(originally written July 27th, 2008 but not "published")
Not Hollow Men but Hollow Man. The former of course is T.S. Eliot's famous poem which "can be understood as a poem commenting upon the emptiness and futility of war and how war destroys those who have to fight in it. It can also be read as a poem that discusses lives without meaning, an interplay between nihilism and existentialism". Hollow Man is the 2000 science fiction movie adaptation of H.G Well's Invisible Man written in 1897. The Hollow Man or the ""Invisible Man" of the title is Griffen, a scientist who theorizes that if a person's refractive index is changed to exactly that of air and his body does not absorb or reflect light, then he will be invisible." A great believer in science as a vehicle for "change", Griffen successfully carries out this procedure on himself. But he cannot become visible again, and becomes mentally unstable as a result. In other words, he has lost himself in the most literal of all possible ways while becoming invisible to others. Griffen became an anti-social pariah in response. The hopes generated by the millennial potential advances of science turn dark in the hands of "Griffen".
Obama, a candidate for the president of the United States (not the World, Europe, or the UN), is losing himself in the most political and philosophical of ways. His Berlin speech raised more questions than it answered about his substantive values. He continues to generate confusing "tacking to the center" images, while also doubling down on his messianic rhetoric. He seems trapped by an ever increasing requirement and desire to appear as a "great" world leader of "change". He positions himself as the human embodiment of a unique but undefined "invisible" and crucial turning point in history. One senses a disappointment he cannot run for world president. In Europe (with 72% popularity), his self proclaimed case for greatness in the Berlin speech in part was that "he does not look like other previous candidates" and that he is a "citizen" of the world. These are bizarre statements.
This cannot end well. The Berlin spectacle and speech were prima facie evidence he has too large an appetite for glory; in particular global glory, than can be good for the US body politic. Griffen was seduced by science; our Hollow Man is being seduced by a hollow "historical greatness" with no substance other than the idea of greatness itself.
Obama has specialized in the most airy of messianic, vague and weired generalities ("we are the ones we have been waiting for"). He has done this to hide some of his more traditional left wing radical positions in order to appear as some "new" "post-something" transcendent politician. But since he has earned the nomination, his views on many issues have been careening wildly back and forth, particularly in foreign policy. This is called tacking to the center by the incompetent Obama supporting post-modern media, which sees only the contest itself as having meaning. At times his campaign has looked like the political equivalent of I Speak English, I learn it from a book, in it's ridiculous cookbook obviousness. The best way for McCain to win, in my opinion, is to attack his opponent non-stop on every substantive issue. Every contradiction between what is said by Obama and what he may have previously said and done has to be constantly repeated. He has not done enough of this at all. Johnny Mac's conceit has primarily been his "reach across the isle" personna. Obama's main thesis, supported by a compliant media, is his own "specialness". If McCain were to follow the prescriptions above, he would be ahead in this race.
There is a core tendency for America's 2 main political parties to rhetorically and substantively differ from each other in critical ways. Not surprisingly, however, historically they have rhetorically differed more than they have substantively. This is clearly true by any objective analysis of the policies of the 2 parties for the last 60 years. This is probably a good thing. The more similar the parties are, even as they think they are different, the more stable the politics and the system are likely to be. But Obama is a wild card. Some of his unscripted and even scripted statements are off the wall. He acts like he is committed to really be different regardless of what it takes.
This is all by way of introduction and putting in context the message of this essay. I am going to "liveblog" (well, really "youtube blog") Obama's Berlin speech and comment on the substance and spectacle as I watch it. What is disturbing to me about Obama, very disturbing actually, is that a strong case can easily be made that he is the most "radical and populist" of any politician who has been a candidate for President since William Jennings Bryan.
This includes domestic tax and economic policies, an "eat your peas now" imposing social agenda on "good works" and "sacrifice", a cult of personality, and worst of all the desire to pander to populist opinion even internationally at the expense of America's self interest. All candidates get inflated by the act of being watched by millions daily. This provides the adrenalin rush which enables them to work 18/7 (even they sleep). All presidential politicians at some point begin deluding themselves or at least try to delude others into believing, that their's is the most important campaign ever. It just comes with the territory. But there should be limits.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Bold and Fresh
POLITICAL THEATER
Barack Obama has apparently set a record for the number of press conferences held by a president in waiting---Obama beats record for press conferences.... This is the kind of information that passes for news today. This is a story by the conservative newspaper the Washington Times no less. The media is just beginning to wrap its arms around the idea that Obama may be the empty vessel which he said he was in one of his autobiographies. We have no idea what he really thinks or believes. The Left still is hanging onto his promises made during the primary season so many moons ago. And who would have thought the Right would start to breathe a sigh of relief for the return of the Clinton Administration?
I realize it is political theater, but the cliche driven oratory of Obama is really grating. So much about Obama's delivery and tone is designed to emphasize the specialness of his place in history. At his latest news conference he announced the formation of a new something or other called the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He says he needed this board to seek advice from outside the Government. Normally we would call those people lobbyists. But at this "defining moment in history" the "old way" of thinking just won't do. We need "fresh" ways of thinking and "bold" new ideas. It sounds like what this country needs is a great new laundry detergent.
THE DECADE OF GREED
So to put forth these bold new ideas he announces that 81 year old Paul Volcker will head this committee. I guess we are starting to run out of Clinton appointees. Obama is now reaching back to name a Carter appointee to drive forward these bold and fresh new ways of thinking. Volcker is properly credited with helping stem the massive inflationary tide of the 70s. He did this by radically raising interest rates which did push the nation into a recession. But these anti-inflationary tactics did stop inflation and helped stage the economic recovery and record economic growth of the 80s. Of course, since a Republican was president during the 80s, it was not known for being the decade of growth but the "Decade of Greed" and the "Big Lie" (Decade of Greed). But we already know that.
So Obama seeks fresh and bold new ideas and reprises one of the architects of the Decade of Greed. But I think bold and fresh ideas are the last thing we need right now. How about some basic economics 101 and some old tried and true, dreary and boring ideas? Of course in politics, just breathing normally can be heralded as bold and fresh, so perhaps I shouldn't take the oratory so literally. Not to get all nostalgic and so yesterday, but that is one of the things I like about Sarah Palin (or "Sarah the Turkey Impaler"). At least she actually tries to say what she means.
