While Congress mulled over an inevitable, albeit still wildly unpopular, auto bailout yesterday, I practiced helping automakers by flushing some cash down a toilet.
Ford, GM and Chrysler as essentially asking American taxpayers to pay $25 billion for something bankruptcy courts do every day: give them time to reorganize and settle debts.
Ford and GM collectively ran through nearly $15 billion last quarter. So that $25 billion rescue package will last them until, say, May, at which point auto sales will still be in decline, the Big Three will be filing for bankruptcy and American taxpayers will have flushed $25 billion down the crapper for nothing.
I agree with the bailout proponents on one point: something needs to be done. Shutting down the Big Three would be crippling to Michigan’s economy, not to mention the millions of jobs at risk when automotive suppliers start to feel the crunch.
Maybe bankruptcy isn’t what it used to be, but filing Chapter 11 does not mean you have to close your doors and shut down production. Will jobs be lost? Sure, and in no small numbers. But it’s unlikely these cash flow problems will force Ford, GM, Chrysler and their suppliers to turn off the lights and close their doors forever.
A Chapter 11 filing typically allows businesses to maintain control of operations while being subject to court oversight. The debtor can also make their own proposals for reorganization.
As of this posting, the automakers have failed to outline any changes they would make to help pull their companies out of trouble. Just borrowing more money is not going to help, guys. Your cash flow crisis indicates you’ll need significant structural and administrative changes. Luckily, a bankruptcy court will be happy to take care of that for you. Chapter 11 would force the automakers to come up with their own proposals, or let creditors bring their ideas to the table in court.
Recently, some have called for the resignation or ousting of CEOs at the Big Three. I don’t think ousting the CEOs is the answer, but it’s also a bad idea to hand over cash to drowning businesses, not matter how many strings are attached.
If I had the ear of the auto CEOs for five minutes, I would offer this golden nugget of advice courtesy of Jim/Dad: shut down your excess car dealerships. Auto sales among the Big Three are comparable to those of foreign cars, but the foreign companies own roughly half as many dealerships. Those things are expensive to maintain. If I were an executive at Ford, GM or Chrysler the first thing I would look at as I prepare my Chapter 11 proposal would be how many of those dealerships we could shut down (hint: it’s probably half of them). I mean, I can buy a car on the Internet these days; we don’t need to have dealerships scattered about like McDonald’s drive-thrus. The Big Three’s problems are probably less related to fuel efficiency and safety ratings (all three manufacture models on par with foreign cars) and more a result of careless business practices.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not a death sentence. It’s a second chance. The Big Three haven’t engaged in any sketchy or illegal activity (a-la-Enron), so they have a good chance of surviving reorganization.
When it’s done right, Chapter 11 save jobs, maintains the engine of profitability (i.e. the business) and reconciles the company’s debt with creditors, the very reasons automakers argue we need the bailout. So let’s save ourselves $25 billion dollars and let the market work her magic.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
How Sarah Palin short-changed herself out of the White House
The set up looked great, but follow-through fell short.
If Senator John McCain is kicking himself this morning, it should not be for choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. I will say the same thing about Palin that I wrote about Mike Huckabee in January ("Iowa Caucus Ruckus"): my plumber has more foreign policy experience (a statement that is perhaps even more appropriate now than it was ten months ago given Joe the Plumber's recent rise to fame).
But I also stand behind my earlier statement that Palin was a smart VP pick. Politically, she was a great counter to McCain’s socially liberal policies and she energized the republican base. The ticket was well-balanced. The campaign fell apart in the strategy.
Rather than focusing on Palin’s real assets the campaign spent most of its time defending strengths she doesn’t actually posses, ridiculously clinging to their claim that Alaska’s proximity to Russia makes her a foreign policy buff.
Palin is no political lightweight. She has battled corruption in Alaska, been an advocate for families with special needs children, and her experience on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is particularly relevant as our nation vies for fuel independence. These are all strengths that would have helped create a well-rounded administration. Twenty years in the senate have given McCain enough experience in foreign and economic policy for the both of them. We should look for vice presidential candidates to posses skills or experience that the presidential candidate lacks.
I could blame the liberal media for unfairly attacking and haranguing Palin, but ultimately that just feels like a cop out. The campaign failed to refocus attention on Palin’s strengths, and that’s really too bad.
McCain will be 76 by the next election, and it’s unlikely he’ll run again. As for Palin, I wouldn’t support a bid for the presidency in 2012, but as Vice President she’d have done alright. If not, Mac could always send her on a peacekeeping mission to Africa.
If Senator John McCain is kicking himself this morning, it should not be for choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. I will say the same thing about Palin that I wrote about Mike Huckabee in January ("Iowa Caucus Ruckus"): my plumber has more foreign policy experience (a statement that is perhaps even more appropriate now than it was ten months ago given Joe the Plumber's recent rise to fame).
But I also stand behind my earlier statement that Palin was a smart VP pick. Politically, she was a great counter to McCain’s socially liberal policies and she energized the republican base. The ticket was well-balanced. The campaign fell apart in the strategy.
Rather than focusing on Palin’s real assets the campaign spent most of its time defending strengths she doesn’t actually posses, ridiculously clinging to their claim that Alaska’s proximity to Russia makes her a foreign policy buff.
Palin is no political lightweight. She has battled corruption in Alaska, been an advocate for families with special needs children, and her experience on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is particularly relevant as our nation vies for fuel independence. These are all strengths that would have helped create a well-rounded administration. Twenty years in the senate have given McCain enough experience in foreign and economic policy for the both of them. We should look for vice presidential candidates to posses skills or experience that the presidential candidate lacks.
I could blame the liberal media for unfairly attacking and haranguing Palin, but ultimately that just feels like a cop out. The campaign failed to refocus attention on Palin’s strengths, and that’s really too bad.
McCain will be 76 by the next election, and it’s unlikely he’ll run again. As for Palin, I wouldn’t support a bid for the presidency in 2012, but as Vice President she’d have done alright. If not, Mac could always send her on a peacekeeping mission to Africa.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
McCain needs a major upset
My normally perky cup of coffee this morning turned into a big downer as I glanced over a red and blue map of the country. The numbers are not exactly in McCain’s favor.
McCain should easily secure 118 electoral votes from 14 states, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. Another 14 electoral votes are leaning his way. Assuming McCain wins those 132 votes and the 128 toss ups, that’s 260 electoral votes. Candidates need 270 to win. Ouch. Even in this best case scenario (Obama may steal some of those toss up votes), McCain’s campaign will fall short by ten votes. Obama, on the other hand, could win with the 278 votes that are either solid or leaning democrat. No toss ups needed.
If the polls are correct, McCain’s best hope is for an upset in Minnesota, which has ten electoral votes leaning toward Obama.
McCain should easily secure 118 electoral votes from 14 states, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. Another 14 electoral votes are leaning his way. Assuming McCain wins those 132 votes and the 128 toss ups, that’s 260 electoral votes. Candidates need 270 to win. Ouch. Even in this best case scenario (Obama may steal some of those toss up votes), McCain’s campaign will fall short by ten votes. Obama, on the other hand, could win with the 278 votes that are either solid or leaning democrat. No toss ups needed.
