Showdown at the GOP Corral

Elephant getting restless.. Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

I had a decent blog topic for today, but current events have pushed that one out. Today I’d like to talk about current political events since they’ve taken some unusual turns..

Grand Old Party

In my long memory, the GOP never seemed much like the party of Lincoln.. black Americans have voted Democrat since at least the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Wealthy people and business men seemed to have the biggest lock on the Republican Party. Up until the mid-1960’s, the GOP was the gathering place of WASPy, protestant, middle-to-upper crust men. These were men most concerned about inheritance tax, capital gains and interest rates. These were pallid, fiduciary men -- not heated by the fires of race and religion. These pallid men I dub the GOP “patrician elite”.

LBJ SENDS RED MEAT THE GOP WAY

In 1965, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. While signing, he said as an aside, “There goes the South”. And he was right. Starting with the 1968 Presidential election, the “red meat” Southerners migrated over to the GOP, in droves. The migration was complete by 1972 when George McGovern’s liberal campaign suffered a huge, humiliating defeat. The GOP had acquired the Angry Southerner. While not adhering so much to Southern issues, the GOP Elite loved having the extra votes. What could they to do accommodate their newest party members and make them feel welcomed?

RED MEAT REPUBLICANS

Red meat Republicans and the Elite share a lot of similar views, but with entirely different emphasis. These are major care-abouts for the largely blue collar, lower middle class red meats:

1. Abortion / Planned Parenthood
2. Gay marriage / Gays in the military
3. Freedom of Religious Expression / Freedom to post the 10 Commandments
4. NRA / Right to bear arms including machine guns
5. Immigration
6. Low taxes

On this whole list, the only ones that grip the heart of a Yale Man are items 5 and 6. The others, not so much. On number 5, the red meats and elite are in direct conflict with each other.

THROW THEM A BONE

For 40 years, the elite have played on the emotions of the red meat.. Beware of gun-confiscating, lesbian, secular humanists! Listen to Jerry Falwell! Phony liberal bogeymen were summoned forth through all the years to scare blue collar people to the polls. Downplay anything that might be an actual conflict.. The fact that Walmart Stores and Gemcraft homes love the cheap labor of Mexican immigrants was kept hushed and subdued – like the drinking habits of a favorite uncle.

Truth be – Elite Republicans align more with Democrats in many ways. They think abortion is sad and regrettable, not necessarily immoral. They don’t celebrate in a Gay Pride event but avail themselves of gay catering and gay style sense. They worship in the Episcopal Church, but refrain from public proselyting – perceived as an exercise in tasteless yelling. The Elite might shoot skeet or fish, but they don’t have firearms as a major life factor or concern.

FRANKENSTEIN, ARISE!

This game has worked extremely well since 1972. In 2004, Howard Dean marveled at how a certain demographic (red meat) is primarily concerned with “Guns, Gays and God”. In so many ways, across so many days this strategy worked .. until international terrorism raised its ugly head. Suddenly the red meat contingent has a bone to pick with one of the bones it was thrown. They have a serious problem with immigration policy and are lining up behind the likes of Trump and Cruz. Trump and Cruz are the anti-Elite and frightening specters to anyone from the GOP Old Guard.

GOP CIVIL WAR

In truth, the GOP is two very different groups – it’s an awkward marriage of convenience. Bubba doesn’t care about derivatives or capital gains. He cares about the Three G’s above. Reginald from Yale doesn’t get any major upset from God, gays or guns. But he becomes excitable if we start talking about Visa expirations and deportation of illegals. What happens to the nanny, the yard crew and the H1B staff at the office? This blog author doesn’t know how it ends. It may be Credence Clearwater's Bad Moon Arisin’ – a storm of epic proportions yet to play out. This is what happens when you play with fire – it’s only remarkable that a fuse in this case took 50 years to ignite.

© 2015 Snillor Productions

Getting Over the Trump Hump

Trump on the Stump .. Poster courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
TODAY

Today is one of the 4 days a year where Dallas has pleasant sidewalk café weather. There was no parking at White Rock, and Starbucks is full to capacity indoors and out. Yes I’m loving it!

TRUMP

Enough of the idle chit chat – let’s talk about the elephant in the room, our leading GOP candidate Donald Trump. This loud, bombastic titan of all that is golf courses and beauty pageants has somehow risen to a poll number of 32% in a field of 16 GOP candidates. Like columnist George Will, I’m appalled by this development. I’m reminded of the 2006 movie Idiocracy where a rapper and former porn star becomes President.

If I had to name a public figure who Trump most calls to mind it would be Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Both men are ego-centric, crude, macho demagogues. Trump would have to operate within the limits of Constitutional law thank goodness. Putin has no such boundary to observe in Moscow. Of course, when Adolph Hitler became Germany’s chancellor, all of their Democratic protections became debatable – something to place on the bargaining table. That’s something for America to consider as we choose a President the same way we would choose a Reality show contestant.

I will absolutely admit – Trump is entertaining and interesting to watch. He can be a laugh riot. He reminds me of my cousin-in-law who tells hilarious yarns, and also thinks black people should be shipped back to Africa. That man is funny in his local, yokel salesman kind of way. He should NEVER be President, or be in any position that determines social policy. Dodge that bullet now.

Donald Trump made his biggest impact in June, when he said he would “round up all the illegals and send them back to Mexico”. He would also build a “Great Wall” to stop the influx of more illegals. The full implementation of these things would cost a national fortune and create a police state .. the impracticality is as monumental as the proposed Trump Wall itself. Other GOP candidates have been forced into a game of xenophobe leap-frog. Scott Walker has now proposed a wall along the Canadian border.

Trump has potential to be a wrecking ball to the GOP as well as the Democratic process. Much like the bamboozled denizens of Venezuela – we will get the banana republic of our choosing. Irony there – in the fact that so many Americans harbor racist feelings toward Hispanics. We stand a good chance of importing their type of governance – a governance that makes the governed people seek escape from corruption, scandal and brute force heavy-handedness.

© 2015 Snillor Productions

Whigs and Squirrels

Squirrels making strides .. Poster courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
Today is hotter than Hades – both of the nearby Starbucks are full to capacity with people drinking iced coffees, escaping the heat. I’ve now landed at the Highland Park Whole Foods. I’m drinking an Allegro ice coffee flavored with almond milk and Truvia.

SQUIRRELS

Before I launch into today’s topic, I have to comment on the squirrel situation. I have two nice bird feeders in my back yard.. in previous years they attracted sparrows, cardinals and blue jays. Nary a bird comes by anymore – the squirrels have taken over. I guess squirrels have to eat too.

My newest feeder is called the “squirrel stumper”. It has a metal grill surrounding the cylindrical body. The squirrels are not stumped by it at all. They can hang upside down on the grill and eat out of the dispenser tray. They even appear to have figured out how to remove the screw top. It’s eerie – can a rodent be that smart?

There is a cable that runs from a telephone pole in my alley, past the hackberry tree (with feeders) over to my house. It runs about two feet above the feeder and a foot or two to the right of it. Yesterday that cable was hooked under a short tree branch next to the feeder. It’s as if the squirrels engineered a bridge directly to the feeder. They weighed it down and swung it over. Those little brown bastards! Little, brown, innovative bastards at that.

WHIGS

If squirrels are smart, Republicans are showing signs of devolution. Never mind Donald Trump; he’s amusing but he’s not the main GOP issue right now. The main issue with the GOP is immigration – a topic which succeeds in splitting the GOP right down the middle. Companies like Walmart and Gemcraft Homes benefit highly from immigrant laborers with their reduced wages. Wealthy stakeholders (who trend Republican) embrace the immigrants. Populist middle class Republicans are angry with immigration and even hostile toward Latinos in general. They abhor immigration and it’s a central theme of theirs. These two groups cannot live in the same domicile for long – history even has a precedent dating back to the 1850’s.

