Yep, I thought that would get a response...
You're right, on two counts:
1) I shouldn't have used the term "mainstream" as I did, and this is the second time I've made that mistake. I should have said "average" or "mainstreet" instead. Yes, I know he has ratings... but ratings do not equate to 100% agreement, as you stated.
His high ratings and vast listening/viewing audience do not embrace even the entire spectrum of the conservative movement as it stands now. On no less than four different broadcasts in the last three weeks, I've heard Levin refer to the "back-bencher with the Bible"... and if anyone can give me a better candidate for THAT title than Beck, I'd love to hear it. Both Wilkow and Church seem to have issues with his message, and neither had a WORD to say about the 8/28 event at all.
But, as you pointed out and I have admitted in the past... I don't have to listen. That leads me to your second point:
2) I don't have to listen, and frankly... I haven't been. Here's why:
On Tuesday last, I'm riding to work and tune in to Beck... and the topic of discussion is the real and very serious comparison of the historical event of the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel and modern Obama-era America.
Really? Oh yeah... Beck and a British Rabbi discussed the 1 to 1 comparison of the Babel story and Obama's Washington DC.
I listened for as long as I could... and then switched to Hair Nation in the hope of hearing something that would calm my nerves.
Come on... two weeks before election day, and we are comparing the text of the King James version (questionable in and of itself) of this nearly 4,000 year old morality fable with the modern "liberal and progressive" movement in America? THAT'S the best he can do? THAT'S the basis for the day's effort to show the folly and error of the Democratic agenda in America?
To be honest, I haven't tuned in since. I had some old audio books on CD, and I started listening to those again instead of Beck... or any talk radio at all.
Frankly, I'm better off, I swear.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
I don't know why you love dumping on Beck ...
... other then you know it ticks me off.
Everyone has advice for how to stay #1 ... sheesh. Why do you complain so much about a a guy no one is forcing you to watch/listen to, nor holds any public office which has sway over your life? Do I come in here and complain about Oberhman, or Chris Matthews? True, I've ranted about NPR in the past (and raved, at times), but then they get my local, state and federal subsidies, so I'm paying for that right.
This comedic "rally", if you want to call it that, was pure show business. Why do you afford it the seriousness of even asking whether it was "the counter" to Beck's rally? If anything was, the 10/2/10 rally, set in motion by the Ed Schultz fella on MSNBC, was meant to be a serious "counter." And we already discussed and agreed that be it that rally or Sharpton's, the clear "winner" in terms of a positive message, being apolitical, offering images of a sea of red, white and blue, and not to mention pure numbers (including a Dr. King), was Beck's 8/28 gathering. I watched a grand total of 5 seconds of Colbert & Stewart. Do you know why? I'm in the mood for all things political 3 days outside of this election, and they're comedians. Nothing wrong with what they did, "rally" all you want. I just didn't give a comedy festival a second thought in terms of politics. Beck should no more be concerned about Stewart's "swipes" then Obama is about Jay Leno's monologue, that's all I'm saying.
The "ammo" he hands critics ... The moment he starts walking on egg shells, or in any way curtailing his speech so as to hand Stewart (et al) less "ammo", is the moment he's finished professionally. I'm not claiming Beck is flawless, nor do I agree with every word he utters. Love him, hate him, listen, don't listen, I couldn't care less. But the idea that his message should be crafted so as to offer crtics less "ammo", or make his message more palatable to "mainstream" America seems so counter intuitive to me, a fundamentally flawed observation. "Mainstream" as comapred to what? NBC? The NY Times? My goodness, think about what you're saying - his television show garners more ratings then the entire prime time MSNBC line up (between him and O'Reilly, just their two shows alone, have more viewers then MSNBC and CNN prime time line ups combined). On TV he's second only to Billy O', on radio third to only Limbaugh and Hannity. And bare in mind just 5 years ago he was barely a regional blip on the political radar, his rise has been meteoric. He has, by my rough count, no less then four NY Times best sellers (and they don't even count sales at Wal Mart, Costco or Sams Club!). I'd wager his website has more hits then Stewart's Comedy Central "click here" logo, and that doesn't even count the new Blaze. His combined listening/viewing audience is more than that of the three network news broadcasts, combined. And he sold more books the first week of his new release, "Broke", then the NY Times has in subscriptions, per year. By all accounts HE IS THE MAINSTREAM, or at least as mainstream as it gets. That's why his (& Limbaugh's and Hannity's) contracts dwarf Katie Couric, Brian Williams, et al. This isn't even close brother. With his company "Mercury" he's putting together a mini Rupert Murdoch research, news, printing and broadcasting machine. And while he hasn't quite hit #1 on TV or radio, the fact that he is #2 on television news and #3 on radio, combined with his best sellers, makes him (in my opinion) the over all most influential commentator in these United States.
Again, he ain't perfect. He goes into areas I can't follow sometimes. I think the Revolution, the Civil War, and FDR all posed greater threats to the Republic then what we face now. So he can "get it wrong" sometimes. However, and perhaps it's his comedic ability, perhaps his desire to interject historical aspects into modern political conversation, maybe the passion in his voice, maybe the fat jokes about himself, probably ALL OF IT, but the bottom line is that he has stormed the news and information arena (oh ya, he regularly sells out arenas for live concerts) in a seriously impressive way and filled a void millions of Americans clearly felt was wonting in their news and information world prior. So to suggest that someone with that sort of mega success he should start now to craft his message so as to not hand his critics so much ammo, or that his baggage some how overshadowed a rally that HE was the impetus behind to begin with, or that he is not palatable to mainstream America, well ... that just seems rather laughable to me.
What I really hope isn't going on here is you listening to Beck and actually saying to yourself, "Boy Stewart's going to have a field day with that one", because this would mean you're taking your "valid/invalid argument" cues from Comedy Central ... and that would be sad state of affairs indeed.
PS> the boys love (the elder has read 11 books of 12 in the series) A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Fablehaven. And they went through the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series in about a week, but they laughed the whole time.
Everyone has advice for how to stay #1 ... sheesh. Why do you complain so much about a a guy no one is forcing you to watch/listen to, nor holds any public office which has sway over your life? Do I come in here and complain about Oberhman, or Chris Matthews? True, I've ranted about NPR in the past (and raved, at times), but then they get my local, state and federal subsidies, so I'm paying for that right.
This comedic "rally", if you want to call it that, was pure show business. Why do you afford it the seriousness of even asking whether it was "the counter" to Beck's rally? If anything was, the 10/2/10 rally, set in motion by the Ed Schultz fella on MSNBC, was meant to be a serious "counter." And we already discussed and agreed that be it that rally or Sharpton's, the clear "winner" in terms of a positive message, being apolitical, offering images of a sea of red, white and blue, and not to mention pure numbers (including a Dr. King), was Beck's 8/28 gathering. I watched a grand total of 5 seconds of Colbert & Stewart. Do you know why? I'm in the mood for all things political 3 days outside of this election, and they're comedians. Nothing wrong with what they did, "rally" all you want. I just didn't give a comedy festival a second thought in terms of politics. Beck should no more be concerned about Stewart's "swipes" then Obama is about Jay Leno's monologue, that's all I'm saying.
The "ammo" he hands critics ... The moment he starts walking on egg shells, or in any way curtailing his speech so as to hand Stewart (et al) less "ammo", is the moment he's finished professionally. I'm not claiming Beck is flawless, nor do I agree with every word he utters. Love him, hate him, listen, don't listen, I couldn't care less. But the idea that his message should be crafted so as to offer crtics less "ammo", or make his message more palatable to "mainstream" America seems so counter intuitive to me, a fundamentally flawed observation. "Mainstream" as comapred to what? NBC? The NY Times? My goodness, think about what you're saying - his television show garners more ratings then the entire prime time MSNBC line up (between him and O'Reilly, just their two shows alone, have more viewers then MSNBC and CNN prime time line ups combined). On TV he's second only to Billy O', on radio third to only Limbaugh and Hannity. And bare in mind just 5 years ago he was barely a regional blip on the political radar, his rise has been meteoric. He has, by my rough count, no less then four NY Times best sellers (and they don't even count sales at Wal Mart, Costco or Sams Club!). I'd wager his website has more hits then Stewart's Comedy Central "click here" logo, and that doesn't even count the new Blaze. His combined listening/viewing audience is more than that of the three network news broadcasts, combined. And he sold more books the first week of his new release, "Broke", then the NY Times has in subscriptions, per year. By all accounts HE IS THE MAINSTREAM, or at least as mainstream as it gets. That's why his (& Limbaugh's and Hannity's) contracts dwarf Katie Couric, Brian Williams, et al. This isn't even close brother. With his company "Mercury" he's putting together a mini Rupert Murdoch research, news, printing and broadcasting machine. And while he hasn't quite hit #1 on TV or radio, the fact that he is #2 on television news and #3 on radio, combined with his best sellers, makes him (in my opinion) the over all most influential commentator in these United States.
Again, he ain't perfect. He goes into areas I can't follow sometimes. I think the Revolution, the Civil War, and FDR all posed greater threats to the Republic then what we face now. So he can "get it wrong" sometimes. However, and perhaps it's his comedic ability, perhaps his desire to interject historical aspects into modern political conversation, maybe the passion in his voice, maybe the fat jokes about himself, probably ALL OF IT, but the bottom line is that he has stormed the news and information arena (oh ya, he regularly sells out arenas for live concerts) in a seriously impressive way and filled a void millions of Americans clearly felt was wonting in their news and information world prior. So to suggest that someone with that sort of mega success he should start now to craft his message so as to not hand his critics so much ammo, or that his baggage some how overshadowed a rally that HE was the impetus behind to begin with, or that he is not palatable to mainstream America, well ... that just seems rather laughable to me.
What I really hope isn't going on here is you listening to Beck and actually saying to yourself, "Boy Stewart's going to have a field day with that one", because this would mean you're taking your "valid/invalid argument" cues from Comedy Central ... and that would be sad state of affairs indeed.
PS> the boys love (the elder has read 11 books of 12 in the series) A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Fablehaven. And they went through the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series in about a week, but they laughed the whole time.
Sanity-Fear Rally
I didn't see it live, and I haven't seen much about it since, but the crowd was far bigger than I expected and the coverage has been mild, to say the least. It really does seem to have been apolitical, and not a counter to Beck or Palin's efforts.
Here's where I think they scored a point though...
One bit of coverage I did see was Jon Stewart speaking about how "these are HARD times, but these are not END times." That really seemed to get the people's attention, and I think it was an intentional swipe at Beck, who routinely refers to much of what he sees happening in the American political landscape today as a harbinger of the "end of days"... at least for this Republic.
Jambo said it best some time ago when he said that any comparison between what is happening now in America and those crisis points in American history when the actual Republic itself was at risk are silly, inaccurate, and counter-productive to the conservative cause. Each of the examples that Beck loves to give of the efforts that "progressives" have made to erode the republican nature of our nation are (if they are real at all) FIXABLE, at any point now or in the future. Social Security, the SEC, health care reform, US involvement in the UN, increased size and scope of Federal regulation and cost... all can be FIXED within the scope of only a few years of GOP control of Congress and the White House. This is NOT an unreachable goal, and it should be the focus... the sole focus... of the GOP, so that they can SHOW beyond a reasonable doubt that conservative government WORKS as the founders intended.
Beck's "vision" of what American federal government should be might be a perfectly reasonable view of conservative, small-government planning and execution... but his reasoning behind WHY it is necessary is convoluted and one-sided, and that makes it difficult to sell to mainstream America. God's unhappiness at liberal American policy matters is not a good defense for conservative political goals... but a functioning socio-political and economic machine IS. More money in the common man's pocket IS. Better job opportunity for more people IS a great selling point for the conservative agenda.
Beck's rally might have been about rediscovering America's traditional Judeo-Christian values and ethics, and not about conservative political goals... but that message got lost in the hype that Beck brought with him to the rally, and (probably more so than anything else) that the liberal left attached to him, regardless of intent. What I find most distressing about the whole Beck phenomenon is that he does such a GREAT job of making the libs look like idiots on his radio and TV shows, but (in the same program) will give them more ammunition to use against him tomorrow by talking SO MUCH about how Obama, Pelosi and Reid are working to destroy the Republic, or to unravel the very fabric of our society, when what they are actually doing is making HIS CASE FOR HIM. There is no better evidence that liberal policies and progressive agendas DO NOT WORK TODAY than what is provided by the very liberals and progressives currently in office right now. Why resort to making questionable references to theology, or the lack thereof, within the modern Democratic platform?
I have been so disappointed in the Glenn Beck program lately that I haven't listened to him all week. For the hour I get to hear him, there is about 15 minutes of stuff I LOVE... and 45 minutes of irrelevance and "fluff" that does nothing to further his stated goals. I sure hope that changes Wednesday morning...
Here's where I think they scored a point though...
One bit of coverage I did see was Jon Stewart speaking about how "these are HARD times, but these are not END times." That really seemed to get the people's attention, and I think it was an intentional swipe at Beck, who routinely refers to much of what he sees happening in the American political landscape today as a harbinger of the "end of days"... at least for this Republic.
Jambo said it best some time ago when he said that any comparison between what is happening now in America and those crisis points in American history when the actual Republic itself was at risk are silly, inaccurate, and counter-productive to the conservative cause. Each of the examples that Beck loves to give of the efforts that "progressives" have made to erode the republican nature of our nation are (if they are real at all) FIXABLE, at any point now or in the future. Social Security, the SEC, health care reform, US involvement in the UN, increased size and scope of Federal regulation and cost... all can be FIXED within the scope of only a few years of GOP control of Congress and the White House. This is NOT an unreachable goal, and it should be the focus... the sole focus... of the GOP, so that they can SHOW beyond a reasonable doubt that conservative government WORKS as the founders intended.
Beck's "vision" of what American federal government should be might be a perfectly reasonable view of conservative, small-government planning and execution... but his reasoning behind WHY it is necessary is convoluted and one-sided, and that makes it difficult to sell to mainstream America. God's unhappiness at liberal American policy matters is not a good defense for conservative political goals... but a functioning socio-political and economic machine IS. More money in the common man's pocket IS. Better job opportunity for more people IS a great selling point for the conservative agenda.
Beck's rally might have been about rediscovering America's traditional Judeo-Christian values and ethics, and not about conservative political goals... but that message got lost in the hype that Beck brought with him to the rally, and (probably more so than anything else) that the liberal left attached to him, regardless of intent. What I find most distressing about the whole Beck phenomenon is that he does such a GREAT job of making the libs look like idiots on his radio and TV shows, but (in the same program) will give them more ammunition to use against him tomorrow by talking SO MUCH about how Obama, Pelosi and Reid are working to destroy the Republic, or to unravel the very fabric of our society, when what they are actually doing is making HIS CASE FOR HIM. There is no better evidence that liberal policies and progressive agendas DO NOT WORK TODAY than what is provided by the very liberals and progressives currently in office right now. Why resort to making questionable references to theology, or the lack thereof, within the modern Democratic platform?
I have been so disappointed in the Glenn Beck program lately that I haven't listened to him all week. For the hour I get to hear him, there is about 15 minutes of stuff I LOVE... and 45 minutes of irrelevance and "fluff" that does nothing to further his stated goals. I sure hope that changes Wednesday morning...
Saturday, October 30, 2010
A proud parent, genetics, and other observations...
It's no secret that I have no children of my own. All my relationships with children in my adult life have been as the "stepfather", while most of the men around me have had the experience of being a "natural" father. I'm not complaining, mind you... my experiences as a "stepfather" are just as real and will stay with me just as long as any other experience I could have had... I'm simply setting the stage for my observations.
When Jambo relates stories about his children picking up books or listening to music that he listened to or read as a child, and attributing that to his genetic contribution to the child's makeup, I cannot deny the reality of his sentiments. Until you meet his children (especially if you knew Jambo as a child, which I did), you cannot appreciate how much like HIM they really are.
In less than two weeks, I will have adopted Jacob as my son. His new birth certificate will list me as the father, his name will be my name, and he will, for the rest of his life, be my responsibility as his father. We have had the delicate job of trying to get him ready for the fact that his last name is going to change, and I'm not sure he fully understands why this is happening, he is coming to grips with it.
I don't expect drastic changes in behavior or in how he interacts with me once the adoption is final. In fact, as I have said here in the past, I can't feel any closer to the child, or love him any more than I already do, simply because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gives us a new birth certificate. It is simply a "technicality" that will ensure that Jacob's best interests are provided for in the future, and that less-than-wholesome influences from "blood relatives" are as removed from his life as possible.
However...
I come home from work last night at about 9 pm, and walk into a quiet, still house. No TV, no yelling, no running around... in short, not at all what I expected to walk into. Liz is Facebooking, Katey is Facebooking.... and Jacob is sitting on the couch READING A BOOK.
This isn't homework... this isn't a comic book or a game manual... this is The Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl. Hard-bound, more than 100 pages, and his first AR book on a (far too short) list of recommended reading for a complete grade level AHEAD of the one he's at now. He brought it home from the library yesterday afternoon, read it all afternoon, lay down in bed and read another couple of chapters, and woke up this morning to read some more (he's still doing it now). When I mentioned that Dahl wrote LOTS of books just like Mr Fox, he said he wanted to read them all, and that he had LOTS of room on his shelves for all those books.