If the polls are correct, McCain’s best hope is for an upset in Minnesota, which has ten electoral votes leaning toward Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Why John McCain was screwed before he even got out of bed this morning
The presidential race between O-Bom and Mac was all but decided before either announced his candidacy. And it has little to do with the economy or the war on terror.
It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Senator John McCain and would like to see the election swing his way, but if history is any indication (and she usually is) I won’t be breaking out the cigars and champagne on Wednesday. The incumbent party has little chance of retaining control over the White House. President George W. Bush’s term has seen some of the lowest approval ratings since the 1940s, and low approval ratings often forecast a shift in political power.
Harry Truman frittered away political capital like it grew on trees and in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower dominated the electorate over democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. (Truman began his term following FDR’s death with approval ratings in the 80s; by 1951 his ratings were at 22 points, according to Wall Street Journal reports).
Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings were just starting to recover from the disastrous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 when the economy took a downturn, sliding his approval ratings back into the 30s. Ronald Regan’s victory in 1980 was nothing short of a landslide.
Bush’s approval ratings are currently hovering in the 30s, just a few points lower than his father’s were when Bill Clinton unseated him during the 1992 election. At the time, unemployment and poverty had climbed to their highest in nearly ten years.
I’m not suggesting that approval ratings alone will make or break an election. Each of these examples had other contributing factors. Eisenhower’s victory came in the midst of the Cold War, and Bush’s 1990 tax hike left room for Clinton to secure a victory. Regardless of the issues, when the president’s approval ratings sink below 50 percent the party is in trouble. As a candidate, even if you do everything right (which no candidate has in this, or probably any, election) you’ll still face an uphill battle through a blizzard.
Of course Republicans should not be deterred from voting tomorrow, our votes still count. We also need to be realistic about our expectations for the election’s outcome: a McCain victory is unlikely.
So for now, tuck those Cubans back in their box and leave your Tattinger on ice. The political climate could look much more favorable for conservatives once Obama’s had four years in the White House.
It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Senator John McCain and would like to see the election swing his way, but if history is any indication (and she usually is) I won’t be breaking out the cigars and champagne on Wednesday. The incumbent party has little chance of retaining control over the White House. President George W. Bush’s term has seen some of the lowest approval ratings since the 1940s, and low approval ratings often forecast a shift in political power.
Harry Truman frittered away political capital like it grew on trees and in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower dominated the electorate over democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. (Truman began his term following FDR’s death with approval ratings in the 80s; by 1951 his ratings were at 22 points, according to Wall Street Journal reports).
Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings were just starting to recover from the disastrous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 when the economy took a downturn, sliding his approval ratings back into the 30s. Ronald Regan’s victory in 1980 was nothing short of a landslide.
Bush’s approval ratings are currently hovering in the 30s, just a few points lower than his father’s were when Bill Clinton unseated him during the 1992 election. At the time, unemployment and poverty had climbed to their highest in nearly ten years.
I’m not suggesting that approval ratings alone will make or break an election. Each of these examples had other contributing factors. Eisenhower’s victory came in the midst of the Cold War, and Bush’s 1990 tax hike left room for Clinton to secure a victory. Regardless of the issues, when the president’s approval ratings sink below 50 percent the party is in trouble. As a candidate, even if you do everything right (which no candidate has in this, or probably any, election) you’ll still face an uphill battle through a blizzard.
Of course Republicans should not be deterred from voting tomorrow, our votes still count. We also need to be realistic about our expectations for the election’s outcome: a McCain victory is unlikely.
So for now, tuck those Cubans back in their box and leave your Tattinger on ice. The political climate could look much more favorable for conservatives once Obama’s had four years in the White House.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain's resurgence policy beats Obamanomics
Economic policy will make or break this election…and the next presidency.
It’s clear that our next president will have to do some heavy lifting to pull the U.S. economy back on its feet, and the steps to recovery have been hotly contested. During last night’s presidential debate, the candidates addressed our struggling economy and their plans for remedy.
Obama spewed more standard democratic slogans, insisting that tax breaks for middle-class Americans will help us avoid economic ruin.
Really? How will a tax cut help someone who is already upside down on their mortgage and in immediate danger of losing their home? Are we talking like tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts for every person? Can we get that money like next month? That’s how fast Americans are foreclosing. For some, it has already happened. How will a tax cut help those who have already lost their homes?
One of the problems snowballing this crisis is that many homeowners are upside-down on their mortgages (sometimes called “negative equity”). Even if they could sell their house at fair market value they’d still owe more money than they’d receive on the sale.
McCain highlighted a plan to help families restructure mortgages. His plan isn’t perfect (and I’m still not a fan of his vote on the $700 billion “rescue” plan). I don’t think forgiving debts, which this plan would in some cases, is the best solution. It’s giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Struggling homeowners would be better served by a plan that allows them to opt for interest-only payments for a few years, at least until they have some positive equity in their homes again. That would provide much needed relief without giving the false impression that we can continue to dig ourselves into financial holes and expect the federal government to pull us out.
I would also alter McCain’s plan to include homeowners with zero down payment mortgages, which his current plan expressly excludes. Was it stupid to buy a house without any down payment at all? Yes. If you can’t afford a down payment you should be renting. But this stipulation would exclude from McCain’s resurgence plan a significant number of families who urgently need help restructuring their mortgages. Without help they will surely lose their homes, regardless of how swiftly Wall Street is recovering.
P.S. So good to see Rach writing again. I missed your acerbic wit and pointed observations.
It’s clear that our next president will have to do some heavy lifting to pull the U.S. economy back on its feet, and the steps to recovery have been hotly contested. During last night’s presidential debate, the candidates addressed our struggling economy and their plans for remedy.
Obama spewed more standard democratic slogans, insisting that tax breaks for middle-class Americans will help us avoid economic ruin.
Really? How will a tax cut help someone who is already upside down on their mortgage and in immediate danger of losing their home? Are we talking like tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts for every person? Can we get that money like next month? That’s how fast Americans are foreclosing. For some, it has already happened. How will a tax cut help those who have already lost their homes?
One of the problems snowballing this crisis is that many homeowners are upside-down on their mortgages (sometimes called “negative equity”). Even if they could sell their house at fair market value they’d still owe more money than they’d receive on the sale.
McCain highlighted a plan to help families restructure mortgages. His plan isn’t perfect (and I’m still not a fan of his vote on the $700 billion “rescue” plan). I don’t think forgiving debts, which this plan would in some cases, is the best solution. It’s giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Struggling homeowners would be better served by a plan that allows them to opt for interest-only payments for a few years, at least until they have some positive equity in their homes again. That would provide much needed relief without giving the false impression that we can continue to dig ourselves into financial holes and expect the federal government to pull us out.
