Congratulations, John McCain. You're on Meet The Press for the second time this month. Guess who has the momentum in the Republican primary race. However, this column shouldn't complain about this de facto endorsement of McCain because it stated that, in fact, he would (or should) be the nominee for he Republicans.
However, as John McCain gets closer to that nomination, his straight talk gets more and more distant, in essence his answers are much more nuanced. Sen. McCain has always been for the surge and that's pretty straight, in the beginning generals said that we need more troops going in. McCain agreed with that sparking his harsh exchanges and eventual calls for Rumsfeld's dismissal. But what's not straight is the fact that it is an escalation. Surge implies an eventual subsiding. That's not what's happening with our troops in Iraq. They are there to stay in force. And McCain was also incorrect in saying that the American people will turn their feelings around for the war (occupation) and support our presence there. Paraphrasing, he said that it's not a matter of our troops being there, but a matter of our troops dying there. It IS a matter of our troops being there. We left Saudi Arabia, why? And the Iraq tragedy is too far gone for the American people to come around and think it's a noble cause.
Lastly, he didn't really explain why he thought it was a war of necessity. He mentioned that Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction and the oil-for-food scandal in the UN, inspections breaking down, etc. Given that the inspectors at the time could not find any WMD, none of the aforementioned reasons call for a necessary preemptive invasion.
And now that he is the frontrunner, despite any polling numbers to the contrary, there is this silly question of is he conservative enough. Republicans are asking this, of course, and it's fascinating to witness the fervor for someone eating his own. Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum coming out strong against. Limbaugh continually so through the airwaves, deriding not only McCain, but Huckabee as well. Limbaugh's approach has always been Cheney-esque, petty, pointed, personal attacks and this is why the Republicans are floundering. As far as Rick Santorum is concerned, his M.O. was always stand in the back of the republican gang machine with the large megaphone and pile on, on when the hard mauling was done. This is why he is not still in office.
So... Is McCain conservative enough? He invokes Reagan enough. That should count. This time it was about Reagan's smart spending and tax cutting. Ugh.. Ronald spent more money on programs [read: Star Wars] that never materialized than any other president in history. And trickle down economics is just that, a trickle. No one gets excited about a trickle like they do a flood. He did flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts and his immigration policy is a bit more sensible to the reality of the situation so that could call his Republicanism into question, but lets still be real. He is the best chance for the Republicans to win the presidency.
----
Today's program, ahead of the Florida primary, was coming to you from Tampa Bay so it's a little surprising that Maureen Dowd would be on the show. It's just odd that she's in Tampa at all, in an inexplicable way, it seems beneath her. However, she is a great equalizer of straight talk, especially when following an interview with a politician. Byron York, from the National Review, was downright subdued. It just looked pain for him to speak about the Republicans. Talk about a guy who is just bummed out. He's no Kate O'Bierne who will rip conservatives a new. As they say, he doesn't have that juice. And lastly, there NBC's Political Director, Chuck Todd. We like Chuck Todd and have to because he's being groomed for the MTP chair. It's a long way off but he's going to be Mr. Russert's successor. He just needs to speak more from the diaphragm - project and make sure his statements don't trail off at the end. We're just trying to be helpful. Again, this is a long way off, but that's our bet.
So with this panel, you were basically just waiting for Ms. Dowd to speak - those were the moments that counted most. She spoke frankly about Bill Clinton's conduct in South Carolina and passionately (rare but delightful to see) about Obama's message of hope. And the quote from John Kerry thrown up on the screen was spot on. Bill Clinton's conduct and words in South Carolina this past week were a blow to his standing as a former President. Former Presidents can critique or criticize the current president (the unwritten rule that this can't happen is ridiculous. Former presidents have the unique knowledge to do it!), but they shouldn't be petty and manipulative. And it is scary to think about this dynamic in the oval office. Trepidation is a understate here. Chuck Todd made a great point that after the South Carolina primary, the first Clinton you heard from was Bill, not Hillary! The word he used was 'weird,' I'm thinking 'creepy,' but it would be most accurate to say 'scary.'
Going back for a moment to Ms. Dowd's point about Obama, Mr. Russert summed it up concisely - balancing hope with defiance. Barack Obama is the embodiment of this combination. It's quite evident.
Other points of note... Giuliani's campaign... simply not a smart one. Gambling in Florida is a losing proposition, you have to play in all the states to win and he didn't do it. Plus, I think the money woes went a little deeper than it was let on. Also, people are catching up on the fuller Giuliani picture, that he is manipulative and has shades of grey that veer to much the way of black.
