The fine folks at the Public Service Administration have done it again... already responsible for an amazing rework of the 3am ad and numerous other funny YouTube vids to date, they have hit the GOP VettingGate hard right in the funny bone. Wow... that's the worst thing I've ever written. Oh well, here goes:
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Spitting Images
There are some clever people out there in this universe, and some of them spotted a nice similarity between Battlestar and McCain Palin... hence, they created this site for Tigh/Roslin '08. Check it yo.
I've always meant to get more into Battlestar, and I've watched a bit and enjoyed. For now tho, this is really just a post about cleverness
I've always meant to get more into Battlestar, and I've watched a bit and enjoyed. For now tho, this is really just a post about cleverness
Obama, Experience, etc
I must admit that every time I hear the word experience, I think of Dungeons and Dragons. I keep expecting someone to talk about how many orcs Obama's killed. So I'll try to avoid using the word experience. I will say, however, that one of the most important facts about Obama is that he spent less than 2 years in the Senate before announcing his candidacy for President and I will try to articulate why I think this matters.
First of all, Obama's short time in the Senate means that he has a very short record. Of course, most freshman Senator's do, but that's why I don't like voting for them as President. This matters to me because I think that a candidate's record is a good indication of what they will do in office. When people campaign they tend to take courageous positions in favor of America, families and puppy-dogs. In other words, their campaign is not a very good way to tell where they stand. Their record in office is harder to gloss over.
McCain, to use the obvious counter-example, has a very long record in the Senate. I don't agree with much of it, and probably no one does, but it let's me make some judgments about McCain. He's a generally conservative guy, who is willing to make some unorthodox calls and willing to take politically dangerous positions because he thinks they're right. I would think here of everything from immigration reform to opposing sending the Marines to Beruit. Obama simply doesn't have much of a record. I do not know of any serious legislative accomplishments that he's done and, for all his much vaunted post-partisanship, I do not know of any time he broke with his party to do something unpopular (not that people should be doing that just for the sake of looking good to independents). This makes it much harder to judge what he will be like in office. In fact, it seems to me that this is part of his appeal. McCain has been involved in so many pieces of legislation over the years that it's easy to find something you don't like. It's harder to do that with Obama and this lets him seem new and fresh. I think this actually helps him and he knows it.
Which brings us nicely to my second point. Many people that I deeply respect see Obama as a new kind of a politician, hope and change we can believe in. I wish I could see that too, and, sometimes, when he is speaking I do. But mostly I see an incredibly ambitious, calculating political mind. Oh, of course any one who runs for President is, including McCain, but there seems like such a deep disconnect between Obama the Philosopher King and Obama the Politician that I sometimes wonder how he can take himself seriously.
Anyway, I suspect this is just one post in a long and fruitful debate, about what experience is, who has it, and whether anyone can win the presidency without resorting to tactics that appall our better sensibilities. So I'll post in that spirit and look forward to continuing later.
First of all, Obama's short time in the Senate means that he has a very short record. Of course, most freshman Senator's do, but that's why I don't like voting for them as President. This matters to me because I think that a candidate's record is a good indication of what they will do in office. When people campaign they tend to take courageous positions in favor of America, families and puppy-dogs. In other words, their campaign is not a very good way to tell where they stand. Their record in office is harder to gloss over.
McCain, to use the obvious counter-example, has a very long record in the Senate. I don't agree with much of it, and probably no one does, but it let's me make some judgments about McCain. He's a generally conservative guy, who is willing to make some unorthodox calls and willing to take politically dangerous positions because he thinks they're right. I would think here of everything from immigration reform to opposing sending the Marines to Beruit. Obama simply doesn't have much of a record. I do not know of any serious legislative accomplishments that he's done and, for all his much vaunted post-partisanship, I do not know of any time he broke with his party to do something unpopular (not that people should be doing that just for the sake of looking good to independents). This makes it much harder to judge what he will be like in office. In fact, it seems to me that this is part of his appeal. McCain has been involved in so many pieces of legislation over the years that it's easy to find something you don't like. It's harder to do that with Obama and this lets him seem new and fresh. I think this actually helps him and he knows it.
Which brings us nicely to my second point. Many people that I deeply respect see Obama as a new kind of a politician, hope and change we can believe in. I wish I could see that too, and, sometimes, when he is speaking I do. But mostly I see an incredibly ambitious, calculating political mind. Oh, of course any one who runs for President is, including McCain, but there seems like such a deep disconnect between Obama the Philosopher King and Obama the Politician that I sometimes wonder how he can take himself seriously.