What passes for political genius, at least when a favored Democrat is in charge, is when it is really difficult to figure out what policies a candidate or president elect is actually in favor of. The Obama supporting media seem awestruck over his every move. First, he is like the baby in the manger (Time Magazine), then Lincoln (Newsweek), then FDR (Time again). How more absurd can media blindness get than when Obama chooses to keep Bush's Secretary of Defense, promote a Bush appointee for Secretary of Treasury and there is not any recognition of the political ridiculousness of it all? Then to top it off we get Hillary. It is as if he is pulling every one's chain. But the media supporters just see a Lincolnesque Team of Rivals. So much for the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Well, maybe this is "bold and fresh" after all.
THE PAULSON CONFUSION
My belief is that Bush/Paulson/Bernanke are trying to do too much to "fix" the current economic problems. Obama is also giving every sign that he wants to significantly increase Governmnet's involvement. The first problem is trying to understand what the current policy of the Government actually is. I cannot determine it. In an unbelievable admission of historic proportions, Henry Paulson told Congress that by the time it had passed the original $700 billion "bailout" bill (now ridiculously known as TARP) he already had changed his mind on what to do. Oddly, the Government has not yet done all that much, at least relative to what they are threatening. The most significant thing that Bush and Obama have done is tell us what they are going to do.
Meanwhile, as they speak, the equity markets provides feedback by going down. The credit markets provide feedback by not lending. Investors are obviously confused about Government's intentions. When the Government has acted it has been very intrusive. Paulson forced banks to sell the Government equity even if they did not want to. When Wells Fargo and Citigroup were competing over the purchase of Wachovia the Government was almost forcing Wells Fargo to take its guarantees, which they rejected. This has to be an unprecedented intrusion.
Currently, we have a credit crisis, although if short term interest rates are any indication, it is not as severe as it was 1 month ago. A credit crisis is just a confusing term which means that banks either cannot or will not engage in lending at a rate that can sustain economic growth. It does not mean, as some headlines would have you believe, that there is no lending happening. There is just not enough of it to achieve growth. It also means that other lenders, such as State and Corporate Pension Funds, Mutual Funds, and Insurance companies will also not lend or invest money long term at levels required to fund growth. Individuals (all these institutions of course just invest the savings of individuals) who manage their own money are also conservative.
The reason this is happening at one level is pretty straight forward. Significant losses were taken in the real estate market and then the stock market. It is human nature that caution will follow a period where such losses are taken. This always happens toward the end of business cycles. This time, however, the pull back in risk taking is more severe than usual. From what I can tell, no one seems to understand why this is the case. Nor does there seem to be any inherent reason why this should be the case.
OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE
But if everyone "subjectively" believes that economic activity will be more risky than usual, thus leading to less lending and investing, that belief alone can become "self fulfilling". This does not mean there cannot be "objective" reasons for concerns that justify such fear of lending and investing. What if we discovered that everything that was manufactured in the last 5 years was made of some mysterious disappearing material and just disintegrated over night? That would be an extreme example of an "objective" reason for fearing future investment. Or more realistically perhaps, what if we discovered that we just built 30 million cars but the world only wants to buy 25 million at the current price of producing those cars? Or even more realistically, what if we discovered that we built too many houses at the peak of the housing market?
My first example would be the worst case scenario, because everything built in the last 5 years would now be worth zero. There is no solution to that problem except discovering what caused the material to disappear in the first place to prevent future occurrences. Losses would be so extensive that we truly would have a financial disaster. The equivalent of this example is something like WWII in Europe.
But the next 2 examples should get solved by price adjustments in the free market and, while creating financial losses, need not create total fear and uncertainty. We are seeing this happen now, below the headlines for some reason, in the worst real estate market of all, California. The number of homes being sold is much higher than a year ago and in some large areas are actually at record levels.
Houses in California (and Phoenix, Las Vegas, and much of Florida) are being sold at significantly lower prices than the peak (down as much as 60-70%), but still 50% higher than in 2000. But number of sales have meaningfully increased. This appears to be a great example of a market adjusting to a "bursting of a bubble". Just as I have been mystified by the lack of interest in how (and even just the fact itself) the California and other "boom" housing markets became large and disproportional contributors to this crisis, I am equally mystified by the lack of interest in these markets' apparent market based adjustments to this same crisis. This is occurring without Government intervention and without noisy headlines. These stories just do not make the headlines because it counters the current narrative of the day, which is all about financial Armageddon.
My point point is that while there can be "objective" reasons for the current perceived severity of the problem, I do not believe there are, or at least I have not seen anything I find persuasive. The total housing losses are simply not big enough. I think our political and media leaders for a variety of reasons, some self serving and some not, have encouraged the Armageddon narrative. By doing so I believe they are increasing the probability of its actual occurrence. The reason I don't believe in what I call "objective reasons" for the severity of the crisis is that no one is able to say definitively what these could be.
To compound the confusion, we really do not know the actual severity of the problem. We know how much the equity markets and real estate markets have declined. But we do not yet know, of course, what the real economic impact will be in the next 12-24 months. 3rd Quarter GDP was flat, far from a disaster. The 4th Quarter is projected to be down 1.25% (or 5% on an annual basis). If the 5% rate of decline continued, that would be significant. But this brings us back to the whole issue of what is causing the decline to begin with. We do know there is great fear and concern, but that is a different thing than reality itself. I maintain, at least at this time, that it is, for lack of a better term, the "public narrative" itself which is the number one cause of the perceived problem.
THE "FIX"
In part because this has been a presidential election year, politicians and bureaucrats have been more inclined to get "involved" than even in normal times of economic weakness. When you subsidize something you get more of it. We taxpayers subsidize state, local and federal Government at about 30% of our total economic output. When we have a true economic problem (like building too many houses) the Government tries to give the people something for its money, which in this case is "fixing" the problem of having built too many houses. This becomes dramatically exaggerated in an election cycle as politicians and bureaucrats struggle to get or keep their jobs.
But inherently Government cannot "fix" a problem such as having built too many houses at too high a price. Only price adjustment and time can fix that problem. But the Government cannot tell the people that. Since they are quick to take credit for good things that happen, they need to find "reasons" and "solutions" for when bad things happen. Why? I think if they did not, we would realize that we do not need them to the magnitude that we pay for their services. It is amazing to me how we simply take it for granted that Government can be so large yet not have a negative impact. The average mindset really is to look for Government to solve our problems. I think this is the equivalent of believing in phantoms. Nobel economist Milton Friedman used to sardonically say he would prefer the Government just take his money and randomly give it to other citizens rather than use it to "fix" any problem. While the former is bad the latter is worse.
