Yeah, it's me again, beating what appears more and more to be a dead horse.
I watched the 20th and hopefully last presidential debate last night (Feb. 26, 2008), I say shame! to Sen. Barack Obama.
It's not that he was any less sincere in his "some of my best friends and supporters are Jewish" speech than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but he seemed to be a lot too blase about the support he received from Minister Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan has made pointed and horrible anti-Semitic statements for years, calling Judaism a "gutter religion" and worse.
Farrakhan has, however, had nice, very nice things to say about Obama. The Nation of Islam figure called Obama "the hope of the entire world" and said it has captured "black and brown and red and yellow" audiences.
When Obama was questioned last night about Farrakhan's praise, he gave a "so what" type of answer.
When NBC chief Obama backer Tim Russert asked whether Obama rejected Farrakhan's endorsement, Obama could have said yes or said he distances himself from Farrakhan and all he stands for, but he didn't. He played a semantics game. When Clinton lectured Obama about the power of words and the difference between rejecting praise and distancing himself from a known anti-Semite, Obama conceded the debating point, but never said he rejected Farrakhan, didn't want any money or support from Farrakhan or anyone who thought like him.
The words of the president of the United States are parsed closely, not only by diplomats but by ordinary people worldwide. The difference between one word and the other has started arguments that have led to wars, such as, for example, whether Iraq has or had weapons of mass destruction. We all know Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction because he used them on the Kurds.
The Bush administration took Saddam's word that he still had those weapons. It just so happened that the message was meant to scare Iran so the Tehran mullahs wouldn't attack Baghdad, but it got intercepted and misinterpreted by the geniuses of the Bush administration and before you could say wrong number, we were off to war.
Words are important. I'm now more sure than ever that Obama isn't ready to be president of anything, not to say the United States.
The Farrakhan gaffe is not considered a major one by analysts. It should be. Obama is starting to remind me of Ronald Reagan, in that they both did very well with scripted speeches before adoring audiences, but didn't do so well in debates or answering questions one-on-one. You need to be able to do better than look bored and condescending and pick up your finger to be recognized and give your debating point.
As president, one has to think clearly in the clutches, consider all sizes of a question quickly and give a response that will stand up to analyses from all sides.
Obama just hasn't shown me he can do that.
Page 2
Let me have my say about Tweed-New Haven Airport.
The anti-Tweed folks remind me of Cinderella's step-mother and step-sisters. They rip up Cinderella's dress, pull out all her hairdressing, smash her shoes and then tell her she may go to the ball if she pleases.
These residents, with the backing of the late Mayor Biagio DiLieto, whose political base was the East Shore of New Haven and the anti-airport contingent who lived there, took a going concern and turned it into a joke. The word "jet" scared them. East Haveners were just as bad.
Bruce Lawson, who was airport general manager when I covered the airport authority back in the late 1980s, took me on a tour of the facilities one bleak day. Back then, USAir and Continental offered services to hubs in New York (JFK), Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. The tiny Boeing 1900's and Twin Otters were replaced by ATR 42s and similar propjets that flew to National in Arlington, Va., in a couple of hours.
Air Wisconsin's attempt to fly small four-engine jets was defeated by a strict noise ordinance. United offered jet service to Chicago, but the large consumers of air service refused to back the service and United soon pulled out.
Today, USAirways offers service to Philadelphia. Private and charter planes use the airport now.
I can see how jet service with screamers like DC-9s and Boeing 727s would frighten people. But today's MD-80s, Boeing 737s and smaller Boeing 717s, a 100-seat aircraft that AirTran flies out of Westchester and other places nonstop to Florida, are really quiet.
During our tour of the airport, Lawson said the runway at Tweed could support aircraft as large as Boeing 757s, a jet that can fly nonstop to California, with just a few inches of material to increase the depth of the runways.
In a public meeting about the mayor's redevelopment plans, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said he hasn't been happy with the work of the airport panel he helped appoint. Neighbors and officials are supposed to be meeting about the extension of the safety zones at the end of the airport.
In the late 1980s, I did a story for the New Haven Register comparing Tweed to Westchester and Worcester airports. Westchester is still a going concern despite the kind of county-backed interference from airport neighbors in Harrison and Rye, N.Y. and Greenwich, Conn. That's because there are flights going where people want to go. Last year, I took AirTran from Westchester to Orlando. Except for having to mortgage my house to pay parking fees, it was a great experience.
Look, how's about this for an idea. Why don't we give the airport a real chance. We've spent money renovating the place a few years ago. That cash shouldn't be wasted. If Yale, AT&T and other consumers of air service were to pledge to use the service and give it a real chance, maybe that could be used to persuade some airlines to come back.
Imagine being able to step on a 100-passenger jet and be in Orlando in a few hours. Imagine being able to fly to places like Toronto, Chicago, Charlotte, N.C., or Atlanta. Imagine not having to drive for more than an hour to get to Bradley International, or God knows how long to get to JFK, Newark and La Guardia. Westchester Airport in Harrison is 45 minutes away and charges $21 a day to park, if you can find a space.
We have a real gem here. Let's give it a real chance.
Until next time...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Ralphie's on his ego trip again
Hi there. You must have thought I'd finally gone away.
Well, I almost did. I was never so sick in my life as I was a couple of weeks ago. The week after that, my step-mother took sick in Maryland and the trip with three grandchildren, one daughter and my wife turned into a hospital visit instead of the planned show-ma-the-great-grandkids visit.
Anyway, Ralph Nader, the man who shows us that a life can have both very good and very nutty in it, is off on his quadrennial ego trip again.
Eight years ago, the votes he collected in Florida made the race tight enough so Bush could steal it. Of course, Ralphie said there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore. He may believe that. The difference, however, between himself and the other four dozen people in the nation who believe that is that he isn't confined to an asylum for the mentally challenged.
As you all no doubt know, Ralph Nader started out life as a real consumer advocate. His seminal work, "Unsafe at Any Speed," no doubt saved lives by drawing our attention to rattle-traps that exploded on impact and caused untold misery.
A decade or so ago, I was saddened to note that Ralph's ego had taken over and he was now shilling for ambulance-chasers. I ran into him at an insurance convention and was able to tell him of my disappointment in a career that started out so wonderfully. Tears ran down my cheeks as I lambasted him.
After his performance in 2000 and also in 2004, when he didn't send the election to Bush, he has chutzpah to run again. He takes no responsibility for the mess this nation is in now. Ralphie is just living in his own head. Fortunately, the poor misguided souls who backed him in 2000 aren't around to help him today.
One hopes that nobody will send him money and he will just go quietly back inside his head.
Page 2
Speaking of living in his own head, Barack Obama is upset because Matt Drudge has trotted out a 2006 Associated Press photo of him in native Kenyan dress. Maybe it's the headdress that might look like one that a Muslim might wear.
Mr. Obama, sir, you of the consummate ego and haughty expression, let me direct your attention to the hundreds, even thousands of photos extant of presidential candidates in all kinds of costumes. Start with Silent Cal Coolidge in a full-feathered American Indian headdress. You seem to pattern yourself after John F. Kennedy -- I seem to remember him in cowboy hat and other headgear.
