I'll simply provide a link to a CBS poll, taken this month, that reports an astonishing share -- 51% -- of the GOP views Ms. Palin as unqualified to be an effective President. I guess I posted too early. Here's the link, if you care to review the poll description.
I'm seeing more evidence to support my suspicions and I'll probably post no more about Ms. Palin as a VP choice because -- as the data increasingly shows -- I don't need to.
Nearly forty percent of GOP doubts Palin's abilities
Glad I'm not alone. A recently-released ABC News/Washington Post poll with a sampling error of plus or minus 3% shows that not only is Ms. Palin's support waning across the political spectrum, it is also slipping among Republicans as a whole.
Like the 83% of Republicans surveyed, I believe that Ms. Palin shares our values. However, almost four out of ten Republicans (and 57% of Americans overall) also say we doubt her ability to "understand complex issues." Which is another way to say what I first wrote last November - that, as much as we like what she stands for, she lacks credentials for national office.
The Washington Post quoted one gentleman, thus: "Rick Buila, 38, of Sharonville, Ohio, who works in finance and voted for the McCain-Palin ticket in November, said his opinion of the governor has changed. `I don't think that she is cut out to be on the national stage,' he said. `I look at her education and her background and the way she carries herself and her [resignation] speech, and when you have someone who's out there saying 'You betcha' about 50 times, I don't think that's the person we want to have negotiating with other countries.'
Sadly, a few blowhards will seize on a remark like Mr. Buila's "You betcha" comment and dismiss any GOP criticism of Ms. Palin as elitist, or worse. That's unfortunate and wrong. We don't begrudge her for her style, we simply believe that she is not ready - and frankly might never be ready - for The White House.
We can do better. We must do better.
Like the 83% of Republicans surveyed, I believe that Ms. Palin shares our values. However, almost four out of ten Republicans (and 57% of Americans overall) also say we doubt her ability to "understand complex issues." Which is another way to say what I first wrote last November - that, as much as we like what she stands for, she lacks credentials for national office.
 |
| Sarah Palin, Wikipedia |
The Washington Post quoted one gentleman, thus: "Rick Buila, 38, of Sharonville, Ohio, who works in finance and voted for the McCain-Palin ticket in November, said his opinion of the governor has changed. `I don't think that she is cut out to be on the national stage,' he said. `I look at her education and her background and the way she carries herself and her [resignation] speech, and when you have someone who's out there saying 'You betcha' about 50 times, I don't think that's the person we want to have negotiating with other countries.'
Sadly, a few blowhards will seize on a remark like Mr. Buila's "You betcha" comment and dismiss any GOP criticism of Ms. Palin as elitist, or worse. That's unfortunate and wrong. We don't begrudge her for her style, we simply believe that she is not ready - and frankly might never be ready - for The White House.
We can do better. We must do better.
Peggy Noonan in today's WSJ & the Palin factor
I can't match Ms. Noonan's eloquence, but I can identify with what she says in this piece entitled, "A Farewell to Harms" in which she pours some truth serum with her signature wit.
 |
| Peggy Noonan, Wikipedia |
If you are one of my
Look, I recognize and deplore the torrent of abuse leveled at Ms. Palin and her family by the vicious Left, but we can't trot out unqualified national candidates and expect the jerks that take cheap shots to remain mute. We have to plan for the jerks using more knowledgeable, more bullet-proof candidates that can do more on the trail than just say the`right' things on cue. We need depth and agility.
I admire Ms. Palin, but she was hopelessly in over her head last year. The aforementioned Noonan piece is not a tired rant to criticize Ms. Palin's work. It's more of a description as to what is needed to rebuild the GOP.
So let's end on a hopeful note - shall we? Yes we can!
Think of the Gopher State with it's schizophrenic voting populous that can elect Comic Al Franken but also install what may be our best chance for a 2012 run at the White House - Tim Pawlenty. There is hope.
Milwaukee County furloughs and remembering Reagan
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that a judge has allowed the furloughs (days off without pay) of some public union workers to commence in accordance with Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's order -- starting Monday.
It's unfortunate, that instead of supporting his fiscal responsibility, the County Board continues to jawbone the County Executive and the unions, of course, continue to file lawsuits. All this for a measly five hours off a week.