Obama is promising the biggest "fix" in the history of the United States. The political economists of the moment seem to agree on a few basic things. First, they do not know what is happening and why. Second, we need to try anything we can think of (which really just boils down to huge deficit spending on Government chosen projects and providing massive unprecedented financial "guarantees" to favored parties). Third, we need to do this in as big a way as possible (or as Harvard economist and Obama appointee Larry Summers says, we need to "over react"). And fourth, we do not know if it will work.
It is difficult to conceive of more unusual admissions. They cannot see the "ghost"; don't even know if it exists; have decided to burn down the house it could be in if it does exist; do not know if fires even kill ghosts; but the fire needs to be as big as possible. If Barack Obama really is a follower of Saul Alinsky, then we are about to move toward being an even more Government centric nation (Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The spending programs and Government involvement potentially being put forth by the Democrats is unprecedented. All in the name of Economic Recovery.
The apparent Obama plans are unfortunately being conflated with the merely confused and misguided policies of the Bush administration, thus creating an illusion of continuity. Bernanke and Paulson seem to be unwittingly preventing price discovery from occurring in the "credit markets". Just as in California, where the real estate market needed to adjust its prices down before increased economic risk taking could begin again, the Government also needs to let the financial markets adjust the price of lending down (i.e., interest rates up) so increased economic risk taking can begin again.
This can be consistent with something like the TARP program. But we need to Keep It Simple Stupid ("KISS"). Instead, the Fed and Treasury insist on ad hoc intermediation in the financial markets. Daily, it seems, some new program is being announced by the duel headed ObamaBush even if not yet implemented. This is preventing real buyers from taking real risks. In doing this, the Bush administration is simply delaying the ultimate solution from naturally happening. Granted, my suggestion would likely cause a recession, but as Volcker proved in his tenure as head of the Fed, that is what is sometimes required and can end up much better in the medium and long run.
The irony of the Volcker appointment is that in his time and place he understood that the Government had caused the inflation problem and therefore he had to reverse course. Today, the Government is contributing to the current marketplace's "risk taking" phobia and we need to now reverse course. But this does not seem to be the solution of the day. The economic legacy of the Bush Administration may be that it set the stage for the "bold and fresh new idea" of the largest Government intervention and deficit spending spree in the history of the American economy.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
If I Go Crazy Will You Still Call Me Superman?
....I watched the world float to the dark side of the moon, I feel there is nothing I can do....If I go crazy then will you still call me Superman, if I'm alive and well will you be there holding my hand...? (3 Doors Down - Kryptonite)
....I was actually born on Krypton, sent here by my father Jor-El to save the planet earth...(Obama: Born On Krypton)
The expectation that awaits Obama's presidency is sky high. Perhaps he was trying to defuse these expectations when he joked about being from Krypton at the Alfred E. Smith dinner in October. It is amazing how the media can look at what amounts to random statistical "noise" and without irony declare the dawning of a new era. Approximately 60% of citizens voted for president in both 2004 and 2008. Obama received 67 million votes or about 31% of all potential votes. In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes or about 30% of all potential votes. How much of that 1% difference was a function of the timing of the financial crisis? The reality is that when things go bad enough voters are willing to give the other party a shot. It does not necessarily represent a sea change of opinion regarding ideology.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post summarizes the media's insatiable appetite for hyperbole (Media Notes: A Giddy Sense of Boosterism ). My favorite is Newsweek's "commemorative" issue on Obama entitled "Obama's American Dream". This is particularly fascinating since it is the 2 most senior Newsweek editors (Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas) who told Charlie Rose the day after the election that the Obama cult of personality was creepy and deeply manipulative (The Sparkling Stranger). I do not understand the need the media have to engage in hero creation and worship. At best this is a historical curiosity but more likely it is dangerous and disturbing.
These are presumably intelligent adults engaging in the most infantile form of groupie behavior. What is the psychological need which drives this? Meanwhile, the world is floating "to the dark side of the moon" in what is universally feared to be the coming of the next great depression. But even the possibility of a severe recession or depression is not able to stop the Beatle screamer press. Time Magazine seems almost to relish the thought of the next great depression as it inadvertently reprises Eddie Murphy's "White Like Me" (Saturday Night Live - White Like Me - Truveo Video Search) with a ludicrous photo shopped cover of FDR in Obama "blackface" (TIME Magazine -- U.S. Edition -- November 24, 2008 Vol. 172 No. 21).
The well respected presidential historian Michael Beschloss actually states that "being cool" can "really help a new president". Just how is "being cool" going to help a new president? Was George Washington cool? Does this statement have any meaning other than to demonstrate just how far gone the media have become? And just when did Obama actually become "cool"? While Time Magazine compares Obama to FDR, Newsweek compares him to Lincoln. Isn't this mad?
Newsweek and Time do not see the horrific irony in the comparison of Obama with Lincoln and FDR. These presidents were unfortunate enough to have presided over the 2 most violent, frightening and unstable times in this country's history. Lincoln was assassinated at the end of the Civil War and FDR unsuccessfully struggled to get this country out of a depression before the world was consumed by WWII. The media's attraction to this comparison cannot be coincidence. I do not know what mental processes are driving this media madness, but I don't like it.
Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Lincoln, Team of Rivals, is also being referenced as some kind of past is prologue interpretation of Obama's administration. She makes the point that Lincoln's success was in part due to the fact that he appointed people to his cabinet who disagreed with him. I find this particularly amusing as Team of Rivals was Sarah Palin's favorite presidential biography. We won't see that in print anytime soon.
The recent Zogby poll and the John Ziegler movie How Obama Got Elected highlight exactly the problem this type of reporting and adulation brings to the American body politic. Voters generally do not understand the issues, but it is not for lack of attention. They certainly were aware of Sarah Palin's pregnancy and wardrobe, but not which political party controlled congress.
Do normal Americans actually feel the same way the media do? Are people out there in our towns and cities relishing in the after glow of this enormous meta-historical moment? Or are they concerned that their remaining stocks, their houses, their pensions, and their insurance policies are all going to zero? I lean toward the latter interpretation. Meanwhile we have a president elect whose background and experience is all local left wing Chicago politics. He threatens us in his Time Magazine interview with FDR experimentation. He may end up making Paulson look like a stable guy.
