Phil Gramm, national campaign chairman and chief economic advisor to fellow Senator John McCain, is under fire for his comments supporting McCain's "psychological" explanation for our stagnant economy. "You've heard of a 'mental depression' ", states the Lone Star State's senator (growing loner by the minute), "this is a 'mental recession' ". Fearing the excuse of an out-of-context sound bite, Gramm then pulled his pistols out n' went fer it awl:
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline...We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today...Misery sells newspapers. Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."
McCain, never wasting a minute (as is the wont of one over 70), threw Gramm under his "Straight-Talk Express" quick as he could find a microphone. He tersely stated, "Senator Gramm doesn't speak for me. I speak for me.", before suggesting a better position than economic advisor would be ambassador to Belarus. Forgetting A) the fact that Gramm, by title and edict, was indeed speaking for McCain; and B) the GOP candidate's own recent--and numerous--references to our economic woes being psychological. See, it's all the fault of us commoners. If we'd just shut up and be happy with what we've got, maybe this "good feeling" vibe can help grow his stock portfol... I mean, our economy. Yikes.
To nobody's suprise, Fox News has been spinning the Gramm story so fast their panelists no longer know which way they're facing. On Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes--who not too long ago tore Obama a new hole for his "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" comments--actually called the Texas senator's words "straight talk", and said the comments about being a nation of whiners were spot-on. Straight up, honest. I can't make this stuff up.
All this on the same day McCain, pressed by a reporter for his opinion on why Viagra is covered by insurance while birth control is not, confessed that it was something he hadn't really thought about. "It" being coverage of birth control, the content of bills he has voted down multiple times according to congressional record. The video clip of his hemming-and-hawing would make a La-Z-Boy recliner uncomfortable.
Being capable of voting against legislation when one has yet to give any thought to it is not an especially admirable quality. Yet still, it's more endearing than the idea that a major party candidate is so far out of touch with the basic needs of half our nation's population that he is left slack-jawed at the end of a simple health care question on birth control.
Wait. I thought Obama was supposed to be the elite one.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
A supply-demand issue?
Sometimes the rhetoric gets so thick I can't take it any more. Then I remember that I have this nice little political blog.
The next time you hear anyone tell you the surge in oil prices (which are at a near-record high $143 a barrel, pushing gas prices to their current level of $4.25 a gallon) is merely "a supply-and-demand issue", demand them to supply you with any piece of credible information that documents a sharp increase in our nation's consumption of oil over the past 26 months. Assuming my information is correct, domestic oil consumption in 2007 averaged 20.7 billion barrels a day, a number similar to totals from the previous year. And projections suggest that consumption will drop by nearly 300,000 barrels a day in 2008. (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo)
So our nation's demand for oil doesn't seem to be sending prices through the roof. But clearly, something is. In April of 2006, oil averaged $70 a barrel, half of where it is today. The cost of a barrel of crude has shot up 100% in just over two years. So if the "experts" want to indirectly spread the blame to us consumers as well, then let's see some evidence.
I don't doubt the legitimacy of reports bemoaning our continually dwindling oil supplies. There are a number of reasons for that, which we know. And as we all remember from our 100-level Econ classes, demand increases as supply dwindles. But throwing one's hands up and citing basic economic principle for the current outrageous state of fossil fuels in this nation is an insult to all on the demand side of the chart, all those not benefitting from the record profits oil companies have enjoyed in recent months.
So when anyone hints that we are part of the problem, stop them right in their tracks and say, "you're only half right." It's a supply issue all right. But the minute they roll their eyes at the sight of anything non-hybrid in your driveway, feel free to bring up the point that high-level executives and politicians have more to do with this crisis than all of us combined. They sure have more to gain from it than we do. Then suggest they focus their outrage instead on the system that enables the monopolistic practices of the oil companies to dictate pump prices thereby allowing them to ignore that cost-controlling capitalistic mechanism every first-term Econ prof tosses out on day one: competition.
The next time you hear anyone tell you the surge in oil prices (which are at a near-record high $143 a barrel, pushing gas prices to their current level of $4.25 a gallon) is merely "a supply-and-demand issue", demand them to supply you with any piece of credible information that documents a sharp increase in our nation's consumption of oil over the past 26 months. Assuming my information is correct, domestic oil consumption in 2007 averaged 20.7 billion barrels a day, a number similar to totals from the previous year. And projections suggest that consumption will drop by nearly 300,000 barrels a day in 2008. (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo)
So our nation's demand for oil doesn't seem to be sending prices through the roof. But clearly, something is. In April of 2006, oil averaged $70 a barrel, half of where it is today. The cost of a barrel of crude has shot up 100% in just over two years. So if the "experts" want to indirectly spread the blame to us consumers as well, then let's see some evidence.
I don't doubt the legitimacy of reports bemoaning our continually dwindling oil supplies. There are a number of reasons for that, which we know. And as we all remember from our 100-level Econ classes, demand increases as supply dwindles. But throwing one's hands up and citing basic economic principle for the current outrageous state of fossil fuels in this nation is an insult to all on the demand side of the chart, all those not benefitting from the record profits oil companies have enjoyed in recent months.
So when anyone hints that we are part of the problem, stop them right in their tracks and say, "you're only half right." It's a supply issue all right. But the minute they roll their eyes at the sight of anything non-hybrid in your driveway, feel free to bring up the point that high-level executives and politicians have more to do with this crisis than all of us combined. They sure have more to gain from it than we do. Then suggest they focus their outrage instead on the system that enables the monopolistic practices of the oil companies to dictate pump prices thereby allowing them to ignore that cost-controlling capitalistic mechanism every first-term Econ prof tosses out on day one: competition.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
From Monroe to Menominee... The Nominee
The line traced the border of Joe Louis Arena and wound itself down the concrete banks of the Detroit River. We followed it past Hart Plaza, behind Cobo Hall and alongside the mighty Detroit Princess steamboat (see above photo), ten minutes after being instructed to find its end. Ultimately reaching the Renaissance Center's General Motors entrance, the quarter-mile pathway to an historic evening welcomed my son, my friend and myself along for the ride.