I have never understood why organized labor behaves as though pay (and benefits most of us dream of) ought to be guaranteed. I have not read their contract, but I cannot fathom any responsible authority agreeing on behalf of county taxpayers to anything more than the rest of us live with AKA an "at will" employment arrangement. The concept is quite simple. Either party (employer or employee) can sever their relationship with the other, for any reason, at any time.
This morning I recalled former President Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. The union organization, known as PATCO, sought to express its grievances with a strike and jeopardize the safety of American travelers. After the President warned PATCO members that if they did not show up for work they would be fired, they tested him and he kept his word.
It was something of a milestone. Organized labor has continued its decline since. Baseless threats, lawsuits and strikes are not part of an effective career strategy.
Now flash forward to modern day Milwaukee County and consider its fiscal challenges. We see all the labor vitriol we had on a national level back in 1981. . . over five hours a week.
Somehow I think that if Mr. Walker's furlough order was twice as stringent, the sun would still come up the next day. I commend Governor Doyle's plan for limited furloughs and wish only that he and the Democrat-controlled legislature, went further to reduce state spending and lower taxes.
It's unfortunate, that instead of supporting his fiscal responsibility, the County Board continues to jawbone the County Executive and the unions, of course, continue to file lawsuits. All this for a measly five hours off a week.
I have never understood why organized labor behaves as though pay (and benefits most of us dream of) ought to be guaranteed. I have not read their contract, but I cannot fathom any responsible authority agreeing on behalf of county taxpayers to anything more than the rest of us live with AKA an "at will" employment arrangement. The concept is quite simple. Either party (employer or employee) can sever their relationship with the other, for any reason, at any time.
This morning I recalled former President Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. The union organization, known as PATCO, sought to express its grievances with a strike and jeopardize the safety of American travelers. After the President warned PATCO members that if they did not show up for work they would be fired, they tested him and he kept his word.
It was something of a milestone. Organized labor has continued its decline since. Baseless threats, lawsuits and strikes are not part of an effective career strategy.
Now flash forward to modern day Milwaukee County and consider its fiscal challenges. We see all the labor vitriol we had on a national level back in 1981. . . over five hours a week.
Somehow I think that if Mr. Walker's furlough order was twice as stringent, the sun would still come up the next day. I commend Governor Doyle's plan for limited furloughs and wish only that he and the Democrat-controlled legislature, went further to reduce state spending and lower taxes.
Taxes, polls and pols
 |
| Tom Barrett, Wikipedia |
At one point, Mr. Barrett cited two separate polls to conclude: few citizens want services cut (one poll), yet few want to pay for them in the form of higher taxes (a second poll). Of course.
However, if you require people to choose between them (think one poll question), perhaps many would choose to hang on to more of their own money, even if the service pool shrinks. Leadership requires one to make unpopular choices. That's why we see relatively little of it.
My dowdy prediction
A week has elapsed since I wrote about Maureen Dowd. I thought by now she would have acknowledged an intentional 43-word copy job, followed by a sorry-I-forgot-to-attribute apology. I think that's all it would have taken to make this saga go away.
Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.
I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe, which is why this episode is extraordinary.
The essence of her account is this: After communicating with a friend about another person's work, she plopped some sentences in her column and then discovered she was using the same 43 words after bloggers told her. Here's what she wrote to explain her actions (repeated from Michael Calderone's space at Politico.com): "i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow."
My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little from the Times itself.
I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend. My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words she borrowed.
I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s). So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal. Perhaps too easily.
However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical. When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.
Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.
I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe, which is why this episode is extraordinary.
 |
| Maureen Dowd, Wikipedia |
My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little from the Times itself.
I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend. My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words she borrowed.
I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s). So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal. Perhaps too easily.
However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical. When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.
Is Maureen Dowd in trouble?
Forty-three words without attribution, a poor excuse and by now, I suspect, a truth audit of her work is well underway.
Had Ann Coulter done this, the New York Times (and perhaps Ms. Dowd herself) would have hung her from the highest limb. My prediction is that Ms. Dowd will either come out and declare she knew what she was doing after all and apologize profusely within the next week, or she's finished as a nationally-syndicated columnist.
French lessons
We are fortunate to have a young student from France living with us these days. It is her first visit to the US and we are learning as much (or more) from her, as she is learning from us.
Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.
Where are our children learning how to behave this way? Oh, that's right -- it's us.
Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.
Where are our children learning how to behave this way? Oh, that's right -- it's us.
Saved or created? That is the question.
It hit me while driving someplace and listening to the radio, maybe a month ago. The President was talking about the outcome of his stimulus package while using the now oft-repeated phrase about three and half million jobs being, "saved or created."
I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...
How does one measure a job saved? How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?
Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved? It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.
What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved". That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the 'metric' can't be measured.
 |
| (Freepik image) |
I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...
How does one measure a job saved? How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?
Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved? It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.
What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved". That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the 'metric' can't be measured.
_________________________________________________________
Submitted to US Senator Herb Kohl moments ago...
"Dear Senator Kohl,
I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.
The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.
I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente"
I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.
The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.
I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente"
The individual and our economic crisis
If you had never met Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, you'd be hard pressed to spot him in a crowded room. Mr. Walker is an average-looking man, with plain features and an unassuming demeanor. Even his name is common. He looks like millions of other guys. I made his acquaintance last year after he introduced himself before a debate with his election opponent, Ms. Lena Taylor.
Yes, a common guy he is, but don't be fooled -- Mr. Walker packs a wallop and his piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts" defines his fiscal moorings and shows why he has drawn acclaim among conservatives and scorn from progressives.
Mr. Walker mentioned what other politicians know -- but often fail to highlight -- which is that our current fiscal calamities, were abetted by individuals -- not just banks, not just regulators, not just mortgage brokers, not just government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,
"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure."
Amen. I've been dismayed by the lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing. In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.
There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes to buy stuff they couldn't afford. Here are those arguments:
Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."
Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are appropriating money from responsible Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate that pattern.
The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case easy money), then encourage him or her to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. And in the cases I reference, we're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.
Many foreclosure so-called "victims" are personally responsible for their circumstances. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending. Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, lost their jobs, became seriously ill, or were improperly foreclosed upon -- but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who suffered a foreclosure (I ask rhetorically)?
Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."
Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current level of value. The continuing collapse of our financial system and our way of life, which appears to be careening toward Euro-Socialism, is as disturbing as the trajectory of home values.
However, if we allow the eggs to break and take our necessary economic pain, the values of our homes could appreciate again one day. Things get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless hangover.
Although the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship -- he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the debt can down the road. It's immoral and stupid.
Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to leverage our future, reward his supporters like public teachers' unions and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford. It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support him. I hope like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.
Right now, I don't see a stronger one.
 |
| Scott Walker Wikipedia image |
Mr. Walker mentioned what other politicians know -- but often fail to highlight -- which is that our current fiscal calamities, were abetted by individuals -- not just banks, not just regulators, not just mortgage brokers, not just government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,
"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure."
Amen. I've been dismayed by the lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing. In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.
There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes to buy stuff they couldn't afford. Here are those arguments:
Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."
Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are appropriating money from responsible Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate that pattern.
The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case easy money), then encourage him or her to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. And in the cases I reference, we're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.
Many foreclosure so-called "victims" are personally responsible for their circumstances. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending. Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, lost their jobs, became seriously ill, or were improperly foreclosed upon -- but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who suffered a foreclosure (I ask rhetorically)?
Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."
Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current level of value. The continuing collapse of our financial system and our way of life, which appears to be careening toward Euro-Socialism, is as disturbing as the trajectory of home values.
However, if we allow the eggs to break and take our necessary economic pain, the values of our homes could appreciate again one day. Things get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless hangover.
Although the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship -- he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the debt can down the road. It's immoral and stupid.
Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to leverage our future, reward his supporters like public teachers' unions and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford. It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support him. I hope like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.
Right now, I don't see a stronger one.
What sequence of events caused the mess?
Hedge fund executive Oscar Schafer in a Barron's interview (January 12, 2009, "Hang on Tight!") described our current economic condition thus: "The world is experiencing a giant margin call."
Yes, a giant margin call enabled by easy credit extended to millions of people who couldn't afford as much home as they purchased, or as much cashed out equity to finance a lifestyle they couldn't afford, before defaulting on their mortgages.
