Aside from his curiously brief and equally bizarre pre-recorded speech at the Republican National Convention Tuesday evening, complete with ill-timed pauses for audience reaction (um, it's 2008... why not deliver it live?), George W. Bush officially became an afterthought in St. Paul, Minnesota. Clearly, the president's approval ratings (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) also reflected the opinions of his own party's delegation.
Don't believe me? Just add up the total number of references to the name "Bush" from each prime-time speaker during the last three days of the RNC--the "Bush Name Drop Count" if you will:
TUESDAY NIGHT
Laura Bush: 1 reference (when mentioning her husband's involvement in relief efforts for Hurricane Gustav)
Fred Thompson: 0 references
Joe Lieberman: 0 references
WEDNESDAY NIGHT
Mitt Romney: 1 reference (when mentioning W's fight against terrorism)
Mike Huckabee: 0 references
Rudy Giuliani: 0 references
Sarah Palin: 0 references
THURSDAY NIGHT
Lindsey Graham: 0 references
Tom Ridge: 0 references
Cindy McCain: 1 reference (when mentioning how honored she felt to stand alongside First Lady Laura Bush in support of Hurricane Gustav relief efforts)
John McCain: 1 reference (again, mentioning Laura Bush)
That makes a grand total of four times the word "Bush" was uttered at the podium in three nights of prime-time network coverage. And two of them were about Mrs. Bush.
Actually, McCain did refer to the current president twice--just not by name, merely as "the current president", as if he were giving a sworn deposition. The man couldn't even muster up a slightly more endearing "our president", much less "our party's president". He also referenced George Herbert Walker Bush but again, not by name. Only as "our 41st president". Factually accurate, yes, but about as warm and friendly as a farm subsidy bill.
It's sad enough that the party's sitting two-term president didn't even make a personal appearance at its week-long national convention. BUT ONLY TWO NAME DROPS FROM ALL THE OTHER BIG WIGS? That is truly without precedent.
Eight years as president. Two full terms in the Oval Office. Yet the measure of the man's success is such that those who spoke at his party's national convention either were instructed not to utter his name, or came to that conclusion independently.
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure is worse.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Talk about your exit strategy
Being one of nature's more vicious storms, hurricanes are typically defined by adjectives like violent. Ferocious. Deadly.
This week, the Republican Party added a brand new descriptive: convenient.
Guided by forces from above and steered by the prayers of GOP strategists, Hurricane Gustav pulled away from Havana and bore down on New Orleans. The same New Orleans that, exactly three years ago to the day, succumbed to the catastrophic cat-five winds of Katrina. The same New Orleans that slowly drowned while the lifeguard on duty, President George W. Bush, snoozed away in his tall white chair. The same New Orleans whose cries Bush tuned out as he flew from his vacation retreat in Crawford, Texas, to Arizona and then California. Yep, that one.
W had to have noticed the flailing arms of the city's rooftop-bound residents during the infamous "fly-by" portion of his return trip to Washington. Amid the worst natural disaster in our nation's history, the water-bound communities treaded water for four full days before Air Force One reappeared and actually deployed its landing gear. The people of these proud neighborhoods continued bailing, praying and looking for loved ones, waiting for the president to make his first public speech to a concerned nation on behalf of Katrina's tens of thousands of victims. He did get around to the task-- it just took him till halfway through the following month to do so.
You know, when it was convenient.
Bush had learned from his heartlessness. Should our country ever face another natural disaster, he had something to prove. An outstanding debt he owed the citizenry and, more importantly, his legacy. Three years later, as the final year of his reign rolled along, manifold challenges awaited his Grand Old Party. The nominee, Arizona senator John McCain, was being portrayed as W's political siamese twin, retroactively conjoined by Barack Obama and fellow Democrats during the previous week's Democratic National Convention in Denver. McCain's voting history, 90% in lock-step with W's, is a matter of record.
So how can the Republican nominee avoid the party's abyssmal track record over the last eight years of leadership? How can he distance himself from a president with the lowest approval rating in our nation's history? And how can the party who took over the Oval Office in 2000 with a budgetary surplus and proceeded to transform it into our largest deficit ever, run--literally--away from its indelible past and toward another four years of power?
