Early voting has become a big part of the election of 2012. More and more states are jumping on the bandwagon, either allowing early voting without restrictions or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. The later path, being followed in Virgina for one, is creating a number of fibbers as voters claim they have to vote early because they will be away from their homes on election day, when in reality they won't. What if the election in Virginia is close and one side or the other starts going after likely fibbers to have their ballots disqualified and their persons fined, jailed, or whatever?
Can't happen, you say? Then you haven't been paying much attention to recent American electoral history.
But early voting of any sort−whether without restrictions or with just the loosening of absentee ballot restrictions−poses another problem that might cause significant problems. What if after voting early for a candidate you learn of some really nefarious thing about him or her, so nefarious that you want to take back your vote. The right, of course, would give you its version of such a vote changer: the discovery that Barack's Hawaii birth certificate was a fake.
On the other hand, Mr. Mitt might have some things in his past that could be vote changers. Evidence has already surfaced that in his youth Mr. Mitt was something of a bully, on one occasion even forcibly shaving the head of an individual who was not part of the in-crowd at a highfalutin prep school. But there are other possibilities. Maybe Mr. Mitt was born in Mexico, the birthplace of his father, and the Michigan birth certificate is fake.
Or maybe during his time as a missionary in France he experienced a bit more French "culture" than he is letting on. Or maybe a lot more French "culture," if you catch my drift. Maybe, just maybe, mind you, he drank wine and coffee, smoked disgusting French cigarettes, and had a fling with Catherine Deneuve. Just speculating.
Anyway, this early voting thing has the potential for significant problems, maybe not in this election, but the future goes on for a long time. Someday many decades from now, early voting might install a candidate in office who was shown before the end of the voting period to be a liar, scoundrel, or worse. That future generation would look back to this time and ask, "How could those clowns come up with such a ludicrous idea as early voting?"
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
SANDY AND CAMPAIGN ADS
The electricity on the street was out only 24 hours! And the even better news is that the local cable provider is not yet reconnected, so no Fox Noise! Electricity, warmth, and no Fox Noise. It don't get much better. Unfortunately, other folks nearby won't have electricity for awhile. But they don't have Fox Noise either!
Inhabitants of the so-called battleground states have had to endure an avalanche of campaign ads. Oh, for the good old days when it was just commercials for cars, soap, nasal spray, headache remedies, erectile dysfunction treatments, and the like. But at least many of the commercial ads come with disclaimers and warnings. Not so the campaign ads.
Some warnings that might be appropriate for campaign ads:
) Do not take with alcohol, caffeine, amphetamines, uppers, downers, or any other forms of stimulants or relaxers.
) See your doctor if your erection lasts more than four hours.
) See your doctor if you have an erection.
) Do not be worried about nausea and vomiting. They are normal reactions.
) See your doctor if you don't experience nausea and vomiting.
) Do not watch if you are attempting to cure a nicotine, alcohol, or other drug addiction. This ad will make the effort exponentially more difficult.
) Do not watch if you are attending anger management classes.
) Do not watch in the presence of breakable items, such as glass and small pets.
The Campaigns should also adhere to warnings. One warning is to be careful what your ad is collocated with. For example, the juxtaposition of a link to Mr. Mitt's official site with a video of Hurricane Sandy destroying a house in North Carolina might not be ideal.
Inhabitants of the so-called battleground states have had to endure an avalanche of campaign ads. Oh, for the good old days when it was just commercials for cars, soap, nasal spray, headache remedies, erectile dysfunction treatments, and the like. But at least many of the commercial ads come with disclaimers and warnings. Not so the campaign ads.
Some warnings that might be appropriate for campaign ads:
) Do not take with alcohol, caffeine, amphetamines, uppers, downers, or any other forms of stimulants or relaxers.
) See your doctor if your erection lasts more than four hours.
) See your doctor if you have an erection.
) Do not be worried about nausea and vomiting. They are normal reactions.
) See your doctor if you don't experience nausea and vomiting.
) Do not watch if you are attempting to cure a nicotine, alcohol, or other drug addiction. This ad will make the effort exponentially more difficult.
) Do not watch if you are attending anger management classes.
) Do not watch in the presence of breakable items, such as glass and small pets.
The Campaigns should also adhere to warnings. One warning is to be careful what your ad is collocated with. For example, the juxtaposition of a link to Mr. Mitt's official site with a video of Hurricane Sandy destroying a house in North Carolina might not be ideal.
Monday, October 29, 2012
MR. MITT AND HURRICANES
Getting the daily blog in before the electricity goes. Recall that the Republican convention was disrupted by a hurricane or tropical storm or something. Now another major storm is arriving as the election approaches. What is the common denominator? Mr. Mitt. The guy brings bad weather. Think about it as you cast your vote, if you haven't already done so.
Opps, that last gust was a doozy. Guess Mr. Mitt got really irritated with the preceding paragraph.
Just caught a Fox Noise commentary by Brit Hume. It's hard to avoid the impression he's hoping a major disaster is in the offing that could be blamed on Barack. Hey Brit, can't you see that it's your boy Mr. Mitt who's responsible for the bad weather?
Opps, that last gust was a doozy. Guess Mr. Mitt got really irritated with the preceding paragraph.
Just caught a Fox Noise commentary by Brit Hume. It's hard to avoid the impression he's hoping a major disaster is in the offing that could be blamed on Barack. Hey Brit, can't you see that it's your boy Mr. Mitt who's responsible for the bad weather?
Sunday, October 28, 2012
A PAUL RYAN MARATHON
Did the October 28 Marine Corps Marathon in just over three hours. Well actually, it was well over six hours, but Mr. Paul has shown that preciseness with numbers, whether they be marathon times or calculations regarding federal budgets and deficits, isn't that important.
In fact, next year I'm thinking of taking the approach described in an article in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker. The article detailed the marathon activities of a Michigan dentist who claimed good times in a lot of marathons but apparently had employed a sophisticated strategy of avoiding many of the miles between the start and the finish. The MCM course is a series of zigzags that would provide numerous shortcut opportunities. But I won't be a glutton. Claiming a time of just over four hours seems sufficient.
Incidentally, the Michigan dentist might be ideal for a position in a Romney-Ryan Administration. Fudging the numbers is the only way their promises have a chance of working out.
In fact, next year I'm thinking of taking the approach described in an article in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker. The article detailed the marathon activities of a Michigan dentist who claimed good times in a lot of marathons but apparently had employed a sophisticated strategy of avoiding many of the miles between the start and the finish. The MCM course is a series of zigzags that would provide numerous shortcut opportunities. But I won't be a glutton. Claiming a time of just over four hours seems sufficient.
Incidentally, the Michigan dentist might be ideal for a position in a Romney-Ryan Administration. Fudging the numbers is the only way their promises have a chance of working out.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
MR. MITT AND BIPARTISANSHIP
Increasingly, the President is getting zinged for failing on the bipartisanship front. He didn't do enough to bring Republicans to the table, to work out mutually acceptable solutions to the nation's problems. Peggy Noonan, she of the Ronnie Reagan fan club, in October 27's Wall Street Journal makes much of Barack's supposed failure to reach out. In his new book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodard dwells on Barack's perceived bipartisan inadequacies. Mr. Mitt has been amping-up his own alleged bipartisan abilities. He knows how to sit down with the opposition party and work stuff out.
Well, for the most part the President indeed has been unable to bridge the partisan gaps. But whose fault was it? Maybe a little blame goes to the President and his fellow Democrats. But the party that took the hard line, the no compromise positions over the last four years, was the Republican party. Grover Norquist said no new taxes, nothing that even could be perceived as a tax increase, and the Republican Party jumped.
Nothing is more instructive regarding the current Republican attitude toward compromise than the responses to the question asked during one of the Republican primary debates: would you walk away from a hypothetical deal calling for 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. The eight debaters, including Mr. Mitt, all raised their hands that they would walk away. And this is the attitude Barack is found guilty of not accommodating?!
It would certainly be ironic, or maybe just a perversion of justice, if Mr. Mitt were to win the election on his recently discovered bipartisanship strategy when in fact the major lack of bipartisanship over the last four years has been due to his own party.
Well, for the most part the President indeed has been unable to bridge the partisan gaps. But whose fault was it? Maybe a little blame goes to the President and his fellow Democrats. But the party that took the hard line, the no compromise positions over the last four years, was the Republican party. Grover Norquist said no new taxes, nothing that even could be perceived as a tax increase, and the Republican Party jumped.
Nothing is more instructive regarding the current Republican attitude toward compromise than the responses to the question asked during one of the Republican primary debates: would you walk away from a hypothetical deal calling for 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. The eight debaters, including Mr. Mitt, all raised their hands that they would walk away. And this is the attitude Barack is found guilty of not accommodating?!