Our man Abraham Lincoln was a Whig in the 1850’s. Whigs were a conservative, pro-business party but they were riven by the issue of slavery. President Millard Fillmore was a slavery apologist and the anti-slave Whigs could not tolerate his re-nomination. It’s a rare case in history where a party name, “Whig” came to have a nasty connotation to its own members. It could signify a slave-freeing Lincoln or a slave-justifying Fillmore. By 1856, the Whigs were destroyed as a party. The anti-slavery Whigs founded the new Republican Party and the pro-slave group glommed to a failed “American” Party. They next gravitated over to a Democratic Party that had a stretchier (albeit hypocritical) view of humans owning humans.

I have trouble imagining anyone who his young, female, gay or minority voting for the GOP. The party is a fossilized, ossified vessel of Old White Man ideas. I typically think that third parties are a bad move – but I can actually see a 3rd Party now supplanting the GOP with fiscal conservatism that accompanies a sensitivity for human and animal rights. It would be in some ways a sequel of the Whigs in 1856.

© 2015 Snillor Productions

Psychic Readings for 2016

Hillary in a confirmation hearing - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
Today I’m at home on a Saturday night – surprise! We’ve had unexpected thunderstorms and power outages today. Probably a good idea to keep indoors and avoid the rain drops.

ELECTION 2016
I’ve been writing this blog since 2005, and have been famously inaccurate about predicting who will win or even run in a next presidential race. That does not stop me from pontificating at all. A broken clock is right twice a day, and maybe it’s my time to be right. 

RICK PERRY
Governor Perry was just indicted for coercion of a public servant. The federal indictment will surely cause him image problems but some legal experts including democrat David Axelrod think it’s a weak case. I figure that Perry was a long shot due to his poor 2012 showing and general lack of pizzazz. The legal issues won’t help, but it was a “hail Mary” effort anyhow.

RAND PAUL
Rand Paul is energizing, youthful, interesting and sometimes he even makes sense to this centrist democrat (me, the author). He actually sided with Obama on a couple of recent foreign policy issues and seems to be reasonable until … he whips out his Libertarian philosophy. He believes in a flat tax and thinks federal spending should be drastically curtailed. He would have trouble gaining momentum with the Old GOP Guard who value their pork barrel politics. Libertarianism is a hard sell, even when it disguises itself as “constitutional conservatism”.

TED CRUZ
This senator from Texas actually scares and concerns me a bit. He’s good-looking and charismatic. He has what Bush #1 called “the big mo” (momentum). He’s a bombastic, overconfident Tea Party bloviator with apt phrases and good camera presence. Americans frequently go for the guy with a twinkle in his eye (never mind anything at all about the candidate’s worthiness for the office). Cruz was the wrecking ball who nearly shut down the government last year but Americans also have a short memory. Watch out for Cruz.

JOE BIDEN
Biden has recently suggested he might run in 2016, though Queen Hillary has very nearly been anointed for that role by the party elders and the press. Biden is a good, fun, jovial man. He’s stepped in a few controversies and misspoken a couple of times but he’s an intelligent man with his heart in the right place. I like him a lot, personally, but think that the Hillary juggernaut will leave him in the dust.

HILLARY CLINTON
I have Republican friends who almost assume Hillary will be the next president. Women and feminists everywhere are baying at the moon for President Hillary. I hate to burst their bubble, but I think Hillary has a good chance of losing for 2 or 3 reasons:
1) The Adlai Effect – She’s already run and lost. Prior losers are less-loved.
2) Hillary will be old - She would be 69 at inauguration. Old ladies are less-loved.
3) Beer Buddy question – This is the most important fact. Hillary comes across as a stiff, academic policy wonk – an overly serious nerd who did her homework last week.

Americans famously dislike intellectual eggheads. People who are rich, highly educated or use big words lose American voters really fast. John Kerry came across as a limousine liberal snob and George McGovern came across as a stuffy professor. Americans want a guy who can crack wise on a talk show or play the saxophone. Who would you rather have a beer with? Probably not Mrs. Clinton.

TWO DISAFFECTED VOTER GROUPS
I wrote previously (“Will the Voter Get His Groove Back”) – about 2 disaffected groups. Evangelical Christians sit on their hands if they don’t love the GOP candidate’s flavor of conservatism. They didn’t like McCain in 2008 and they distrusted Romney in 2012. African Americans also sit on their hands if the Democratic candidate isn’t a stylin’ smilin’ hipster (like Bill Clinton or Obama). They were coldly indifferent to Al Gore and John Kerry. Let me get on my soapbox… ATTENTION DISAFFECTED VOTERS – you will never, ever have a candidate who precisely reflects your opinions. It will almost always be a lesser of evils situation. You still have a dog in the fight. Evangelicals helped Obamacare get passed and African Americans helped start two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It matters that you vote and who you vote for. Petulance and pettiness only help the other guy get what he wants. Keep that in mind when you hate your party’s next nominee.

Have I nailed any predictions here? Absolutely not. 2016 is like a greased pig and it could go in several different directions. Everyone needs to be on his or her toes. Message to Hillary – smile more and laugh it up. Your biggest hurdle is not your resume but rather your repartee.

© 2014 Snillor Productions

Give Christie a Break

Think of the Alternatives - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

With all the scandal surrounding New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, I see the situation differently than the blood-thirsty bloggers at Daily KOS and Huffington Post. Many progressives seem to take delight in the trials that the portly governor has endured with "Bridge-gate".

Did Christie know that his operatives vindictively closed a bridge to the town of a mayor who dissed the portly governor? The bridge is a single-point access to the town; the "traffic study" closed off two essential lanes. The resulting traffic jam created a nightmare situation. There were actual health consequences for people needing ambulance service.

Today, there have been suggestions that Christie knew of the closings and even may have orchestrated the bridge closing. Liberal editors and late-night comedians have lambasted Christie over the series of events. The actions, if true, would suggest a "boss-man" bully who will do anything to get his way.

I have a problem with all of needling, keeping in mind that Christie is (was?) the probable 2016 GOP front-runner. Christie is a "Rockefeller" Republican of the old school. He's socially liberal and pragmatic in fiscal affairs. Unlike the Tea Party extremists, Christie would probably work in a bipartisan way if elected. The GOP is presently adrift and I fear who might be the alternative if Christie were disqualified. Names like Rand Paul and Ted Cruze come to mind -- names that send a shudder through my soul.

We have a schizo electorate that swung directly from George W. Bush to Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Who can predict what way the wind is blowing in 2016? There is residual anger over the bungled roll-out of Obamacare and Obama's ratings are low right now. Hillary Clinton (presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner) has two tons of political baggage and her victory in 2016 is not assured. It will be great if BOTH candidates are people we can live with. Heads or tails - a win.

So Democrats -- as you roll tanks over Chris Christie, keep in mind the stage you are setting. The American electorate is fickle; it seems to elect people based on whimsy, style, and momentary air currents. A Tea Party activist with style and flair could upstage Hillary and it's not even a long shot. I'm hoping that Christie wasn't too much of a "crime boss". What did he know and when did he know it? Let's hope not much and late in the game. A bridge-closing Christie would probably still be preferable to a government-closing Cruze.