I would also alter McCain’s plan to include homeowners with zero down payment mortgages, which his current plan expressly excludes. Was it stupid to buy a house without any down payment at all? Yes. If you can’t afford a down payment you should be renting. But this stipulation would exclude from McCain’s resurgence plan a significant number of families who urgently need help restructuring their mortgages. Without help they will surely lose their homes, regardless of how swiftly Wall Street is recovering.
P.S. So good to see Rach writing again. I missed your acerbic wit and pointed observations.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Two down, one to go
I realize it's been awhile since my byline crossed the blog ... nothing like politics to bring me back!
Tonight's second presidential debate was a tad boring and predictable. McCain came off as snarky. Obama came off as a bit more nuanced. Tom Brokaw somehow wins the bitter award.
Since the candidates rarely say anything new or different in these debates, half the fun has been watching the moderators. Jim Lehrer was like a stern father -- "look at each other when you talk!" Gwen Ifill was ... well all I can picture is the Queen Latifah version. Tom Brokaw was more sassy tonight than I've seen him, and the whole debate setup seemed a little wonky and loose (despite Brokaw's best efforts).
And some brief thoughts on what the candidates said tonight...
-Both have time sticking to time restrictions. Wow.
-Yes, everyone is talking about how McCain called Obama "that one." It was condescending which, sadly, is not entirely unusual for the Mac.
-I thought it was funny that McCain sought to buy himself time with the Treasury Chief question. He first replied "not you, Tom" and paused for nonexistent laughter. Then all he could come up with was the CEO of a company that laid of 10 percent of its workforce this week.
-Along with most of his other classes, McCain must have failed math at the Naval Academy. He keeps talking about adding things that aren't possible. For example, he wants to go buy every failing mortgage in the country. Uh, how are you gonna pay for that, pal? He refuses to raise taxes and at the rate we're going, they're going to have to invent a new number to describe the national debt. (Freezing all programs is not an option -- some people in this country, those who don't have seven houses, actually depend on those programs.) Also a mathematical problem, the troops -- how are you going to get the increases you want in Afghanistan while maintaining surge numbers in Iraq? The numbers aren't there so we either need a random enlistment rush, a draft or troops out of Iraq.
-Watching CNN's undecided voter tracking was actually really interesting. The approval numbers dropped below the middle line every time the candidates went negative. This doesn't bode well for McCain, since he spent more time than Obama doing smearing.
-McCain made a comment about wanting to chair a commission with "smart people." My friends and I have been debating the importance of smarts recently -- to be precise, since Sarah Palin came on the scene. Some conservative friends maintain that having "the smarts" is not entirely necessary to win hearts and votes. I thought it was funny that McCain puts trust in intelligent people to sort through tough situations...
-If McCain says "my friends" one more time I'm going to hurl. Can we at least get him a thesaurus? In debate three I want to hear "my acquaintances" or maybe "my homies."
Despite all this, the next 28 days will be filled with assertions that Obama is a gay Muslim terrorist. Yay democracy!
Tonight's second presidential debate was a tad boring and predictable. McCain came off as snarky. Obama came off as a bit more nuanced. Tom Brokaw somehow wins the bitter award.
Since the candidates rarely say anything new or different in these debates, half the fun has been watching the moderators. Jim Lehrer was like a stern father -- "look at each other when you talk!" Gwen Ifill was ... well all I can picture is the Queen Latifah version. Tom Brokaw was more sassy tonight than I've seen him, and the whole debate setup seemed a little wonky and loose (despite Brokaw's best efforts).
And some brief thoughts on what the candidates said tonight...
-Both have time sticking to time restrictions. Wow.
-Yes, everyone is talking about how McCain called Obama "that one." It was condescending which, sadly, is not entirely unusual for the Mac.
-I thought it was funny that McCain sought to buy himself time with the Treasury Chief question. He first replied "not you, Tom" and paused for nonexistent laughter. Then all he could come up with was the CEO of a company that laid of 10 percent of its workforce this week.
-Along with most of his other classes, McCain must have failed math at the Naval Academy. He keeps talking about adding things that aren't possible. For example, he wants to go buy every failing mortgage in the country. Uh, how are you gonna pay for that, pal? He refuses to raise taxes and at the rate we're going, they're going to have to invent a new number to describe the national debt. (Freezing all programs is not an option -- some people in this country, those who don't have seven houses, actually depend on those programs.) Also a mathematical problem, the troops -- how are you going to get the increases you want in Afghanistan while maintaining surge numbers in Iraq? The numbers aren't there so we either need a random enlistment rush, a draft or troops out of Iraq.
-Watching CNN's undecided voter tracking was actually really interesting. The approval numbers dropped below the middle line every time the candidates went negative. This doesn't bode well for McCain, since he spent more time than Obama doing smearing.
-McCain made a comment about wanting to chair a commission with "smart people." My friends and I have been debating the importance of smarts recently -- to be precise, since Sarah Palin came on the scene. Some conservative friends maintain that having "the smarts" is not entirely necessary to win hearts and votes. I thought it was funny that McCain puts trust in intelligent people to sort through tough situations...
-If McCain says "my friends" one more time I'm going to hurl. Can we at least get him a thesaurus? In debate three I want to hear "my acquaintances" or maybe "my homies."
Despite all this, the next 28 days will be filled with assertions that Obama is a gay Muslim terrorist. Yay democracy!
Monday, October 6, 2008
Why the bailout is bad for business
Bailing out failing companies without restoring investor confidence is useless. Deteriorating financial institutions hurt our economy, but the resulting decline in investor confidence is the real crisis.
It’s important to remember that these businesses failed for good reasons. They took on reckless investments, sometimes at the urging of the federal government who now wants to hand over $700 billion to revive our tanking economy.
If officials really want to stop the bleeding they’ll halt earmark-laden legislation and start working with financial markets, encouraging more deals like the WaMu and Wachovia buyouts. In the days following the crash, the federal government has overestimated it’s own political clout. Consumers won’t invest their hard-earned dollars simply because you tell them it’s safe. At this point, confidence would be better restored with corporate solutions, especially in the U.S. where faith in our government is dwindling.
Over the past week, countless economists and journalists have compared this crisis to the events leading up to the Great Depression. It’s hard to deny the parallels: the three greatest tragedies that tanked our financial system during the 1930s were the credit crisis, irresponsible lending on the part of financial institutions, and the government’s failure to provide aid to struggling families. Our current situation paints a distressingly similar picture. It makes a government rescue seem necessary, if not inevitable.
But don’t underestimate the market. Overzealous intervention could do more harm than good. The market weathers peaks and valleys with remarkable resilience and it will eventually self-correct. We may not all be better off when that happens: homeowners who bit off more mortgage than they could chew could still lose their homes, and fiscally irresponsible companies could still be out of business. But allowing this process of economic natural selection is the best solution.
If we must have government involvement let it be limited to helping the families most affected by this crisis. Let’s come up with payment plans to help middle-class Americans keep their homes.
With the Dow still hovering above 10,000, we’ve yet to see the bottom of this slump. But a $700 billion lifeline won’t stop the recession in its tracks.