Shhh! Wait--can you hear that rain comin' down?
Fast as you could say "weather channel", Gustav had Bourbon Street in its cross-hairs. And Bush packing for a flight south, ostensibly a mission of atonement to the soon-to-be hurricane-ravaged Gulf regions of Louisiana, Mississippi and East Texas. The weekend before the RNC, two days before he was to stand at the podium and shower praise upon his long-time friend and colleague, W scheduled a hasty press conference to announce that nature's agenda was far more critical than his, and far too important for him to blow off this time around. To make sure his commitment was clear, he said he must regrettably stay away from Minneapolis for the entire week. Too many people would need his assistance someplace else. No way can he afford to stand next to McCain now; not while the potential for a massive hurricane was this close, this real. No, this was a situation far too... convenient.
Thus continued one of the more surreal weeks of our two-century-long political existence. After the first African American nominee gave his historic acceptance speech before seventy-five thousand people on the home field of the Denver Broncos; after McCain announced his historic--and altogether unknown--running mate hours later; the sitting two-term president elected to forego his party's entire national convention. Even he knew the cancer that was he himself. Exit, plane left.
Did it matter that Gustav had been downgraded to a low category-two storm when it ran aground 100 miles west of New Orleans? Did it matter that there was only minimal damage and negligible loss of life? Did it matter to the thousands who perished as a result of the hoof-dragging and finger-pointing Katrina response, or the many thousands who loved them, that W was on-site and on call, ready at the helm this time around?
Did it even matter to Mr. Bush himself that his efforts appeared fruitless? No, not one bit. Because they weren't. In fact, he did more than Republicans could have ever wished for. The man is so unpopular that the biggest contribution he can make to his party is to make himself disappear. The man the Dems couldn't beat with a majority of the popular vote the first time (in 2000) and with virtually 50% of the vote the second time (in 2004), encouraged to "make like a tree" by the very people that helped lift him over the edge in both elections.
Not only was Bush aware of this horrible truth; he was actually cool with it. And the McCain-loving media was cool right back, barely mentioning the obvious attempt to hoodwink the nation with this stunt.
Every time you think to yourself, there's no WAY the Republican party can pull this off, you get more convinced that maybe just maybe, they already have.
This week, the Republican Party added a brand new descriptive: convenient.
Guided by forces from above and steered by the prayers of GOP strategists, Hurricane Gustav pulled away from Havana and bore down on New Orleans. The same New Orleans that, exactly three years ago to the day, succumbed to the catastrophic cat-five winds of Katrina. The same New Orleans that slowly drowned while the lifeguard on duty, President George W. Bush, snoozed away in his tall white chair. The same New Orleans whose cries Bush tuned out as he flew from his vacation retreat in Crawford, Texas, to Arizona and then California. Yep, that one.
W had to have noticed the flailing arms of the city's rooftop-bound residents during the infamous "fly-by" portion of his return trip to Washington. Amid the worst natural disaster in our nation's history, the water-bound communities treaded water for four full days before Air Force One reappeared and actually deployed its landing gear. The people of these proud neighborhoods continued bailing, praying and looking for loved ones, waiting for the president to make his first public speech to a concerned nation on behalf of Katrina's tens of thousands of victims. He did get around to the task-- it just took him till halfway through the following month to do so.
You know, when it was convenient.
Bush had learned from his heartlessness. Should our country ever face another natural disaster, he had something to prove. An outstanding debt he owed the citizenry and, more importantly, his legacy. Three years later, as the final year of his reign rolled along, manifold challenges awaited his Grand Old Party. The nominee, Arizona senator John McCain, was being portrayed as W's political siamese twin, retroactively conjoined by Barack Obama and fellow Democrats during the previous week's Democratic National Convention in Denver. McCain's voting history, 90% in lock-step with W's, is a matter of record.
So how can the Republican nominee avoid the party's abyssmal track record over the last eight years of leadership? How can he distance himself from a president with the lowest approval rating in our nation's history? And how can the party who took over the Oval Office in 2000 with a budgetary surplus and proceeded to transform it into our largest deficit ever, run--literally--away from its indelible past and toward another four years of power?
Shhh! Wait--can you hear that rain comin' down?