Yes, a giant margin call enabled by easy credit extended to millions of people who couldn't afford as much home as they purchased, or as much cashed out equity to finance a lifestyle they couldn't afford, before defaulting on their mortgages.
These mortgages would be bundled into what equated to securitized time bombs gobbled up by over-leveraged financial institutions.
How did it all happen?
Policy makers in Washington wanted to guarantee home ownership for anyone with a pulse. Then the Fed left open the spigot of cheap money by keeping rates too low for too long and America became intoxicated by illusory home price appreciation. 
Money center moguls and central bankers made enormous bets upon this whole sorry misuse of credit, until the system collapsed.
How did it all happen?
Money center moguls and central bankers made enormous bets upon this whole sorry misuse of credit, until the system collapsed. Millions of people, who either ought to have remained renters until their income and assets could justify their mortgage, or who should have purchased more modest homes and received loans at fixed rates, were enabled by government-coddled institutions like Fannie and Freddie and populist legislation to "invest in our communities".
The risks they took (policy makers, investment banks...and millions of Americans), have poisoned the well that the rest of us must drink from -- perhaps for decades. Now we hear that the other shoe to drop will come from commercial credit busts, or the next highest risk level of mortgages above subprime.
Grandma warned us when we were children. If you can't afford it -- don't buy it. If you can't afford to lose it -- don't risk it. In short, live within your means. Greed is the same thing that destroyed Rome. How will we get treatment and beat our addiction to debt before we all go down in flames?
The risks they took (policy makers, investment banks...and millions of Americans), have poisoned the well that the rest of us must drink from -- perhaps for decades. Now we hear that the other shoe to drop will come from commercial credit busts, or the next highest risk level of mortgages above subprime.
Grandma warned us when we were children. If you can't afford it -- don't buy it. If you can't afford to lose it -- don't risk it. In short, live within your means. Greed is the same thing that destroyed Rome. How will we get treatment and beat our addiction to debt before we all go down in flames?
A president's farewell
I felt sorry for him as he approached the lectern with a sheepish smile.
As Kissinger reminded Nixon, history will treat him better than his contemporaries. His policies precluded another attack since 9/11. To conclude otherwise is to posit that the other side simply stopped trying to harm us after 9/11. The President deserves credit and at least grudging acknowledgement from his political opponents for stalwart efforts to fight terrorism and protect Americans.
I'm reminded of another parallel with Nixon. Richard Nixon asked readers this question in one of his later books: if America does not lead in this world -- who will?
I repeated the question in one of my columns and a rebuttal came from a letter writer who declared that the correct answer to this question is -- the "leaders" of other countries. Unfortunately, the world has always been replete with 'leaders' like Stalin, Hitler and Hussein that refuse to back down.
This President did not have the luxury of presiding over a relatively peaceful world and the safety of American citizens has been this President's overriding concern. That fact will endure as a positive part of his legacy, even if the Iraq invasion does not.
Finally, his administration failed to stem the profligate federal spending we have seen during the last eight years -- punctuated with a new drug program we can ill afford; but that's a trend the new administration appears destined to continue.
As Kissinger reminded Nixon, history will treat him better than his contemporaries. His policies precluded another attack since 9/11. To conclude otherwise is to posit that the other side simply stopped trying to harm us after 9/11. The President deserves credit and at least grudging acknowledgement from his political opponents for stalwart efforts to fight terrorism and protect Americans.
I'm reminded of another parallel with Nixon. Richard Nixon asked readers this question in one of his later books: if America does not lead in this world -- who will?
I repeated the question in one of my columns and a rebuttal came from a letter writer who declared that the correct answer to this question is -- the "leaders" of other countries. Unfortunately, the world has always been replete with 'leaders' like Stalin, Hitler and Hussein that refuse to back down.
This President did not have the luxury of presiding over a relatively peaceful world and the safety of American citizens has been this President's overriding concern. That fact will endure as a positive part of his legacy, even if the Iraq invasion does not.
 |
| George W. Bush |
Monday morning quarterbacking
If the economy, the war, an
opponent with more cash and an unpopular President in office, all were not
enough to doom his campaign -- any chance of victory went irretrievably
south after Senator McCain selected Governor Palin as his running
mate. Bold choice? You betcha.