It would certainly be ironic, or maybe just a perversion of justice, if Mr. Mitt were to win the election on his recently discovered bipartisanship strategy when in fact the major lack of bipartisanship over the last four years has been due to his own party.
Friday, October 26, 2012
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND FOX NOISE
Here's a what if. What if Mr. Mitt gets a slim majority of the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? Given the current national and state poll numbers, this possibility is not that farfetched. As most know, Barack would then be the President because the Constitution, that hallowed document, works that way. Something the Founding Fathers cooked up to put a little distance between the rabble and the elite.
In the election of 2000, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, receiving over 500,000−a half million−more votes than W. But the Constitution's Electoral College−with an assist from a divided Supreme Court−made W the 43rd President of the United States. Except for a little grumbling from a few on the left side of the political spectrum, the result was accepted. It was what the Constitution mandated. It was the way the system worked.
But if the opposite result were to occur in 2012−the Democratic guy on the left winning in the Electoral College but receiving fewer popular votes than the Republican guy on the right−would the right be so accepting? In particular, would that nest of loony invective known as Fox Noise be as uncomplaining as it was twelve years ago?
One can envision four years of constant complaining about the minority President−hey, we're only referring to his coming in second in the popular vote. Honest. Actually, the folks at Fox Noise would secretly probably be pretty happy. After all, it's much more fun to whine, complain, and be the victim than to have the responsibilities that come with winning.
In the election of 2000, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, receiving over 500,000−a half million−more votes than W. But the Constitution's Electoral College−with an assist from a divided Supreme Court−made W the 43rd President of the United States. Except for a little grumbling from a few on the left side of the political spectrum, the result was accepted. It was what the Constitution mandated. It was the way the system worked.
But if the opposite result were to occur in 2012−the Democratic guy on the left winning in the Electoral College but receiving fewer popular votes than the Republican guy on the right−would the right be so accepting? In particular, would that nest of loony invective known as Fox Noise be as uncomplaining as it was twelve years ago?
One can envision four years of constant complaining about the minority President−hey, we're only referring to his coming in second in the popular vote. Honest. Actually, the folks at Fox Noise would secretly probably be pretty happy. After all, it's much more fun to whine, complain, and be the victim than to have the responsibilities that come with winning.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
MR. MITT AND NUMBERS
It's becoming clear that Mr. Mitt thinks in numbers. Consequently, matters involving subtlety, ambiguity, murkiness, nuance−in other words, most things involving flesh and blood people−aren't his forte.
The number of Navy ships is one example. Mr. Mitt has made a big deal about the number of Navy ships in 1916 or '17 versus the smaller number today. But as Barack pointed out in the third Presidential debate, and as many others have similarly noted, comparing ships then and now is comparing apples and oranges. Capabilities are vastly, exponentially different. For one thing, how many of those WWI era ships had an electronic computer on board?
But to Mr. Mitt, the number of ships is apparently a compelling statistics.
Mr. Mitt's infatuation with pegging China as a currency manipulator is another example. Currency exchange rates are just numbers. Many free marketers believe exchange rates should not be set by government but should fluctuate according to the laws of supply and demand. But in actuality, many governments attempt to control exchange rates in one fashion or another. For large industrial countries, the control is often through the Central Bank activities of buying and selling currencies and government and other securities.
China has longed tried to keep the value of its currency low−in comparison to other currencies−to promote exports. Free marketers object, contending that China's government-set rate results in the artificial promotion of exports and the artificial curtailment of imports. Mr. Mitt has several beefs with Chinese economic policies. He accuses China of theft of intellectual property−patents and copyrighted material. He's likely right to at least some degree. He accuses China of unfair trade practices. Again, he's probably right to some degree.
But Mr. Mitt is not alone in his criticisms of China: most of Barack's policies regarding the country are not that much different than those Mr. Mitt would attempt to implement. But Mr. Mitt would go farther and officially label China a currency manipulator, never mind that the moment for that might have been 2007−five years ago−and today, in part because of changed economic conditions both there and here, the action would be somewhat irrelevant except for the overall negative impact on U.S.-China relations. (See Matthew O'Brien, "Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late," The Atlantic, October 24, 2012, for a fuller discussion).
The point is that labeling China a currency manipulator would be easy, would involve at a basic level not much more than numbers, and would thus fit Mr. Mitt's apparent view of the world: I can solve any problem I can put a number on.
The number of Navy ships is one example. Mr. Mitt has made a big deal about the number of Navy ships in 1916 or '17 versus the smaller number today. But as Barack pointed out in the third Presidential debate, and as many others have similarly noted, comparing ships then and now is comparing apples and oranges. Capabilities are vastly, exponentially different. For one thing, how many of those WWI era ships had an electronic computer on board?
But to Mr. Mitt, the number of ships is apparently a compelling statistics.
Mr. Mitt's infatuation with pegging China as a currency manipulator is another example. Currency exchange rates are just numbers. Many free marketers believe exchange rates should not be set by government but should fluctuate according to the laws of supply and demand. But in actuality, many governments attempt to control exchange rates in one fashion or another. For large industrial countries, the control is often through the Central Bank activities of buying and selling currencies and government and other securities.
China has longed tried to keep the value of its currency low−in comparison to other currencies−to promote exports. Free marketers object, contending that China's government-set rate results in the artificial promotion of exports and the artificial curtailment of imports. Mr. Mitt has several beefs with Chinese economic policies. He accuses China of theft of intellectual property−patents and copyrighted material. He's likely right to at least some degree. He accuses China of unfair trade practices. Again, he's probably right to some degree.
But Mr. Mitt is not alone in his criticisms of China: most of Barack's policies regarding the country are not that much different than those Mr. Mitt would attempt to implement. But Mr. Mitt would go farther and officially label China a currency manipulator, never mind that the moment for that might have been 2007−five years ago−and today, in part because of changed economic conditions both there and here, the action would be somewhat irrelevant except for the overall negative impact on U.S.-China relations. (See Matthew O'Brien, "Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late," The Atlantic, October 24, 2012, for a fuller discussion).
The point is that labeling China a currency manipulator would be easy, would involve at a basic level not much more than numbers, and would thus fit Mr. Mitt's apparent view of the world: I can solve any problem I can put a number on.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
HEART ATTACK
Almost had a heart attack this morning. There, on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, was an editorial critical of Mr. Mitt. How dare they! It was at the bottom of the page, but still. . . .
The Journal's editorial page is normally in lockstep with Fox Noise, only the Journal uses bigger words. In this particular editorial, the Journal chastised Mr. Mitt for saying that on day 1 of his Presidency, he would label China a currency manipulator. The Journal characterized the likely result as "a showdown that would shake the global trading system" and argued that such a "heavy-handed government solution" was unwise.
Several things are of interest here. First, Mr. Mitt's view of China as an international economic villain was about the only foreign policy position of his to survive from the previous weeks and months. If China had not come up, Mr. Mitt would have been in almost total agreement with everything Barack said on foreign policy during the evening. In fact, Barack spent much of the evening pointing out the discrepancies between Mr. Mitt's current and previous views.
Second, the matter of Chinese currency manipulation is a matter of numbers, of statistics. Most of the other foreign policy issues touched on during the debate involve, at a fundamental level, much more amorphous stuff: ancient grievances, national pride, jihad, historic trends. Mr. Mitt does not seem comfortable with amorphous stuff. He is a man of numbers. His business career was confined to the world of finance, to numbers. Reduce a problem to numbers, and he has the solutions. But the real world is much more complex than just numbers.
Finally, the Journal's disagreement with Mr. Mitt on a matter is just a foretaste of the donnybrook that would likely ensue in the Republican ranks if Mr. Mitt were to be elected. To take back the White House, the Republican party has papered over its many internal differences. On day 1 or shortly thereafter of a Mr. Mitt's Presidency, that paper would likely be shredded. Social conservatives, tea partiers, Wall Street big money, main street little money, big business, small business would each be pushing agendas. Could a party that has made no-compromise an anthem over the last four years come up with enough internal compromises to govern?
The Journal's editorial page is normally in lockstep with Fox Noise, only the Journal uses bigger words. In this particular editorial, the Journal chastised Mr. Mitt for saying that on day 1 of his Presidency, he would label China a currency manipulator. The Journal characterized the likely result as "a showdown that would shake the global trading system" and argued that such a "heavy-handed government solution" was unwise.
Several things are of interest here. First, Mr. Mitt's view of China as an international economic villain was about the only foreign policy position of his to survive from the previous weeks and months. If China had not come up, Mr. Mitt would have been in almost total agreement with everything Barack said on foreign policy during the evening. In fact, Barack spent much of the evening pointing out the discrepancies between Mr. Mitt's current and previous views.
