Laura Bush seems to be the only one who is upset about her heel of a husband's close call with a loafer.
Latin American leaders in Brazil laughed.
"Please, nobody take off your shoes," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva joked to reporters at the start of a news conference.
Australians laughed.
In Saudi Arabia, they did more than laugh. Someone offered $10 million for the shoe seen around the world. The shoes have become a symbol of protest across the Middle East.
Internet gamers laughed. Within hours internet games sprouted up that spoofed the incident.
And thanks to the late night comics, we all laughed.
Even George Bush tried to laugh it off....not realizing that he was the joke.
Laura Bush seemed to be the only one who took offense.
"As a wife, I saw this as an assault, and that's what it was," she told USA TODAY during an interview Thursday at the White House. "And so I didn't laugh it off like he did."
Put a sock in it. It was funny.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
When you wish upon a czar...
...makes no difference who you are
anything your heart desireswill come to you
-Peter Pan
-Peter Pan
I'm not sure who wished for the car czar first, but I'm willing to bet they won't get their heart's desire. I'm not expert in these things, but it just strikes me as a bad idea.
I'm going to sound Republican here, but stick with me. One of the follies of government is that it thinks it can fix everything itself, and two of Washington's favorite fix-it remedies are the commission and the czar. One buys time, and the other shifts accountability. Both tend to waste time and money.
The latest fix for the car industry is that we hand them a $14 billion check (the term officially morphed from bailout to bridge loan) that will come with a nanny to help the car companies make better decisions. No one can argue that automakers have some serious decision-making challenges...after all, these are the guys who make cars so crappy that they didn't even want to drive them to Washington. Only when they thought $25 billion...oops, I meant $34 billion, was at stake did they buckle up for the road trip. I'm not mad at them. It'd take about that much to get me to drive one, too.
So these guys who stunk at making decisions and drove their companies into the ditch, now beg us for a bailout, I mean bridge loan. We can't just hand them the money. We need some checks and balances. We need.... A CZAR. Here are four problems with the czar idea:
1) No business in government: Government doesn't think or operate like the private sector. Like it or not, the engine of business is capitalism. Companies are driven by competition and profits. We measure success by money and stock value. That's it folks. There is no other real report card for business as a whole. Government doesn't think that way. They are egalitarian. They are looking out for the greater good. To make everything right for the taxpayer. To establish justice. To ensure domestic tranquility. To provide for the common defense. To raise their poll numbers. Chrysler has a different agenda; they want to kill GM. They don't want the same opportunity as their competitor. They want a better one. That's the nature of business, and government doesn't get that. That brings me to my second reason.
2) The friend of my enemy: This one czar will open up the books of both companies to decide who needs and gets help...or how they should negotiate deals..or restructure loans?? That ought to make them both shudder. Companies guard their inner workings like Fort Knox because a leak in their strategic direction or technologies can set them back years in market share and profitability. Now you'll have the same guy/office poring through your books as well as your competitors. Can you ever trust that process, no matter how much they say it's safe? Did the mob ever trust the witness protection program? I know the government is there to help but please... That brings me to the third reason.
3) Money where your mouth is: The czar has no real stake in the outcome. Other than being able to add "successful car czar" to his or her resume, there will be no lasting impact like his job lost or her stock value plummeting. If the whole experiment fails, the czar will write a book and go nurse his or her credibility back to health in a think tank. People who were at his mercy will languish with the results. If you want to call the shots, you need some skin in the game. That brings me to my last reason.
4) It's not who you know, it's what you know: Will this person be required to have auto industry experience? What metrics will we use to determine Mr. or Ms. Czar's success? Do you really want the same guy who picked Mike "Brownie" Brown to run FEMA choosing someone to navigate Detroit through its storm? Would you be more inclined to buy a car from a Detroit company because a Washington suit was calling the shots? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Now you're thinking...we just can't hand money to auto execs with no accountability, can we? No we shouldn't, but accountability doesn't require us to micromanage the process. When a bank loans you money for a car, they don't send someone to the car lot with you to make sure you don't by a Buick with high mileage, but when the transmission falls out, you're on your own.
A guy named Arnold Berk spent $15,000 of his own money to place an ad with his proposal for "A Contract between Main Street and Wall Street." He has a couple provisions that tie very real accountability and consequences to any government help. Here's my favorite:
The CEO and top 25 officers must pledge their personal real estate as collateral for this loan. This includes property held jointly with spouse. Their principal residence as well as any other real estate they may own as an individual or with spouse.
No need to hire a czar when a guy's house is at stake. Now that's not just accountability, that's motivation. Go ahead and fly to Washington while we measure for drapes. You think that would get their attention?
But... we wish for a czar to build our cars. As one analyst commented, "that only delays the funeral."
If your heart is in your dreams
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a czar
As dreamers do
-Peter Pan
Monday, December 8, 2008
An intelligence failure...
This was truly too easy. They ought to at least make me work for my sarcastic opportunities, but, alas, they serve it up on a silver platter.
Last week George Bush, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes launched the Legacy Project -- a deliberate effort to spend the next six weeks trying to convince us we really didn't understand the last eight years.
The effort is being rolled out in a series of "exit interviews," where the trio try to replace the general consensus that George Bush was the worst president EVER with the proposition that George Bush was a resolute war president and reluctant warrior who was misled by bad intelligence.
First stop on the Bush Legacy Project was ABC's Charlie Gibson where Bush said "I don't know --- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq."
His biggest regret was the intelligence failure. That's right, the decider is basing his horrible decision making on a failure of intelligence. I couldn't agree more.
As Ben Cohen of The Daily Banter put it:
But the interview got better:
Last week George Bush, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes launched the Legacy Project -- a deliberate effort to spend the next six weeks trying to convince us we really didn't understand the last eight years.
The effort is being rolled out in a series of "exit interviews," where the trio try to replace the general consensus that George Bush was the worst president EVER with the proposition that George Bush was a resolute war president and reluctant warrior who was misled by bad intelligence.
First stop on the Bush Legacy Project was ABC's Charlie Gibson where Bush said "I don't know --- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq."
His biggest regret was the intelligence failure. That's right, the decider is basing his horrible decision making on a failure of intelligence. I couldn't agree more.
As Ben Cohen of The Daily Banter put it:
[Bush] has presided over two disastrous wars, an increase in poverty at home, an increase in wealth inequality, an increase in the number of people without health care, a crisis in public education, the break down of national infrastructure, the literal drowning of a city, the use of torture as official policy, the biggest financial crisis in 80 years, and the irreversible decline of America's prestige abroad.With all of that on his watch, this dim bulb launches a PR campaign to convince us that he was not the worst president because of an "intelligence failure."
But the interview got better:
GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war? BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.Huh?
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
That's an interesting question? Really? It's as if this is the first time he is reflecting on a decision that has been debated for the last five years. And...he doesn't want to speculate. How convenient. Here's a thought... if you want to convince us to reconsider your legacy, you ought to be ready to answer basic questions. You ought to go out on a limb and speculate. You truly have nothing to lose.
The legacy project rolls on, so let's keep repeating the talking points until we believe them. Bush was really a good president. If those pesky intelligence folks had gotten it right, we would have had a good reason to invade Iraq. If only they had done their jobs. Oops. We're speculating again.
You're right W. Your biggest regret should be a failure of intelligence. Yours.
That was truly too easy.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Your seat at the table
President-elect Barack Obama is making good on a significant campaign promise even before he is sworn in. You'll recall he often promised that he would make government transparent. That would mean everything from showing meetings on C-Span to making pending policy available online for review and comment.
That's a pretty stark contrast from the current administration, which would make decisions and not only keep silent about what was discussed but who was there doing the discussing. After eight years of darkness, sunshine is a welcome contrast.
In a message and video distributed today, Obama is launching what he calls Your Seat at the Table. It's a message not just to us but to his transition team. If you need another reason to be impressed with this man, take a look at what he is doing to government. He promised change; it looks like change is on the way.
Read the full memo to his transition team and more on the Your Seat at the Table initiative on Obama's change.gov site.
Read to his transition team and more at Obama's change.gov site.
That's a pretty stark contrast from the current administration, which would make decisions and not only keep silent about what was discussed but who was there doing the discussing. After eight years of darkness, sunshine is a welcome contrast.
In a message and video distributed today, Obama is launching what he calls Your Seat at the Table. It's a message not just to us but to his transition team. If you need another reason to be impressed with this man, take a look at what he is doing to government. He promised change; it looks like change is on the way.
Read the full memo to his transition team and more on the Your Seat at the Table initiative on Obama's change.gov site.
Read to his transition team and more at Obama's change.gov site.
Obama Campaign Mulls What To Do With $30M Surplus
Here are excerpts from a Huffington Post article.
WASHINGTON — Democrats carrying significant campaign debt after winning a string of House and Senate races are grumbling about President-elect Barack Obama's financial reserves, saying the party's leader is sitting on a pile of cash while Democratic leaders are broke....
Obama's organization retains some $30 million after his successful presidential bid, but it's unclear how the Democratic president-in-waiting might use the money. Members of his party are doing their best to appeal for the funds without appearing greedy, ungrateful or hostile to their new leader....
The Democratic National Committee is carrying about $5 million in debt, with almost $12 million cash on hand. DNC officials say they expect to have the debt paid by the end of the year. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee carries some $19 million in debt and less than $3 million on hand. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is nearly $13 million in debt...
Obama raised more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain. In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day...
Obama opted not to participate in public funding system. In exchange, he was able to continue raising money, while McCain accepted $84 million in taxpayer money, and the spending restrictions that went with it, through the public financing system...
Obama aides are aware of the stigma and don't want to appear inelegant or selfish. They are weighing whether to keep the money to build a massive grass roots program to support his agenda, or to cycle that money to the party apparatus. Both ideas have strong advocates, but it's unclear to those involved which way Obama will go...
Party officials around the country say the campaign leaders have signaled they shouldn't expect the money to come to them directly, if at all. Instead, many party officials expect Obama to use his funds to advance his own priorities, to support his massive Internet-based organization and to have cache for special causes. With almost 4 million donors, Obama's fundraising list could prove golden for future Obama-backed drives...
WASHINGTON — Democrats carrying significant campaign debt after winning a string of House and Senate races are grumbling about President-elect Barack Obama's financial reserves, saying the party's leader is sitting on a pile of cash while Democratic leaders are broke....
Obama's organization retains some $30 million after his successful presidential bid, but it's unclear how the Democratic president-in-waiting might use the money. Members of his party are doing their best to appeal for the funds without appearing greedy, ungrateful or hostile to their new leader....
The Democratic National Committee is carrying about $5 million in debt, with almost $12 million cash on hand. DNC officials say they expect to have the debt paid by the end of the year. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee carries some $19 million in debt and less than $3 million on hand. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is nearly $13 million in debt...
Obama raised more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain. In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day...
Obama opted not to participate in public funding system. In exchange, he was able to continue raising money, while McCain accepted $84 million in taxpayer money, and the spending restrictions that went with it, through the public financing system...
Obama aides are aware of the stigma and don't want to appear inelegant or selfish. They are weighing whether to keep the money to build a massive grass roots program to support his agenda, or to cycle that money to the party apparatus. Both ideas have strong advocates, but it's unclear to those involved which way Obama will go...
Party officials around the country say the campaign leaders have signaled they shouldn't expect the money to come to them directly, if at all. Instead, many party officials expect Obama to use his funds to advance his own priorities, to support his massive Internet-based organization and to have cache for special causes. With almost 4 million donors, Obama's fundraising list could prove golden for future Obama-backed drives...
Friday, December 5, 2008
Don't worry, be happy
If I'm happy, you ought to be happy, too. That's assuming we are friends.
So says the result of a study in the British Medical Journal. The study of 4,700 people who were followed more than 20 years found that people who are happy or become happy boost the chances that someone they know will be happy. It doesn't stop with the people you know however, the happiness can persist through another degree of separation. When one person in a network becomes happy, the chances that a friend, sibling, spouse or next-door neighbor would also become happy increased between 8 percent and 34 percent.
Are you smiling yet? What about the person next to you.
The study confirmed what I've always sensed, that it is harder to be miserable around people who are joyful than people who are miserable. If you want to stay happy, it's best to avoid those who seem to wallow in unhappiness.
Could that phenomenon have been at work in the last election? I think we'd all agree that Barack Obama was the one candidate who always seemed to have a sunny disposition. No matter what was thrown his way, he seemed to always be able to summon a smile.
If you looked at his staff and supporters, they always seemed to be upbeat. By contrast, some of his opponents (who will remain nameless) seemed to be perpetually peeved and were always surrounded by a sour-faced lot.