© 2014 blogSpotter

Biden Here to Stay

He ain't going anywhere but maybe the White House - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia
by blogSpotter

“If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”. That piece of Texas wisdom is handily ignored by so many people... I’ve recently seen a handful of articles where people hope or speculate that Obama will replace Joe Biden as his 2012 vice presidential candidate. A couple of them have been diehard Hillary fans (“pumas”) and one of them is ultraconservative columnist Mark Davis. In each case it seems, they want to replace Biden with Hillary Clinton.

Where to begin on this? Let’s start by pointing out that Joe Biden has done nothing wrong. If he is guilty of anything, it’s too much exuberance and a smile that shines at too many kilowatts. He hasn’t stepped in the cow patties that Dan Quayle did in the early 90’s – he hasn’t even molested the English language or foreign policy the same way George W. Bush (the actual President BTW) did in his two terms. Biden has certainly made some minor gaffes… he fittingly described Obamacare as a “big effing deal” when the legislation was signed. He didn’t know the microphone was so sensitive. Some people think that Biden’s support of gay marriage somehow forced Obama’s hand on the same issue. I doubt that’s the case; also if Obama dumped Biden now, it would look altogether punitive and cancel out his progressive stand on marriage equality.

To Hillary Pumas everywhere – get over it. Obama won, and that was four years ago. Do some yoga, EST or whatever zen meditations it takes for you to get over this loss. It’s a near certainty that a woman will be POTUS or VEEP at some point – that point is just not now. Please keep your response to one which is simple and measured, not a reflex that puts feminism ahead of all else. Obama being the first black POTUS probably trumps having a first female. Europeans have blazed all around that territory with Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and others. Our arrival there will be less remarkable from here forward anyway.

Mark Davis, I don’t know what to say. He is a sworn enemy to Obama and any suggestion he makes to or about Obama’s campaign is suspect. Is he purposely making a stupid suggestion and hoping that Obama’s team will bite? There’s really no telling on that one. Biden has done nothing worse than silly gaffes that any of us might do if we’re constantly being followed, quoted and cornered into interviews. Even an on-his-toes extrovert will occasionally misspeak. Obama has sometimes misspoken (though never seriously).

Mark Davis did point up something in his “Ditch Biden” article…Davis admitted it would show a huge lapse of loyalty, cause a circling of wagons and create gross nastiness where none is called for. Obama shouldn’t change horses in midstream – it wouldn’t be prudent. O’man’s shakiest relationship is with the White Male constituency, gosh that includes Mark Davis. By ditching Biden and taking on Hillary, he’d be eschewing a needed wing man for someone who already represents a solid Obama fan club (liberal white females). Biden is white-male enough to be the perfect balance for Obama's ticket. Biden has been a great Vice President and should continue to do so in the 2nd Obama term (should Obama get his 2nd term).

To you pumas out there – take a couple of chill pills. Your day will come, be patient at least for now. For ingenuous, conservative commentators out there (listening Mark?) – keep your malarkey to yourself or share it on the FOX network where nobody progressive is watching anyway.
© 2012 blogSpotter

A Santorum of Our Own

James, in the mold of Santorum - Picture courtesy of ESPN

by blogSpotter
Today’s blog is a mix of things – have a been a little too busy to carefully research something like my previous entry on Stephen Foster. I’ll do this like a Ouija Board and see where my typing fingers take me…

ROBERT, THE EXERCISE FREAK

I was at a 12-step meeting last week. We had an unremarkable speaker, but one thing impressed me in her talk. This short, squat, 45ish pear-shaped woman said that she was into “extreme sports” and liked to run marathons. The thin wisp of a middle-aged woman who introduced her vouched that they “walk around White Rock Lake every day”. I’m not the world’s most agist or sexist person but had trouble thinking of these two as track stars. I decided that today – a beautiful, sunny 63 degree late February day – would be perfect for me to see how and if my 54-year old self could trek around the lake. Yea, verily I did it in exactly 3 hours. I thought it was 6 miles – in fact it’s 9.3 miles. Here are some (fairly sad) details about the achievement…

o I had to use every port-a-potty along the way – to get rid of a giant carafe of breakfast coffee I drank.
o I started having severe allergy attacks off the bat, and all the way around. Spring-like weather is a mixed blessing for me.
o As I thought would be the case, I was worn out at the halfway mark (7-11) and contemplated calling a cab to take me the rest of the way… (I resisted!)
o Every bone, muscle and sinew in my body was aching – my back was in pain. I started developing two blisters on my toes, to accompany the rock that was tumbling around in my shoe.
o Observed that walking is as exhausting as running, when done in the extreme.

Will I do it again – Good Lord, no! Not any time soon. My fatigue has fatigue as I type this. Does the pear-shaped woman do this daily? Maybe so – my 30-year old cousin Jessica runs half marathons every other day. Mine is not to question why, mine is to avoid doing it again lest I die. I do feel like I accomplished something and can always point to that day when I “walked the whole lake”. I’ll see the Bath House in the far distance and know full well that my feet could get me there in 90 minutes.

But ENOUGH of my personal fitness drama, let's proceed and look at Texas' political drama ...

CRAIG JAMES, REVEALED

I was vexed and perplexed when I read that Texas Senatorial candidate Craig James was making blatantly homophobic remarks last week. He took Tom Leppert to task for riding in Dallas’ Alan Ross gay pride parade. Mr. James further elaborated that sex preference is a choice and one that the “Lord will judge gays for it in the hereafter”. Leppart defended himself as best he could, saying that as mayor he wanted to represent all his constituents. Mr. James is most impressive – he seems to know the mind of God. He knows who will be punished for what and when; heck, he’s almost taken it upon himself to do God’s work.

Imagine how interesting it was when I read in today’s paper that James is disliked by many heterosexuals in his former sports circle. Craig, an ex-ESPN sportscaster and SMU football player is apparently the “stage dad from Hell”…. When his son Adam was sidelined at Texas Tech for lack-luster football performance, Craig accused Coach Mike Leach of tormenting his son (who was nursing a concussion) -- sending him to a dark, convalescing room. James turned this mole hill into a mountain and got Coach Leach fired. The reverberations and bad vibes of this are still playing out in the sports world – very fittingly it spills into Craig James’ senatorial bid. Karma after all. I don’t know what God has in mind for any of us later, but he has something in mind for Mr. James’ reputation right now.

And so it goes – I’ve rambled for too long here at Starbucks. While I typed this, a little girl was trying to show me where her American Doll injured her leg. I can relate to that doll’s injury – my legs are still recovering from White Rock. I’ll sign off now and probably go soak in the tub. I won’t walk around the lake anytime right away; I won’t vote for Craig James ever. I can’t say what my Bush-loving Texas brethren might do but that’s a topic for another blog.

© 2012 blogSpotter

Superprez

It's a bird, it's a plane! - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I’ve been busy moving to a new office at work and repainting 3 rooms of my house – I guess it’s good to stay busy. It’s kept me from my blog though, so there’s some catching up to do… Today’s topic is all political and I’ll start with a brief remark about Rick Perry’s recently ended campaign.

PERRY CAMPAIGN EULOGY
The fourth grader who forgot his lines in “Sleeping Beauty” still dwells deep in my psyche. I froze up, and my teacher, Mrs. Conwoop (on stage right), had to feed me every line for 5 minutes… The horror! The embarrassment! That part of me feels for Rick Perry’s various campaign freeze-ups – he forgot the government agency he’d like to cancel twice. He thought the Supreme Court had 8 justices. His infractions were actually minor and human if not for the fact he was running for POTUS. His positions were actually Neanderthal and poorly spoken – a columnist for Dallas Morning News condensed them as “more conservative than thou”. Turned out more was needed, even with this weak field of GOP candidates.