It can't be genetics, since I have no biological connection to the child whatsoever (other than the fact that he shares every single sniffle, cough and wheeze that he brings home from school with me). If it isn't genetics, then it must be environmental... something I brought to the table when I became part of his life. I wasn't able to instill the love of books in Jacob's brother and sister as much as I would have liked... but I have high hopes for him.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator... all will be in this house as soon as possible, so that I can further establish and entrench the addiction of reading in my son. I have all the Narnia Chronicles (except Voyage of the Dawn Treader... lost in the storm), and I think they are on-par with what he is reading now. His brother has all the J K Rowling books, and I'm sure the first two will be easy enough for him to absorb... I'm confident that I can succeed here, no doubt about it.
Seriously, though... it's been too long since I have had to think about books at this sort of age level. What else were we reading when we were kids? Second-grade stuff, you know... Narnia, The Hobbit, The Last Mammoth... what else? What other books can I introduce him too that WON'T make him feel overwhelmed?
While I was typing this post... he finished Mr Fox. He has now explained to me at great length how upset he is that the book is OVER. Jacob has now completed more actual reading in less than 24 hours than his 15-year-old brother did in an entire summer (he never even finished Silas Marner... to my utter distress).
What do your kids read?
When Jambo relates stories about his children picking up books or listening to music that he listened to or read as a child, and attributing that to his genetic contribution to the child's makeup, I cannot deny the reality of his sentiments. Until you meet his children (especially if you knew Jambo as a child, which I did), you cannot appreciate how much like HIM they really are.
In less than two weeks, I will have adopted Jacob as my son. His new birth certificate will list me as the father, his name will be my name, and he will, for the rest of his life, be my responsibility as his father. We have had the delicate job of trying to get him ready for the fact that his last name is going to change, and I'm not sure he fully understands why this is happening, he is coming to grips with it.
I don't expect drastic changes in behavior or in how he interacts with me once the adoption is final. In fact, as I have said here in the past, I can't feel any closer to the child, or love him any more than I already do, simply because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gives us a new birth certificate. It is simply a "technicality" that will ensure that Jacob's best interests are provided for in the future, and that less-than-wholesome influences from "blood relatives" are as removed from his life as possible.
However...
I come home from work last night at about 9 pm, and walk into a quiet, still house. No TV, no yelling, no running around... in short, not at all what I expected to walk into. Liz is Facebooking, Katey is Facebooking.... and Jacob is sitting on the couch READING A BOOK.
This isn't homework... this isn't a comic book or a game manual... this is The Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl. Hard-bound, more than 100 pages, and his first AR book on a (far too short) list of recommended reading for a complete grade level AHEAD of the one he's at now. He brought it home from the library yesterday afternoon, read it all afternoon, lay down in bed and read another couple of chapters, and woke up this morning to read some more (he's still doing it now). When I mentioned that Dahl wrote LOTS of books just like Mr Fox, he said he wanted to read them all, and that he had LOTS of room on his shelves for all those books.
It can't be genetics, since I have no biological connection to the child whatsoever (other than the fact that he shares every single sniffle, cough and wheeze that he brings home from school with me). If it isn't genetics, then it must be environmental... something I brought to the table when I became part of his life. I wasn't able to instill the love of books in Jacob's brother and sister as much as I would have liked... but I have high hopes for him.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator... all will be in this house as soon as possible, so that I can further establish and entrench the addiction of reading in my son. I have all the Narnia Chronicles (except Voyage of the Dawn Treader... lost in the storm), and I think they are on-par with what he is reading now. His brother has all the J K Rowling books, and I'm sure the first two will be easy enough for him to absorb... I'm confident that I can succeed here, no doubt about it.
Seriously, though... it's been too long since I have had to think about books at this sort of age level. What else were we reading when we were kids? Second-grade stuff, you know... Narnia, The Hobbit, The Last Mammoth... what else? What other books can I introduce him too that WON'T make him feel overwhelmed?
While I was typing this post... he finished Mr Fox. He has now explained to me at great length how upset he is that the book is OVER. Jacob has now completed more actual reading in less than 24 hours than his 15-year-old brother did in an entire summer (he never even finished Silas Marner... to my utter distress).
What do your kids read?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Here's "liberalism" in America...
If you haven't seen this footage, check it out HERE.
This guy is unbelievable... he can pass this off as "funny" or "comedic", but it is completely clear to me that this is EXACTLY how he feels about this nation and the people that comprise it.
This guy is unbelievable... he can pass this off as "funny" or "comedic", but it is completely clear to me that this is EXACTLY how he feels about this nation and the people that comprise it.
Woops...
I think I failed to answer Ryan's question in his last post. I don't want to make this a fight, so I will do so now.
Ryan asks: "Is it an accurate ad?"
If the message of the ad is that the Dems have FAILED in their promise to fix what was wrong with America between 2006 and 2010, then the answer is NO. If the message of the ad is that drug gangs, urban violence, crime rates, and an open, unprotected border are ALL interconnected and symptomatic of the same general problem in America today, then the answer is YES.
Can't be any clearer than that, can I? The ad wasn't offensive to me, but it made me think that it might not have been as "focused" as it could have been on the question of whether or not the Dems (and specifically Reid himself) have delivered on their promise of a better tomorrow over the course of the last four years.
To give Angle some credit, I have to admit that she has, indeed, taken a page from Reagan's book and used her TV ads to paint a continuous picture about where Reid and the Dems have taken both NV and the US as a whole. When you see ALL her ads run, back to back, you see the picture she is painting, and it is a pretty grim picture. I'd like to see more about her plans than the failures of Reid and the Dems... but it is a pretty good campaign, none the less.
Ryan asks: "Is it an accurate ad?"
If the message of the ad is that the Dems have FAILED in their promise to fix what was wrong with America between 2006 and 2010, then the answer is NO. If the message of the ad is that drug gangs, urban violence, crime rates, and an open, unprotected border are ALL interconnected and symptomatic of the same general problem in America today, then the answer is YES.
Can't be any clearer than that, can I? The ad wasn't offensive to me, but it made me think that it might not have been as "focused" as it could have been on the question of whether or not the Dems (and specifically Reid himself) have delivered on their promise of a better tomorrow over the course of the last four years.
To give Angle some credit, I have to admit that she has, indeed, taken a page from Reagan's book and used her TV ads to paint a continuous picture about where Reid and the Dems have taken both NV and the US as a whole. When you see ALL her ads run, back to back, you see the picture she is painting, and it is a pretty grim picture. I'd like to see more about her plans than the failures of Reid and the Dems... but it is a pretty good campaign, none the less.
Have to share this...
In my last post, I referred to "fear ads" and their failure to win elections... and I wanted to reference some of those ads. So, I went searching on the web and I found THIS SITE.
Wow... a fantastic resource for historic national election ads!
For some of what I wanted to reference, try this one on for size:
Go to 1984, and click on the Mondale ad titled "Arms Control 5" at the end of the list for Mondale. Its a 4 minute plus ad, but nothing does a better job of showing how fear-mongering fails to win elections (if it needs to be demonstrated at all, that is). In it, Mondale actually refers to his vast "international relations experience" and calls the Soviets "our friends". Yep... our friends.
Now, I want to be fair and balanced by saying that there are examples of such ads that did (seemingly) work... and the 1964 "Daisy Girl" ad by LBJ against Goldwater is a pretty good example. There isn't a lot of question about where the message is going in that ad... Goldwater is an extremist that cannot be trusted with America's nuclear future. Good stuff.
Looking at some of the old ads really takes you back... I remember most of the ads from the 1980 campaigns, and even some of the '76 ads... tough to campare them to what we see today. However, the Liberty Park ad for Reagan in 1980 was a biggy, as was the Morning in America campaign four years later.
It's a good site... check it out and see what worked and what didn't, and tell me you don't see parallels between the modern liberal ads and those used by Reagan in 80-84.
Wow... a fantastic resource for historic national election ads!
For some of what I wanted to reference, try this one on for size:
Go to 1984, and click on the Mondale ad titled "Arms Control 5" at the end of the list for Mondale. Its a 4 minute plus ad, but nothing does a better job of showing how fear-mongering fails to win elections (if it needs to be demonstrated at all, that is). In it, Mondale actually refers to his vast "international relations experience" and calls the Soviets "our friends". Yep... our friends.
Now, I want to be fair and balanced by saying that there are examples of such ads that did (seemingly) work... and the 1964 "Daisy Girl" ad by LBJ against Goldwater is a pretty good example. There isn't a lot of question about where the message is going in that ad... Goldwater is an extremist that cannot be trusted with America's nuclear future. Good stuff.
Looking at some of the old ads really takes you back... I remember most of the ads from the 1980 campaigns, and even some of the '76 ads... tough to campare them to what we see today. However, the Liberty Park ad for Reagan in 1980 was a biggy, as was the Morning in America campaign four years later.
It's a good site... check it out and see what worked and what didn't, and tell me you don't see parallels between the modern liberal ads and those used by Reagan in 80-84.
My "angle" on Angle...
... to carry the pun further...
A fair question, so I'll do my best to give a fair answer.
Were the ad about the dangers associated with the gang Mara Salvatrucha and all its violent, illegal activity, I'd say that the ad was topical and appropriate, but the reason for the ad was not to raise awareness of illegal street gangs and their activities in the streets of America. Your previous post makes a solid point in my case...
You made the assumption (based on only two viewings, according to your own words) that the tattooed thugs in the ad were Mexicans affiliated with a violent street gang, and you are familiar with the dangers to innocents and neighborhoods that are menaced by the Mara Salvatrucha gang in the American southwest. As has been brought up before (by members of the View, no less), Nevada has a full 28% of its voting population claiming Hispanic heritage, and 80% of those Hispanics claim Mexican roots.
MS-13 is an exclusively Salvadoran (meaning from San Salvador) gang, and it has been shown that the deportation of members when arrested here in the US has directly contributed to the spread of the gang across the Central American landscape (source HERE). The gang was formed to counter and combat "Mexican" gangs that had already existed in the US and elsewhere since the 1950's. In short, it is NOT a "Mexican" gang, and the men in the ad were reinforcing stereotypes that do no justice to ANY demographic in the American society at large. I'm NOT saying Ryan is wrong... only that Ryan's stated conclusions are evidence that the message the ad is sending is NOT clear, and that this lack of clarity does the conservative message no service if it cannot bring the focus of the voters onto a single, measurable issue.
Were I to have been an advisor to Ms. Angle, I'd have said that the best images to associate with the dangers of an open, unprotected border are images of the human trafficking tragedies that are discovered on an almost daily basis, the drug smuggling and drug-related violence, the fact that this sort of activity chokes our legal system with an additional 30% of arrests, cases and incarcerations in most of the border states, and the cost (to both those crossing illegally and the communities they are crossing into) associated with such a loosely-controlled frontier.
Now, this has all the potential to blow up as another "Titus is being contrary" pissing match, and it doesn't need to be that. I don't live in a border state, and I don't live with the level of pressure here in PA that states like AZ, NV, TX or NM must be living with when it comes to this particular issue... so if Angle's ad is targeted to people (and voters) who DO feel it is a crisis issue, then it is good enough for me and her supporters that she chose to run it. My point was (and remains) that... actions and words used on the View to describe Angle not withstanding... the ad has the potential to detract from the greater message that Angle is trying to make, especially to the majority of the 28% of Hispanic voters in Nevada: the liberal/progressive agenda of the DNC has FAILED, and the GOP/Tea Party message needs to be given a chance.
I can't say this enough... if Angle thinks that illegal immigration is the sort of topic or issue that her election is going to ride on, then the ad could stand as is and serve her well. She has a far better finger on the pulse of NV than I do, and so does Ryan... and that is where the votes will be coming from. NOT from northeastern Pennsylvania. I have simply seen too many "fear ads" in the past backfire with such spectacular effect that seeing one now, in as important an election cycle as this is, gives me pause. I simply feel that the vast arrays of topics and issues that this election is going to address deserves every ounce of attention, and anything that might detract from that is a bad thing.
A fair question, so I'll do my best to give a fair answer.
Were the ad about the dangers associated with the gang Mara Salvatrucha and all its violent, illegal activity, I'd say that the ad was topical and appropriate, but the reason for the ad was not to raise awareness of illegal street gangs and their activities in the streets of America. Your previous post makes a solid point in my case...
You made the assumption (based on only two viewings, according to your own words) that the tattooed thugs in the ad were Mexicans affiliated with a violent street gang, and you are familiar with the dangers to innocents and neighborhoods that are menaced by the Mara Salvatrucha gang in the American southwest. As has been brought up before (by members of the View, no less), Nevada has a full 28% of its voting population claiming Hispanic heritage, and 80% of those Hispanics claim Mexican roots.
MS-13 is an exclusively Salvadoran (meaning from San Salvador) gang, and it has been shown that the deportation of members when arrested here in the US has directly contributed to the spread of the gang across the Central American landscape (source HERE). The gang was formed to counter and combat "Mexican" gangs that had already existed in the US and elsewhere since the 1950's. In short, it is NOT a "Mexican" gang, and the men in the ad were reinforcing stereotypes that do no justice to ANY demographic in the American society at large. I'm NOT saying Ryan is wrong... only that Ryan's stated conclusions are evidence that the message the ad is sending is NOT clear, and that this lack of clarity does the conservative message no service if it cannot bring the focus of the voters onto a single, measurable issue.
Were I to have been an advisor to Ms. Angle, I'd have said that the best images to associate with the dangers of an open, unprotected border are images of the human trafficking tragedies that are discovered on an almost daily basis, the drug smuggling and drug-related violence, the fact that this sort of activity chokes our legal system with an additional 30% of arrests, cases and incarcerations in most of the border states, and the cost (to both those crossing illegally and the communities they are crossing into) associated with such a loosely-controlled frontier.
Now, this has all the potential to blow up as another "Titus is being contrary" pissing match, and it doesn't need to be that. I don't live in a border state, and I don't live with the level of pressure here in PA that states like AZ, NV, TX or NM must be living with when it comes to this particular issue... so if Angle's ad is targeted to people (and voters) who DO feel it is a crisis issue, then it is good enough for me and her supporters that she chose to run it. My point was (and remains) that... actions and words used on the View to describe Angle not withstanding... the ad has the potential to detract from the greater message that Angle is trying to make, especially to the majority of the 28% of Hispanic voters in Nevada: the liberal/progressive agenda of the DNC has FAILED, and the GOP/Tea Party message needs to be given a chance.
I can't say this enough... if Angle thinks that illegal immigration is the sort of topic or issue that her election is going to ride on, then the ad could stand as is and serve her well. She has a far better finger on the pulse of NV than I do, and so does Ryan... and that is where the votes will be coming from. NOT from northeastern Pennsylvania. I have simply seen too many "fear ads" in the past backfire with such spectacular effect that seeing one now, in as important an election cycle as this is, gives me pause. I simply feel that the vast arrays of topics and issues that this election is going to address deserves every ounce of attention, and anything that might detract from that is a bad thing.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Sharron's angle ...
Puns before 8am & caffeine ... always dangerous.
I have a question. Your critique of the Angle illegal-immigration ad brings up an interesting point. I've seen the ad a few times (it just aired seconds before I clicked "new post", ironically enough). And at first I must admit I was rather surprised she put clearly Latino (presumably Mexican) men, complete with neck tattoos & bandannas (posing for a mug shot no less) in the commercial. And true, for about 5 seconds (all other images are of Harry Reid & Mexico's President) those images are juxtaposed against a white teacher & school children (boys and girls). And while I think the Wilson endorsed Birth of A Nation comparison is a stretch, I see what you're saying. For those historically aware it can be reminiscent of ads run in newspapers decades ago, which focused around a disturbing message that the result of black civil rights (lower case "civil", this predates the 60's) would be to put "white women" in danger of hoards of black males, whom were portrayed in these cartoonish images as almost sub-human, roaming the streets. But here's a thought ...
We're big here on "accuracy", right? Statistics, history, etc, we prize getting it "right." Titus even takes this to annoying extremes at times. My point being, throughout the South West there is a huge law enforcement problem with a Mexican street gang named "MS-13", which rose from petty thuggery to a region-wide organized crime syndicate. They don't have the Italian suits, nor old school "rules" about civilians and reporters, but they are organized nonetheless, and viscious. Beheadings, drug running, coyote rings, human sex trafficking. And to the member, they look like the mug shot posing gents in Sharron's ad. They are a clear and present danger to border states, and although their ranks are swollen with legals and non legals alike, their illicit income is unquestionably tied to a porous border. And the majority of residents in these border states do happen to be white. So ... is Angle's ad, while probably in bad taste, not defensible as at least "accurate", if one is to point out the ill effects of a Ried border agenda (or lack of one)? Personally, were I to advise her on the ad, I would have insisted that Latino victims be portrayed as well, as they are undoubtedly the highest percentage victims of these gangs (as is the case in almost any minority dominated crime, they hurt people of their own race the most). But again, I ask, is it not an "accurate" ad?
I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm just curious. In an era when political correctness can cost you your job, shun you from society & prevent common sense anti-terrorism measures, I'm merely trying to establish a demarcation line between that which is clearly bigoted and that which is clearly accurate. I mean, if any politician wants to shoot a commercial about illegal immigration are they required now by the rules of PC to NOT include anyone "Hispanic looking" in the ad? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. It is a border with Mexico after all. Do the rules of PC prevent us from acknowledging even that? Do they preclude the legitimacy of my even asking the question?