Barack's attitude is in keeping with dreams of our founding fathers. Less than 100 words into the Declaration of Independence they not only proffered that our unalienable rights are life and liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness. Barack Obama might just remind us that happiness is not only good for campaigning but essential for governing.
The study also resonated with me because it reminded me of my Dad. He has got to be the most optimistic person I know. No matter what I've seen him go through, I've never seen him without his smile or without a word of positive encouragement. His optimism is so bad that sometimes we would get upset at him for being happy...when the situation called for some righteous indignation.
I'd like to think that I inherited some portion of his positive attitude...like his brown eyes and chubby cheeks. I'm still working on continuing his legacy of happiness, but I do know that whenever I go to my parents house, there is a joy that is unmistakable. There is no doubt that their joy transfers to anyone who enters their home.
The good news is that their joy and happiness is viral. They'll pass it to me, and I'll pass it to two friends. And so on. And so on. Pretty soon we will have infected everyone in our network. That's got to be a beautiful thing.
Ask Barack Obama. Ask my dad.
So says the result of a study in the British Medical Journal. The study of 4,700 people who were followed more than 20 years found that people who are happy or become happy boost the chances that someone they know will be happy. It doesn't stop with the people you know however, the happiness can persist through another degree of separation. When one person in a network becomes happy, the chances that a friend, sibling, spouse or next-door neighbor would also become happy increased between 8 percent and 34 percent.
Are you smiling yet? What about the person next to you.
The study confirmed what I've always sensed, that it is harder to be miserable around people who are joyful than people who are miserable. If you want to stay happy, it's best to avoid those who seem to wallow in unhappiness.
Could that phenomenon have been at work in the last election? I think we'd all agree that Barack Obama was the one candidate who always seemed to have a sunny disposition. No matter what was thrown his way, he seemed to always be able to summon a smile.
If you looked at his staff and supporters, they always seemed to be upbeat. By contrast, some of his opponents (who will remain nameless) seemed to be perpetually peeved and were always surrounded by a sour-faced lot.
Barack's attitude is in keeping with dreams of our founding fathers. Less than 100 words into the Declaration of Independence they not only proffered that our unalienable rights are life and liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness. Barack Obama might just remind us that happiness is not only good for campaigning but essential for governing.
The study also resonated with me because it reminded me of my Dad. He has got to be the most optimistic person I know. No matter what I've seen him go through, I've never seen him without his smile or without a word of positive encouragement. His optimism is so bad that sometimes we would get upset at him for being happy...when the situation called for some righteous indignation.
I'd like to think that I inherited some portion of his positive attitude...like his brown eyes and chubby cheeks. I'm still working on continuing his legacy of happiness, but I do know that whenever I go to my parents house, there is a joy that is unmistakable. There is no doubt that their joy transfers to anyone who enters their home.
The good news is that their joy and happiness is viral. They'll pass it to me, and I'll pass it to two friends. And so on. And so on. Pretty soon we will have infected everyone in our network. That's got to be a beautiful thing.
Ask Barack Obama. Ask my dad.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Time to retire the red button
I've just about had it with the red button. You know...the one at the end of every Barack Obama email that says "Donate Now?"
I have much love for Barack Obama. Back when he was the insurgent candidate, I gladly clicked the little red button and took "ownership" of the campaign. As he surged into the lead during the primaries, I was one of those millions pledging my love in small amounts.
He needed more money to stave off McCain, and I complied. Little by little, I registered my support and made my voice known.
But then something changed. McCain agreed to accept $80 million for his campaign, and Obama was still raising prodigious amounts of money each month. His fundraising crescendoed in September when he raised $150 million. He collected almost twice as much as McCain had for his entire campaign...in a month. Still the red buttons continued.
Just weeks were left in the campaign, and Obama was buying up blocks of TV time that competed with the World Series. Still he asked us to "Donate Now." I must admit that that little red button got less and less appealing to me. It seemed a bit much to ask me for more money when he was outspending the competition by record amounts.
Still they asked. Even though the campaign has ended, the red buttons persist. There is something unseemly about a president-elect begging for money. At that point, you are about to take control of the most efficient fundraising machine ever -- the IRS. I'm beginning to wonder if we can expect rebates from a campaign that expects a perpetual hand out.
It's about time for us to start emailing him our own little buttons. All this other bailing out is going on, and I'd like some of that action. Christmas is coming. Times are hard for everyone, and we need some help. Hey President-elect Obama:
I have much love for Barack Obama. Back when he was the insurgent candidate, I gladly clicked the little red button and took "ownership" of the campaign. As he surged into the lead during the primaries, I was one of those millions pledging my love in small amounts.
He needed more money to stave off McCain, and I complied. Little by little, I registered my support and made my voice known.
But then something changed. McCain agreed to accept $80 million for his campaign, and Obama was still raising prodigious amounts of money each month. His fundraising crescendoed in September when he raised $150 million. He collected almost twice as much as McCain had for his entire campaign...in a month. Still the red buttons continued.
Just weeks were left in the campaign, and Obama was buying up blocks of TV time that competed with the World Series. Still he asked us to "Donate Now." I must admit that that little red button got less and less appealing to me. It seemed a bit much to ask me for more money when he was outspending the competition by record amounts.
Still they asked. Even though the campaign has ended, the red buttons persist. There is something unseemly about a president-elect begging for money. At that point, you are about to take control of the most efficient fundraising machine ever -- the IRS. I'm beginning to wonder if we can expect rebates from a campaign that expects a perpetual hand out.
It's about time for us to start emailing him our own little buttons. All this other bailing out is going on, and I'd like some of that action. Christmas is coming. Times are hard for everyone, and we need some help. Hey President-elect Obama:
Friday, November 28, 2008
Yes We Sang: Music fueled the campaign
Listen to this. One of the things I enjoyed about this past campaign was the way music played such a key role at influential points. Music, meet social networking. Now anyone can make music about the campaign...and they did. I thought it might be fun to go back and listen to some of the 2008 election tunes. Here they are by genre.
The most popular, I think, is the will.i.am song inspired by Barack's New Hampshire speech: Yes We Can.
How about the flighty Obama Girl's crush.
And the hip hop tribute?
Calypso? Try the Mighty Sparrow.
Speaking of Calypso, this is a cool biography song.
And the last Calypso song chides Sarah Palin. Priceless.
Of course there has to be a Rock and Roll version.
I found this one that I'd never heard before. Shhh... don't tell the King family.
Here's a find from one of our readers. You might remember the Robert Palmer tune from the late 80's. :-)
And recognizing that music plays such an important role, the Obama Campaign released their own soundtrack for the campaign. You can find it here: http://store.barackobama.com/Yes_We_Can_Voices_of_a_Grassroots_Movement_s/1037.htm
The most popular, I think, is the will.i.am song inspired by Barack's New Hampshire speech: Yes We Can.
How about the flighty Obama Girl's crush.
And the hip hop tribute?
Calypso? Try the Mighty Sparrow.
Speaking of Calypso, this is a cool biography song.
And the last Calypso song chides Sarah Palin. Priceless.
Of course there has to be a Rock and Roll version.
I found this one that I'd never heard before. Shhh... don't tell the King family.
Here's a find from one of our readers. You might remember the Robert Palmer tune from the late 80's. :-)
See more funny videos at Funny or Die
And recognizing that music plays such an important role, the Obama Campaign released their own soundtrack for the campaign. You can find it here: http://store.barackobama.com/Yes_We_Can_Voices_of_a_Grassroots_Movement_s/1037.htm
Know of another good one? Let me know.
Now I'm wondering. What kind of music can we expect to support Barack Obama as he governs?
Now I'm wondering. What kind of music can we expect to support Barack Obama as he governs?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Brother, can you spare a bailout? A conspiracist’s guide to the current crises
The line is beginning to form for those taxpayer bailout dollars. You mean you haven't heard? Say your business or industry isn't going very well. You're on the verge of losing everything if you don't do something drastic. What do you do? Let things go south and head to the government for a bailout.
It worked swimmingly for the banking and investment industries. They were on their way down the tubes. They weren't running out of money, mind you. They had plenty of cash, but we had a crisis looming they told us. Our homes were losing value, said the banks who helped determine the value most of them. Our stocks were going south, said the investment community who administered them. We don't have the confidence to loan to each other, said the banks who controlled loaning decisions.
What we need is cash, they gravely intoned. Lot's of it. Your cash. We won't lend you money, but we want you to lend us some. What a great idea! And so Congress, who funds their campaigns with donations from rich people like bankers and stock brokers went along. Things must be fixed. A crisis like this deserves all our attention, they cried in unison. More rapid than eagles, the statements they came. They forecast the doom and decried the shame.
The masses panicked on cue. Yes, give them our money, so they might loan it back to us. Write them a check with no collateral after they squandered theirs in a dramatic display of fiscal irresponsibility. Yeah. Let's give them $750 billion. Wait, they need $250 billion more. They couldn't have really asked for a trillion, could they? That would choke even the most concerned observers. How about we get that trillion it in two easy payments?
Whoa! The auto industry said. You mean you can run your industry into the ground and get some bailout cash? We want some of that action. Quick, let's don our long faces and swoop into Washington. How brilliant of us. Sure congress will initially castigate us and our management ability, but how bad can we be if we can score some of this cash. We'll then collude with the banks to charge high interest rates, and we can both make back this money and then some. Sweet.
But the knucklehead auto industry execs couldn't even get the begging right. We all had a good laugh that they flew into town on corporate jets whisking congressional testimony that told us how the bankrupt and begging companies had been so well managed. They make great cars. They have savvy managers. They employ efficient workers. It wasn't anybody's fault. Nobody in Detroit, anyhow.
Then they slipped congress the ransom note. Give us the money or the Detroit workers get it. Congress considered the demand but quickly realized they should feign some level of outrage and concern. Lawmakers sent the execs back to Michigan with some homework. Come back in December and bring us some political cover for goodness sakes. Do we really need to explain that to you?
The airline and travel industries looked on, green with envy. Our industries are going broke, too. We employ lots of Americans, too. Let's see what happens with the Detroit brethren. In the mean time, somebody write a ransom note.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Clinton drama drowns Obama
Just as I was starting to get over my Clinton fatigue, the duo stages a reprise.
For two years, the Obama campaign kept negotiations and decisions private until they were ready to make an announcement. They were disciplined and leak free. No more.
Word leaked last week that Hillary Clinton had been offered the Secretary of State position in the cabinet and, ever since, we have been subjected to a barrage of leaks and public hand wringing. No other appointment has generated this much debate and public negotiation. Bill needs to be vetted. He doesn't want to be vetted. He has lawyers negotiating. She has angst. She's not sure she wants the job.
Enough already. Make a decision and STFU. Geez... Do we really want her around the executive branch for the next four years?
Through all this drama, we barely hear the name of the president elect. He is absent from the debate. You have to think that is deliberate. He's letting her suck all the oxygen out of the room again. This is just like the way things went when he won the nomination and, for a week, all we heard about was how hard Hillary had it. How much time she needed to admit what we had all known for three months. Through that time, Obama was silent as well.
I'm not sure what his strategy is...but I hope he soon has Clinton fatigue like we have. End this drama.
For two years, the Obama campaign kept negotiations and decisions private until they were ready to make an announcement. They were disciplined and leak free. No more.
Word leaked last week that Hillary Clinton had been offered the Secretary of State position in the cabinet and, ever since, we have been subjected to a barrage of leaks and public hand wringing. No other appointment has generated this much debate and public negotiation. Bill needs to be vetted. He doesn't want to be vetted. He has lawyers negotiating. She has angst. She's not sure she wants the job.
Enough already. Make a decision and STFU. Geez... Do we really want her around the executive branch for the next four years?
Through all this drama, we barely hear the name of the president elect. He is absent from the debate. You have to think that is deliberate. He's letting her suck all the oxygen out of the room again. This is just like the way things went when he won the nomination and, for a week, all we heard about was how hard Hillary had it. How much time she needed to admit what we had all known for three months. Through that time, Obama was silent as well.
I'm not sure what his strategy is...but I hope he soon has Clinton fatigue like we have. End this drama.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Team of rivals?
Much is being made about Obama selecting his campaign adversaries to posts in his administration. He is apparently inspired by a book called Team of Rivals that discussed how Abraham Lincoln had done the same thing.
Interesting concept. Is it me or did he primarily choose rivals who might oppose him in 2012? The team of rivals clears the field for his re-election.
I'm guessing all this public wrangling Hillary Clinton is doing over Dept of State will let him off the hook with her supporters when she finally declines too.
