners from another team as individuals, and one team placed 1-4 and yet the "losers" then beat those "winners" in the 4 X 400 relay, the relay victors would receive the all the praise and glory and would be considered the superior athletes. That's just the way it is, and it is particularly true for big meets.
So, for the Brits to beat the Americans in the 4 X 400 at the World Championships in 1991 and be talking serious smack going into the 1992 Olympics were big deals. That constituted not only throwing down the gauntlet but picking it back up, slapping the Americans with it and then saying "What are you going to do about it?" And rest assured that this was not empty talk. The Brits absolutely had the grit and talent to win Olympic gold.
Redmond’s back story
The leader of the Brits was Derek Redmond. In 1985 he set the British record in the 400 with a time of 44.82. He was 19 years old, and big potential was before him. Redmond realized much of that potential in 1986 as part of relay teams that won gold at the Commonwealth Games and European Championships. 1987 brought more success as he regained the British 400 record from teammate Roger Black with a time of 44.50.[3] And then the Brits finished second to the U.S. in the 4 X 400 at the World Championships. [4] That result convinced the Brits that they could eventually overtake the Americans, and they set out on a mission to do so. That mission was accomplished at the 1991 World Championships as British 400 hurdles champion Kriss Akabusi ran a brilliant anchor leg to edge out American Antonio Pettigrew at the line to claim gold. [5]
But success for Redmond was also accompanied by struggle, especially in the form of injuries. For instance, at the Seoul Olympics in 1988, he had to withdraw minutes before the opening round of the 400 because of an injury. Some reports said the injury was a hamstring while others said it was an Achilles tendon. [6] Over the next year, he went through five surgeries. [7] By the time of the Barcelona Games, Redmond had undergone a total of eight surgeries, including operations on both Achilles tendons. [8] While the tendons had been repaired, there was one possible injury that always had hung (and always will hang) like a sword of Damocles over every sprinter–a hamstring pull.
The 1991 World Championships gold was glorious, but an even greater mission loomed, namely the 1992 Olympics. Britain had an excellent chance to win gold in the relay, and Redmond was poised to win an individual medal in the 400.
He was healthy and beyond determined. He was 26 years old and coming into the prime of his career. He felt that a silver medal and a time of 44.0 was possible in the 400. [9] He told his coach "We're going to enjoy this one. We're going to come back with something." [10]
Redmond’s 1992 Olympic experience
In the opening round of the 400, Redmond won his heat and had the fastest time heading into the quarterfinals, where he also won his heat. [11] As he explained a little over a year ago, after those two races "I was bouncing about my chances. I felt so good that I thought I could win the marathon if I had been entered. My Dad said that in winning my two heats I was a different animal." [12]
And then came the semi-finals. Redmond came out of the blocks strong, and he looked powerful, smooth, and in control entering the backstretch. I remember thinking as I watched the race that he was easily going to make the final.
And then the Damoclean sword fell. About 150 meters into the race, Redmond’s right hamstring pulled. For those who have never experienced a hamstring pull, allow me to describe it. First you feel a pop in the back of your leg. There is a slight pause before the initial pain hits, and that pain is very sharp and intense. It then goes from sharp to constant and increases in intensity. And then your leg simply ceases to function. There is no recovery. There is no respite. You can neither extend your leg fully nor bring your lower leg back–at all. Your leg becomes useless, and any attempt immediately brings back the sharp pain. Generally after a hamstring pull, you shoot up and somehow maintain your balance and hop on one leg and then collapse to the ground once you stop moving. And that’s just what Redmond did.
I immediately knew what had happened to Redmond, and I gasped. To see that his Olympic dream had been taken from him–again–broke my heart. Realize that in that moment not only did Redmond’s individual dream end. Britain’s dream of winning gold in the 4 X 400 also disappeared, for there was no way, as good as the other team members were, they could beat the Americans without Redmond.
And then the amazing things started. Redmond, his face twisted in physical pain and emotional anguish, got up and starting hopping on one leg in his lane. I realized that he damn well intended to finish the race, and I started cheering out loud. Officials tried to stop him, but he pushed them away. I began cheering louder. A medical crew came on the track with a stretcher, but Redmond told them "No, there's no way I'm getting on that stretcher. I'm going to finish my race." [13]
Redmond has said that "It was all animal instinct. I kept thinking I could still catch the other runners. I didn't want to quit. I'm a very selfish person." [14] I didn’t think it selfish at the time, and I still don’t. And apparently the 70,000 spectators in the stadium did not think so either, as they began cheering for Redmond as well. Redmond also said that "I wasn't doing it for the crowd. I was doing it for me. Whether people thought I was an idiot or a hero, I wanted to finish the race. I'm the one who has to live with it." [15]
Perhaps I am wrong about Redmond not being selfish. I am, after all, biased, because I would have tried to do the same thing. As a result, what I saw was extraordinary courage and determination. What I saw was a desire not for glory, but to finish what he had worked so hard for. What I saw was a valiant refusal to give up or give in. And that is why I started cheering even louder.
Then I saw another person run onto the track and grab Redmond. I thought it was another official, and I started yelling at the TV for the man to leave Redmond alone. It was then that the announcers identified the man as Jim Redmond, Derek’s father. Redmond described that moment as follows: "Everything I had worked for was finished. I hated everybody. I hated the world. I hated hamstrings. I hated it all. I felt so bitter that I was injured again. I told myself I had to finish. I kept hopping round. Then, with 100 metres to go, I felt a hand on my shoulder. It was my old man." [16]
I became silent as I witnessed what ensued.
At this point, I think best to watch the entire event as it happened. I found plenty of videos on You Tube, and you can watch two of them here. The first one shows the entire event without commentary but with musical accompaniment. You can mute the music if you wish, for the video alone sufficiently presents the story. The second video also has music, but I advise not muting the audio because there is some commentary by Derek Redmond.
