After hearing about this Twitter thing, I decided to try my hand at the new technology. I've set up the Peoples Pundit Twitter update page. I'm still figuring it out, but for the moment, I think I'll use Twitter for short dispatches that come to me during the day.
I've embedded a feed to keep updated between blog posts. In Twitter speak, when you are tuned in to someone, they say you are "following" them. If you follow my blog, I invite you to follow my Twitter. :-)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Obama, Dude, They’re just not that into you
If Obama were a close friend and Congress, a paramour, this would be a no brainer. Dude, you are chasing someone who is just not that into you.
Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo gave us a near fool-proof “No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys” in their popular book by the same title. I think Pres. Obama would do well to consider a couple chapters as he begins his presidency.
During the campaign, Obama promised us a new Washington. He would break the gridlock, restore the peace, dispel partisanship, end global warming, and so on. I must admit I was taken. Smitten even. I shared his hopes that we could fashion a newer, more tolerant America. In our optimism, we overlooked what should have been an obvious factor: it takes two to tangle.
In Obama’s early efforts to pass a stimulus and during conversations about the new president’s priorities, it became obvious that Congress had no intention of appearing to follow in the popular president’s footsteps, no matter where they might lead. While the country might still approve of Obama and his new direction … While Obama might be able to claim a mandate with his overwhelming election victory … Republicans in Congress are just not that into him.
You don’t need to read the whole book, just look at the title of the first chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not asking you out.” One of the first things Obama did when he got to Washington was start asking out Republicans. He attended a highly publicized dinner with conservative columnists George Will and company. He threw a special dinner for John McCain. He went to special closed-door meetings with the Republican delegations of both houses of Congress. He even invited John McCain to watch the Super Bowl at the White House, which McCain declined.
Then when Obama went looking for support, not one Republican in Congress could be found. They ate his food at night but wouldn’t be seen with him in the light of day.
Even the second chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not calling you” offers some clues. In each of the overtures, Obama was calling on the opposition. I can’t think of one instance where the reverse was true. To make matters worse, Republicans called everyone else except the president. They lined up for every camera they could find to denounce the president’s plans. They lectured him from the house and senate floors, they chided him from every Sunday morning show. They did everything but call the president directly.
At the end of the day, Obama had to go to the prom alone. The Republicans were unapologetic. They intended to spurn him, and they boasted in their triumph.
As Obama goes forward, he will have to decide how much to keep chasing a disinterested lover. It’s admirable to keep pushing for consensus, but sometimes you have to know when to say when. Sometimes you have to recognize: Dude, they’re just not that into you.
Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo gave us a near fool-proof “No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys” in their popular book by the same title. I think Pres. Obama would do well to consider a couple chapters as he begins his presidency.
During the campaign, Obama promised us a new Washington. He would break the gridlock, restore the peace, dispel partisanship, end global warming, and so on. I must admit I was taken. Smitten even. I shared his hopes that we could fashion a newer, more tolerant America. In our optimism, we overlooked what should have been an obvious factor: it takes two to tangle.
In Obama’s early efforts to pass a stimulus and during conversations about the new president’s priorities, it became obvious that Congress had no intention of appearing to follow in the popular president’s footsteps, no matter where they might lead. While the country might still approve of Obama and his new direction … While Obama might be able to claim a mandate with his overwhelming election victory … Republicans in Congress are just not that into him.
You don’t need to read the whole book, just look at the title of the first chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not asking you out.” One of the first things Obama did when he got to Washington was start asking out Republicans. He attended a highly publicized dinner with conservative columnists George Will and company. He threw a special dinner for John McCain. He went to special closed-door meetings with the Republican delegations of both houses of Congress. He even invited John McCain to watch the Super Bowl at the White House, which McCain declined.
Then when Obama went looking for support, not one Republican in Congress could be found. They ate his food at night but wouldn’t be seen with him in the light of day.
Even the second chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not calling you” offers some clues. In each of the overtures, Obama was calling on the opposition. I can’t think of one instance where the reverse was true. To make matters worse, Republicans called everyone else except the president. They lined up for every camera they could find to denounce the president’s plans. They lectured him from the house and senate floors, they chided him from every Sunday morning show. They did everything but call the president directly.