The race is taking shape and this column will have its recommendations for whom should be the respective parties nominees. Call them endorsements if you like, but you can only vote for one person. Since I'm only one person, I'm calling them recommendations. An official endorsement for president will come when there are only two because there can be only one.
oooo... the drama...
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
1.20.08: Learning Something
Although it's early in the year, I can say with confidence that this will be the best panel of the year.
Michele Norris, NPR 'All Things Considered'
Tom Brokaw, NBC News
Peggy Noonan, Columnist, Wall Street Journal
Jon Meacham, Editor Newsweek
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Presidential Historian
If you are familiar with these individuals, you would easily agree that each is the exact person you see in his respective position.
[Aside: I realize there are both men and women in that list and above I used 'his.' It's a traditional grammar convention and not a sexist remark. That I have to explain this is a disappointing commentary on our culture.]
I am not all that familiar with Peggy Noonan, but after hearing her speak for one minute and you say to yourself, 'Of course, the Wall Street Journal.' I will read her column consistently when Rupert Murdoch makes their site for free because she made some very candid points, which are always needed. Namely, about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (tbd) dynasty. It is very UNLIKE us as a country to keep voting this way.
This country likes the underdog, the outsider, the insurgent (though these days that depends on geography), but then again, maybe we don't. Maybe we have been saying this to our collective selves so long that it's now really become a myth. But as mentioned by this panel today,we've been through so many troubling experiences such as the two wars and a housing crisis, not to mention warrant-less wiretapping, New Orleans, and a 9 trillion dollar debt. With so many looming clouds floating around maybe we want someone who has experience? Let's face it, we have a large contingent in this country that says frankly, 'Fuck the weak.' Callous, but true.
Which brings me to the anecdote provided by Michele Norris. But first, I can't go any longer without saying that this panel taught me something today. Gave me insight, and more importantly perspective through history. Robert Novak never teaches me anything when on Meet The Press. That's why it will end up being the best panel of the year.
She spoke about the 92 year-old man in the church, telling people to not be afraid of looking forward, embracing change. This is the movement that is Barack Obama. He inspires that thinking and that makes him a symbol. Symbols when back by words always succeed.
The panel talked about how none of the Republican candidates were the complete package, but neither are the Democrats. The two leading candidate in that party present a lot of the same ideas but operationally go about in very different ways. On the one side, having great ideas is great, but our current president always refers to a high cause, etc, but the FBI's phone bill for wiretapping doesn't paid.
If you're going take away my civil liberties, please do it efficiently.
As for the other leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Meacham who is a great editor and because of his stewardship that Newsweek deserves respect. He and Tim discussed significance of the recent campaign soft-tirades by President Clinton. The question: If top Dems. can't reel him in on the campaign trail, how are they going to do it if Mrs. Clinton is in the White House? This question deserves some serious thought and I'll have to come back to it in a future post.
Jokingly, at the end of the program, Tim asked the panel for its presidential picks, but then said quickly that they were out of time. Even with all the insight given in this particular hour, the back and forth with regard to the candidates is endless. Again, no one out there is the complete package. Huckabee's speak last Monday, in which he discussed changing the constitution so that it is more in line with Christian doctrine, was frightening. Michele Norris said that even Christian conservatives were 'spooked.' That's the Omen.
Speeches like that make me grateful that everything is on tape these days. However, on tape Senator Obama mentioned that Ronald Reagan presented ideas and was a transformational presidential character. The Democratic candidates seized on this. Doris Kearns Goodwin explained that yes, President Reagon did create a sea change and that it's historical fact. And she is correct - absolutely. Again, you want a Presidential historian, DKG (her dj name) is the one you want to talk to. On the program today.
[Insight into dorkness: When I see that movie 'Scent of a Woman' and Al Pacino reminisces about Lyndon Johnson, I think of DKG - Yikes!]
So when you see someone like Barack Obama speak intelligently and candidly about Ronald Reagan somehow that's blasphemy. What this really is.... it's minutiae. A little nugget to keep your eye off the real issues, which is difficult to do because so many are thrust upon us. deciphering which ones are more important than others can get confusing. Today's panel gave it all a little perspective so update your subscription of the MTP podcast and save this one!