Perry’s poor performance actually says more about his fellow Texans than it says about Perry… we’ve had him as governor for twelve years. He skated by in a couple of election cycles with nary a debate and very few interviews. Do Texans want to repeat that cycle? We could just as easily send a door stop or a hat rack to the governor’s mansion. How about a suit on a hanger and a pair of cowboy boots? Texas needs to rethink its red meat/red state mentality. Maybe governance needs people who’ve thought through the issues and know how to present their ideas coherently. This is all something to chew on as we proceed to our next political topic…

ANDREW SULLIVAN and SUPERPREZ
Andrew Sullivan is a talented Newsweek columnist who recently kicked a hornet’s nest with his provocative cover story – “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” On wonky web sites like realclearpolitics.com, Sullivan’s article prompted a handful of retort articles like “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Smart?” Any article which prompts 5 reply articles merits a read – it got under peoples’ skin….

Andrew Sullivan used to be a contradiction to me. Until Obama came along, he was a conservative, gay Republican. He fell under the “Log Cabin” moniker which strikes me a little like being a black Dixiecrat (were that still possible, thankfully not). He became an “Obamican” in 2007, and in his recent Newsweek article he articulates Obama’s 1st term achievements. Here is but a short list for “Superprez”….

o Rescued GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy
o Passed $787 billion stimulus that probably steered us around a depression
o Added 2.4 million jobs, more than entire W Bush years
o Actually lowered taxes – 1/3 of stimulus was middle class tax cuts
o Enacted Obamacare, an approach which encourages individual responsibility.
o Took out Osama Bin Laden and Khadafy, seriously weakened Al Qaeda
o Ended DADT and ended US pursuit of the “Defense of Marriage Act”
o Ended the Iraq war

These are fairly remarkable achievements – any two of them would be lifetime bragging rights for an aspiring, progressive politico. They're all the more impressive coming from a political novice like Obama... I must confess that I myself was for Hillary back in 2008. Obama seemed like an untested “dark horse” (no racial pun intended :-) ) and I wondered what we were in for. It irked me that Caroline Kennedy and her Uncle Ted were pushing Obama – I blogged tirelessly about the unwarranted adulation in articles like “Obaminable”.

Have to say I was mistaken -- I’m impressed by Obama’s achievements. Sullivan describes him as a “long game, show-don’t-tell” politician. He’s more interested in doing than telling (or bragging). I myself think that the watershed moment was killing Bin Laden. Taking out this elusive, evil cancer was important – probably important enough to explain why the GOP has sent in only their “B” Team (maybe their “C” Team) for 2012. The GOP establishment wants to keep the “A” players primed for 2016.

To people all over, who have a secret envy and dismay over a wunderkind newbie with a middle name of “Hussein” no less, I know whereof you sputter with exasperation… how dare he? Well he dared and he did. And in all fairness, we have to give credit to this remarkable Superprez. What might he pull off in another 4 years?

© 2012 blogSpotter

The M Word

Romney at Battle Creek - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I haven’t done an election piece for a while. Thought I would weigh in on a few things as 2011 draws to a close. Today’s topic is Mitt Romney but I’d like to address a couple of small “nits” first …

Dallas' NBC 5 and its love affair with Rick Perry

I’ve noticed that NBC 5 and the Dallas Morning News run prominent Rick Perry stories every day now. These are nice, softball pieces that show up in on the front page of DMN or the top of NBC 5’s news hour. I’d like to inform these two news agencies that Rick Perry being from Texas does not mean that all Texans are pulling for him. I felt sorry for Perry when he had his (now historic) brain freeze in one debate, forgetting which federal agencies he’d cancel. But more generally when the man opens his mouth he says something appalling – that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or ending Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell is a violation of Christian morality. I think that if DMN and NBC 5 want to continue running commercials for Rick Perry they should either (1) charge him standard rates for the coverage or (2) give equal time to other candidates. A Texas upbringing is a minor, negligible factor in which candidate is best.

Mark Davis and his hatred of immigrants

Mark Davis, in his 11/30 DMN editorial railed against illegal Mexican immigrants. He compared an illegal immigrant to a bank robber or other serious felon. Really Mark? You’re going to follow that line of illogic? A poor Mexican father of four is probably doing what any “market actor” does – he looks for the job that offers the best salary and benefits. That’s probably what Mark Davis does when signing on with a news program or talk show. Yes, the immigrant may violate US immigration law – does that make him equivalent to a bank robber? Our (Anglo) forefathers came from Ireland, England and Western Europe for much the same motivations as Mexican immigrants. There was a huge, paranoid outcry at the turn of the last century, much like now. I will close this topic by saying that immigrant contributions far exceed what they might cost in social services. Conservatives need to quit looking for hapless scapegoats when Wall Street is much more the problem with our current economy in the dumps. Pick on someone your own size. And President Obama -- tear down that fence along the Rio Grande.

The Trouble with Mitt

Now that Newt Gingrich has overtaken Romney in all the polls, people are wondering how and why. Newt has been described as an ego-maniacal, grandiose windbag with a short fuse, no less. He’s also said to be charming, brilliant and fascinating – none of these traits preclude each other. The essential verdict from pundits who know Newt is that he’s an amazing man who probably shouldn’t be President due to a non-Presidential temperament. Mitt Romney on the other hand is like the devoted High School valedictorian – he’s a picture of discipline, self-control and temperate thoughts. He’s done all the homework. Romney has also succeeded well in business though he modestly keeps his $200,000,000 net worth out of his “humble” biography.

Magazines and talking head shows have pointed to a couple of main things in analyzing Romney… he’s a flip-flopper on issues, he prevailed over a “socialist” government health care plan (“Romneycare” in Massachusetts), and he’s seen as too liberal by the extreme-right GOP. These things may all be true, but we’ve put other flawed men into office – men with heavy baggage and far less to recommend them (e.g., Nixon’s 2nd term, Bush after the Iraq fiasco). What people (and the media in particular) tip-toe around is the fact that Romney is a devout Mormon. “M” in my title is not Mitt – it’s Mormon. Mainstream deep-south Protestants view the Mormon Church as a cult. This might not be as it should be – how unpleasant is the topic of intolerance. This is what is.

When JFK ran for President in 1960, his Catholicism was an issue – would he be taking orders from the Pope? Political Correctness hadn’t yet put the stranglehold of an overfed boa constrictor on our society. The topic was allowed to be broached and even discussed at length. When discussion was allowed, the silliness of the original proposition was fully apparent. Kennedy made it clear that he would be foremost a U.S. President, for all Americans. What is disturbing in 2011 is that a significant viewpoint probably knocks all the ex-Confederate states out of Romney’s support column. And that viewpoint is a forbidden topic. Conservative Texans, when asked why they don’t like Romney, will pussyfoot all the way around the sagebrush… he’s “too liberal…a Rockefeller Republican”.. Translation …. “There is no way in Hell that I’d ever vote for a Mormon cultist”. This blog’s author sees Christianity and Mormonism as similar types of cults. One simply has more history and infrastructure surrounding it. In 2012, we’ve closed the door on the discussion because it might lead to another discussion about religion. Now is the PC moment for all of us to clear our throats uncomfortably and change the subject.

But let’s just put the 2012 GOP race into perspective. Because of all the weirdness in this year’s candidates it’s indeterminate what will happen. Bachman developed crazy eyes, Rick Perry forgot his lines and Herman Cain had bimbo eruptions. But it’s looking like Mitt will not be the guy either – for a reason that in 2012 “dare not speak its name” – religion and cults.

