Venti, no foam, Fire and Brimstone, with two extra shots of espresso
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Shameless and out of touch Mood: incredulous Topic: Politicking around
Unmitigated gall.
I don't know how else to describe the actions by Alaska Senator (R) Ted Stevens and Massachusetts State Senator (D) Dianne Wilkerson. Stevens was found guilty on all seven counts of trying to hide gifts and home renovations of more than $250,000, and has neither resigned nor withdrawn from the Senate race in Alaska. Wilkerson was just indicted on charges that she accepted nearly $25,000 in bribes from undercover FBI agents. She, like Stevens, is vowing to stay in the race for her seat - despite having lost the primary election, she's waging a sticker campaign.
Breaching the public's trust is nothing new for politicians. It's been going on since the time of the first rulers. But the brazen lack of respect for their constituency displayed by Stevens and Wilkerson goes beyond the pale. How can either look in the mirror and honestly say, "Yes, I'm upholding the the values my elected position, and I'm looking out for those whom I represnt."?
It's one thing if you're a for-profit bank exec trying to maximize your company's profits, not to mention your own bonus. Misguided, criminal, deplorable - absolutely. And I hope the lot of them end up behind bars. Stevens and Wilkerson are worse, in my humble opinion, because they were elected to serve the people, not line their own pockets. Naive thinking on my part, perhaps, but I'd like to believe that those who are elected remember why they've been elected.
Oh, and, yes, I do believe that we should bring back the stock and pillory for cases such as these.
Unfit to lead Mood: incredulous Topic: Politicking around
Presumed Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, has selected Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. This selection clearly smacks as a one-note play - designed purely to ensnare those followers of Hillary Clinton who are feeling put off by the lack of presence on the Democratic ticket. It's designed to separate the liberal/moderate female vote from the Democratic side, and give them a feel-good option on the GOP ticket.
So, on that level, it's a good play by McCain and the Republican Party.
However, I think it's something that falls into the "win the election at any costs, damn the future" column, rather than the "what's good for the country" side.
Look at the facts - McCain, if elected, would be the oldest sitting president - older even than Ronald Reagan. McCain's had a series of health issues, including several rounds of skin cancer. Being that the VP's primary job is to be ready to step into the Oval Office should the President die or become incapable of leading, I, for one, would be terrified to see Gov. Palin in that role.
She has little to no experience in governing. She's in her first term as Governor of Alaska, and is the youngest, at 44, to hold that slot. The Republicans like to paint Obama as being too inexperienced to lead the country. So where does that put Palin? How well-versed is she in global politics? Where's her economic experience? How does she feel about long-term energy development away from oil? (Hmmm, her husband works in oil on the north slope of Alaska, and the Republicans have been pushing to open up more of that state for drilling....) Can she effectively be the President of the Senate?
A dark horse outsider, to be sure, but one that I'd not want one heartbeat from the Presidency. I'd feel much more comfortable with Biden, despite his baggage, in that seat.
I see through this ploy by the Republicans, and I call "bullshit" on this hand of cards.
Going for victory at any cost, damning the potential consequences, does not a good leader make. Sen. McCain, you've lost my vote. And, I did vote for you in the primary.
If that's not good old-fashioned democracy in action, I don't know what is. Some folks who had an issue wrote and circulated a petition, gained the legally required number of signatures, which led to a Select Board vote. Everyone followed the prescribed procedures, and now the town gets to vote on the motion. That's how it's done in America. It'll be up to the people of Brattleboro to vote their conscience. If they think it's a frivolous, stupid, or bad idea, they can vote against it. If they support it, the can vote in favor. That's democracy.
Now, some folks don't see it that way. One angry Minnesotan wrote, "Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont." He added, that terrorists could kidnap the three Select Board members who voted in favor and, "cut their heads off, video tape it and put it on the internet."
Another citizen wrote, "Be American, not a sniffeling (sic) liberal town that sleeps under the shield of safety provided to you by your President."
Ah, nothing like waving the flag and inviting harm to fellow citizens simply because you don't agree with their views. Now that's patriotism.
It never fails to amaze me how those who most vociferously claim to love this country, have such a limited and narrow view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those are all well and good until they actually support something that a "liberal" wants to say or do.
So, I say, "Go, Brattleboro!" Thank you for this exercise in democracy.