You can take that to the bank.
It’s important to remember that these businesses failed for good reasons. They took on reckless investments, sometimes at the urging of the federal government who now wants to hand over $700 billion to revive our tanking economy.
If officials really want to stop the bleeding they’ll halt earmark-laden legislation and start working with financial markets, encouraging more deals like the WaMu and Wachovia buyouts. In the days following the crash, the federal government has overestimated it’s own political clout. Consumers won’t invest their hard-earned dollars simply because you tell them it’s safe. At this point, confidence would be better restored with corporate solutions, especially in the U.S. where faith in our government is dwindling.
Over the past week, countless economists and journalists have compared this crisis to the events leading up to the Great Depression. It’s hard to deny the parallels: the three greatest tragedies that tanked our financial system during the 1930s were the credit crisis, irresponsible lending on the part of financial institutions, and the government’s failure to provide aid to struggling families. Our current situation paints a distressingly similar picture. It makes a government rescue seem necessary, if not inevitable.
But don’t underestimate the market. Overzealous intervention could do more harm than good. The market weathers peaks and valleys with remarkable resilience and it will eventually self-correct. We may not all be better off when that happens: homeowners who bit off more mortgage than they could chew could still lose their homes, and fiscally irresponsible companies could still be out of business. But allowing this process of economic natural selection is the best solution.
If we must have government involvement let it be limited to helping the families most affected by this crisis. Let’s come up with payment plans to help middle-class Americans keep their homes.
With the Dow still hovering above 10,000, we’ve yet to see the bottom of this slump. But a $700 billion lifeline won’t stop the recession in its tracks.
You can take that to the bank.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin's debate debacle
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate last night concerned me. I have always believed she was a smart choice for VP (see “McCain-Palin is a Winning Ticket”), but last night the “pit-bull with lipstick” I had grown to love during the RNC had too much bark and not enough bite.
I don’t want to criticize without offering some possible solutions, so Governor Palin, here are a few ways you can win back my confidence:
1. Get the facts straight. Fast-talking rhetoric and charm are impressive during a debate, but in this technology-driven world the facts will catch up with you in the morning (probably even sooner). That doesn’t mean you should change your style of speaking, just make sure you have rock-solid facts to back you up. Here’s an example from the debate last night when you could have used a fact-checker:
Palin: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.”
In August 2007 Obama did say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians (“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”). Unfortunately, that’s because it was true. At the time, 286 civilians had been killed by US troops, according to the Associated Press; Afghan insurgents had killed 231.
I hate that he said it too, but the facts are pretty damning.
2. Keep up on current events. When Sen. Joe Biden claimed that our commanding officer in Afghanistan said the surge principles we applied in Iraq will not work there, you admirably tried to call him on it. Unfortunately, Biden’s information was more current. Tuesday’s Washington Post reported that Gen. David McKiernan “stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict [in Afghanistan].”
Here’s the link.
Along those same lines, our commanding general in Afghanistan is McKiernan, not McClellan. I hate to nit-pick, but this is the kind of blunder that made our current president an international laughing stock. Let’s not give Tina Fey any more fodder for SNL.
3. Learn phonics. It’s pronounced NUCLEAR, not “nu-cu-ler.” Way to sound exactly like Bush.
Since you’ve been governor for less than two years, I’m inclined to give you a second chance. My confidence is wavering but not lost. A few simple changes could bring it back in full force.
A Note to Sen. Joe Biden: McCain didn’t vote against funding alternative energy 20 times, it was 11. Stop exaggerating. Also, McCain didn’t refuse to meet with the government of Spain, his simply declined to commit to any meetings during an interview.
I don’t want to criticize without offering some possible solutions, so Governor Palin, here are a few ways you can win back my confidence:
1. Get the facts straight. Fast-talking rhetoric and charm are impressive during a debate, but in this technology-driven world the facts will catch up with you in the morning (probably even sooner). That doesn’t mean you should change your style of speaking, just make sure you have rock-solid facts to back you up. Here’s an example from the debate last night when you could have used a fact-checker:
Palin: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.”
In August 2007 Obama did say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians (“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”). Unfortunately, that’s because it was true. At the time, 286 civilians had been killed by US troops, according to the Associated Press; Afghan insurgents had killed 231.
I hate that he said it too, but the facts are pretty damning.
2. Keep up on current events. When Sen. Joe Biden claimed that our commanding officer in Afghanistan said the surge principles we applied in Iraq will not work there, you admirably tried to call him on it. Unfortunately, Biden’s information was more current. Tuesday’s Washington Post reported that Gen. David McKiernan “stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict [in Afghanistan].”
Here’s the link.
Along those same lines, our commanding general in Afghanistan is McKiernan, not McClellan. I hate to nit-pick, but this is the kind of blunder that made our current president an international laughing stock. Let’s not give Tina Fey any more fodder for SNL.
3. Learn phonics. It’s pronounced NUCLEAR, not “nu-cu-ler.” Way to sound exactly like Bush.
Since you’ve been governor for less than two years, I’m inclined to give you a second chance. My confidence is wavering but not lost. A few simple changes could bring it back in full force.
A Note to Sen. Joe Biden: McCain didn’t vote against funding alternative energy 20 times, it was 11. Stop exaggerating. Also, McCain didn’t refuse to meet with the government of Spain, his simply declined to commit to any meetings during an interview.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
On Wall Street, who is paying the piper?
Taxpayers should not be funding corporate mistakes.
Yesterday, members of the House of Representatives shot down a $700 billion Wall Street bailout deal. They made the right decision , or at least a plurality of them did.
Fiscally irresponsible businesses should not be artificially resuscitated.
I have a hard time feeling bad for financial institutions who are struggling because they made risky, and in many cases irresponsible, investments. It’s their prerogative to take risks if they chose, but if those investments don’t pan out they need to take responsibility for the consequences.
Not surprisingly, companies who have been reckless with their money over the past five or ten years are now struggling, flat-out crumbling in fact. That is as it should be. Bad businesses should go out of business. It’s the economic version of natural selection, or Economic Darwinism, if you will.
By bailing out companies who engaged in high-risk behavior, the government is sending a message that other corporations can screw up and taxpayers will just bail them out. We cannot be a society that rewards that kind of behavior. If you’re reckless with your money, eventually you’ll have to pay the piper. I’m not going to pay him for you.
Personal moral objections aside, the bailout is just bad policy.
It’s a simple law of supply and demand that when the market falls, prices will follow. Intervention like this, however, could prevent prices from keeping up (or in this case going down) with the market. And the market won’t recover fast enough to make up for the disparity. So prices will stay the same but we’ll still be hurting from the market’s decline. I think we used to call that stagflation, although this may be a milder case.
I always see a little red flag go up whenever politicians, on either side of the liberal/conservative fence, advocate plans that defy their party’s core beliefs. Republicans, theoretically, believe in smaller government and less interference. So shame on President Bush for acting like such a liberal. It should send up an even larger red flag when a Republican president can’t get members of his own party to support his legislation. That alone is not enough to disprove the quality of the proposal, but in my opinion it warrants a closer look.