I believe it is easier for any president to do more harm than good. Presidents do not have control over reality. No amount of good intentions or perceived coolness will get one through the difficulties. Obama will have a filibuster free Congress whose only conflicts will be between liberals and the even more left wing of the Democratic party. This means that Government will obsessively try to "fix" things. The Bush administration's recent activities will seem Laissez Faire by comparison.
How will the media cover and report these issues? I guess it depends on how the economy and our foreign relations go. Objective analysis and reporting is what we need from our media, not hyperventilating myth perpetuation. I have stated in the past that if things go poorly, the mainstream media can turn on Obama to the same degree it has elevated him. But I am beginning to wonder if that is really true. They are pretty severely invested in Obama, so it will take a lot of Kryptonite before they turn on him. I am pretty sure this is something we do not want, as it probably means some major disaster will have come our way.
Meanwhile, the market keeps dropping like a boulder as we await the inauguration of Superman/Lincoln/FDR.
....I was actually born on Krypton, sent here by my father Jor-El to save the planet earth...(Obama: Born On Krypton)
The expectation that awaits Obama's presidency is sky high. Perhaps he was trying to defuse these expectations when he joked about being from Krypton at the Alfred E. Smith dinner in October. It is amazing how the media can look at what amounts to random statistical "noise" and without irony declare the dawning of a new era. Approximately 60% of citizens voted for president in both 2004 and 2008. Obama received 67 million votes or about 31% of all potential votes. In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes or about 30% of all potential votes. How much of that 1% difference was a function of the timing of the financial crisis? The reality is that when things go bad enough voters are willing to give the other party a shot. It does not necessarily represent a sea change of opinion regarding ideology.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post summarizes the media's insatiable appetite for hyperbole (Media Notes: A Giddy Sense of Boosterism ). My favorite is Newsweek's "commemorative" issue on Obama entitled "Obama's American Dream". This is particularly fascinating since it is the 2 most senior Newsweek editors (Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas) who told Charlie Rose the day after the election that the Obama cult of personality was creepy and deeply manipulative (The Sparkling Stranger). I do not understand the need the media have to engage in hero creation and worship. At best this is a historical curiosity but more likely it is dangerous and disturbing.
These are presumably intelligent adults engaging in the most infantile form of groupie behavior. What is the psychological need which drives this? Meanwhile, the world is floating "to the dark side of the moon" in what is universally feared to be the coming of the next great depression. But even the possibility of a severe recession or depression is not able to stop the Beatle screamer press. Time Magazine seems almost to relish the thought of the next great depression as it inadvertently reprises Eddie Murphy's "White Like Me" (Saturday Night Live - White Like Me - Truveo Video Search) with a ludicrous photo shopped cover of FDR in Obama "blackface" (TIME Magazine -- U.S. Edition -- November 24, 2008 Vol. 172 No. 21).
The well respected presidential historian Michael Beschloss actually states that "being cool" can "really help a new president". Just how is "being cool" going to help a new president? Was George Washington cool? Does this statement have any meaning other than to demonstrate just how far gone the media have become? And just when did Obama actually become "cool"? While Time Magazine compares Obama to FDR, Newsweek compares him to Lincoln. Isn't this mad?
Newsweek and Time do not see the horrific irony in the comparison of Obama with Lincoln and FDR. These presidents were unfortunate enough to have presided over the 2 most violent, frightening and unstable times in this country's history. Lincoln was assassinated at the end of the Civil War and FDR unsuccessfully struggled to get this country out of a depression before the world was consumed by WWII. The media's attraction to this comparison cannot be coincidence. I do not know what mental processes are driving this media madness, but I don't like it.
Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Lincoln, Team of Rivals, is also being referenced as some kind of past is prologue interpretation of Obama's administration. She makes the point that Lincoln's success was in part due to the fact that he appointed people to his cabinet who disagreed with him. I find this particularly amusing as Team of Rivals was Sarah Palin's favorite presidential biography. We won't see that in print anytime soon.
The recent Zogby poll and the John Ziegler movie How Obama Got Elected highlight exactly the problem this type of reporting and adulation brings to the American body politic. Voters generally do not understand the issues, but it is not for lack of attention. They certainly were aware of Sarah Palin's pregnancy and wardrobe, but not which political party controlled congress.
Do normal Americans actually feel the same way the media do? Are people out there in our towns and cities relishing in the after glow of this enormous meta-historical moment? Or are they concerned that their remaining stocks, their houses, their pensions, and their insurance policies are all going to zero? I lean toward the latter interpretation. Meanwhile we have a president elect whose background and experience is all local left wing Chicago politics. He threatens us in his Time Magazine interview with FDR experimentation. He may end up making Paulson look like a stable guy.
I believe it is easier for any president to do more harm than good. Presidents do not have control over reality. No amount of good intentions or perceived coolness will get one through the difficulties. Obama will have a filibuster free Congress whose only conflicts will be between liberals and the even more left wing of the Democratic party. This means that Government will obsessively try to "fix" things. The Bush administration's recent activities will seem Laissez Faire by comparison.
How will the media cover and report these issues? I guess it depends on how the economy and our foreign relations go. Objective analysis and reporting is what we need from our media, not hyperventilating myth perpetuation. I have stated in the past that if things go poorly, the mainstream media can turn on Obama to the same degree it has elevated him. But I am beginning to wonder if that is really true. They are pretty severely invested in Obama, so it will take a lot of Kryptonite before they turn on him. I am pretty sure this is something we do not want, as it probably means some major disaster will have come our way.
Meanwhile, the market keeps dropping like a boulder as we await the inauguration of Superman/Lincoln/FDR.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Sparkling Stranger
Admittedly, the general harping by Conservatives about media favoritism toward President elect Obama can appear tedious. But just when you thought the peak of Obama favoritism had been reached, new high water marks get discovered. The Weekly Standard has some amusing observations in an article on just this topic. One is that Keith Olberman does not vote in order to preserve his objectivity Olbermann Declines to Vote to Preserve Perception of Objectivity. Another is Time Magazine's editor-at-large, Nancy Gibbs, telling her readers in this week's feature story on the election that:
"Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope.....people were waiting for him, waiting for someone to finish what a King began"
Which King is that? One assumes she is using a play on words, although she leaves that unsaid so who knows? The King presumably is Martin Luther, not the one born in the manger. Yet the hyperbole is still absurd. She sees no irony in her "born in the imagination" imagery. And this is in a news story, not an opinion piece.