Candidates have to kiss babies, eat strange foods and wear weird costumes. What are you going to do if you win and have to make a trip to Kazakhstan and some little kid presents you with some kind of headgear?
It's not a put-on. Be proud of your heritage. Your dad was Kenyan? Embrace it.
By the way, Obama's people accused the Clinton camp of leaking the photo to Drudge and said it was a nasty thing to do. I hope the Clintons weren't part of any Obama's-a-Muslim campaign. But that's mild compared to what the GOP rat-f**kers are cooking up for the Democratic nominee. Get used to it or get out. No, it's not the way the game should be played, but in the political big leagues, it's the way it is played.
Page 3
Here's another Len's Lens unsolicited endorsement. I received no consideration for the following.
During our trip last week to see my step-mother, we stayed at the Summerfield Suites in Gaithersburg, Md. We took a two-bedroom suite and there was plenty of room for my wife and I, my daughter and her three children, ranging in age from 6 years to 7 months old.
We had a full-sized fridge, three televisions, two bathrooms, two king-sized beds and a studio couch. The place served a hot buffet breakfast, put a newspaper in front of your door each morning and the service was possibly the best ever.
Hear this: With kids, you need to take a break from hospital visits, so we headed for Washington, D.C. Since people have spent their entire adult lives looking for a parking space in D.C., we took the metro. The hotel provided a free shuttle service, complete with installing three child seats in their van, took us to the Metro station and picked us up later with the child seats reinstalled in the van. All we had to do was call from a couple of Metro stations away and the van was waiting when we arrived.
Bravo, Summerfield Suites.
Page 4
To those who are reading this, thank you for keeping watch. I will try to be more consistent in the future.
Well, I almost did. I was never so sick in my life as I was a couple of weeks ago. The week after that, my step-mother took sick in Maryland and the trip with three grandchildren, one daughter and my wife turned into a hospital visit instead of the planned show-ma-the-great-grandkids visit.
Anyway, Ralph Nader, the man who shows us that a life can have both very good and very nutty in it, is off on his quadrennial ego trip again.
Eight years ago, the votes he collected in Florida made the race tight enough so Bush could steal it. Of course, Ralphie said there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore. He may believe that. The difference, however, between himself and the other four dozen people in the nation who believe that is that he isn't confined to an asylum for the mentally challenged.
As you all no doubt know, Ralph Nader started out life as a real consumer advocate. His seminal work, "Unsafe at Any Speed," no doubt saved lives by drawing our attention to rattle-traps that exploded on impact and caused untold misery.
A decade or so ago, I was saddened to note that Ralph's ego had taken over and he was now shilling for ambulance-chasers. I ran into him at an insurance convention and was able to tell him of my disappointment in a career that started out so wonderfully. Tears ran down my cheeks as I lambasted him.
After his performance in 2000 and also in 2004, when he didn't send the election to Bush, he has chutzpah to run again. He takes no responsibility for the mess this nation is in now. Ralphie is just living in his own head. Fortunately, the poor misguided souls who backed him in 2000 aren't around to help him today.
One hopes that nobody will send him money and he will just go quietly back inside his head.
Page 2
Speaking of living in his own head, Barack Obama is upset because Matt Drudge has trotted out a 2006 Associated Press photo of him in native Kenyan dress. Maybe it's the headdress that might look like one that a Muslim might wear.
Mr. Obama, sir, you of the consummate ego and haughty expression, let me direct your attention to the hundreds, even thousands of photos extant of presidential candidates in all kinds of costumes. Start with Silent Cal Coolidge in a full-feathered American Indian headdress. You seem to pattern yourself after John F. Kennedy -- I seem to remember him in cowboy hat and other headgear.
Candidates have to kiss babies, eat strange foods and wear weird costumes. What are you going to do if you win and have to make a trip to Kazakhstan and some little kid presents you with some kind of headgear?
It's not a put-on. Be proud of your heritage. Your dad was Kenyan? Embrace it.
By the way, Obama's people accused the Clinton camp of leaking the photo to Drudge and said it was a nasty thing to do. I hope the Clintons weren't part of any Obama's-a-Muslim campaign. But that's mild compared to what the GOP rat-f**kers are cooking up for the Democratic nominee. Get used to it or get out. No, it's not the way the game should be played, but in the political big leagues, it's the way it is played.
Page 3
Here's another Len's Lens unsolicited endorsement. I received no consideration for the following.
During our trip last week to see my step-mother, we stayed at the Summerfield Suites in Gaithersburg, Md. We took a two-bedroom suite and there was plenty of room for my wife and I, my daughter and her three children, ranging in age from 6 years to 7 months old.
We had a full-sized fridge, three televisions, two bathrooms, two king-sized beds and a studio couch. The place served a hot buffet breakfast, put a newspaper in front of your door each morning and the service was possibly the best ever.
Hear this: With kids, you need to take a break from hospital visits, so we headed for Washington, D.C. Since people have spent their entire adult lives looking for a parking space in D.C., we took the metro. The hotel provided a free shuttle service, complete with installing three child seats in their van, took us to the Metro station and picked us up later with the child seats reinstalled in the van. All we had to do was call from a couple of Metro stations away and the van was waiting when we arrived.
Bravo, Summerfield Suites.
Page 4
To those who are reading this, thank you for keeping watch. I will try to be more consistent in the future.
Monday, February 4, 2008
In the end, Clinton just makes more sense
Before I get started on politics, an brief comment about the Super Bowl.
A century ago, when I was warming the football bench at New Britain High School, my coach said something that stuck with me. I don't think he was smart enough to mean his comment as a lesson for life, although it is.
What he said was that when you are tackling someone, make sure he's down before you let go of him. Listen for the whistle, and then you can get up.
If the New England Patriots had minded that advice during the game, they just might have been able to pick up a victory, as undeserved as it would have been, and claim a perfect season. The New York Giants (actually the New Jersey Giants in everything except name) deserved to win that game.
As much as it pains me to say so, they outplayed the Patriots in all facets of the game. Congratulations to the Giants and to the 1972 Miami Dolphins, whose record goes on.
Page 2
OK, here goes.
On the Republican side, it's easy. I covered John McCain yesterday in Fairfield and what I saw was Ronald Reagan with brains. To read my story, please go to http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/02/mccain_brings_p.php
He was personable, even telling lawyer jokes and introducing his mother. His position on the war in Iraq is troubling, but Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are downright scary.
On the Democrat side, it's more complicated. Let's say this is easy because you can't really get it wrong, except that you can. Let me explain.
Barack Obama is a bright, energetic man full of enthusiasm and great ideas that may not be really thought out. In this morning's New York Times, the columnist Paul Krugman analyzes the Obama plan for health care against the plan put up by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Krugman's analysis is that Obama's plan may seem a little cheaper than Clinton's, but doesn't cover all those who don't have insurance, while Clinton's plan will cover all 45 million or so people for about a third more money altogether, but less per covered person. Clinton's plan is just better thought out, more complete.
As Krugman points out, the chances of anyone's plan being passed by Congress in whole cloth are slim, but this bring home a lesson.
Obama is a great cheerleader and I agree the nation needs a great cheerleader right now. The nation, however, needs someone who can translate all those good ideas into fruition, not just chant "change".