Second, the matter of Chinese currency manipulation is a matter of numbers, of statistics. Most of the other foreign policy issues touched on during the debate involve, at a fundamental level, much more amorphous stuff: ancient grievances, national pride, jihad, historic trends. Mr. Mitt does not seem comfortable with amorphous stuff. He is a man of numbers. His business career was confined to the world of finance, to numbers. Reduce a problem to numbers, and he has the solutions. But the real world is much more complex than just numbers.
Finally, the Journal's disagreement with Mr. Mitt on a matter is just a foretaste of the donnybrook that would likely ensue in the Republican ranks if Mr. Mitt were to be elected. To take back the White House, the Republican party has papered over its many internal differences. On day 1 or shortly thereafter of a Mr. Mitt's Presidency, that paper would likely be shredded. Social conservatives, tea partiers, Wall Street big money, main street little money, big business, small business would each be pushing agendas. Could a party that has made no-compromise an anthem over the last four years come up with enough internal compromises to govern?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
TWO WEEKS TO GO
Two weeks to go. The debates are done, so the potential for a disastrous gaffe by one or the other candidate is much reduced. Now it's just repetitions of the same mind-numbing stump speeches. Saturday Night Live is strangely a rerun for October 27. SNL is at its best for Presidential elections, and it's going with a rerun ten days before the election?! At least its November 3 show is live, although the host, Louis C.K., is somewhat of an acquired taste.
Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert usually take off a week every month. Hopefully, they won't desert us for these final two weeks of the most important election ever, or at least the most important since the last election. If the comedy people leave us in this time of need, we'll be left mostly with Fox Noise from the loony right, MSNBC from the not-quite-as-loony-but-not-by-much left, and CNN from the visual effects swamp it has become mired in. Letterman, Leno, Fallon, O'Brien, Kimmel, and a couple of others will still be providing some comedic relief, but Stewart, Colbert, and SNL are the top of the line.
One of the notable lines from Monday night's debate was Barack's retort to Mr. Mitt's complaint that America's Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917. The President stated, "we also have fewer horses and bayonets," the larger point being that warfare, weapons' capabilities, and military technology have changed exponentially since the time of the First World War. Among other items that the military has fewer of today, the President could have listed camp followers of the sexual services genre. Pity.
Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert usually take off a week every month. Hopefully, they won't desert us for these final two weeks of the most important election ever, or at least the most important since the last election. If the comedy people leave us in this time of need, we'll be left mostly with Fox Noise from the loony right, MSNBC from the not-quite-as-loony-but-not-by-much left, and CNN from the visual effects swamp it has become mired in. Letterman, Leno, Fallon, O'Brien, Kimmel, and a couple of others will still be providing some comedic relief, but Stewart, Colbert, and SNL are the top of the line.
One of the notable lines from Monday night's debate was Barack's retort to Mr. Mitt's complaint that America's Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917. The President stated, "we also have fewer horses and bayonets," the larger point being that warfare, weapons' capabilities, and military technology have changed exponentially since the time of the First World War. Among other items that the military has fewer of today, the President could have listed camp followers of the sexual services genre. Pity.
THE MR. MITT, BARACK, AND BOB SHOW
Debate in a nutshell: Mr. Mitt's obvious goal was to avoid stepping on his honker. This he pretty much did, to Barack's consternation and Fox Noise's obvious relief. To attain his goal, Mr. Mitt had to pretend he hadn't held different positions in the past, but he has become pretty adept at this so it wasn't much of a challenge. He also had to agree with Barack on many matters. So the conclusion is that foreign policy under a Mr. Mitt Administration wouldn't be all that different than it has been under the Barack Administration.
Mr. Mitt does think that through a combination of toughness and reasonable persuasion he can bring the different anti-government factions in a place like Syria together. Some might argue that such naiveté is reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney years and therefore a disqualifier for the position of Commander in Chief. Supporters of Mr. Mitt are unlikely, however, to be so critical.
Perhaps the most perplexing comment by Mr. Mitt came in his closing statement. He briefly praised the Greatest Generation−that Tom Brokaw-created fantasy about the supposedly pretty near perfect generation that survived the Great Depression and won World War II, never mind about Jim Crow, post-war McCarthyism, and stuff like that. And then he said something to the effect that this election would mark a passing of the torch to a new generation. It was like the last fifty years were of little import.
Hey Mitt, did'ja hear about the '60s, baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, computers, a guy named Bill Clinton who became President in 1992? The Greatest Generation faded from the scene some time ago. A lot of history has occurred since the 1940s, and one gets the impression you don't quite have a handle on it.
One last thing: Bob Schieffer, you done pretty good. But then Mr. Mitt wasn't the argumentative pushy guy of debates one and two.
Mr. Mitt does think that through a combination of toughness and reasonable persuasion he can bring the different anti-government factions in a place like Syria together. Some might argue that such naiveté is reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney years and therefore a disqualifier for the position of Commander in Chief. Supporters of Mr. Mitt are unlikely, however, to be so critical.
Perhaps the most perplexing comment by Mr. Mitt came in his closing statement. He briefly praised the Greatest Generation−that Tom Brokaw-created fantasy about the supposedly pretty near perfect generation that survived the Great Depression and won World War II, never mind about Jim Crow, post-war McCarthyism, and stuff like that. And then he said something to the effect that this election would mark a passing of the torch to a new generation. It was like the last fifty years were of little import.
Hey Mitt, did'ja hear about the '60s, baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, computers, a guy named Bill Clinton who became President in 1992? The Greatest Generation faded from the scene some time ago. A lot of history has occurred since the 1940s, and one gets the impression you don't quite have a handle on it.
One last thing: Bob Schieffer, you done pretty good. But then Mr. Mitt wasn't the argumentative pushy guy of debates one and two.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
CRUCIAL QUESTIONS
Two crucial questions are before the nation for Monday night's final Presidential debate of the 2012 elections. The answers to these questions will determine for years to come who we are as a people. The answers may well impact the future of humankind on this planet. It is impossible to overstate the importance of these questions.
First, will Bob Schieffer restore respectability, even a bit of machismo, to the male side of the journalistic profession? Jim Lehr did not do a horrible job, but he was definitely not in charge at the debate he moderated. He pretty much let two domineering politicians, or at least the one domineering politician who was fully in attendance, run all over him. In contrast, there was no doubt who was in charge in the two succeeding debates. Martha Raddatz in the Vice Presidential debate and Candy Crowley in the second Presidential debate had, in their respective arenas, the largest cojones on the stage. Bob, it's time to man-up.
Second, will the debates trump Monday Night Football? For over forty years, Monday Night Football has been an institution integral to the American way of life. It is enshrined in the Constitution as "the Pursuit of Happiness." Or maybe that's the Declaration of Independence. In any case, it is surely covered by the references in the Constitution's Preamble to forming "a more perfect union," promoting "the general Welfare," and securing "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." If a mere Presidential election attracts more attention than Monday Night Football, the days of American hegemony are numbered.
The answers to these questions will be determined Monday night. The stakes could not be higher.
First, will Bob Schieffer restore respectability, even a bit of machismo, to the male side of the journalistic profession? Jim Lehr did not do a horrible job, but he was definitely not in charge at the debate he moderated. He pretty much let two domineering politicians, or at least the one domineering politician who was fully in attendance, run all over him. In contrast, there was no doubt who was in charge in the two succeeding debates. Martha Raddatz in the Vice Presidential debate and Candy Crowley in the second Presidential debate had, in their respective arenas, the largest cojones on the stage. Bob, it's time to man-up.
Second, will the debates trump Monday Night Football? For over forty years, Monday Night Football has been an institution integral to the American way of life. It is enshrined in the Constitution as "the Pursuit of Happiness." Or maybe that's the Declaration of Independence. In any case, it is surely covered by the references in the Constitution's Preamble to forming "a more perfect union," promoting "the general Welfare," and securing "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." If a mere Presidential election attracts more attention than Monday Night Football, the days of American hegemony are numbered.
The answers to these questions will be determined Monday night. The stakes could not be higher.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
LIBYA II
The deaths of four Americans in Libya constitute just the type of tragedy that Mr. Mitt's New York campaign office−Fox Noise−and the partisan Republicans in Congress thrive upon. Many of the facts of the tragedy are murky. Multiple layers and agencies of the nation's national security establishment are involved, meaning that sorting out the details and timelines of the events and the Government's responses takes time. The public responses from the White House and various parts of the security establishment have thus far been couched in cautionary language and uncertainty.
Not so the analyses of many of the President's critics. In an unclear situation such as Libya, innuendoes and outright fabrications are tempting for opponents of the President to make, and they have succumbed to the temptation with alacrity. Fox Noise has no problem finding its version of certainty regarding the events. For example, Fox commentator Charles Krauthammer in yesterday's Washington Post emphatically stated: "But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others."