© 2011 blogSpotter

Saving General Motors

HHR on sale -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
"GM is really sort of a dinosaur", says Senator Richard Shelby with obvious derision. Shelby is the ranking Republican of the Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. He is of the Marie Antoinette tradition -- he might as well say, "Let them eat cake". Shelby is not alone in thinking that the struggling auto giant should be allowed to lapse into Chapter 11. Michael Levine of WSJ writes in an Op-Ed that GM could cut itself loose from smothering relationships (unions, unprofitable dealerships, pension obligations) if only it were made to operate out of Chapter 11. If it went into Chapter 11, according to Levine, you would have the new GM Lite.

Jeff Sachs, writing for the Washington Post disagrees. Airlines can function under Chapter 11, because a customer purchasing an airline ticket isn't expecting a long term commitment. A car buyer will want parts and service for possibly a decade into the future -- they want to believe that their car company is a solid, going concern. Potential car buyers won't even initiate a relationship with a company that's on the ropes. Chapter 11 is not a viable option for large auto companies.

In an odd alignment of Jupiter with Mars, Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan were in strong agreement on The McLaughlin Group this past Sunday. Eleanor and Pat hold down opposite ends of the political continuum but they converge on this -- both see that allowing GM to fail would cause immediate unemployment to 3 million people. It would cause untold damage to the nation's supply chain and very possibly put us into a depression. On top of all that, we the tax payers would still be liable to handle health care, unemployment and pension default problems for the millions of workers displaced. It would create pure havoc. As one Op-Ed writer put it -- we can pay for a wedding or a funeral. Wouldn't you rather have a wedding?

Of course there would be strings attached to any government largesse. There would probably be reorganization, streamlining and product realignment -- very similar to behaviors imposed under Chapter 11, but not as limiting or destructive to parties involved. Many people have said of this, as they said of Lehman's and AIG, "They behaved foolishly. Let them die from their own stupid mistakes". In less frenetic times, these would be words to consider. Unfortunately, because of the market meltdown and credit crunch, we cannot exact such vengeance. We cannot take these companies to task without zeroing out every 401K account and sweeping every American into a major depression. To restore credibility to the marketplace we must also engage in an unseemly form of market forgiveness. To forgive in this case isn't so much an act of emotional altruism as it is an act of outright financial survival.

I must point out a certain irony. I drive through Highland Park, Texas each way to work and look at the beautiful mansions along Armstrong and Belfort Avenues. Guess what vehicles are popular here? Suburbans, Tahoes and Yukons -- the gas-guzzling progeny of General Motors. Are the free market evangelizers this ready and willing to say goodbye to their vehicles of choice? I would think for consistency's sake that they would at least switch to the "dinosaur" offerings of Toyota -- the Sequoia for example or maybe a Nissan Titan.

Another thought which attends all of this is our lame duck President. Usually this holiday interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration is lame and tame -- full of golf, valedictory speeches and sweet goodbyes. Who would imagine that we’d have a nail-biter where we have to wonder what legislation a voted-out government can bring to the table, to prevent economic collapse? Let's hope they can bring something for GM and for all of us. Everyone fasten your seat belts – it looks to be a very bumpy ride.

© 2008 blogSpotter

End of the Bubba Curse?

Violence at a 1977 KKK march -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
It's time to reflect a little bit on some prior posts. I actually have some corrections to make -- one of them I'm very glad to make.

END OF THE BUBBA CURSE

In "The South has Risen Again", I basically reiterated the George Will view that only "bubba" (white, Baptist, southern) men could win the Presidency as representatives of the Democratic Party. The thinking has been that since Kennedy was elected in 1960, and partly due to the Civil Rights Act passed subsequently by Johnson, all the Democrat Presidents (and even the most recent Republican President) have conformed to the Bubba profile. They all speak with a twang and might have "gone fishin'" for the weekend.

Obama has thoroughly trounced this rule -- he is a black Chicagoan; furthermore, he's a sitting senator, not a governor. He speaks good, eloquent English -- nothing like the mangled Texan language of Bush or the good 'ol boy homilies of Bill Clinton. America has been represented by Texas or Arkansas for the last 16 years -- hardly places of erudition or tolerance. Let us please now have a break, a very long break from presidential bubba-dom.

HENRY PAULSON

When the market melted down two months ago, it looked like Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was being proactive about a rescue plan -- I gave him a fairly glowing tribute. After reviewing other economists and commentators views of Paulson, I may have spoken too soon. Paul Krugman (who has recently garnered a Nobel for economics) dissed Paulson and I hoped at the time that it was just a grudge match of some sort between the two men.

Now, financial analysts Dylan Ratigan and Jim Cramer have chimed in to bolster Krugman's argument. Apparently Paulson was one of the very people that allowed investment banks to develop highly risky portfolios -- some of them knowing that they could be paid up front and transfer the risk on to others. This is a sublimated form of THEFT and should not be tolerated in any civilized financial trade system. Then, Ratigan, Cramer and other have thrown a spotlight on what they see as a "raid" on the $700 billion bail-out fund. Wall Street is using the money to pay executive bonuses. Rather than US taxpayers having any say, it's somewhat the reverse. The bailout money is feeding "the Beast" that got us into trouble already.

If these assessments are true, it would be shame on Mr. Paulson and Godspeed to the Obama transition.

OVERALL

The nation is in awe of itself, rightfully so, that we just elected a black President. As cartoonist Toles pointed out, we have just ratified a portion the Constitution two days ago -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal". Let's hope that the nation stays the course this time, but not in the Bushian sense of that phrase.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Yes We Can

Is Obama's Election a Repudiation? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
This is the morning after the 2008 Presidential election and I'm trying to piece together some of the outcome's implications. I think that Obama's election is above all, a repudiation of the W. Bush years. But it's also a reaction to the September 15th stock market crash -- you'll recall that McCain had a small lead over Obama after the GOP convention and right up to that point. Liberal pundits like to draw more from Obama's victory than there might even be -- it isn't the end of conservatism or the end of America's center-right political orientation.

What is conservatism anyway? I have to examine my own psyche to see where this fundamental difference in perspective lies. Much of my own family is conservative -- it would do me well to understand. Conservatives strike me as people who are happy with the world as it is. Life to them is a fragrant dream, occasionally interrupted with the unpleasant noise of disruptive hellions -- be they blacks, gays or Al Quaeda. Conservatives must think that God is basically finished with his handiwork -- only finishing touches needed here and there. Their concerns seem to fall into the materially mundane: Will Jim be admitted to Dartmouth? Does my Christmas centerpiece look good for the gala? Will the Highland Park Scotties win the football game? Their lives appear to unfold like a series of Groundhog Days -- if they just give alms and think "nice thoughts" (in the Hallmark since of that expression) it's a life well-lived. They aren't angry -- they also aren't especially curious or creative. They live in a rarified world which they hope will stay insular and "happy" if by happy you mean insensate.

Liberals don't see the world as a dream so much as a complex narrative -- a narrative nowhere near its resolution. Liberals see the world as one of relativity and connectedness, a world that requires both intelligent caring and sensitivity. It's a swirl of ying, yang and chaos theory -- what happens in Tupelo just might affect you. And the world is far from finished -- there is religious extremism, greed, pollution, racism, homophobia, sexism and a whole slew of world problems and human character defects. The actors in the play are so drastically flawed. Not only is God not finished, he's barely started.

What are your major care-abouts? Please don't say silverware patterns or sporting events. Please don't tell me if it's about finding shoes to match the $500 handbag advertised in Paper City. Speaking for me, I have some economic insecurity and worries about future health care. It worries me that parts of Dallas are more dangerous than Baghdad. I wish we had cures for breast, prostate and colon cancer. To the extent that federal tax dollars might advance these "narratives" I have no real objection to tax money being collected toward those ends. No galas, wine tastings or regattas in this corner to be sure.