America has never been a nation that likes to sit back and watch things happen, but allowing the market to self-correct will be the smoothest solution to this temporary financial crisis.
Yesterday, members of the House of Representatives shot down a $700 billion Wall Street bailout deal. They made the right decision , or at least a plurality of them did.
Fiscally irresponsible businesses should not be artificially resuscitated.
I have a hard time feeling bad for financial institutions who are struggling because they made risky, and in many cases irresponsible, investments. It’s their prerogative to take risks if they chose, but if those investments don’t pan out they need to take responsibility for the consequences.
Not surprisingly, companies who have been reckless with their money over the past five or ten years are now struggling, flat-out crumbling in fact. That is as it should be. Bad businesses should go out of business. It’s the economic version of natural selection, or Economic Darwinism, if you will.
By bailing out companies who engaged in high-risk behavior, the government is sending a message that other corporations can screw up and taxpayers will just bail them out. We cannot be a society that rewards that kind of behavior. If you’re reckless with your money, eventually you’ll have to pay the piper. I’m not going to pay him for you.
Personal moral objections aside, the bailout is just bad policy.
It’s a simple law of supply and demand that when the market falls, prices will follow. Intervention like this, however, could prevent prices from keeping up (or in this case going down) with the market. And the market won’t recover fast enough to make up for the disparity. So prices will stay the same but we’ll still be hurting from the market’s decline. I think we used to call that stagflation, although this may be a milder case.
I always see a little red flag go up whenever politicians, on either side of the liberal/conservative fence, advocate plans that defy their party’s core beliefs. Republicans, theoretically, believe in smaller government and less interference. So shame on President Bush for acting like such a liberal. It should send up an even larger red flag when a Republican president can’t get members of his own party to support his legislation. That alone is not enough to disprove the quality of the proposal, but in my opinion it warrants a closer look.
America has never been a nation that likes to sit back and watch things happen, but allowing the market to self-correct will be the smoothest solution to this temporary financial crisis.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain-Palin is a winning ticket
John McCain is brilliant. Some have called the GOP presidential candidate crazy in the wake of his VP selection, but Alaska Governor Sarah Palin fills a void in the Republican ticket that only a socially conservative, small town hockey mom could.
Palin both balances the ticket and shakes it up. McCain was smart to chose a woman: whoever wins the election in November, it will be a red letter day in American history. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first black president. If McCain wins, Palin will become the first female vice president. He couldn’t choose another old white guy (although Obama was smart to add one to his ticket), and a female candidate adds variety without competing with the diversity on the Democratic ticket.
Luke warm feelings about McCain and his pseudo-conservative views have recently left Republicans with little to rally for, save a mutual dislike for Barack Obama. But Palin has sparked excitement in the party. She’ll draw votes from Bible Belt conservatives who, when it comes down to it, choose their candidates based more on shared social beliefs than political experience.
She’s the LBJ to McCain’s JFK.
Palin’s sharp wit is exactly what Republicans need to counter Obama’s epic rhetoric. While Democrats are swooning over Obama, I’m betting the Republican faithful will be lining up around the block to listen to one of Palin’s speeches. She’s a natural in a way that McCain, for all his Washington experience, could never hope to be. Her speech at the Republican National Convention last night proved it.
Of course, Palin can’t hope to draw Clinton supporters to vote Republican, as has been recently suggested. But I don’t think that was ever McCain’s plan. It’s insulting to both liberal and conservative voters to argue that they will vote for a candidate because she has the same gender as someone they supported in the primary election. McCain is a maverick in part because he doesn’t really follow the conservative philosophy of his party. If the GOP ticket failed to appeal to social conservatives (a significant and sizable demographic), McCain risked losing those votes, and probably the election. Adding Palin to the ticket helps voters forget, if only temporarily, that McCain is barely a Republican by traditional standards.
Palin’s dysfunctional family only adds to her appeal. It’s been proven again and again that Americans are endlessly forgiving of personal or social indiscretions (as long as you don’t do it with their money or lie about it later). Having a pregnant, unwed daughter only serves to humanize the vice presidential candidate and makes her a champion not only for pro-life ideals but family values as well. The Democratic ticket will have a hard time competing with that.
Palin both balances the ticket and shakes it up. McCain was smart to chose a woman: whoever wins the election in November, it will be a red letter day in American history. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first black president. If McCain wins, Palin will become the first female vice president. He couldn’t choose another old white guy (although Obama was smart to add one to his ticket), and a female candidate adds variety without competing with the diversity on the Democratic ticket.
Luke warm feelings about McCain and his pseudo-conservative views have recently left Republicans with little to rally for, save a mutual dislike for Barack Obama. But Palin has sparked excitement in the party. She’ll draw votes from Bible Belt conservatives who, when it comes down to it, choose their candidates based more on shared social beliefs than political experience.
She’s the LBJ to McCain’s JFK.
Palin’s sharp wit is exactly what Republicans need to counter Obama’s epic rhetoric. While Democrats are swooning over Obama, I’m betting the Republican faithful will be lining up around the block to listen to one of Palin’s speeches. She’s a natural in a way that McCain, for all his Washington experience, could never hope to be. Her speech at the Republican National Convention last night proved it.
Of course, Palin can’t hope to draw Clinton supporters to vote Republican, as has been recently suggested. But I don’t think that was ever McCain’s plan. It’s insulting to both liberal and conservative voters to argue that they will vote for a candidate because she has the same gender as someone they supported in the primary election. McCain is a maverick in part because he doesn’t really follow the conservative philosophy of his party. If the GOP ticket failed to appeal to social conservatives (a significant and sizable demographic), McCain risked losing those votes, and probably the election. Adding Palin to the ticket helps voters forget, if only temporarily, that McCain is barely a Republican by traditional standards.
Palin’s dysfunctional family only adds to her appeal. It’s been proven again and again that Americans are endlessly forgiving of personal or social indiscretions (as long as you don’t do it with their money or lie about it later). Having a pregnant, unwed daughter only serves to humanize the vice presidential candidate and makes her a champion not only for pro-life ideals but family values as well. The Democratic ticket will have a hard time competing with that.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Scandalmongers: Round 2
I’m adding to this post because I recently read on The Huffington Post that retired General Wesley Clark is also claiming that John McCain’s military experience is not enough for a commander-in-chief.
Hmmm…that’s a good point, especially because his presumptive opponent has such an extensive military background. Oh, wait. I forgot. The presumptive democratic nominee is Barack Obama. Does he have any military experience? At all?
Nope, voting against the war in Iraq does not count. Especially because Obama didn’t. Because he wasn’t in the US Senate for that vote. He was still a state senator in the Land of Lincoln.
If you want to talk about lack of experience, well, bring it on.
Hmmm…that’s a good point, especially because his presumptive opponent has such an extensive military background. Oh, wait. I forgot. The presumptive democratic nominee is Barack Obama. Does he have any military experience? At all?