We'll see how he keeps all those egos in check.
Sent from my iPhone.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Reign in the Kings - update
Last week, I blogged about Martin Luther King Jr's children squabbling over $1.4 million of their mother's belongings. Well this week they've found something to unite around -- other people's money.
AP News reported on Nov. 13 that the King Family Seeks to Cash in on MLK-Obama Items. The King kids realized that all kinds trinkets were selling with Dr. King and President elect Obama's likeness, and they were incensed.
As guardians of Dr. King's likeness, the children plan to zealously pursue anyone selling Dr. King's likeness to ensure they get their cut. Or... as one of them so articulately put it, "If you make a dollar, we should make a dime. That's not happening now."
Nice.
AP News reported on Nov. 13 that the King Family Seeks to Cash in on MLK-Obama Items. The King kids realized that all kinds trinkets were selling with Dr. King and President elect Obama's likeness, and they were incensed.
As guardians of Dr. King's likeness, the children plan to zealously pursue anyone selling Dr. King's likeness to ensure they get their cut. Or... as one of them so articulately put it, "If you make a dollar, we should make a dime. That's not happening now."
Nice.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
His name was Justin
This morning, I visited Arlington National Cemetery for a Veteran’s Day excursion. Section 60 of the cemetery has been designated as the final resting place for all those who died in Iraq, and we spent a good deal of our time just talking with family members who were there to remember their loved ones.
No matter how many times you confront these sacrifices in a personal way, it is always moving. I was touched by a 5-year-old girl and her 11-year-old brother who were there to see their dad. Surprisingly, the young boy spoke of his father with more pride than sadness.
Most memorable was the mother of Army Spc. Justin Rollins. She covered the range of emotions in our conversation -- from beaming with pride for his sacrifice, to remembering his many antics with laughter, to crumbling into tears recalling that yesterday was his birthday. Justin was an 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper and infantryman who was killed by an IED humvee explosion three weeks before he was scheduled to go home and planned to propose to his long-time girlfriend.
In the stories of these strangers, the meaning of Veteran’s Day came to life. I thanked his mom, Rhonda, and the many families in Section 60 for their sacrifice, I’d also like to thank all those who served our nation and paid the ultimate price.
More about Justin
No matter how many times you confront these sacrifices in a personal way, it is always moving. I was touched by a 5-year-old girl and her 11-year-old brother who were there to see their dad. Surprisingly, the young boy spoke of his father with more pride than sadness.
Most memorable was the mother of Army Spc. Justin Rollins. She covered the range of emotions in our conversation -- from beaming with pride for his sacrifice, to remembering his many antics with laughter, to crumbling into tears recalling that yesterday was his birthday. Justin was an 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper and infantryman who was killed by an IED humvee explosion three weeks before he was scheduled to go home and planned to propose to his long-time girlfriend.
In the stories of these strangers, the meaning of Veteran’s Day came to life. I thanked his mom, Rhonda, and the many families in Section 60 for their sacrifice, I’d also like to thank all those who served our nation and paid the ultimate price.
More about Justin
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Hope we can believe in
With due respect and apologies to Barack Obama, we always hoped; we just never believed. That was your challenge.
I cast my very first vote in a presidential election for Jesse Jackson. I was a freshman at a historically black college, and Rev. Jackson was the first serious Black candidate for president that I had seen. When Jackson visited our campus for a campaign rally, he held court for almost an hour -- preaching to us in a way that only a Black candidate could. When he closed with his signature, "Keep Hope Alive!" we went nuts. We were proud. We were hopeful. But we never really believed he could be president.
Just an election cycle ago, there were whispers of a young African American senator from Illinois who might be well positioned to be president. We indulged the fantasy, but he is so young. And that name? He's talented but it wasn't likely. Not in America.
From our perch of disbelief, he seduced us with his electrifying 2004 convention speech, and our hearts yearned to believe. We swooned...cautiously. We'd been here before.
We're pretty used to seeing African Americans in the highest rungs of power. Ron Brown, Alexis Herman, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice will no doubt make their way into Black History books. Logically, it should have been a short step from a cabinet member to the president, but we have learned not to believe.
Carter G. Woodson warned us a century ago that if you controlled a man's thinking, you don't have to worry about his actions. If a race or class of people believed they couldn't make a difference, or that people who looked like them could have a place in this democracy, that is the ultimate form of voter supression.
We saw the effects in this election cycle. Early in the primary, Obama polled poorly with Black voters, who never really thought he had a legitimate chance at being elected. We were hopeful but wary. Many opted for Hillary Clinton, the better known candidate. She had the more realistic chance of being elected, went the thinking.
In the midst of our skepticism, something stirred in Iowa, and we got our first permission to believe. Obama's candidacy became our generation's March on Washington. He empowered us to work for change. We emailed small contributions, volunteered in our communities, called voters across the country. As we took ownership of our campaign, the dream became more real every day.
This morning when the polls opened, I joined a line of African American voters that snaked around a soccer field, zigzagged through a parking lot, weaved into and out of a church sanctuary and ended at voting terminals in a church gymnasium. It was the last four hours of this incredible journey. Across the country, we were all coming together, White and Black, young and old, rich and poor, to send a message and claim our future.
There's only one reason we could do that. You asked us to hope. You taught us to believe. That is your legacy, Mr. President.
I cast my very first vote in a presidential election for Jesse Jackson. I was a freshman at a historically black college, and Rev. Jackson was the first serious Black candidate for president that I had seen. When Jackson visited our campus for a campaign rally, he held court for almost an hour -- preaching to us in a way that only a Black candidate could. When he closed with his signature, "Keep Hope Alive!" we went nuts. We were proud. We were hopeful. But we never really believed he could be president.
Just an election cycle ago, there were whispers of a young African American senator from Illinois who might be well positioned to be president. We indulged the fantasy, but he is so young. And that name? He's talented but it wasn't likely. Not in America.
From our perch of disbelief, he seduced us with his electrifying 2004 convention speech, and our hearts yearned to believe. We swooned...cautiously. We'd been here before.
We're pretty used to seeing African Americans in the highest rungs of power. Ron Brown, Alexis Herman, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice will no doubt make their way into Black History books. Logically, it should have been a short step from a cabinet member to the president, but we have learned not to believe.
Carter G. Woodson warned us a century ago that if you controlled a man's thinking, you don't have to worry about his actions. If a race or class of people believed they couldn't make a difference, or that people who looked like them could have a place in this democracy, that is the ultimate form of voter supression.
We saw the effects in this election cycle. Early in the primary, Obama polled poorly with Black voters, who never really thought he had a legitimate chance at being elected. We were hopeful but wary. Many opted for Hillary Clinton, the better known candidate. She had the more realistic chance of being elected, went the thinking.
In the midst of our skepticism, something stirred in Iowa, and we got our first permission to believe. Obama's candidacy became our generation's March on Washington. He empowered us to work for change. We emailed small contributions, volunteered in our communities, called voters across the country. As we took ownership of our campaign, the dream became more real every day.
This morning when the polls opened, I joined a line of African American voters that snaked around a soccer field, zigzagged through a parking lot, weaved into and out of a church sanctuary and ended at voting terminals in a church gymnasium. It was the last four hours of this incredible journey. Across the country, we were all coming together, White and Black, young and old, rich and poor, to send a message and claim our future.
There's only one reason we could do that. You asked us to hope. You taught us to believe. That is your legacy, Mr. President.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
By the time we get to Arizona
For Barack Obama irony, if not victory, might await in Arizona. Depending on whose polls you believe, the Democrat could be on the verge of an electoral landslide. He has made significant gains in a whole range of battleground states and now turns his money and attention to Arizona, the home of his opponent, Sen. John McCain.
I can't say that I blame Obama. The only thing better than a wipe out would be one that includes Arizona. That would be the ultimate poke in the eye, and McCain knows it. Now he has to divert funds allocated to other battles to defend his home turf.
Here's the irony. If Obama is successful, the state that gave the most resistance to recognizing a Black man, Martin Luther King Jr., could be the state that plays a pivital role in electing the nation's first Black president.
I would find an Arizona victory satisfying since John McCain was one of the politicians who fought the passage of the King Holiday. In fairness, he has since apologized for his actions, but who cares? Some of the things we see in this campaign expose a mindset that looks like the same old McCain. The McCain who only came around to support the holiday after increasing public pressure, the NFL cancelling a super bowl in Arizona, and an overwhelming 338 - 90 vote in the House of Representatives. When it became apparent that he was on the wrong side of history, McCain got on the bus.
Glad he found enlightenment, but it shouldn't have been that hard. Recognizing an American who stirred the moral consciousness of a nation, earned worldwide recognition for his nonviolent movement for equality and peace, and then gave his life as his last great act of sacrifice should have been a no brainer. Not for Arizona, however. They remained the symbol of an unnecessary battle.
Many from my generation will always remember that time period through the sentiment of Public Enemy's hip hop classic, "By the Time I Get to Arizona." It was one of the defiant and revolutionary expressions of the moment. Thanks to Chuck D, even though we bobbed our heads, we never really forgot Arizona.
That was then, however. This is 2008. The holiday is official. Chuck D is main stream. Obama is playing offense. A man of color is returning to Arizona, not as part of a movement seeking acceptance, but leading a campaign exacting respect.
Public Enemy's classic has made the journey with me from my walkman cassette to my iPod touch. Now I'm planning to take it into the voting booth. I'm hoping the verdict on an unfortunate time in American history can be reached by the time we get to Arizona.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Leadership, huh...
It seems like an eternity ago, but it was only June 3 of this year.
Barack Obama was clinching the Democratic nomination, when John McCain took to the stage in a sparsely populated room in New Orleans, La., to launch his first attack. McCain planted himself in front of a puke green background and declared himself, "A Leader We Can Believe In." That decision, as well as practically every decision since, has proved him to be anything but a leader.
Even if you start on the night in front of the now infamous green backdrop, McCain was the spectacle of a follower. His theme, "A Leader We Can Believe In," was obviously cribbed from Obama's "Change We Can Believe In." He littered his speech with derisions of Obama followed by the mocking, "that's not change we can believe in."
There you have it. On his speech to launch the general election, McCain uses a knock-off of his opponent's words as the Republican theme and slogan. Leadership?
The rest of the campaign has not fared much better for McCain, and every bump in the road can be mapped back to an absense of leadership. First, he sputtered around from slogan to slogan, never really settling on one long enough for it to take root. When that approach faltered, he then brought in the Bush attack team who savaged him in 2000 and turned the reins over to them.
Bush's team immediately plunged McCain's campaign into an appalling display of negativity that ran counter to everything he had modeled throughout his career. The so-called leader did nothing.
The pathway continued downward. McCain offered no grand vision, no overriding philosophy, no uplifting message, just juvenile attacks that his opponent was a celebrity. According to McCain, Obama's great sin was that people liked him...that voters would assemble to actually listen to him. Record-breaking crowds gathered across the United States and throughout Europe for first-hand exposure to the message of hope and change. No one was following 'the leader.'
Then came the worst mistake of all. After vetting vice president contenders for months, he held a short conversation with a little-known governor from Alaska. Thirty minutes later, he had a nominee. The leadership virtues of consultation and deliberation, of exercising reasonable judgment, were all casualties to his impulses. It was the Magic 8 Ball at the helm. The leader followed.
The other missteps are recent enough to recall with clarity. He careened through the economic meltdown, bouncing from position to position like a pinball. In a final act of desperation, he cast his sailor's honor overboard and began steering his campaign through the mud and sludge directly to the rocky shore.
The passengers aboard the SSS McCain Disaster, sensing their iminent doom, have begun to jump overboard. The captain of the ship plows on...either oblivious to the fact that his crew is deserting him or powerless to do anything about it. Neither being a striking display of leadership.
So here we are...nine days before the election, and news organizations are reporting this his VP nominee is the latest to abandon him. She had always let it be known publicly when she didn't agree with one of McCain's decisions (pulling out of Michigan, not using Rev. Wright to attack Obama, for examples), but we were to see a more brazen display of disloyalty. Campaign staff for both McCain and Palin are going on the record to say that she is out for herself at this point. Ignoring advice from McCain and doing her own thing. And with all this going on, not a word from McCain.
Leadership, huh.
Barack Obama was clinching the Democratic nomination, when John McCain took to the stage in a sparsely populated room in New Orleans, La., to launch his first attack. McCain planted himself in front of a puke green background and declared himself, "A Leader We Can Believe In." That decision, as well as practically every decision since, has proved him to be anything but a leader.