I have a question. Your critique of the Angle illegal-immigration ad brings up an interesting point. I've seen the ad a few times (it just aired seconds before I clicked "new post", ironically enough). And at first I must admit I was rather surprised she put clearly Latino (presumably Mexican) men, complete with neck tattoos & bandannas (posing for a mug shot no less) in the commercial. And true, for about 5 seconds (all other images are of Harry Reid & Mexico's President) those images are juxtaposed against a white teacher & school children (boys and girls). And while I think the Wilson endorsed Birth of A Nation comparison is a stretch, I see what you're saying. For those historically aware it can be reminiscent of ads run in newspapers decades ago, which focused around a disturbing message that the result of black civil rights (lower case "civil", this predates the 60's) would be to put "white women" in danger of hoards of black males, whom were portrayed in these cartoonish images as almost sub-human, roaming the streets. But here's a thought ...
We're big here on "accuracy", right? Statistics, history, etc, we prize getting it "right." Titus even takes this to annoying extremes at times. My point being, throughout the South West there is a huge law enforcement problem with a Mexican street gang named "MS-13", which rose from petty thuggery to a region-wide organized crime syndicate. They don't have the Italian suits, nor old school "rules" about civilians and reporters, but they are organized nonetheless, and viscious. Beheadings, drug running, coyote rings, human sex trafficking. And to the member, they look like the mug shot posing gents in Sharron's ad. They are a clear and present danger to border states, and although their ranks are swollen with legals and non legals alike, their illicit income is unquestionably tied to a porous border. And the majority of residents in these border states do happen to be white. So ... is Angle's ad, while probably in bad taste, not defensible as at least "accurate", if one is to point out the ill effects of a Ried border agenda (or lack of one)? Personally, were I to advise her on the ad, I would have insisted that Latino victims be portrayed as well, as they are undoubtedly the highest percentage victims of these gangs (as is the case in almost any minority dominated crime, they hurt people of their own race the most). But again, I ask, is it not an "accurate" ad?
I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm just curious. In an era when political correctness can cost you your job, shun you from society & prevent common sense anti-terrorism measures, I'm merely trying to establish a demarcation line between that which is clearly bigoted and that which is clearly accurate. I mean, if any politician wants to shoot a commercial about illegal immigration are they required now by the rules of PC to NOT include anyone "Hispanic looking" in the ad? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. It is a border with Mexico after all. Do the rules of PC prevent us from acknowledging even that? Do they preclude the legitimacy of my even asking the question?
On Sharron Angle...
I watched the clip of the program (the View) that Ryan referenced, and the context of the "bitch" comments made on the program about the GOP candidate. Tasteless, ignorant and undoubtedly detrimental to the Democratic cause behind the re-election campaign of one Harry Reid.
It was also my first time seeing the ad in question, and I have to say that Ms. Angle made a bad call in approving that particular ad. The points made against the ad are, in my opinion, fairly valid (even if the comments were completely out of line). I have no problem using "hot topic" subjects for political ads, but the use of emotionally driven images that might (in any eventuality) draw the opposite conclusions from the general public are not sound choices to be making less than one week from the election.
I have seen other ads and read other editorials concerning illegal immigration and the level of response and attention that the current Democratic leadership is giving it that do not leave any question as to the intent of the ad or column... while this ad does leave (or create) questions. Images of "all white" and "all female" classrooms opposite images of "all Hispanic" and "all male" thugs and criminals is almost as telling as the infamous images used in the 1915 film Birth of a Nation. This sort of "hype" detracts from the conservative message, in my opinion.
That doesn't negate the fact that the response given by the hostess (who called her a "bitch" numerous times, and wished her to "hell") ALSO detracted from the message of the Democrats... probably far more so than anything Angle's ad might have done. Evidence provided by the $150k raised overnight by those enraged at the comments made on the show is ample enough, I think. My point is simply that the View's mistake doesn't negate the Angle campaign's mistake... it just out-shines it in the public eye.
Broken promises, failed policies, unrealized goals... these are what we need to see evidence of over and over and over again. We need to see specific examples of WHERE, WHEN and HOW the Democrats have failed to provide or meet their promises and goals as defined between 2006 and 2008. We need to see the questions asked that will force average Americans to think about whether or not they are better off today than they were four years ago, and where they want to be tomorrow instead of where they were yesterday.
It was also my first time seeing the ad in question, and I have to say that Ms. Angle made a bad call in approving that particular ad. The points made against the ad are, in my opinion, fairly valid (even if the comments were completely out of line). I have no problem using "hot topic" subjects for political ads, but the use of emotionally driven images that might (in any eventuality) draw the opposite conclusions from the general public are not sound choices to be making less than one week from the election.
I have seen other ads and read other editorials concerning illegal immigration and the level of response and attention that the current Democratic leadership is giving it that do not leave any question as to the intent of the ad or column... while this ad does leave (or create) questions. Images of "all white" and "all female" classrooms opposite images of "all Hispanic" and "all male" thugs and criminals is almost as telling as the infamous images used in the 1915 film Birth of a Nation. This sort of "hype" detracts from the conservative message, in my opinion.
That doesn't negate the fact that the response given by the hostess (who called her a "bitch" numerous times, and wished her to "hell") ALSO detracted from the message of the Democrats... probably far more so than anything Angle's ad might have done. Evidence provided by the $150k raised overnight by those enraged at the comments made on the show is ample enough, I think. My point is simply that the View's mistake doesn't negate the Angle campaign's mistake... it just out-shines it in the public eye.
Broken promises, failed policies, unrealized goals... these are what we need to see evidence of over and over and over again. We need to see specific examples of WHERE, WHEN and HOW the Democrats have failed to provide or meet their promises and goals as defined between 2006 and 2008. We need to see the questions asked that will force average Americans to think about whether or not they are better off today than they were four years ago, and where they want to be tomorrow instead of where they were yesterday.
Cramey's in NEPA
Yep... he landed last night at around 8pm, and is (apparently) sleeping in. Not sure where he is going to set up camp (whether its our house or his girlfriends), but he appears to be here to stay.
We really are going to have to try and get a gathering together sometime in the future... with Cramey and Marshall already here, all we'd need is Ryan and Jambo (and a really big bonfire with lots of beer) and the party is set.
Hope he gets out of bed soon, so he can come over and help me winterize the pool and decks... my list of chores for the day is getting pretty long.
Hehe...
We really are going to have to try and get a gathering together sometime in the future... with Cramey and Marshall already here, all we'd need is Ryan and Jambo (and a really big bonfire with lots of beer) and the party is set.
Hope he gets out of bed soon, so he can come over and help me winterize the pool and decks... my list of chores for the day is getting pretty long.
Hehe...
Enough...
I'm not fighting about Taylor's possible defeat this November... if he looses, it will be because he has maintained an association with a party that does not reflect, support or build upon the principles of conservative values that founded this nation, even though that might not have been the case even ten years ago (for the majority of members, I mean).
I simply don't have the time or inclination to argue my points any further, accept to say that defending a "principled" position in any political machine (but especially in the American political machine) is a very tough thing to do. In a system of government where opposing ideas are supposed to find common ground through compromise, principles sometimes get "watered down"... and this is undeniable. It happened to every single President (good, bad or ugly) that has ever held the Office, and it has happened to every single politician who ever fancied himself/herself as "principled".
Taylor has a solid voting record to show his "conservative Democrat" position to anyone that might want to question it... and that position has, more than most, reflected a kinship with the GOP position when the rest of his party was falling into hype and hysteria. What I am afraid most have forgotten is that we NEED people like Taylor in the Congress, no matter who is in the White House or which party controls the majority... because there is a real opportunity for "compromise" with someone like Taylor and the GOP, but none whatsoever with Dems like Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the "liberal left" that now controls the party. THAT is the essential ingredient to our government's functionality... not a one-sided super-majority of people Ryan can support, with Reagan II sitting in the Oval Office. While that scenario might constitute Ryan's political "wet dream", the chances of its coming into reality and remaining the status quo for more than 18 months is almost nil.
I simply don't have the time or inclination to argue my points any further, accept to say that defending a "principled" position in any political machine (but especially in the American political machine) is a very tough thing to do. In a system of government where opposing ideas are supposed to find common ground through compromise, principles sometimes get "watered down"... and this is undeniable. It happened to every single President (good, bad or ugly) that has ever held the Office, and it has happened to every single politician who ever fancied himself/herself as "principled".
Taylor has a solid voting record to show his "conservative Democrat" position to anyone that might want to question it... and that position has, more than most, reflected a kinship with the GOP position when the rest of his party was falling into hype and hysteria. What I am afraid most have forgotten is that we NEED people like Taylor in the Congress, no matter who is in the White House or which party controls the majority... because there is a real opportunity for "compromise" with someone like Taylor and the GOP, but none whatsoever with Dems like Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the "liberal left" that now controls the party. THAT is the essential ingredient to our government's functionality... not a one-sided super-majority of people Ryan can support, with Reagan II sitting in the Oval Office. While that scenario might constitute Ryan's political "wet dream", the chances of its coming into reality and remaining the status quo for more than 18 months is almost nil.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Dirty Harry
The reports are flying. People claim that as they activate their electronic voting ballot, and look at the screen, Harry Reid's name is already checked (early voting is into its' second week). And one must uncheck it, then select his or her candidate (presuming it isn't Reid). What's more, the technicians brought in to look at the glitch in Clark County (the largest county, containing Las Vegas) are members of the SEIU local - the union most in league with this White House. And other complaints to the NV SoS are coming in - Reid is offering free food and gift cards at get out the vote "rallys" ... just outside of polling stations. Angle says its tantamount to buying votes.
All this amid today's polls showing Angle pulling to 4 points ahead of Reid, which is just outside the margin of error.
Joy Bayhard (sp?), a co-host on a a show I never watch (The View), reportedly challenged Sharron Angle to "run your anti-illegal immigration ads in the South Bronx, and see what happens to you then, bitch." While I wouldn't normally mention such high brow intellectual prose, Angle's reaction to this attack was priceless, and I think a window into her personality. She sent Bayhard a bouquet of flowers, with a card. The card read: "Dear Joy, thank you for the publicity. After your comments we raised $150,000 online. Best Wishes, Sharron." Ha! The View co-host read the note on air. The crowd laughed out loud. They then went immediately silent as Joy retorted, "I want to point out that these flowers were picked by illegal aliens, and they aren't voting for you, bitch." Again with the "bitch", huh? I think the double layered ignorance in that statement speaks for itself.
2012?
ABC News reporting that in the last week the White House has requested any and all communiques between the military (particularly its' brass) and a bakers dozen of potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees. Including Plain, Romney and Haley Barbour. If we think the mid-terms were ugly, I have a feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet ...
All this amid today's polls showing Angle pulling to 4 points ahead of Reid, which is just outside the margin of error.
Joy Bayhard (sp?), a co-host on a a show I never watch (The View), reportedly challenged Sharron Angle to "run your anti-illegal immigration ads in the South Bronx, and see what happens to you then, bitch." While I wouldn't normally mention such high brow intellectual prose, Angle's reaction to this attack was priceless, and I think a window into her personality. She sent Bayhard a bouquet of flowers, with a card. The card read: "Dear Joy, thank you for the publicity. After your comments we raised $150,000 online. Best Wishes, Sharron." Ha! The View co-host read the note on air. The crowd laughed out loud. They then went immediately silent as Joy retorted, "I want to point out that these flowers were picked by illegal aliens, and they aren't voting for you, bitch." Again with the "bitch", huh? I think the double layered ignorance in that statement speaks for itself.
2012?
ABC News reporting that in the last week the White House has requested any and all communiques between the military (particularly its' brass) and a bakers dozen of potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees. Including Plain, Romney and Haley Barbour. If we think the mid-terms were ugly, I have a feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet ...
HA!
My McCain vote?
Clever tact, but hold on - you described Taylor as a "Bund Conservative." That means in voting for Pelosi he voted for someone 180 degrees from his own ideology. McCain certainly isn't exemplary of my own ideology, but come on, he isn't 180 degrees away from a "Bund Conservative" (btw, the lack of support for Ford I described was the internal Dem "primary" if you will, he challenged Pelosi and lost before the full vote was brought to the floor, and lost precisely because people like Taylor - Fords presumed base - conceded support). Writing in Romney's name would have thrown my vote away, true. However, for Taylor to simply abstain, and publicly say why, would have been huge! It would NOT have been simply throwing his vote (or job as it turns out) away. On the contrary it would have been a principled stand, fighting for the identity of his chosen Party. And as Jambo pointed out he gets no support, no big committee chairmanships, nothing from the DNC nor Pelosi. He had nothing to lose by standing up to her. In fact, Ford of TN was demonstrably junior to Gene, so I submit Gene himself could have/should have ran against Pelosi internally.
Surely you understand Jambo's & my point. Taylor is someone we all like. Someone we have all supported and voted for. Someone who's politics/votes reflect our own principles. However, if we can get ALL of that without risking our (S. MS's) congressman caucusing with Pelosi, voting for a Pelosi, or in any way handing the extremists leading the Democrat Party a larger power base in DC, then why not do it? And here is where you enter Jambo's point - Taylor is persona non grata in/to the Dem leadership structure. Meaning the key issues he pursues are going nowhere anyway. A freshman GOP congressman, who isn't at odds with his leadership, wont have that problem. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, this isn't personal, it's business. 2010 forward Palazzo would simply be the more effective advocate for South Mississippi; and with him Mississippians needn't ever worry about their vote translating into power for a Pelsoi type. Surely you see that.
Clever tact, but hold on - you described Taylor as a "Bund Conservative." That means in voting for Pelosi he voted for someone 180 degrees from his own ideology. McCain certainly isn't exemplary of my own ideology, but come on, he isn't 180 degrees away from a "Bund Conservative" (btw, the lack of support for Ford I described was the internal Dem "primary" if you will, he challenged Pelosi and lost before the full vote was brought to the floor, and lost precisely because people like Taylor - Fords presumed base - conceded support). Writing in Romney's name would have thrown my vote away, true. However, for Taylor to simply abstain, and publicly say why, would have been huge! It would NOT have been simply throwing his vote (or job as it turns out) away. On the contrary it would have been a principled stand, fighting for the identity of his chosen Party. And as Jambo pointed out he gets no support, no big committee chairmanships, nothing from the DNC nor Pelosi. He had nothing to lose by standing up to her. In fact, Ford of TN was demonstrably junior to Gene, so I submit Gene himself could have/should have ran against Pelosi internally.
Surely you understand Jambo's & my point. Taylor is someone we all like. Someone we have all supported and voted for. Someone who's politics/votes reflect our own principles. However, if we can get ALL of that without risking our (S. MS's) congressman caucusing with Pelosi, voting for a Pelosi, or in any way handing the extremists leading the Democrat Party a larger power base in DC, then why not do it? And here is where you enter Jambo's point - Taylor is persona non grata in/to the Dem leadership structure. Meaning the key issues he pursues are going nowhere anyway. A freshman GOP congressman, who isn't at odds with his leadership, wont have that problem. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, this isn't personal, it's business. 2010 forward Palazzo would simply be the more effective advocate for South Mississippi; and with him Mississippians needn't ever worry about their vote translating into power for a Pelsoi type. Surely you see that.
Tough crowd...
I can't defend Taylor any more than I already have. He chose his party, and he'll live with the results. But this sure has become a tough crowd to have to play to, let me tell you...
How many times did I hear Ryan bitch about McCain not being the right choice for GOP candidate? A hundred? A thousand? Who did HE vote for? The expedient choice... or the principled one? Wouldn't the "principled choice" have required writing in your preferred candidate? We all had the opportunity to put down a name we wanted, if we didn't like the five or six that were on the ballot... and I know Ryan liked Romney.
You didn't write in Romney's name because it would have been tantamount to throwing your vote away, and gaining nothing for the effort. How do you blame Taylor for doing the same thing?
And for the record, Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House by a unanimous caucus (meaning all Democrats in the House) vote on Nov 16th, 2006. She ran against John Boehner (R-OH) and beat him 233-202 (even party lines of all members present and voting).
How many times did I hear Ryan bitch about McCain not being the right choice for GOP candidate? A hundred? A thousand? Who did HE vote for? The expedient choice... or the principled one? Wouldn't the "principled choice" have required writing in your preferred candidate? We all had the opportunity to put down a name we wanted, if we didn't like the five or six that were on the ballot... and I know Ryan liked Romney.
You didn't write in Romney's name because it would have been tantamount to throwing your vote away, and gaining nothing for the effort. How do you blame Taylor for doing the same thing?
And for the record, Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House by a unanimous caucus (meaning all Democrats in the House) vote on Nov 16th, 2006. She ran against John Boehner (R-OH) and beat him 233-202 (even party lines of all members present and voting).
And now for something completely different...
My last post was the 687th for 2010, which eclipses the record set for the entire year of 2008. And we're not out of October yet!
I thought for sure once Titus started working again that the number of posts would go way down but to his credit, here we are. And we still have mid term elections ahead of us!
Haha!
I thought for sure once Titus started working again that the number of posts would go way down but to his credit, here we are. And we still have mid term elections ahead of us!
Haha!
EDDIE! EDDIE! What have you done for me LATELY?
Multi-peril insurance. Federal relief for the storm. Federal relief for the oil spill. Federal pressure on mortgage reform. These are causes championed by Gene Taylor, causes no one here at the Bund would take issue with.
Since 2006 and a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, how many causes has he carried to the finish line?
None.
Is this Gene's fault? Because he's a bad man, a turd with legs? Not at all. But he has remained with his Party, a Party that has COMPLETELY failed and betrayed him. At any, and I do mean ANY point in time in the last two years he could have changed parties and SAVED his job.
He didn't and he won't.
Which, of his championed causes, is MORE classic Democrat that multi-peril insurance? And has ANY of these Pelosi sessions even SNIFFED the issue? I honestly think it hasn't made it out of COMMITTEE in four years. Is that how you reward a twenty-plus year tenured senior member of the House?