I was hopeful after Ms. Palin's rousing convention speech, but I still worried that Joe Biden would wipe the floor with her at the debates -- he did not and I kept hoping. My heart sunk after those Katy Couric interviews. I became an impostor by my silence.
Katy Couric's interview revealed a vacuous performance from a candidate who is supposed to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Ms. Palin will have a future in national politics, but she was not at all ready for this experience. Don't blame her, blame McCain's advisers. Having the "right views" and no skeletons, is not enough.
Yes, Ms. Palin has a fine record as Governor, yes she appeals to my Midwestern values and yes I was invigorated by selection of a conservative woman on the ticket, but she simply doesn't know enough and she is not yet equipped to think fast enough on the national stage.
As Peggy Noonan aptly put it in her October 17 Wall Street Journal column (Palin's Failin') -- "She just. . . says things."
I was hopeful after Ms. Palin's rousing convention speech, but I still worried that Joe Biden would wipe the floor with her at the debates -- he did not and I kept hoping. My heart sunk after those Katy Couric interviews. I became an impostor by my silence.
Katy Couric's interview revealed a vacuous performance from a candidate who is supposed to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Ms. Palin will have a future in national politics, but she was not at all ready for this experience. Don't blame her, blame McCain's advisers. Having the "right views" and no skeletons, is not enough.
Yes, Ms. Palin has a fine record as Governor, yes she appeals to my Midwestern values and yes I was invigorated by selection of a conservative woman on the ticket, but she simply doesn't know enough and she is not yet equipped to think fast enough on the national stage.
As Peggy Noonan aptly put it in her October 17 Wall Street Journal column (Palin's Failin') -- "She just. . . says things."
One thought for future GOP campaign strategists: even if the research does suggest that your candidate's running mate should be a female-outside the
Beltway-gun toting-strident Pro-Lifer; you must look harder than your predecessors did in
2008.
The infamous AIG party
 |
| AIG logo |
Unfortunately, due to the timing, the issue has become a a silly media-driven frenzy. Even the White House couldn't resist criticism and CNN keeps blaring, "Spa treatments! Spa Treatments!"
Any other insurance company that employs a business model of selling through independent reps holds a similar conference to reward and motivate top performers (Note: they are not employees).
These events are planned months, or years in advance. It has nothing to do with the loan program -- it wasn't even funded by the holding company. It is...a cost of doing business. Should AIG shut down incentives for independent sales agents? If so, there's no incentive to sell their products, ipso facto.
I own shares of AIG, but even if I did not, my reaction to this storm would be the same and I did not like the bailout. However, I reject some of this populist furor because it paints the AIG event with the same brush used for the Dennis Kozlowski Toga bash. Different deal.
Hillary Clinton, Peggy Noonan (and me)
I owe Wall Street Journal columnist, Ms. Peggy Noonan. My infatuation with the tenacious campaign of Hillary Clinton almost made me lose my senses. Sometimes Peggy Noonan's work brings me back to earth, other times not so much, but always....she intrigues me. First, a few minor quibbles...
For me, one of the most memorable parts of the disastrous Dukakis campaign in 1988, was when Dukakis mocked the famous Noonan line written for George Bush, about "a thousand points of light." Mr. Dukakis asked derisively, "What does that mean?" A question fairly asked, in my opinion.
For me, one of the most memorable parts of the disastrous Dukakis campaign in 1988, was when Dukakis mocked the famous Noonan line written for George Bush, about "a thousand points of light." Mr. Dukakis asked derisively, "What does that mean?" A question fairly asked, in my opinion.
Similarly, I was baffled by the recognition Ms. Noonan received for a phrase she crafted for President Reagan to describe Washington D.C. as, "that shining city on a hill."
On TV she's occasionally a little cheeky, leaving the impression that she is trying to hide some nervousness. Stage fright (if that is indeed the culprit here) breeds gaffes. Case in point, I spotted Ms. Noonan on a TV program years ago expressing doubts that Lyndon Johnson was a humorous man. Presidential historians and anyone who's read enough about our 36th President will warrant that Johnson was often hilarious. (A brilliant mimic and comic story teller for starters). It wasn't a difference she needed to have with her TV co-panelists that day.
However, as an Op-ed reader, I look forward to Peggy Noonan's Saturday column in the Wall Street Journal. She incisively expressed her views about the actions and character of Hillary Clinton in several columns and today's piece, "Recoil Election" -- is another fine example.