As a nation, we revere John F. Kennedy. He had a lot of great ideas, but I don't think he would have been able to armtwist as many of them through Congress as Lyndon B. Johnson did.
As I said, I don't think either of these individuals would make a bad president. I wanted to ask McCain yesterday what he thought of standing in the way of history, that he wanted to prevent the election of either the first woman or the first African-American president. It's a silly question, but I would have loved to hear his answer anyway. By the way, as a trivia item, Obama would be the first president with a pronounced vowel at the end of his name.
If McCain were elected president, I would not rip my clothes and sit in ashes, but I'd rather not have him as our next president. I think Hillary Clinton would do better against McCain, and that is where I think we can get it wrong. If we choose the wrong Democrat, we get McCain.
I know it's not politically correct to say this, but I don't trust my fellow Americans not to be racists. I can't see some hillbilly or redneck going into the voting booth and voting for a black man. And there are a lot of hillbillies and rednecks out there, or at least people who think like them.
Clinton is bright, maybe even brighter than her husband, who might have been the smartest president we ever had, at least above the belt. She thinks things out, reasons them out. The next president needs to mend a lot of fences around the world that have been kicked down by our president. I think Clinton is more of a known quantity around the world.
All these things, taken alone, are not the reason to vote for someone, but together, I think they are. Turning a nation is like turning an ocean liner. It doesn't turn on a dime. You need to know that going in and saying you are going to do this or do that to lead the nation in a new direction may be fine rhetoric, but you need to have plans to do things while the ship is turning.
I just think Clinton has the better ideas for leading the nation. I am also afraid that Obama will become the 2008 version of George McGovern.
Old George was an exciting person who was going to get us out of the war in Vietnam the day after he took office. He had all kinds of ideas to turn the nation around. But Spiro Agnew's silent majority, who are the ones who actually elect the president, were scared of him and voted for Richard M. Nixon in droves. McGovern won one state -- Massachusetts -- plus the District of Columbia. He lost by 520-17 in the Electoral College.
That scares me. Along with the other reasons, that leads me to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton and urge those silly enough to care what I think to do the same.
Until next time...
A century ago, when I was warming the football bench at New Britain High School, my coach said something that stuck with me. I don't think he was smart enough to mean his comment as a lesson for life, although it is.
What he said was that when you are tackling someone, make sure he's down before you let go of him. Listen for the whistle, and then you can get up.
If the New England Patriots had minded that advice during the game, they just might have been able to pick up a victory, as undeserved as it would have been, and claim a perfect season. The New York Giants (actually the New Jersey Giants in everything except name) deserved to win that game.
As much as it pains me to say so, they outplayed the Patriots in all facets of the game. Congratulations to the Giants and to the 1972 Miami Dolphins, whose record goes on.
Page 2
OK, here goes.
On the Republican side, it's easy. I covered John McCain yesterday in Fairfield and what I saw was Ronald Reagan with brains. To read my story, please go to http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/02/mccain_brings_p.php
He was personable, even telling lawyer jokes and introducing his mother. His position on the war in Iraq is troubling, but Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are downright scary.
On the Democrat side, it's more complicated. Let's say this is easy because you can't really get it wrong, except that you can. Let me explain.
Barack Obama is a bright, energetic man full of enthusiasm and great ideas that may not be really thought out. In this morning's New York Times, the columnist Paul Krugman analyzes the Obama plan for health care against the plan put up by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Krugman's analysis is that Obama's plan may seem a little cheaper than Clinton's, but doesn't cover all those who don't have insurance, while Clinton's plan will cover all 45 million or so people for about a third more money altogether, but less per covered person. Clinton's plan is just better thought out, more complete.
As Krugman points out, the chances of anyone's plan being passed by Congress in whole cloth are slim, but this bring home a lesson.
Obama is a great cheerleader and I agree the nation needs a great cheerleader right now. The nation, however, needs someone who can translate all those good ideas into fruition, not just chant "change".
As a nation, we revere John F. Kennedy. He had a lot of great ideas, but I don't think he would have been able to armtwist as many of them through Congress as Lyndon B. Johnson did.
As I said, I don't think either of these individuals would make a bad president. I wanted to ask McCain yesterday what he thought of standing in the way of history, that he wanted to prevent the election of either the first woman or the first African-American president. It's a silly question, but I would have loved to hear his answer anyway. By the way, as a trivia item, Obama would be the first president with a pronounced vowel at the end of his name.
If McCain were elected president, I would not rip my clothes and sit in ashes, but I'd rather not have him as our next president. I think Hillary Clinton would do better against McCain, and that is where I think we can get it wrong. If we choose the wrong Democrat, we get McCain.
I know it's not politically correct to say this, but I don't trust my fellow Americans not to be racists. I can't see some hillbilly or redneck going into the voting booth and voting for a black man. And there are a lot of hillbillies and rednecks out there, or at least people who think like them.
Clinton is bright, maybe even brighter than her husband, who might have been the smartest president we ever had, at least above the belt. She thinks things out, reasons them out. The next president needs to mend a lot of fences around the world that have been kicked down by our president. I think Clinton is more of a known quantity around the world.
All these things, taken alone, are not the reason to vote for someone, but together, I think they are. Turning a nation is like turning an ocean liner. It doesn't turn on a dime. You need to know that going in and saying you are going to do this or do that to lead the nation in a new direction may be fine rhetoric, but you need to have plans to do things while the ship is turning.
I just think Clinton has the better ideas for leading the nation. I am also afraid that Obama will become the 2008 version of George McGovern.
Old George was an exciting person who was going to get us out of the war in Vietnam the day after he took office. He had all kinds of ideas to turn the nation around. But Spiro Agnew's silent majority, who are the ones who actually elect the president, were scared of him and voted for Richard M. Nixon in droves. McGovern won one state -- Massachusetts -- plus the District of Columbia. He lost by 520-17 in the Electoral College.
That scares me. Along with the other reasons, that leads me to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton and urge those silly enough to care what I think to do the same.
Until next time...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
So you want to start from scratch each time, eh?
In this morning's New York Times (Jan. 31, 2007), columnist Nicholas D. Kristof presented an interesting problem.
On one hand, he said that Hillary Rodham Clinton has all the qualities and experience to make a formidable president.
On the other hand, he said that if she were elected and served two terms, 40 percent of the people alive in the United States at the end of her second term would have lived during presidencies held by members of only two families - the Bushes and the Clintons. For 28 years, the White House would have been occupied by a member of those families.
Let's see -- daddy Bush took office in 1989 and Hillary will serve, if elected twice, until 2017. That's 28 years.
"Naturally, views on this are influenced by politics. Clintonians who dismissed George W. Bush as a dynastic puppet see nothing wrong with another Clinton in the Oval Office," Kristof writes. "On the other hand, Obama fans who shiver at the prospect of a Clinton dynasty bask in endorsements from an even greater dynasty, that of the Kennedys."
O guess great minds move in the same direction -- see my previous post for the same sentiment, although written less elegantly.
Kristof then leads us through history, with the Adamses, John and Quincy, the four terms of Roosevelt, the resulting 22nd Amendment and quoting Thomas Jefferson as saying "in no office can rotation be more expedient" than the presidency.