A popular expression among the wealthy is noblesse oblige, "I give to charity". That's well and good if your contribution is reliable and consistent. If not, you've put an important enterprise at the mercy of human capriciousness. If in fact it is a service that summons such interest and concern, it should probably be supported by mandatory taxes and not charities.

Getting back to my Obama ruminations, I don't think his election necessarily signals a sea change in American thinking. I do think that young people and racial minorities have felt disenfranchised in previous elections -- they also tend to follow a more liberal philosophy. Maybe, just maybe they will participate more in the future. When everyone participates it's more like a Democracy.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Shoe on the Other Foot?

Turning a new page in American politics -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Some nine days before the 2008 Presidential election, I’m being reflective about it all. I've ended up supporting Obama, though he wasn’t even my 3rd choice among the Democratic nominees. Too much is at stake – we have several geriatric Supreme Court justices. Can’t let that slip away.

I’m detecting as much bitterness among diehard Republicans as there was among Democrats when Bush won in 2004. They like to claim that the financial meltdown is as much a Democratic as a Republican fiasco. It’s true that home loans should not have been extended to poor prospects in the 90’s. Point taken. But the GOP had the presidency the last 8 years, and both houses of Congress 6 of the last 8 years. Democrats had a paper-thin majority the last 2 years, which was inadequate to overcome vetoes or much of anything else. Republicans rode the wave of Reaganomics from 1980 until it crashed on the shore of over-promoted derivatives and credit default swaps.

My previous blog entry, Ayn Rants, is a little bit obtuse and wordy. But here is a major point I probably lost in all of my George Willian verbiage. A policeman is not a dictator – he doesn’t tell you how to live your life. All a policeman does is enforce the laws of the land. One hopes that the laws have been crafted by a democratically elected legislature.

Many Republicans are laughably crying “Socialist” at the prospect of an Obama presidency. Socialism calls to mind the corrupt and lethargic GOSPLAN committees of the old USSR, working out their 5-year collective farm objectives. There is some irony that this criticism comes from the W. Bush party that just partially nationalized the banks and stuck U.S. tax-payers with a one trillion dollar bailout bill.

No, there won’t be any socialism. Some of Obama’s most strident supporters are California venture capitalists who have greatly enjoyed the freedom of our economic system. What Obama might do, along with Congress is decide how the commandment “Thou shall not steal” needs to be written and enforced in the echelons of high finance. At Northpark Mall, the boundaries and rules are obvious. Here is the store, here is the merchandise and here is the alarm system. It’s not so clear on Wall Street where all the boundaries are. We have murkiness about “store” “merchandise’ and “adequate alarm” as well as “legal transaction”. When the terms have been laid out by agreeable parties, there will be enforcement, not socialism.

Is this somehow tragic that we might end up with a liberal president and a Democratic congress? How could it be more tragic than the complete break down of our credit and financial system? Think about it some more, and be glad that there are checks and balances even if it has to happen via the electoral process.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Capitalism Takes a Hit

The Scene of the Crime -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

GREED IS NOT GOOD

Today, we are in the aftermath of the worst stock slide in history (the DOW lost 777 points yesterday). I was actually undecided through much of this election about my 2008 vote. I'm a centrist Democrat who supported Hillary in the primaries. Then the week of September 15th, our already-wounded economy was chopped to its knees by a credit crunch. Four investment banks and a major insurer defaulted on their debts and had to be rescued with a combination of penny-on-the-dollar buyouts and Federal intervention. This week, we've had two widely known commercial banks taken down, and a much-maligned $700 billion bipartisan bail-out vote fail in the House. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi fell to the occasion -- in a moment that called for grace, understanding and cooperation she chose to unleash a scorching partisan attack. I don't think her remarks are what torpedoed the bailout but they certainly didn't help. People on hand for the vote reported that Barney Frank hurried the roll call along at one point when the Republicans were scrounging up "Yes" votes. Were both parties trying to undermine the bailout for political ends? It's hard to say -- maybe Frank was afraid they were scrounging up "No" votes.

I'm now voting for Obama. I still don't warm to him very well and wish that Hillary was the candidate, but I couldn't in good conscience contribute to four more years of Bushanomics. The Democrats could probably nominate a folding chair at this point, and have a good chance of winning.

THE END OF WILD WEST CAPITALISM

In war, a soldier might fall on a hand grenade to protect his fellows. In maritime travel, a captain goes down with his ship. In both cases, there is a since of stewardship and duty that says a person of authority in dire straits will suffer with those who suffer under his guidance. In an opposite analogy, imagine a Titanic that strikes an iceberg; before most passengers know there is danger, the captain has been airlifted to a tropic isle, suitcase in hand. His suitcase has the safe contents he raided before leaving. What I've just described is "Wild West" crony capitalism -- what we have on Wall Street. Our economic engine which determines all that we have and do is in the hands of greedy manipulators -- people whose every action is determined by profit. If the $700 billion bailout fails, we can probably look to a series of "mini-Enrons". Corporate officers will feast on the carcasses of dying corporations, leaving cartilage and bones for the minority shareholders and tax payers to scavenge. How have we constructed such a society, where greed is the primary motive? "Might makes right" and "Winner takes all" are mantras of the caveman era -- have we gone back to that? I think it's amusing that Republicans don't blame Republican principles in general for any of this -- it's just that crooked Republican over there.

TEMPERED CAPITALISM

Benjamin Franklin said something to the effect, "If only men wouldn't be such wolves to each other, we could have Heaven on earth right now". Ben was very prescient and one has to wonder now if capitalism can survive. I think that it will, albeit a reasonable man's capitalism. There will be government oversight in every economic activity and practical economic caps to prevent huge income disparity. Such systems already exist in a few places like Scandinavia and Western Europe. Someone might ask if this impedes creativity. Do we want to be so creative that we set our economic house on fire?

In Conan O'Brien’s monolog last night, he joked that Bush had one more thing to check off on his presidential "bucket list". Guest Bill Mahr opined that Bush wouldn't have a sense of completion until he saw the black smoke of America's banking system swirling in the air. I say that it's time for common sense, and yes, decency to return. It's time for both profit and principled stewardship to be the twin virtues of our economic enterprise.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Socialism Brought to you by the GOP...

Lehman's HDQ the day the bomb was dropped -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

Socialism sans revolution?

As a centrist Democrat, the idea that government might be involved with the business world doesn’t bother me. Uncle Sam may regulate private enterprise, tax it, set bench marks for it, and sometimes even compete with it. Several areas of human endeavor are important enough that we don’t leave it to a pure “profit motive” to see that they get done – national defense, highway system and public education to name three. We should add national health care to that list on some future date. I’m intrigued that last week, Americans became 80% share holders in AIG, an insurance company. Uncle Sam is branching into new things. If plans carry thru for this weekend, Uncle Sam will pick up ½ a trillion dollars in mortgages. We’re quasi-socialistic now, and here’s the rub – extreme right-wing free-market ideologues are what brought us to this point.

Meltdown

On September 14, 2008, several business wires were murmuring that three companies were on the ropes: Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG. How these situations snuck up on us with such quiet ferocity is beyond me. Merrill Lynch eked out a deal to be purchased by Bank of America (at 30% of its 2007 valuation) the following day. Lehman Brothers was forced to declare Chapter 11, and after two days of begging, AIG was given a lifeline of 85 billion dollars from the federal government on September 16th. The financial devastation wrought over these two days was the worst we’ve had since the Great Depression, without any exaggeration or mincing of words.