At the end of the day, Obama had to go to the prom alone. The Republicans were unapologetic. They intended to spurn him, and they boasted in their triumph.
As Obama goes forward, he will have to decide how much to keep chasing a disinterested lover. It’s admirable to keep pushing for consensus, but sometimes you have to know when to say when. Sometimes you have to recognize: Dude, they’re just not that into you.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
STFU Award: Political strategists and experts
Somewhere someone said it first. ‘Pres. Barack Obama was losing the PR war to the Republicans in debating his stimulus his bill.’ Then someone else picked up the all-purpose observation and repeated it. Noticing the allure of drama to an otherwise wonky story, other “experts,” “strategists,” and pundits continued the refrain until it filled the echo chamber and was accepted as a universal truth.
There was just one thing missing from this analysis: a source. What was the factual basis for the claim? What knowledgeable, objective person were they quoting? What empirical evidence led to this conclusion?
There’s an old joke… What do you get when you give a reporter two pieces of information and a deadline? The answer? A trend. And so the trendy analysis continued until it was interrupted by real data.
A Monday Gallup poll found that 80 percent of voters felt that passing an economic stimulus proposal was important or very important (51 percent very important, 29 percent important). RealClearPolitics.com reported in their poll of polls that Pres. Obama enjoyed a 64 percent job approval while congressional Republicans earned a mere 31 percent approval. This happened while Republicans were winning the PR war.
What could have possibly led all these experts to conclude that Republicans were besting the president? A bunch of grumpy old men saturated the airwaves peddling 30-year old sound bites and the same baseless predictions that created the current mess. Because of the overall volume of their wall-to-wall pronouncements, the chattering class concluded the opposition must be winning.
I have a little reminder from any Communications 101 course: In order for communications to occur, you need a sender, a message, a receiver, and feedback to suggest the receiver got the message. Short of that complete cycle, you can’t assume that any real communication occurred.
In the Republicans blitz, you had a sender and a message but no feedback that any intended receiver heard or bought into their claims. The only people who seemed to receive the messages were the drama-hungry media. Despite the Republican offensive, Americans didn’t seem to be persuaded. The experts didn’t get the memo.
It’s the same old drill. News stations keep a stable of experts who tell us what we should think about every situation. They pronounce their opinions with absolute certainty, things of which they have no clue. Then they tell two friends. And they tell two friends. And so on. And so on. Until you have a trend story: Republicans are winning the PR war against the stimulus.
By the way, congress agreed on a stimulus plan this week, with the support of a majority of Americans.
To the news pundits who repeat the same tired cliché’s without any facts or sources…I hereby bestow the Peoples Pundit STFU Award. Shut The Fuck Up!
There was just one thing missing from this analysis: a source. What was the factual basis for the claim? What knowledgeable, objective person were they quoting? What empirical evidence led to this conclusion?
There’s an old joke… What do you get when you give a reporter two pieces of information and a deadline? The answer? A trend. And so the trendy analysis continued until it was interrupted by real data.
A Monday Gallup poll found that 80 percent of voters felt that passing an economic stimulus proposal was important or very important (51 percent very important, 29 percent important). RealClearPolitics.com reported in their poll of polls that Pres. Obama enjoyed a 64 percent job approval while congressional Republicans earned a mere 31 percent approval. This happened while Republicans were winning the PR war.
What could have possibly led all these experts to conclude that Republicans were besting the president? A bunch of grumpy old men saturated the airwaves peddling 30-year old sound bites and the same baseless predictions that created the current mess. Because of the overall volume of their wall-to-wall pronouncements, the chattering class concluded the opposition must be winning.
I have a little reminder from any Communications 101 course: In order for communications to occur, you need a sender, a message, a receiver, and feedback to suggest the receiver got the message. Short of that complete cycle, you can’t assume that any real communication occurred.
In the Republicans blitz, you had a sender and a message but no feedback that any intended receiver heard or bought into their claims. The only people who seemed to receive the messages were the drama-hungry media. Despite the Republican offensive, Americans didn’t seem to be persuaded. The experts didn’t get the memo.
It’s the same old drill. News stations keep a stable of experts who tell us what we should think about every situation. They pronounce their opinions with absolute certainty, things of which they have no clue. Then they tell two friends. And they tell two friends. And so on. And so on. Until you have a trend story: Republicans are winning the PR war against the stimulus.