Kristof ends with the obvious tradeoff -- those who believe Hillary Clinton is a most formidable lady with great credentials to clean house (no sexist pun intended) after the Bushes have packed up the pickup truck and moved back to Texas. At the same time, he says, we fear the kind of dynasty where sons take over from fathers (Papa and Baby Doc in Haiti, the Ghandis in India, the husband-wife deal going down in Argentina.
But at the same time, do we want to eschew a superior individual just because her husband was a superior individual in the White House? As Kristof puts it, "Mrs. Clinton has proven herself and excellent senator, and presumably would make a superior president. Yet...28 years....two families! That needn't be decisive, but it's too important to be ignored."
I disagree. It is, at most, a side issue.
If there were demonstrably superior alternative, I would agree with Kristof. I'm not sure there is. Barack Obama is a very bright man who has the talent to inspire, which is great for getting elected. My problem with him can be summarized by the following: Do you remember a wonderful movie called "The Candidate?" Robert Redford as McKay, and Peter Boyle as his campaign manager. McKay has the better way was the campaign slogan. McKay was good looking and gave a great speech and got himself elected. The final scene takes places in a closet, where McKay drags the manager to escape the hoopla for a moment to ask this question: "What do we do now?"
I'm a little afraid of that with Barack Obama. I'm afraid he's a guy who can get himself elected and then have to look around to his advisers to find out what to do now. That's Ronnie Reagan and that's George W. Bush. If you have great advisers who have the good of the nation at heart, you are fine. If your adviser is Karl Rove, we're all in trouble again.
John McCain is a pleasant enough guy who has to carry water for the right-wingers and born-agains to get himself elected, and that scares me. Although I really believe he wants what's best for the nation, what he wants to do will be drowned out by what he must do to keep his coalition going. Just ask Ehud Olmert in Israel what that's like.
You notice I don't mention Mitt Romney. Let's not mention him and perhaps he'll go away.
Hey I have an idea. Hillary should use her maiden name, Hillary Rodham, and then we can forget this dynasty nonsense and get on with doing what's best for the nation.
Page 2
The Democratic debate is on tonight on CNN and I hope race isn't injected into it. Look, there is nothing wrong with someone voting for a guy who looks like him or her as long as that person doesn't then upbraid his neighbor for doing the same thing.
But there are better reasons to vote for someone, especially for a president who have so much healing and patching to do both at home and on the world stage.
People who look like me (blue eyes, light brown hair before it started going ash blond) are scratching their heads about why African-Americans made such a fuss about Hillary's comment about how Martin Luther King couldn't have done what he did without Lyndon Johnson doing what he did.
I think I know and I think there is a lesson for all of us in it.
African-Americans haven't been allowed to have many heroes. That isn't to say there haven't been a whole lot of African-Americans who have done heroic things, but because of racism, those heroes have not been acknowledged by the general population, haven't been taught in schools and the like.
People who haven't been allowed to have many heroes will not take kindly to one of their heroes, especially one who has been acknowledged by everyone, being diminished. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is a true hero, or should be a true hero, to all Americans and people of good will around the globe.
Everyone knows who Paul Revere and Samuel Adams were, but how many know who Crispin Attucks was? See? Revere and Adams and John Hancock were heroes of the American Revolution, but so was Crispin Attucks, who died in 1775 in Boston. How many kids learn that.
So, we need to be careful how we diminish other people's heroes. I think Hillary learned that, just as she learned that one should learn what a foreign individual says before embracing them (as in Suha Arafat). That was bad staff work. It's one of the lessons she has learned.
Gotta go. It's the last day for some colleagues at The Journal News, which is winding up its next buyout phase. I wish them the best and want to be there to wish them well.
Until next time...
On one hand, he said that Hillary Rodham Clinton has all the qualities and experience to make a formidable president.
On the other hand, he said that if she were elected and served two terms, 40 percent of the people alive in the United States at the end of her second term would have lived during presidencies held by members of only two families - the Bushes and the Clintons. For 28 years, the White House would have been occupied by a member of those families.
Let's see -- daddy Bush took office in 1989 and Hillary will serve, if elected twice, until 2017. That's 28 years.
"Naturally, views on this are influenced by politics. Clintonians who dismissed George W. Bush as a dynastic puppet see nothing wrong with another Clinton in the Oval Office," Kristof writes. "On the other hand, Obama fans who shiver at the prospect of a Clinton dynasty bask in endorsements from an even greater dynasty, that of the Kennedys."
O guess great minds move in the same direction -- see my previous post for the same sentiment, although written less elegantly.
Kristof then leads us through history, with the Adamses, John and Quincy, the four terms of Roosevelt, the resulting 22nd Amendment and quoting Thomas Jefferson as saying "in no office can rotation be more expedient" than the presidency.
Kristof ends with the obvious tradeoff -- those who believe Hillary Clinton is a most formidable lady with great credentials to clean house (no sexist pun intended) after the Bushes have packed up the pickup truck and moved back to Texas. At the same time, he says, we fear the kind of dynasty where sons take over from fathers (Papa and Baby Doc in Haiti, the Ghandis in India, the husband-wife deal going down in Argentina.
But at the same time, do we want to eschew a superior individual just because her husband was a superior individual in the White House? As Kristof puts it, "Mrs. Clinton has proven herself and excellent senator, and presumably would make a superior president. Yet...28 years....two families! That needn't be decisive, but it's too important to be ignored."
I disagree. It is, at most, a side issue.
If there were demonstrably superior alternative, I would agree with Kristof. I'm not sure there is. Barack Obama is a very bright man who has the talent to inspire, which is great for getting elected. My problem with him can be summarized by the following: Do you remember a wonderful movie called "The Candidate?" Robert Redford as McKay, and Peter Boyle as his campaign manager. McKay has the better way was the campaign slogan. McKay was good looking and gave a great speech and got himself elected. The final scene takes places in a closet, where McKay drags the manager to escape the hoopla for a moment to ask this question: "What do we do now?"
I'm a little afraid of that with Barack Obama. I'm afraid he's a guy who can get himself elected and then have to look around to his advisers to find out what to do now. That's Ronnie Reagan and that's George W. Bush. If you have great advisers who have the good of the nation at heart, you are fine. If your adviser is Karl Rove, we're all in trouble again.
John McCain is a pleasant enough guy who has to carry water for the right-wingers and born-agains to get himself elected, and that scares me. Although I really believe he wants what's best for the nation, what he wants to do will be drowned out by what he must do to keep his coalition going. Just ask Ehud Olmert in Israel what that's like.
You notice I don't mention Mitt Romney. Let's not mention him and perhaps he'll go away.
Hey I have an idea. Hillary should use her maiden name, Hillary Rodham, and then we can forget this dynasty nonsense and get on with doing what's best for the nation.
Page 2
The Democratic debate is on tonight on CNN and I hope race isn't injected into it. Look, there is nothing wrong with someone voting for a guy who looks like him or her as long as that person doesn't then upbraid his neighbor for doing the same thing.
But there are better reasons to vote for someone, especially for a president who have so much healing and patching to do both at home and on the world stage.
People who look like me (blue eyes, light brown hair before it started going ash blond) are scratching their heads about why African-Americans made such a fuss about Hillary's comment about how Martin Luther King couldn't have done what he did without Lyndon Johnson doing what he did.