Jim Redmond was Derek's biggest fan, biggest supporter, and best friend. Jim went to every major competition Derek had. Jim had worked hard at his own machine shop to pay for Derek’s training, and because of all that support and love Derek dedicated his 1992 Olympic efforts to his father. [17]
Before the 400 semis began, Jim Redmond took a seat at the top of the stadium. Here’s how Rick Weinberg described Jim’s reaction once the injury occurred:
"Oh, no," Jim says to himself. His face pales. His leg quivering, Redmond begins hopping on one leg, then slows down and falls to the track. As he lays on the track, clutching his right hamstring, a medical personnel unit runs toward him. At the same time, Jim Redmond, seeing his son in trouble, races down from the top row of the stands, sidestepping people, bumping into others. He has no credential to be on the track, but all he thinks about is getting to his son, to help him up. "I wasn't going to be stopped by anyone," he later tells the media. [18]
By the time Jim got to his son, Derek had finally accepted that he was not advancing to the final and that in fact his Olympics were over. [19] When Derek first felt that “hand on my shoulder,” he was probably thinking it was another official trying to stop him, and he tried to push his father away.
However, Derek quickly realized that it was his father by his side. Jim said, "You don't have to do this. You don't have to put yourself through this." [20] This was Derek’s reaction as he described it to Lee Honeyball:
It was the last thing I was expecting. When my dad told me I didn't need to do this, I told him just to help me get back into my correct lane. In that case, he said, we would finish the race together. He says he didn't think it was the time or the place for a domestic dispute, so he did what I wanted. It never occurred to me that the crowd would react to what was going on as they did. I was oblivious to everything except trying to finish. [21]
Father and son started forward with Derek hopping and Jim jogging alongside, with his right hand around Derek’s waist and his left hand supporting Derek’s left arm. After about 30 meters, Derek slowed, then stopped, then put his left arm around his father’s shoulders because he he needed the physical support. And then Derek broke out in tears and buried his face in Jim’s neck. And for reasons I will explain later, this sequence is what moved me and impressed me the most.
The two Redmonds then continued down the home stretch, this time at a walk. Amazingly, more officials attempted to get them off the track. Unlike the first time, Derek did not have to fight them off, for Jim made damn sure that his boy was going to be allowed to finish the race.
And then, at last, Derek Redmond crossed the finish line.
Afterwards, Jim Redmond said, "I'm the proudest father alive. I'm prouder of him than I would have been if he had won the gold medal. It took a lot of guts for him to do what he did." [22] Indeed, it did take a lot of guts, and that is what I will now address.
What Derek--and Jim--Redmond showed us all
Derek Redmond showed the utmost in determination and courage--first by fighting through disappointment in 1988, injuries, and surgeries to make it to the 1992 Olympics, then by winning two heats, and then by getting up to try to finish his semi-final heat. All of that took a lot of guts. That is obvious.
However, I feel that other actions by Redmond that day showed an even greater depth and breadth of guts. When he began crying on his father's shoulder, Derek Redmond laid bare his vulnerability and admitted that in that moment he needed help. Derek Redmond was the living definition of a tough guy--someone who walked the walk and definitely talked the talk, all while never even hinting that he had any weakness. In my view, that is part of the reason why he was able to overcome all the adversity to get to the 400 semis in 1992. And in that one moment with his father, all the "tough guy" characteristics went away. No longer could Redmond show that solely on his own he could beat any obstacle. And Redmond did this in front of almost the entire world. That, folks, took guts.
Perhaps one could argue that Derek had no choice in this matter, that the enormity of the situation simply overcame him. Even if that is true, what followed next was, as far as I am concerned, his choice. He could have told his father that he did not want any help, that he was going to cross the finish line on his own. In spite of everything that had happened, I still feel that Redmond could have crossed the line on his own--even if he would have had to crawl. But he did not do that. Instead, he allowed his father to help him.
Admitting to oneself, much less the entire world, that you need help can be difficult, but I find it is often even harder to accept help. Pride, fear, embarrassment, and a host of other factors can keep any of us from accepting help. There are some times at which great strength and courage are needed to overcome those factors. In that moment of seeming weakness and defeat, Derek Redmond found and displayed such strength and courage. But there is even more that made this moment amazing.
...and that brings us to Jim Redmond. What he did was nothing short of manifesting the utmost love a father could give his son. He could have stayed in the stands. He could have stopped when officials tried to keep him off the track. He could have insisted that Derek stop. He could have been over protective. However, he did none of that. He never hesitated. He went to his son to offer no less--and no more--than unconditional support and assistance. He allowed his son to decide what he would do and how it would be done.
And in return, Derek showed tremendous love for his father--the man who had worked hard and sacrificed so that he could pursue his dreams; the man who had been his best friend and biggest fan. Derek could have been stubborn and selfish by pushing his father away, but instead he chose to completely let his father into his life and accomplish something together.
By simply getting to the 400 semis in the 1992 Olympics, Derek Redmond showed that the human spirit can overcome great adversity to achieve success. What happened in that race showed so much more. For me, Derek and Jim Redmond showed us what I consider to be paradoxical truths: that in weakness there can be strength and that from tragedy can emerge triumph. And they showed us how to love others.
In sum, on that day, in those few minutes, Derek and Jim Redmond showed us what it is to be human.
Writing all of this has been a challenge for me because I have felt--and still feel--like I cannot adequately articulate what all of this means to me. At the risk of exposing my own hubris, that almost never happens to me. So, whether it be to be serve me a dose of humility or to better describe this event, please feel free to express your own thoughts.
I know that the next post probably should have been published at the start of the recently completed Olympics. Goodness knows that plenty of other people have already written about the subject I will address, and publishing on that subject now might seem anticlimactic, tardy, and redundant. I actually started working on the post the day before the opening ceremonies, but soon discovered that figuring out how to tell the story and articulating all my thoughts were going to take more time than I anticipated. And then I got caught up in watching hours and hours of the Games. So, there's my explanation for my poor timing.
On the other hand, the story is, in my opinion, timeless and always pertinent, so I figured it would be better to take my time and try to do a good job.
Thank you, George Carlin. Say "hi" to Dick Martin and Harvey Korman.