Uncle Sam already has been expanding his role of “business savior” throughout the year of 2008. Since January, the federal government has bailed out Bear Stearns as well as mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – all to the tune of $600 billion. And the meter is still running.

Political implications

John McCain lashed out at the titans of wall street – he said they were exhibiting a Casino mentality and gambling away other peoples’ money with little ill consequence to themselves. Columnist Froma Harrop points out a problem with this. McCain (who recently said the economy was “fundamentally sound”) also had Phil Gramm as his chief financial advisor until recently. Gramm is known as a deregulation zealot who personally put through legislation that deregulated “financial derivatives” – the TNT that ignited much of the current meltdown. Gramm’s wife was also on the Enron Board of Directors – why does it seem like these are all the wrong connections? In the space of 3 days, realclearpolitics.com showed McCain going from 6 points ahead to 2 points behind Obama. It’s a well-deserved shift.

Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is the man saddled with the most strenuous weight of this magna-bailout. He recently worked in the private sector himself and was a “champion” for free market dynamics. Mr. Paulson said this week, “Pure capitalism is dead”. If pure capitalism is the unbridled, blood-lust greed, hubris and arrogance served in a pita wrap of macho egotism that we’ve seen, he is certainly right. Most Americans are hard-working people that want a square deal and a retirement savings. That the very foundation of our financial well-being would be placed in the hands of jackals and con artists is unbelievable. These men should not be turned loose with our money again – some should probably be serving prison time.

Both Presidential candidates have pledged to bring regulations back to the process – a necessary pledge given that this financial hurricane hit six weeks ahead of Election Day. Laissez-faire Republicans have had their run and one has to pose, “Who let the dogs out?” The perfect storm that hit last week confers an advantage to Obama and that is very much as it should be.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington

Anything you can do, I can do better -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In 1939 Frank Capra directed a movie classic called Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In that movie Jefferson Smith is a naive, small-town scout master who gets appointed to a position of influence in Washington, somewhat by fluke. He comes to blows with party bosses and is very nearly undone by his own charm and innocence. Jefferson is played to halting, stammering perfection by a young Jimmy Stewart.

When I watched Sarah Palin give her speech at the St. Paul 2008 GOP Convention last night, I thought of Jefferson Smith -- without the stammering. I also thought of Calamity Jane and Annie Oakley. The 44-year old Palin is a moose-eating, gun-toting, snuff-chawing, varmint wrasslin' gal; she also happens to be a former beauty queen and an attractive plain-spoken mother of five with an extremely wholesome appeal. Palin who is currently in her 3rd year as Alaska's governor even has a vague resemblance to actress Tina Fey.

In the week since McCain chose her, people have taken all manner of pot-shots. Apparently her unwed 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Her husband, a commercial fisherman, had a DWI some 22 years ago. (Excuse me, didn't W Bush have a DWI in 1976?). Apparently, Palin was trying to get her former brother-in-law, an Alaska state trooper, fired -- that's now being investigated as a possible abuse of power. Nothing brought forth by the media has required me to get out my smelling salts. The Palin family seems normal and if that's the worst ammo anyone has, she doesn't much need to duck. Her speech last night was well-delivered and landed several good punches. She zinged Obama for various things like the cling-to-religion remark and she also zapped the "liberal" media. She seems poised and ready for election year combat.

When I look at her though, what do I see? A hockey mom, mother of five, Tina Fey-look-a-like. I don't necessarily see a President, except maybe in a custodial, finish-up-the-term Gerald Ford context. Could she summon the depth, power and knowledge that Roosevelt did at Yalta? Could she navigate all the complexities of the mortgage crisis? I'm not dissing women -- I think that Kay Hutchinson has been very effective in steering the ship in North Texas. I think Hillary has insight, weight and intelligence albeit for the other party.

We already have a "newbie" President who struggles with weighty concepts -- do we need another? The obvious retort is that Obama is also a newbie and that is absolutely true. We have an experience-challenged ticket on both sides and that will certainly affect how people vote. I myself prefer a more wizened person who's been a few steps through the mill. I'm still deciding how I'll vote. I used to think that undecideds should have "stupid" stamped across their foreheads, but I never faced such a tepid, tweedledee-tweedledum choice before.

© 2008 blogSpotter

La Belle Michelle

A Black Laura Petrie? -- Picture captured by blogSpotter

by blogSpotter
I watched Michelle Obama's speech, given on the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I must give "props" where they're due -- she is an attractive, photogenic woman. She has a vague resemblance to Laura Petrie of television fame -- albeit a black one. Michelle would be described as "high yellow" in the black community -- a woman with light mocha skin and straight, styled hair. She wore a simple teal dress and very little jewelry -- very ladylike and nothing the least bit provocative. Everything in baby steps, I guess -- America probably isn't ready for a Wanda Sykes or a Whoopie Goldberg as First Lady. Both Obama and Michelle look too much like models to me, which makes me ponder how much intellectual weight they carry. I know they went to Ivy League schools, but a school pedigree doesn't automatically translate to gravitas -- George W Bush went to Harvard.

Michelle was extremely poised and well-spoken at the podium. Her speech centered mostly on family values and cherished memories. She must have taken some heat for earlier remarks dissing America, because in this speech she talked at some length about what opportunities abounded in the good ol' U.S. of A. Some of Hillary's "pumas" were dismissive of Michelle's talk -- it was all family with no hint of feminism. I think Michelle probably stuck to the necessary talking points. The Obamas have to look like Main Street Americans, somebody you might run into at the corner McDonald's. They're not, but that's neither here nor there. Much like Julia, one of America's first black TV icons not cast as a maid or butler, the Obamas have to be pleasingly bland, partly white and all-digestible. Ex-nay on the feminism or militancy in any form.

Coming away from it, I have to say I'm unimpressed for other reasons. Barrack himself comes across as smug and superficial in the extreme. I'm thinking of the TV show, Mad About You, where I liked every character but the main one played by the somewhat obnoxious Paul Reiser. Lose that guy and you have a show. Odd that my other example is the Cosby Show, which featured the successful, adorable Huxtable family. They didn't seem real to me (or even to other blacks -- Flip Wilson said at the time, in comparison, that his show was about a black family). The Huxtables were all OK except for the slightly pompous and annoying Bill Cosby. And he was the star of the show. Lose Cosby and you would've had a show.

Lose Barrack and you have a 2008 show. What's that? Barrack is the candidate? I can't have Helen Hunt without Paul Reiser? Damn! OK, I'll probably have to move beyond superficial impressions, much as our Idol-addled public needs to do the same thing. I'll try to get beyond the veneer -- but that will be hard to do if a veneer is all there is. Obama's choice of Joe Biden as veep hasn't really changed the game very much. Biden has been implicated in plagiarism before, and shares a little of Obama's used car salesman essence. Stay tuned to this blog -- I still haven't decided how I'm going to vote.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Love Child

Never meant to be? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Senator John Edwards, Senator from North Carolina has a love child. No, it's not the infant daughter of Rielle Hunter his ex-campaign aid. That may be his daughter, but the Love Child I speak of is John Edwards' own self-infatuation. By several accounts, the man is in love with himself more than anything or anyone else. The product of that Love is a Tornado that leaves several wounded hearts and wrecked campaigns in its wake.

Cards on the table -- Edwards was my pick for the 2008 Nomination. How wrong could I have been? I need a better litmus screening for character attributes, obviously. In 1998, I defended Bill Clinton mightily. "There's no way he could've diddled Monica in the Oval Office! There are cameras all over, and he would just know better!" OK, wrong about that one too. What I can say now is, "Stick a fork in him -- he's done". Edwards actually was pondering his future longevity as a 2012 presidential hopeful. With these sleazebag qualities revealed, he'll be lucky to keep his date to speak at the 2008 Denver Convention.