Fast as you could say "weather channel", Gustav had Bourbon Street in its cross-hairs. And Bush packing for a flight south, ostensibly a mission of atonement to the soon-to-be hurricane-ravaged Gulf regions of Louisiana, Mississippi and East Texas. The weekend before the RNC, two days before he was to stand at the podium and shower praise upon his long-time friend and colleague, W scheduled a hasty press conference to announce that nature's agenda was far more critical than his, and far too important for him to blow off this time around. To make sure his commitment was clear, he said he must regrettably stay away from Minneapolis for the entire week. Too many people would need his assistance someplace else. No way can he afford to stand next to McCain now; not while the potential for a massive hurricane was this close, this real. No, this was a situation far too... convenient.
Thus continued one of the more surreal weeks of our two-century-long political existence. After the first African American nominee gave his historic acceptance speech before seventy-five thousand people on the home field of the Denver Broncos; after McCain announced his historic--and altogether unknown--running mate hours later; the sitting two-term president elected to forego his party's entire national convention. Even he knew the cancer that was he himself. Exit, plane left.
Did it matter that Gustav had been downgraded to a low category-two storm when it ran aground 100 miles west of New Orleans? Did it matter that there was only minimal damage and negligible loss of life? Did it matter to the thousands who perished as a result of the hoof-dragging and finger-pointing Katrina response, or the many thousands who loved them, that W was on-site and on call, ready at the helm this time around?
Did it even matter to Mr. Bush himself that his efforts appeared fruitless? No, not one bit. Because they weren't. In fact, he did more than Republicans could have ever wished for. The man is so unpopular that the biggest contribution he can make to his party is to make himself disappear. The man the Dems couldn't beat with a majority of the popular vote the first time (in 2000) and with virtually 50% of the vote the second time (in 2004), encouraged to "make like a tree" by the very people that helped lift him over the edge in both elections.
Not only was Bush aware of this horrible truth; he was actually cool with it. And the McCain-loving media was cool right back, barely mentioning the obvious attempt to hoodwink the nation with this stunt.
Every time you think to yourself, there's no WAY the Republican party can pull this off, you get more convinced that maybe just maybe, they already have.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The "Me-Too" Maverick
By definition, a "maverick" is "someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action."
Senator John McCain (photo) has been able to wear the label, proof-unseen, through this entire election campaign. Perhaps the first major decision of his candidacy, the selection of a vice president, would reveal this maverick we've been hearing about, the one he apparently used to be.
Just hours after Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech in Denver, McCain unleashed a well-coordinated sneak-attack on the Democratic Party candidate's momentum by announcing his choice for running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The news sent people googling for the hills, creating a one-day spike in search engine usage. Who? Sarah Palin? Where's she from? What's she done? Wiki-wiki-wiki.
The more people learned about her, the less they found. Twenty months as governor of Alaska. Six years as the mayor of her home town--Wasilla, Alaska (population 6,715). A bachelor's degree in journalism, with a minor in political science, from the University of Idaho. A second-place finish in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Brief stints as a sportscaster and commercial fisherman. But of course, she towed the company line on abortion, gun control, oil, W's tax cuts, etc.
As puzzling as the choice may seem, one thing is clear: it's anything but the work of a maverick. Mavericks think and act independently. Yet McCain's selection was more reactionary than revolutionary, a "me-too" move if ever there was one. A deliberate attempt to pander to Hillary Clinton voters while adding the illusion of relevance and, well, life to a campaign in quicksand, the way vertical stripes add the illusion of weight loss. A decision he made after having met the woman exactly once.
Maverick? Hardly. Desperate doesn't even serve an adequate descriptor for what amounts to the political equivalent of a one-night stand. But this morning after doesn't involve a walk of shame; instead he's asking the nation to approve of the marriage.
Senator John McCain (photo) has been able to wear the label, proof-unseen, through this entire election campaign. Perhaps the first major decision of his candidacy, the selection of a vice president, would reveal this maverick we've been hearing about, the one he apparently used to be.
Just hours after Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech in Denver, McCain unleashed a well-coordinated sneak-attack on the Democratic Party candidate's momentum by announcing his choice for running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The news sent people googling for the hills, creating a one-day spike in search engine usage. Who? Sarah Palin? Where's she from? What's she done? Wiki-wiki-wiki.