The last month has seen some of my comedy heroes permanently exit the stage.
Every time I saw George Carlin (TV appearances, HBO specials, and movies) the last few years, I wondered how much longer he would be alive and how I would feel when he dies.
And now I know the answers because 1) George Carlin died today, and 2) that makes me feel like shoot (no, that's not a typo).
When I was in fifth grade, I was introduced to George Carlin by my friend Clarke Snell, who had Carlin's "FM & AM" album. As soon as I heard the routine entitled "Shoot," I was hooked. By the way, regarding the use of "shoot," Carlin's line was "They can't fool me, man. 'Shoot' is 'shit' with two o's."
Carlin was a brilliant comedian, but he was an even better social critic and modern-day philosopher. For many, he will always be best known for "The Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV." However, that bit was tame compared to some of his later material, and yet he was always able to talk about controversial topics in a very direct, no-compromise way AND make you think AND make you laugh.
I cannot adequately express my gratitude for what he brought to and added to my life. And while I am sad that Carlin is no longer part of this plane of existence, I am happy for him that in the afterlife there is no FCC.
In addition to Carlin, my sense of humor was shaped by two other people who also recently passed away. Our neighborhood was full of kids, but one night a week all playing outside and in would end right before "Rowan & Martin's Laugh In" came on. That was one show that no one would miss. On May 24, Dick Martin went to meet his co-host Dan Rowan in the great hereafter. Another show that we all watched every week was "The Carol Burnett Show"--undoubtedly one of the best sketch comedy shows in the history of ever. The cast was absolute magic, and that cast included Harvey Korman, who passed away on May 29. But in spite of the his brilliance on "The Carol Burnett Show," my favorite Korman role will always be Hedley Lamarr in "Blazing Saddles."
And to quote Hedley, I say to Carlin, Martin, and Korman that I hope you are all free to forever "do that voodoo that you do so well!"
On June 11, John McCain was interviewed by Matt Lauer on Today. In that intreview, McCain said something that caused a bit of outrage. Here is the video supplied by the McCain campaign of the pertinent part of the interview:
The outrage was caused by the statement that "when American forces can come home from Iraq" is "not too important."
John McCain was asked if he had a "better estimate" for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this[.]
I am willing to accept this explanation, but even with this explanation, there are two reasons why McCain's statements show that he is simply not too bright, to put it mildly.
The first reason is that, like Hillary before him (see this post), McCain should have realized the very obvious fact that the words he chose could easily be interpreted to have a negative meaning. I don't care what the context might be, any time you say that when American troops might be coming home is "not too important," you have said something pretty stupid. This is particularly true when one has recently opposed a bill that would increase benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan--which McCain did. Given these circumstances, McCain should have known that his choice of words would be viewed in a very negative light. And so I will say the same thing about McCain that I said about Hillary:
No one with any sense would have made these statements. They show stupidity and an utter lack of judgment and ability to realize risks and consequences and assess one's own actions. That's not Presidential material folks.
The second reason is that McCain's explanation is based on fantasy, not fact. As Keith Olbermann put it, "The full context is that the Iraq you (McCain) see, is a figment of your imagination." Recall that McCain was asked if he could provide an estimate for when our troops could come home. Here was his full answer:
No. But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.
That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory — not in defeat, which is what Sen. [Barack] Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Sen. Obama still doesn’t realize it.
McCain tried to compare the situation in Iraq to present day South Korea, Japan, and Germany. It is certainly true that there are significant numbers of American troops in those countries, BUT none of those countries currently have an ongoing war on their soil. None of those of those countries have a population which is targeting and attacking American troops. Consequently, the situations in those countries in no way are comparable to what our troops face currently in Iraq.
For McCain's spin to make any sense, Iraq would have to become a relatively safe place for Americans AND it would have to stay that way. And anyone who thinks that is likely to happen is just plain delusional. Just look at what has happened in Iraq over the last five years. Things are violent, then things are relatively calm, then things are violent again, and on and on. The only way to achieve stability and relative peace--other than just allowing total civil war and letting things play out--is through a political solution among the three major groups in Iraq (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd). And anyone who thinks that is going to happen anytime soon has some serious reality issues.
And just to be clear, I think McCain has serious reality issues, and I think he is showing stupidity on an issue that is indeed very important.
I don't know why this did not occur to me before now, and I am certain many others have already mentioned it...
In my first post about Hillary's campaign, I explained that Hillary had absolutely no connection to New York prior to her decision to try to be a Senator from New York. In that explanation I noted that Hillary was born and raised in the Chicago area.
See, Hillary could have sought a Senate seat in Illinois, her home freakin' state. I have always thought that she could have won such an election in Illinois. Of course, she could not have been a Senator in 2001 if she had run in Illinois (that would have been 2005). However, given that in this campaign she relied far more on her "experience" in the White House than her Senate experience, such a delay (2001 to 2005) might not have made any difference in this campaign. But that's not the point here. The point is that if she had run for Senate in Illinois in 2004, she likely would have easily been the Dem nominee because the Dem primary was full of relative nobodies, including a state legislator by the name of...Barack Obama.
If Hillary had had the patience to run for office in her home state, Obama never would have been elected to the Senate, and thus he never would have run for President in this election.
Instead, Hillary decided to turn her back on her home state and declare herself from New York, and thus Hillary allowed Obama to be in a position to run against her--and win.
I am watching Hillary's speech, and she has unqualifiedly endorsed Obama and asked her supporters to works as hard to elect him as they worked for her.
I am glad that my prediction was wrong.
She is still talking about her position on some issues and how she will keep working on those, but I don't have a problem with that given her express endorsement of Obama.
She has talked about the Democratic party in general, and now she is talking about Obama.
So far, so good with this speech. Much better than June 3.
Wow...been a while, huh? I'll give an explanation regarding my very extended blogging break, but for now, I offer a prediction about Hillary.