Even if you start on the night in front of the now infamous green backdrop, McCain was the spectacle of a follower. His theme, "A Leader We Can Believe In," was obviously cribbed from Obama's "Change We Can Believe In." He littered his speech with derisions of Obama followed by the mocking, "that's not change we can believe in."
There you have it. On his speech to launch the general election, McCain uses a knock-off of his opponent's words as the Republican theme and slogan. Leadership?
The rest of the campaign has not fared much better for McCain, and every bump in the road can be mapped back to an absense of leadership. First, he sputtered around from slogan to slogan, never really settling on one long enough for it to take root. When that approach faltered, he then brought in the Bush attack team who savaged him in 2000 and turned the reins over to them.
Bush's team immediately plunged McCain's campaign into an appalling display of negativity that ran counter to everything he had modeled throughout his career. The so-called leader did nothing.
The pathway continued downward. McCain offered no grand vision, no overriding philosophy, no uplifting message, just juvenile attacks that his opponent was a celebrity. According to McCain, Obama's great sin was that people liked him...that voters would assemble to actually listen to him. Record-breaking crowds gathered across the United States and throughout Europe for first-hand exposure to the message of hope and change. No one was following 'the leader.'
Then came the worst mistake of all. After vetting vice president contenders for months, he held a short conversation with a little-known governor from Alaska. Thirty minutes later, he had a nominee. The leadership virtues of consultation and deliberation, of exercising reasonable judgment, were all casualties to his impulses. It was the Magic 8 Ball at the helm. The leader followed.
The other missteps are recent enough to recall with clarity. He careened through the economic meltdown, bouncing from position to position like a pinball. In a final act of desperation, he cast his sailor's honor overboard and began steering his campaign through the mud and sludge directly to the rocky shore.
The passengers aboard the SSS McCain Disaster, sensing their iminent doom, have begun to jump overboard. The captain of the ship plows on...either oblivious to the fact that his crew is deserting him or powerless to do anything about it. Neither being a striking display of leadership.
So here we are...nine days before the election, and news organizations are reporting this his VP nominee is the latest to abandon him. She had always let it be known publicly when she didn't agree with one of McCain's decisions (pulling out of Michigan, not using Rev. Wright to attack Obama, for examples), but we were to see a more brazen display of disloyalty. Campaign staff for both McCain and Palin are going on the record to say that she is out for herself at this point. Ignoring advice from McCain and doing her own thing. And with all this going on, not a word from McCain.
Leadership, huh.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Rein in the Kings
The Kings are at it again. Who knew a family with so much promise could be so dysfunctional for generation after generation.
Shortly after the death of Coretta Scott King, I had the nerve to say out loud that Mrs. King’s life was one big lost opportunity. After all the horrified gasps, I asked my friends to name one thing that Mrs. King ever did for anyone for which she didn’t also benefit. I’m still waiting on an answer. In fact, I even consulted Wikipedia and couldn’t find anything worth mentioning.
I reached my conclusion about Mrs. King because I have watched as she presided over the Atlanta bougiouse year after year, yet contributed nothing to the world at large. To make matters worse, she sold Dr. King’s work to Time Warner for $5 million and aggressively sued anyone who tried to share in what has become a national treasure—the words of Dr. King.
The New York Times reported on it more than 10 years ago.
Just protecting her investment, I guess.
Now with mom dearly departed, the children are taking up the embarrassingly selfish behavior. It’s reported this week that the children are in court bickering over who owns the rights to their mother’s papers. Bernice King and Martin Luther King III are actually suing Dexter King for control of her posessions.
Shortly after the death of Coretta Scott King, I had the nerve to say out loud that Mrs. King’s life was one big lost opportunity. After all the horrified gasps, I asked my friends to name one thing that Mrs. King ever did for anyone for which she didn’t also benefit. I’m still waiting on an answer. In fact, I even consulted Wikipedia and couldn’t find anything worth mentioning.
I reached my conclusion about Mrs. King because I have watched as she presided over the Atlanta bougiouse year after year, yet contributed nothing to the world at large. To make matters worse, she sold Dr. King’s work to Time Warner for $5 million and aggressively sued anyone who tried to share in what has become a national treasure—the words of Dr. King.
The New York Times reported on it more than 10 years ago.
Until now, the King family has carefully guarded the release of these primary sources and recently sued CBS for selling a videotape of King's ''I Have a Dream'' speech. Last year, Intellectual Properties Management succeeded in stopping a California Republican political advertisement that featured portions of the speech. And in 1993, the estate filed suit against USA Today, which is owned by Gannett, after the newspaper published the text of the speech on its front page. The newspaper settled the lawsuit by paying the estate a $1,700 licensing fee and legal costs.
Just protecting her investment, I guess.
Now with mom dearly departed, the children are taking up the embarrassingly selfish behavior. It’s reported this week that the children are in court bickering over who owns the rights to their mother’s papers. Bernice King and Martin Luther King III are actually suing Dexter King for control of her posessions.
The three surviving King children have looked more like adversaries than siblings in recent months as they struggle to settle three lawsuits. On Tuesday, lawyers for Dexter King asked a judge to demand that Bernice King -- as administrator of her mother's estate -- turn over personal papers, including love letters between the civil rights icons.
The case is ongoing in Atlanta civil court, and the judge has appointed a special master to catalogue dozens of boxes belonging to Coretta Scott King.
Control of the documents is threatening to derail a $1.4 million book deal with New York publisher Penguin Group for a memoir about the civil rights matriarch.
It’s beyond sad to see what this family has become. They inherited an American legacy that could have afforded them the opportunity to lead any cause they chose. A spouse or child of Dr. King could have easily garnered support for any of array of issues. Yet, 40 years after his death, they are fighting in court to get their hands on their mother's $1.4 million. You could do a lot of good with that kind of money, but they won’t.
By the time Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was in his 30s, he had led a 385-day boycott to give Montgomery Blacks the dignity of sitting wherever they chose on city buses. He founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was one of the trailblazing organizations in the civil rights movement. He led a march on Washington, D.C., where he delivered an address that occupies an unrivaled place in American history. He even earned the Nobel Peace for his work to end racial segregation and discrimination through nonviolent means.
What have any of the other King's accomplished?
Eventually, one of them will win the suit, but they will all lose. A birthright squandered. An opportunity wasted. And a pathetic display that would make their father cringe. If only they had inherited some of his dignity.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Top 10 reasons to reject McCain
With apologies to Dave Letterman and the Home Office, here are the People's Pundit's Top Ten Reasons to Reject Sen. John McCain:
No. 10 -- After creating signs, posters, commercials, and gazillions of specialty items proclaiming 'Country First,' McCain subjects us to endless recitations of his "I'm a war hero" story. Yeah, you got smacked around for five years. Get some counseling. Enough already.
No. 9 -- Speaking of counseling, after selectively dribbling out parts of his medical records, we learned he hasn't released ANY mental health records. Ok tough guy. You just reminded us that you were tortured for five years and subjected to inhuman cruelties. Shouldn't we get some assurances that you won't literally go cuckoo for coco puffs?
No. 8 -- Cindy Lou? Ok, I'm not mad at you for this one. Crashed three Navy planes, Millions of dollars. Ex wife payoff fund, Millions of Dollars. Marrying a stupid-rich know-your-place Barbie and getting seven houses, 13 cars and your own plane while she stands behind you gazing adoringly? Priceless.
No. 7 -- Insanity: Employing the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy of highlighting your experience, denigrating Obama's positivity, and randomly smearing your opponent yet expecting a different result. Helloooo! Get a clue. We already saw how this movie ends.
No. 6 -- Suspending his campaign to go campaign. In the worst of all stunts, McCain gambled his reputation to try and lead 535 people who had no inclination or reason to follow him and over whom he had no leverage. Stupid.
No. 5 -- No poker face -- Telegraphed to the entire world when he was angry, exasperated and disgusted in every debate. How are you going to conduct serious, hardnosed negotiations when everyone knows how to push your buttons?
No. 4 -- He dissed Dave. Really? You thought it would be a good idea to blow off Dave Letterman to go do an interview on the SAME NETWORK? Really?
No. 3 -- Joe the Plumber. After lifting up Joe the Plummer as the symbol of the poor would-be business owner who can't pay taxes on a quarter of a million dollars, we find out he's not a plumber, his first name isn't Joe, he had no plans to buy a business, he makes $40,000 a year, he didn't pay his taxes, and he's a Republican. Naturally, these revelations are evidence of an Obama smear.
No. 2 -- Remained unacceptably silent when attendees yelled "kill him" and "off with his head" about Obama, then whined that Rep. Lewis hurt his feelings. How do you sleep at night?!
And the No. 1 reason to reject McCain.... (drum roll please)
No. 1 -- We can't take four years of hearing him say "My Friends" without wanting to scream "Kill Him!" or "Off with his head!"
No. 10 -- After creating signs, posters, commercials, and gazillions of specialty items proclaiming 'Country First,' McCain subjects us to endless recitations of his "I'm a war hero" story. Yeah, you got smacked around for five years. Get some counseling. Enough already.
No. 9 -- Speaking of counseling, after selectively dribbling out parts of his medical records, we learned he hasn't released ANY mental health records. Ok tough guy. You just reminded us that you were tortured for five years and subjected to inhuman cruelties. Shouldn't we get some assurances that you won't literally go cuckoo for coco puffs?
No. 8 -- Cindy Lou? Ok, I'm not mad at you for this one. Crashed three Navy planes, Millions of dollars. Ex wife payoff fund, Millions of Dollars. Marrying a stupid-rich know-your-place Barbie and getting seven houses, 13 cars and your own plane while she stands behind you gazing adoringly? Priceless.
No. 7 -- Insanity: Employing the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy of highlighting your experience, denigrating Obama's positivity, and randomly smearing your opponent yet expecting a different result. Helloooo! Get a clue. We already saw how this movie ends.
No. 6 -- Suspending his campaign to go campaign. In the worst of all stunts, McCain gambled his reputation to try and lead 535 people who had no inclination or reason to follow him and over whom he had no leverage. Stupid.
No. 5 -- No poker face -- Telegraphed to the entire world when he was angry, exasperated and disgusted in every debate. How are you going to conduct serious, hardnosed negotiations when everyone knows how to push your buttons?
No. 4 -- He dissed Dave. Really? You thought it would be a good idea to blow off Dave Letterman to go do an interview on the SAME NETWORK? Really?
No. 3 -- Joe the Plumber. After lifting up Joe the Plummer as the symbol of the poor would-be business owner who can't pay taxes on a quarter of a million dollars, we find out he's not a plumber, his first name isn't Joe, he had no plans to buy a business, he makes $40,000 a year, he didn't pay his taxes, and he's a Republican. Naturally, these revelations are evidence of an Obama smear.
No. 2 -- Remained unacceptably silent when attendees yelled "kill him" and "off with his head" about Obama, then whined that Rep. Lewis hurt his feelings. How do you sleep at night?!
And the No. 1 reason to reject McCain.... (drum roll please)
No. 1 -- We can't take four years of hearing him say "My Friends" without wanting to scream "Kill Him!" or "Off with his head!"
Monday, October 13, 2008
Bailout bull
Now I have to admit that most of the banking bailout conversation goes right over my head. I'm a liberal arts guy, so talk of liquidity and such loses me.
A week ago, I heard that we, the government, were spending $750 billion to bail out banks and Wall Street. Then today another $250 billion.
Next I hear that there is no shortage of cash, just a shortage of confidence.
Now what do you think would happen if we owed one of those same banks $50 and couldn't pay? I'm confident we all know the answer.
Sent from my iPhone.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
From Selma to Sarah: Why John Lewis is mad
Rep. John Lewis is mad. But then Rep. Lewis always seems to be mad.
No matter what the news of the day, Lewis seems to be mad about it and then uses his anger to remind us of his place in the civil rights era, which gives him license to be mad.
I was halfway through my reflexive eye rolling before realizing that this time Lewis was right. His anger was justified, and he expressed it in this statement:
Naturally McCain and his allies cried foul. McCain was no George Wallace. The statement was unfair. I have to agree. McCain is no George Wallace. But that's not what Lewis was saying. His statement was that McCain and Palen were similar in that they "created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans."
They were sowing the seeds of hatred and division.
That much should be evident as those seeds bore fruit this week. At a political rally, members of the audience not only screamed that Barack Obama was a terrorist but also that they should kill him. Kill him.
Just in case you missed the weight of that statement, let me repeat. Kill him.
That angry mob made a lot of people mad, not just Lewis. It scared some of us to see threats of human life treated so cavalierly. That anger could skew someone's judgment to the point that they would openly call for someone's life.