By the way, congress agreed on a stimulus plan this week, with the support of a majority of Americans.
To the news pundits who repeat the same tired cliché’s without any facts or sources…I hereby bestow the Peoples Pundit STFU Award. Shut The Fuck Up!
Monday, February 9, 2009
What if the bailout still works without bipartisanship?
Republicans have been trotting around Washington for the last week warning that if Pres. Obama doesn't get bipartisan support for his bailout bill, the president alone will own the results. Republicans will be able to brand the president with the failure, since none of them had a hand in the decision.
Slipping past them, seemingly unnoticed, is the reverse argument. If it succeeds, Republicans would be on the wrong side of history yet again. Not only would they have owned the worst decisions of our generation, but they would be seen as erecting roadblocks on the road to recovery. Someone ought to point out that there's a fair amount of risk in that approach, too.
Sen. John McCain, in a deja vu moment for those of us who were finally beginning to put the campaign behind us, lectured Obama from the Capitol. You might get a bill signed, he warned, but it won't be bipartisan.
The Republican road to victory goes through a little town off the side of the road called Bipartisan. In unison, they've withheld their support from the House bill and all but about three for the Senate bill. The Democrats have the votes to pass the measures, but they won't be able to claim that the victories were bipartisan.
One thing guys...Americans don't need a bipartisan, they need a bailout. When you are drowning, you don't really care if the Coast Guard and Life Guard hold hands when they throw you a life raft. People are losing jobs at ridiculous rates. Families are losing homes. Life savings have evaporated in the market. And it's only getting worse.
Against this backdrop, Republicans think that it is important to hold out and deny the president bipartisanship because if the plan doesn't work, the Democrats alone will own the failure.
Again, another little factoid that slips past them in this argument; Republicans own the current failure. This isn't something we are trying to do; it's something we are trying to UNdo. To say that you can crap all over the place for eight years and tell the new guy to clean it up in two weeks or you own the pile is kind of ridiculous. We all know whose shit we are cleaning up.
All these arguments overlook a very real possibility, however. What if it works?
What if the economy is stimulated? What if people start going back to work? What if the rate of foreclosures stalls? What if banks begin lending? What if they created or saved 4 million jobs? What if any of those things happened? What if they all happened? What if they all happened and the victory wasn't bipartisan? What would Republicans say then? What would they do? I sure hope we have a chance to find out.
Slipping past them, seemingly unnoticed, is the reverse argument. If it succeeds, Republicans would be on the wrong side of history yet again. Not only would they have owned the worst decisions of our generation, but they would be seen as erecting roadblocks on the road to recovery. Someone ought to point out that there's a fair amount of risk in that approach, too.
Sen. John McCain, in a deja vu moment for those of us who were finally beginning to put the campaign behind us, lectured Obama from the Capitol. You might get a bill signed, he warned, but it won't be bipartisan.
The Republican road to victory goes through a little town off the side of the road called Bipartisan. In unison, they've withheld their support from the House bill and all but about three for the Senate bill. The Democrats have the votes to pass the measures, but they won't be able to claim that the victories were bipartisan.
One thing guys...Americans don't need a bipartisan, they need a bailout. When you are drowning, you don't really care if the Coast Guard and Life Guard hold hands when they throw you a life raft. People are losing jobs at ridiculous rates. Families are losing homes. Life savings have evaporated in the market. And it's only getting worse.
Against this backdrop, Republicans think that it is important to hold out and deny the president bipartisanship because if the plan doesn't work, the Democrats alone will own the failure.
Again, another little factoid that slips past them in this argument; Republicans own the current failure. This isn't something we are trying to do; it's something we are trying to UNdo. To say that you can crap all over the place for eight years and tell the new guy to clean it up in two weeks or you own the pile is kind of ridiculous. We all know whose shit we are cleaning up.
All these arguments overlook a very real possibility, however. What if it works?
What if the economy is stimulated? What if people start going back to work? What if the rate of foreclosures stalls? What if banks begin lending? What if they created or saved 4 million jobs? What if any of those things happened? What if they all happened? What if they all happened and the victory wasn't bipartisan? What would Republicans say then? What would they do? I sure hope we have a chance to find out.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Maybe we should Google 'Inauguration'
I found this goodie from Flickr member Marcellina right after Inauguration Day.