A while back I told my sister that within two weeks Hillary would lose it and say something blatantly racist as to why she should be the nominee. Well, I was partially wrong--it happened the very next day when she mentioned the "trend" of white, non-college graduates voting for her instead of Obama. In other words, she said that blue collar white people would not vote for a black man. And don't even try to spin it any other way.
In light of the substantive correctness of my previous prediction, I will make another...
On June 3, Obama obtained enough delegates to put him past the magic number for securing the nomination. And so far, Hillary has flatly refused to concede defeat. My prediction is that not only will she never concede before the Dem convention but that she will lose it and throw a public tantrum. She is going to be set to make a public speech and talk about the party unifying behind Obama, but she simply will not be capable of uttering those words. Instead she will snap and launch into a tirade the likes of which we have never seen.
UPDATE (June 5): Looks like we might know the outcome on Saturday, as Hillary has scheduled a speech for then, according to this announcement.
Geraldine Ferraro is an arrogant ass and needs to shut the hell up
Overview
I had meant to write this particular post before the end of February, but the Ann Richards endorsement from the grave deal got me more worked up.
Anyhoo, on February 25, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Geraldine Ferraro entitled "Got a Problem? Ask the Super," in which she explained and tried to justify the role of superdelegates in general and as a key part of the Hillary campaign in particular. In that op-ed, Ferraro brilliantly displayed the arrogance of the Hillary campaign.
For those who missed them, I have several posts discussing my distaste for superdelegates and Hillary's plan for them:
Ferraro's op-ed reiterates some of the themes previously expressed by Hillary and her advisers, but Ferraro put her own special brand of arrogance, hypocrisy, and just plain dumb-ass into the op-ed.
A little history--according to Ferraro
Ferraro began by explaining how and why superdelegates were created.
After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting.
(emphasis added). Ferraro seems to have forgotten that many Democratic members of Congress had "walked away" from Carter long before the 1980 campaign. As I said earlier, "I have long felt that a major reason he was largely ineffective as President was because the Democrats in Congress actively worked against him." So what was done about this "walking away" problem?
In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.
Well, what do you know? Ferraro was in charge of creating the superdelegates in the first place. So I guess she will be able to give a completely "fair and balanced" analysis of the need for the superdelegates...
Anyhoo, Ferraro explained that 1) unifying the party was the objective, 2) it was thought that having members of Congress being active participants in the national convention would be a way to achieve unity, but 3) "Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics." Remember that last part, for I will use it to show just how stupid and hypocritical Ferraro is.
So the solution was to make members of Congress--and others--delegates without requiring them to be elected as such. And this made perfect sense because...?
These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.
And now let's take a closer look at this "reasoning."
The "little people" should not decide anything.
One of my major complaints about this Ferraro op-ed is that she displays a high degree of arrogance and dismissal of the wishes of anyone but the power elite.
For Ferraro, "the party" is all about the power elite, not the people who voted to put those people in power. As proof, check out this portion of the op-ed:
Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.
But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.
(emphasis added). See? Mere voters and citizens cannot be expected to know what is best for the country. Only the superdelegates can do that. And mere voters and citizens cannot be trusted to choose who will run for President. Only the superdelgates should be allowed to make that determination.
And don't think Ferraro is the only person in Hillary's campaign who has expressed that view. As noted in Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary, Mark Penn said one month ago that of all the states Obama had won, only Illinois was a "significant state." And two days later Harold Ickes, who is in charge of Hillary's superdelgate campaign, offered these nuggets:
"Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates (superdelegates) than Obama," Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is "irrelevant to the obligations of (superdelegates)."
Thus, Ferraro is not just showing her own arrogance and disregard for mere voters and citizens, she is reiterating Hillary's attitude that has been consistently on display in her campaign.
And now, for something completely not different--hypocrisy and bullshit.
Ferraro wants people to think that she is really for mandates from the rank-and-file and/or the grassroots, but a simple analysis shows she is not. After noting that "pundits and many others" say that the rank-and-file should determine the nominee rather than the superdelegates, Ferraro wrote that "Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats." Gee, that sounds just like what Hillary, Penn, Wolfson, etc. have been saying when trying to dismiss and marginalize those primaries and caucuses won by Obama. Ferraro went on to say that
Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
Well, guess what? Having a small group of power elites potentially overturn the will of the electorate as expressed in large-scale democratic processes is even freakin' further from being a grassroots mandate. And yet that is precisely what Ferraro is defending and promoting.
Apparently, Ferraro has either forgotten or does not care that in America, we have a democracy in which the public--the "rank-and-file" or the "grassroots"--chooses people to be their representatives, not their rulers. It would also seem that Ferraro has forgotten that elected officials in this country serve at the pleasure of the public. In other words, if the public feels that a given official has not actually represented them, the public can--and often does--boot that official out of office, primarily through the election process. Oh, but she has not forgotten...Remember that Ferraro said that superdelegates were created in part so that elected officials would not have to become regular delegates by "running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate" because that "is not exactly good politics."
Which brings us to the last bits of Ferraro's steaming pile of op-ed bullshit.
Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.
Perhaps??? Give me a break...And for your information, you elitist asshole, my problem with superdelegates is that they can be "unrepresentative" to the extreme. As I wrote before,
As a practical matter, the superdelegates might not exercise their power in such a way as to thwart the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses. I would certainly hope that would be the case--even if Hillary manages to regain the lead in pledged delegates by the time of the convention. Having a relatively small group of establishment players determine a "democratic" process in a most non-democratic fashion could spell disaster for the Democratic Party for years to come.
(emphasis added). But for Ferraro, the only possible people who object to superdelegates are Obama supporters, and the only possible reason they complain is because many superdelegates support Hillary. And Ferraro must know better than me or anyone else, because she is, after all, a superdelegate herself. But wait, there is more arrogance and hypocrisy...
And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.
Let's see...Running against a constituent to become a delegate is bad politics, but taking action that would nullify the votes of thousands of constituents is all right? Following the desires of the people you are supposed to represent is bad and disappointing? What kind of twisted bullshit is that? Let me put this in terms that Ferraro might understand: if the superdelegates vote against their constituents, then many of those constituents might not just walk but run away from the party. But wait, there's more...