The more people learned about her, the less they found. Twenty months as governor of Alaska. Six years as the mayor of her home town--Wasilla, Alaska (population 6,715). A bachelor's degree in journalism, with a minor in political science, from the University of Idaho. A second-place finish in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Brief stints as a sportscaster and commercial fisherman. But of course, she towed the company line on abortion, gun control, oil, W's tax cuts, etc.
As puzzling as the choice may seem, one thing is clear: it's anything but the work of a maverick. Mavericks think and act independently. Yet McCain's selection was more reactionary than revolutionary, a "me-too" move if ever there was one. A deliberate attempt to pander to Hillary Clinton voters while adding the illusion of relevance and, well, life to a campaign in quicksand, the way vertical stripes add the illusion of weight loss. A decision he made after having met the woman exactly once.
Maverick? Hardly. Desperate doesn't even serve an adequate descriptor for what amounts to the political equivalent of a one-night stand. But this morning after doesn't involve a walk of shame; instead he's asking the nation to approve of the marriage.
Sarah Palin, VPCILF
Just hours after Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination, before 70,000 awestruck Americans at Denver's Invesco Field, the Republican nominee landed a McHottie of a running mate--Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
In one move, John McCain destroyed the central message of his campaign platform and negative campaign against Obama. And all for the opportunity to have an attractive political figure at his side. The double entendre is intended: Palin is flat-out gorgeous. McCain now can travel the country with trophy wife on one arm and trophy veep on the other. Bookend babes. Talk about your poll bounce.
I can't help but assume this will quickly take its toll on Cindy McCain. Her blonde hair, brilliant smile and vibrant wardrobe have been an arresting and consistent element throughout her husband's campaign. Her cover-girl looks that much more youthful perched beside her 72-year-old hubby. Yet from this point on, there's a bigger, brighter name on the marquis, a stunning woman with no wrinkles to hide and exuberance on her side. How long will Cindy's vanity remain dormant before her hem climbs higher and her neckline plunges deeper? McCain's numbers may grow from sheer cat-fight anticipation.
The right-wingers are spinning as fast as they can to workshop potential responses to McCain's quantum leap of faith. Give them a break, they've only had a few hours to back up what is described in favorable terms as a baffling selection. But they've fired out some really creative doozies.
One initial retort is to take the offensive--like the challenge they're laying down to democrats, this "you want to debate experience? let's go!" tactic. Beneath its bravado is the suggestion that those in Obama's camp who question the pick are being hypocritical, given the Illinois senator's limited experience. What they seem to forget is the fact that the Republicans are the ones who initiated the experience issue. In fact, they made "not ready to lead" the tag line of their anti-Obama ad campaign. Why on earth would Obama make his inexperience a topic--who in his position would? Team McCain raised the point and now they've contradicted their position. The hypocrisy is theirs and theirs alone.
Another GOP spin is that Palin is "the most popular governor in the United States", on the basis of her 69% approval rating. This is priceless. A high school poly sci student could point out the flaws here. True, no other governor may have as high an approval rating... IN THEIR STATE. But going from here to saying she's the most popular governor in the country is a stretch of Bubble-Yum proportions. Frankly, I doubt that 5% of the nation had even heard of Sarah Palin before today. All you can logically conclude from this statistic is that she is more popular among Alaskans than any other governor is among their residents.
Then there's the argument that Palin has more experience than Obama. Here are the facts:
o Palin has served 20 months as governor and six years as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population: 6,715). Comparatively, Obama has been in the United States Senate for four years and served in the Illinois Senate for eight years before that.
o Palin's previous pursuits included stints as a sportscaster and commercial fisherman, as well as four years on the Wasilla City Council. Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, and worked for a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development for another 11 years.
o Palin received a bachelor's degree in journalism (minoring in political science) from the University of Idaho. Obama earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia University, then graduated from Harvard Law School after becoming the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He earned an academic scholarship. She won a scholarship for finishing second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant.