I think I know and I think there is a lesson for all of us in it.
African-Americans haven't been allowed to have many heroes. That isn't to say there haven't been a whole lot of African-Americans who have done heroic things, but because of racism, those heroes have not been acknowledged by the general population, haven't been taught in schools and the like.
People who haven't been allowed to have many heroes will not take kindly to one of their heroes, especially one who has been acknowledged by everyone, being diminished. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is a true hero, or should be a true hero, to all Americans and people of good will around the globe.
Everyone knows who Paul Revere and Samuel Adams were, but how many know who Crispin Attucks was? See? Revere and Adams and John Hancock were heroes of the American Revolution, but so was Crispin Attucks, who died in 1775 in Boston. How many kids learn that.
So, we need to be careful how we diminish other people's heroes. I think Hillary learned that, just as she learned that one should learn what a foreign individual says before embracing them (as in Suha Arafat). That was bad staff work. It's one of the lessons she has learned.
Gotta go. It's the last day for some colleagues at The Journal News, which is winding up its next buyout phase. I wish them the best and want to be there to wish them well.
Until next time...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Down to the final four madness and it's not even March
You have to give props where they are deserved, and Jon Stewart gets one and a gold star to boot.
He was commenting on the State of the Union in general and the robot-like response delivered by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. He showed a clip of Sebelius ending her soliloquy by inviting everyone to get some sleep, to which Stewart cracked that we were far ahead of her in sleeping. Somebody should have changed her batteries before she went on. Even her mouth motions looked like those of an animated character. The Democrats have to do better than that.
She followed the last (thank heaven) message by Bush, who basically showed he was still in never-never land. He and Rudy Giuliani are the best national examples of self-deceivers alive today.
So, now there are four. Rudy and John Edwards dropped out Wednesday (Jan. 30, 2007), leaving the GOP with two real candidates and the Democrats with two. Forget Mike Huckabee - there aren't enough born-agains who vote only on the basis of their religious beliefs to make any real difference for him.
So it's John McCain and Mitt Romney for the GOP and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barak Obama for the Democrats.
Speaking of Obama, I can't help but chuckle that he has been basing his campaign on change from the Washington insiders and then happily collects an endorsement from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the chief of the entrenched Washington insiders. Throw in a "me, too" from Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the ultimate Washington icon, JFK, and you have a typical political double-take.
I covered Hillary Monday in Hartford for the New Haven Independent www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/01/hillary_wows_cr.php and was treated to a close-up view of this fine mind clicking over. I had met her a couple of years ago at some Westchester County function and I still think she's the genuine article as far as intellect is concerned. She and her husband are about the brightest minds among those who offer themselves upon the altar of politics.
I've talked to folks to survived Mitt Romney's governorship in Massachusetts, and not many have anything good to say about him. As some NPR commentator said yesterday, one doubts that many Republicans and any Democrats want to have a high-powered businessman watching over the morals of the nation.
Still, I'm not going to stick my neck out and endorse anyone (who would care anyway) until after tomorrow's debates.
Page 2
In the comments to my story on Hillary, a person called TRUEBLUECT early this morning (another member of the royal order of the night people - remember that one from the 60s?) posted the following comment:
One should kindly ask Mr. Honeyman if he still backs Joe Lieberman. Sadly Senator (Joseph I.) Lieberman is going against his word, and very actively campaigning to get not Hillary, but a Republican, elected as our 44th President.
Mr. Honeyman is one of the good guys, but I feel, given the circumstances, this is an extremely fair question. Will he answer?
Yes, he will answer TBCT. Yes, it is an extremely fair question and I thank you for caring what I think. It's nice to know that one's writing is not an exercise howling into the wind. (I could have used another expression, but this blog is still rated PG.)
My problem is I'm not sure. Let's work this out together.
I supported Lieberman because I knew him to be a fair and honest man, one of the few in Washington. I also know that Ned Lamont, his opponent, was a political babe in the woods, a product of DNC head Howard Dean and his brother, Jimmy, who found Lieberman not to their left-wing liking, squiring Lamont around the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner in Hartford as Barak Obama was telling the crowd that Lieberman was the better choice. Lamont would have been eaten alive in the Senate.
But what does Joe do? He says he's a Democrat, but comes out for McCain, even though he had said he wouldn't endorse anyone until later in the campaign.
So, we have Joe Lieberman who is good for getting Connecticut great stuff through those earmarks that Bush keeps ranting about, but Lieberman who is all but a traitor to his party. It's tough.
I think, TBCT, that I would have to come down harder on the side of the Lieberman who is still fighting for Connecticut's best interests and Israel's best interests (that's a biggie for me) than against the Lieberman who has gone against his word and his party. But it's a near thing, certainly not more than few points. Joe, I'm watching you, boy.
I hope that answers your question, TBCT. And thanks for posing it.
Page 3
Last night, we (wife and friends) traveled to Stamford to see a really nice film about Pete Seeger, the legendary singer, songwriter and fighter for all kinds of causes from cleaning up the Hudson River to stopping the war (he's added a couple of verses to an anti-Vietnam war song to fit the Iraq war.) His grandson and the director of the movie were there as well, taking questions from the audience.
A few things I didn't know that I learned from the movie. Seeger served in the Army in World War II and spent the war fixing airplane engines and leading sing-alongs. He was blacklisted for 17 years in the 1940s and 50s Red Scare and only brought back onto television through the intervention of the Smothers Brothers. He left the Weavers over a television ad for cigarettes that the singing group was doing. Seeger lived in New York's Greenwich Village before moving to Beacon, N.Y., to a cabin he built himself that had neither running water nor heat.
Anyway, the film is scheduled to be broadcast on PBS in February. It's well worth watching, even among the ubiquitous PBS begging.
Page 4
I'm glad that the New York Mets have snagged pitcher Johan Santana. The Boston Red Sox and the hated New York Yankees had pursued the excellent pitcher, but I think it would have cost the Sox too much in talent. Jacoby Ellsbury is just to talented a guy to give up for a one-season pitcher. Jon Lester is also staying put.
It's only a couple of weeks until pitchers and catchers. I'm glad my wife doesn't read this blog, because she is sports-adverse (she grew up in a household where her father and brother were really sports nuts and this adversity is a natural reaction) and thinks the Super Bowl will end the sports watching for a while. She forgets about UConn basketball (men and women). I usually don't like pro basketball, but when you have a team with fewer than 10 losses near the midpoint of the season, it's unusual enough to be interesting.
Please don't tell her about pitchers and catchers.
Until next time...
He was commenting on the State of the Union in general and the robot-like response delivered by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. He showed a clip of Sebelius ending her soliloquy by inviting everyone to get some sleep, to which Stewart cracked that we were far ahead of her in sleeping. Somebody should have changed her batteries before she went on. Even her mouth motions looked like those of an animated character. The Democrats have to do better than that.
She followed the last (thank heaven) message by Bush, who basically showed he was still in never-never land. He and Rudy Giuliani are the best national examples of self-deceivers alive today.
So, now there are four. Rudy and John Edwards dropped out Wednesday (Jan. 30, 2007), leaving the GOP with two real candidates and the Democrats with two. Forget Mike Huckabee - there aren't enough born-agains who vote only on the basis of their religious beliefs to make any real difference for him.