Ferraro then segues into a plea to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, with her main point being
The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.
So, for Ferraro it is bad to effectively disenfranchise voters from two states won by Hillary, but it is perfectly fine for superdelegates to nullify the votes of and effectively disenfranchise voters in the 28 states (out of 43, counting D.C.) won by Obama.
Conclusion
Ferraro's op-ed shows plainly that she is arrogant, hypocritical, and either not too bright or guilty of believing her own bullshit (or both). If her statements and behavior were attributable only to her, they would be largely irrelevant, especially since she is no longer officially with the Hillary campaign. However, statements and conduct remarkably like Ferraro's have been committed by Hillary and her top campaign staffers. Thus, Ferraro's op-ed is a direct reflection of Hillary's views and how she operates. You want a President that is arrogant, condescending, hypocritical, and doesn't care what you or the public at large might think? Then join Geraldine Ferraro and vote for Hillary.
In the wake of her comments about Obama's race and her claims that people got upset with her just because she is white, Geraldine Ferraro resigned from Hillary's finance committee.
Good fucking riddance.
I had already been working on some posts about things Ferraro had said, and I will finish those posts, for although Ferraro is no longer an official part of Hillary's campaign, her actions--and Hillary's response thereto--have typified Hillary's campaign. Thus, what Ferraro has done is still very relevant.
In my posts, I am going to tear Ferraro a new asshole. And she damn well deserves it. Anyone wanting to attack me for daring to address Geraldine Ferraro in this manner can just pucker up and kiss my ass.
By now, everyone should know about former Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power saying in an interview with a Scottish reporter that Hillary is a "monster." I am not going to discuss that entire situation. Instead, I am working on a post which will pose the following questions:
If Hillary is not a monster, then just what term or terms would describe her?
OR
What would you call a person who...?
At this time, I am not asking for answers to that question. See, what I am going to do in that post is provide an aid in answering the question, and that aid will be a list of things that Hillary and her campaign have done and said. So, what I want now from my oh so multitudinous readership is material to include in the list.
For example, what would you call a person who...scolds another for using Karl Rove's tactics when in fact she has been using those tactics for months?
Feel free to provide items via the comments section.
And if you can cite a source for an item, that would be fan-freakin-tastic. :-)
Let's talk about Hillary's fitness to be Commander in Chief.
Through her "3 a.m. call" ad and other statements, Hillary has been claiming that she is better suited to be Commander in Chief than Obama.
To the contrary, I say that her actions and reactions in this campaign show that she is not capable of handling that role.
Here's my argument in a nutshell. Hillary's campaign has been all over the place, as in very inconsistent. Her actions and reactions have often been over the top. The job of President involves far greater challenges and difficulties than a political campaign. Hillary's actions and reactions in this campaign indicate that she will not handle those increased challenges well.
A Commander in Chief needs to remain calm under pressure. A Commander in Chief has to avoid being inconsistent. A Commander in Chief cannot react rashly. A Commander in Chief should not be arrogant or act out of arrogance.
Hillary Clinton should not be a Commander in Chief.
I have documented Hillary's arrogance in detail. Here are just a few highlights:
Hillary's first national TV ad and her dodging tactics (August 15, 2007): "This ad's invocation of Bush also shows a real arrogance to me because Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination. It gives the appearance that she has already ordained herself to be the nominee."
Hillary shows her tender, emotional side--and still shows her arrogance. (December 7, 2008): "She just had to point out that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She just had to point out that she is the only one who could possibly be qualified to do the job from day one. She just had to wonder out loud why is it that everyone else cannot see what is--in her mind--so blatantly obvious: that she is right and everyone else is wrong?"
Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary (February 24, 2008): "See, if you want change but do not vote for Hillary, then--according to Hillary--you do not represent the electorate. In other words, Hillary thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is wrong and irrelevant. That is arrogance...Penn was in effect saying that all the people who voted for and will vote for Obama are 'insignificant.' In other words, all those people are not as important or as smart as Hillary and those who voted for her. That is arrogance...In other words, if you don't vote for Hillary, she considers you to be irrelevant. And that is arrogance."
Hillary has been horribly inconsistent in this campaign. She began by basing her entire campaign on her "day one/experience" claim. Then, once Obama's message of change started becoming popular, Hillary started saying she was an agent for change. And since then she has been swinging from one extreme to another. In Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 3: observations from someone who worked for Ann) (March 1, 2008), I included a quote from Glenn Smith that encapsulates this inconsistency:
I get the sense that Clinton's frustration is just like Mattox's in 1990. Voters are simply not being rational by supporting Obama. Rationally, she's the better candidate, she thinks. Choosing against her is choosing against reason itself.
And that frustration is visible in an erratic campaign style, conciliatory at a debate, shouting "shame on you" a day or too later; mocking Obama's supporters as people waiting on a choir to descend from heaven to sing the world to peace.
Let's take a closer look at the events mentioned by Smith. The first event was the debate on February 21 in Austin, where Hillary closed with a very civil speech in which she said she was "honored to be here with Barack Obama."
She followed that up two days later with her tirade against what she claimed as Obama's use of Karl Rove tactics.
By the way, here was Obama's response:
Notice how he was calm and direct and to the point?
And then the next day Hillary openly mocked not just Obama's message of hope, but also anyone who dares to believe in that message. Her tone was patently dismissive and arrogant.
Although this next video is not a response to any of these Hillary "moments," it is relevant to this post. In Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 1--Karl Rove would be proud.), I quoted the transcript of Obama's initial response to the ad at a press conference. Here is the video:
Notice again how calm, direct, and also strong Obama is in his response.
Now ask yourself which kind of person you want as Commander in Chief. The one who is calm under fire and quick to respond, or the one who is arrogant, inconsistent, and reactionary?
And if you are about to choose Hillary (the arrogant, inconsistent, and reactionary one), keep in mind that her actions and reactions shown herein are in a mere political campaign. How do you think she is going to react when the circumstances are far more serious and real? I tell you right now I do not think this country can or should take the risk to find out.