A year and a half as governor of a state with a population of 600,000 may technically be "executive experience". But it bears mentioning that not too long ago, her fellow Republican George Bush (daddy) and some other maverick named Perot attacked a relative unknown named Bill Clinton, by suggesting the state he governed (Arkansas) was roughly the size of Wal-Mart. Arkansas has FIVE TIMES the population of Alaska.
Still another spin, most recently tossed out by Florida's republican governor, is that what's really important is which presidential candidate is best equipped for the job, a contest McCain wins "hands down". Well if we can measure the two candidates on the basis of their first major decision as their party's nominee, you'll have a hard time making that argument. Biden and Obama had worked closely for years as fellow senators. Reports are that McCain had met Palin just once before yesterday. JUST ONCE. Forgive me but I must repeat this. McCain and Palin had met only one time before yesterday. That meeting was six months ago.
What does it say about the man who is asking us to put him in charge of our nation? It appears he has treated the issue of who will take over the presidency should be be unable, more like a blind date than a serious process? Is this a harbinger of the type of decision making we can expect in a McCain administration?
Furthermore, what does this selection really say about his views on gender equality? Could a move aimed at "breaking the glass ceiling" for women, belie an altogether malodorous intention? McCain's recent off-handed comments about entering his wife in the "Miss Buffalo Chip" pageant, once chalked up as a tasteless ad-lib, may actually be just another stitch in a pattern of apparent objectification. From his second wife Cindy (with whom he began a relationship in the midst of his first marriage)... to the lobbyist friend that led several close to him to question his political sensibilities (remember the New York Times article that was inexplicably forgotten simply because the two never "did it"?)... to today's choice of running mate... it's clear the man likes to surround himself with babes.
Ask yourself: would Palin have been his choice if she didn't possess such dazzling good looks? If you can't answer with a resounding "yes", what does that tell you? Last time I checked, promoting someone seemingly under-qualified for a position, based on his or her physical appearance, is textbook sexual discrimination. And anyone guilty of this is more male chauvinist than maverick.
Bottom line: the only people who hail McCain's choice of running mate are people who would hail any choice (Lieberman aside) the man made. It's their job as members of the Grand Old Party to get behind the decision. But deep down, they must be freaking out. They've spent the day not boasting about McCain's choice but defending it. Frankly, it's hilarious if not downright jaw-dropping to watch right-wing strategists and pundits lauding the 44-year-old Alaskan's credentials, mere days after criticizing Obama's.
What most of them won't admit, is that before today they had no idea of this woman's background and qualifications, if they even knew her at all. McCain said of Palin in his speech this afternoon, "When you get to know her, you'll be as impressed with her as I am". Yet, having met her just once before yesterday, he barely knows her himself.
Now that's what you call a first impression.
In one move, John McCain destroyed the central message of his campaign platform and negative campaign against Obama. And all for the opportunity to have an attractive political figure at his side. The double entendre is intended: Palin is flat-out gorgeous. McCain now can travel the country with trophy wife on one arm and trophy veep on the other. Bookend babes. Talk about your poll bounce.
I can't help but assume this will quickly take its toll on Cindy McCain. Her blonde hair, brilliant smile and vibrant wardrobe have been an arresting and consistent element throughout her husband's campaign. Her cover-girl looks that much more youthful perched beside her 72-year-old hubby. Yet from this point on, there's a bigger, brighter name on the marquis, a stunning woman with no wrinkles to hide and exuberance on her side. How long will Cindy's vanity remain dormant before her hem climbs higher and her neckline plunges deeper? McCain's numbers may grow from sheer cat-fight anticipation.
The right-wingers are spinning as fast as they can to workshop potential responses to McCain's quantum leap of faith. Give them a break, they've only had a few hours to back up what is described in favorable terms as a baffling selection. But they've fired out some really creative doozies.
One initial retort is to take the offensive--like the challenge they're laying down to democrats, this "you want to debate experience? let's go!" tactic. Beneath its bravado is the suggestion that those in Obama's camp who question the pick are being hypocritical, given the Illinois senator's limited experience. What they seem to forget is the fact that the Republicans are the ones who initiated the experience issue. In fact, they made "not ready to lead" the tag line of their anti-Obama ad campaign. Why on earth would Obama make his inexperience a topic--who in his position would? Team McCain raised the point and now they've contradicted their position. The hypocrisy is theirs and theirs alone.