Anyway, I suspect this is just one post in a long and fruitful debate, about what experience is, who has it, and whether anyone can win the presidency without resorting to tactics that appall our better sensibilities. So I'll post in that spirit and look forward to continuing later.
Romney
I ought to thank Romney for his speech last night, because it reminded me why I despise him. In part it was the sheer hypocrisy of it all. The son of a wealthy-businessman liberal Republican governor, the graduate of Harvard Law, the long time Bostonian, the liberal Republican governor of MASSACHUSETTS-- railing against East Coast Elites? Then there is the pejorative use of the term "liberal", about which Sullivan has a great post this morning. And of course, the frightening chants of USA! USA! But of any moment in the speech, the one which most completley demonstrates why I hate Romney is when he addressed energy policy. He addresses that old bugaboo known as "dependence on foreign oil" and tells us that our buying oil from overseas represents "the largest transfer of wealth in history."
Mitt makes it sounds like we are simply shipping off billions of dollars to the Middle East. He doesn't mention that we are getting something very valuable in return: oil. Obviously we value oil more than the money we use to pay for it, or else we would not make the purchase. It's called a market, Mitt. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, capitalism? Now, if Huckabee said the same thing I could forgive him, 'cause you don't get the sense that Huck cares much for economics. Romney, however, is a gifted venture capitalist. He gets it. Which means he's just playing politics. Whatever problems I have with Palin, I still would prefer her at the bottom of the ticket.
Mitt makes it sounds like we are simply shipping off billions of dollars to the Middle East. He doesn't mention that we are getting something very valuable in return: oil. Obviously we value oil more than the money we use to pay for it, or else we would not make the purchase. It's called a market, Mitt. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, capitalism? Now, if Huckabee said the same thing I could forgive him, 'cause you don't get the sense that Huck cares much for economics. Romney, however, is a gifted venture capitalist. He gets it. Which means he's just playing politics. Whatever problems I have with Palin, I still would prefer her at the bottom of the ticket.
Experience and Obama
Matt wrote an interesting post a few days ago about Andrew Sullivan and the Obama/Palin experience question that has reared its head full-force this week. I have been bothered by the experience argument against Obama for awhile, so here's a quick download on why this whole thing bothers me. Certainly Barack Obama has a different kind of experience from someone like Joe Biden, John McCain or I dunno... Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi as other examples.
Obama has, admittedly not been in the senate for decades, and he has not worked face-to-face with the leaders of foreign nations for decades. He has not run a company, and he hasn't authored, sponsored and passed dozens of pieces of landmark legislation to make significant progress on specific issues over the course of his years in the Senate (but who does in their first few years as a Senator... has anyone produced an example of such accomplishment upon arrival on the Senate floor?). He has not run a beurocratic machine like state, province, nation, etc. These are all valid points.
That said, what bothers me is the (in my opinion) flawed notion that these types of experience are necessary to success as President or having them (or not) is indicative of ones' "readiness" to lead. This line of reasoning, to me, engenders a sense that you need to follow a prescribed path or clear a certain set of hurdles to be ready, able, etc. This pumping up of a path to power or to qualification for leadership seems overblown to me, and I think Sarah Palin and Barack Obama provide an interesting contrast case to help highlight why that is. If anything, the debate that continues to develop since Ms. Palin arrived on the Republican ticket makes this whole experience line even more patently absurd.
I honestly feel like if you look at Ms. Palin's resume you can see some of the specific types of experience commentators have found lacking on Obama's resume, namely tenure in executive office. That said, you can also find things on Obama's resume that are not present on Palins. One post I saw today compared Obama's chairmanship at the Harvard Law Review (first African American to hold this post) to Palin's minor in Political Science at Idaho State. Some might call this comparison elitist, but the fact remains there is a track record of leadership and accomplishment that backs up the rationality behind Democratic excitement, voting and support for their candidate. The guy isn't, as Hillary suggested back when she was still in it, running based on one speech. He's running based on his interest in and pledge to bring together disparate interest groups and to work for change in new and dynamic ways.