However, as an Op-ed reader, I look forward to Peggy Noonan's Saturday column in the Wall Street Journal. She incisively expressed her views about the actions and character of Hillary Clinton in several columns and today's piece, "Recoil Election" -- is another fine example.
Ms. Noonan understands how both Clintons are brilliant, cunning and hopelessly deceptive. Although I remain awed by Ms. Clinton's durability, the playing of the gender card as a reason for her downfall overshadows some of the virtue behind her campaign effort.
In her piece this morning, Ms. Noonan makes comparisons to the character of an equally tenacious Golda Meir. (I might add Margaret Thatcher to that list). The point is this: other high profile women in politics face equally daunting gender challenges without falling prey to so much excuse-making. Noonan nailed it.
Monday, May 19, 2008--- True grit
I've been hard on the Clintons for a long time. A sample of my dissatisfaction with Mrs. Clinton's persona can be found in this post and an equally frank assessment of Mr. Clinton can be found here.
Even if I set aside their policy positions, it's their pathological dishonesty and smugness that leaves me cold again and again. I see Bill and Hillary Clinton as one person who has never stopped disappointing me. With all that as the backdrop for this post, I am about to go positive on one of them...
Yes, I began to feel something inspiring while contemplating Hillary Clinton recently. I find it redemptive to have had so much disdain for a person and then find something to admire. Strange feeling. My positive revelation is this: she's stronger than I ever realized.
It's not Mrs. Clinton's usual pluck that I am referring to -- the in-your-face type of retort she is both admired and reviled for. I'm talking about her tenacity. The type of thing that reveals itself after one is knocked down again and again. Some people get hit harder each time and still manage to rise. Think of Richard Nixon in his teens as the tackling dummy on the football team. Yes Mr. Nixon had tenacity too.
Monday, May 19, 2008--- True grit
I've been hard on the Clintons for a long time. A sample of my dissatisfaction with Mrs. Clinton's persona can be found in this post and an equally frank assessment of Mr. Clinton can be found here.
Even if I set aside their policy positions, it's their pathological dishonesty and smugness that leaves me cold again and again. I see Bill and Hillary Clinton as one person who has never stopped disappointing me. With all that as the backdrop for this post, I am about to go positive on one of them...
Yes, I began to feel something inspiring while contemplating Hillary Clinton recently. I find it redemptive to have had so much disdain for a person and then find something to admire. Strange feeling. My positive revelation is this: she's stronger than I ever realized.
It's not Mrs. Clinton's usual pluck that I am referring to -- the in-your-face type of retort she is both admired and reviled for. I'm talking about her tenacity. The type of thing that reveals itself after one is knocked down again and again. Some people get hit harder each time and still manage to rise. Think of Richard Nixon in his teens as the tackling dummy on the football team. Yes Mr. Nixon had tenacity too.
One must respect another person who has taken so many punches and keeps coming back. It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it, no matter how much contempt one has for her attitudes, ethical deficits and woke policies. I called the Democratic race over almost exactly 3 months ago - Mrs. Clinton will not be her party's nominee for president, but the lady has courage.
What I didn't predict and never expected, was that she'd stay in the race this long, after so much bombardment, and still credibly come back for more. It's fascinating to watch. Iran has cause to be afraid...very afraid.
What I didn't predict and never expected, was that she'd stay in the race this long, after so much bombardment, and still credibly come back for more. It's fascinating to watch. Iran has cause to be afraid...very afraid.
Vinegar in your morning cup of coffee
When I was first learning to write essays, our teacher stressed the importance of grabbing your readers' attention early on in your work, like a compelling "lead" to a news story. Consider columnist Jessie Eisinger's recent piece in the latest edition of Portfolio magazine in which his very first sentence will punish the reader harboring any sense of financial security...
"The worst Wall Street turmoil in a generation is going to wipe every other issue off the table for the next president."
Be warned, it gets scarier. Mr. Eisinger predicts calamity and he put it simply:
"There will be blood."
Common sense dictates that one can only cop a dangerously free ride for so long. At the end of that ride there is an inexorable crash that brings great pain to the free-riderers. Unfortunately, there will also be pain felt by those who paid for others' free rides because paid passengers are tethered to the free-riders.