A rookie Republican House member would do JUST AS MUCH, if not more, because a rookie Republican House member is not saddled by a suffocating party agenda.
Since 2006 and a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, how many causes has he carried to the finish line?
None.
Is this Gene's fault? Because he's a bad man, a turd with legs? Not at all. But he has remained with his Party, a Party that has COMPLETELY failed and betrayed him. At any, and I do mean ANY point in time in the last two years he could have changed parties and SAVED his job.
He didn't and he won't.
Which, of his championed causes, is MORE classic Democrat that multi-peril insurance? And has ANY of these Pelosi sessions even SNIFFED the issue? I honestly think it hasn't made it out of COMMITTEE in four years. Is that how you reward a twenty-plus year tenured senior member of the House?
A rookie Republican House member would do JUST AS MUCH, if not more, because a rookie Republican House member is not saddled by a suffocating party agenda.
clarification ...
I was in error, lumping the Pelosi vote in with Obama's election year, that Palazzo video is the 2006 vote (but wasnt there another Speaker vote in 08'?). At any rate, I feel my basic point still stands - "every" Democrat did not vote for Pelosi. Ford of Tennessee ran against her. Taylor had a choice, he took the politically prudent option over the principled one (Ford was clearly the moderate alternative). Taylor knew who she was / what she would advocate. So lets use the 2006 dateline. The scenario he's portraying is in 2006 when it would have been politically difficult (read: publicly) to vote against the extremists in his Party (Pelosi), he caved; but when it was easy, in the privacy of his 2008 ballot for president, he made the principled stand. And he has such "balls" that he kept that principled stand secret for 2 years, disclosing it in 2010 only days before he is likely to lose the only close race of his career. So tell me, how does this timeline clarification help his case?
Would Taylor vote for another Pelosi? Did he really vote for McCain? I dont know. Maybe. And that's Gene's problem. South MS voters DO know what Palazzo would do. Why vote Taylor when you can get all the same (presumably a bit more) conservative stances with the other guy, only without the risk of electing another Speaker Pelosi? You use your Democrat registration/vote to filter the Pelosi's of the Party out. He used his to put one in. The problem isnt that Gene is a Democrat, the problem is he caucuses with them, adding to the power base of the extremists that lead his Party. And I'd dare say Titus, if your Party affiliation directly contributed to the authority/ability of Nancy Pelosi to maintain her control, you'd end that affiliation in a heart beat. Taylor chose not to.
Would Taylor vote for another Pelosi? Did he really vote for McCain? I dont know. Maybe. And that's Gene's problem. South MS voters DO know what Palazzo would do. Why vote Taylor when you can get all the same (presumably a bit more) conservative stances with the other guy, only without the risk of electing another Speaker Pelosi? You use your Democrat registration/vote to filter the Pelosi's of the Party out. He used his to put one in. The problem isnt that Gene is a Democrat, the problem is he caucuses with them, adding to the power base of the extremists that lead his Party. And I'd dare say Titus, if your Party affiliation directly contributed to the authority/ability of Nancy Pelosi to maintain her control, you'd end that affiliation in a heart beat. Taylor chose not to.
Furthermore...
Taylor is on record saying that both the DNC and the GOP are screwed up... and this might be true.
The core principles that I think make a Democrat like Taylor appealing to a conservative American voter (like all of us, for example) is that he is pro-American, and supports the individual freedoms defined and protected within the Constitution. He understands that the Constitution is not a list of "negative liberties", but a definition of exactly what government can and can't do, on a Federal level. It places almost NO limits on the freedoms of the individual, and retains those freedoms (defined or otherwise) as "outside" Government limitation from beginning to end. This is NOT something the DNC seems to feel is true as a whole and as a Party.
I think Taylor is an excellent example of the modern "neo-con" politician. He truly fits very nicely into the same model that I think we hold up here at the Bund. In short, I think he'd agree with everything we say HERE at the Bund, while the vast majority of Democrats today would see us as fringe right-wing reactionaries... just minutes away from donning white robes or Nazi-esque uniforms and having marches and rallies to burn either crosses or books. His view on the role of government may differ from ours in detail or minutia... but I'm pretty confident that he is far closer to Reagan's ideas than he is to anyone currently holding a position of authority within the DNC.
I, too, maintain my Democratic voting registration and Party membership (as does Taylor), but I too do not feel I can honestly support the vast majority of candidates that run from the DNC side of any ticket. I have continued this registration so that I have a voice in who the DNC picks at a local, State and Federal level to run in general elections... otherwise, I'd have changed my affiliation ages ago. Does my continued "Democrat" status exclude my opinion from those others offered here at the Bund? Should Taylor's be excluded based solely on his Party affiliation? Isn't that counter to all of our previously stated positions that what matters is the general election results, and how we conduct ourselves within them?
The core principles that I think make a Democrat like Taylor appealing to a conservative American voter (like all of us, for example) is that he is pro-American, and supports the individual freedoms defined and protected within the Constitution. He understands that the Constitution is not a list of "negative liberties", but a definition of exactly what government can and can't do, on a Federal level. It places almost NO limits on the freedoms of the individual, and retains those freedoms (defined or otherwise) as "outside" Government limitation from beginning to end. This is NOT something the DNC seems to feel is true as a whole and as a Party.
I think Taylor is an excellent example of the modern "neo-con" politician. He truly fits very nicely into the same model that I think we hold up here at the Bund. In short, I think he'd agree with everything we say HERE at the Bund, while the vast majority of Democrats today would see us as fringe right-wing reactionaries... just minutes away from donning white robes or Nazi-esque uniforms and having marches and rallies to burn either crosses or books. His view on the role of government may differ from ours in detail or minutia... but I'm pretty confident that he is far closer to Reagan's ideas than he is to anyone currently holding a position of authority within the DNC.
I, too, maintain my Democratic voting registration and Party membership (as does Taylor), but I too do not feel I can honestly support the vast majority of candidates that run from the DNC side of any ticket. I have continued this registration so that I have a voice in who the DNC picks at a local, State and Federal level to run in general elections... otherwise, I'd have changed my affiliation ages ago. Does my continued "Democrat" status exclude my opinion from those others offered here at the Bund? Should Taylor's be excluded based solely on his Party affiliation? Isn't that counter to all of our previously stated positions that what matters is the general election results, and how we conduct ourselves within them?
I'm confused...
Taylor voted for Pelosi (along with every other Democrat in Congress) two weeks after the 2006 midterm elections (Nov 16th)... Obama didn't end up on a ballot until November of 2008. He couldn't have voted for Pelosi after having voted for McCain. How can this be symptomatic of desperation?
I'm not denying that Taylor is desperate. Palazzo is running on issues and principles, and while I think Taylor is a very principled man... his Party isn't, and only he maintains that Party affiliation. No one is forcing him to remain Democrat. As Jambo pointed out, Taylor is almost untouchable on his voting record... but the actions and policies of his Party are going to defeat him, not his own personal actions and policies.
Many places in the country will see the "Blue Dog" and conservative Democrats lose to Republicans for this very reason, while the radical, far-left Democrats will retain their seats and simply wait to find that time when they can make a bid for majority status again. The dissatisfaction with the DNC is at an all-time high, and those candidates or incumbents that are "middle-of-the-road" will suffer the most for it.
I'm not denying that Taylor is desperate. Palazzo is running on issues and principles, and while I think Taylor is a very principled man... his Party isn't, and only he maintains that Party affiliation. No one is forcing him to remain Democrat. As Jambo pointed out, Taylor is almost untouchable on his voting record... but the actions and policies of his Party are going to defeat him, not his own personal actions and policies.
Many places in the country will see the "Blue Dog" and conservative Democrats lose to Republicans for this very reason, while the radical, far-left Democrats will retain their seats and simply wait to find that time when they can make a bid for majority status again. The dissatisfaction with the DNC is at an all-time high, and those candidates or incumbents that are "middle-of-the-road" will suffer the most for it.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Steven Palazzo reads the Bund...
Or someone on his advisory staff does.
When we discussed the blueprint for electing anyone in 2010 the basic strategy was, "Let's look at the voting record." No attacks, no personal crap, nothing requiring background checks or private investigators. Public records and some C-Span viewing, that's it.
Go to Palazzo's web site and the first video he has linked is the 2006 vote for Speaker. Deciding vote cast by.... Gene Taylor.
And for the most part, his ENTIRE campaign has been on that. He has NOT ONCE attacked Taylor on a personal level, or even ANY OTHER VOTE. Just that one. All the other attacks Palazzo has made are against Pelosi, Reid, a liberal Congressional agenda, Obama's massive spending and so on.
But that ONE VOTE will sink Taylor.
Which is sad because I liked the guy. A lot. But when most of my co-workers, (and the casino industry is NOT the most conservative group of employees in the world) are talking about registering to vote and polling locations and Palazzo rallies on the town green... That's saying something.
We should get some credit for this strategy. A comment, maybe, a little "Thank you" maybe?
When we discussed the blueprint for electing anyone in 2010 the basic strategy was, "Let's look at the voting record." No attacks, no personal crap, nothing requiring background checks or private investigators. Public records and some C-Span viewing, that's it.
Go to Palazzo's web site and the first video he has linked is the 2006 vote for Speaker. Deciding vote cast by.... Gene Taylor.
And for the most part, his ENTIRE campaign has been on that. He has NOT ONCE attacked Taylor on a personal level, or even ANY OTHER VOTE. Just that one. All the other attacks Palazzo has made are against Pelosi, Reid, a liberal Congressional agenda, Obama's massive spending and so on.
But that ONE VOTE will sink Taylor.
Which is sad because I liked the guy. A lot. But when most of my co-workers, (and the casino industry is NOT the most conservative group of employees in the world) are talking about registering to vote and polling locations and Palazzo rallies on the town green... That's saying something.
We should get some credit for this strategy. A comment, maybe, a little "Thank you" maybe?
I report, I decide.
I don't think Taylor has balls at all. This wreaks of desperation.
Can I ask a rather obvious question here? How does one vote "no" on Obama, then "yes" on Pelosi within weeks of eachother? What does that say, Gene? Principle only triumphs when no one can see your vote? Don't insult my intelligence sir.
7 days outside of this election for Taylor to admit ("claim" would be more accurate) he voted for McCain is the action of a desperate man (& I voted for Taylor in previous elections by the way). This is the proverbial kitchen sink being thrown in his attempt to separate himself from the most dreaded American trio since "lions, tigers & bears" - Obama, Pelosi, & Reid. And by the way, Ike Skelton is by no means going to oppose the Obama agenda. Had Gene the gonads you assign him he would have stepped up during the Obamacare debate, and countless others, and said as one of the three senior members of the Blue-Dog caucus, we simply must oppose our President (and the Speaker). And publicly, repeatedly, laid out why. True, by voting "no" he didn't help it pass, but he didn't help defeat it either. He could have, with his other 2 senior blue-dog colleagues, have made an impact had they jumped into the national debate. The Blue-Dogs did it in a run up to the Democrat presidential nomination of 92', and made Clinton (as he went begging for their support) a real contender. They CAN have an impact if they step up. They didn't. Taylor didn't. Palazzo has an ad showing Gene as THE vote which put Pelosi over the top to win her Party's nod as Speaker. Taylor has been in congress for years. Either he didn't know how radical she was and should have, or he did know and voted for her anyway. And when you add to this that Rep Ford (D) TN, himself a blue-dog, ran against Pelosi for speaker and Taylor went with Party over principle, well ... don't tell me 7 days outside of your only close election, "hey guy I didn't even vote for Obama", in some pathetically transparent attempt to prove your conservative bonifides with an example no one can either prove nor disprove. Bottom line: You had a chance to prove your independence, to "officially" regret your Pelosi vote, by publicly opposing her and the White House, by forcefully jumping into the national discourse. I consume news and information into the upper 1/10th of 1 percentile of Americans Mr. Taylor, and I haven't seen your face nor heard your voice once. That is until this week, when in a last ditch effort you disclosed your two year old personal presidential vote. Instead you have just quietly voted "no", and hoped no one would remember your putting Party above principle.
And this dovetails into another point I wanted to make 7 days outside of a monumental midterm election. Many moons ago I posited the idea that Tip O'Neal's famous quip, "All politics are local", had been turned on its head. No more evidence need be presented then what's happening with Gene Taylor. By 2010 the Speaker of the House (if they choose to exercise it) has a bully pulpit so loud, so visible that it runs a close second only to the President himself (domestically). I contend this trend started with Gingrich simultaneous to the dot.com/information explosion. America came out of the 1990's with a plethora of talk radio programs, cable news stations, and the limitless sources of the Internet. No more would 5 or 6 guys between DC and New York decide what news was. And the technology allowed the official "record" to expand from a vote cast to every speech, Town Hall meeting, and gathering a public official attended. And in an era where the Speaker can be so visible, such a public presence, number 2 in the triumvirate of faces that represent your Party, it's not enough to simply say "I wont vote for her again" (and only when you're losing no less). If she no longer represented you nor your constituents you should have publicly joined the fight to stop her before your reelection campaign. You sir should have been on the front lines opposing this, as a sane voice inside of the Democrat party, joining the fray in order to prevent legislation you thought harmful to S. MS and the nation. THAT would have ensured your reelection and put the necessary distance between yourself and Pelosi, proving your independence from a Party bent on steering drastically Left. If she uses her bully pulpit via new media and technology to raise her profile and corrupt yours, then you use it right back to clear it ... yet you were no where to be found. As a former supporter of yours I can't tell you how disappointing that was. And in this golden era of information where news is literally at the consumers fingertips 24 hours a day, your silence will define your loyalty just as surely as any action. Quite frankly Palazzo need make only one case - we can't take the chance he'd vote for another Pelosi. And Mr. Taylor, he's right.
Can I ask a rather obvious question here? How does one vote "no" on Obama, then "yes" on Pelosi within weeks of eachother? What does that say, Gene? Principle only triumphs when no one can see your vote? Don't insult my intelligence sir.
7 days outside of this election for Taylor to admit ("claim" would be more accurate) he voted for McCain is the action of a desperate man (& I voted for Taylor in previous elections by the way). This is the proverbial kitchen sink being thrown in his attempt to separate himself from the most dreaded American trio since "lions, tigers & bears" - Obama, Pelosi, & Reid. And by the way, Ike Skelton is by no means going to oppose the Obama agenda. Had Gene the gonads you assign him he would have stepped up during the Obamacare debate, and countless others, and said as one of the three senior members of the Blue-Dog caucus, we simply must oppose our President (and the Speaker). And publicly, repeatedly, laid out why. True, by voting "no" he didn't help it pass, but he didn't help defeat it either. He could have, with his other 2 senior blue-dog colleagues, have made an impact had they jumped into the national debate. The Blue-Dogs did it in a run up to the Democrat presidential nomination of 92', and made Clinton (as he went begging for their support) a real contender. They CAN have an impact if they step up. They didn't. Taylor didn't. Palazzo has an ad showing Gene as THE vote which put Pelosi over the top to win her Party's nod as Speaker. Taylor has been in congress for years. Either he didn't know how radical she was and should have, or he did know and voted for her anyway. And when you add to this that Rep Ford (D) TN, himself a blue-dog, ran against Pelosi for speaker and Taylor went with Party over principle, well ... don't tell me 7 days outside of your only close election, "hey guy I didn't even vote for Obama", in some pathetically transparent attempt to prove your conservative bonifides with an example no one can either prove nor disprove. Bottom line: You had a chance to prove your independence, to "officially" regret your Pelosi vote, by publicly opposing her and the White House, by forcefully jumping into the national discourse. I consume news and information into the upper 1/10th of 1 percentile of Americans Mr. Taylor, and I haven't seen your face nor heard your voice once. That is until this week, when in a last ditch effort you disclosed your two year old personal presidential vote. Instead you have just quietly voted "no", and hoped no one would remember your putting Party above principle.
And this dovetails into another point I wanted to make 7 days outside of a monumental midterm election. Many moons ago I posited the idea that Tip O'Neal's famous quip, "All politics are local", had been turned on its head. No more evidence need be presented then what's happening with Gene Taylor. By 2010 the Speaker of the House (if they choose to exercise it) has a bully pulpit so loud, so visible that it runs a close second only to the President himself (domestically). I contend this trend started with Gingrich simultaneous to the dot.com/information explosion. America came out of the 1990's with a plethora of talk radio programs, cable news stations, and the limitless sources of the Internet. No more would 5 or 6 guys between DC and New York decide what news was. And the technology allowed the official "record" to expand from a vote cast to every speech, Town Hall meeting, and gathering a public official attended. And in an era where the Speaker can be so visible, such a public presence, number 2 in the triumvirate of faces that represent your Party, it's not enough to simply say "I wont vote for her again" (and only when you're losing no less). If she no longer represented you nor your constituents you should have publicly joined the fight to stop her before your reelection campaign. You sir should have been on the front lines opposing this, as a sane voice inside of the Democrat party, joining the fray in order to prevent legislation you thought harmful to S. MS and the nation. THAT would have ensured your reelection and put the necessary distance between yourself and Pelosi, proving your independence from a Party bent on steering drastically Left. If she uses her bully pulpit via new media and technology to raise her profile and corrupt yours, then you use it right back to clear it ... yet you were no where to be found. As a former supporter of yours I can't tell you how disappointing that was. And in this golden era of information where news is literally at the consumers fingertips 24 hours a day, your silence will define your loyalty just as surely as any action. Quite frankly Palazzo need make only one case - we can't take the chance he'd vote for another Pelosi. And Mr. Taylor, he's right.