Where's the friggin' special Google Inauguration Day Logo???
Mother's Day
Father's Day
Groundhog's Day
Flag Day
Fourth of July
Veteran's Day
Easter
Christmas
St. Patrick's Day
Valentine's Day
Earth Day
Halloween
All of these days get the special Google logo, so why not this Inauguration? It's an historic event, and the Google execs were open about their support for Obama. So what gives??
Republicans lose in a dramatic stand
This week the Republicans tried to send Pres. Barack Obama a strong message: you might be Michael Jordan, but we're still going to play defense.
Despite personally campaigning for an $819 billion stimulus bill, Pres. Obama could not raise a single Republican vote. In Obama's 244 - 188 victory, Republicans were unanimous in their opposition.
Just eight days after 2 million people gathered in front of the Capitol steps to welcome the new executive, Republicans, in the same building, staged an open revolt against the president's leadership.
To keep my basketball analogies going, I remember a quote that says 'if a guy is coming through the lane scoring on every possession, the next time he comes your way, clean his clock. He'll think twice before driving your way again.'
Bless their little hearts, the Republicans figured they'd make an early stand against the popular president, just to let Obama know Republicans won't be pushovers. They not only played defense, they tried to clean his clock. (Ok, no more basketball analogies.)
A couple issues, however... The bill still passed. As many of Michael Jordan's opponents learned, playing defense wasn't enough to ensure a win. (Ok.. ok... I couldn't resist one more.)
One other thing... they were opposing solutions for the future with arguments from the past. They opined that the bill consisted of wasteful spending rather than tax cuts. Once again, they told us that only tax cuts will rescue us from this disaster. The danger is in including unemployment insurance for all those Americans who lose their jobs in this economy. We don't need social programs. They are only a drag on the American economy.
Is it just me, or haven't we heard these arguments before? Isn't this the vehicle that took us straight into this ditch? Didn't Republicans promise us that a sole diet of tax cuts was the path to financial health? And didn't it end in the spectacular failure we now endure?
If we learned anything during the last eight years, it's that the Right won't be deterred by reality as long as they clutch to their core "principles." Slogans over substance all over again.
Here we are...a tad more than a week after a resounding repudiation of those "principles" and Republicans are still resisting based on the same failed theories.
Sometimes I'm glad they don't learn from their mistakes.
Despite personally campaigning for an $819 billion stimulus bill, Pres. Obama could not raise a single Republican vote. In Obama's 244 - 188 victory, Republicans were unanimous in their opposition.
Just eight days after 2 million people gathered in front of the Capitol steps to welcome the new executive, Republicans, in the same building, staged an open revolt against the president's leadership.
To keep my basketball analogies going, I remember a quote that says 'if a guy is coming through the lane scoring on every possession, the next time he comes your way, clean his clock. He'll think twice before driving your way again.'
Bless their little hearts, the Republicans figured they'd make an early stand against the popular president, just to let Obama know Republicans won't be pushovers. They not only played defense, they tried to clean his clock. (Ok, no more basketball analogies.)
A couple issues, however... The bill still passed. As many of Michael Jordan's opponents learned, playing defense wasn't enough to ensure a win. (Ok.. ok... I couldn't resist one more.)
One other thing... they were opposing solutions for the future with arguments from the past. They opined that the bill consisted of wasteful spending rather than tax cuts. Once again, they told us that only tax cuts will rescue us from this disaster. The danger is in including unemployment insurance for all those Americans who lose their jobs in this economy. We don't need social programs. They are only a drag on the American economy.
Is it just me, or haven't we heard these arguments before? Isn't this the vehicle that took us straight into this ditch? Didn't Republicans promise us that a sole diet of tax cuts was the path to financial health? And didn't it end in the spectacular failure we now endure?
If we learned anything during the last eight years, it's that the Right won't be deterred by reality as long as they clutch to their core "principles." Slogans over substance all over again.
Here we are...a tad more than a week after a resounding repudiation of those "principles" and Republicans are still resisting based on the same failed theories.
Sometimes I'm glad they don't learn from their mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