It was twenty minutes after six o'clock. The city's first public appearance by the nation's first African American nominee--in the arena named after Detroit's Brown Bomber--was still nearly two hours away. Doors would not be open for another ten minutes. Yet as we stood in line, watching it grow behind us, we had no idea whether we had arrived too late. Will we even make it in? we wondered. As word spread that Cobo would open its doors and allow overflow crowds to watch the speech on its jumbotron screen, one thought lingered in my mind.
Too bad Barack Obama didn't win Michigan, huh?
Well we made it through the doors, endured the secret service's version of airport security and found seats with a clear view of the stage. As unexpected as this had been just an hour earlier, it paled to our complete surprise when we saw governor Jennifer Granholm introduce Obama and his invited guest, former VP Albert Gore (pics below are courtesy of an acquaintence of mine, Tom Tomich).
Two historical figures, pointed in the same direction. One, a Nobel Prize and Oscar-winning activist who happened to win the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, endorsing the other, the first African American nominee for the nation's highest office. Gore spoke of Jack Kennedy and the importance of elections. Obama reiterated much of what he's said over the previous nine months, yet most around me were taking it in for the first time. And though I had heard much of it several times before, being in the same room as he ignites and unites tens of thousands of people with the notion that we can make this country of ours a better place, left me tingling. Hell, just three months ago I wouldn't have dreamed of a night like this!
Since becoming the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Obama has traversed our state three times now, bringing Jon Edwards' endorsement to Grand Rapids and Gore's to the D, and speaking in Flint earlier on this brisk June Monday. Given the importance of winning Michigan in November, we've not seen the last of the Illinois senator around these parts.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
And now, for no reason at all...
On the one-year anniversary of The Video That Changed Politics Forever, another look at Amber Lee Ettinger.
Old? Why, he's a Maverick!
He uses a Chuck Berry number as his entrance music. He attacks opponents by attaching them to political figures from over a quarter century ago. His misspeakings include a public moment where he defined himself as a "liberal conservative candidate".
Yet John McCain's backers insist he's not too old; in fact, they say he's a maverick. Fine, then. That helps us paint a better picture at least. But questions still need to be answered. Like, are we talking two-door or four-door?
Or, what about the luxury decor option?
And lastly, if he's doing a Maverick Sprint into this general election campaign, who will his running mate? The more experienced Mustang, or a true agent of change--the Pinto?
One thing for sure. He's the genuine article. Otherwise, people would be labeling him as more of a comet.
Yet John McCain's backers insist he's not too old; in fact, they say he's a maverick. Fine, then. That helps us paint a better picture at least. But questions still need to be answered. Like, are we talking two-door or four-door?
Or, what about the luxury decor option?
And lastly, if he's doing a Maverick Sprint into this general election campaign, who will his running mate? The more experienced Mustang, or a true agent of change--the Pinto?
One thing for sure. He's the genuine article. Otherwise, people would be labeling him as more of a comet.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The art of unapologizing
Hillary Clinton has been getting heat for her racially motivated comments regarding Senator Barack Obama's inability to gain the working-class white vote. Yesterday during an NBC interview with a pillow-tossing Brian Williams, she said she regrets the way other people misinterpreted her comments. The network has since accepted this as an apology.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" wasn't an apology when your kid sister said it. "I'm sorry you're a jerk" wasn't an apology when your kid brother said it. And "I regret how others have interpreted what I said" is not an apology when a disingenuous politician says it.
The fact that Clinton is incapable of taking responsibility for anything she's done or said--be it "confusing" kissing babies during a photo op in Bosnia with running under a hail of sniper fire; using these misrepresentations as the basis for a claim that she has passed the "commander-in-chief threshold"; or saying that her African American opponent is unable to win the white working-class vote--is reason enough to keep the New York Senator as far from the White House as possible. Let's prove as a species that we can learn at least that much from history.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" wasn't an apology when your kid sister said it. "I'm sorry you're a jerk" wasn't an apology when your kid brother said it. And "I regret how others have interpreted what I said" is not an apology when a disingenuous politician says it.
The fact that Clinton is incapable of taking responsibility for anything she's done or said--be it "confusing" kissing babies during a photo op in Bosnia with running under a hail of sniper fire; using these misrepresentations as the basis for a claim that she has passed the "commander-in-chief threshold"; or saying that her African American opponent is unable to win the white working-class vote--is reason enough to keep the New York Senator as far from the White House as possible. Let's prove as a species that we can learn at least that much from history.
Spinning Herself Dizzy
This morning's Fox & Friends Show diminished Jon Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama last night in Grand Rapids, going so far as to spin it into a win for Hillary Clinton (!) since Edwards' wife (who they hinted was a Hillary backer) wasn't with him.
But the priceless moment was when co-host Alisyn Camerota (see pic) accidentally hit the puree button. Within a matter of seconds, she wondered aloud why Edwards waited so long to announce his support (months after dropping out of the race and weeks after his home state's primary) and why he announced his support so soon (just days after saying he would pass on endorsing a candidate).
I love it when the those obstensibly impartial unintentionally reveal their true intentions. Goes to show that spinning in opposite directions can result in no spin at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)