Hillary does not have the character or personality to be a Commander in Chief.
Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 3--Hillary can't back up her claims.)
This is just sad. However, it truly shows that Hillary is big on bullshit.
I almost never do this, but time is short, and I have more posting to do tonight. Anyhoo, I am going to reprint almost an entire post from another blog.
This was painful to listen to. Following up on the Clinton campaign’s new ad, the one in which the campaign claims that Clinton is “tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world,” the senator’s team hosted a conference call with reporters yesterday to discuss the broader arguments.
Slate’s John Dickerson asked Clinton aides on the call a reasonable and straightforward question: “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?”
Regrettably, the usually loquacious Clinton team sat in stone silence for what seemed like quite a while (I think it was literally seven or eight seconds, which was quite a pregnant pause under the circumstances).
Eventually Mark Penn piped up.
“I think it was a moment of test when she was in China and she stood up and said women’s rights are human rights. That she showed the kind of wisdom that it takes to know when to push, basic elements under difficult circumstances.”
That’s not bad, and Clinton’s remarks in China were terrific, but a) this doesn’t really count as having been “tested by crisis”; and b) Mark Penn has spent the last few months insisting that giving a speech doesn’t really amount to real work.
After whiffing on the question, Clinton aide Lee Feinstein offered a response of his own.
“One of the interesting things is that Sen. Clinton has pretty broad support from the uniformed military, including the endorsement of 27 flag officers. That includes four at the rank of four-star. And this is really based on her work with these officers — a very diverse and esteemed group — through five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she’s had a chance to work with them, some of them very, very closely, and a develop a relationship with them, where she’s earned their trust and respect.”
That, too, is accurate and impressive. But the question was about moments in which Clinton has been tested by crises, a claim from the campaign’s hard-hitting new ad. Endorsements from military officials are important, but they don’t necessarily answer the question.
Matt Yglesias asks, “How could they go forward with that ad without having a good answer to the question on hand?” It’s not an unreasonable question; the campaign probably should have seen this one coming.
[T]he ad also raises a new question the Clinton campaign has been stressing over the last few days: Who has been tested? The ad asks which candidate has faced the extended pressure of a crisis that might prepare him or her for the far larger pressures and crises he or she will face as president.
I love this question and am glad the Clinton team raised it. The problem is that they’re not so great at answering. When I asked campaign staffers for examples of Clinton being tested by a foreign-policy challenge, their response was pretty weak. As Patrick Healy reported in the New York Times, Hillary Clinton did not have a security clearance during her husband’s administration, so she wasn’t in the room for the brutal moments he faced. Her aides named the slew of uniformed retired military officials who have endorsed her, including several four-star generals. That’s nice, but it’s not proof of her mettle. When you make an ad like this, your case for your woman should be stronger than a list of endorsements.
Look closely at the two Democratic front-runners for president and you will see similarities in how they address challenging problems confronting the country.
Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois both talk about strengthening the middle class, expanding economic growth and lifting sagging wages. Both offer solutions for the crisis in our health care system and global warming and support ending the war in Iraq. So the key differences between the candidates are in their leadership styles and visions for the country.
Obama presents a view of governing that is inclusive and relies on Americans to work with their government to solve sobering problems at home and abroad. Obama’s familiar refrain on the campaign trail is, “Yes, we can.”
By contrast, Clinton promotes a self-centered governing style that drives home what she would do as president. She asks little of Americans and discourages opposing views. Clinton has moved from her position as first lady that it “takes a village” to solve problems to it takes only Hillary (and maybe Bill).
Those contrasts offer a clear choice: Barack Obama. His optimism, unifying vision and ability to inspire are the kind of healing balm the country needs at this moment in history.
The differences on policy issues between Obama and Clinton are all but neglible. Both offer similar positions on universal health insurance, the Iraq war, the economy, immigration reform and the other major issues. The difference is how they would approach the presidency. Clinton is a two-term senator and former first lady. The 60-year-old Clinton touts her experience as the edge. Obama, the choice of the Editorial Board, brings something to American politics that has been missing for a long time: the ability to inspire. The campaign of the 46-year-old Illinois senator has demonstrated his ability to bring new voters to the polls in every primary held so far. This is evidence of Obama's ability to reawaken faith in representative democracy among Americans sick of leadership that depends on division and demonizing of opponents.
*******
These are difficult issues to grapple with and they demand a broad and inclusive effort from the entire American political spectrum to arrive at solutions. This is the appeal of Obama. His candidacy is rooted in the notion that politics can be about solutions, not divisions, that elected leaders are elected to lead, not to drive wedges between groups of Americans. This is a chance to break from the past.
*******
But what her candidacy can't offer is a bridge from the past to the future. She offers a list of answers to a list of any possible policy questions, but what is missing is an over-arching sense of mission for Americans, other than restoring a bygone era. For Clinton, every issue must have an enemy -- oil companies, the rich, insurance companies, a corporate oligarchy, and on and every enemy must be vanquished. Beating up on a political enemy doesn't educate children, comfort the aged or ease the anxieties of economically stressed families.
Clinton, in a criticism that is likely to surface again in the fall if Obama is the Democratic nominee, belittles his candidacy as riding on mere beautiful speeches. This misses one of the most important jobs an American president has, the ability to move Americans toward a unifying theme, to instill courage and boldness. There is a whole Congress to legislate. A president, with his cabinet and administration, must plunge into the sausage-making of negotiating bills. But only the president can inspire, can call Americans to sacrifice and to unity. Of this, there has been precious little for a long time.
The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.
Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party.
*******
Those who have viewed the numerous campaign debates know there's not much to separate Obama from his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Either could ably represent the Democratic Party.
*******
However, there is a decisive difference. Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.
America needs a president that tries to create unity out of diversity, marshalling all the forces — red, blue or purple — that make this country great.
Sen. Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate that offers the best chance to reach that lofty objective.
*******
The rivals differ little when it comes to their positions, except on health care; Clinton favors mandated insurance, while Obama proposes a system that is affordable for everyone, leaving it up to the individuals to decide whether they want to sign up.