Obama has, in the course of his campaign, show his interest in doing just that. He went to Michigan, a state that is considered very much in contention, and he did not cave to the powerful auto industry, instead taking Detroit to task for their resistance to raising fuel efficiency in American cars and their laconic approach to competition. He went after his own party, challenging them to embrace religious groups and evangelicals as possible allies on issues like poverty, AIDS, and rebuilding our inner cities turning aside years of capitulation to the idea that these groups will always vote Republican no matter what. He pushed for his campaign to have a 50-state grass-roots foundation, and has taken many steps to continue relying on this connection to real supportors and their issues all along the way.
While I absolutely agree with Matt that a good campaigner does not necessarily a good leader make, I think these are three fine examples where you can see the mark of a leader interested in building a movement. This is a guy who doesn't, as the right wing might suggest, simply care about talking pretty. He cares about setting up his campaign and an energizing machine that will push forward towards a new day of progress. Now I am clearly in the tank, plain and simple. I can't deny it, and I wouldn't want to, but that said, I think there is a flawed simplicity to the argument about experience, and while I'm not sure I've fully exposed what bothers me about that, I hope I've provided enough to spark some discussion or response from various quarters. Please, please, please let me know what you think.
Obama has, admittedly not been in the senate for decades, and he has not worked face-to-face with the leaders of foreign nations for decades. He has not run a company, and he hasn't authored, sponsored and passed dozens of pieces of landmark legislation to make significant progress on specific issues over the course of his years in the Senate (but who does in their first few years as a Senator... has anyone produced an example of such accomplishment upon arrival on the Senate floor?). He has not run a beurocratic machine like state, province, nation, etc. These are all valid points.
That said, what bothers me is the (in my opinion) flawed notion that these types of experience are necessary to success as President or having them (or not) is indicative of ones' "readiness" to lead. This line of reasoning, to me, engenders a sense that you need to follow a prescribed path or clear a certain set of hurdles to be ready, able, etc. This pumping up of a path to power or to qualification for leadership seems overblown to me, and I think Sarah Palin and Barack Obama provide an interesting contrast case to help highlight why that is. If anything, the debate that continues to develop since Ms. Palin arrived on the Republican ticket makes this whole experience line even more patently absurd.
I honestly feel like if you look at Ms. Palin's resume you can see some of the specific types of experience commentators have found lacking on Obama's resume, namely tenure in executive office. That said, you can also find things on Obama's resume that are not present on Palins. One post I saw today compared Obama's chairmanship at the Harvard Law Review (first African American to hold this post) to Palin's minor in Political Science at Idaho State. Some might call this comparison elitist, but the fact remains there is a track record of leadership and accomplishment that backs up the rationality behind Democratic excitement, voting and support for their candidate. The guy isn't, as Hillary suggested back when she was still in it, running based on one speech. He's running based on his interest in and pledge to bring together disparate interest groups and to work for change in new and dynamic ways.
Obama has, in the course of his campaign, show his interest in doing just that. He went to Michigan, a state that is considered very much in contention, and he did not cave to the powerful auto industry, instead taking Detroit to task for their resistance to raising fuel efficiency in American cars and their laconic approach to competition. He went after his own party, challenging them to embrace religious groups and evangelicals as possible allies on issues like poverty, AIDS, and rebuilding our inner cities turning aside years of capitulation to the idea that these groups will always vote Republican no matter what. He pushed for his campaign to have a 50-state grass-roots foundation, and has taken many steps to continue relying on this connection to real supportors and their issues all along the way.
While I absolutely agree with Matt that a good campaigner does not necessarily a good leader make, I think these are three fine examples where you can see the mark of a leader interested in building a movement. This is a guy who doesn't, as the right wing might suggest, simply care about talking pretty. He cares about setting up his campaign and an energizing machine that will push forward towards a new day of progress. Now I am clearly in the tank, plain and simple. I can't deny it, and I wouldn't want to, but that said, I think there is a flawed simplicity to the argument about experience, and while I'm not sure I've fully exposed what bothers me about that, I hope I've provided enough to spark some discussion or response from various quarters. Please, please, please let me know what you think.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Obama's Clinton Bump
So before the Democratic convention and during there was lots of talk about the great pains Barack Obama and Joe Biden would need to take in order to woo former supporters of Hillary Clinton. Polls taken around the start of convention showed only 70% or so supporting the Democratic ticket and the pundits were all a buzz. Now, however, it seems that a new poll shows a statistically significant bump in that number, with around 81% of former Hillary supporters planning to vote Obama/Biden. That's a nice jump... and hopefully the start of more good things to come. No word on whether this poll was taken pre or post-Palin.