Michele Norris, NPR 'All Things Considered'
Tom Brokaw, NBC News
Peggy Noonan, Columnist, Wall Street Journal
Jon Meacham, Editor Newsweek
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Presidential Historian
If you are familiar with these individuals, you would easily agree that each is the exact person you see in his respective position.
[Aside: I realize there are both men and women in that list and above I used 'his.' It's a traditional grammar convention and not a sexist remark. That I have to explain this is a disappointing commentary on our culture.]
I am not all that familiar with Peggy Noonan, but after hearing her speak for one minute and you say to yourself, 'Of course, the Wall Street Journal.' I will read her column consistently when Rupert Murdoch makes their site for free because she made some very candid points, which are always needed. Namely, about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (tbd) dynasty. It is very UNLIKE us as a country to keep voting this way.
This country likes the underdog, the outsider, the insurgent (though these days that depends on geography), but then again, maybe we don't. Maybe we have been saying this to our collective selves so long that it's now really become a myth. But as mentioned by this panel today,we've been through so many troubling experiences such as the two wars and a housing crisis, not to mention warrant-less wiretapping, New Orleans, and a 9 trillion dollar debt. With so many looming clouds floating around maybe we want someone who has experience? Let's face it, we have a large contingent in this country that says frankly, 'Fuck the weak.' Callous, but true.
Which brings me to the anecdote provided by Michele Norris. But first, I can't go any longer without saying that this panel taught me something today. Gave me insight, and more importantly perspective through history. Robert Novak never teaches me anything when on Meet The Press. That's why it will end up being the best panel of the year.
She spoke about the 92 year-old man in the church, telling people to not be afraid of looking forward, embracing change. This is the movement that is Barack Obama. He inspires that thinking and that makes him a symbol. Symbols when back by words always succeed.
The panel talked about how none of the Republican candidates were the complete package, but neither are the Democrats. The two leading candidate in that party present a lot of the same ideas but operationally go about in very different ways. On the one side, having great ideas is great, but our current president always refers to a high cause, etc, but the FBI's phone bill for wiretapping doesn't paid.
If you're going take away my civil liberties, please do it efficiently.
As for the other leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Meacham who is a great editor and because of his stewardship that Newsweek deserves respect. He and Tim discussed significance of the recent campaign soft-tirades by President Clinton. The question: If top Dems. can't reel him in on the campaign trail, how are they going to do it if Mrs. Clinton is in the White House? This question deserves some serious thought and I'll have to come back to it in a future post.
Jokingly, at the end of the program, Tim asked the panel for its presidential picks, but then said quickly that they were out of time. Even with all the insight given in this particular hour, the back and forth with regard to the candidates is endless. Again, no one out there is the complete package. Huckabee's speak last Monday, in which he discussed changing the constitution so that it is more in line with Christian doctrine, was frightening. Michele Norris said that even Christian conservatives were 'spooked.' That's the Omen.
Speeches like that make me grateful that everything is on tape these days. However, on tape Senator Obama mentioned that Ronald Reagan presented ideas and was a transformational presidential character. The Democratic candidates seized on this. Doris Kearns Goodwin explained that yes, President Reagon did create a sea change and that it's historical fact. And she is correct - absolutely. Again, you want a Presidential historian, DKG (her dj name) is the one you want to talk to. On the program today.
[Insight into dorkness: When I see that movie 'Scent of a Woman' and Al Pacino reminisces about Lyndon Johnson, I think of DKG - Yikes!]
So when you see someone like Barack Obama speak intelligently and candidly about Ronald Reagan somehow that's blasphemy. What this really is.... it's minutiae. A little nugget to keep your eye off the real issues, which is difficult to do because so many are thrust upon us. deciphering which ones are more important than others can get confusing. Today's panel gave it all a little perspective so update your subscription of the MTP podcast and save this one!
Monday, January 14, 2008
1.13.08: Operational Conversation, Hillary Clinton
The Democratic side of the campaign IS about gender and race in a large way.... and yes, issues as well (the economy, the Iraq occupation, the tanking of American prestige in the world, etc.). However, these two aspects will most certainly weigh on voters minds when they enter the booth. It will without a doubt, it's just reality so deal.
At the beginning of the interview, we had to sit through Mrs. Clinton playing the operatives' operative - straightening out her campaign staff on Meet The Press - defending, thrusting, and parrying. What would you expect? All candidates have to deal with this on all levels. Politics is a dirty business - I think I heard that somewhere before. But all this aside, and the reason to put it aside is that it is going to continue to happen. Hillary as a victim - ok, but Mr. Obama could also claim to be a victim due to race and John Edwards can claim victim as well. Whatever.... Gloria Steinem's column in The New York Times earlier this week was correct that gender is the biggest obstacle of all. If a woman candidate only had two years experience on the federal level, she would not be taken seriously as a candidate.