So it's John McCain and Mitt Romney for the GOP and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barak Obama for the Democrats.
Speaking of Obama, I can't help but chuckle that he has been basing his campaign on change from the Washington insiders and then happily collects an endorsement from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the chief of the entrenched Washington insiders. Throw in a "me, too" from Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the ultimate Washington icon, JFK, and you have a typical political double-take.
I covered Hillary Monday in Hartford for the New Haven Independent www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/01/hillary_wows_cr.php and was treated to a close-up view of this fine mind clicking over. I had met her a couple of years ago at some Westchester County function and I still think she's the genuine article as far as intellect is concerned. She and her husband are about the brightest minds among those who offer themselves upon the altar of politics.
I've talked to folks to survived Mitt Romney's governorship in Massachusetts, and not many have anything good to say about him. As some NPR commentator said yesterday, one doubts that many Republicans and any Democrats want to have a high-powered businessman watching over the morals of the nation.
Still, I'm not going to stick my neck out and endorse anyone (who would care anyway) until after tomorrow's debates.
Page 2
In the comments to my story on Hillary, a person called TRUEBLUECT early this morning (another member of the royal order of the night people - remember that one from the 60s?) posted the following comment:
One should kindly ask Mr. Honeyman if he still backs Joe Lieberman. Sadly Senator (Joseph I.) Lieberman is going against his word, and very actively campaigning to get not Hillary, but a Republican, elected as our 44th President.
Mr. Honeyman is one of the good guys, but I feel, given the circumstances, this is an extremely fair question. Will he answer?
Yes, he will answer TBCT. Yes, it is an extremely fair question and I thank you for caring what I think. It's nice to know that one's writing is not an exercise howling into the wind. (I could have used another expression, but this blog is still rated PG.)
My problem is I'm not sure. Let's work this out together.
I supported Lieberman because I knew him to be a fair and honest man, one of the few in Washington. I also know that Ned Lamont, his opponent, was a political babe in the woods, a product of DNC head Howard Dean and his brother, Jimmy, who found Lieberman not to their left-wing liking, squiring Lamont around the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner in Hartford as Barak Obama was telling the crowd that Lieberman was the better choice. Lamont would have been eaten alive in the Senate.
But what does Joe do? He says he's a Democrat, but comes out for McCain, even though he had said he wouldn't endorse anyone until later in the campaign.
So, we have Joe Lieberman who is good for getting Connecticut great stuff through those earmarks that Bush keeps ranting about, but Lieberman who is all but a traitor to his party. It's tough.
I think, TBCT, that I would have to come down harder on the side of the Lieberman who is still fighting for Connecticut's best interests and Israel's best interests (that's a biggie for me) than against the Lieberman who has gone against his word and his party. But it's a near thing, certainly not more than few points. Joe, I'm watching you, boy.
I hope that answers your question, TBCT. And thanks for posing it.
Page 3
Last night, we (wife and friends) traveled to Stamford to see a really nice film about Pete Seeger, the legendary singer, songwriter and fighter for all kinds of causes from cleaning up the Hudson River to stopping the war (he's added a couple of verses to an anti-Vietnam war song to fit the Iraq war.) His grandson and the director of the movie were there as well, taking questions from the audience.
A few things I didn't know that I learned from the movie. Seeger served in the Army in World War II and spent the war fixing airplane engines and leading sing-alongs. He was blacklisted for 17 years in the 1940s and 50s Red Scare and only brought back onto television through the intervention of the Smothers Brothers. He left the Weavers over a television ad for cigarettes that the singing group was doing. Seeger lived in New York's Greenwich Village before moving to Beacon, N.Y., to a cabin he built himself that had neither running water nor heat.
Anyway, the film is scheduled to be broadcast on PBS in February. It's well worth watching, even among the ubiquitous PBS begging.
Page 4
I'm glad that the New York Mets have snagged pitcher Johan Santana. The Boston Red Sox and the hated New York Yankees had pursued the excellent pitcher, but I think it would have cost the Sox too much in talent. Jacoby Ellsbury is just to talented a guy to give up for a one-season pitcher. Jon Lester is also staying put.
It's only a couple of weeks until pitchers and catchers. I'm glad my wife doesn't read this blog, because she is sports-adverse (she grew up in a household where her father and brother were really sports nuts and this adversity is a natural reaction) and thinks the Super Bowl will end the sports watching for a while. She forgets about UConn basketball (men and women). I usually don't like pro basketball, but when you have a team with fewer than 10 losses near the midpoint of the season, it's unusual enough to be interesting.
Please don't tell her about pitchers and catchers.
Until next time...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Saving is bad - you heard it here first
Good day, friends. Thanks for checking back after all this time.
So, we are all going to be from $300 to $1,200 richer come June. The government, to stimulate the economy, is sending everyone a check for $600 for most single taxpayers (and even some who pay no taxes) and $1,200 for those who file jointly. There is also $300 for each kid (l assume the kid has to live with you). I know people who have a dozen kids or more, but I don't think they will be able to collect for those who are over 21 and have left home.
Since this is going to be done by Congress and the administration, however, anything is possible.
The idea is, as the worst president who ever lived said this week, to put more money back in the hands of the people. The deal is that they will spend the money and stimulate the economy, since consumer spending comprises more than 60 percent of the economy.
That's the rub.
We have been upbraided since Moses was in the third grade by all and sundry experts for not saving enough. Americans don't save enough...we have the lowest savings rate in the civilized world. We save less than the Japanese, we don't save for our retirement, yada yada yada. We also have too much debt. We use our credit cards and home-equity loans and consumer loans and auto loans and vacation loans entirely too much, piling up so much debt that we are bad, bad, bad.
That's what I have heard for decades upon decades. Shame on us for being spendthrifts.
Just wait, friends, until this economic stimulus plan is passed and the spin machinery starts. Things will change in an Orwellian way. Good is bad. Bad is good. Let me explain.
Shakespeare said the past is prologue. History repeats itself. Our economic geniuses never heard of this concept. Their idea is that we will get this $1,200 and go out and buy that flat screen television or home theater or take the family to Disney World or a wonderful romantic trip to Quebec City for black fly season.
What happened the last time this give-them-a-check strategy was tried less than a decade ago? More people used it to pay down debt and to increase savings than to spend. What makes the powers that be think this time will be any different? It's easy to see that the plan won't increase spending and stimulate the economy this time either.
So, friends, according to the government spin machine I foresee warming up this spring, you will be told the following: You want to use your government money to pay off debt? You are a traitor to your nation. You want to save it for that rainy day? Shame on you. You want to save some of it to pay the taxes you are going to owe on it (nobody told you about that part of it, did they)? You are not a good American!
You heard it here first.
Page 2
The California Supreme Court really blew it his week.
The justices in the fire and mudslide state upheld a ruling that allowed a company to fire a guy whose drug test showed marijuana.
It wasn't a surprise. The follow had suffered a back injury that left him with debilitating back spasms that are only relieved by medical marijuana use. The use of marijuana for medical purposes was approved by the voters in a proposition. The guy had a prescription for the pot and a doctors' declaration that he was only relieved by using grass.