But even in the world of opinion, where all is allowed, Time still manages to set new fantastical standards. Novelist Pico Iyer writes this week's guest essay in Time My Close Encounter With Obama in Hawaii. From his comments it is clear he has become so used to projecting fantasies onto paper, he cannot distinguish reality from his novels. In a great bit of "look back" projection, Iyer recounts accidentally meeting Obama in Hawaii outside at an "avocado burger" place (you just cannot make this stuff up). He looked like a "skinny teenager" but the most remarkable thing about Obama was:
"this sparkling stranger was so much like the kind of people we meet in Paris, in Hong Kong, in the Middle East: difficult to place but connected to everywhere....like the air of his home island...he spoke for the global melting pot of today"
Seriously, doesn't this make you laugh out loud? Having been to the aforementioned three places (he can't trick me with his globetrotting conceit!) on many occasions, I never had trouble "connecting" these people to where they actually live, rather than "everywhere". Nor do I recall some ubiquitous fascination with global melting pots, but I am sure we traveled in different circles. But Iyer is not satisfied just making the point about the futuristic Obama's transcendent humanism; he needs to also contrast this with Alaska's backward looking yesterday's "go-it-alone" spirit. He happened to be in Alaska the "week Sarah Palin was introduced to the world" (who is this guy, Zelig ?). Despite Alaska's "great possibility" it is tied to the "last frontier" vision of yesterday, not to the hopeful tomorrow of the "kids" outside the avocado burger "North Shore shack" in Hawaii.
If Time has a "Meet The Beatles" frame of reference about Obama, its crosstown rival, Newsweek, leans more toward "Sympathy for the Devil". Somehow they never did get around to sharing that perspective with us prior to the election. I wonder why? In an interview with NPR's version of Larry King, Charlie Rose, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas reveal their insights into Obama's personality A conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas. Meacham is the editor-in-chief of Newsweek and Thomas is its most senior writer. What is remarkable about the interview is it shows that the media has had its doubts about Obama all along. Yet somehow this has never lead to any serious investigative reporting that may have shown Obama as a human being with a history, rather than some magical phantom.
Evan Thomas almost causes Meacham to have a heart seizure when he refers to Obama's "creepy cult of personality". Rose also nearly fell out of his shoes when Thomas said this and he repeated it back to Thomas in disbelief. Thomas reiterated his comment and then upped the ante by also saying he was "deeply manipulative". Thomas also casually asserts Obama's attachment to the teachings of leftist Saul Alinsky (Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu) as if it were common knowledge. Now you may agree with the objectives and tactics of Alinsky but my guess is the majority of Americans do not.
So here we have Evan Thomas, on the day after the election, telling Charlie Rose that Obama is a follower of socialist/Marxist Alinsky, is a creator of a creepy cult of personality and is a deeply manipulative individual. Before Thomas could go any further, perhaps even persuading us we just elected Satan as president, Meacham had to disagree with the "creepy cult" concept and somehow turned Thomas's observations into "Obama is really more like Reagan". I had thought Ronald Reagan Was An Amiable Dunce but I suppose that was another day and another time.
Either we get the comically absurd hero worship of Time magazine, or the equally absurd cynical avoidance of inconvenient truths by Newsweek. Obama faces a difficult enough task as president. Wait till he actually has to start making some decisions. I think he will discover the media's exaggerations can go both ways.
"Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope.....people were waiting for him, waiting for someone to finish what a King began"
Which King is that? One assumes she is using a play on words, although she leaves that unsaid so who knows? The King presumably is Martin Luther, not the one born in the manger. Yet the hyperbole is still absurd. She sees no irony in her "born in the imagination" imagery. And this is in a news story, not an opinion piece.
But even in the world of opinion, where all is allowed, Time still manages to set new fantastical standards. Novelist Pico Iyer writes this week's guest essay in Time My Close Encounter With Obama in Hawaii. From his comments it is clear he has become so used to projecting fantasies onto paper, he cannot distinguish reality from his novels. In a great bit of "look back" projection, Iyer recounts accidentally meeting Obama in Hawaii outside at an "avocado burger" place (you just cannot make this stuff up). He looked like a "skinny teenager" but the most remarkable thing about Obama was:
"this sparkling stranger was so much like the kind of people we meet in Paris, in Hong Kong, in the Middle East: difficult to place but connected to everywhere....like the air of his home island...he spoke for the global melting pot of today"
Seriously, doesn't this make you laugh out loud? Having been to the aforementioned three places (he can't trick me with his globetrotting conceit!) on many occasions, I never had trouble "connecting" these people to where they actually live, rather than "everywhere". Nor do I recall some ubiquitous fascination with global melting pots, but I am sure we traveled in different circles. But Iyer is not satisfied just making the point about the futuristic Obama's transcendent humanism; he needs to also contrast this with Alaska's backward looking yesterday's "go-it-alone" spirit. He happened to be in Alaska the "week Sarah Palin was introduced to the world" (who is this guy, Zelig ?). Despite Alaska's "great possibility" it is tied to the "last frontier" vision of yesterday, not to the hopeful tomorrow of the "kids" outside the avocado burger "North Shore shack" in Hawaii.
If Time has a "Meet The Beatles" frame of reference about Obama, its crosstown rival, Newsweek, leans more toward "Sympathy for the Devil". Somehow they never did get around to sharing that perspective with us prior to the election. I wonder why? In an interview with NPR's version of Larry King, Charlie Rose, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas reveal their insights into Obama's personality A conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas. Meacham is the editor-in-chief of Newsweek and Thomas is its most senior writer. What is remarkable about the interview is it shows that the media has had its doubts about Obama all along. Yet somehow this has never lead to any serious investigative reporting that may have shown Obama as a human being with a history, rather than some magical phantom.
Evan Thomas almost causes Meacham to have a heart seizure when he refers to Obama's "creepy cult of personality". Rose also nearly fell out of his shoes when Thomas said this and he repeated it back to Thomas in disbelief. Thomas reiterated his comment and then upped the ante by also saying he was "deeply manipulative". Thomas also casually asserts Obama's attachment to the teachings of leftist Saul Alinsky (Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu) as if it were common knowledge. Now you may agree with the objectives and tactics of Alinsky but my guess is the majority of Americans do not.
So here we have Evan Thomas, on the day after the election, telling Charlie Rose that Obama is a follower of socialist/Marxist Alinsky, is a creator of a creepy cult of personality and is a deeply manipulative individual. Before Thomas could go any further, perhaps even persuading us we just elected Satan as president, Meacham had to disagree with the "creepy cult" concept and somehow turned Thomas's observations into "Obama is really more like Reagan". I had thought Ronald Reagan Was An Amiable Dunce but I suppose that was another day and another time.