But to the meat of the interview - I just don't think that any candidate still in the race on either side of the aisle could have the conversation that Mrs. Clinton with Tim Russert today. As citizens, we all want decisions in Washington to be cut and dry, but it just doesn't work that way. Mrs. Clinton demonstrated thoroughly that the details of policy that you must have an intimate grasp of are endless. No other candidate, including McCain who is lock step with our present (and failed) administration hasn't given answers that reflect such a thorough knowledge of all fronts as Mrs. Clinton did today.
Of course, Mr. Russert has to ask about the Iraq Resolution vote, he is obligated to at the very least. But he prefaced the question by quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin - saying that presidents should learn from their mistakes, which injects his opinion about her vote. Mrs. Clinton didn't bite and it would be deadly to apologize for that vote, or any vote for that matter.
I remember John Edwards made a big to-do about apologizing for his vote on that resolution. He's a sucker. Is he aspiring to have a Jimmy Carter presidency? I don't want politicians apologizing - it's bad form across the board. There is one exception that I'll make. George W. Bush should apologize for Dick Cheney. Now, do I agree with Mrs. Clinton's vote on that resolution, no, but I don't want her to apologize for it. Waffling is political suicide, ask John Kerry and soon Mitt Romney will have his own dissertation on this.
So what did this interview tell us, that Mrs. Clinton, like her or hate her, is the most knowledge when it comes to the various issues that face this country. Is she the most qualified to be president? Well, that is for you to decide.
[Aside: Did Mr. Russert look tired during this interview today or what? Maybe this was a good thing because ornery was the right call for the day.]
At the beginning of the interview, we had to sit through Mrs. Clinton playing the operatives' operative - straightening out her campaign staff on Meet The Press - defending, thrusting, and parrying. What would you expect? All candidates have to deal with this on all levels. Politics is a dirty business - I think I heard that somewhere before. But all this aside, and the reason to put it aside is that it is going to continue to happen. Hillary as a victim - ok, but Mr. Obama could also claim to be a victim due to race and John Edwards can claim victim as well. Whatever.... Gloria Steinem's column in The New York Times earlier this week was correct that gender is the biggest obstacle of all. If a woman candidate only had two years experience on the federal level, she would not be taken seriously as a candidate.
But to the meat of the interview - I just don't think that any candidate still in the race on either side of the aisle could have the conversation that Mrs. Clinton with Tim Russert today. As citizens, we all want decisions in Washington to be cut and dry, but it just doesn't work that way. Mrs. Clinton demonstrated thoroughly that the details of policy that you must have an intimate grasp of are endless. No other candidate, including McCain who is lock step with our present (and failed) administration hasn't given answers that reflect such a thorough knowledge of all fronts as Mrs. Clinton did today.
Of course, Mr. Russert has to ask about the Iraq Resolution vote, he is obligated to at the very least. But he prefaced the question by quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin - saying that presidents should learn from their mistakes, which injects his opinion about her vote. Mrs. Clinton didn't bite and it would be deadly to apologize for that vote, or any vote for that matter.
I remember John Edwards made a big to-do about apologizing for his vote on that resolution. He's a sucker. Is he aspiring to have a Jimmy Carter presidency? I don't want politicians apologizing - it's bad form across the board. There is one exception that I'll make. George W. Bush should apologize for Dick Cheney. Now, do I agree with Mrs. Clinton's vote on that resolution, no, but I don't want her to apologize for it. Waffling is political suicide, ask John Kerry and soon Mitt Romney will have his own dissertation on this.
So what did this interview tell us, that Mrs. Clinton, like her or hate her, is the most knowledge when it comes to the various issues that face this country. Is she the most qualified to be president? Well, that is for you to decide.
[Aside: Did Mr. Russert look tired during this interview today or what? Maybe this was a good thing because ornery was the right call for the day.]
Sunday, January 06, 2008
1.6.08: Republican Nominee
Well, let's cut straight to the point. John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, and he should be if the Republican party is smart. In a 'position of power,' McCain performs very well as evidenced in today's interview. He surging in New Hampshire and he knows it. If he captures New Hampshire, Michigan is his as well. The counter-argument for Romney is that he is a native son of that state so the strength may be with him. Fact: Al Gore lost Tennessee in 2000.