But the main difference comes down to approach. Obama expresses a message of hope that emphasizes what is good for the country, not the party.
*******
In addition, Clinton and her husband are running a campaign that has been, at turns, nasty and undignified. The Clinton team's win-at-all-costs approach is a turnoff to many voters, who are ready to leave today's dysfunctional political culture behind.
(emphasis added).
I will expound upon the views expressed herein in a subsequent post.
Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 2--Obama's response)
I have already addressed part of Obama's response to this bullshit Hillary ad in the previous post, but there is more to tell. Very shortly after Obama's press conference response, his campaign had already produced a commercial in response.
There are two impressive things about this ad: 1) the content is right on target, and 2) it was produced and aired very quickly. That took organization, flexibility, and decisive action. All the things that Hillary has been trying to argue are lacking in Obama. Wrong again, Hillary. Wrong again. Just like your judgment on Iraq.
Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 1--Karl Rove would be proud.)
This post could also be Part 3 of "Vote for me or the terrorists win."
It could also be entitled "Hypocrite Hillary goes back to the Karl Rove playbook--again."
Chances are you have seen this ad already, but if not, you can see it here.
The ad shows sleeping children, and eventually the mother gets up to look in on her children. This part of the voiceover sums up the ad:
It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep," the announcer says. "But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing — something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.
The ad goes on to claim that Hillary has the experience and has been tested, and thus people should vote for her.
This just show what a damn hypocrite Hillary is. About a week after she railed against Obama for use Rovian tactics, she presents this crap. Any Democrat who wants to try to argue that this is not a tactic from the Karl Rove play book is a complete idiot. And I don't give a rat's ass if that offends anybody. If you really believe that this is not a classic Rovian tactic, you need to wake the hell up and quit making excuses for Hillary. Wake up and take a close look at what she does and says.
And, by the way, for those of you who want to cling to your delusions, check out the following posts which show that Hillary has been continuously using the Karl Rove play book:
I will detail Obama's response to this ad in another post, but for now I provide parts of the response Obama gave at a press conference afher the ad aired.
I do want to take a moment to respond, because the press is, I’m sure, curious, to an ad that Senator Clinton is apparently running today. It asks a legitimate question. It says, who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3:00 a.m. and something has happened in the world. It’s a legitimate question. And we’ve seen these ads before. They’re usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare up votes.
*******
I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.
Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation.
*******
I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that's the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America.
(emphasis added). Obama is absolutely right on the judgment issue. Hillary clearly made the wrong choice, and she has been trying to avoid that issue nonstop. Obama made the right call, and accurately predicted what would happen in Iraq.
Moreover, for the purposes of this post, Obama calls this ad what it truly is--fearmongering and an attempt to "scare up votes." We have had way more than enough of that bullshit from the Bush administration, and Hillary is blatantly using that same Rovian tactic, all while scolding Obama for being like Rove.
Hillary is a damn hypocrite, and she is just like George W. Bush.
Bill Clinton is making a stop in little ol' Wichita Falls this evening for a scheduled 6:00 p.m. campaign rally.
I will not be attending (what a shock!). If I were to attend, I seriously doubt I could sit there and not start heckling, and I really don't feel like getting thrown out of an event.
Then again, maybe I should be there in case Bill knows that there is a blogger in WF that criticizes Hillary and he starts talking smack about me. That's a joke people...or is it?
Hillary has a new ad out that is specifically for Texas, and it makes me damn mad.
There is probably no other group of people in this country more ethnocentric than Texans. I could write an entire book on that subject, but I will try to present a brief discussion here. Texas is a unique place. It has a unique history and a unique culture. I believe I have mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but we have a saying down here: Texas is not just a state--it's a state of mind.
In College Station, Texas--home of Texas A&M University--there is another saying: Highway 6 runs both ways. In part that means the same road that brought you into town can take you right back out. If you move to Texas, we don't expect you to give up your culture and traditions. Texans are generally accepting of outsiders as long as they accept and embrace Texas. However, there is something which universally pisses off Texans, namely people that come here and continually bitch about Texas and how it is not like where they came from. You don't like it here? Well, you don't have to stay, for we got along just fine before you got here, and we will be just fine without you.
Most of you have heard the phrase "Don't mess with Texas." Believe it or not, that phrase originated as an advertising slogan in a public service campaign against littering. The campaign was hugely successful because the saying instantly struck a common chord among Texans. That saying is how all Texans feel about our state.
Another thing that angers Texans is posers. I'm talking about people who act like they know about Texas when in fact they don't know squat. That is a brand of bullshit that Texans spot from many miles away.
And that brings me to Hillary's ad.
After the obligatory "I approve this message," Hillary says "I have many friends in Texas. I know your traditions and culture." (emphasis added).
Oh, hell no. She didn't just say that, did she?
Hillary knows Texas culture and tradition? Really? Let's review a little of Hillary's history. As I wrote in my very first anti-Hillary post,
Before running for office, where had Hillary lived? Let's see...She was born and raised in the Chicago area. She went to college at Wellesley College, which is in Massachusetts. She went to law school at Yale, which is in Connecticut. She married Bill and then lived in Arkansas until 1992. Then she lived in Washington, D.C. for eight years. And then she decided she wanted to be a Senator from New York. C'mon.
And she knows Texas traditions and culture? Yeah, right. I bet she does not even know the significance to Texas of today's date. It is a good idea for a politician to try to show Texans that you do actually understand our culture, but said politician damn sure better have that understanding before making such a claim.
Hillary Clinton doesn't know Texas traditions and culture, and it makes me mad as hell that she has the nerve to tell me and the rest of Texas that she does. Then again, that just once more shows her amazing arrogance.
And for the record, I don't think Obama really knows Texas culture and tradition, but at least he is not expressly claiming otherwise. And therein lies a huge difference.
Notice also that the ad has subtitles en Espanol. Could Hillary actually be targeting Latinos and not Texans in general? Well, if that is case, I would think she could bother to learn to say even one sentence in that language. How the hell can you expect someone to believe you know their culture when you can't be bothered to even try to speak their language?