Either we get the comically absurd hero worship of Time magazine, or the equally absurd cynical avoidance of inconvenient truths by Newsweek. Obama faces a difficult enough task as president. Wait till he actually has to start making some decisions. I think he will discover the media's exaggerations can go both ways.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Blaming Sarah Palin
A million boring years ago, back in February or March, I used to jokingly refer to Mitt Romney as the "White Obama". It was meant to be funny (ha, ha) and parody the foibles of each candidate and their supporters. On the one hand, each was young, tall, handsome, well spoken, a controversial Church member, and accused of being vapid. On the other hand, each was almost a stereotypical perfect candidate for a certain type of voter; Obama to the young as well as the black and Romney to the white male businessman.
A Yellow Dog Democrat is a term which goes back to the late 19th century. Although no longer in popular use, it referred to southern Democrats who would prefer voting for a "yellow dog" before they would vote for a Republican. I have some times called myself a Yellow Dog Republican (although I voted 3 times happily for Mayor Ed Koch). Even though both parties, in practice, are often very similar, the Republicans at least only want to take half your money, not three quarters of it.
Despite being a Yellow Dog Republican, this was the first Republican primary season in a few decades that I could not get interested in a particular candidate. I try to "optimize" when looking at candidates. I generally try to pick the person who has the best chance of winning the general election who I also like as a candidate. This year no candidate scored high on both fronts. Guliani was an Italian New York City liberal Republican, so he was going nowhere, although I liked him. Huckabee, who bizarrely now hosts the television show of choice for left wing Hollywood types, was the worst of all candidates. He was the most incoherent candidate economically who also was a demagogue on cultural issues.
I never was an enthusiastic McCain supporter. As I have stated before, I voted more against Obama than for McCain. McCain's Vietnam war record and foreign policy capabilities are his most impressive credentials. But he used to drive me crazy with his domestic policies. He voted against the "Bush tax cuts"; he supported the anti-free speech, pro-incumbent monstrosity of a bill, the "McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act". And he was against drilling before he was for it. I can go on, but I would never finish.
This left the White Obama. I kind of liked him, although I was already imagining the headlines in the NY Times ("Morman Cultist Candidate Fired Ohio Workers while CEO of Bain & Co."). I particularly liked his economic philosophy. But it was very clear early on he was not going to win. While he got the "free market" vote, Huckabee was able to get the cultural conservative vote. McCain got the "foreign policy" vote and Guliani lost his itinerary. McCain won because Huckabee cannibalized the cultural conservatives from Romney. McCain was every one's second choice.
The "Blaming Sarah Palin" contingent would like to conveniently forget the facts on the ground. While Clinton and Obama were capturing 120% of the media attention, the Republicans were in a complete funk. They looked at John McCain glumly and only one thought came to their mind, "Bob Dole". Except Dole had a coherent economic policy.
And then came Sarah Palin. Never, that means never, has a vice presidential candidate generated the kind of enthusiasm she did for her party. No point here in explaining this phenomenon, because it is beside the point. The Reagan style Conservative Republicans actually had an affirmative reason to vote. The party had not felt this excited literally since 1988. From Day 1 to Day 75 the vice presidential candidate drew unprecedented crowds even for a presidential candidate. The most widely watched debate was the vice presidential debate. Her convention speech drew the same audience size as did Obama's. The overwhelming percentage of media and political personalities who actually met her, came away impressed whether they agreed with her policies or not. Within 2 weeks of her nomination McCain went from 5-7 down to 2 up.
Then came the bail out bill and the market crisis. When I first heard McCain was rushing back to DC to focus on the bill, I thought it was to oppose it, as 95% of the voters expressing an opinion did. Maybe if the McCain jackals could have pointed this out to their candidate, they wouldn't have to now be pretending Palin didn't know Africa is a continent. Instead, his worst "reach across the isle" instincts came out. He actually tried to work with Frank, Reid and Pelosi to "craft a compromise". Was he kidding? They literally mocked him while Obama stayed coolly above the fray.
We do not know what would have happened had he chosen someone else. But the odds are low another would have turned this "Bob Dole" candidacy into one Conservatives would seriously care about. She may have cost McCain the "Christopher Buckley" vote, though I seriously doubt it. Those guys would have jumped ship for some other reason. I am still waiting for McCain to condemn his own staff, although his time to do that has already passed.
Here is a woman who starts the campaign with the New York Times actually pedaling the story that she faked her own pregnancy, and ends it with the McCain generated freakish fantasy of a shopaholic gone berserk because the Alaskan Governor couldn't figure out that Canada was part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In between, she out drew the head of her ticket, and spoke before more voters than McCain did in his lifetime.
The good news is she will be back, while he and his campaign staff will not.
A Yellow Dog Democrat is a term which goes back to the late 19th century. Although no longer in popular use, it referred to southern Democrats who would prefer voting for a "yellow dog" before they would vote for a Republican. I have some times called myself a Yellow Dog Republican (although I voted 3 times happily for Mayor Ed Koch). Even though both parties, in practice, are often very similar, the Republicans at least only want to take half your money, not three quarters of it.
Despite being a Yellow Dog Republican, this was the first Republican primary season in a few decades that I could not get interested in a particular candidate. I try to "optimize" when looking at candidates. I generally try to pick the person who has the best chance of winning the general election who I also like as a candidate. This year no candidate scored high on both fronts. Guliani was an Italian New York City liberal Republican, so he was going nowhere, although I liked him. Huckabee, who bizarrely now hosts the television show of choice for left wing Hollywood types, was the worst of all candidates. He was the most incoherent candidate economically who also was a demagogue on cultural issues.
I never was an enthusiastic McCain supporter. As I have stated before, I voted more against Obama than for McCain. McCain's Vietnam war record and foreign policy capabilities are his most impressive credentials. But he used to drive me crazy with his domestic policies. He voted against the "Bush tax cuts"; he supported the anti-free speech, pro-incumbent monstrosity of a bill, the "McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act". And he was against drilling before he was for it. I can go on, but I would never finish.
This left the White Obama. I kind of liked him, although I was already imagining the headlines in the NY Times ("Morman Cultist Candidate Fired Ohio Workers while CEO of Bain & Co."). I particularly liked his economic philosophy. But it was very clear early on he was not going to win. While he got the "free market" vote, Huckabee was able to get the cultural conservative vote. McCain got the "foreign policy" vote and Guliani lost his itinerary. McCain won because Huckabee cannibalized the cultural conservatives from Romney. McCain was every one's second choice.