Hey Charles, those assertions have not been definitely established as facts, at least according to other reports that are surfacing. So how do you know? Incidentally Charles, whatever happened to that moderate, reasonable columnist that you were twenty or so years ago? You have become quite grouchy and extremely partisan in your advancing years.
Anyway, the President will undoubtedly hear more about this on Monday night. His explanations over the last week have not been the best. It has become an anthem of American politics that an office holder or seeker should avoid admitting uncertainty or error. But when uncertainty is obvious, refusing to acknowledge it can make the politician look unconnected.
Last Thursday on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Mr. Stewart threw the President a softball on the Libyan tragedy that could have been answered in part by acknowledging the uncertainty still surrounding the incident. Instead, the President brushed aside the obvious and emphatically stated a list of things he will be doing in the future, including bringing the killers to justice. A more nuanced discussion Monday night might be the better approach.
Not so the analyses of many of the President's critics. In an unclear situation such as Libya, innuendoes and outright fabrications are tempting for opponents of the President to make, and they have succumbed to the temptation with alacrity. Fox Noise has no problem finding its version of certainty regarding the events. For example, Fox commentator Charles Krauthammer in yesterday's Washington Post emphatically stated: "But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others."
Hey Charles, those assertions have not been definitely established as facts, at least according to other reports that are surfacing. So how do you know? Incidentally Charles, whatever happened to that moderate, reasonable columnist that you were twenty or so years ago? You have become quite grouchy and extremely partisan in your advancing years.
Anyway, the President will undoubtedly hear more about this on Monday night. His explanations over the last week have not been the best. It has become an anthem of American politics that an office holder or seeker should avoid admitting uncertainty or error. But when uncertainty is obvious, refusing to acknowledge it can make the politician look unconnected.
Last Thursday on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Mr. Stewart threw the President a softball on the Libyan tragedy that could have been answered in part by acknowledging the uncertainty still surrounding the incident. Instead, the President brushed aside the obvious and emphatically stated a list of things he will be doing in the future, including bringing the killers to justice. A more nuanced discussion Monday night might be the better approach.
Friday, October 19, 2012
MR. MITT, PENSIONS, AND WEALTH
Mr. Mitt just can't stop reminding us that he is one rich dude. In last Tuesday's debate, he was on one occasion like the proverbial dog with a bone, or a small child persistently demanding satisfaction: "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?"
The President noted that his pension was nowhere near the size of Mr. Mitt's. But perhaps he should have thanked Mr. Mitt for once more reminding Americans that he−Mr. Mitt−is not like most of us. He is a multi-millionaire who doesn't have much to worry about regarding his finances, for now or for his later years.
When coupled with his $10,000 bet remark in a Republican primary debate, his causal statement that many of his friends own NASCAR teams, his installation of elevators for cars in his California beach house, his other vacation homes, and his refusal to release his tax returns for any but the most recent years, Mr. Mitt's browbeating of the President over the latter's pension serves to keep front and center Mr. Mitt's membership in the nation's one percent of very monetarily fortunate people.
Rich individuals have succeeded in politics. Most have avoided calling undue attention to their wealth, and in general their fellow citizens have taken a let-sleeping-dogs-lie attitude. But Mr. Mitt has a tin-ear about his wealth and keeps inadvertently reminding us about it. To some, he comes across as a guy who, despite what he says, just doesn't comprehend lives that are dominated by day-to-day finances.
Mr. Mitt appears to believe that a few simple macro-economic steps, starting with reducing taxes, are all that are needed for everyone to have the opportunity to climb the ladder of success to financial security if not financial wealth. He most likely would not begrudge all his fellow citizens having beach houses with car elevators. But even if taxes were eliminated entirely, such an earthly paradise just ain't gonna happen. Someone who understands the real world and not just the world of venture capital, equity funds, and unbridled capitalism just might make a better President.
The President noted that his pension was nowhere near the size of Mr. Mitt's. But perhaps he should have thanked Mr. Mitt for once more reminding Americans that he−Mr. Mitt−is not like most of us. He is a multi-millionaire who doesn't have much to worry about regarding his finances, for now or for his later years.
When coupled with his $10,000 bet remark in a Republican primary debate, his causal statement that many of his friends own NASCAR teams, his installation of elevators for cars in his California beach house, his other vacation homes, and his refusal to release his tax returns for any but the most recent years, Mr. Mitt's browbeating of the President over the latter's pension serves to keep front and center Mr. Mitt's membership in the nation's one percent of very monetarily fortunate people.
Rich individuals have succeeded in politics. Most have avoided calling undue attention to their wealth, and in general their fellow citizens have taken a let-sleeping-dogs-lie attitude. But Mr. Mitt has a tin-ear about his wealth and keeps inadvertently reminding us about it. To some, he comes across as a guy who, despite what he says, just doesn't comprehend lives that are dominated by day-to-day finances.
Mr. Mitt appears to believe that a few simple macro-economic steps, starting with reducing taxes, are all that are needed for everyone to have the opportunity to climb the ladder of success to financial security if not financial wealth. He most likely would not begrudge all his fellow citizens having beach houses with car elevators. But even if taxes were eliminated entirely, such an earthly paradise just ain't gonna happen. Someone who understands the real world and not just the world of venture capital, equity funds, and unbridled capitalism just might make a better President.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
LIBYA
Mr. Mitt, his Republicans, and Fox Noise are fixated on Libya. They apparently think that therein lies the road to the White House. Maybe, but if so we really are catering to the lowest common denominator.
The death of four American State Department employees, one the Ambassador to Libya, is both tragic and a proper subject for thorough, critical investigation. How did this happen? What security measures were absent? What early warning signs were overlooked or misinterpreted? How can we improve the security decision-making process and the decisions themselves?
State Department employees are not soldiers, and certainly not front-line soldiers. But they are in harm's way for the United States of America. Just from where they are posted, their jobs can be dangerous. Embassy and consular security are matters being constantly scrutinized and revaluated.
But the never-ending security scrutiny and revaluation are not conducted in a vacuum. Security resources and budgets are limited. Not every imagined or perceived threat can be addressed. If some believe that security requests for Libya were ignored, they should put this in the perspective of how frequently security issues come up for all Embassy and consular posts. The guess here is that such issues are commonplace, and that very often budget considerations override security concerns.
Barack and his Administration have indeed botched explanations for the Libya tragedy. But the botching seems due to too many authoritative-sounding explanations before all the fact were known. In a rush to provide possible explanations, the various Administrative spokespersons ignored a crucial point: certainty about what happened and why just weren't there yet.
But this failure on the part of the Administration is no excuse for the criticisms and innuendos that are being cast by Mr. Mitt and his campaign staff at Fox Noise. They are insinuating lies, fabrications, and posturing for political purposes. They are besmirching the honor of fellow citizens having responsibilities for carrying out the foreign policy of the United States in difficult, ever-changing circumstances. They are, in short, disgraceful opportunists.
The death of four American State Department employees, one the Ambassador to Libya, is both tragic and a proper subject for thorough, critical investigation. How did this happen? What security measures were absent? What early warning signs were overlooked or misinterpreted? How can we improve the security decision-making process and the decisions themselves?
State Department employees are not soldiers, and certainly not front-line soldiers. But they are in harm's way for the United States of America. Just from where they are posted, their jobs can be dangerous. Embassy and consular security are matters being constantly scrutinized and revaluated.
But the never-ending security scrutiny and revaluation are not conducted in a vacuum. Security resources and budgets are limited. Not every imagined or perceived threat can be addressed. If some believe that security requests for Libya were ignored, they should put this in the perspective of how frequently security issues come up for all Embassy and consular posts. The guess here is that such issues are commonplace, and that very often budget considerations override security concerns.
Barack and his Administration have indeed botched explanations for the Libya tragedy. But the botching seems due to too many authoritative-sounding explanations before all the fact were known. In a rush to provide possible explanations, the various Administrative spokespersons ignored a crucial point: certainty about what happened and why just weren't there yet.
But this failure on the part of the Administration is no excuse for the criticisms and innuendos that are being cast by Mr. Mitt and his campaign staff at Fox Noise. They are insinuating lies, fabrications, and posturing for political purposes. They are besmirching the honor of fellow citizens having responsibilities for carrying out the foreign policy of the United States in difficult, ever-changing circumstances. They are, in short, disgraceful opportunists.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
IF WE'RE ALL BROKE, WHO'S FUNDING THE POLITICS?
Granted the economy is not in the best of shape. An anemic recovery might be the most accurate way to describe the last few years. But Mr. Mitt and Republicans contend we are in dire straits. If that is the case, who is providing all this money that is going into political ads and campaigns?