He was fired anyway. So he sued, saying his use of pot was legal. The courts backed his employer.
So, what the court was saying was that if he had elected to use other prescription drugs that could leave him woozy or half asleep while not helping him, he could keep his job, but because he used pot, not to get high but to keep his back from causing him awful pain, he should lose his job.
It makes no sense, but then again, it's California.
Page 3
The more I think about the sub prime mortgage mess, the angrier I get. It was like the Iraq war -- there was no need for it to happen and its outcome was so predictable.
What kind of sense does the following make: A person comes to a mortgage broker asking for a loan. The house seems to be in good shape, the buyer is anxious to become part of the American dream -- home ownership.
So, the mortgage broker asks the buyer how much money he or she makes. The buyer answers that it's none of the broker's business. The broker says fine. How much does the buyer have in the bank. Again, none of your business. Fine, says the broker, we can approve the loan, but it'll cost you, the buyer, a little more money you may or may not have to borrow the money you may or may not be able to afford to repay.
The brokers, by the way, laid off most of their bet on investors, many from other countries, and walked away. So, they still have their commissions while buyers are losing their houses and investors are losing their money. That's what makes me really angry.
Page 4
It seems the Water Pollution Control Authority is joining the foreclosure posse, suing to sell dozens of properties to get their fees that are owed.
I have two comments. First, is this the same WPCA that allowed Hamden to skate on its share of the operating cost for years and years?
Second, I really don't blame the WPCA for seeking to get the money that is owed to it, but I do blame them for their apparent lack of common sense. Why go after church, for crying out loud, a church that itself is struggling to survive? And why foreclose on homes in the midst of a foreclosure crisis that has thousands of people in danger of losing their homes? Why be the bad guys when you don't have to.
And where is the mayor is all this. The New Haven Independent asked Mayor John DeStefano Jr. about this. The WPCA is a quasi-public agency. The mayor is silent.
So what else is new?
Have a great weekend and for those in the Tribe, a great Shabbos.
Until next time...
So, we are all going to be from $300 to $1,200 richer come June. The government, to stimulate the economy, is sending everyone a check for $600 for most single taxpayers (and even some who pay no taxes) and $1,200 for those who file jointly. There is also $300 for each kid (l assume the kid has to live with you). I know people who have a dozen kids or more, but I don't think they will be able to collect for those who are over 21 and have left home.
Since this is going to be done by Congress and the administration, however, anything is possible.
The idea is, as the worst president who ever lived said this week, to put more money back in the hands of the people. The deal is that they will spend the money and stimulate the economy, since consumer spending comprises more than 60 percent of the economy.
That's the rub.
We have been upbraided since Moses was in the third grade by all and sundry experts for not saving enough. Americans don't save enough...we have the lowest savings rate in the civilized world. We save less than the Japanese, we don't save for our retirement, yada yada yada. We also have too much debt. We use our credit cards and home-equity loans and consumer loans and auto loans and vacation loans entirely too much, piling up so much debt that we are bad, bad, bad.
That's what I have heard for decades upon decades. Shame on us for being spendthrifts.
Just wait, friends, until this economic stimulus plan is passed and the spin machinery starts. Things will change in an Orwellian way. Good is bad. Bad is good. Let me explain.
Shakespeare said the past is prologue. History repeats itself. Our economic geniuses never heard of this concept. Their idea is that we will get this $1,200 and go out and buy that flat screen television or home theater or take the family to Disney World or a wonderful romantic trip to Quebec City for black fly season.
What happened the last time this give-them-a-check strategy was tried less than a decade ago? More people used it to pay down debt and to increase savings than to spend. What makes the powers that be think this time will be any different? It's easy to see that the plan won't increase spending and stimulate the economy this time either.
So, friends, according to the government spin machine I foresee warming up this spring, you will be told the following: You want to use your government money to pay off debt? You are a traitor to your nation. You want to save it for that rainy day? Shame on you. You want to save some of it to pay the taxes you are going to owe on it (nobody told you about that part of it, did they)? You are not a good American!
You heard it here first.
Page 2
The California Supreme Court really blew it his week.
The justices in the fire and mudslide state upheld a ruling that allowed a company to fire a guy whose drug test showed marijuana.
It wasn't a surprise. The follow had suffered a back injury that left him with debilitating back spasms that are only relieved by medical marijuana use. The use of marijuana for medical purposes was approved by the voters in a proposition. The guy had a prescription for the pot and a doctors' declaration that he was only relieved by using grass.
He was fired anyway. So he sued, saying his use of pot was legal. The courts backed his employer.
So, what the court was saying was that if he had elected to use other prescription drugs that could leave him woozy or half asleep while not helping him, he could keep his job, but because he used pot, not to get high but to keep his back from causing him awful pain, he should lose his job.
It makes no sense, but then again, it's California.
Page 3
The more I think about the sub prime mortgage mess, the angrier I get. It was like the Iraq war -- there was no need for it to happen and its outcome was so predictable.
What kind of sense does the following make: A person comes to a mortgage broker asking for a loan. The house seems to be in good shape, the buyer is anxious to become part of the American dream -- home ownership.
So, the mortgage broker asks the buyer how much money he or she makes. The buyer answers that it's none of the broker's business. The broker says fine. How much does the buyer have in the bank. Again, none of your business. Fine, says the broker, we can approve the loan, but it'll cost you, the buyer, a little more money you may or may not have to borrow the money you may or may not be able to afford to repay.
The brokers, by the way, laid off most of their bet on investors, many from other countries, and walked away. So, they still have their commissions while buyers are losing their houses and investors are losing their money. That's what makes me really angry.
Page 4
It seems the Water Pollution Control Authority is joining the foreclosure posse, suing to sell dozens of properties to get their fees that are owed.
I have two comments. First, is this the same WPCA that allowed Hamden to skate on its share of the operating cost for years and years?
Second, I really don't blame the WPCA for seeking to get the money that is owed to it, but I do blame them for their apparent lack of common sense. Why go after church, for crying out loud, a church that itself is struggling to survive? And why foreclose on homes in the midst of a foreclosure crisis that has thousands of people in danger of losing their homes? Why be the bad guys when you don't have to.
And where is the mayor is all this. The New Haven Independent asked Mayor John DeStefano Jr. about this. The WPCA is a quasi-public agency. The mayor is silent.
So what else is new?
Have a great weekend and for those in the Tribe, a great Shabbos.
Until next time...
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The surprise is that there is no surprise
Happy new year. I hope you, my loyal readers, didn't think I'd abandoned you.
We've been away, both celebrating New Year's and baby-sitting for some of the cutest grandchildren you ever saw. But now, we're back (it's my wife, Sue, and I, not the Royal We), at least for a while.
It's been a heck of a time in politics. First, came the Iowa caucuses, where Barack Obama surprised everyone including, I think, himself, in winning the Democratic vote and Mike Huckabee rounded up his troops to win in Iowa, which is in the Bible belt.
Then came New Hampshire, where everyone, including the candidates' own polls, showed Obama with a lock to repeat his victory and near-favorite son Mitt Romney would probably scoring big.