The "Blaming Sarah Palin" contingent would like to conveniently forget the facts on the ground. While Clinton and Obama were capturing 120% of the media attention, the Republicans were in a complete funk. They looked at John McCain glumly and only one thought came to their mind, "Bob Dole". Except Dole had a coherent economic policy.
And then came Sarah Palin. Never, that means never, has a vice presidential candidate generated the kind of enthusiasm she did for her party. No point here in explaining this phenomenon, because it is beside the point. The Reagan style Conservative Republicans actually had an affirmative reason to vote. The party had not felt this excited literally since 1988. From Day 1 to Day 75 the vice presidential candidate drew unprecedented crowds even for a presidential candidate. The most widely watched debate was the vice presidential debate. Her convention speech drew the same audience size as did Obama's. The overwhelming percentage of media and political personalities who actually met her, came away impressed whether they agreed with her policies or not. Within 2 weeks of her nomination McCain went from 5-7 down to 2 up.
Then came the bail out bill and the market crisis. When I first heard McCain was rushing back to DC to focus on the bill, I thought it was to oppose it, as 95% of the voters expressing an opinion did. Maybe if the McCain jackals could have pointed this out to their candidate, they wouldn't have to now be pretending Palin didn't know Africa is a continent. Instead, his worst "reach across the isle" instincts came out. He actually tried to work with Frank, Reid and Pelosi to "craft a compromise". Was he kidding? They literally mocked him while Obama stayed coolly above the fray.
We do not know what would have happened had he chosen someone else. But the odds are low another would have turned this "Bob Dole" candidacy into one Conservatives would seriously care about. She may have cost McCain the "Christopher Buckley" vote, though I seriously doubt it. Those guys would have jumped ship for some other reason. I am still waiting for McCain to condemn his own staff, although his time to do that has already passed.
Here is a woman who starts the campaign with the New York Times actually pedaling the story that she faked her own pregnancy, and ends it with the McCain generated freakish fantasy of a shopaholic gone berserk because the Alaskan Governor couldn't figure out that Canada was part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In between, she out drew the head of her ticket, and spoke before more voters than McCain did in his lifetime.
The good news is she will be back, while he and his campaign staff will not.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Dr. Vladenstein Makes his Move
No one can say the Russians don't have a sense of humor, however darkly disturbing it may be. The Biography Channel has a show called "Mobsters". It is predominantly about the history of the US Italian Mafia. Since my 4 Grandparents are of the exact generation as the founders of the American Mafia, the show is interesting to me. But the Biography Channel needs more material. How many different ways can you tell the story of Luciano, Costello, and Gambino before it starts boring you to tears? They need not worry however. The Russians are creating plenty of material for future shows. Three things stand out for me in learning about the Russian "Mafya": 1) unprecedented ruthlessness; 2) their sense of intellectual superiority; and 3) an ingrained sense of the difficulty of survival in Russia versus the ease of success in America.
I wrote a Masters thesis on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It always amazed me that a guy writing in the middle of the 19th century half way around the world could seem so "2oth century". Russians seem to have a sense of deep irony about the human condition and its simultaneous and contradictory capacity for self deluding optimism as well as enormous evil. When Putin's term for president was constitutionally ended last May, he simply had his chosen successor name him Prime Minister. That is what I call dark ironic humor.
Russia is a society that is crumbling beneath itself. It has been unable to convert the good fortune of high commodity and energy prices into a sustainable economic system. Those so called Russian Oligarchs would rather invest their ill begotten gains outside of Russia than invest it in a country whose male life expectancy is 58 years old. But old Vlad is looking west again for salvation.
On the very day when America is engaging in a self congratulatory, nostalgic, and weepy sense of moral accomplishment Putin has Medvedev announce to the world he is moving missiles in place to counter our plans in Poland. Obama has already stated (in September) that he will not permit missiles to be deployed in Poland if they are "aimed" at Russia. Who should they be aimed at, France? He has given unclear signals in the past about the nature of his support for the system. Obama advisor, Michael McFaul, today says that Obama will support the system "if it works and if it can be financially feasible". Which means of course he does not know what he thinks. Polish Prime Minister Tusk is feeling the terror big time. He weakly pronounced that Russia's move is "just political". Tusk must have forgotten his Clausewitz.
Yes, the Russians have a great big dark sense of humor.
I wrote a Masters thesis on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It always amazed me that a guy writing in the middle of the 19th century half way around the world could seem so "2oth century". Russians seem to have a sense of deep irony about the human condition and its simultaneous and contradictory capacity for self deluding optimism as well as enormous evil. When Putin's term for president was constitutionally ended last May, he simply had his chosen successor name him Prime Minister. That is what I call dark ironic humor.
Russia is a society that is crumbling beneath itself. It has been unable to convert the good fortune of high commodity and energy prices into a sustainable economic system. Those so called Russian Oligarchs would rather invest their ill begotten gains outside of Russia than invest it in a country whose male life expectancy is 58 years old. But old Vlad is looking west again for salvation.
On the very day when America is engaging in a self congratulatory, nostalgic, and weepy sense of moral accomplishment Putin has Medvedev announce to the world he is moving missiles in place to counter our plans in Poland. Obama has already stated (in September) that he will not permit missiles to be deployed in Poland if they are "aimed" at Russia. Who should they be aimed at, France? He has given unclear signals in the past about the nature of his support for the system. Obama advisor, Michael McFaul, today says that Obama will support the system "if it works and if it can be financially feasible". Which means of course he does not know what he thinks. Polish Prime Minister Tusk is feeling the terror big time. He weakly pronounced that Russia's move is "just political". Tusk must have forgotten his Clausewitz.
Yes, the Russians have a great big dark sense of humor.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
But Can he Play?
I appreciate Obama's election has great meaning to black Americans and even white Americans. As a child, I grew up living and dieing for the Los Angeles Dodgers. I was just too young to have remembered the Brooklyn Dodgers. My oldest memory of rooting for the Dodgers was 1958. In 1959, they won their first LA World Series. It had only been 12 years prior that Jackie Robinson broke the "color barrier" playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers. I loved baseball and reading old stories about baseball.