Nope, voting against the war in Iraq does not count. Especially because Obama didn’t. Because he wasn’t in the US Senate for that vote. He was still a state senator in the Land of Lincoln.
If you want to talk about lack of experience, well, bring it on.
McCain Scandalmongers Should Have Their Mouths Washed Out With Soap
Whoa, you guys went too far.
Recently, the anti-conservative bloggers (to say they are liberal would be an insult to my many intelligent liberal friends; I’ll just call them morons) at CounterPunch and Americablog questioned Senator John McCain’s accomplishments in the US Navy. One story on Americablog asks “besides being tortured, what did John McCain do to excel in the military?”
I’m amazed the author was allowed to print these unsubstantiated claims with no real evidence to back up his bad-mouthing.
After nearly a year of combat experience, McCain survived five and a half years of brutal imprisonment in North Vietnam. If that’s not enough military clout for you, how about this. McCain reached the rank of captain before his retirement from the Navy and has earned both the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After returning from war, McCain became the commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida. Under his command, the previously undistinguished unit went on to win the Meritorious Unit Commendation. He does, in fact, have leadership and command experience in the Navy.
I’m not so much disgusted that the bloggers are trying to taint the reputation of an American hero as I am insulted that they did it without first researching his record.
The counterpunch newsletter draws points from Doug Valentine’s book The Phoenix Program: A Story of Fishing, Fame and Fortune.
If Valentine’s book suggests, as one excerpt implies, that “after three or four days he [McCain] cracked” he should be sued. Seriously, you didn’t want to skim through Wikipedia before writing that? Do a little fact-checking before printing more lies.
McCain was imprisoned for TWO YEARS before agreeing to make an anti-American propaganda video. He was beaten repeatedly the last four days when the North Vietnamese learned his father was named commander of US forces in Vietnam. I would probably have made any kind of video they wanted.
McCain’s injuries left permanent damage. Yeah, it sounds like he totally cooperated with the North Vietnamese. They sure went easy on him.
If you hate facts, or aren’t a fan of logic, check out the stories:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/honestly-besides-being-tortured-what.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html
Recently, the anti-conservative bloggers (to say they are liberal would be an insult to my many intelligent liberal friends; I’ll just call them morons) at CounterPunch and Americablog questioned Senator John McCain’s accomplishments in the US Navy. One story on Americablog asks “besides being tortured, what did John McCain do to excel in the military?”
I’m amazed the author was allowed to print these unsubstantiated claims with no real evidence to back up his bad-mouthing.
After nearly a year of combat experience, McCain survived five and a half years of brutal imprisonment in North Vietnam. If that’s not enough military clout for you, how about this. McCain reached the rank of captain before his retirement from the Navy and has earned both the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After returning from war, McCain became the commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida. Under his command, the previously undistinguished unit went on to win the Meritorious Unit Commendation. He does, in fact, have leadership and command experience in the Navy.
I’m not so much disgusted that the bloggers are trying to taint the reputation of an American hero as I am insulted that they did it without first researching his record.
The counterpunch newsletter draws points from Doug Valentine’s book The Phoenix Program: A Story of Fishing, Fame and Fortune.
If Valentine’s book suggests, as one excerpt implies, that “after three or four days he [McCain] cracked” he should be sued. Seriously, you didn’t want to skim through Wikipedia before writing that? Do a little fact-checking before printing more lies.
McCain was imprisoned for TWO YEARS before agreeing to make an anti-American propaganda video. He was beaten repeatedly the last four days when the North Vietnamese learned his father was named commander of US forces in Vietnam. I would probably have made any kind of video they wanted.
McCain’s injuries left permanent damage. Yeah, it sounds like he totally cooperated with the North Vietnamese. They sure went easy on him.
If you hate facts, or aren’t a fan of logic, check out the stories:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/honestly-besides-being-tortured-what.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Panty Party Goes Awry
Macrida Patterson, what was your cornea doing so close to your G-string? Underwear does not go on your head.
Patterson recently filed a products liability suit against Victoria's Secret because she allegedly suffered permanent injuries while putting on one of their V-strings (it's a G-string that you buy at VS). The most ludicrous part is that she filed an unlimited civil case, meaning she is seeking damages in excess of $25,000.
But she's not seeking punitive damages, so that $25,000+ is all compensatory. That's a pretty hefty bill for a poke in the eye.
Based on 30-seconds of Internet research, I would estimate that an ER visit, including doctors and nurses fee, some serious meds (like Morphine) for the pain, lab tests and maybe a visit to Radiology just for good measure, will set you back about $4,000 to $5,000.
As for wage losses, that couldn't be more than another $3,000 to $4,000 -- and that's assuming the L.A. DOT employee was out of work for weeks after this tragedy. So Patterson is seeking $16,000 to $18,000 in "general damages", which hopefully covers treatment for her general stupidity.
I can only imagine how a metal staple managed to fly off of a thong and hit someone in the eye. My best guess is that Patterson may have tried to squeeze into a pair that was too small. Unfortunately, the court may find this was reasonably foreseeable on the part of VS. We girls have been trying to squeeze into the next size down for years. If that is the case, VS could potentially be liable for negligence (in a totally ridiculous way).
We can only hope that the court recognizes how absurd this suit is, and that the judge laughs in Patterson's permanently-injured face.
Patterson recently filed a products liability suit against Victoria's Secret because she allegedly suffered permanent injuries while putting on one of their V-strings (it's a G-string that you buy at VS). The most ludicrous part is that she filed an unlimited civil case, meaning she is seeking damages in excess of $25,000.
But she's not seeking punitive damages, so that $25,000+ is all compensatory. That's a pretty hefty bill for a poke in the eye.
Based on 30-seconds of Internet research, I would estimate that an ER visit, including doctors and nurses fee, some serious meds (like Morphine) for the pain, lab tests and maybe a visit to Radiology just for good measure, will set you back about $4,000 to $5,000.
As for wage losses, that couldn't be more than another $3,000 to $4,000 -- and that's assuming the L.A. DOT employee was out of work for weeks after this tragedy. So Patterson is seeking $16,000 to $18,000 in "general damages", which hopefully covers treatment for her general stupidity.
I can only imagine how a metal staple managed to fly off of a thong and hit someone in the eye. My best guess is that Patterson may have tried to squeeze into a pair that was too small. Unfortunately, the court may find this was reasonably foreseeable on the part of VS. We girls have been trying to squeeze into the next size down for years. If that is the case, VS could potentially be liable for negligence (in a totally ridiculous way).
We can only hope that the court recognizes how absurd this suit is, and that the judge laughs in Patterson's permanently-injured face.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Random Thoughts
*I believe I stumbled upon the true definition of irony on Feb. 28, the day I got laid off from my reporting gig: I was wearing my underwear that say "most likely to succeed" across the ass. I since found a new job, thank God, but am scared to wear the underwear again. I'm also staying away from the ones that say "USA is #1." The consequences could be dire. (I haven't ever actually seen such underwear, but I'm sure they exist somewhere; perhaps in a back alley Republican Erotica store.)