The Honorable Mr. Taylor...
The guy has balls... you have to give him that.
Seems Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) actually went on the record and said he voted for McCain in '08 rather than his own party's pick, Obama. He seems to have thought it better to vote "for the devil you know". He has also stated publicly that he will not support Pelosi for another term as Speaker of the House, and will give his support to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) instead.
All this seems to be in response to the Palazzo campaign's questions about Taylor's past voting record... but if all you can point to is his Presidential pick and his vote for Speaker of the House and call THAT his support of "liberal agendas", then perhaps the GOP campaign in South Mississippi is having more trouble than anyone thought. With Taylor coming "out" and admitting to having voted for a GOP Presidential candidate, after he voted (in 2006) for Pelosi as Speaker, I'm pretty sure he is sending the message to his constituents that his vote reflects their needs and opinions.
What does it say about the Democratic Party in conservative America, though... to have life-long Dems admit that they cannot and will not support the two largest figures in their party today? And they thought the GOP was in chaos after the '08 elections? Please...
Seems Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) actually went on the record and said he voted for McCain in '08 rather than his own party's pick, Obama. He seems to have thought it better to vote "for the devil you know". He has also stated publicly that he will not support Pelosi for another term as Speaker of the House, and will give his support to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) instead.
All this seems to be in response to the Palazzo campaign's questions about Taylor's past voting record... but if all you can point to is his Presidential pick and his vote for Speaker of the House and call THAT his support of "liberal agendas", then perhaps the GOP campaign in South Mississippi is having more trouble than anyone thought. With Taylor coming "out" and admitting to having voted for a GOP Presidential candidate, after he voted (in 2006) for Pelosi as Speaker, I'm pretty sure he is sending the message to his constituents that his vote reflects their needs and opinions.
What does it say about the Democratic Party in conservative America, though... to have life-long Dems admit that they cannot and will not support the two largest figures in their party today? And they thought the GOP was in chaos after the '08 elections? Please...
Monday, October 25, 2010
Here's some interesting insight...
I read this article this morning from the UK, and found it rather refreshing in its perspective.
This guy (Michael Barone) has a very clear and understandable historical perspective. He compares the popularity of Obama's message as reflected in his election numbers to that of FDR and LBJ (the only two modern Democratic Presidents who won by a larger margin of victory than Obama did), but uses the current mood of anti-Democratic opinion to show that the "experiment" in progressive policies has failed utterly.
Significant losses for the Party in the White House during the midterm elections are fairly common place. Nearly every President has seen them, especially in the House, with the largest and most impacting losses of the modern era happening in 1986, 1994, and 2006. I think Mr. Barone is right, though, and this cycle is not simply another bump-in-the-road for the Dems. This is America voicing its opinion on failed policy.
His comparing the health care reform legislation to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 is a good one. Few in America had any idea what was in the bills that went to the floors of Congress, and it wasn't even published until it was signed into law (which is completely contrary to the promise of "transparency" that Obama made during his run for office). It has been seen as government working in spite of the people's will rather than in the name of the people... and much can be said in the comparison to the 1854 Act which directly contributed to the Civil War in 1861. Health care reform and the manner in which it became law is the best and biggest example of liberal and progressive elitism in America, where the elected officials do not feel the voting public is "smart enough" to make the choices... so the choices are made for them, instead of by them.
I also like the comparisons to FDR and New Deal (yes, those dreaded words appear again...). Mr. Barone makes the case that New Deal might have COST the Dems and FDR their place in power by 1940... had war not broken out across Europe and the Pacific, prompting America to re-elect the "unflappable" President who simply didn't bend, no matter how strong the wind in his face. I have no problem with this view, and can even see myself defending it. By 1938, the Dems had lost control of Congress and popular opinion was definitely turning away from large budgetary spending and moving towards lower taxes. Could the case be made that in 1932, the public was calling for a "government fix" and it was delivered in the first four years, but became burdensome and unwelcome after eight? To argue that the "Three Rs" had an immediate impact seems silly, but the comparison doesn't carry into the Great Recession, does it? There was no immediate "relief" from fiscal burdens within the stimulus bill, and the "recovery" promised was counter to almost everything Obama had promised prior to his election. "Reform" has been seen to be something the DNC manages behind closed doors with no transparency at all... and thus becomes antithetical to the entire "Hope and Change" promise that Obama ran on.
Nothing about the Obama Administration has been "fiscally sound" by any stretch of the imagination, and the percentage of government spending as a portion of GDP is so far above what even FDR managed as to remove the comparison altogether. In addition to that, it now seems like a uniform, across-the-board increase in all our income tax rates is inevitable... and FDR at the very least knew enough not to promise lower taxes (or even the same tax rate) in light of what he intended to do. He raised the rates across the board... and told everyone that was going to happen. I'm not defending the move, only stating a fact. Compare that with the "promise" that the average American taxpayer wouldn't see his taxes increase by even "one dime" from Obama... and tell me the analogy stands.
This guy (Michael Barone) has a very clear and understandable historical perspective. He compares the popularity of Obama's message as reflected in his election numbers to that of FDR and LBJ (the only two modern Democratic Presidents who won by a larger margin of victory than Obama did), but uses the current mood of anti-Democratic opinion to show that the "experiment" in progressive policies has failed utterly.
Significant losses for the Party in the White House during the midterm elections are fairly common place. Nearly every President has seen them, especially in the House, with the largest and most impacting losses of the modern era happening in 1986, 1994, and 2006. I think Mr. Barone is right, though, and this cycle is not simply another bump-in-the-road for the Dems. This is America voicing its opinion on failed policy.
His comparing the health care reform legislation to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 is a good one. Few in America had any idea what was in the bills that went to the floors of Congress, and it wasn't even published until it was signed into law (which is completely contrary to the promise of "transparency" that Obama made during his run for office). It has been seen as government working in spite of the people's will rather than in the name of the people... and much can be said in the comparison to the 1854 Act which directly contributed to the Civil War in 1861. Health care reform and the manner in which it became law is the best and biggest example of liberal and progressive elitism in America, where the elected officials do not feel the voting public is "smart enough" to make the choices... so the choices are made for them, instead of by them.
I also like the comparisons to FDR and New Deal (yes, those dreaded words appear again...). Mr. Barone makes the case that New Deal might have COST the Dems and FDR their place in power by 1940... had war not broken out across Europe and the Pacific, prompting America to re-elect the "unflappable" President who simply didn't bend, no matter how strong the wind in his face. I have no problem with this view, and can even see myself defending it. By 1938, the Dems had lost control of Congress and popular opinion was definitely turning away from large budgetary spending and moving towards lower taxes. Could the case be made that in 1932, the public was calling for a "government fix" and it was delivered in the first four years, but became burdensome and unwelcome after eight? To argue that the "Three Rs" had an immediate impact seems silly, but the comparison doesn't carry into the Great Recession, does it? There was no immediate "relief" from fiscal burdens within the stimulus bill, and the "recovery" promised was counter to almost everything Obama had promised prior to his election. "Reform" has been seen to be something the DNC manages behind closed doors with no transparency at all... and thus becomes antithetical to the entire "Hope and Change" promise that Obama ran on.
Nothing about the Obama Administration has been "fiscally sound" by any stretch of the imagination, and the percentage of government spending as a portion of GDP is so far above what even FDR managed as to remove the comparison altogether. In addition to that, it now seems like a uniform, across-the-board increase in all our income tax rates is inevitable... and FDR at the very least knew enough not to promise lower taxes (or even the same tax rate) in light of what he intended to do. He raised the rates across the board... and told everyone that was going to happen. I'm not defending the move, only stating a fact. Compare that with the "promise" that the average American taxpayer wouldn't see his taxes increase by even "one dime" from Obama... and tell me the analogy stands.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The changing face of midwest politics...
No one seems to watch these midwestern election races... but they are some telling contests, I think.
Look at Minnesota's gubernatorial race:
Pawlenty isn't running, so the GOP nod went to Tom Emmer (who won the primary by a shocking landslide... 81+% of the Republican vote). This shows that the message Emmer is sending to GOP voters is pretty clear and nearly universally accepted.
The DFL party had a closer contest, with Mark Dayton taking the primary. Former US Senator and State AG, Dayton is a protege of Hubert Hunphries and Walter Mondale, and seems to be carrying the same torch that Paul Wellstone carried when he was Senator from MN. Dayton was only Senator for one six-year term... and the torch passed to Klobachur (sp?) who is the current DFL Senator along with Franken.
Dayton has a substantial lead over Emmer, according to nearly every poll running. National discontent not withstanding... Minnesota seems to remain a bastion of Democratic Farm-Labor support and pretty dedicated DNC voters. I'm really not sure that Pawlenty's poor management of the State's coffers didnt set back the chances of a GOP Governor's mansion by another 4 years, at least.
What could possibly contribute to the popularity of a party like the DFL in a place like Minnesota? A very rural State, with only the one major metropolitan area (the Twin Cities), and a massive state-wide dependence on agricultural business and production, how does one explain the fascination with a political party that detracts or marginalizes "independent" actions and freedoms and choices as much as the DFL does?
Look at Minnesota's gubernatorial race:
Pawlenty isn't running, so the GOP nod went to Tom Emmer (who won the primary by a shocking landslide... 81+% of the Republican vote). This shows that the message Emmer is sending to GOP voters is pretty clear and nearly universally accepted.
The DFL party had a closer contest, with Mark Dayton taking the primary. Former US Senator and State AG, Dayton is a protege of Hubert Hunphries and Walter Mondale, and seems to be carrying the same torch that Paul Wellstone carried when he was Senator from MN. Dayton was only Senator for one six-year term... and the torch passed to Klobachur (sp?) who is the current DFL Senator along with Franken.
Dayton has a substantial lead over Emmer, according to nearly every poll running. National discontent not withstanding... Minnesota seems to remain a bastion of Democratic Farm-Labor support and pretty dedicated DNC voters. I'm really not sure that Pawlenty's poor management of the State's coffers didnt set back the chances of a GOP Governor's mansion by another 4 years, at least.
What could possibly contribute to the popularity of a party like the DFL in a place like Minnesota? A very rural State, with only the one major metropolitan area (the Twin Cities), and a massive state-wide dependence on agricultural business and production, how does one explain the fascination with a political party that detracts or marginalizes "independent" actions and freedoms and choices as much as the DFL does?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
I agree...
I can give the President the benefit of the doubt and say that he does not favor placing innocents or allies in harm's way, but I also believe that ANYTHING that makes Republicans look "bad" right now is a good thing for him... and these "facts" (which they are not) released in these leaked documents are all geared to make those that support (now or in the past) the Iraq and Afghan conflicts look "bad".
I'm no fan of spin, but if it needed to be done with less than two weeks to election day, then the spin should be that this Administration has no vested interest in stopping the leaks or punishing those responsible, and the President's lack of attention to the issue is ample evidence of that.
As tragic as the information that is determined to be accurate in the leaked documents may be... the question remains: how much worse could it have been had nothing been done to remove the regimes of both the Taliban and the Ba'athists. How many more thousands would have died at the hands of Hussein or bin Laden? How many more dissidents in Kabul or Baghdad would have been tortured or killed? How much more repression and tyranny would these people have had to suffer?
Again, I am firm in the belief these deaths (purportedly documented in the leaked papers) are NOT the fault of the American military, until such time as they can be determined to be such under every letter of the laws of the United States. They are, in fact, the fault of the Taliban and/or Saddam Hussein through the conscious and deliberate choices of their policies and actions. The unfortunate but very real fact that civilians face danger and hardship in a war-time environment is ever present, and these civilians were placed in that situation by the tyrannical regimes that we removed, and NOT by the actions or policies of the United States government or the US military and its allies. That is true today, just as it was in 1945 when we TOLD the Imperial Japanese government that city after city on the main islands of Japan would be destroyed until that government surrendered unconditionally to the Allied forces, or when the civilian populations of Georgia and the Carolinas suffered at the hands of General W T Sherman as he marched 135,000 Union troops across the Confederacy to the sea, and then north towards Virginia. These "governments" could have ended the risk to civilian populations at any time... but chose not to do so. Thus, the burden or responsibility lies with the leadership that allowed the suffering to happen in the face of inevitable defeat.
Our President's lack of response to this issue is (in my eyes) tantamount to approval of the agenda behind the Wikileaks actions... and that is damn unfortunate.
I'm no fan of spin, but if it needed to be done with less than two weeks to election day, then the spin should be that this Administration has no vested interest in stopping the leaks or punishing those responsible, and the President's lack of attention to the issue is ample evidence of that.
As tragic as the information that is determined to be accurate in the leaked documents may be... the question remains: how much worse could it have been had nothing been done to remove the regimes of both the Taliban and the Ba'athists. How many more thousands would have died at the hands of Hussein or bin Laden? How many more dissidents in Kabul or Baghdad would have been tortured or killed? How much more repression and tyranny would these people have had to suffer?
Again, I am firm in the belief these deaths (purportedly documented in the leaked papers) are NOT the fault of the American military, until such time as they can be determined to be such under every letter of the laws of the United States. They are, in fact, the fault of the Taliban and/or Saddam Hussein through the conscious and deliberate choices of their policies and actions. The unfortunate but very real fact that civilians face danger and hardship in a war-time environment is ever present, and these civilians were placed in that situation by the tyrannical regimes that we removed, and NOT by the actions or policies of the United States government or the US military and its allies. That is true today, just as it was in 1945 when we TOLD the Imperial Japanese government that city after city on the main islands of Japan would be destroyed until that government surrendered unconditionally to the Allied forces, or when the civilian populations of Georgia and the Carolinas suffered at the hands of General W T Sherman as he marched 135,000 Union troops across the Confederacy to the sea, and then north towards Virginia. These "governments" could have ended the risk to civilian populations at any time... but chose not to do so. Thus, the burden or responsibility lies with the leadership that allowed the suffering to happen in the face of inevitable defeat.
Our President's lack of response to this issue is (in my eyes) tantamount to approval of the agenda behind the Wikileaks actions... and that is damn unfortunate.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Does the CIC oppose the leak(s)?
Honestly, I ask.
Certainly President Obama can not (officially anyway) sway this rogue Wikileaks founder/"America is the problem" leftist. But the Afghanistan Wikileak release was done in conjunction with the NY Times, Germany's Der Spegeil, and the UK's The Guardian. Any 3 of which the editor-in-Chief would presumably take a call from President Barak Obama. Did he even try? The Pentagon knew the leak was coming, and soon after discovered the source. This was reported back in July of 2010:
U.S. government agencies have been bracing for the release of thousands more classified documents since the leak of a classified helicopter cockpit video of a 2007 firefight in Baghdad. That leak was blamed on a U.S. Army intelligence analyst working in Iraq.
Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md., was arrested in Iraq and charged earlier this month with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data [Afghanistan documents], after a former hacker turned him in. Manning had bragged to the hacker, Adrian Lamo, that he had downloaded 260,000 classified of sensitive State Department cables and transmitted them by computer to the website Wikileaks.org.
Lamo turned Manning in to U.S. authorities, saying he could not live with the thought that those released documents might get someone killed. Source.
How about having a moral compass less then that of a "hacker?"
In theory Titus is right, with this additional classified document release the president would normally face tremendous embarrassment, if nothing else. This is a serious security breech. And clearly its coming from multiple sources because the Afghanistan leaker is in custody! But consider this - if the documents "hurt" the popularity of the Iraq war, does that not serve a president's purposes if his intent is to get out of Iraq, and get out now? I'm not talking conspiratorial, as if he was "in" on the leak, not at all. I'm simply saying these leaks, especially the Iraq documents, seem to me similar to the BP oil spill in terms of serving this White House's goals. These are events that publicly the president will oppose, but privately I can't help but think they check off every "yes" box on whether it aides their political/ideological aims. Perhaps that's why we don't see "outrage", public or otherwise. Consider this - the president made more frequent public statements (and they were more heart felt) over the Cambridge "the police acted stupidly" incident then these National Security breeches. It just doesn't add up to a president sincerely outraged, not to me.
Certainly President Obama can not (officially anyway) sway this rogue Wikileaks founder/"America is the problem" leftist. But the Afghanistan Wikileak release was done in conjunction with the NY Times, Germany's Der Spegeil, and the UK's The Guardian. Any 3 of which the editor-in-Chief would presumably take a call from President Barak Obama. Did he even try? The Pentagon knew the leak was coming, and soon after discovered the source. This was reported back in July of 2010:
U.S. government agencies have been bracing for the release of thousands more classified documents since the leak of a classified helicopter cockpit video of a 2007 firefight in Baghdad. That leak was blamed on a U.S. Army intelligence analyst working in Iraq.
Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md., was arrested in Iraq and charged earlier this month with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data [Afghanistan documents], after a former hacker turned him in. Manning had bragged to the hacker, Adrian Lamo, that he had downloaded 260,000 classified of sensitive State Department cables and transmitted them by computer to the website Wikileaks.org.
Lamo turned Manning in to U.S. authorities, saying he could not live with the thought that those released documents might get someone killed. Source.
How about having a moral compass less then that of a "hacker?"