Another GOP spin is that Palin is "the most popular governor in the United States", on the basis of her 69% approval rating. This is priceless. A high school poly sci student could point out the flaws here. True, no other governor may have as high an approval rating... IN THEIR STATE. But going from here to saying she's the most popular governor in the country is a stretch of Bubble-Yum proportions. Frankly, I doubt that 5% of the nation had even heard of Sarah Palin before today. All you can logically conclude from this statistic is that she is more popular among Alaskans than any other governor is among their residents.
Then there's the argument that Palin has more experience than Obama. Here are the facts:
o Palin has served 20 months as governor and six years as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population: 6,715). Comparatively, Obama has been in the United States Senate for four years and served in the Illinois Senate for eight years before that.
o Palin's previous pursuits included stints as a sportscaster and commercial fisherman, as well as four years on the Wasilla City Council. Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, and worked for a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development for another 11 years.
o Palin received a bachelor's degree in journalism (minoring in political science) from the University of Idaho. Obama earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia University, then graduated from Harvard Law School after becoming the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He earned an academic scholarship. She won a scholarship for finishing second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant.
A year and a half as governor of a state with a population of 600,000 may technically be "executive experience". But it bears mentioning that not too long ago, her fellow Republican George Bush (daddy) and some other maverick named Perot attacked a relative unknown named Bill Clinton, by suggesting the state he governed (Arkansas) was roughly the size of Wal-Mart. Arkansas has FIVE TIMES the population of Alaska.
Still another spin, most recently tossed out by Florida's republican governor, is that what's really important is which presidential candidate is best equipped for the job, a contest McCain wins "hands down". Well if we can measure the two candidates on the basis of their first major decision as their party's nominee, you'll have a hard time making that argument. Biden and Obama had worked closely for years as fellow senators. Reports are that McCain had met Palin just once before yesterday. JUST ONCE. Forgive me but I must repeat this. McCain and Palin had met only one time before yesterday. That meeting was six months ago.
What does it say about the man who is asking us to put him in charge of our nation? It appears he has treated the issue of who will take over the presidency should be be unable, more like a blind date than a serious process? Is this a harbinger of the type of decision making we can expect in a McCain administration?
Furthermore, what does this selection really say about his views on gender equality? Could a move aimed at "breaking the glass ceiling" for women, belie an altogether malodorous intention? McCain's recent off-handed comments about entering his wife in the "Miss Buffalo Chip" pageant, once chalked up as a tasteless ad-lib, may actually be just another stitch in a pattern of apparent objectification. From his second wife Cindy (with whom he began a relationship in the midst of his first marriage)... to the lobbyist friend that led several close to him to question his political sensibilities (remember the New York Times article that was inexplicably forgotten simply because the two never "did it"?)... to today's choice of running mate... it's clear the man likes to surround himself with babes.
Ask yourself: would Palin have been his choice if she didn't possess such dazzling good looks? If you can't answer with a resounding "yes", what does that tell you? Last time I checked, promoting someone seemingly under-qualified for a position, based on his or her physical appearance, is textbook sexual discrimination. And anyone guilty of this is more male chauvinist than maverick.
Bottom line: the only people who hail McCain's choice of running mate are people who would hail any choice (Lieberman aside) the man made. It's their job as members of the Grand Old Party to get behind the decision. But deep down, they must be freaking out. They've spent the day not boasting about McCain's choice but defending it. Frankly, it's hilarious if not downright jaw-dropping to watch right-wing strategists and pundits lauding the 44-year-old Alaskan's credentials, mere days after criticizing Obama's.
What most of them won't admit, is that before today they had no idea of this woman's background and qualifications, if they even knew her at all. McCain said of Palin in his speech this afternoon, "When you get to know her, you'll be as impressed with her as I am". Yet, having met her just once before yesterday, he barely knows her himself.
Now that's what you call a first impression.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
He's been tortured enough... but then, so have we
So the media is supposedly tougher on McCain than on Obama, huh?