It's really a bad deal for Edwards. How bad? Well when you've already been caught in the cookie jar, one presumes that you're at least done with those cookies from that jar. You won't go back for more, knowing (one presumes) that a throng of hidden mikes and cameras await you. Edwards tip-toed back to the jar. On the last occasion he was chased into a hotel men's room. Edwards said, in all seriousness that his affair was over when in fact National Enquirer has nearly up-to-the-minute photos of midnight hotel visits with Rielle Hunter. Are these policy discussions?

Edwards claims not to be the father of Rielle's baby -- he's willing to take a paternity test. Earlier on, he was unwilling when the National Enquirer made the suggestion. It's now very convenient that Rielle doesn't want such a test (it would be disruptive and intrusive). Adding to this sleaziness is the possible complicity of a campaign aid, Andrew Young, claiming paternity. Adding to that sleaziness is the prospect that campaign funds were used as hush money. Adding a ton-load to all that sleaziness is the fact the Edwards' long-suffering wife is left at home to battle cancer by herself.

Conservatives have a legitimate beef about this – why did the story languish in supermarket tabloid aisles for a full year, before the mainstream media picked up on it? Is it because the Enquirer has a bottom-feeder reputation or because liberal politicians always get kid glove treatment? Either way, it’s a terrible oversight. The story didn’t receive serious treatment until Edwards recently fessed up on ABC; it would’ve been a big mess if he’d received the most delegates.

Now back to Edwards himself. My only question to him is, "Why the paternity cover-up? Why involve Andrew Young?". Mr. Edwards, it's over for you. You're as cooked as stale beef jerky. There is so much lying and duplicity here, it won't much matter who the father is. We already know that you have a Love Child and his name is John Edwards. Nothing else will make a bit of difference.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Obamanable

Alas poor Yoric, it looks like Obama -- Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
John McCain said yesterday that Obama is where he is because of TV Pundits and Democratic Party elders. I can't help but think he's right -- Obama's success is less due to grass roots efforts than to a media firestorm led by the likes of Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews. Commentators are supposed to maintain objectivity; Matthews and Russert have barely been able to contain their glee at the events as they’ve unfolded.

I can give a brief run-down of things to question about Obama ...

o He prevaricated in Audacity of Hope. The book was fact-checked by a major Chicago news outlet and came up about half true. The book's title was taken from a sermon of Jeremiah Wright -- the minister he has since disowned for political convenience.
o Obama didn't pay his parking fines in college. While very minor, to myself and others it's a reflection of character. The people I know personally who didn't pay fines were arrogant, flaky or dishonest -- sometimes an unappealing combination of all three.
o Tony Rezko, a notorious Chicago contractor implicated in kickbacks has been one of Obamas biggest supporters.
o Jeremiah Wright, Obama's minister of 20 years, has made highly inflammatory anti-American, paranoid statements about HIV, 9/11 and other things.
o Michelle Obama is on record for making statements that are exceedingly cynical and unpatriotic.. "For the first time, I'm proud to be an American".

Beyond all of this, there is something in Obama's demeanor that yells, "Used car salesman!". He's superficially handsome and glib -- somebody that might sell us a bill of goods but that's about it. There are other black statesmen (Jessie Jackson, John Conyers) who have gravitas and experience, minus the smarm, that would serve us far better. There is a painful political correctness that’s set in, where people wanting to make cautionary remarks fear being cast as racists.

2008 is going to be a year where I sit by in slack-jawed amazement as the same electorate that gave us 8 years of the knuckle-dragging Nazi now goes 180 degrees the other direction and gives us a glib fibber. I think maybe Plato and the French Revolutionaries were right -- rank and file people are incapable of making informed, mature judgments about anything. When we start electing our leaders based on GQ style or superficial traits, Democracy is dying. In today’s, DMN, Mark Davis suggests that Hillary put her campaign in neutral for the summer. Come back to Denver and see if the Super Delegates still support Obama after 12 weeks' elapsed time. I'm hoping she does that, because the alternatives to me seem Obamanable.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Can the Voter Get his Groove Back?

Nobody should surrender this right ... -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I checked the latest polls on realclearpolitics.com, and saw something a bit unusual. In hypothetical match-ups, Obama beats McCain by 3.8 points and Clinton beats McCain by 3.4 points. This is early in the campaign and the Democrats haven't even selected a final nominee. Both Obama and Clinton have distinct negatives (the baggage of Jeremiah Wright & Bill Clinton respectively). And yet both of them have a decent edge over McCain, who presumably has enjoyed the past three months as the sole GOP nominee.

Not unrelated to this polling trend is the tremendous increase of black Americans' participation in the 2008 election. It's almost as if in previous elections, they didn't feel they had a "dog in the fight". Blacks were putatively Democrats in 2000 / 2004, but their presence was tiny in comparison to the 2008 election. White evangelicals on the other hand were much attuned in the last two elections. They very likely sealed the deal for Bush. In this year's election, they're disappointed with McCain and have been much less vocal. They even seem to have rejected Mike Huckabee, a fellow evangelical but one with a non-Republican populist streak. What you have in all 3 elections (2000, 2004 and 2008) is electoral abdication by one of two major groups:

1. African Americans or
2. White evangelicals

Each group represents a significant percent of the voting populace. I'm not in either group myself, but must admonish that they do have a dog in the fight. By all appearances, Republicans are so deflated by the performance of "W" they've very nearly thrown in the towel. As Peggy Noonan pointed out in a recent Op-Ed, Republicans don't know how to distance themselves from the incumbent without seeming disloyal or in some way inappropriately liberal. But if they say and do nothing, they stand accused of offering a 3rd Bush term. It's a rock and a hard place if ever there were one. If African Americans had come forth in 2000 or 2004 as they have in 2008, would we be looking at 4,077 U.S. Iraq fatalities? Would we be looking at one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression? Now addressing evangelicals ... are you ready to sit on your hands showing contempt for McCain, knowing that Obama might select the next Supreme Court judges? What we have when whole groups abdicate is an extreme anomaly -- an elected president who steers way too far right or left and is unrepresentative of the nation at large. I think Bush has been somewhat a disaster and can't help thinking Obama, with his inexperience and his Chicago Southside cronies, would be a recipe for another disaster.

Interesting side note -- the California Supreme court just overturned a ruling against gay marriage yesterday. Pundits are saying it's unlikely to get overturned again by any constitutional amendment. A similar controversy erupted during the 2004 election, the striking down of the Texas Sodomy law. In 2004, that was impetus enough for evangelicals to come running out of the woodwork to save "traditional marriage". Karl Rove used it to great advantage for Team Bush. The Right is preoccupied this year and staring down problems much more worrisome than the "horrors" of gay marriage -- foreclosed housing, sky high gas prices and Middle East turmoil. In recent polls, significantly fewer people even identify themselves as Republican. There is much work needed for the GOP to get its groove back. Do I want snarky, anti-Gay evangelicals running the show? No I do not. Do I think we get freaking weird results when whole parts of the electorate sit out an election? Yes I do. I think 2008 will be to politics what El Nino was to weather patterns. When disaffected groups can "man up" and have dialogs with others, we may finally get representative government.

Maybe I'm wrong. Louis Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam, believes that whites and blacks are intrinsically unable to get along. He believes they should have separate leaders, separate governance. I hope for the sake of our diverse and dynamic "Great Melting Pot" that he's wrong. Everybody out there – please vote like it matters, because it does.

© 2008 blogSpotter