"The worst Wall Street turmoil in a generation is going to wipe every other issue off the table for the next president."
Be warned, it gets scarier. Mr. Eisinger predicts calamity and he put it simply:
"There will be blood."
Common sense dictates that one can only cop a dangerously free ride for so long. At the end of that ride there is an inexorable crash that brings great pain to the free-riderers. Unfortunately, there will also be pain felt by those who paid for others' free rides because paid passengers are tethered to the free-riders.
We will pay for the free-riders' avarice, their lack of discipline, their recklessness.
Obama travel files is breaking news?
Apparently, Senator Obama's passport file has been reviewed.
OK, logical questions are by whom and why? Also, how did the story breakers learn about it? But I'm also trying to understand -- where is the story?
Is there some profound secret associated with Mr. Obama's public travels? What is the conspiracy they are tripping over themselves to report upon? Moreover, why is a presidential candidate's foreign travel history somehow more privileged than a review of his tax returns?
OK, logical questions are by whom and why? Also, how did the story breakers learn about it? But I'm also trying to understand -- where is the story?
 |
| Keith Olbermann, Wikipedia |
Is there some profound secret associated with Mr. Obama's public travels? What is the conspiracy they are tripping over themselves to report upon? Moreover, why is a presidential candidate's foreign travel history somehow more privileged than a review of his tax returns?
The media is reacting as though someone has broken into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist again. Keith Olbermann at MSNBC has actually referred to this story as "jaw dropping."
Please. We need much more. For the moment, my jaw is motionless.
Please. We need much more. For the moment, my jaw is motionless.
Hello Earth to Google! Anyone there?
A small, almost unnoticeable news brief on the page B4 of The Wall Street Journal today, contained a disturbing AP report. Apparently, the Pentagon had to intercede in order to thwart Google from proceeding with its plans to have "Google Earth teams" make detailed, panoramic maps of U.S. military bases.
I suspect that authorized military personnel know how to get around on those bases very well without using Google Earth.
To Google, I say: Your earth technology is magnificent, but don't you think that you might be compromising national security by plastering that content out on the Internet? (Sorry Google, I feel strongly about these things; but please don't shut down my blog).
To Google, I say: Your earth technology is magnificent, but don't you think that you might be compromising national security by plastering that content out on the Internet? (Sorry Google, I feel strongly about these things; but please don't shut down my blog).
R.I.P. WFB
Yesterday at the age of 82, while working in his study, we lost William F. Buckley. Mr. Buckley captivated millions of us with his columns, speeches, debates, appearances on TV talk shows, authoring of 50+ books, harpsichord-playing, creation of National Review and a seminal television program for serious discourse called, "Firing Line."
 |
| WFB, Wikipedia |
In my twenties, I'd watch television debates with awe and amusement as Mr. Buckley gracefully routed his opponents. He had no equal then and I'm not sure he has one today.
Many Americans, I'm guessing under the age of 35, have little awareness of this man's enormous gifts and contributions to contemporary conservative thought. He was simply America's most charming intellectual with a legendary command of language, politics, economics, history and music.
He advocated for free markets and limited government before it was widely embraced. He warned about secularism before it reached current proportions.
He advocated for free markets and limited government before it was widely embraced. He warned about secularism before it reached current proportions.
Sometimes subtle characteristics endure. I'll not forget that sparkle in his eyes flashing as his expansive smile emerged. Mr. Buckley's radiant face revealed something more than the intellectual gifts for which he is often parodied.
 |
| WFB with Ronald Reagan, Wikipedia |
Those signature facial expressions revealed an abundant joyfulness and love of life beaming straight through the camera lens and into American homes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Is that what heaven looks like?
L ast week before leaving Thailand (more about that trip shortly), I learned my brief reader's comment about financial advisory services...
-
This morning, I attended a seminar about the "Psychology of Golf". The topic intrigued me because all of my personal golf instruc... -
Pointed, brilliant drifts of snow pierce the evening of winter. Curving upward they arch to a luminous, cyclopean moon. A guest, humble, I s... -
In Oliver Stone's 1995 biopic film about President Richard Nixon, there's a memorable passage attributed to H. R. Haldeman . Hald...