Put another way, if things are as bad as Mr. Mitt makes them out to be, wouldn't political ads and political campaigns be nonexistent because no one would have the discretionary money to contribute to their creation and operation? Okay, so that's a very simplistic way to look at the complexity of a modern Information Age economy. But what seems to be a fact is that people with a lot of money are putting some of it toward convincing those with much less money to vote in certain ways.
Are the people providing the discretionary money motivated by altruism or self-interest? Most are probably along a spectrum stretching from pure altruism at one extreme to pure self-interest at the other. The tempting generalization is that rich Democrats and liberals are mostly along the altruism portion of the spectrum, and rich Republicans and conservatives are mostly along the self-interest portion of the spectrum.
Let's abruptly segue into a related−in a big picture sort of way−topic: job creation. The underlying economic problem is that at the moment, there aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants (and needs) to work. In other words, the demand for jobs is greater than the supply. Why is that so? The arguments in the political arena are centered on such matters as tax policies, government regulations, foreign competition (read China), and the like.
But a Luddite of the early 19th Century would say, "Hey, we saw this coming." Over the last several centuries, technology has increased human productivity, which means fewer humans are required to produce the goods and services required for human existence. So what are other humans doing? Creating Facebook and the umpteenth version of the iPhone, staffing a coffee shop on every corner, providing leisure activities, participating in political campaigns, and so on.
In other words, the current attention on job creation is narrowly focused on peripheral matters. Underlying seismic shifts in the nature of economic activity in the post-Industrial Age are probably too frightening for discussion outside of academia and specialized research organizations (which themselves represent types of discretionary spending). It is much easier on the intellect to conduct a political campaign on the basis of yesterday's assumption than to venture into the unknown.
Put another way, if things are as bad as Mr. Mitt makes them out to be, wouldn't political ads and political campaigns be nonexistent because no one would have the discretionary money to contribute to their creation and operation? Okay, so that's a very simplistic way to look at the complexity of a modern Information Age economy. But what seems to be a fact is that people with a lot of money are putting some of it toward convincing those with much less money to vote in certain ways.
Are the people providing the discretionary money motivated by altruism or self-interest? Most are probably along a spectrum stretching from pure altruism at one extreme to pure self-interest at the other. The tempting generalization is that rich Democrats and liberals are mostly along the altruism portion of the spectrum, and rich Republicans and conservatives are mostly along the self-interest portion of the spectrum.
Let's abruptly segue into a related−in a big picture sort of way−topic: job creation. The underlying economic problem is that at the moment, there aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants (and needs) to work. In other words, the demand for jobs is greater than the supply. Why is that so? The arguments in the political arena are centered on such matters as tax policies, government regulations, foreign competition (read China), and the like.
But a Luddite of the early 19th Century would say, "Hey, we saw this coming." Over the last several centuries, technology has increased human productivity, which means fewer humans are required to produce the goods and services required for human existence. So what are other humans doing? Creating Facebook and the umpteenth version of the iPhone, staffing a coffee shop on every corner, providing leisure activities, participating in political campaigns, and so on.
In other words, the current attention on job creation is narrowly focused on peripheral matters. Underlying seismic shifts in the nature of economic activity in the post-Industrial Age are probably too frightening for discussion outside of academia and specialized research organizations (which themselves represent types of discretionary spending). It is much easier on the intellect to conduct a political campaign on the basis of yesterday's assumption than to venture into the unknown.
THE CANDY, BARACK, AND MR. MITT SHOW
Fox Noise is certainly unlikely to admit it, but Mr. Mitt got his clock cleaned tonight. Oh, he scored a few points. But an energized, aggressive Barack put himself back in the game. Mr. Mitt came out on the loosing end of auto industry restructuring, taxes, social policies, immigration, China policy, jobs going overseas, and Candy Crowley.
Mr. Mitt's main thing seemed to be his five point plan of generalities. He cited the plan several times, usually as a solution to a particular problem he was trying to explain his solution for. He seemed particularly fixated on China, accusing it of being a currency manipulator, intellectual property pirate, and general trouble maker. China is definitely not an international economic choirboy, but it's not a criminal enterprise either. Subtle confrontation would seem to be a better long-term approach to dealing with the country than campaign rants.
The Middle East is obviously perplexing to Mr. Mitt. He appears to have the attitude that prevailed among the neocons in the Bush Administration: if America blusters and screams enough, it will get its way. Not sure the nation needs to tread that path again.
Mr. Mitt kept harping on his business background. He alleged that he knows how to create jobs. In fact, he alleged it a number of times. But the specifics, other than cutting taxes, were absent. And the tax issues were clouded by fuzzy math, which Barack pointed out several times.
Perhaps Barack's best counter to Mr. Mitt's incessant call for tax cuts was to remind the viewers that the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s were a major cause of the current economic problems.
Bottom line: if you ever find yourself in a ticklish situation, say in a redneck biker bar in some remote area of, say, Idaho, and you need someone to watch your back, you could do a lot worse than Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz. Indeed, if it were a choice between those two and Mr. Mitt with his little three-hour marathon partner, well, it wouldn't even be a choice.
Mr. Mitt's main thing seemed to be his five point plan of generalities. He cited the plan several times, usually as a solution to a particular problem he was trying to explain his solution for. He seemed particularly fixated on China, accusing it of being a currency manipulator, intellectual property pirate, and general trouble maker. China is definitely not an international economic choirboy, but it's not a criminal enterprise either. Subtle confrontation would seem to be a better long-term approach to dealing with the country than campaign rants.
The Middle East is obviously perplexing to Mr. Mitt. He appears to have the attitude that prevailed among the neocons in the Bush Administration: if America blusters and screams enough, it will get its way. Not sure the nation needs to tread that path again.
Mr. Mitt kept harping on his business background. He alleged that he knows how to create jobs. In fact, he alleged it a number of times. But the specifics, other than cutting taxes, were absent. And the tax issues were clouded by fuzzy math, which Barack pointed out several times.
Perhaps Barack's best counter to Mr. Mitt's incessant call for tax cuts was to remind the viewers that the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s were a major cause of the current economic problems.
Bottom line: if you ever find yourself in a ticklish situation, say in a redneck biker bar in some remote area of, say, Idaho, and you need someone to watch your back, you could do a lot worse than Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz. Indeed, if it were a choice between those two and Mr. Mitt with his little three-hour marathon partner, well, it wouldn't even be a choice.
Monday, October 15, 2012
WAITING FOR THE GAFFE
The nation anxiously awaits Tuesday night’s debate. Will Barack Obama bounce back from his desultory performance of two weeks ago, a performance that increases in desultoriness with each retelling, particularly retellings by Republican-leaning pundits?
Will Barack managed to knock that weird smirk off Mr. Mitt’s face, a task that none of Mr. Mitt’s challengers in the Republican primaries managed to do, but then that crowd was not exactly the cream of the crop?
Will Mr. Mitt be able to continue his thus far successful etch-a-sketch strategy of morphing from a centrist-leaning governor of a left-leaning state, to a tea party conservative, to a moderate Northeastern Republican of the Nelson Rockefeller variety?
Will Candy Crowley be a Jim Lehr, a Martha Raddatz, or some new variant of I’m-in-charge moderator? The thought here is that Ms. Crowley just might be a bigger part of the show than anticipated, especially if Barack and Mr. Mitt get wild and wooly.
Barack will certainly be a different performer than in the first debate. But in the past he has not been an excitable guy, and excitable is apparently what political pundits want. And what political pundits want is what the supposedly independent thinking people end up wanting because most of those supposedly independent thinking people don’t know what they are thinking until the pundits tell them.
One thing both the pundits and the people would sorely love to witness is a major gaffe on the part of Barack, Mr. Mitt, or both. Gaffes do not necessarily result in permanent damage to a candidate’s chances, but they certainly provide entertainment of the first order. Watching a candidate try over a period of days and weeks to extract himself or herself from the sticky clutches of a gaffe is delicious fun. The gaffe becomes almost a living, breathing entity, a lion in the Roman Coliseum toying with a hapless slave. Maybe the slave will end up devoured. Or maybe the lion will tire of the game, leaving the slave shaken and mauled but still functioning in a zombie-like state. In either case, the blood-lust of the Coliseum crowd has been temporarily satiated.
Will Barack managed to knock that weird smirk off Mr. Mitt’s face, a task that none of Mr. Mitt’s challengers in the Republican primaries managed to do, but then that crowd was not exactly the cream of the crop?
Will Mr. Mitt be able to continue his thus far successful etch-a-sketch strategy of morphing from a centrist-leaning governor of a left-leaning state, to a tea party conservative, to a moderate Northeastern Republican of the Nelson Rockefeller variety?
Will Candy Crowley be a Jim Lehr, a Martha Raddatz, or some new variant of I’m-in-charge moderator? The thought here is that Ms. Crowley just might be a bigger part of the show than anticipated, especially if Barack and Mr. Mitt get wild and wooly.