We are far removed from the hatred of Jim Crow days, but we should not lose sight of the lessons. That's the role Rep. Lewis still plays for us today. I share his anger. Maybe it's time to listen to him.
No matter what the news of the day, Lewis seems to be mad about it and then uses his anger to remind us of his place in the civil rights era, which gives him license to be mad.
I was halfway through my reflexive eye rolling before realizing that this time Lewis was right. His anger was justified, and he expressed it in this statement:
As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.
During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.
Naturally McCain and his allies cried foul. McCain was no George Wallace. The statement was unfair. I have to agree. McCain is no George Wallace. But that's not what Lewis was saying. His statement was that McCain and Palen were similar in that they "created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans."
They were sowing the seeds of hatred and division.
That much should be evident as those seeds bore fruit this week. At a political rally, members of the audience not only screamed that Barack Obama was a terrorist but also that they should kill him. Kill him.
Just in case you missed the weight of that statement, let me repeat. Kill him.
That angry mob made a lot of people mad, not just Lewis. It scared some of us to see threats of human life treated so cavalierly. That anger could skew someone's judgment to the point that they would openly call for someone's life.
We are far removed from the hatred of Jim Crow days, but we should not lose sight of the lessons. That's the role Rep. Lewis still plays for us today. I share his anger. Maybe it's time to listen to him.
Friday, October 3, 2008
It's the questions, stupid
For weeks, Republicans told us the culprit in Sarah Palin's dismal interview performances were the questions. Tonight, her relative success in the vice presidential debate could also be attributed to the questions.
By now most people have seen the 500 video clips of Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin that CBS has been dribbling out over the last week or so. The cringe-inducing performances even had conservatives questioning her openly. Of course, the right wing faithful told us the real problem were the questions. They were gotcha questions.
Q:What newspapers do you read?
Rep: Foul! No one would ask that of a man.
Q: Name a Supreme Court decision you don't agree with?
Rep: Foul! She is an outsider and didn't need to concern herself with supreme court decisions. That's not something a president needs to know, they said with straight faces.
During the debate however, Palin benefited from Gwen Ifill's boringly predictable questions. It was as if she went to the campaign websites and turned their policy papers into questions. They were all so utterly predictable. None made you look at the subject from a different perspective. None seemed to be designed to elicit a thoughtful response, so she rarely got any.
Of course this suited Sarah Palin just fine. Now she could recite her talking points with generous helping of "Golly Gee Beav..." At one point when Joe Biden was responding you could see Sarah Palin giggling to herself with that giddy "she's asking all my questions" smile.
Traditional media training always emphasizes that it's not the questions that sink you, it's the answers. In Palin's case, the questions are the ones that help her sink or swim.
By now most people have seen the 500 video clips of Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin that CBS has been dribbling out over the last week or so. The cringe-inducing performances even had conservatives questioning her openly. Of course, the right wing faithful told us the real problem were the questions. They were gotcha questions.
Q:What newspapers do you read?
Rep: Foul! No one would ask that of a man.
Q: Name a Supreme Court decision you don't agree with?
Rep: Foul! She is an outsider and didn't need to concern herself with supreme court decisions. That's not something a president needs to know, they said with straight faces.
During the debate however, Palin benefited from Gwen Ifill's boringly predictable questions. It was as if she went to the campaign websites and turned their policy papers into questions. They were all so utterly predictable. None made you look at the subject from a different perspective. None seemed to be designed to elicit a thoughtful response, so she rarely got any.
Of course this suited Sarah Palin just fine. Now she could recite her talking points with generous helping of "Golly Gee Beav..." At one point when Joe Biden was responding you could see Sarah Palin giggling to herself with that giddy "she's asking all my questions" smile.
Traditional media training always emphasizes that it's not the questions that sink you, it's the answers. In Palin's case, the questions are the ones that help her sink or swim.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
From Meredith to Obama: a 46 year journey
Friday night's presidential debate marked a fairly underreported milestone. On Oct. 1, 1962, James Meredith became the first Black student to enter the University of Mississippi, after a legal battle that escalated all the way to the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court.
The drama had just begun, however. Mississipi Gov. Ross Barnett opposed Meredith's admission with a violent standoff that erupted in riots and ended with two people dead. The federal government intervened when Attorney General Robert Kennedy dispatched marshalls to prevent Meredith from being lynched. Meredith stayed for two years under federal guard and eventually graduated in 1964.
A generation later another Black man entered the University of Mississippi under federal protection...this time as a presidential nominee. We can argue whether having that evolution take half a century is a good or bad thing, but it happened. The University of Mississippi and Gov. Haley Barbour opened their arms to welcome a Black man, not as a student but potentially as the next president of the United States.
On CBS' Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer remembered it in more personal terms. It's a milestone we should all pause to acknowledge.
Watch CBS Videos Online
The drama had just begun, however. Mississipi Gov. Ross Barnett opposed Meredith's admission with a violent standoff that erupted in riots and ended with two people dead. The federal government intervened when Attorney General Robert Kennedy dispatched marshalls to prevent Meredith from being lynched. Meredith stayed for two years under federal guard and eventually graduated in 1964.
A generation later another Black man entered the University of Mississippi under federal protection...this time as a presidential nominee. We can argue whether having that evolution take half a century is a good or bad thing, but it happened. The University of Mississippi and Gov. Haley Barbour opened their arms to welcome a Black man, not as a student but potentially as the next president of the United States.
On CBS' Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer remembered it in more personal terms. It's a milestone we should all pause to acknowledge.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Friday, September 26, 2008
Some unsolicited advice to Palin's PR people
I'm not in the habit of giving Republican operatives advice, but after watching Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric I just have to say:
STOP LETTING HER DO NATIONAL INTERVIEWS. STOP IT!!!
I know you needed to get her out there eventually. It was getting to be embarrassing the way you were shielding her. You introduced her as someone who was ready to be president but not do interviews. The embarrassment was not that she couldn't do interveiws, it was that YOU didn't think she could do interviews. If you don't have confidence in her, why should we?
After watching the debacles with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, it seems your lack of confidence was well founded. After four weeks of being sequestered for cram sessions, she still doesn't have a coherent answer to ANY question. I can't think of a single answer that inspired my confidence.
Now...it's not that Palin's people have asked for my advice nor would they, but here it is...
Let Sarah Palin only do local interviews with small time news outlets. Let her do one in every small town you visit. You gain three things:
1) You have the illusion that she is out there talking to the press. Then you can make a legitimate claim that she is doing interviews with the real people...the people who matter. You do a couple of these local interviews each week, and the national outlets will carry them. They will mutter with jealousy, but they'll carry them. You don't have to talk to Wolf to get on CNN.
2) You are bound to get better treatment. The reporters in Po Dunk, Idaho, aren't going to ask you about the Bush Doctrine. They want to know how you will help Potato farmers. It's far easier to bridge to your Alaska story and connect as one of them.
Even better, most local reporters would be thrilled at the chance to interview a VP candidate. They will be so hungry to have a VP candidate you'd be able to demand more concessions.
Palin hack: We want the pimply face intern to do the interview, and he will use the governor's questions.
Pimply faced intern: Yaay!
3) You get practice, so you are ready for the big guns. You don't do your first big interviews with the top anchors of the big three networks, silly. Do I really need to tell you that? You can't learn on that scale. You haven't had an opportunity to feel your way around, learn your style. Worse yet, EVERY BODY is watching. Fifteen to twenty interviews under your belt (that are picked up nationally), you might have the confidence you need to stare down Katie with bubbly defiance. As an added bonus, nobody would care. Nobody is Tivoing, rushing home to see you or YouTubing your 20th interview. By the time Charlie peers over his spectacles, it would be part of the noise.
Of course, I'm sure they won't listen. They will lock her in her cage until it's time to parade her in front of the next conservative crowd....while the wolves and the spotlight wait. Just my $.02
STOP LETTING HER DO NATIONAL INTERVIEWS. STOP IT!!!
I know you needed to get her out there eventually. It was getting to be embarrassing the way you were shielding her. You introduced her as someone who was ready to be president but not do interviews. The embarrassment was not that she couldn't do interveiws, it was that YOU didn't think she could do interviews. If you don't have confidence in her, why should we?
After watching the debacles with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, it seems your lack of confidence was well founded. After four weeks of being sequestered for cram sessions, she still doesn't have a coherent answer to ANY question. I can't think of a single answer that inspired my confidence.
Now...it's not that Palin's people have asked for my advice nor would they, but here it is...
Let Sarah Palin only do local interviews with small time news outlets. Let her do one in every small town you visit. You gain three things:
1) You have the illusion that she is out there talking to the press. Then you can make a legitimate claim that she is doing interviews with the real people...the people who matter. You do a couple of these local interviews each week, and the national outlets will carry them. They will mutter with jealousy, but they'll carry them. You don't have to talk to Wolf to get on CNN.
2) You are bound to get better treatment. The reporters in Po Dunk, Idaho, aren't going to ask you about the Bush Doctrine. They want to know how you will help Potato farmers. It's far easier to bridge to your Alaska story and connect as one of them.
Even better, most local reporters would be thrilled at the chance to interview a VP candidate. They will be so hungry to have a VP candidate you'd be able to demand more concessions.
Palin hack: We want the pimply face intern to do the interview, and he will use the governor's questions.
Pimply faced intern: Yaay!
3) You get practice, so you are ready for the big guns. You don't do your first big interviews with the top anchors of the big three networks, silly. Do I really need to tell you that? You can't learn on that scale. You haven't had an opportunity to feel your way around, learn your style. Worse yet, EVERY BODY is watching. Fifteen to twenty interviews under your belt (that are picked up nationally), you might have the confidence you need to stare down Katie with bubbly defiance. As an added bonus, nobody would care. Nobody is Tivoing, rushing home to see you or YouTubing your 20th interview. By the time Charlie peers over his spectacles, it would be part of the noise.
Of course, I'm sure they won't listen. They will lock her in her cage until it's time to parade her in front of the next conservative crowd....while the wolves and the spotlight wait. Just my $.02
Country First: McCain last
Here's an idea of how McCain could put Country First -- instead of suspending his campaign he should terminate his candidacy.
McCain's erratic behavior over these past few weeks shows that he is almost as unfit for the presidency as his neophyte running mate. It was forseeable that his last stunt would fail. McCain claimed he would suspend his campaign, swoop into Washington to save the bailout deal, and cancel his debate if he couldn't. Later he decided to attend the debate even though he hadn't saved the deal.
He should have known better than to wager his debate performance on his ability to make a deal with 534 people he couldn't control....especially if he couldn't control those of his own party. Now, without the deal, he must pretend that he made progress while he backpeddles on his own promise. Nice.
Today we saw images of McCain scuttling around the halls of Congress trying to talk members into a going along with the latest proposal. How unpresidential. How often do you see a president running around the halls of congress trying to talk members into a deal? If he wanted to look presidential he would summon them to his own meeting. Oh that's right, they wouldn't come. If you can't be in control of the meeting, you don't look like the president.
McCain seems to be more comfortable trying to work deals in the halls of congress. He should stay there.
McCain's erratic behavior over these past few weeks shows that he is almost as unfit for the presidency as his neophyte running mate. It was forseeable that his last stunt would fail. McCain claimed he would suspend his campaign, swoop into Washington to save the bailout deal, and cancel his debate if he couldn't. Later he decided to attend the debate even though he hadn't saved the deal.
He should have known better than to wager his debate performance on his ability to make a deal with 534 people he couldn't control....especially if he couldn't control those of his own party. Now, without the deal, he must pretend that he made progress while he backpeddles on his own promise. Nice.
Today we saw images of McCain scuttling around the halls of Congress trying to talk members into a going along with the latest proposal. How unpresidential. How often do you see a president running around the halls of congress trying to talk members into a deal? If he wanted to look presidential he would summon them to his own meeting. Oh that's right, they wouldn't come. If you can't be in control of the meeting, you don't look like the president.
McCain seems to be more comfortable trying to work deals in the halls of congress. He should stay there.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Stumped the candidate
We all knew it, but finally a Republican said it. Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel is questioning whether Palin has enough foreign-policy experience to serve as the country’s second-in-command.
“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials,” Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald. “You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.
“I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,” he added. “That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.”
Of course, her followers will argue that comments like that are unfair to Palin by being so critical. That's what one supporter at a town hall meeting thought when she lobbed this softball to Palin.
"Please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have, to bring to the White House, to rebut that or mitigate that concern," asked the sympathetic questioner.