Then how come it's fair to question the latter's youth and inexperience while the former's age is officially an off-limits topic? As far as I'm concerned, if it's okay to publicly vet Obama and his lack of political experience, it's just as important to question why, if the Arizona senator is so vastly qualified for the office of president, it has taken him until his 71st birthday to win the support of his own party. Should he be successful this fall, McCain will become the oldest first-term president in our nation's history. So why couldn't he win the Republican nomination over a far less qualified G.H.W. Bush eight years ago? Like the co-worker who's been at your company for thirty years, he's either invaluable or unhirable, depending on your point of view.
Similarly, Obama has been criticized for the way he allegedly "exploited" his wife and two children by granting an entertainment network exclusive permission for an interview. Yet we are not allowed to even mention the misgivings of the torch-bearer for the party of "family values", such as his failed first marriage and admitted infidelity? The horrific story of McCain's torturous years as a war prisoner in North Vietnam is universally accepted support for his patriotism. However, no one even mentions his role in the infamous Keating Five. McCain's irresponsible business dealings during the Savings & Loan mess epitomized the ego-centric state of our economy in the late 1980s. Was this not emblematic of a man putting himself ahead of duty to country? At the very least, shouldn't it receive as much scrutiny as the issue of whether the other party's presumptive nominee wears a freaking flag pin on his lapel?
This brand of pettiness was in full inexplicable force during Obama's overseas visits. So why is the media given the green light to deconstruct every aspect of Obama's public appearances in Europe and the Middle East, while any talk of McCain's well-known temper has somehow been deemed unfair treatment? Even when questioning Obama's character--in particular his supposed snubbing of injured soldiers--McCain threatened what he called "a seismic event" had the Pentagon attempted to enforce its policy on a hypothetical McCain overseas hospital visit. A seismic event? Did ANYONE holding microphone or notepad say so much as, "Beg pardon, Senator?" The clip has been played ad nauseum. You mean to tell me in all this time that no talking head has uttered a syllable calling out his threat of an eruption? Yeah, the poor old guy's got it rough.
Then there are the spouses. Michelle Obama's sound byte about being a proud American for the first time--woefully out of context, of course--has been rolled so much the digital files are wearing out. She has explained herself and the comment numerous times. You'll have to take my word for it, since you likely never saw it on any of the major networks. For some reason, Cindy McCain's Vicodin addiction, the illegal prescriptions she obtained from the non-profit organization she founded, the employee she fired who discovered the scandal (and ultimately shared it with the DEA) and the subsequent investigation doesn't seem to be as important an indicator of a prospective First Lady's virtue than a sentence taken out of context.
But back to the hubbies. Isn't the temperament of the man who would run our country a legitimate issue? Isn't it at least as important as, say, the assessment that Obama's mannerisms suggest those of a man who had already won the election--in other words, that the guy with so little experience now, to his own detriment, somehow seems "too presidential"?
-------
By the way, can someone please explain to me how McCain possibly benefits from the surge in Iraq being successful? No level of our success can make the decision to go to war with Iraq any more rational. Put it this way. Let's say W gets it in his head that all he needs to reverse his approval numbers is to bomb the hell out of Cuba. The odds would greatly favor our armed forces winning this battle. But would victory make the decision to attack any more sound--much less sane?
Then how come it's fair to question the latter's youth and inexperience while the former's age is officially an off-limits topic? As far as I'm concerned, if it's okay to publicly vet Obama and his lack of political experience, it's just as important to question why, if the Arizona senator is so vastly qualified for the office of president, it has taken him until his 71st birthday to win the support of his own party. Should he be successful this fall, McCain will become the oldest first-term president in our nation's history. So why couldn't he win the Republican nomination over a far less qualified G.H.W. Bush eight years ago? Like the co-worker who's been at your company for thirty years, he's either invaluable or unhirable, depending on your point of view.
Similarly, Obama has been criticized for the way he allegedly "exploited" his wife and two children by granting an entertainment network exclusive permission for an interview. Yet we are not allowed to even mention the misgivings of the torch-bearer for the party of "family values", such as his failed first marriage and admitted infidelity? The horrific story of McCain's torturous years as a war prisoner in North Vietnam is universally accepted support for his patriotism. However, no one even mentions his role in the infamous Keating Five. McCain's irresponsible business dealings during the Savings & Loan mess epitomized the ego-centric state of our economy in the late 1980s. Was this not emblematic of a man putting himself ahead of duty to country? At the very least, shouldn't it receive as much scrutiny as the issue of whether the other party's presumptive nominee wears a freaking flag pin on his lapel?