Barack will certainly be a different performer than in the first debate. But in the past he has not been an excitable guy, and excitable is apparently what political pundits want. And what political pundits want is what the supposedly independent thinking people end up wanting because most of those supposedly independent thinking people don’t know what they are thinking until the pundits tell them.
One thing both the pundits and the people would sorely love to witness is a major gaffe on the part of Barack, Mr. Mitt, or both. Gaffes do not necessarily result in permanent damage to a candidate’s chances, but they certainly provide entertainment of the first order. Watching a candidate try over a period of days and weeks to extract himself or herself from the sticky clutches of a gaffe is delicious fun. The gaffe becomes almost a living, breathing entity, a lion in the Roman Coliseum toying with a hapless slave. Maybe the slave will end up devoured. Or maybe the lion will tire of the game, leaving the slave shaken and mauled but still functioning in a zombie-like state. In either case, the blood-lust of the Coliseum crowd has been temporarily satiated.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
FOX CALLS JOE RUDE
The folks at fair and balanced Fox Noise are all over VP Joe Biden for his performance during the debate with Wonder Boy Paul, he of the sub-three hour marathon. (Just a reminder that his actual time was a tad over four hours and that his predecessor as a Republican VP candidate, a certain Ms. Sarah Palin, has run a faster marathon.)
Anyway, the two words being most applied by Roger Ailes’ flunkies to Joe Biden the debator are “rude” and “bully.” Fox Noise calling someone else rude and a bully!? Talk about the proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black. Fox Noise’s whole persona is built upon rudeness and bullying. The fair and balanced network has made millions refining the concepts.
But appearing hypocritical has never been a barrier to Fox in its pursuit of liberals, Democrats, academia, non-Christians, and others who don’t fit the network’s narrow idea of true Americans.
Speaking of words that Fox has trouble recognizing when applied to itself, what about victim? Liberals allegedly complaining to be victims are a common target of Fox’s rants. But Fox can claim victimhood quicker than a three-hour marathon when criticism is directed its way or toward one of its allies, such as Mr. Paul from Wisconsin.
Anyway, the two words being most applied by Roger Ailes’ flunkies to Joe Biden the debator are “rude” and “bully.” Fox Noise calling someone else rude and a bully!? Talk about the proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black. Fox Noise’s whole persona is built upon rudeness and bullying. The fair and balanced network has made millions refining the concepts.
But appearing hypocritical has never been a barrier to Fox in its pursuit of liberals, Democrats, academia, non-Christians, and others who don’t fit the network’s narrow idea of true Americans.
Speaking of words that Fox has trouble recognizing when applied to itself, what about victim? Liberals allegedly complaining to be victims are a common target of Fox’s rants. But Fox can claim victimhood quicker than a three-hour marathon when criticism is directed its way or toward one of its allies, such as Mr. Paul from Wisconsin.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
BIPARTISANSHIP
Mr. Mitt says Barack Obama failed to bring Democrats and Republicans together. Well, Duh. It’s pretty much impossible to produce togetherness when one side has a my way or the highway attitude. Hey, Republicans, I’m talking about you.
The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but in general it is considerably more compromising than the current Republican Party. A substantial number of Democrats accept the fact that getting your way one hundred percent of the time is not how government is sustained in a democratic republic. Many present-day Republicans do not seem to accept this fact. Moreover, many Republicans come across as putting party before country.
Mr. Mitt says that his accomplishments as Governor of Massachusetts, where the legislature was more than seventy percent Democratic, shows he can bring Democrats and Republicans together. Well, yes, one might counter, because those Massachusetts Democrats had a significant proportion of reasonable, compromising individuals. President Obama, on the other hand, has found no such group of reasonable, compromising Republicans in the United States Congress.
The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but in general it is considerably more compromising than the current Republican Party. A substantial number of Democrats accept the fact that getting your way one hundred percent of the time is not how government is sustained in a democratic republic. Many present-day Republicans do not seem to accept this fact. Moreover, many Republicans come across as putting party before country.
Mr. Mitt says that his accomplishments as Governor of Massachusetts, where the legislature was more than seventy percent Democratic, shows he can bring Democrats and Republicans together. Well, yes, one might counter, because those Massachusetts Democrats had a significant proportion of reasonable, compromising individuals. President Obama, on the other hand, has found no such group of reasonable, compromising Republicans in the United States Congress.
Friday, October 12, 2012
FACTS AND POLITICS
Facts and politics, particular election politics, have at best a tenuous relationship. The major problem is that to a politician running for office, just about everything he or she says is a fact, but his or her opponent begs to differ. In other words, agreement between opposing politicians on the facts in an election year is likely to be nonexistent.
Agreement about the facts of what happened in the past and what is happening currently is difficult enough to reach. But extrapolating into the future—predicting, in other words—and labeling the result as fact is really pretty absurd. And politicians exacerbate the problem by leaving out the assumptions, economic and political relationships, and caveats that went into their predictions.
So why this sorry state of “facts” in the political world? Why are politicians so prone to label as “fact” every debatable point? Because politics, and especially elections, are geared toward the populace’s lowest common denominator, for whom most everything is viewed as either a fact or a falsehood. Those not in the lowest common denominator acquiesce in this approach, perhaps because acquiescence is the path of least resistance. Indeed, in a way politics can be quite soothing because intellectual rigor is not necessary.
So enjoy the next few weeks. Throw your “facts” around with abandon. Come November 7, election season “facts” will give way—not completely but significantly—to the end of the year’s fiscal cliff “facts.” That ought to be fun. And then will come the budget and budget deficit “facts.” That ought to really be fun.
Agreement about the facts of what happened in the past and what is happening currently is difficult enough to reach. But extrapolating into the future—predicting, in other words—and labeling the result as fact is really pretty absurd. And politicians exacerbate the problem by leaving out the assumptions, economic and political relationships, and caveats that went into their predictions.
So why this sorry state of “facts” in the political world? Why are politicians so prone to label as “fact” every debatable point? Because politics, and especially elections, are geared toward the populace’s lowest common denominator, for whom most everything is viewed as either a fact or a falsehood. Those not in the lowest common denominator acquiesce in this approach, perhaps because acquiescence is the path of least resistance. Indeed, in a way politics can be quite soothing because intellectual rigor is not necessary.
So enjoy the next few weeks. Throw your “facts” around with abandon. Come November 7, election season “facts” will give way—not completely but significantly—to the end of the year’s fiscal cliff “facts.” That ought to be fun. And then will come the budget and budget deficit “facts.” That ought to really be fun.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
THE JOE, PAUL, AND MARTHA SHOW
In foreign affairs, Paul wants us to not be weak. Joe says we are not weak.
Paul knows what the Iranian Ayatollahs thinks. A young Irish guy from Wisconsin with about zilch foreign affairs experience knows what Iranian Ayatollahs think. Think about that.
Paul has a smirk just like Mr. Mitt’s. Do they teach that at Republican retreats?
Paul says Mr. Mitt cares about 100 percent of the American people. He has great personal generosity. Hey Mr. Mitt, could I get some of that personal generosity?
Paul is taking a lot of swigs from whatever is in his cup.
Paul is talking a blue streak, throwing out a lot of “facts.” Joe is interrupting because he doesn’t think the “facts” are actually “facts.” Martha is getting irritated.
Paul won’t give specifics about his 20 percent tax cut proposals. It’s all a framework problem. Paul and Mr. Mitt have a framework. Trust them.
Both Joe and Paul have been to Afghanistan. They both have been out in the field. Our forces are doing fabulous.
Joe says we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014. Paul wants his friend to come home. But he is not as emphatic about the timeline.
Paul says we haven’t done right in Syria. Paul says a Mr. Mitt-Ryan Administration would have done better. How? Well, we would have done better.
Abortion? Everybody same-same.
Joe finishes by emphasizing his devotion to the middle class. Paul finishes by emphasizing his and Mr. Mitt’s hostility to President Obama.
Main impression? Paul and Mr. Mitt’s similar smirks.
Paul knows what the Iranian Ayatollahs thinks. A young Irish guy from Wisconsin with about zilch foreign affairs experience knows what Iranian Ayatollahs think. Think about that.
Paul has a smirk just like Mr. Mitt’s. Do they teach that at Republican retreats?
Paul says Mr. Mitt cares about 100 percent of the American people. He has great personal generosity. Hey Mr. Mitt, could I get some of that personal generosity?
Paul is taking a lot of swigs from whatever is in his cup.
Paul is talking a blue streak, throwing out a lot of “facts.” Joe is interrupting because he doesn’t think the “facts” are actually “facts.” Martha is getting irritated.