In theory Titus is right, with this additional classified document release the president would normally face tremendous embarrassment, if nothing else. This is a serious security breech. And clearly its coming from multiple sources because the Afghanistan leaker is in custody! But consider this - if the documents "hurt" the popularity of the Iraq war, does that not serve a president's purposes if his intent is to get out of Iraq, and get out now? I'm not talking conspiratorial, as if he was "in" on the leak, not at all. I'm simply saying these leaks, especially the Iraq documents, seem to me similar to the BP oil spill in terms of serving this White House's goals. These are events that publicly the president will oppose, but privately I can't help but think they check off every "yes" box on whether it aides their political/ideological aims. Perhaps that's why we don't see "outrage", public or otherwise. Consider this - the president made more frequent public statements (and they were more heart felt) over the Cambridge "the police acted stupidly" incident then these National Security breeches. It just doesn't add up to a president sincerely outraged, not to me.
Wikileaks
I tried to get to the site to see some of what all the hub-bub is about... but the servers are so choked with hits that it won't load.
I'm far more upset that Obama and the Dream Team are doing nothing about this than I am that the leak happened in the first place. Leaks happen, and while it is tragic that the lives of innocents and allies might be placed in danger... that danger always exists in wartime. Allowing the information OUT in the first place is the crime, and this particular breech of security happened on Obama's watch. This dead-beat hack trying to make a name for himself at the expense of those supporting the US military and their families will fry in his own personal hell... of that I am convinced... but where is the investigation and "fix" for how and where the information got OUT of the Pentagon and into his hands in the first place?
70,000 documents on the Afghanistan War, with little to no insight into how or where the leak happened and what is being done to stop it... and now an additional 400,000 documents on the Iraq War. Our President and his Cabinet have some serious problems that need addressing... and complaining that this Aussie hack is to blame isn't going to stop the next batch of several hundred thousand important and "secret" documents from hitting the internet.
Can anyone tell me that the fall-out from this sort of disaster happening on the Bush/Rummy watch wouldn't have been 100x the depth compared to what Obama is feeling now? I'm no fan of Bush/Rummy and their handling of the Wars... but let's be realistic...okay?
I'm far more upset that Obama and the Dream Team are doing nothing about this than I am that the leak happened in the first place. Leaks happen, and while it is tragic that the lives of innocents and allies might be placed in danger... that danger always exists in wartime. Allowing the information OUT in the first place is the crime, and this particular breech of security happened on Obama's watch. This dead-beat hack trying to make a name for himself at the expense of those supporting the US military and their families will fry in his own personal hell... of that I am convinced... but where is the investigation and "fix" for how and where the information got OUT of the Pentagon and into his hands in the first place?
70,000 documents on the Afghanistan War, with little to no insight into how or where the leak happened and what is being done to stop it... and now an additional 400,000 documents on the Iraq War. Our President and his Cabinet have some serious problems that need addressing... and complaining that this Aussie hack is to blame isn't going to stop the next batch of several hundred thousand important and "secret" documents from hitting the internet.
Can anyone tell me that the fall-out from this sort of disaster happening on the Bush/Rummy watch wouldn't have been 100x the depth compared to what Obama is feeling now? I'm no fan of Bush/Rummy and their handling of the Wars... but let's be realistic...okay?
Sith versus Jedi...
Honestly, I hate these sort of analogies, but I'm playing along for a specific reason.
Obama is on a whirl-wind tour of the West to stump for Dems that have fallen behind in the polls, and other Dems (either not lucky enough to warrant the President's attention, or too far gone to matter) are trying to get Bill Clinton to show up. No matter who is stumping, the message always seems to be the same: the reason the economy is STLL failing is the GOP/Bush/Tea Party... NOT because of the Democrats who are currently running the show.
Just a month ago, Pelosi was bragging that this Congress was the most effective in modern history. She had led the House (and Reid the Senate) through more comprehensive legislation enactment than any other Congress since the New Deal (according to her). Now those same Congressmen and Senators are looking to get help from the "Jedi Masters" in any way, shape or form that they can... because America is seeing the value to the 110th/111th Congressional records in real, measurable and specific terms.
The messages being sent from all corners of the Democratic party are shockingly similar: its not our fault. That's is the summa theoreticum of the Democratic message this cycle. We did what we could, and passed what we did, but if it isn't working or the voters aren't happy... the blame is with the opposition party and the conservative movement behind the "Tea Party" banner that is waving across America.
The messages themselves all seem to be geared towards a "young" crowd, too. The Dems are not giving these speeches at libraries, but at gymnasiums... on college campuses, quads and lecture halls. They are full of popular references to the culture of the "30-something" crowd and those younger still... not to anyone our age (who are probably the ones most feeling the pinch of the Great Recession, by the way). The only possible exception is the recent run to those voters well into their retirement years, with the message there being that the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would bring about an end to affordable medical coverage for anyone in retirement (patently untrue). Perhaps the "Star Wars" references are less with this crowd than they'd otherwise be.
In short, the Dems are really trying to sell themselves as the victims, and they are doing it in front of the youngest block of voters they can find (in general) with catchy phrases and references to pop culture.
Where are the ads or speeches DETAILING the failings of the last two Congresses? In the current Congress ALONE (the 111th), we have seen 22 MAJOR pieces of legislation passed, and NONE of them have impacted our economy in a meaningful manner at all (at least in a positive manner).
For example, in Feb of this year, they passed the "Statutory Pay-as-you-Go Act" that was intended to put back into effect the requirements that any bill contain the means by which it is paid for within its pages. This was the norm from 1994 until 2002, when Bush repealed the Act, and I feel this (former) Act was very nearly entirely responsible for the elimination of our national deficit in 1998.
So, why hasn't the new version had a positive impact on Governmental spending? Because, unlike the original Bill, this one has no fewer than 60 Congressional exemptions (I quit counting after the Congressional exemptions... the Executive ones seemed even more extensive) from the limits of the Bill, including the spending made on the Postal Service (running at a complete LOSS now for two years), AmTrack, the VA, all the way to Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac. The largest, most bloated and expensive aspects of the Federal Budget are OUTSIDE of the new PAYGO Act.
Where is the reminder to American voters that THIS is the legacy of Democratic control of Congress in light of the upcoming elections? Where is the voice of Obi Wan Kenobi in the GOP message?
Obama is on a whirl-wind tour of the West to stump for Dems that have fallen behind in the polls, and other Dems (either not lucky enough to warrant the President's attention, or too far gone to matter) are trying to get Bill Clinton to show up. No matter who is stumping, the message always seems to be the same: the reason the economy is STLL failing is the GOP/Bush/Tea Party... NOT because of the Democrats who are currently running the show.
Just a month ago, Pelosi was bragging that this Congress was the most effective in modern history. She had led the House (and Reid the Senate) through more comprehensive legislation enactment than any other Congress since the New Deal (according to her). Now those same Congressmen and Senators are looking to get help from the "Jedi Masters" in any way, shape or form that they can... because America is seeing the value to the 110th/111th Congressional records in real, measurable and specific terms.
The messages being sent from all corners of the Democratic party are shockingly similar: its not our fault. That's is the summa theoreticum of the Democratic message this cycle. We did what we could, and passed what we did, but if it isn't working or the voters aren't happy... the blame is with the opposition party and the conservative movement behind the "Tea Party" banner that is waving across America.
The messages themselves all seem to be geared towards a "young" crowd, too. The Dems are not giving these speeches at libraries, but at gymnasiums... on college campuses, quads and lecture halls. They are full of popular references to the culture of the "30-something" crowd and those younger still... not to anyone our age (who are probably the ones most feeling the pinch of the Great Recession, by the way). The only possible exception is the recent run to those voters well into their retirement years, with the message there being that the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would bring about an end to affordable medical coverage for anyone in retirement (patently untrue). Perhaps the "Star Wars" references are less with this crowd than they'd otherwise be.
In short, the Dems are really trying to sell themselves as the victims, and they are doing it in front of the youngest block of voters they can find (in general) with catchy phrases and references to pop culture.
Where are the ads or speeches DETAILING the failings of the last two Congresses? In the current Congress ALONE (the 111th), we have seen 22 MAJOR pieces of legislation passed, and NONE of them have impacted our economy in a meaningful manner at all (at least in a positive manner).
For example, in Feb of this year, they passed the "Statutory Pay-as-you-Go Act" that was intended to put back into effect the requirements that any bill contain the means by which it is paid for within its pages. This was the norm from 1994 until 2002, when Bush repealed the Act, and I feel this (former) Act was very nearly entirely responsible for the elimination of our national deficit in 1998.
So, why hasn't the new version had a positive impact on Governmental spending? Because, unlike the original Bill, this one has no fewer than 60 Congressional exemptions (I quit counting after the Congressional exemptions... the Executive ones seemed even more extensive) from the limits of the Bill, including the spending made on the Postal Service (running at a complete LOSS now for two years), AmTrack, the VA, all the way to Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac. The largest, most bloated and expensive aspects of the Federal Budget are OUTSIDE of the new PAYGO Act.
Where is the reminder to American voters that THIS is the legacy of Democratic control of Congress in light of the upcoming elections? Where is the voice of Obi Wan Kenobi in the GOP message?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Are YOU a Sith Lord?
I'm not, just for the record. Although Darth Maul is pretty cool.
"The Empire is striking back."
-President Barak Obama
These were part of comments this past weekend, at a rally, describing the conservative/GOP resurgence.
I mean really? In a government that is mercilessly intruding into all aspects of private life from health care to the auto industry to banking, an administration which seeks "power, unlimited p-o-w-e-r", to quote an emperor, President Barak Obama sees himself as part of the scrappy, powerless rebels trying to thwart an ever encroaching federal armada bent on control of the universe (or at least, universal health care)? Really? HE is Luke? Outside of the idea that he probably does prefer we all live in Ewok-ian treetop villages, I just don't see it. He's so far on the other side of that Lucas equation he might as well open the next State of the Union Address with, where is the Rebel base, and proceed to choke Republicans from across the room. In fact he could walk out on stage at a rally tomorrow, shoot blue electricity from his fingers, and it wouldn't raise my eyebrow a half centimeter, and HE is Luke?
P-l-e-a-s-e ...
On another topic, yes I heard the Pelosi quotes to the steel workers union. This from a woman whom owns wine vineyards. I'm reminded of a movie quote, about a young Howard Hughes, who upon hearing uber-wealthy leftists advocate high tax policy because, "money is not the issue", Hughs retorts, "that's because you have it." This woman is a hard core wealth redistributionist. And if you were to attempt to explain to her what an insult that is to the intelligence and work ethic of the average American citizen, to insist they need such government benevolence in order to sustain their very life, her eyes would glaze over. As I've said, if not for her patriarchal San Fran connections, she'd be selling Avon products door to door in a primer stained hatchback.
And as for America's cell phone toting, free health care accessing "poor", I must defer to the genius of Dennis Miller whom once saliently quipped, "Hey, give America this - at least our poor people are fat."
On a GOP note, they should observe the Colorado governor's race with close attention. This is their fate if they do not follow through with the fiscal discipline promised to their Tea Party supporters. There the Democrat leads polls with an average 45% of the vote. Nipping at his heels at 40% is popular long time Republican congressman Tom Tancredo ... only he's not running on the GOP ticket. Rather, the "Constitution Party." The Republican is at 10% with 5% undecided. And get this, not only is the Republican sure to lose, no matter who wins, but state law dictates (& this is common in most of the Union) that any Party garnering less then 10% of the popular vote is reduced from "major" to "minor" Party status. Which, among other things, means you don't get your Party's label among the top 2 choices on the ballot sheet next cycle. It undoubtedly wont change the way the CO GOP conducts everyday business, but talk about an embarrassing black eye. Shape up GOP - you see what's happening to the Democrat Party this cycle? Well, that's NOTHING compared to what will happen to you if you don't follow through with your campaign rhetoric. Bare in mind, powerful political parties do disappear in this nation ... so in keeping with my Star Wars theme - "search your feelings, you must."
"The Empire is striking back."
-President Barak Obama
These were part of comments this past weekend, at a rally, describing the conservative/GOP resurgence.
I mean really? In a government that is mercilessly intruding into all aspects of private life from health care to the auto industry to banking, an administration which seeks "power, unlimited p-o-w-e-r", to quote an emperor, President Barak Obama sees himself as part of the scrappy, powerless rebels trying to thwart an ever encroaching federal armada bent on control of the universe (or at least, universal health care)? Really? HE is Luke? Outside of the idea that he probably does prefer we all live in Ewok-ian treetop villages, I just don't see it. He's so far on the other side of that Lucas equation he might as well open the next State of the Union Address with, where is the Rebel base, and proceed to choke Republicans from across the room. In fact he could walk out on stage at a rally tomorrow, shoot blue electricity from his fingers, and it wouldn't raise my eyebrow a half centimeter, and HE is Luke?
P-l-e-a-s-e ...
On another topic, yes I heard the Pelosi quotes to the steel workers union. This from a woman whom owns wine vineyards. I'm reminded of a movie quote, about a young Howard Hughes, who upon hearing uber-wealthy leftists advocate high tax policy because, "money is not the issue", Hughs retorts, "that's because you have it." This woman is a hard core wealth redistributionist. And if you were to attempt to explain to her what an insult that is to the intelligence and work ethic of the average American citizen, to insist they need such government benevolence in order to sustain their very life, her eyes would glaze over. As I've said, if not for her patriarchal San Fran connections, she'd be selling Avon products door to door in a primer stained hatchback.
And as for America's cell phone toting, free health care accessing "poor", I must defer to the genius of Dennis Miller whom once saliently quipped, "Hey, give America this - at least our poor people are fat."
On a GOP note, they should observe the Colorado governor's race with close attention. This is their fate if they do not follow through with the fiscal discipline promised to their Tea Party supporters. There the Democrat leads polls with an average 45% of the vote. Nipping at his heels at 40% is popular long time Republican congressman Tom Tancredo ... only he's not running on the GOP ticket. Rather, the "Constitution Party." The Republican is at 10% with 5% undecided. And get this, not only is the Republican sure to lose, no matter who wins, but state law dictates (& this is common in most of the Union) that any Party garnering less then 10% of the popular vote is reduced from "major" to "minor" Party status. Which, among other things, means you don't get your Party's label among the top 2 choices on the ballot sheet next cycle. It undoubtedly wont change the way the CO GOP conducts everyday business, but talk about an embarrassing black eye. Shape up GOP - you see what's happening to the Democrat Party this cycle? Well, that's NOTHING compared to what will happen to you if you don't follow through with your campaign rhetoric. Bare in mind, powerful political parties do disappear in this nation ... so in keeping with my Star Wars theme - "search your feelings, you must."
On Nancy Pelosi...
These VIDEOS from a speech Pelosi gave to the United Steel Workers Union on Monday are very telling indeed, on a number of levels. I wanted to talk about this for a bit...
Even more than Obama, I think that Pelosi is a real, believing "socialist" with an agenda for America that is utterly antithetical to the founding principles of this nation. She hasn't ever (to my knowledge) come out and said as much... but her use of terms like "fairness" and "equity" and "disparity in income" are all key terms in the modern socialist lexicon, as can be seen by ANY general search of the phrase online.
Since I can't relate to the processes which brings someone to believe in what she obviously believes in, I'm not at all sure what her justification for this course is. Is it simply a tool to make sure that the largest percentage of the population is dependent on the government as possible, or is it a misguided (to be charitable) and misapplied ideal from her stary-eyed youth? Does she actually believe that the GOVERNMENT is the best judge as to the value of an individual's contribution to society? Does she actually believe that Marx was right, and that the value of a man's (or woman's) labor is something that can be actuated by Federal regulation and assigned the necessary compensation through arbitrary means and measures? Does she not understand that the phrase "That which is not earned, is not valued" has legitimate and substantial meaning in the human experience?
Whatever the reasoning is behind her socialist views of how America should function, nothing can change the facts. Socialism, as a basis for large societies, has never and will never work. It is utterly opposed to the very principles of human nature, primarily those that condition us (as human beings) to want to better the situations and surroundings for ourselves and our offspring. No example of a successful "socialist" system exists in recorded human history, while the principles of a liberal (classic-sense), free market society are seen in the most obvious manner within the storied history of this very nation.
The current Left-ist (politically "liberal" meaning) view that the US and its founding principles and guidelines... the US Constitution, in particular... are flawed or lacking is the single greatest failing in perception that these proponents can give us. The failures that our nation and its founders and past leaders had in living up to the standards and guidelines of the Constitution and the other founding documents is NOT proof of the failings of our system of government, but they are markers and milestones in the history of America's understanding and development as the world's greatest nation (and I mean that in the sense of economically, militarily, socially, and demographically). Our poorest citizens have access (without cost to themselves) to the best health care in the world, they have access to instant global communication through dozens of sources, first-class education, and almost unlimited opportunity to succeed in any career or endeavor they might wish to enter into.
The greatest difference between the poorest of the poor in America and those found anywhere else in the world is that past emphasis here in the US has always been that the onus for improving the situation of the individual was with the individual themselves... not with society as a whole. Charity and assistance in tough times has always come from other individuals or private organizations (primarily speaking, of course... government assistance has been available to the most indigent since 1848, in one form or another). No alternative example of government support or regulation of production/manufacturing or the compensation that goes with it exists in any sort of meaningful way. None whatsoever.
No better example of this exists than the multiple "5 Year Plans" implemented by Lenin and his successors in the former USSR over the entire course of its 70-year history. Socialism was incapable of meeting the demands of its own citizens (let alone exceed those demands, as Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Breshnev all promised) time and time again, so what did they do? They reverted to a very limited and highly regulated form of "free market" to allow things like farm and factory production to GROW, until such time as "socialism" could catch up to what the free market systems of the West were doing. This is EXACTLY what the Chinese Communists have done (without the 5 year limit) in their system, to facilitate the growth and (relative) prosperity that they have seen in the last 10 years. What the Chinese have done RIGHT is to figure out how to control and curtail the groundswell of "free thinking" that such freedoms bring with them. Gorbachev was NOT able to contain that groundswell, and the USSR dissolved as a result.