*Hearing smooth jazz now makes me crave Panera. Seriously. I was sitting in a colleague's office when I heard a trumpet melody floating over some bass, and BAM! I was mentally transported to my local Panera Bread, ready to eat a tasty (albeit overpriced) salad and sandwich. And, of course, bus my own dishes afterward. What a weird Pavlovian response.
*The American economy has seen better days. Things are looking pretty grim right now with skyrocketing oil prices, plummeting home sales, shrinking consumer confidence and oh so many foreclosures. That last one makes me sincerely hope that Americans learn the lesson that I have known since, I dunno, kindergarten: Don't spend money you don't have!!! The same could be screamed at Ben Bernukanakie (too lazy to look up his last name) who continues to throw around federal money that, oh yeah, we don't actually have. Hooray debt!
*On a similar economic note, people of all states and all industries are losing their jobs as of late. I spent the last four weeks unemployed and it was possibly the most depressing month of my life, but I'm soooo grateful I was able to find a new, enjoyable job so quickly. I hope that other people, particularly those with families and homes and more bills, are able to do so as well.
*Hearing smooth jazz now makes me crave Panera. Seriously. I was sitting in a colleague's office when I heard a trumpet melody floating over some bass, and BAM! I was mentally transported to my local Panera Bread, ready to eat a tasty (albeit overpriced) salad and sandwich. And, of course, bus my own dishes afterward. What a weird Pavlovian response.
*The American economy has seen better days. Things are looking pretty grim right now with skyrocketing oil prices, plummeting home sales, shrinking consumer confidence and oh so many foreclosures. That last one makes me sincerely hope that Americans learn the lesson that I have known since, I dunno, kindergarten: Don't spend money you don't have!!! The same could be screamed at Ben Bernukanakie (too lazy to look up his last name) who continues to throw around federal money that, oh yeah, we don't actually have. Hooray debt!
*On a similar economic note, people of all states and all industries are losing their jobs as of late. I spent the last four weeks unemployed and it was possibly the most depressing month of my life, but I'm soooo grateful I was able to find a new, enjoyable job so quickly. I hope that other people, particularly those with families and homes and more bills, are able to do so as well.
Friday, February 1, 2008
One of those weeks...
This has been quite a week. Monday, I got in a car accident. Tuesday, Johan Santana was traded to the Mets. Wednesday, the prettiest and my personal favorite presidential candidate, John Edwards, dropped out of the race. Thursday, the Oceanic 815 survivors split into two camps on the island. Friday ... well, nothing has gone wrong yet, unless you count the fact that I have to sit in my windowless office for eight hours.
There are two ways to proceed from such a series of events: One, I will drink this weekend. Two, I believe next week will be better. Let's be honest, both are inevitable.
So Monday, I was driving to work and some idiot SOB changed lanes into me. It was my first real car accident and, as some might say, it scared the semen out of me. (When I was 18 I rear-ended someone back home in MN, but I don't count that because my car was worthless and I was stupid). We exchanged insurance info, and when the man and his BS crazy wife drove away, I discovered that I'd locked my keys in my newly dented car. Luckily, a kind man named Beto from the nearby transmission shop jimmied open my door. Anyway, I've spent all week dealing with insurance crap and trying to sort out what I should do with my dented but drivable car, while also cursing the man in the Impala (who, to avoid litigation, I will not name).
Moving on, Tuesday was another bum day when I found out that Johan Santana, the pitcher for my beloved Minnesota Twins, was traded to the Mets (that's right, I follow sports). Although not notoriously dominant like some sports teams, the Twins are always good, and they've been particularly strong in recent years thanks to players like Santana, Mauer, Morneau and the now traded Hunter and Jones. We'll find someone to replace Santana, but I don't really get baseball trades in general. I know this isn't how the game (or life) works, but I feel like there should be a stronger sense of loyalty between players and teams. Perhaps even, dare I say it, love... But between the ginormous paychecks and rampant drug use, I think love left the game a long time ago.
After coming to terms with the trade, I awoke Wednesday to news that the dashing and inspiring John Edwards was calling it quits. Though consistently lagging in polls and fund-raising, I thought Edwards really stood a chance. He seemed like the most logical choice for the democratic nominee, but was brushed aside for the more novel celebrity candidates. I went through the normal stages of grief (denial, anger, punching my boss, passing out drunk, acceptance) and even wrote John a nice note on his web site. I think now I'll be an Obama backer. I can't get on board with any Republicans, because I can't vote for anyone who supports staying in the Iraq Cluster F---. I also pretty much despise shady Hillary. Thus, I'm left with Obama, who at least has taken a page out of Edwards's populist handbook.
Thursday was really not terrible. I'd been looking forward to more "Lost" since the trippy season 3 finale last May, and thankfully the season 4 premiere was great. It left us with more questions than ever (who else is in the Oceanic 6? was John with Jacob? who's on the freighter?) but that was expected. I really hope they get the damn writers' strike wrapped up, not so people can go back to earning a living but so that I don't have to wait even longer for more of the wild and crazy "Lost" antics.
For a downer post, this was certainly lengthy. Luckily there are only about 2 or 3 hours left of the work week. And -- brace yourself for some amazing news -- the Save the Sexy bloggers will be reunited this weekend in Los Angeles. Fun times, revelry and perhaps some illegal activities will surely ensue.
There are two ways to proceed from such a series of events: One, I will drink this weekend. Two, I believe next week will be better. Let's be honest, both are inevitable.
So Monday, I was driving to work and some idiot SOB changed lanes into me. It was my first real car accident and, as some might say, it scared the semen out of me. (When I was 18 I rear-ended someone back home in MN, but I don't count that because my car was worthless and I was stupid). We exchanged insurance info, and when the man and his BS crazy wife drove away, I discovered that I'd locked my keys in my newly dented car. Luckily, a kind man named Beto from the nearby transmission shop jimmied open my door. Anyway, I've spent all week dealing with insurance crap and trying to sort out what I should do with my dented but drivable car, while also cursing the man in the Impala (who, to avoid litigation, I will not name).
Moving on, Tuesday was another bum day when I found out that Johan Santana, the pitcher for my beloved Minnesota Twins, was traded to the Mets (that's right, I follow sports). Although not notoriously dominant like some sports teams, the Twins are always good, and they've been particularly strong in recent years thanks to players like Santana, Mauer, Morneau and the now traded Hunter and Jones. We'll find someone to replace Santana, but I don't really get baseball trades in general. I know this isn't how the game (or life) works, but I feel like there should be a stronger sense of loyalty between players and teams. Perhaps even, dare I say it, love... But between the ginormous paychecks and rampant drug use, I think love left the game a long time ago.