Paul won’t give specifics about his 20 percent tax cut proposals. It’s all a framework problem. Paul and Mr. Mitt have a framework. Trust them.
Both Joe and Paul have been to Afghanistan. They both have been out in the field. Our forces are doing fabulous.
Joe says we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014. Paul wants his friend to come home. But he is not as emphatic about the timeline.
Paul says we haven’t done right in Syria. Paul says a Mr. Mitt-Ryan Administration would have done better. How? Well, we would have done better.
Abortion? Everybody same-same.
Joe finishes by emphasizing his devotion to the middle class. Paul finishes by emphasizing his and Mr. Mitt’s hostility to President Obama.
Main impression? Paul and Mr. Mitt’s similar smirks.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
ROMNEY AND CHENEY SIMILARITIES
Mr. Mitt and former Vice President Dick Cheney have several thinks in common.
) Mr. Mitt and the Dickster each avoided the draft during the Vietnam War through five (5) deferments. In their defense, it wasn’t exactly a fun war.
) Mr. Mitt and the Dickster have unusual but similar ways of treating companions. The Dickster once shotgunned a hunting companion in the face, neck, and upper torso. The companion survived. Mr. Mitt once strapped a container with his dog Seamus to the top of the family vehicle for a twelve-hour ride. Seamus also survived.
) Mr. Mitt and the Dickster are both of the neocon persuasion, meaning they favor an in-your-face aggressive foreign policy that results mainly in irritating the rest of the world. But maybe that’s the point.
) Mr. Mitt and the Dickster each avoided the draft during the Vietnam War through five (5) deferments. In their defense, it wasn’t exactly a fun war.
) Mr. Mitt and the Dickster have unusual but similar ways of treating companions. The Dickster once shotgunned a hunting companion in the face, neck, and upper torso. The companion survived. Mr. Mitt once strapped a container with his dog Seamus to the top of the family vehicle for a twelve-hour ride. Seamus also survived.
) Mr. Mitt and the Dickster are both of the neocon persuasion, meaning they favor an in-your-face aggressive foreign policy that results mainly in irritating the rest of the world. But maybe that’s the point.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
OBAMA'S OPENING STATEMENT FOR DEBATE TWO
The President’s opening statement at the next debate with Mr. Mitt maybe should be something like the following.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Candy Crowley, and Mr. Mitt. Before we get too far into tonight’s effort, I was hoping we could clarify a point. Which Mr. Mitt am I debating tonight? Is it the former centrist governor of Massachusetts who provided the model for Obamacare? Is it the uncompromising far right ideologue of the Republican primaries for whom Obamacare was an obscenity? Or is it the etch-a-sketch semi-centrist who suddenly appeared a couple of weeks ago and whose objections to Obamacare appear limited mostly to the name?
And it’s not just Obamacare. Mr. Mitt in his various guises has been all over the map on taxes, budget deficits, financial regulation, other types of regulation, and foreign policy.
All this shaking and baking makes a substantive give and take on the issues rather difficult. Our exchanges are in danger of being reduced to:
“That’s not my position.”
“Well, it was once was your position.”
“No it wasn’t.”
“It certainly was.”
“Liar, liar, pants on fire.”
“So’s your mother.”
Somehow, I feel the American people are expecting a little more from us. So I’m pleading with you Mr. Mitt, tell me, the folks here in the audience, and the millions of viewers round the nation, which of you am I facing tonight?
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Candy Crowley, and Mr. Mitt. Before we get too far into tonight’s effort, I was hoping we could clarify a point. Which Mr. Mitt am I debating tonight? Is it the former centrist governor of Massachusetts who provided the model for Obamacare? Is it the uncompromising far right ideologue of the Republican primaries for whom Obamacare was an obscenity? Or is it the etch-a-sketch semi-centrist who suddenly appeared a couple of weeks ago and whose objections to Obamacare appear limited mostly to the name?
And it’s not just Obamacare. Mr. Mitt in his various guises has been all over the map on taxes, budget deficits, financial regulation, other types of regulation, and foreign policy.
All this shaking and baking makes a substantive give and take on the issues rather difficult. Our exchanges are in danger of being reduced to:
“That’s not my position.”
“Well, it was once was your position.”
“No it wasn’t.”
“It certainly was.”
“Liar, liar, pants on fire.”
“So’s your mother.”
Somehow, I feel the American people are expecting a little more from us. So I’m pleading with you Mr. Mitt, tell me, the folks here in the audience, and the millions of viewers round the nation, which of you am I facing tonight?
Monday, October 08, 2012
THE ROMNEY DOCTRINE: GEORGE BUSH WITHOUT THE INTELLECTUAL DEPTH
Mr. Mitt gave a foreign policy address today, at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. If presented as a term paper by one of the cadets in a political science, international relations, or similar course, the grade received would have been a gentleman’s C at best.
As has become his practice over the last week, Mr. Mitt reversed, contradicted, or significantly altered past positions on a variety of items. American involvement in Afghanistan has gone from it’s the Afghans’ problem a year ago to “retreat that abandons the Afghan people” would very likely lead to attacks within the United States. At one time in his meanderings over the Iraq war, Mr. Mitt sounded almost dovish, saying in effect that we wouldn’t have gone to war without the believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Now he sees the Iraq muddle as part of a “struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.”
And as for Palestine, Mr. Mitt has gone from characterizing the Palestinians as the main obstacle to peace with Israel to a just give me the reins and we’ll have a democratic, prosperous Palestine living in peace with its neighbor.
As has been the case with his reversals on economic issues, Mr. Mitt offered little in the way of specifics for his new foreign policies. He just wants a stronger, more assertive America in the international arena. Such an America would apparently have no problem imposing its will. So matching the ill-defined goal with the lack of means to get there, we have what might be called George Bush Light, which is about as light as you can get.
As has become his practice over the last week, Mr. Mitt reversed, contradicted, or significantly altered past positions on a variety of items. American involvement in Afghanistan has gone from it’s the Afghans’ problem a year ago to “retreat that abandons the Afghan people” would very likely lead to attacks within the United States. At one time in his meanderings over the Iraq war, Mr. Mitt sounded almost dovish, saying in effect that we wouldn’t have gone to war without the believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Now he sees the Iraq muddle as part of a “struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.”
And as for Palestine, Mr. Mitt has gone from characterizing the Palestinians as the main obstacle to peace with Israel to a just give me the reins and we’ll have a democratic, prosperous Palestine living in peace with its neighbor.
As has been the case with his reversals on economic issues, Mr. Mitt offered little in the way of specifics for his new foreign policies. He just wants a stronger, more assertive America in the international arena. Such an America would apparently have no problem imposing its will. So matching the ill-defined goal with the lack of means to get there, we have what might be called George Bush Light, which is about as light as you can get.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
ETCH-A-SKETCH
Is this election really about distinctly different paths for America? That's what the two campaigns tell us, and for a time back during the Republican primaries it seemed possibly accurate. The Republicans were falling all over themselves telling us how they would get the federal government back in a box, a very small box, and the Democrats were saying no, you shouldn't do that.
But Mr. Mitt has done his etch-a-sketch thing, and now the differences are nowhere near as stark. Mr. Mitt is currently saying that much regulation is good, the financial reform of Dodd-Frank has many fine qualities, his Massachusetts' health care plan was okey-dokey, and he might not be cutting taxes as much as he originally said.
So Mr. Mitt, if you do manage to get elected, which one of your various personas will actually enter the Oval Office? Mr. Mitt the anti-government Tea Partier reincarnate? Or Mr. Mitt, the former centrist Governor of a left-leaning state? Just asking.
But Mr. Mitt has done his etch-a-sketch thing, and now the differences are nowhere near as stark. Mr. Mitt is currently saying that much regulation is good, the financial reform of Dodd-Frank has many fine qualities, his Massachusetts' health care plan was okey-dokey, and he might not be cutting taxes as much as he originally said.
So Mr. Mitt, if you do manage to get elected, which one of your various personas will actually enter the Oval Office? Mr. Mitt the anti-government Tea Partier reincarnate? Or Mr. Mitt, the former centrist Governor of a left-leaning state? Just asking.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
BOB WOODWARD: SEAN HANNITY'S HAND PUPPET?
Last night on Sean Hannity's Rant Against Reason TV show was one of the foremost chronicler's of the American political scene over the last four decades. Yes, Mr. Robert Woodward of Watergate and All the President's Men fame. And what was he doing? Trading conspiracy theories with Mr. Hannity, one of Far Right's most prolific conspiratorilists.
The particular conspiracy being speculated upon seemed to have something to do with the President being off his game at Wednesday night's debate because of some personal problem of great magnitude. But the real story was that the renowned Mr. Woodward was down in the gutter with one of the Right's loons.
Bob, what in holy hell has happened to you? Or were you always this way and some of us just didn't know?