I'm not defending Chinese Communism here... it is just as doomed as the Soviet system, because it cannot deliver the promised "equality" of means and demand any better than the Soviets did. I'm simply saying that they managed to delay the inevitable far better than the Soviets did.
One more thing...
Anyone notice that Pelosi's biggest and most obvious speech in favor of "socialism" was given to the USW union? How telling is that?
When Reagan was elected, the steel industry was in a massive decline due to HUGE tariffs imposed by Japan and South Korea (our biggest export buyers) to protect their own steel production industries. Reagan implemented a 34% tariff of our own on ALL steel and steel-products coming from Japan and the Asian continent. This gave a HUGE kick-start to our own steel industry... until the trade war ended with free-trade agreements between all parties (something Reagan was hugely in favor of all along) and the flooding of American construction sites with cheaper Japanese and Korean steel. Beginning in 1983, the American steel industry began a slide that didn't end until the construction "boom" of the mid 90s, causing economic hardship in some of the country's most productive steel areas (Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota) and going a LONG way to making those states far more inclined to vote Democrat than they had ever previously been.
Is it any wonder that she gave her most "left-leaning" speech yet to those who would remember the GOP's favorite President with the least amount of fondness? Not for me...
Even more than Obama, I think that Pelosi is a real, believing "socialist" with an agenda for America that is utterly antithetical to the founding principles of this nation. She hasn't ever (to my knowledge) come out and said as much... but her use of terms like "fairness" and "equity" and "disparity in income" are all key terms in the modern socialist lexicon, as can be seen by ANY general search of the phrase online.
Since I can't relate to the processes which brings someone to believe in what she obviously believes in, I'm not at all sure what her justification for this course is. Is it simply a tool to make sure that the largest percentage of the population is dependent on the government as possible, or is it a misguided (to be charitable) and misapplied ideal from her stary-eyed youth? Does she actually believe that the GOVERNMENT is the best judge as to the value of an individual's contribution to society? Does she actually believe that Marx was right, and that the value of a man's (or woman's) labor is something that can be actuated by Federal regulation and assigned the necessary compensation through arbitrary means and measures? Does she not understand that the phrase "That which is not earned, is not valued" has legitimate and substantial meaning in the human experience?
Whatever the reasoning is behind her socialist views of how America should function, nothing can change the facts. Socialism, as a basis for large societies, has never and will never work. It is utterly opposed to the very principles of human nature, primarily those that condition us (as human beings) to want to better the situations and surroundings for ourselves and our offspring. No example of a successful "socialist" system exists in recorded human history, while the principles of a liberal (classic-sense), free market society are seen in the most obvious manner within the storied history of this very nation.
The current Left-ist (politically "liberal" meaning) view that the US and its founding principles and guidelines... the US Constitution, in particular... are flawed or lacking is the single greatest failing in perception that these proponents can give us. The failures that our nation and its founders and past leaders had in living up to the standards and guidelines of the Constitution and the other founding documents is NOT proof of the failings of our system of government, but they are markers and milestones in the history of America's understanding and development as the world's greatest nation (and I mean that in the sense of economically, militarily, socially, and demographically). Our poorest citizens have access (without cost to themselves) to the best health care in the world, they have access to instant global communication through dozens of sources, first-class education, and almost unlimited opportunity to succeed in any career or endeavor they might wish to enter into.
The greatest difference between the poorest of the poor in America and those found anywhere else in the world is that past emphasis here in the US has always been that the onus for improving the situation of the individual was with the individual themselves... not with society as a whole. Charity and assistance in tough times has always come from other individuals or private organizations (primarily speaking, of course... government assistance has been available to the most indigent since 1848, in one form or another). No alternative example of government support or regulation of production/manufacturing or the compensation that goes with it exists in any sort of meaningful way. None whatsoever.
No better example of this exists than the multiple "5 Year Plans" implemented by Lenin and his successors in the former USSR over the entire course of its 70-year history. Socialism was incapable of meeting the demands of its own citizens (let alone exceed those demands, as Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Breshnev all promised) time and time again, so what did they do? They reverted to a very limited and highly regulated form of "free market" to allow things like farm and factory production to GROW, until such time as "socialism" could catch up to what the free market systems of the West were doing. This is EXACTLY what the Chinese Communists have done (without the 5 year limit) in their system, to facilitate the growth and (relative) prosperity that they have seen in the last 10 years. What the Chinese have done RIGHT is to figure out how to control and curtail the groundswell of "free thinking" that such freedoms bring with them. Gorbachev was NOT able to contain that groundswell, and the USSR dissolved as a result.
I'm not defending Chinese Communism here... it is just as doomed as the Soviet system, because it cannot deliver the promised "equality" of means and demand any better than the Soviets did. I'm simply saying that they managed to delay the inevitable far better than the Soviets did.
One more thing...
Anyone notice that Pelosi's biggest and most obvious speech in favor of "socialism" was given to the USW union? How telling is that?
When Reagan was elected, the steel industry was in a massive decline due to HUGE tariffs imposed by Japan and South Korea (our biggest export buyers) to protect their own steel production industries. Reagan implemented a 34% tariff of our own on ALL steel and steel-products coming from Japan and the Asian continent. This gave a HUGE kick-start to our own steel industry... until the trade war ended with free-trade agreements between all parties (something Reagan was hugely in favor of all along) and the flooding of American construction sites with cheaper Japanese and Korean steel. Beginning in 1983, the American steel industry began a slide that didn't end until the construction "boom" of the mid 90s, causing economic hardship in some of the country's most productive steel areas (Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota) and going a LONG way to making those states far more inclined to vote Democrat than they had ever previously been.
Is it any wonder that she gave her most "left-leaning" speech yet to those who would remember the GOP's favorite President with the least amount of fondness? Not for me...
Want to see something funny?
Who would have expected THIS? Chris Matthews defending... and I mean ardently defending... Rand Paul in his run for Senator from Kentucky.
In the following VIDEO, Matthews absolutely tears Kentucky AG Jack Conway up one side and down the other. What does this tell us?
Conway approved the ad, and is being held to answer for that decision... by Chris Matthews!!! Mister "I get tingles up my leg" Matthews himself! There has been no bigger supporter of the Obama agenda since Nov 2008 than Matthews, yet he is openly showing the hypocrasy of the Left in this interview (and doing a rather good job of it, too). Is it because he has an actual sense of right-and-wrong, and sees the ad for what it really is? Or is he a realist that recognizes that supporting this sort of desperation play by Conway (or even ignoring it) brings his own legitimacy into question?
How sad is it that THIS is the sort of rational, objective questioning that gets the air time... and is only seen nation-wide BECAUSE it is coming from Matthews?
In the following VIDEO, Matthews absolutely tears Kentucky AG Jack Conway up one side and down the other. What does this tell us?
Conway approved the ad, and is being held to answer for that decision... by Chris Matthews!!! Mister "I get tingles up my leg" Matthews himself! There has been no bigger supporter of the Obama agenda since Nov 2008 than Matthews, yet he is openly showing the hypocrasy of the Left in this interview (and doing a rather good job of it, too). Is it because he has an actual sense of right-and-wrong, and sees the ad for what it really is? Or is he a realist that recognizes that supporting this sort of desperation play by Conway (or even ignoring it) brings his own legitimacy into question?
How sad is it that THIS is the sort of rational, objective questioning that gets the air time... and is only seen nation-wide BECAUSE it is coming from Matthews?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Re-reading...
I haven't had much time to myself the last week, but what I have had I spent reading old Bund posts. As has been pointed out before... we have some damn funny stuff out there, let me tell you.
What struck me the most, though, was the amount of stuff we (and I do mean all of us) have left unaddressed. One of us will pose a question or thought, and the thread is lost in the shuffle, never to be picked up again. This is, really, too bad... because some of that stuff is good stuff.
While I know the focus on our main topics of debate and discussion (politics, history, etc) are always seen, there are subtleties within the larger posts that seem to get lost... especially in our bigger and longer rants. New Deal, Israel vs PA, Russia, historic "what ifs"... they have dozens (many dozens, I'd wager) points and questions utterly untouched as we hurry on to the next rant, response or rebuttal.
Many of these are worth the revisit, I think. So the next time any of us are looking at the Bund page and thinking there isn't anything worth posting about... go back and touch on some of these gems that have been left lying at our feet. They are worth the time, believe me...
What struck me the most, though, was the amount of stuff we (and I do mean all of us) have left unaddressed. One of us will pose a question or thought, and the thread is lost in the shuffle, never to be picked up again. This is, really, too bad... because some of that stuff is good stuff.
While I know the focus on our main topics of debate and discussion (politics, history, etc) are always seen, there are subtleties within the larger posts that seem to get lost... especially in our bigger and longer rants. New Deal, Israel vs PA, Russia, historic "what ifs"... they have dozens (many dozens, I'd wager) points and questions utterly untouched as we hurry on to the next rant, response or rebuttal.
Many of these are worth the revisit, I think. So the next time any of us are looking at the Bund page and thinking there isn't anything worth posting about... go back and touch on some of these gems that have been left lying at our feet. They are worth the time, believe me...
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Mixed emotions...
I just got done watching the entire four-season spread of the SciFi Channel's Battlestar Galactica today, or at least the last two seasons (the first two I own on DVD). I think it was a great show, with a superb cast and fantastic writing... but I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole "re-imagined" series.
The original Glen Larson production (circa 1978) was a program I grew up with... obsessed over, is more like it. Along with Lucas' Star Wars saga (at least the first three movies), Galactica was damn near iconic in my early exposure to science fiction. I watched the orginal Star Trek, of course, but even I knew that was dated and kind of "campy" by the time I was 8 to 10 years old. Galactica was new, each week, and was geared for my generation. I loved the cast and story-line of Galactica... I wanted to own the models and toys, and if that wasn't on Santa's list, then my brother and I improvised and made our own models of the ships. I wanted Vipers and Cylon Raiders WAY more than I wanted X-wings or TIE fighters.
Now, looking back at it today, I realise the mistakes that were inherent in the story line... and (of course) the effects were less-then-spectacular even for 1978... but it was captivating, none the less. There is no comparison to the gritty, "reality-show" setting that is SciFi's BSG and the original production, and America's taste in TV has evolved to a point where the subjects of the episodes and the actions of the characters would have been considered "pornographic" in 1978.
I'm just a bit sorry they had to follow the course of "re-imagined" rather than "remake of" the original story. Many of the most familiar characters were omitted entirely (Boxey, Caseopia, the daggits, etc) and those that remained were so utterly re-imagined as to be entirely without association with the originals. Boomer and Starbuck became women (with different roles, too), Adama became a stoic, ice-man of a commanding officer, and Col. Tigh became a raging alcoholic who routinely abuses his rank and authority. Maybe the ONLY character that didn't dramatically change was Apollo, Adama's son. The characters that changed the MOST though, were Gaius Baltar and his army of Cylons. In the original, he was an evil, dark-hearted leader of legions of the robotic Cylon centurions... but in the SciFi version, he becomes a cowardly, self-serving manipulator with the almost single-minded focus on preserving his own hide from harm or discomfort. I was rather sorry to see the dark and evil villian changed into the weak and pathetic anti-hero of the modern episodes... but I see the functionality of the character, too.
I guess the more I write this, the more I think that the re-imagined was "better" than watching a complete "remake"... a remake would add nothing substantially new to the story outside of "eye candy" special effects. This modern version kept me on the edge of my seat through damn near every episode. The Cylons being living, breathing "machines" was a nice touch. It kept the feel that the enemy was a mechanical menace that gave nor warranted any sort of compassion... but as you came to watch the show, the sentient nature of the machines became more and more appearant, and the moral questions that arise when fighting beings of equal intelligence (and presumably equal natural dignity) added a lot to the show.
Like the latest Star Trek that Ryan and Jambo raved about so, this opens a whole new chapter in the Galactica canon (with two spin-offs already out... Caprica and Razor) and I really should stop being such a purist on this topic.
The original Glen Larson production (circa 1978) was a program I grew up with... obsessed over, is more like it. Along with Lucas' Star Wars saga (at least the first three movies), Galactica was damn near iconic in my early exposure to science fiction. I watched the orginal Star Trek, of course, but even I knew that was dated and kind of "campy" by the time I was 8 to 10 years old. Galactica was new, each week, and was geared for my generation. I loved the cast and story-line of Galactica... I wanted to own the models and toys, and if that wasn't on Santa's list, then my brother and I improvised and made our own models of the ships. I wanted Vipers and Cylon Raiders WAY more than I wanted X-wings or TIE fighters.
Now, looking back at it today, I realise the mistakes that were inherent in the story line... and (of course) the effects were less-then-spectacular even for 1978... but it was captivating, none the less. There is no comparison to the gritty, "reality-show" setting that is SciFi's BSG and the original production, and America's taste in TV has evolved to a point where the subjects of the episodes and the actions of the characters would have been considered "pornographic" in 1978.
I'm just a bit sorry they had to follow the course of "re-imagined" rather than "remake of" the original story. Many of the most familiar characters were omitted entirely (Boxey, Caseopia, the daggits, etc) and those that remained were so utterly re-imagined as to be entirely without association with the originals. Boomer and Starbuck became women (with different roles, too), Adama became a stoic, ice-man of a commanding officer, and Col. Tigh became a raging alcoholic who routinely abuses his rank and authority. Maybe the ONLY character that didn't dramatically change was Apollo, Adama's son. The characters that changed the MOST though, were Gaius Baltar and his army of Cylons. In the original, he was an evil, dark-hearted leader of legions of the robotic Cylon centurions... but in the SciFi version, he becomes a cowardly, self-serving manipulator with the almost single-minded focus on preserving his own hide from harm or discomfort. I was rather sorry to see the dark and evil villian changed into the weak and pathetic anti-hero of the modern episodes... but I see the functionality of the character, too.
I guess the more I write this, the more I think that the re-imagined was "better" than watching a complete "remake"... a remake would add nothing substantially new to the story outside of "eye candy" special effects. This modern version kept me on the edge of my seat through damn near every episode. The Cylons being living, breathing "machines" was a nice touch. It kept the feel that the enemy was a mechanical menace that gave nor warranted any sort of compassion... but as you came to watch the show, the sentient nature of the machines became more and more appearant, and the moral questions that arise when fighting beings of equal intelligence (and presumably equal natural dignity) added a lot to the show.
Like the latest Star Trek that Ryan and Jambo raved about so, this opens a whole new chapter in the Galactica canon (with two spin-offs already out... Caprica and Razor) and I really should stop being such a purist on this topic.
A good point...
You make a good point, but too many people miss the focus.
Obama's words of congratulations went to the Chilean people and to the Chilean government for running this massive and successful rescue operation... and that does a serious discredit to the hundreds of volunteers (coming from no less than 14 countries other than Chile) and the donation of hundreds of thousands of dollars from private, non-governmental individuals and companies. This effort is seen by many as a text-book example of how efficiently a central authority can manage a crisis, but in many respects, what the Chileans did right was to allow those individuals and companies that were volunteering to assist in the effort the ability to get the job done with no interference. They realized early on that nothing within the Chilean government was going to be instrumental in getting the miners out of the ground, and they did nothing to prevent those that COULD get them out from doing just that.
For example, no permits that would typically have been required for the effort were enforced (including work visas for the hundreds of foreign nationals working at the mine site). Now, compare that to the level of governmental interference in a crisis that the world saw in the clean up and preventive measures associated with the Gulf Oil Spill this summer. The US Federal Government wouldn't even allow the State of Louisiana to build protective reefs and berms to keep the oil off the most delicate and sensitive shores that were threatened by the oil... all in the name of "environmental protection" regulations already in place.
Proponents of "big government" will tout this as a success for their views... but it is NOT that simple. As Ryan said, this effort shows the value inherent in a system where charity and good will are valued far more when they are freely given instead of forcibly mandated... and the benefit to allowing a free market system to develop technology needed to do more than simply dig copper out of the ground.
Obama's words of congratulations went to the Chilean people and to the Chilean government for running this massive and successful rescue operation... and that does a serious discredit to the hundreds of volunteers (coming from no less than 14 countries other than Chile) and the donation of hundreds of thousands of dollars from private, non-governmental individuals and companies. This effort is seen by many as a text-book example of how efficiently a central authority can manage a crisis, but in many respects, what the Chileans did right was to allow those individuals and companies that were volunteering to assist in the effort the ability to get the job done with no interference. They realized early on that nothing within the Chilean government was going to be instrumental in getting the miners out of the ground, and they did nothing to prevent those that COULD get them out from doing just that.
For example, no permits that would typically have been required for the effort were enforced (including work visas for the hundreds of foreign nationals working at the mine site). Now, compare that to the level of governmental interference in a crisis that the world saw in the clean up and preventive measures associated with the Gulf Oil Spill this summer. The US Federal Government wouldn't even allow the State of Louisiana to build protective reefs and berms to keep the oil off the most delicate and sensitive shores that were threatened by the oil... all in the name of "environmental protection" regulations already in place.
Proponents of "big government" will tout this as a success for their views... but it is NOT that simple. As Ryan said, this effort shows the value inherent in a system where charity and good will are valued far more when they are freely given instead of forcibly mandated... and the benefit to allowing a free market system to develop technology needed to do more than simply dig copper out of the ground.
I'm hungrier than a Chilean Miner!