But Palin did not list specific skills, instead she gave a broad, incomprehensible response:
"I think, because I am a Washington outsider, that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize, and they can kind of beat the candidate here who chose me as his partner to kinda tear down the ticket," Palin responded. "But as for foreign policy, you know, I think I am prepared and I know that on Jan. 20, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we'll be ready. I'll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead. You can ask, you can play 'stump the candidate' if you want to. But we are ready to serve."
“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials,” Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald. “You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.
“I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,” he added. “That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.”
Of course, her followers will argue that comments like that are unfair to Palin by being so critical. That's what one supporter at a town hall meeting thought when she lobbed this softball to Palin.
"Please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have, to bring to the White House, to rebut that or mitigate that concern," asked the sympathetic questioner.
But Palin did not list specific skills, instead she gave a broad, incomprehensible response:
"I think, because I am a Washington outsider, that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize, and they can kind of beat the candidate here who chose me as his partner to kinda tear down the ticket," Palin responded. "But as for foreign policy, you know, I think I am prepared and I know that on Jan. 20, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we'll be ready. I'll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead. You can ask, you can play 'stump the candidate' if you want to. But we are ready to serve."
Play stump the candidate? We don't need to play that game. She's already stumped.
She who knows not and knows not that she knows not is a fool. Shun her. - Unknown.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
This Palin thing is ridiculous
It is ridiculous. It is flipping ridiculous.
Two weeks after an unqualified "hockey mom" air head is nominated to be vice president, and we are still taking her seriously. Her only claim to national security experience had been that she lived close to Russia. You can see it on a clear day, she says. That's like saying I can surf because I lived near Hawaii. Ridiculous.
On her interview with Charlie Gibson she took air head to a whole new stratosphere. This slogan queen didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was... Could only recite that we 'shouldn't second guess Israel' to every question about Middle East policy. Didnt' get the effect of letting Georgia into NATO while Russia is invading them. She thinks energy policy is an answer to foreign policy expertise. Ridiculous.
Her only trips outside the country were to Canada and Mexico...the only two countries that didn't require passports or documentation. Coincidence? No. It's ridiculous. Even worse, her trip to Germany was a trip of a lifetime. You know where I'm going with this. Ridicoulous. Flippin ridicoulous.
See for yourself.
It's not over. See part two.
Ridiculous.
Two weeks after an unqualified "hockey mom" air head is nominated to be vice president, and we are still taking her seriously. Her only claim to national security experience had been that she lived close to Russia. You can see it on a clear day, she says. That's like saying I can surf because I lived near Hawaii. Ridiculous.
On her interview with Charlie Gibson she took air head to a whole new stratosphere. This slogan queen didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was... Could only recite that we 'shouldn't second guess Israel' to every question about Middle East policy. Didnt' get the effect of letting Georgia into NATO while Russia is invading them. She thinks energy policy is an answer to foreign policy expertise. Ridiculous.
Her only trips outside the country were to Canada and Mexico...the only two countries that didn't require passports or documentation. Coincidence? No. It's ridiculous. Even worse, her trip to Germany was a trip of a lifetime. You know where I'm going with this. Ridicoulous. Flippin ridicoulous.
See for yourself.
It's not over. See part two.
Ridiculous.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Charge it to my head but not to my heart
Two weeks and two conventions later, this much is clear — Democrats love with their heads and Republicans love with their hearts.
How else do you explain Democrats working themselves up into a lather by repeating a litany of facts and stats to point out all the failures of the Right? Or the Republicans who gather to worship at the altar of 9/11, claim America as their exclusive own, and celebrate an anti-abortion neophyte as their next best hope? It's clearly a head vs heart phenomenon.
I admit that I'm biased. I do my political thinking with my head. I enjoy a little heart on the side, but I vote based primarily on what my head thinks. That's why I was completely miffed that a major party nominee could give an acceptance speech that paints no vision of the future, that offers no specific prescriptions for the nation's ills, or that looks longingly backwards while trying to convince us that they are the party of the future.
We can cede the hero argument to John McCain. John, 40 years ago, you were the man. You were a bad ass's bad ass. Lord knows not many of us could continue flipping the bird for five years at people who were treating us like a doggie chew toy. For me that would get old quickly. You win that argument hands down.
Forty years later however, you run under a theme called "Country First" that only talks about you the individual. Republicans are frothing and crying, and I'm scratching my head. You pick a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she is a spunky hockey mom of five kids with quirky monosyllabic names.
Speaking of running mates, how do you nominate someone and keep them from granting a single interview for a full 10 days now? How are you going to stare down Vladimir Putin when you can't even do a soft shoe with Wolf Blitzer?
How? Because she is an anti-abortionist. It seems a Republican could nominate an axe murderer as long as he/she was committed to overturning Roe v Wade. Speaking of the he/she story, how do you do you nominate a woman and laud it as a giant step forward for women and then have conventioneers wearing buttons that say "I'm voting for the hot chick from the cool state?" Isn't that one step forward and three steps back? That's like saying "I'm voting for the night-Black guy from the sunny state." Doesn't strike me as flattery.
Finally, if fighting your own party is such a great thing, why are you with them in the first place? What's wrong with a guy agreeing with the party he has chosen. Isn't that the point?
Of course these are all head arguments that only prove that when it comes to the Republicans, my heart just isn't in it.
How else do you explain Democrats working themselves up into a lather by repeating a litany of facts and stats to point out all the failures of the Right? Or the Republicans who gather to worship at the altar of 9/11, claim America as their exclusive own, and celebrate an anti-abortion neophyte as their next best hope? It's clearly a head vs heart phenomenon.
I admit that I'm biased. I do my political thinking with my head. I enjoy a little heart on the side, but I vote based primarily on what my head thinks. That's why I was completely miffed that a major party nominee could give an acceptance speech that paints no vision of the future, that offers no specific prescriptions for the nation's ills, or that looks longingly backwards while trying to convince us that they are the party of the future.
We can cede the hero argument to John McCain. John, 40 years ago, you were the man. You were a bad ass's bad ass. Lord knows not many of us could continue flipping the bird for five years at people who were treating us like a doggie chew toy. For me that would get old quickly. You win that argument hands down.
Forty years later however, you run under a theme called "Country First" that only talks about you the individual. Republicans are frothing and crying, and I'm scratching my head. You pick a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she is a spunky hockey mom of five kids with quirky monosyllabic names.
Speaking of running mates, how do you nominate someone and keep them from granting a single interview for a full 10 days now? How are you going to stare down Vladimir Putin when you can't even do a soft shoe with Wolf Blitzer?
How? Because she is an anti-abortionist. It seems a Republican could nominate an axe murderer as long as he/she was committed to overturning Roe v Wade. Speaking of the he/she story, how do you do you nominate a woman and laud it as a giant step forward for women and then have conventioneers wearing buttons that say "I'm voting for the hot chick from the cool state?" Isn't that one step forward and three steps back? That's like saying "I'm voting for the night-Black guy from the sunny state." Doesn't strike me as flattery.
Finally, if fighting your own party is such a great thing, why are you with them in the first place? What's wrong with a guy agreeing with the party he has chosen. Isn't that the point?
Of course these are all head arguments that only prove that when it comes to the Republicans, my heart just isn't in it.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Rain, rain go away. Come again another day?
This is irony at it's best.
On a Focus on the Family video, Stewart Shepard asked "would it be wrong to pray for rain?" He then asked people to pray for torrential rain on Obama's acceptance speech.
As it turns out, God answers prayers because Hurricane Gustav is tracking to wash ashore — during the Republican Convention. Seems God has a sense of humor, too.
Oh yeah... Focus on the Family had to remove the video because its members thought he was serious and actually began praying for rain. They must have forgotten to specify where they wanted the rain.
You can't make this stuff up, Folks. Here is Stewart's prayer request.
Thank you, Jesus.
On a Focus on the Family video, Stewart Shepard asked "would it be wrong to pray for rain?" He then asked people to pray for torrential rain on Obama's acceptance speech.
As it turns out, God answers prayers because Hurricane Gustav is tracking to wash ashore — during the Republican Convention. Seems God has a sense of humor, too.
Oh yeah... Focus on the Family had to remove the video because its members thought he was serious and actually began praying for rain. They must have forgotten to specify where they wanted the rain.
You can't make this stuff up, Folks. Here is Stewart's prayer request.
Thank you, Jesus.
Any woman will do
I'm not sure if he was trying to piss off Hillary Clinton, but I'm sure she must be spitting mad right now.
After spending the last two years trying to break the "last glass ceiling" for women, John McCain selected a relatively unkown governor from Alaska to be his vice presidential nominee. John McCain's selection effectively ends any pathway for Hillary to run as the first potential woman for president in 2012. That's gotta smart.
What's probably even more insulting to Clinton is that Palin was mayor of a city of 9,000 people and, for two years, governor of a state with the same population as the city of Austin.
After bashing Barack Obama for not having experience, John McCain chose someone who has never held a national office, never had to think about national security or the country's fiscal issues in a serious way. She has never had to withstand the rigors of a national election or have her every word scrutinized by the entire nation.
Just for a bit of perspective, when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States, Gov. Palin was running a city with fewer people than the number who saw John McCain introduce her as his running mate. Sen. Obama had eight times as many people present for his acceptance speech as she did constituents. This is the executive experience she will tout.
Why would John McCain pick such a person to succeed him if, God forbid, something should happen to him? The answer seems pretty obvious to most — because she is a woman. McCain must have calculated that there are still a fair number of unhappy residents of Hillaryland. If He can pick off even a few percentage points of them, he can make a pretty good run at the presidency.
Nobody quite knows if that gamble will pay off, but I've heard many women who felt that pick was insulting to women. In her recent Vanity Fair article, Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary for President Clinton, said "too often women are promoted for the wrong reasons, and then blamed when things don’t go right."
I can understand their frustration. After Justice Thurgood Marshall retired from the bench, President George H.W. Bush reached past a slew of qualified judges of all colors and persuasions and nominated Clarence Thomas. At the time, Thomas had a meager record that could charitably characterized as mediocre. Since being on the bench, Justice Thomas has carved out a record as an incurious justice who blindly follows the right wing agenda. And he is there just because he is Black. The 'any Black person will do' selection annoyed me as it did many people of color.
I've never been a fan of Hillary, but I can imagine this 'any woman will do' selection must annoy her. I feel her pain.
After spending the last two years trying to break the "last glass ceiling" for women, John McCain selected a relatively unkown governor from Alaska to be his vice presidential nominee. John McCain's selection effectively ends any pathway for Hillary to run as the first potential woman for president in 2012. That's gotta smart.
What's probably even more insulting to Clinton is that Palin was mayor of a city of 9,000 people and, for two years, governor of a state with the same population as the city of Austin.
After bashing Barack Obama for not having experience, John McCain chose someone who has never held a national office, never had to think about national security or the country's fiscal issues in a serious way. She has never had to withstand the rigors of a national election or have her every word scrutinized by the entire nation.
Just for a bit of perspective, when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States, Gov. Palin was running a city with fewer people than the number who saw John McCain introduce her as his running mate. Sen. Obama had eight times as many people present for his acceptance speech as she did constituents. This is the executive experience she will tout.
Why would John McCain pick such a person to succeed him if, God forbid, something should happen to him? The answer seems pretty obvious to most — because she is a woman. McCain must have calculated that there are still a fair number of unhappy residents of Hillaryland. If He can pick off even a few percentage points of them, he can make a pretty good run at the presidency.
Nobody quite knows if that gamble will pay off, but I've heard many women who felt that pick was insulting to women. In her recent Vanity Fair article, Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary for President Clinton, said "too often women are promoted for the wrong reasons, and then blamed when things don’t go right."
I can understand their frustration. After Justice Thurgood Marshall retired from the bench, President George H.W. Bush reached past a slew of qualified judges of all colors and persuasions and nominated Clarence Thomas. At the time, Thomas had a meager record that could charitably characterized as mediocre. Since being on the bench, Justice Thomas has carved out a record as an incurious justice who blindly follows the right wing agenda. And he is there just because he is Black. The 'any Black person will do' selection annoyed me as it did many people of color.
I've never been a fan of Hillary, but I can imagine this 'any woman will do' selection must annoy her. I feel her pain.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Paris for America
Surely by now John McCain must be rethinking his decision to put Paris Hilton on his advertisement deriding Barack Obama.
Ever since the ad compared both as big celebrities, he's faced a ridicule of his own. Republicans have called the ad childish. Obama laughed it off as silly. Conspiracists saw it as racists. And Paris Hilton's parents saw it as unacceptable. (By the way, the Hilton's had maxed out on donations to McCain. There go his Hilton Honors points.)