Does anybody think that will matter? I, for one, honestly don't think the Palin pick is a serious play for Hillary voters. Perhaps for far right voters yes, but the values are just two different, and honestly the two women themselves couldn't really be much more different than they are. Anyway, please feel free to weigh in!
Does anybody think that will matter? I, for one, honestly don't think the Palin pick is a serious play for Hillary voters. Perhaps for far right voters yes, but the values are just two different, and honestly the two women themselves couldn't really be much more different than they are. Anyway, please feel free to weigh in!
That Stuff Will Kill Ya
Via Andrew Sullivan, here's an interesting tidbit from Reason, which I tend to like a lot. They show stuff that is likely to kill ya represented in a cool and easy to interpret graphical thing-a-ma-bobber. Check it, yo!
Are women harder on women?
I saw Christine Todd Whitman on the TeeVee last night and she was talking about John McCain, Sarah Palin and the whole question everybody's been chewing over this week around qualifications, vetting processes, etc.
Ms. Whitman said, among other things, that those who think the women who supported Hillary will suddenly turn around and run after Sarah Palin just cuz she's a lady are basically nutjobs. Whitman suggested that, if anything, women tend to be harder on other women than men are, and if you wanted evidence to back up the idea, check out this editorial in the Baltimore Sun! I think scathing is the proper adjective to describe the article.
Interesting notion here, I think... wondering what folks might think of the idea.
Ms. Whitman said, among other things, that those who think the women who supported Hillary will suddenly turn around and run after Sarah Palin just cuz she's a lady are basically nutjobs. Whitman suggested that, if anything, women tend to be harder on other women than men are, and if you wanted evidence to back up the idea, check out this editorial in the Baltimore Sun! I think scathing is the proper adjective to describe the article.
Interesting notion here, I think... wondering what folks might think of the idea.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
"I want you to find more of those delegates with those unusual hats..."
Just a little quote from Wolfie the Blitzer, one of my most/least favorite characters in the world of Cable News. I have been sitting here doing a little evening time work and watching some ridiculous coverage of the Republican convention and I couldn't help tossing up a post with the amazing quote above. Wolf Blitzer was congratulating Dana Bash on finding a crazy lady delegate on the floor who had created lots of crazy crazy buttons out of cards in her hotel room and afixed them to her cow spotted cowgirl hat... I really can't do all the crazy justice, but now there's some sort of patriotic photo montage going on... god, this is all so distracting. I think I'll need to put it on mute.
Washington Is Starving the World's Poor…
…says a new article by Russell Redenbaugh & James Juliano. It doesn't cover much new ground, but it's worth thinking about. The key idea:
"Ethanol policy mandating that corn and oil become substitutes has forced these two very different supply curves to become one. The much larger global oil market expropriated the supply curve of the U.S. corn market. In short, oil markets now set food prices. This unintended consequence can be seen in global commodity markets."
No doubt Congressional supporters of our ethanol policy would tell us that it "helps American farmers and working families." More evidence, if we needed it, of the wide gulf between political rhetoric and economic reality.
"Ethanol policy mandating that corn and oil become substitutes has forced these two very different supply curves to become one. The much larger global oil market expropriated the supply curve of the U.S. corn market. In short, oil markets now set food prices. This unintended consequence can be seen in global commodity markets."
No doubt Congressional supporters of our ethanol policy would tell us that it "helps American farmers and working families." More evidence, if we needed it, of the wide gulf between political rhetoric and economic reality.
What's in a Name?
I've perhaps dropped a post or two so far about how interesting I find the names Sarah and Todd Palin chose for their children to be. Today, I was pleased to learn more via People Magazine via Andrew Sullivan about the backstory on Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig:
"Sarah’s parents were coaches and the whole family was involved in track and I was an athlete in high school, so with our first-born, I was, like, ‘Track!’ Bristol is named after Bristol Bay. That’s where I grew up, that’s where we commercial fish. Willow is a community there in Alaska. And then Piper, you know, there’s just not too many Pipers out there and it’s a cool name. And Trig is a Norse name for “strength.”
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Signs Signs... I love me some Signs
While we were down in NC I spotted this sign in the town of Chimney Rock (I believe) just adjacent to Chimney Rock park. I love the decayed nature of the sign and the fact that you can still tell it's a Bar-B-Que joint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)