Of course I read Robinson's biography. The telling of his story was riveting and emotional as his teammates supported him against all attacks. He was one of my baseball heroes. The times were really different then. There were no black CEOs of Dow 30 companies, no black head coaches or managers, no black cultural icons that "crossed over" into national stardom, no black university presidents of non-black universities. He was one tough guy and one great baseball player.
There was a very long distance camera shot last night on Fox News that I thought must have been an illusion. It was truly remarkable. No one commented, as these election shows have become an exercise in maximizing the amount of noise, lights and nonsense that can be delivered per millisecond. They can hardly hear themselves think--these shows are awful.
The camera was focused on Reverend Jesse Jackson in the middle of the huge throng in Hyde Park. I really did a triple take. The Fox guys did not notice, although obviously one of the producers did. Jackson was crying. But it was more than that. It was as if he saw his whole life in front of him in a flash. I imagined he was remembering the day back in 1968, when he was with Martin Luther King on that hotel balcony in Tennessee. I imagined he thought of all the struggles, the marches, the jailings and now a black man is elected president. I am sure he thought of things of a personal or "selfish" nature too, given he ran for president as well. Who knows, he may have thought how ironic it is that the first black man elected president is a first generation Kenyan/white Kansan, not a descendent of slaves. The picture was beyond poignent.
So yes, I can very much appreciate how people may feel. But Jackie Robinson still needed to know how to play baseball and Barack Obama still needs to know how to be president. Black, white, whatever, if his policies are a disaster then do we really care if our president is black? If Obama does not work out, maybe next time we can try an American of Italian descent, we haven't had one of those as president either. My grandparents would be happy, if they were alive that is. And if that does not work out we can cycle through the Government's entire ethnic checklist. I think it must be up to 20-30 or so categories.
Charles Krauthammer said it well. He too was caught up a bit in the emotion of the evening. Still, he reminded his audience that never has America elected a president about whom we have known so little. I half concur. What we do know is he has stated beliefs in a hodge podge of economic and social left wing policies which have been proven failures throughout the years in country after country. Krauthammer's point was, does he really believe that stuff, or are they just beliefs of convenience to get him to this point? The Fox news folks were falling all over themselves in a fantasy of wish fulfillment about Obama's true beliefs. Juan Williams said something about how the country is still a "right center" country. One of them even said something about Obama being a check on the more liberal congress! I need to get what those guys are ingesting.
He has been pretty clear to me about what he believes. Pelosi and Reid are pretty clear about what they believe. The good news is they "won't have George W. Bush to kick around any more". They now have only themselves to credit or blame as they seek to bring about Change for the Ages. Obama was already hedging his bets last night. It definitely will "take more than one term" to make this all work out. Great. We will all certainly find out.
A "horse race" footnote. While it was a large turnout last night, it was not one for the ages apparently. Drudge has 118 million votes counted so far. It may or may not reach 2004 levels, but certainly not 1960 or 1908 levels. The major pollsters had it wrong (Gallup in particular), but it was still a big win. A topic for another day, but the Republican Party better figure out how to get a reasonable percentage of the African-American vote. This is the 3rd election in a row where 90-95% of black Americans voted Democrat. If the Republican party were able to persuade just 30% of black people that their policies are better for them, the Democrats would have a hard time winning the presidency again.
Of course I read Robinson's biography. The telling of his story was riveting and emotional as his teammates supported him against all attacks. He was one of my baseball heroes. The times were really different then. There were no black CEOs of Dow 30 companies, no black head coaches or managers, no black cultural icons that "crossed over" into national stardom, no black university presidents of non-black universities. He was one tough guy and one great baseball player.
There was a very long distance camera shot last night on Fox News that I thought must have been an illusion. It was truly remarkable. No one commented, as these election shows have become an exercise in maximizing the amount of noise, lights and nonsense that can be delivered per millisecond. They can hardly hear themselves think--these shows are awful.
The camera was focused on Reverend Jesse Jackson in the middle of the huge throng in Hyde Park. I really did a triple take. The Fox guys did not notice, although obviously one of the producers did. Jackson was crying. But it was more than that. It was as if he saw his whole life in front of him in a flash. I imagined he was remembering the day back in 1968, when he was with Martin Luther King on that hotel balcony in Tennessee. I imagined he thought of all the struggles, the marches, the jailings and now a black man is elected president. I am sure he thought of things of a personal or "selfish" nature too, given he ran for president as well. Who knows, he may have thought how ironic it is that the first black man elected president is a first generation Kenyan/white Kansan, not a descendent of slaves. The picture was beyond poignent.
So yes, I can very much appreciate how people may feel. But Jackie Robinson still needed to know how to play baseball and Barack Obama still needs to know how to be president. Black, white, whatever, if his policies are a disaster then do we really care if our president is black? If Obama does not work out, maybe next time we can try an American of Italian descent, we haven't had one of those as president either. My grandparents would be happy, if they were alive that is. And if that does not work out we can cycle through the Government's entire ethnic checklist. I think it must be up to 20-30 or so categories.
Charles Krauthammer said it well. He too was caught up a bit in the emotion of the evening. Still, he reminded his audience that never has America elected a president about whom we have known so little. I half concur. What we do know is he has stated beliefs in a hodge podge of economic and social left wing policies which have been proven failures throughout the years in country after country. Krauthammer's point was, does he really believe that stuff, or are they just beliefs of convenience to get him to this point? The Fox news folks were falling all over themselves in a fantasy of wish fulfillment about Obama's true beliefs. Juan Williams said something about how the country is still a "right center" country. One of them even said something about Obama being a check on the more liberal congress! I need to get what those guys are ingesting.
He has been pretty clear to me about what he believes. Pelosi and Reid are pretty clear about what they believe. The good news is they "won't have George W. Bush to kick around any more". They now have only themselves to credit or blame as they seek to bring about Change for the Ages. Obama was already hedging his bets last night. It definitely will "take more than one term" to make this all work out. Great. We will all certainly find out.
A "horse race" footnote. While it was a large turnout last night, it was not one for the ages apparently. Drudge has 118 million votes counted so far. It may or may not reach 2004 levels, but certainly not 1960 or 1908 levels. The major pollsters had it wrong (Gallup in particular), but it was still a big win. A topic for another day, but the Republican Party better figure out how to get a reasonable percentage of the African-American vote. This is the 3rd election in a row where 90-95% of black Americans voted Democrat. If the Republican party were able to persuade just 30% of black people that their policies are better for them, the Democrats would have a hard time winning the presidency again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