The particular conspiracy being speculated upon seemed to have something to do with the President being off his game at Wednesday night's debate because of some personal problem of great magnitude. But the real story was that the renowned Mr. Woodward was down in the gutter with one of the Right's loons.
Bob, what in holy hell has happened to you? Or were you always this way and some of us just didn't know?
Friday, October 05, 2012
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE. . . .
Yes, the President had a subpar debate performance. Some of it was apparently deliberate: reports were that certain subjects--Mr. Mitt's 47 percent remarks, his tax returns--were purposely put off-limits. And some of it was apparently poor reactions on the part of a President too long in the bubble of sycophantic aides. For example, Mr. Mitt put forth many false numbers and "facts" that were left unchallenged.
But did a subpar debate performance warrant being thrown under the bus by Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, and crowd? Let's be blunt. We all know MSNBC is in the tank for Democrats, just as Fox News is in the tank for Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, or at least it's not something that we can do anything about. But when your guy or gal has a bad night, such as Obama's first debate night, do you pile on to the extent Obama was piled on by his alleged media friends? The vitriol they expressed toward their man was, in the opinion of this observer, way over the line.
Moreover, their criticisms weren't all necessarily valid. Yes, Obama probably should have gone after Mr. Mitt's falsehoods and distortions much more vigorously. But how about stuff like Mr. Mitt's infamous 47 percent remarks? The President chose not to bring that up and consequently got hammered by Matthews and company.
But Mr. Mitt showed the following night in an interview with his buddy Mr. Hannity on Fox that he had a ready answer for the 47 percent faux pas. Mr. Mitt admitted error. He did not deny uttering the damning words. But he said he was "just completely wrong."
So where would that have left Mr. Obama? With having little comeback other than an adult version of the school yard's, "Yeah, well so's your mother." By not bringing up the matter, the President leaves the 47 percent albatross around Mr. Mitt's neck. It is still valid fodder for campaign commercials. It is still ammunition for the next two debates.
The President needs to do a better job in the next debates. But he should do it on the substantive issues. He should aggressively hammer Mr. Mitt on the latter's many incorrect, misleading, and simply imaginary numbers and "facts." But 47 percent, tax returns, Bain Capital, and the like? They are best left to the surrogates and the commercials.
But did a subpar debate performance warrant being thrown under the bus by Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, and crowd? Let's be blunt. We all know MSNBC is in the tank for Democrats, just as Fox News is in the tank for Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, or at least it's not something that we can do anything about. But when your guy or gal has a bad night, such as Obama's first debate night, do you pile on to the extent Obama was piled on by his alleged media friends? The vitriol they expressed toward their man was, in the opinion of this observer, way over the line.
Moreover, their criticisms weren't all necessarily valid. Yes, Obama probably should have gone after Mr. Mitt's falsehoods and distortions much more vigorously. But how about stuff like Mr. Mitt's infamous 47 percent remarks? The President chose not to bring that up and consequently got hammered by Matthews and company.
But Mr. Mitt showed the following night in an interview with his buddy Mr. Hannity on Fox that he had a ready answer for the 47 percent faux pas. Mr. Mitt admitted error. He did not deny uttering the damning words. But he said he was "just completely wrong."
So where would that have left Mr. Obama? With having little comeback other than an adult version of the school yard's, "Yeah, well so's your mother." By not bringing up the matter, the President leaves the 47 percent albatross around Mr. Mitt's neck. It is still valid fodder for campaign commercials. It is still ammunition for the next two debates.
The President needs to do a better job in the next debates. But he should do it on the substantive issues. He should aggressively hammer Mr. Mitt on the latter's many incorrect, misleading, and simply imaginary numbers and "facts." But 47 percent, tax returns, Bain Capital, and the like? They are best left to the surrogates and the commercials.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
DEBATE DO'S AND DON'TS
Success in a high profile political debate in the second decade of the 21st Century has some special do's and don'ts. Read and learn.
) Don't appear professorial or as if you are actually thinking about what you're saying; aggressive, rapid fire recitation of facts, alleged facts, and just plain gibberish is the way to go.
) Don't think being gentlemanly will gain you any points.
) Do view the encounter as a blood-sport contest straight out of "Hunger Games."
) Don't underestimate the gullibility of the electorate's lowest common denominator.
) Do frequently and enthusiastically repeat non-facts and gibberish and cite non-existent studies because the more often you say something, the closer it gets to being true.
) Don't answer the question asked as this will identify you as not in control; establish your authority and independence by effortlessly segueing to your talking points.
) Do plaster a maniacal, somewhat frightening, grin-grimace on your face when your opponent is talking.
) Don't not look at your opponent when he/she is talking as avoidance of aggressive staring is considered by the punditry a sign of weakness.
) Do have a hoard of combative in-your-face flunkies who immediately after the event will magnify your performance beyond any reasonable recognition.
) Don't be a Democrat as your supposed supporters in the punditry will, at the first sign of reasonableness and courtesy on your part, drop you like a hot potato.
) Do be a Republican so you can be less squeamish about distorting the facts and your own past positions and performance.
) Don't be the moderator as you will likely catch as least as much flak as the loosing debater.
) Don't appear professorial or as if you are actually thinking about what you're saying; aggressive, rapid fire recitation of facts, alleged facts, and just plain gibberish is the way to go.
) Don't think being gentlemanly will gain you any points.
) Do view the encounter as a blood-sport contest straight out of "Hunger Games."
) Don't underestimate the gullibility of the electorate's lowest common denominator.
) Do frequently and enthusiastically repeat non-facts and gibberish and cite non-existent studies because the more often you say something, the closer it gets to being true.
) Don't answer the question asked as this will identify you as not in control; establish your authority and independence by effortlessly segueing to your talking points.
) Do plaster a maniacal, somewhat frightening, grin-grimace on your face when your opponent is talking.
) Don't not look at your opponent when he/she is talking as avoidance of aggressive staring is considered by the punditry a sign of weakness.
) Do have a hoard of combative in-your-face flunkies who immediately after the event will magnify your performance beyond any reasonable recognition.
) Don't be a Democrat as your supposed supporters in the punditry will, at the first sign of reasonableness and courtesy on your part, drop you like a hot potato.
) Do be a Republican so you can be less squeamish about distorting the facts and your own past positions and performance.
) Don't be the moderator as you will likely catch as least as much flak as the loosing debater.
OBAMA LIGHT
The general consensus about last night's Presidential debate--from talking heads on both the left and the right--seems to be that Barack Obama got his clocked cleaned. Talking heads are only happy, however, when they and the people they report on are screaming incoherently at each other and everyone is going for the jugular. Being calm and collected, Mr. Obama was a disappointment.
But the real story of the debate is that Mr. Mitt is no longer the far right whack-job of the primaries. Indeed, he has moved to the center, maybe even to the left of center, becoming Obama Light. He now accepts many of the policies of ObamaCare, opposing it in name only. In financial regulation, he has just a few quibbles with Dodd-Frank. As for eliminating the federal budget deficit, yeah, both revenues (that is, taxes) and expenses are subject to adjustment. Grover Norquist must be apoplectic.
And oh yes, Mr. Mitt really doesn't dislike those on the lower half of the economic spectrum.
So where does that leave things? It actually leaves Mr. Mitt in pretty good shape. Tea Partiers and other extreme conservatives have nowhere else to go. And middle-of-the-roaders concerned with Mr. Obama's "strangeness" now have a seemingly attractive option.
So hop onboard the Mr. Mitt bandwagon. With middle-of-the-road policies, a very likely inevitable improvement of the cyclical economy, and a little luck in the international sphere, Mr. Mitt could go down as one of the nation's foremost Presidents. After all, life is fair only for the one percent.
But the real story of the debate is that Mr. Mitt is no longer the far right whack-job of the primaries. Indeed, he has moved to the center, maybe even to the left of center, becoming Obama Light. He now accepts many of the policies of ObamaCare, opposing it in name only. In financial regulation, he has just a few quibbles with Dodd-Frank. As for eliminating the federal budget deficit, yeah, both revenues (that is, taxes) and expenses are subject to adjustment. Grover Norquist must be apoplectic.
And oh yes, Mr. Mitt really doesn't dislike those on the lower half of the economic spectrum.
So where does that leave things? It actually leaves Mr. Mitt in pretty good shape. Tea Partiers and other extreme conservatives have nowhere else to go. And middle-of-the-roaders concerned with Mr. Obama's "strangeness" now have a seemingly attractive option.
So hop onboard the Mr. Mitt bandwagon. With middle-of-the-road policies, a very likely inevitable improvement of the cyclical economy, and a little luck in the international sphere, Mr. Mitt could go down as one of the nation's foremost Presidents. After all, life is fair only for the one percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)