This brand of pettiness was in full inexplicable force during Obama's overseas visits. So why is the media given the green light to deconstruct every aspect of Obama's public appearances in Europe and the Middle East, while any talk of McCain's well-known temper has somehow been deemed unfair treatment? Even when questioning Obama's character--in particular his supposed snubbing of injured soldiers--McCain threatened what he called "a seismic event" had the Pentagon attempted to enforce its policy on a hypothetical McCain overseas hospital visit. A seismic event? Did ANYONE holding microphone or notepad say so much as, "Beg pardon, Senator?" The clip has been played ad nauseum. You mean to tell me in all this time that no talking head has uttered a syllable calling out his threat of an eruption? Yeah, the poor old guy's got it rough.
Then there are the spouses. Michelle Obama's sound byte about being a proud American for the first time--woefully out of context, of course--has been rolled so much the digital files are wearing out. She has explained herself and the comment numerous times. You'll have to take my word for it, since you likely never saw it on any of the major networks. For some reason, Cindy McCain's Vicodin addiction, the illegal prescriptions she obtained from the non-profit organization she founded, the employee she fired who discovered the scandal (and ultimately shared it with the DEA) and the subsequent investigation doesn't seem to be as important an indicator of a prospective First Lady's virtue than a sentence taken out of context.
But back to the hubbies. Isn't the temperament of the man who would run our country a legitimate issue? Isn't it at least as important as, say, the assessment that Obama's mannerisms suggest those of a man who had already won the election--in other words, that the guy with so little experience now, to his own detriment, somehow seems "too presidential"?
-------
By the way, can someone please explain to me how McCain possibly benefits from the surge in Iraq being successful? No level of our success can make the decision to go to war with Iraq any more rational. Put it this way. Let's say W gets it in his head that all he needs to reverse his approval numbers is to bomb the hell out of Cuba. The odds would greatly favor our armed forces winning this battle. But would victory make the decision to attack any more sound--much less sane?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Yes, changing your position is technically "change"
John McCain is the candidate for change, all right.
He once spoke out against the Bush tax cuts. Now his message has changed.
He once spoke out against the Bush economic policy. Now he's changed his tune.
His chief economic advisor once called us "a nation of whiners". Now his campaign has changed, adopting whining as a core element of its political strategy.
He once called his campaign the "straight-talk express". Yet he's become nothing more than a puppet, saying whatever feels like the politically advantageous thing to say at the time, parroting the words of whomever is running his campaign on that particular day.
And he boldly promised this past April 14 on Fox News that he would run a "respectful campaign" and swore - SWORE - not to lower himself to negative attacks. His broken word conveniently forgotten, McCain has changed his tactics, going so far as to blame Obama for the high gas prices, claim that he snubbed injured troops in Germany because the Pentagon wouldn't allow cameras, and compare him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, ostensibly as world-famous celebrities yet clearly a move to effeminize his attempt to appear strong on the world's stage.
If this makes his supporters uncomfortable, there's no need to worry. Things will surely change again.
He once spoke out against the Bush tax cuts. Now his message has changed.
He once spoke out against the Bush economic policy. Now he's changed his tune.
His chief economic advisor once called us "a nation of whiners". Now his campaign has changed, adopting whining as a core element of its political strategy.
He once called his campaign the "straight-talk express". Yet he's become nothing more than a puppet, saying whatever feels like the politically advantageous thing to say at the time, parroting the words of whomever is running his campaign on that particular day.
And he boldly promised this past April 14 on Fox News that he would run a "respectful campaign" and swore - SWORE - not to lower himself to negative attacks. His broken word conveniently forgotten, McCain has changed his tactics, going so far as to blame Obama for the high gas prices, claim that he snubbed injured troops in Germany because the Pentagon wouldn't allow cameras, and compare him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, ostensibly as world-famous celebrities yet clearly a move to effeminize his attempt to appear strong on the world's stage.
If this makes his supporters uncomfortable, there's no need to worry. Things will surely change again.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Which one's the elitist again?
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)