Well, it didn't work out that way and the way it worked out had precious little to do with the "meltdown" of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Such a meltdown! In my arena, that's just a pensive moment. You want crying? Try a six-year-old who was just told "no". Let's see. Iowa is next to what state? Illinois, right. Give that person an Obama campaign button. What state elected Obama to the Senate? Illinois. Right again. Give that person an Obama campaign skimmer. Can you say "Favorite Son?"
Now let's switch to New Hampshire. It has lots of women who vote and union folks as well.. This isn't Vermont, it's the state of the Union Leader and "live free or die" so Democrats who live there (Dartmouth excepted) are not knee-jerk anything. So, what have you? A surprise: Hillary wins. Her margin is consistent all day long, which tells you it's solid and broad-based (no pun intended).
I say thank heaven. With Chris Dodd back in East Haddam, where he should have stayed and Bill Richardson struggling, it's a three-way race. If John Edwards doesn't win big in South Carolina, you can say farewell to him as well. He says he won't drop out. Maybe, but he won't campaign either. So, we have Barack and Hillary. Don't bet on Barack winning Nevada, no matter what the Culinary Workers Union local has done. I heard the national union encouraged that local to stay out of the endorsing business, but it was probably too late to stop the previously announced endorsement. If Obama doesn't do well in South Carolina, he may be in a big hurt come Super Tuesday, when the real thing as far as union states like New York go to the polls. After that, you might hear that fat lady warming up to sing for Barack.
Let me tell you a story. About 35 years ago, in 1972, this guy named George McGovern ran a race much like Obama is running now - change, youth, anti-war, anti-Washington (even though he had been a senator since Moses was in the third grade). I met McGovern a few times...nice guy. He had some development project across the street from Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, Conn., and was around glad-handing for it. But McGovern got beaten up pretty good at the polls by this guy Nixon. Yes, I know, Nixon used tricks, but the irony was he would have killed McGovern at the polls without the tricks.
Folks remember that. It led to Watergate which led to Gerald Ford, which led to Jimmy Carter, which led to Ronald Reagan, which led to Bush One, which led to the mess Bill Clinton faced. As Hillary (or one of her people) said, maybe a Clinton is needed to clean up the mess left by a Bush. They don't want history to repeat itself.
It'll take a hard, seasoned, gloves-off campaigner to beat John McCain, the presumed GOP nominee. Rudy Giuliani can't say "911" enough times to get the nomination, and Romney will eventually run out of money. Forget Thompson, who has already set the stage for a pullout, and Huckabee, a guy with a narrow constituency from a small state -- it'll be McCain.
Don't underestimate McCain: He's one tough cookie. You don't survive years in the Hanoi Hilton by being a wuss. It'll take a hard charger like Hillary with experience to beat McCain. I don't want to watch chipmunk cheeks and his secretary of state, Joe Lieberman, for the next four or eight years telling us how important it is to win the war in (country name here). You heard it first here, folks.
That is, of course, unless there's another surprise or two.
Page 2
Let's start a new feature. Questions. These are things I want to know. If you have answers, please share them.
Question 1. Why do the liners of cereal boxes have to be so darn hard to open?
Page 3
Did you see my piece in the New Haven Independent? www.newhavenindependent.orgThe meeting was fun to cover, but it was too bad the search for ideas became a complaint session. Anyway, I am priced to sell, so if you need some writing, editing or public relations help, please see www.thewordhive.com.
Until next time...
We've been away, both celebrating New Year's and baby-sitting for some of the cutest grandchildren you ever saw. But now, we're back (it's my wife, Sue, and I, not the Royal We), at least for a while.
It's been a heck of a time in politics. First, came the Iowa caucuses, where Barack Obama surprised everyone including, I think, himself, in winning the Democratic vote and Mike Huckabee rounded up his troops to win in Iowa, which is in the Bible belt.
Then came New Hampshire, where everyone, including the candidates' own polls, showed Obama with a lock to repeat his victory and near-favorite son Mitt Romney would probably scoring big.
Well, it didn't work out that way and the way it worked out had precious little to do with the "meltdown" of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Such a meltdown! In my arena, that's just a pensive moment. You want crying? Try a six-year-old who was just told "no". Let's see. Iowa is next to what state? Illinois, right. Give that person an Obama campaign button. What state elected Obama to the Senate? Illinois. Right again. Give that person an Obama campaign skimmer. Can you say "Favorite Son?"
Now let's switch to New Hampshire. It has lots of women who vote and union folks as well.. This isn't Vermont, it's the state of the Union Leader and "live free or die" so Democrats who live there (Dartmouth excepted) are not knee-jerk anything. So, what have you? A surprise: Hillary wins. Her margin is consistent all day long, which tells you it's solid and broad-based (no pun intended).
I say thank heaven. With Chris Dodd back in East Haddam, where he should have stayed and Bill Richardson struggling, it's a three-way race. If John Edwards doesn't win big in South Carolina, you can say farewell to him as well. He says he won't drop out. Maybe, but he won't campaign either. So, we have Barack and Hillary. Don't bet on Barack winning Nevada, no matter what the Culinary Workers Union local has done. I heard the national union encouraged that local to stay out of the endorsing business, but it was probably too late to stop the previously announced endorsement. If Obama doesn't do well in South Carolina, he may be in a big hurt come Super Tuesday, when the real thing as far as union states like New York go to the polls. After that, you might hear that fat lady warming up to sing for Barack.
Let me tell you a story. About 35 years ago, in 1972, this guy named George McGovern ran a race much like Obama is running now - change, youth, anti-war, anti-Washington (even though he had been a senator since Moses was in the third grade). I met McGovern a few times...nice guy. He had some development project across the street from Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, Conn., and was around glad-handing for it. But McGovern got beaten up pretty good at the polls by this guy Nixon. Yes, I know, Nixon used tricks, but the irony was he would have killed McGovern at the polls without the tricks.
Folks remember that. It led to Watergate which led to Gerald Ford, which led to Jimmy Carter, which led to Ronald Reagan, which led to Bush One, which led to the mess Bill Clinton faced. As Hillary (or one of her people) said, maybe a Clinton is needed to clean up the mess left by a Bush. They don't want history to repeat itself.
It'll take a hard, seasoned, gloves-off campaigner to beat John McCain, the presumed GOP nominee. Rudy Giuliani can't say "911" enough times to get the nomination, and Romney will eventually run out of money. Forget Thompson, who has already set the stage for a pullout, and Huckabee, a guy with a narrow constituency from a small state -- it'll be McCain.
Don't underestimate McCain: He's one tough cookie. You don't survive years in the Hanoi Hilton by being a wuss. It'll take a hard charger like Hillary with experience to beat McCain. I don't want to watch chipmunk cheeks and his secretary of state, Joe Lieberman, for the next four or eight years telling us how important it is to win the war in (country name here). You heard it first here, folks.
That is, of course, unless there's another surprise or two.
Page 2
Let's start a new feature. Questions. These are things I want to know. If you have answers, please share them.
Question 1. Why do the liners of cereal boxes have to be so darn hard to open?
Page 3
Did you see my piece in the New Haven Independent? www.newhavenindependent.orgThe meeting was fun to cover, but it was too bad the search for ideas became a complaint session. Anyway, I am priced to sell, so if you need some writing, editing or public relations help, please see www.thewordhive.com.
Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