But the ultimate is Paris Hilton's comeback. She's released her own ad where she dispenses the advice of her own energy policy and calls McCain wrinkly, white-haired guy. The last thing McCain wants is a sweet young thing calling him old and wrinkly. But, alas, he brought it on himself.
Paris Hilton for President, Y'all. Only in America.
Ever since the ad compared both as big celebrities, he's faced a ridicule of his own. Republicans have called the ad childish. Obama laughed it off as silly. Conspiracists saw it as racists. And Paris Hilton's parents saw it as unacceptable. (By the way, the Hilton's had maxed out on donations to McCain. There go his Hilton Honors points.)
But the ultimate is Paris Hilton's comeback. She's released her own ad where she dispenses the advice of her own energy policy and calls McCain wrinkly, white-haired guy. The last thing McCain wants is a sweet young thing calling him old and wrinkly. But, alas, he brought it on himself.
Paris Hilton for President, Y'all. Only in America.
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
Monday, August 4, 2008
He doesn't understand
They toss it out so casually, most observers seem to miss it.
While bloggers and the press ballyhoo about Obama being called arrogant and uppity, I see a more serious slight being tossed around: He doesn't understand. McCain led with this offensive when Barack Obama returned from his week long trip throughout Europe and the Middle East.
"He doesn't understand what's at stake in Iraq," McCain said repeatedly. McCain and now Republican operatives repeatedly tell us what Obama doesn't understand on Iraq, the economy, on energy. On every issue, Barack Obama doesn't understand. Is it me or is this a not-so-subtle belittlement of Obama's intelligence?
Here is a man who went to Columbia and Harvard University, two of the country's best schools. He excels...becoming the first Black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He goes on to practice civil rights law and teach Constitutional law. He rises through the ranks quickly at both the state and federal senate levels. He displays a command of the issues and articulates his positions clearly. And McCain wants to tell us that Obama doesn't understand.
That's insidious.
If McCain disagrees, he should say so. If he has a difference in opinion, so be it. But to say his opponent doesn't understand? This is from a man who has never proven to be an intellectual heavyweight. He graduated third from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. This is with the privilege of two generations of four-star Navy Admirals in his lineage. Everyone knows that should get you every benefit of the doubt. And yet he was less than stellar.
This is also from a man who claims he didn't really understand the economy after 26 years in congress. This from a man who mistakes the border of Iraq and Sunni from Shia.
This man has the gall to say that Barack Obama doesn't understand, and no one challenges him. Is it that it seems plausible that the older, more experienced senator should logically be wiser than his younger counterpart? Is it that when people look at them together it seems like a plausible scenario?
How in the world can he continue to get away with that? I don't understand.
While bloggers and the press ballyhoo about Obama being called arrogant and uppity, I see a more serious slight being tossed around: He doesn't understand. McCain led with this offensive when Barack Obama returned from his week long trip throughout Europe and the Middle East.
"He doesn't understand what's at stake in Iraq," McCain said repeatedly. McCain and now Republican operatives repeatedly tell us what Obama doesn't understand on Iraq, the economy, on energy. On every issue, Barack Obama doesn't understand. Is it me or is this a not-so-subtle belittlement of Obama's intelligence?
Here is a man who went to Columbia and Harvard University, two of the country's best schools. He excels...becoming the first Black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He goes on to practice civil rights law and teach Constitutional law. He rises through the ranks quickly at both the state and federal senate levels. He displays a command of the issues and articulates his positions clearly. And McCain wants to tell us that Obama doesn't understand.
That's insidious.
If McCain disagrees, he should say so. If he has a difference in opinion, so be it. But to say his opponent doesn't understand? This is from a man who has never proven to be an intellectual heavyweight. He graduated third from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. This is with the privilege of two generations of four-star Navy Admirals in his lineage. Everyone knows that should get you every benefit of the doubt. And yet he was less than stellar.
This is also from a man who claims he didn't really understand the economy after 26 years in congress. This from a man who mistakes the border of Iraq and Sunni from Shia.
This man has the gall to say that Barack Obama doesn't understand, and no one challenges him. Is it that it seems plausible that the older, more experienced senator should logically be wiser than his younger counterpart? Is it that when people look at them together it seems like a plausible scenario?
How in the world can he continue to get away with that? I don't understand.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Inside the mind of McCain
It was the middle of the week, and news media the world over were gushing over Sen. Obama. A sullen Sen. McCain summoned his staff to discuss what must be done.
McCain: This is unsatisfactory. He is on TV acting like he understands foreign policy. This is MY issue. He is over there stealing MY issue. I am NOT happy. Obama was supposed to go with us, so we could have images of me tutoring the youngster. How did we lose control?! Now he's speaking in Berlin for God sakes. Berlin!!! I need my Berlin. Get me my Berlin!
Sycophant staff member: Senator, you know there is a Berlin in Ohio. If you recall from the primary election, they don't like his kind in Ohio. We could go there and be "with the people."
They all chuckled at their wit.
McCain: Great idea, my friend. Where will we go in Berlin?
Sycophant staff: A German restaurant of course. You get Berlin AND Germany And you look like you understand ordinary people. It's brilliant.
McCain: You might be on to something. Then we could go to Paris, Wisconsin. We could trail his European cities with their American counterparts. That'll show him. We'll belittle Obama for speaking to 200,000 people. After all, this isn't a popularity contest.
The staff shuffled nervously. After all, this was not good TV. But the boss was happy, so they all went along.
Sycophant staff: Great idea, senator. This will make a tremendous impact. Your best idea yet! High five!
Oops!
McCain: This is unsatisfactory. He is on TV acting like he understands foreign policy. This is MY issue. He is over there stealing MY issue. I am NOT happy. Obama was supposed to go with us, so we could have images of me tutoring the youngster. How did we lose control?! Now he's speaking in Berlin for God sakes. Berlin!!! I need my Berlin. Get me my Berlin!
Sycophant staff member: Senator, you know there is a Berlin in Ohio. If you recall from the primary election, they don't like his kind in Ohio. We could go there and be "with the people."
They all chuckled at their wit.
McCain: Great idea, my friend. Where will we go in Berlin?
Sycophant staff: A German restaurant of course. You get Berlin AND Germany And you look like you understand ordinary people. It's brilliant.
McCain: You might be on to something. Then we could go to Paris, Wisconsin. We could trail his European cities with their American counterparts. That'll show him. We'll belittle Obama for speaking to 200,000 people. After all, this isn't a popularity contest.
The staff shuffled nervously. After all, this was not good TV. But the boss was happy, so they all went along.
Sycophant staff: Great idea, senator. This will make a tremendous impact. Your best idea yet! High five!
Oops!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The buck stops there
In the end, it's a question of leadership. Will you lead or be led. Do you have real accountability, or do you shift it to others.
The test of leadership, viewed through these questions, leaves doubt about Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain's fitness to lead. Specifically, their insistance that Gen. Petraeus' judgment be followed without question or debate, does not strike me as leadership. A true leader asks the right questions of his subordinates, and as the leader, makes a decision for which he or she is held accountable. Just the opposite is happening in Iraq.
Time and time again, we hear Bush and McCain say that they are following the decisions of commanders 'on the ground.' You have never Bush or McCain say that they took the commanders advice and made a decision that was counter to the recommendation. A true leader wants a recommendation from subordinates, but has a broader view from which to make decisions.
The advice of one subordinate can't be the right decision every time or the subordinate becomes the defacto leader. When challenged about a decision, Bush and McCain always defer to Gen. Petraeus as the one who should be held accountable.
This week we experienced a refreshing change when Sen. Obama visited with Gen. Petraeus and emerged from the meeting with a different response. Obama said he appreciated the general's advice, but his decisions would be based on a broader set of inputs. Leadership. I'll take your advice, but the decision is mine.
This is important because the Pentagon and military establishments are notorious for pushing their bosses in directions that favor the military. You can't really blame them. If your boss asked you how you were doing your job and what you wanted to do next, I'm sure the answer would be somewhat favorable to you. It's human nature. That's why a true leader shouldn't make decisions based on a single source of information. Obama gets it, and the concept confounds Bush and McCain.
In their minds, Gen. Petraeus should be responsible for making all the decisions and that's the problem. The buck stops there.
The test of leadership, viewed through these questions, leaves doubt about Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain's fitness to lead. Specifically, their insistance that Gen. Petraeus' judgment be followed without question or debate, does not strike me as leadership. A true leader asks the right questions of his subordinates, and as the leader, makes a decision for which he or she is held accountable. Just the opposite is happening in Iraq.
Time and time again, we hear Bush and McCain say that they are following the decisions of commanders 'on the ground.' You have never Bush or McCain say that they took the commanders advice and made a decision that was counter to the recommendation. A true leader wants a recommendation from subordinates, but has a broader view from which to make decisions.
The advice of one subordinate can't be the right decision every time or the subordinate becomes the defacto leader. When challenged about a decision, Bush and McCain always defer to Gen. Petraeus as the one who should be held accountable.
This week we experienced a refreshing change when Sen. Obama visited with Gen. Petraeus and emerged from the meeting with a different response. Obama said he appreciated the general's advice, but his decisions would be based on a broader set of inputs. Leadership. I'll take your advice, but the decision is mine.
This is important because the Pentagon and military establishments are notorious for pushing their bosses in directions that favor the military. You can't really blame them. If your boss asked you how you were doing your job and what you wanted to do next, I'm sure the answer would be somewhat favorable to you. It's human nature. That's why a true leader shouldn't make decisions based on a single source of information. Obama gets it, and the concept confounds Bush and McCain.
In their minds, Gen. Petraeus should be responsible for making all the decisions and that's the problem. The buck stops there.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
My posts are like my children; I love them all the same.
Except I love these better. Don’t tell the others. Shhh
Over the past 100ish posts, I’ve had some fun weighing in on elections, news and entertainment. Here are some of my favorites:
Over the past 100ish posts, I’ve had some fun weighing in on elections, news and entertainment. Here are some of my favorites:
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Punishing pedophiles
What's a suitable punishment for someone who would sneak into a neighbor's house, kidnap a 9-year-old girl, violate her, kill her and bury her in the yard?
On a week when Congress turned its attention to baseball's steroid shenanigans and Terri Schiavo's right to live or die, here is an issue worthy of their outrage.
---------------------------Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Who's looking at the man in the mirror?
Someone needs to give Michael Jackson a copy of his “Bad” album and tell him to listen to track #7.
There he’d be reminded of the syrupy yet preachy tune he subjected us to in the 1980s. You may remember, “Man in the Mirror.”Friday, March 25, 2005
A conversation on tough issues usually takes two
Maybe Bill Clinton took the last pair when he left the White House, but the Democrats have been unable to get their hands on any since then.
One of the most appalling developments during the national "conversation" on life, government and Terri Schiavo was the absence of any real debate. The religious right was vocal and aggressive in framing the issue as one about the sanctity of life. But the opposing view went almost without a sponsor.
There was the conspicuous absence of any compelling voice coming from the Democratic Party. Last Sunday when the debate reached the House of Representatives, Barney Frank was left to make the opposition's case practically alone. All of the so called leaders of the Democratic Party were silent.Monday, July 18, 2005
Bombs and stones may break our bones but our web-site...
Someone created a website, www.werenotafraid.com, as a response to the latest terrorist attack in London. Now do-gooders on both sides of the Atlantic are rushing to post pictures of themselves, their pooches, their parents and kids...all with the headline "We're not afraid."
I, too, paused with a sentimental, yet defiant smile until I thought about folly of this symbolic stunt. First, do terrorists really care if we post our pictures on a web site? Perhaps they will be hunkered down in their safe house, wearing their FREE SADAM t-shirts when they'll see the Jeanie Moss piece on CNN. They'll gasp in horror, pop open their laptops and log on (using their neighbor's wireless signal). They'll see pages and pages of defiant Brits and Americans boasting that they aren't afraid, curse Allah that the infidels have responded in such an unexpectedly strong fashion, and immediately convert to Christianity. Or... they'll chuckle and strap another five pound bag of fertilizer on the newest recruit and wait.Thursday, November 24, 2005
It's the course, Stupid
In the debate over the debate in Iraq, it's come to this: Americans must now choose between Stay the Course and Staid with No Course. Both sides vocal and venomous. Wrestling with the political and the patriotic. And not a reasonable plan in sight -- only the course.
Neither side can offer a reasonable plan forward because they are both looking backwards. And so rather than having an honest debate about the future, both sides justify decisions past and disguise them as visionary.Thursday, November 2, 2006
Yes, Red America, God does answer prayers
One evening in the West Wing, the mood was especially glum. The President's poll numbers were in the tank. In Iraq, his pet war was out of control, and re-cord numbers of troops were dying.