After coming to terms with the trade, I awoke Wednesday to news that the dashing and inspiring John Edwards was calling it quits. Though consistently lagging in polls and fund-raising, I thought Edwards really stood a chance. He seemed like the most logical choice for the democratic nominee, but was brushed aside for the more novel celebrity candidates. I went through the normal stages of grief (denial, anger, punching my boss, passing out drunk, acceptance) and even wrote John a nice note on his web site. I think now I'll be an Obama backer. I can't get on board with any Republicans, because I can't vote for anyone who supports staying in the Iraq Cluster F---. I also pretty much despise shady Hillary. Thus, I'm left with Obama, who at least has taken a page out of Edwards's populist handbook.
Thursday was really not terrible. I'd been looking forward to more "Lost" since the trippy season 3 finale last May, and thankfully the season 4 premiere was great. It left us with more questions than ever (who else is in the Oceanic 6? was John with Jacob? who's on the freighter?) but that was expected. I really hope they get the damn writers' strike wrapped up, not so people can go back to earning a living but so that I don't have to wait even longer for more of the wild and crazy "Lost" antics.
For a downer post, this was certainly lengthy. Luckily there are only about 2 or 3 hours left of the work week. And -- brace yourself for some amazing news -- the Save the Sexy bloggers will be reunited this weekend in Los Angeles. Fun times, revelry and perhaps some illegal activities will surely ensue.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Caucus Ruckus
The Presidential primary election is starting to resemble a three-ring circus; it's full of clowns.
Yesterday, Mike Huckabee won 34 percent of the republican vote in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus. People seem to like Huckabee because he has a proud religious background and sticks to his ideals. It's the same kind of mentality that elected Bush in 2000, when the White House was ripe with personal scandal and the issue that drove voters was electing a leader with good moral character. But good moral character without experience or knowledge makes for poor leadership. A president, ideally, should have both.
It's important for a leader to be able to admit when he or she is wrong – a trait our current commander-in-chief seems to lack. So I applaud Mitt Romney for his willingness to change his opinion on an issue like abortion. But Romney has changed his political stance on more than one issue, one more than one occasion, throughout his political career. We can't afford to elect someone who's wrong that often.
I was glad to see Rudy Giuliani's sixth place finish in Iowa. The only candidate, democrat or republican, who could do worse by this country than Bush is Giuliani. I can't even believe that he's still capturing the top spot on national republican polls. He's the former mayor of New York City. Seriously? He's still a candidate? My plumber has more foreign policy experience.
Barack Obama won 38 percent of the democratic vote in Iowa. Like Huckabee, Obama appeals to our optimistic side with his message of hope, pledge to change the world and bipartisan record. He talks a pretty big game for someone who was a mere state senator until 2005. I don't doubt his intelligence, only the scope of his experience in office. Degrees from Columbia and Harvard don't forgive inexperience, and book smarts can't replace practical knowledge. With four or eight more years of experience in the US Senate, Obama could become a viable candidate. But for now, what is he doing?
I won't rip on John Edwards too much because I know RJo is a supporter. I guess I just can't get behind a candidate once I know they spend $400 on haircuts. Especially if that candidate is a dude.
The only fair election would be one with Hilary Clinton as the democratic candidate and John McCain running as the republican. Everything else is just a joke. Sure, Clinton can be polarizing, and McCain is older than dirt. But varied personal and professional experiences are what prepare a future president to react to the challenges he or she will face while in office. Regardless of your opinion on their politics, you can't deny that Clinton and McCain are the most experienced candidates.
A lot of candidates build their platforms on promises that appeal to the idealist in us all, but they'll never be able to deliver. Not because they lie, necessarily, but because even our most cynical politicians are too naïve for the office of President.
They promise lower taxes, and inevitably raise them. Washington outsiders think they can, in addition to the daily demands of their office, reform all three branches of government. Career businessmen believe they'll be able to run Washington like a Fortune 500 company. They even have detailed plans outlining their strategy for success.
But the president, influential as the position may be, can't change the world on his or her own. And our founding fathers created a near-bullet proof constitution designed to make our government run slower than molasses. They feared monarch-like rulers who could shape the laws to suite their personal tastes. That's why we have three branches of government and that's why we have checks and balances.
Iowa is just the first stop on a long and bumpy road to the White House. America's attention now turns to the Granite State, where its first-in-the-nation primary will be held Jan. 8. Happy voting, New Hampshire!
Yesterday, Mike Huckabee won 34 percent of the republican vote in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus. People seem to like Huckabee because he has a proud religious background and sticks to his ideals. It's the same kind of mentality that elected Bush in 2000, when the White House was ripe with personal scandal and the issue that drove voters was electing a leader with good moral character. But good moral character without experience or knowledge makes for poor leadership. A president, ideally, should have both.
It's important for a leader to be able to admit when he or she is wrong – a trait our current commander-in-chief seems to lack. So I applaud Mitt Romney for his willingness to change his opinion on an issue like abortion. But Romney has changed his political stance on more than one issue, one more than one occasion, throughout his political career. We can't afford to elect someone who's wrong that often.
I was glad to see Rudy Giuliani's sixth place finish in Iowa. The only candidate, democrat or republican, who could do worse by this country than Bush is Giuliani. I can't even believe that he's still capturing the top spot on national republican polls. He's the former mayor of New York City. Seriously? He's still a candidate? My plumber has more foreign policy experience.
Barack Obama won 38 percent of the democratic vote in Iowa. Like Huckabee, Obama appeals to our optimistic side with his message of hope, pledge to change the world and bipartisan record. He talks a pretty big game for someone who was a mere state senator until 2005. I don't doubt his intelligence, only the scope of his experience in office. Degrees from Columbia and Harvard don't forgive inexperience, and book smarts can't replace practical knowledge. With four or eight more years of experience in the US Senate, Obama could become a viable candidate. But for now, what is he doing?
I won't rip on John Edwards too much because I know RJo is a supporter. I guess I just can't get behind a candidate once I know they spend $400 on haircuts. Especially if that candidate is a dude.
The only fair election would be one with Hilary Clinton as the democratic candidate and John McCain running as the republican. Everything else is just a joke. Sure, Clinton can be polarizing, and McCain is older than dirt. But varied personal and professional experiences are what prepare a future president to react to the challenges he or she will face while in office. Regardless of your opinion on their politics, you can't deny that Clinton and McCain are the most experienced candidates.
A lot of candidates build their platforms on promises that appeal to the idealist in us all, but they'll never be able to deliver. Not because they lie, necessarily, but because even our most cynical politicians are too naïve for the office of President.
They promise lower taxes, and inevitably raise them. Washington outsiders think they can, in addition to the daily demands of their office, reform all three branches of government. Career businessmen believe they'll be able to run Washington like a Fortune 500 company. They even have detailed plans outlining their strategy for success.
But the president, influential as the position may be, can't change the world on his or her own. And our founding fathers created a near-bullet proof constitution designed to make our government run slower than molasses. They feared monarch-like rulers who could shape the laws to suite their personal tastes. That's why we have three branches of government and that's why we have checks and balances.
Iowa is just the first stop on a long and bumpy road to the White House. America's attention now turns to the Granite State, where its first-in-the-nation primary will be held Jan. 8. Happy voting, New Hampshire!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)