After almost every question, McCain flashed a smile or let go a chuckle because he's in a position where he can speak his mind. McCain sat comfortably when Mr. Russert questioned him on his earlier statement concerning the 100-year hypothetical military presence in Iraq. At various challenging points in the campaign for him, if posed that question, McCain's anger would be firing in claymore directions. But here, today, he got to come on Meet The Press and revel in his positions. And as with all politicians, one never hesitates to tell you when they were right. And McCain has been correct on more than a few things - be it some were easy calls. 'Rumsfeld should go' was an easy call on both sides of the aisle.
For the purposes of this column today, the most interesting topic in relation to the campaign was his comments on Mitt Romney. 'He has changed his positions on almost every major issue. That is a fact. I could chronicle it for you. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good person,' he said. Translated, he thinks he is a shitty politician and would be a shitty leader. (That's a bit straighter talk, but an accurate projection.) He's exactly right.
As for the other candidates, Huckabee doesn't have a wide enough base to win the nomination, but taught the others some lessons in Iowa. Thompson is a lazy candidate, period. He's been that way from the start. And Giuliani... it's mystifying that his campaign thinks he is going to surge to the lead on Super Tuesday. Today's two guest strategists, Steve McMahon (D) and Mike Murphy (R), said that it has never been done. And Giuliani isn't going to be the first one to do it. One, he has no momentum going into that day, voters look to the initial states as a barometer - not to be underestimated. Also, and this plays more in this particular election, is that it is too blatant of a political campaign tactic. This time around, it is already well established that that does not play.
McCain is the truest Republican in the field. Say what you will about his immigration stance and ideas, but he is from a border state. And when we talk immigration, we're never thinking Canada. So on today's Meet The Press, you listened to the Republican nominee.
[Aside: Mr. McMahon and Mr. Murphy were very good at framing and interpreting the polls and speeches. It's always very easy for an opposition strategist to speak frankly about the other side... that's the point I guess. I can't remember seeing Mr. McMahon before (maybe just a memory lapse), but Mr. Murphy has been on quite a bit. However, he reminds me of a professional football coach that keeps getting fired because of a mediocre record, but then somehow manages to instill false hope and get hired again.]
After almost every question, McCain flashed a smile or let go a chuckle because he's in a position where he can speak his mind. McCain sat comfortably when Mr. Russert questioned him on his earlier statement concerning the 100-year hypothetical military presence in Iraq. At various challenging points in the campaign for him, if posed that question, McCain's anger would be firing in claymore directions. But here, today, he got to come on Meet The Press and revel in his positions. And as with all politicians, one never hesitates to tell you when they were right. And McCain has been correct on more than a few things - be it some were easy calls. 'Rumsfeld should go' was an easy call on both sides of the aisle.
For the purposes of this column today, the most interesting topic in relation to the campaign was his comments on Mitt Romney. 'He has changed his positions on almost every major issue. That is a fact. I could chronicle it for you. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good person,' he said. Translated, he thinks he is a shitty politician and would be a shitty leader. (That's a bit straighter talk, but an accurate projection.) He's exactly right.
As for the other candidates, Huckabee doesn't have a wide enough base to win the nomination, but taught the others some lessons in Iowa. Thompson is a lazy candidate, period. He's been that way from the start. And Giuliani... it's mystifying that his campaign thinks he is going to surge to the lead on Super Tuesday. Today's two guest strategists, Steve McMahon (D) and Mike Murphy (R), said that it has never been done. And Giuliani isn't going to be the first one to do it. One, he has no momentum going into that day, voters look to the initial states as a barometer - not to be underestimated. Also, and this plays more in this particular election, is that it is too blatant of a political campaign tactic. This time around, it is already well established that that does not play.
McCain is the truest Republican in the field. Say what you will about his immigration stance and ideas, but he is from a border state. And when we talk immigration, we're never thinking Canada. So on today's Meet The Press, you listened to the Republican nominee.
[Aside: Mr. McMahon and Mr. Murphy were very good at framing and interpreting the polls and speeches. It's always very easy for an opposition strategist to speak frankly about the other side... that's the point I guess. I can't remember seeing Mr. McMahon before (maybe just a memory lapse), but Mr. Murphy has been on quite a bit. However, he reminds me of a professional football coach that keeps getting fired because of a mediocre record, but then somehow manages to instill false hope and get hired again.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)