Chomping at the bit, as they say, for election day come November. Not November 2010, but rather 2012. 2010 is all but a foregone conclusion, I want to see if America can look past the glitz and glam of what an Obama campaign can do to see that he, and more specifically his chosen ideology, do not embrace the idea of American exceptionalism; and moreover that it contains within it a seminal dislike of private sector boot-strap success ... but more on that in a moment.
I thought that perhaps the most enduring father-son image I had ever witnessed on a national stage (which precludes first place in my mind, that of myself as Darth Vader and my son as Luke Shywalker some Halloweens ago) was Drew Brees and infant son on the field, reveling in New Orlean's first ever Superbowl win. Tickertate and the like a flutter, like so many snow flakes in a Bing Crosby movie, it was truly as moving as sports gets. But to see, and he must of been all of 8 years old, that little Chilean boy - in a hard hat no less - rush to his Dad, with that expression of pure untouched relief on his face as he saw his father emerge, alive, is an image that can not be scripted, can not be commented on, only silently enjoyed by onlookers. It was pure happiness, expressed in the type of tears and hugs only a child is capable of inducing.
Now, I hasten to add that the American private sector, specifically their ingenuity and their willingness to help (ahem, Mr. President), played a large part in this:
"Two Coloradans who had been drilling water wells for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and a team of NASA doctors and engineers whose experience with astronauts leaving the pull of gravity played crucial roles in ensuring the rescue.
Jeff Hart and Matt Staffel were instructed by their employer, Layne Christensen Co. of Mission Woods, Kan., to drop what they were doing in Afghanistan and head to Chile for a rescue mission. The drillers worked for 33 days straight before they were able to bore down to the trapped men on Saturday." (source)
I thought that perhaps the most enduring father-son image I had ever witnessed on a national stage (which precludes first place in my mind, that of myself as Darth Vader and my son as Luke Shywalker some Halloweens ago) was Drew Brees and infant son on the field, reveling in New Orlean's first ever Superbowl win. Tickertate and the like a flutter, like so many snow flakes in a Bing Crosby movie, it was truly as moving as sports gets. But to see, and he must of been all of 8 years old, that little Chilean boy - in a hard hat no less - rush to his Dad, with that expression of pure untouched relief on his face as he saw his father emerge, alive, is an image that can not be scripted, can not be commented on, only silently enjoyed by onlookers. It was pure happiness, expressed in the type of tears and hugs only a child is capable of inducing.
Now, I hasten to add that the American private sector, specifically their ingenuity and their willingness to help (ahem, Mr. President), played a large part in this:
"Two Coloradans who had been drilling water wells for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and a team of NASA doctors and engineers whose experience with astronauts leaving the pull of gravity played crucial roles in ensuring the rescue.
Jeff Hart and Matt Staffel were instructed by their employer, Layne Christensen Co. of Mission Woods, Kan., to drop what they were doing in Afghanistan and head to Chile for a rescue mission. The drillers worked for 33 days straight before they were able to bore down to the trapped men on Saturday." (source)
Yes, NASA is a government entity ... the only sector of government the President has seen fit to cut. Why is that? I mean America leads the world in space explor ... ahh ... maybe that explains it. Borrowing from the theme Ronald Reagan kept in a plaque on his desk, "There is no limit to what a man can accomplish so long as he doesn't care who gets credit", this is not to "ensure" America gets her share of credit in what has become a world-wide vigil for the rescue of blue collar family men. But more to say simply this: Mr. President, surely you must see that when left unencumbered there is no limit to the good man can do on behalf of his neighbor. Not when forced, not when dictated, not when required. But rather when his own ingenuity and compassion are allowed the freedom to risk both wealth and neck in the assistance of his fellow man. Only then are we allowed to see the human spirit, the American spirit, shine in all its glory and leave the world a better place then it was found. Free men are uniquely qualified to rescue souls in distress ... and defend them; for there is no greater ally at your side sir, then those who choose to be there. And no government mandate will ever produce such a choice in man's heart, for you can not legislate good choices, only narrow them.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
History repeats?
We're less than a month away from the 2010 midterms, and I've been thinking about where this is going.
Reagan lost a lot of ground in the Congress in '82, especially in the Senate. We all recall what happened in '94 (since we were all working in the same pit) to Clinton. I think that the gains that are going to be made against the Democrats are a foregone conclusion... the only real question is how big are they going to be? And... will this lead to a split vote in 2012?
Are enough of the GOP members in Congress ready to make the needed concessions to the Tea Party supporters to avoid another repeat of the '92 campaign, though? Or, for that matter, the '96 campaign? Could frustration and resentment over the GOP's inevitable inability to reduce the actual size and cost of government lead to a third party candidate that will help keep the White House in Obama's hands?
The Pledge to America says almost nothing about actually REDUCING the size of government. Cutting taxes, yes... cutting government programs (or worse yet, whole departments), not so much. The message has been fiscal control and responsibility is what is needed... but few in the GOP have called for anything more than a return to what was the status quo prior to Nov of 2006, and that simply isn't going to be good enough any more, is it? There aren't many in Washington that can defend the spending habits of Bush, are there?
In promising to address health care reform while eliminating what Obama and the Congress have done so far, the GOP has shown that it doesn't intend to remove the specter of massive government health and benefit programs... it only wants to keep the money flowing into SSI and Medicare, while leaving the rest to private industry, which equates to leaving the 40 million uninsured without coverage. Until the unemployment rate returns to less than 5%, that is going to remain a HUGE item on the average man's radar.
I guess I'm wondering if the GOP actually intends to rescind the prescription drug plan signed into law by Bush? Will it end the choke-hold that the ED has on national education funds by repealing No Child Left Behind? Will it end forever the bail-out plans began by Bush? Will it put back into place the Pay as you Go Act that was repealed within Bush's first 60 days in office? Obamacare was a joke of an experiment... no question there... but, so was No Child Left Behind and I still have major questions about Homeland Security and the prescription drug plan. Saying you are going to repeal the failed Obama programs is fine, but there are failed programs that AREN'T Obama's, too... what about them?
The GOP needs a clear plan... a real platform from which to campaign through the next 6 years... and it still doesn't have that, in my opinion.
Reagan lost a lot of ground in the Congress in '82, especially in the Senate. We all recall what happened in '94 (since we were all working in the same pit) to Clinton. I think that the gains that are going to be made against the Democrats are a foregone conclusion... the only real question is how big are they going to be? And... will this lead to a split vote in 2012?
Are enough of the GOP members in Congress ready to make the needed concessions to the Tea Party supporters to avoid another repeat of the '92 campaign, though? Or, for that matter, the '96 campaign? Could frustration and resentment over the GOP's inevitable inability to reduce the actual size and cost of government lead to a third party candidate that will help keep the White House in Obama's hands?
The Pledge to America says almost nothing about actually REDUCING the size of government. Cutting taxes, yes... cutting government programs (or worse yet, whole departments), not so much. The message has been fiscal control and responsibility is what is needed... but few in the GOP have called for anything more than a return to what was the status quo prior to Nov of 2006, and that simply isn't going to be good enough any more, is it? There aren't many in Washington that can defend the spending habits of Bush, are there?
In promising to address health care reform while eliminating what Obama and the Congress have done so far, the GOP has shown that it doesn't intend to remove the specter of massive government health and benefit programs... it only wants to keep the money flowing into SSI and Medicare, while leaving the rest to private industry, which equates to leaving the 40 million uninsured without coverage. Until the unemployment rate returns to less than 5%, that is going to remain a HUGE item on the average man's radar.
I guess I'm wondering if the GOP actually intends to rescind the prescription drug plan signed into law by Bush? Will it end the choke-hold that the ED has on national education funds by repealing No Child Left Behind? Will it end forever the bail-out plans began by Bush? Will it put back into place the Pay as you Go Act that was repealed within Bush's first 60 days in office? Obamacare was a joke of an experiment... no question there... but, so was No Child Left Behind and I still have major questions about Homeland Security and the prescription drug plan. Saying you are going to repeal the failed Obama programs is fine, but there are failed programs that AREN'T Obama's, too... what about them?
The GOP needs a clear plan... a real platform from which to campaign through the next 6 years... and it still doesn't have that, in my opinion.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Gotta share one more thing before I hit the sheets...
You guys are going to love this...
Got to talking in the pits today about "practical jokes", and while I'm certainly not "unschooled" in this area, I heard some damn good ones that were utterly new to me, too.
We've all sent the new, raw rookie to the office looking for "wheel cranks" because the roulette wheels were slowing down, or to the facilities office for "ten more feet of pass line" so we can open another dice table... but the one I heard today was priceless.
At another casino, a jerk of a pit boss sent a rookie dealer to the office for some "puck wax"... both black and white... and when the shift boss heard the request, he got bent. So, to teach the jerk a lesson, he asked the dealer if he/she wanted to go home early. He/she said yes, and they quietly signed the dealer out as an EO... without telling the pit boss. So, twenty minutes later, when the dealer doesn't go back to his/her game... the pit gets worried, but doesn't want to admit to sending the dealer on a wild goose chase. Meanwhile, the shift boss asks the jerk pit to send the "missing" dealer to the shift office for some important paperwork (completely imaginary, of course), which adds to the pit's anxiety level by a full order of magnitude. So now, with a stuck dealer string and a shift boss asking for the dealer every five minutes, the pit has to admit that he has no idea where the dealer is, and why that dealer isn't either in the break room or on a game.
Imagine some of the pits we've had, and being able to see their faces when the realization hits that they have potentially LOST a live dealer in the midst of a practical joke... how priceless would that be?
At this house, we haven't progressed quite that far yet... but we're getting there. I have a young floor that I've become quite fond of hanging with, and while he's pretty green at the job, he's going to be good. You can just tell, you know what I mean? Anyway, he has a nasty habit of walking into a section he's taking over and calling people's names from the rating list to see if they are still on the game, rather than reading the descriptions and being just a little bit subtle. So, today, we snuck into another section (sending the floor to the bathroom for tissues... another shameless ruse, I know) and loaded his computers with fake ratings with names like "Ike Ryan" or "Clark Kent" or "Fu Manchu" right before he got into the section. Cheesy names, I know... but we didn't want to offend guests and get fired, either. None the less, Kenny called these names loudly and proudly until the guests explained that he was being toyed with, and there was no Ronald W. Reagan or Dan Quayle sitting at the table he was watching.
Once he caught on to that, we resorted to taking the lost and discarded players cards that inevitably pile up on podiums, and generously spread them around his tables, so that he would follow his natural course and SWIPE them first, then ask who they belong to and how much they were in. That was worth a giggle, I can tell you.
Then we convinced a shift boss to sign a fake transfer request made out in Kenny's name, and hand it to him like he was returning it and giving him his new shift assignment. THAT was friggin funny... I thought he was going to have kittens when he saw that he was going to Graveyard. Hehe...
Tomorrow, its "Fun With Hand Sanitizer Day" in Pit 3...
Got to talking in the pits today about "practical jokes", and while I'm certainly not "unschooled" in this area, I heard some damn good ones that were utterly new to me, too.
We've all sent the new, raw rookie to the office looking for "wheel cranks" because the roulette wheels were slowing down, or to the facilities office for "ten more feet of pass line" so we can open another dice table... but the one I heard today was priceless.
At another casino, a jerk of a pit boss sent a rookie dealer to the office for some "puck wax"... both black and white... and when the shift boss heard the request, he got bent. So, to teach the jerk a lesson, he asked the dealer if he/she wanted to go home early. He/she said yes, and they quietly signed the dealer out as an EO... without telling the pit boss. So, twenty minutes later, when the dealer doesn't go back to his/her game... the pit gets worried, but doesn't want to admit to sending the dealer on a wild goose chase. Meanwhile, the shift boss asks the jerk pit to send the "missing" dealer to the shift office for some important paperwork (completely imaginary, of course), which adds to the pit's anxiety level by a full order of magnitude. So now, with a stuck dealer string and a shift boss asking for the dealer every five minutes, the pit has to admit that he has no idea where the dealer is, and why that dealer isn't either in the break room or on a game.
Imagine some of the pits we've had, and being able to see their faces when the realization hits that they have potentially LOST a live dealer in the midst of a practical joke... how priceless would that be?
At this house, we haven't progressed quite that far yet... but we're getting there. I have a young floor that I've become quite fond of hanging with, and while he's pretty green at the job, he's going to be good. You can just tell, you know what I mean? Anyway, he has a nasty habit of walking into a section he's taking over and calling people's names from the rating list to see if they are still on the game, rather than reading the descriptions and being just a little bit subtle. So, today, we snuck into another section (sending the floor to the bathroom for tissues... another shameless ruse, I know) and loaded his computers with fake ratings with names like "Ike Ryan" or "Clark Kent" or "Fu Manchu" right before he got into the section. Cheesy names, I know... but we didn't want to offend guests and get fired, either. None the less, Kenny called these names loudly and proudly until the guests explained that he was being toyed with, and there was no Ronald W. Reagan or Dan Quayle sitting at the table he was watching.
Once he caught on to that, we resorted to taking the lost and discarded players cards that inevitably pile up on podiums, and generously spread them around his tables, so that he would follow his natural course and SWIPE them first, then ask who they belong to and how much they were in. That was worth a giggle, I can tell you.
Then we convinced a shift boss to sign a fake transfer request made out in Kenny's name, and hand it to him like he was returning it and giving him his new shift assignment. THAT was friggin funny... I thought he was going to have kittens when he saw that he was going to Graveyard. Hehe...
Tomorrow, its "Fun With Hand Sanitizer Day" in Pit 3...
More homework...
I have to hand it to him... the boy isn't bad. He has some real "Bund potential" I think...
He has opted to follow the time-honored and much travelled course of using his anger and frustration at his impending "grounding" as the means to find his inspiration. In short, his essay (so far) is laced with anger and resentment. He refers to an "A" in his opening statement as "someone else's opinion of my academic achievement"... and while I don't really appreciate the sarcasm from him at this specific time, I can understand it and am allowing him to follow that course.
What has really got me flustered right now, however, is his absolute chronic "writer's block". The boy simply BALKS at a blank page, and insists that he has no idea what to write. I'm at a loss here, because I can't ever recall being at that same place in my life... ever. If I don't have a valid or heart-felt opinion on a topic, I've always been able to fake it completely... but how does one pass that kind of ability or insight on to another?
How does one pass on the ability to "fluff" a one paragraph start into a two page essay, without doing the work for them?
Damn, this is harder than I ever imagined it would be...
If these kids actually shared my genes... this SO would not be a problem. Am I right?
He has opted to follow the time-honored and much travelled course of using his anger and frustration at his impending "grounding" as the means to find his inspiration. In short, his essay (so far) is laced with anger and resentment. He refers to an "A" in his opening statement as "someone else's opinion of my academic achievement"... and while I don't really appreciate the sarcasm from him at this specific time, I can understand it and am allowing him to follow that course.
What has really got me flustered right now, however, is his absolute chronic "writer's block". The boy simply BALKS at a blank page, and insists that he has no idea what to write. I'm at a loss here, because I can't ever recall being at that same place in my life... ever. If I don't have a valid or heart-felt opinion on a topic, I've always been able to fake it completely... but how does one pass that kind of ability or insight on to another?
How does one pass on the ability to "fluff" a one paragraph start into a two page essay, without doing the work for them?
Damn, this is harder than I ever imagined it would be...
If these kids actually shared my genes... this SO would not be a problem. Am I right?
Homework...
Man, I finish a hard day in the pits of a casino, and come home to find that the 16-year-old is behind in his English homework (again) and his grades are reflecting this sad fact. Mommy is angry as hell, which makes the 16-year-old angry as hell, which stresses out the 18-year-old and the 7-year-old, who get angry as hell at each other... and my night is set. Now I truly am angry as hell.
The boy's assignment was to write a two-page essay on "What an A means to me"... "A" being a letter grade, not a variable. She (the teacher) even handed out a primer that had some "fill-in-the-blank" sentences to get the proverbial ball rolling around in the kid's heads... but our 16-year-old chose (actually CHOSE) not to do the essay. It was due over a month ago.
We have no idea if the teacher will take the essay now, and even if she does, if she'll give him any credit... but the boy is DOING the assignment anyway. And that really has him chapped. I swear on everything that is holy that this boy is going to learn that actions have consequences, and that if he wants fun times or fun things in the future, then he'll do the assignments BEFORE they are over due, because over due or not... they are going to be done.
So, here I sit, at 9:30 pm on a Monday night (I should be watching the game!) force-feeding a 16-year-old essay lessons.
Ironic, isn't it? And me being one of four "essayists" here at the Bund, with 2000+ posts and essays for the world to read on this very blog.
(sigh)
The boy's assignment was to write a two-page essay on "What an A means to me"... "A" being a letter grade, not a variable. She (the teacher) even handed out a primer that had some "fill-in-the-blank" sentences to get the proverbial ball rolling around in the kid's heads... but our 16-year-old chose (actually CHOSE) not to do the essay. It was due over a month ago.
We have no idea if the teacher will take the essay now, and even if she does, if she'll give him any credit... but the boy is DOING the assignment anyway. And that really has him chapped. I swear on everything that is holy that this boy is going to learn that actions have consequences, and that if he wants fun times or fun things in the future, then he'll do the assignments BEFORE they are over due, because over due or not... they are going to be done.
So, here I sit, at 9:30 pm on a Monday night (I should be watching the game!) force-feeding a 16-year-old essay lessons.
Ironic, isn't it? And me being one of four "essayists" here at the Bund, with 2000+ posts and essays for the world to read on this very blog.
(sigh)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