I guess I should stop asking such questions because--silly me--I just remembered that Hillary doesn't need to understand anyone or anything else because she knows what is best for everyone else and she is hell bent on making everyone realize that.
ADDITION ON 3-3-08: By the way, March 2 is Texas Independence Day. The Republic of Texas was created on March 2, 1836.
ADDITION ON 3-3-08: Obama has two Spanish language commercials in Texas (you can see them a here and here). in Texas. Not only are both voiceovers entirely in Spanish, Obama did actually bother to say something in Spanish. Even though it was only the "I approve this message," it is much more than Hillary did in her commercial.
I have quite a bit to say about other ads that Hillary is running right now, including one I just saw that is specifically about Texas. And man, does that one ever have me pissed off.
When Hillary had her "moment" in New Hampshire (the one where she cried), her response had absolutely nothing to do with the question she was asked, which was "Who does your hair?"
And now, in her Ann Richards "endorsement" ad, the only connection with Ann Richards that Hillary mentions is Ann's advice on what Hillary should do with her hair.
What is up with that?
...and now I am waiting to be accused of being a sexist.
At a long-ago political do at Scholz Garten in Austin, everybody who was anybody was there meetin' and greetin' at a furious pace. A group of us got the tired feet and went to lean our butts against a table at the back wall of the bar. Perched like birds in a row were Bob Bullock, then state comptroller, moi, Charles Miles, the head of Bullock's personnel department, and Ms. Ann Richards. Bullock, 20 years in Texas politics, knew every sorry, no good sumbitch in the entire state. Some old racist judge from East Texas came up to him, "Bob, my boy, how are you?"
Bullock said, "Judge, I'd like you to meet my friends: This is Molly Ivins with the Texas Observer."
The judge peered up at me and said, "How yew, little lady?"
Bullock, "And this is Charles Miles, the head of my personnel department." Miles, who is black, stuck out his hand, and the judge got an expression on his face as though he had just stepped into a fresh cowpie. He reached out and touched Charlie's palm with one finger, while turning eagerly to the pretty, blonde, blue-eyed Ann Richards. "And who is this lovely lady?"
One thing Ann delivered on (as governor) was opening government to all the people. Her record of naming blacks and Hispanics to state boards and commissions, of working them into the bureaucracy so they rise at their own pace, has not been equaled since--not that Bush or Perry tried much. It was wonderful to see her appointees standing in line to see her as she lay in state at the Capitol.
In other words, Ann Richards did not tolerate racism, and she worked to overcome it.
Now, let's review what Hillary--and Bill--have done in this campaign concerning race. Hillary brought race into the campaign with her statements about MLK/LBJ/Obama, and Bill just took that ball and ran with it. Here are some posts about those statements:
And then came Bill's statements about Jesse Jackson on the day of the South Carolina primary in which Bill basically said that the results in South Carolina would not matter because the vote would be "a black thing" and no other state primary would be like that.
And then Hillary brought up race as a dismissive reason why Obama did so well in Louisiana ("These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.").
So what would Ann Richards think about this? I don't know for sure, but based on her record, I'd say there is a far greater than zero chance she would not approve, and if I am correct, that would mean there is a chance that Ann would not endorse Hillary.
Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 4: good friends Molly Ivins and Ann Richards)
I have spent some time checking out comments about the ad in various other locations in the wide world interweb, and most of those from Hillary supporters are specious and feeble at best. One theme in those responses is a new Hillogism:
Hillary and Ann were friends.
Ann would have loved to see a woman as President.
Therefore, Ann Richards would have endorsed her friend Hillary.
There are many reasons why this Hillogism fails, but here I will focus on one. The major premise is that friendship is the main reason Ann would have endorsed Hillary. In other words, friendship would have clearly influenced Ann's decision. Ah, but Ann Richards had a friend to whom she was much closer than Hillary Clinton, and that friend did not care for Hillary.
Read "Remembering Ann Richards" and "A-men. A-women. A-Ann." These were written by Ivins shortly after Ann Richards died. In those remembrances you will find a warmth and knowledge that can come only from years of close friendship.
Also, take note of something Ann said about Molly at an event. The occasion was the 50th Anniversary party for the Texas Observer. Molly had just introduced Ann, and here is what Ann said about Molly:
I know it’s been a shock to all of us, but over the last ten or fifteen years our girl Molly Ivins has learned to dress, run a comb through her hair now and then, and give a fairly decent speech. The Observer was never better than when Molly and Kay were writing it. But then, we were all easier to please back then. A truly remarkable woman who goes around America making speeches and telling lies about me. And I welcome her attentions any time. May God bless this woman who has more survivor blood in her veins than anyone I have ever known.
You can also see the video of these remarks at the link provided above.
I'd say that is a bit more significant than the one link between Hillary and Ann shown in Hillary's ad, namely Hillary telling about Ann's advice on hair.
Now let's get back to the Hillogism. Hillary and her supporters tell us that there was such a deep bond between Hillary and Ann that it is a foregone conclusion that Ann would have endorsed Hillary. Well, let's look at that in the context of a longer, closer friendship--that between Ann and Molly. Here's how that logical construct might go:
Molly Ivins had a much longer and closer friendship with Ann Richards than did Hillary.
Molly Ivins was strongly opposed to Hillary being President.
Therefore, Ann would have sided with her closer friend and would not have endorsed Hillary.
Now before you Hillary supporters start getting bent out of shape, I will say that this "reasoning" is specious at worst and highly speculative at best for the very simple reason that it cannot be proved because Ann Richards died before Hillary declared her candidacy. But that same criticism applies to the Hillogism that Hillary's friendship with Ann means that Ann would have endorsed Hillary. So quit trying to use Hillary's friendship with Ann to justify Hillary's bullshit and in extremely bad taste ad claiming that Ann Richards is endorsing Hillary from beyond the grave.
Coming in Part 5--Hillary's actions likely would not be condoned by Ann.