Across town in Congress, many allies he'd counted as reliable votes were leaving in disgrace and scandal. His domestic policy, stalled. His international agenda, botched.
The president's ears drooped. His eyes cast downward. Laura, sensing the enormous burden on her husband's shoulders, touched his arm, closed her eyes, and whispered a prayer.Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Obama: Some of my best friends make me unelectable
What does it mean when you have white people voting for the black candidate and black people voting for the white candidate?
That’s the situation news reports seemed to suggest last week. Barak Obama’s centrist appeal is drawing record numbers of crowds — of white people. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who have previously enjoyed support in black communities, are going back there to fight for the black vote — with good results.
At first blush, this development could be construed as a progress. This is the dream Martin Luther King Jr., spoke of, where a man can be judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character. So why isn’t this news being reported or received that way?Friday, September 21, 2007
When ads attack
Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.Monday, December 17, 2007
Mitt wept when church ended discrimination
Let's all roll our eyes together.Saturday, April 5, 2008
We, too, sing America
I love America, and I agree with Reverend Wright. Whether or not the main stream understands or realizes it, I don't think I am different from many African Americans.
In fact, I'd argue that many African Americans experience a different kind of patriotism than our white counterparts because our history and experiences are so vastly different. This is what many people who scratch their heads at Rev. Wright fail to understand.
Generally speaking, African Americans don't wear flags on our lapels or post bumper stickers on our cars to display our patriotism. In barber shops and basements, we often speak harshly of this country. But we pledge allegiance, pay taxes, vote reliably and serve in our military. And when we see injustice, we forcefully speak out against it.Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Clinton needs help with her debt
Hillary Clinton has a new video out asking for donations. She's still $20 million in debt, about half of that to herself, and if she doesn't repay it by August she loses that money.
So all you little boys with bikes and video games, you older Americans with pensions, all of you Appalachians living paycheck to paycheck, go to hillaryclinton.com, and give her back her $10 million.STFU Award: Bob Johnson
Today I'd like to unveil a new award that I have been giving privately with my friends. It's time to introduce it to my blog.
The STFU award is given to an individual who says something so ridiculous, so inane, so utterly stupid, there is only one rational response.
Today's award goes to Bob Johnson, founder of BET.Thursday, May 15, 2008
STFU Lifetime Award: Keith to W
Last month, I unveiled the STFU award, and with Keith Olbermann's help, it is time to award it again. If you recall, the STFU award is given to an individual who says something so ridiculous, so inane, so utterly stupid, there is only one rational response.
Today's recipient has earned the award so many times over, I am tempted to give him a lifetime achievement. But first, the citation. I'll let Keith do the honors.Thursday, July 17, 2008
STFU Award: Jesse Jackson
Just when we thought we had recovered from Jesse Jackson's tasteless and crass comment about Barack Obama, he raises his outrageous behavior to an even more unacceptable level.
Last week we learned that Jesse Jackson was picked up on an open mic on the Fox News set whispering to another guest. Jackson was complaining that Barack Obama was talking down to Black people and Jesse wanted to cut Barack's nuts off. Jesse incredibly thought the microphone was off when he made the comments, violating what must be the must widely known rule in TV -- always assume the mic is on.
Once Jesse got word that Fox had recorded his comment, he immediately came out with a pre-apology. Before the piece even aired, there was Jesse Jackson groveling for any camera that would record him. He still loved Obama. It was the microphone's fault. Children are starving in Africa. OJ was framed. Geronomo Pratt was shafted. Anything to keep the conversation from going deeper than his apology and delving into why he felt the need to make the comment.
People’s Pundit turns 100. Posts that is.
Don’t you hate when you forget to celebrate a major milestone or achievement?
A few blogs back, I uploaded my 100th post. Now this might not be a big deal for the super duper bloggers who post 100 times daily, but it is a big deal for me.
When I started blogging three years ago, I was really just trying to figure out how this “fad” worked. I’d heard about blogging but didn’t really understand it. Or even know if I would want to do it. But another passion pushed me in this direction.
I have always had an enthusiasm for politics. I used to call myself a political voyeur because I would consume so much news and politics. But never in my wildest dreams did I think I could participate on any level.
I remember one Sunday morning before I started blogging, I was sitting on the couch going through my weekly ritual. I was having my argument with the TV while the late Tim Russert grilled his guest. The answers were insufficient. Tim wasn’t asking the right follow-up questions. The interviewee was clearly an idiot, and I wanted Tim to nail him.
As I sat there giving them a piece of my mind, my son walked by and dryly commented, “if you know so much, how come you aren’t on there yourself.”
“It’s complicated, Son” I replied dismissively.
But actually it wasn’t. With this blog thingy, I could have a voice. I could tell all those politicians and journalists what I really thought. So my blogging days were born.
More than 100 posts later, and a delicious feed also informing my blog, I can blast my opinions to anyone who will pay attention.
Now if I could only get someone to pay attention. :-)
Happy belated birthday, People’s Pundit!
A few blogs back, I uploaded my 100th post. Now this might not be a big deal for the super duper bloggers who post 100 times daily, but it is a big deal for me.
When I started blogging three years ago, I was really just trying to figure out how this “fad” worked. I’d heard about blogging but didn’t really understand it. Or even know if I would want to do it. But another passion pushed me in this direction.
I have always had an enthusiasm for politics. I used to call myself a political voyeur because I would consume so much news and politics. But never in my wildest dreams did I think I could participate on any level.
I remember one Sunday morning before I started blogging, I was sitting on the couch going through my weekly ritual. I was having my argument with the TV while the late Tim Russert grilled his guest. The answers were insufficient. Tim wasn’t asking the right follow-up questions. The interviewee was clearly an idiot, and I wanted Tim to nail him.
As I sat there giving them a piece of my mind, my son walked by and dryly commented, “if you know so much, how come you aren’t on there yourself.”
“It’s complicated, Son” I replied dismissively.
But actually it wasn’t. With this blog thingy, I could have a voice. I could tell all those politicians and journalists what I really thought. So my blogging days were born.
More than 100 posts later, and a delicious feed also informing my blog, I can blast my opinions to anyone who will pay attention.
Now if I could only get someone to pay attention. :-)
Happy belated birthday, People’s Pundit!
STFU Award: Jesse Jackson
Just when we thought we had recovered from Jesse Jackson's tasteless and crass comment about Barack Obama, he raises his outrageous behavior to an even more unacceptable level.
Last week we learned that Jesse Jackson was picked up on an open mic on the Fox News set whispering to another guest. Jackson was complaining that Barack Obama was talking down to Black people and Jesse wanted to cut Barack's nuts off. Jesse incredibly thought the microphone was off when he made the comments, violating what must be the must widely known rule in TV -- always assume the mic is on.
Once Jesse got word that Fox had recorded his comment, he immediately came out with a pre-apology. Before the piece even aired, there was Jesse Jackson groveling for any camera that would record him. He still loved Obama. It was the microphone's fault. Children are starving in Africa. OJ was framed. Geronomo Pratt was shafted. Anything to keep the conversation from going deeper than his apology and delving into why he felt the need to make the comment.
Today, Fox News confirmed that in that gaffe, Jesse called Barack Obama THE N WORD (gasp)!
Yep, the good Reverend wants to cut that nigger Barack Obama's nuts off. Damn microphone.
Now this is beyond outrageous. This is the same Jesse Jackson who crusaded against use of the word. He railed against Michael Richards (appropriately) and threatened to boycott Jerry, Elaine and George's DVD set.
Jesse still hasn't explained why he made the first comment about castrating Barack and now he denigrates him further. At this point Jesse, we don't need an explanation. It's pretty obvious; it is part of your character.
You try to appear pious in public but call Jews a racial slur, father a child out of wedlock, and make crude references about the first Black nominee of any major party. What excuse could you possibly have for a pattern of such unexcusable behavior?
It's time for you to stop parading yourself around as some spokesperson for the Black community. We reject and denounce you. We can do better. We are doing better. With the same Brother you are hating on.
Jesse Jackson for being a classless, insincere, destructive force in the Black community, the People's Pundit bestows upon you the STFU award. SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Last week we learned that Jesse Jackson was picked up on an open mic on the Fox News set whispering to another guest. Jackson was complaining that Barack Obama was talking down to Black people and Jesse wanted to cut Barack's nuts off. Jesse incredibly thought the microphone was off when he made the comments, violating what must be the must widely known rule in TV -- always assume the mic is on.
Once Jesse got word that Fox had recorded his comment, he immediately came out with a pre-apology. Before the piece even aired, there was Jesse Jackson groveling for any camera that would record him. He still loved Obama. It was the microphone's fault. Children are starving in Africa. OJ was framed. Geronomo Pratt was shafted. Anything to keep the conversation from going deeper than his apology and delving into why he felt the need to make the comment.
Today, Fox News confirmed that in that gaffe, Jesse called Barack Obama THE N WORD (gasp)!
Yep, the good Reverend wants to cut that nigger Barack Obama's nuts off. Damn microphone.
Now this is beyond outrageous. This is the same Jesse Jackson who crusaded against use of the word. He railed against Michael Richards (appropriately) and threatened to boycott Jerry, Elaine and George's DVD set.
Jesse still hasn't explained why he made the first comment about castrating Barack and now he denigrates him further. At this point Jesse, we don't need an explanation. It's pretty obvious; it is part of your character.
You try to appear pious in public but call Jews a racial slur, father a child out of wedlock, and make crude references about the first Black nominee of any major party. What excuse could you possibly have for a pattern of such unexcusable behavior?
It's time for you to stop parading yourself around as some spokesperson for the Black community. We reject and denounce you. We can do better. We are doing better. With the same Brother you are hating on.
Jesse Jackson for being a classless, insincere, destructive force in the Black community, the People's Pundit bestows upon you the STFU award. SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
So long, Snowbird
I wouldn’t normally listen to a guy like Tony Snow, and for much of his career, I didn’t. I always assumed he was your typical smug Fox News pundit.
I was proved wrong at two points later in his career. I came to admire him as a spokesperson for the White House. Maybe it was in contrast to his predecessor the bumbling monosyllabic Scott McClellan. Press secretary fior the White House has got to be one of the toughest PR job in the world, yet Tony always made it look easy. You almost wanted to like the guy, even if you detested the policies he defended.
He had an easy affable manner even with the most contentious issues.
My second encounter happened in April when he came to speak to a group of communicators in my company. I groaned to myself when I heard he would be the main speaker. Even briefly consider sneaking out. I’m glad I didn’t.
Tony was engaging, funny, and fascinating. He told story after story of being in the White House. He talked about resisting the job when it was first offered. (Doesn’t everyone say that? Who accepts a job the first time asked?) He then spoke of being whisked away in a car with dark windows, into the White House and up a back elevator. When he got out, there was the president with his leg over the arm of the chair.
“Hey Snowbird!” the president said. I want you to come work for me. Snow said he protested briefly but then capitulated. He then regaled us with more stories of the president and working in the White House.
He was clearly a man who was enjoying his life. Hard to imagine at the time, he was so close to the end. Then, with a smile and a twinkle, he bounded out of the room. And that was the last time I saw him alive.
For most of his career, I wouldn’t normally listen to a guy like Tony Snow. Now part of me wishes I had. So long, Snowbird.
I was proved wrong at two points later in his career. I came to admire him as a spokesperson for the White House. Maybe it was in contrast to his predecessor the bumbling monosyllabic Scott McClellan. Press secretary fior the White House has got to be one of the toughest PR job in the world, yet Tony always made it look easy. You almost wanted to like the guy, even if you detested the policies he defended.
He had an easy affable manner even with the most contentious issues.
My second encounter happened in April when he came to speak to a group of communicators in my company. I groaned to myself when I heard he would be the main speaker. Even briefly consider sneaking out. I’m glad I didn’t.
Tony was engaging, funny, and fascinating. He told story after story of being in the White House. He talked about resisting the job when it was first offered. (Doesn’t everyone say that? Who accepts a job the first time asked?) He then spoke of being whisked away in a car with dark windows, into the White House and up a back elevator. When he got out, there was the president with his leg over the arm of the chair.
“Hey Snowbird!” the president said. I want you to come work for me. Snow said he protested briefly but then capitulated. He then regaled us with more stories of the president and working in the White House.
He was clearly a man who was enjoying his life. Hard to imagine at the time, he was so close to the end. Then, with a smile and a twinkle, he bounded out of the room. And that was the last time I saw him alive.
For most of his career, I wouldn’t normally listen to a guy like Tony Snow. Now part of me wishes I had. So long, Snowbird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)