The eyes! The eyes! Mood: surprised Now Playing: Bruins vs. Capitals Topic: Politicking around
Recruiting volunteers from the undead may just be the ticket for Fred Thompson.
Scary, ain't it?
Well, the Iowa caucus is just about over, and the projections are as follows, as of 9:40 PM EST:
Huckabee taking the GOP win; and the Dems are all knotted up with no clear winner between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
So, does it matter?
Yes, no, maybe. How's that for an answer?
"Huh?," you say.
The reason that I can give that answer is that in the caucuses held in Iowa since 1972, if you exclude those where the sitting president ran unopposed, the winner in Iowa won the party nomination an even 50% of the time.
So, yes, it sort of matters, and yet it doesn't decisively make the call. It matters in that there's momentum for the winner heading into New Hampshire, but that's not always enough. Bob Dole nearly doubled G.H.W. Bush in '88, but lost the nomination. John McCain finished fifth in 2000, yet trounced G.W. Bush in New Hampshire. And, in 1992, Bill Clinton came in fourth in Iowa, with only one quarter the number of the votes cast for "Uncommitted," yet still won the nomination and the general election.
Huckabee beating Romney is a bit of news in that Romney significantly out spent Huckabee; however, Huckabee's play to the evangelical crowd may have done the trick in Iowa - not to mention the feel good, come-from-nowhere story that's been being spun about him in the press for the last two months. Will that carry over to New Hampshire and beyond? Perhaps a smidge, but not enough to win the Granite State nor the party's nomination. Despite heavy spending by Romney in N.H., my call is for McCain to take that state's primary once again, followed by Romney, then Huckabee. I feel that Huckabee will fall behind once more light is shed on his politics and his past. To my mind, he's the flavor of the month. Sooner or later, the press will turn on him, as they did with Howard Dean in '04.
As for the Dems, now there's a toss up. It's going to be an interesting ride, and then an even more interesting turn as a running mate will have to be selected. Too early for Corporate Satan to glean a winner. But, I will endorse McCain for the GOP ticket's lead spot.
Ummm, peace on Earth, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Mood: incredulous Now Playing: Some music that I'm too old to know at Starbucks Topic: Politicking around
I was sitting at one of my many "offices," i.e., Starbucks, here in Tucson the morning after Christmas, and there were two people sitting next to me, discussing Bhutto's assassination. The older guy hadn't even heard about it, a day after it had happened, and the older woman, who, just moments earlier declared herself a conservative, but one who will have liberal friends, said that we should nuke the whole of that area to a glassy desert and just start over. I nearly choked on my venti no-foam latte. I realize that not all conservatives nor republicans are complete idiots, but why do so many seem more than eager to use violence as a means to resolve any problem? (Not even counting the fact that this would only exacerbate the situation...) It reminded me of a comic book I drew at age 9 - the end panel of *every* story was GI Joe solving the case and saving the day by blowing up something. Granted, as a 9-year old boy, that seemed to make sense. At some point around 11, I'm pretty sure I wised up. Why didn't this happen to everyone else?
My guess is that because the people in question, you know, those Muslims, aren't white, English speaking, Christians, that it's perfectly OK to nuke them off the face of the Earth. Actually, the willingness to lob a few nukes around probably extends to targeting white Christians, just not those residing in much of the US, New England excluded.
Anyhoo, to my good pals near and far, I send you tidings of joy, peace, and happiness for the holidays and the coming year. My Christmas cards are going out late, but out they will go in January.
Missing the MySpace boat Mood: a-ok Now Playing: Red Sox vs. the A's Topic: Politicking around
You know the feeling you get in your gut when you see an elderly parent or grandparent do or say something that just paints them as "old and out of touch"? You cringe (internally or externally) and weigh whether or say anything or not.
Well, that same sensation came over me today as I read over the bulletins that were posted by my "friends" on my MySpace account. (A li'l background here - I sent "add me as a friend" requests to each of the presidential candidates that I could find on MySpace. My own li'l on-going experiment in democracy on the Web. The first to accept me: Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - how's that for an unlikely pairing of first respondents?) Anyhoo, the candidates, or more accurately, their staffers responsible for online marketing have been flooding the MySpace bulletin boards with a stream of messages - Kucinich's people doing the most, often reposting the same message repeatedly during the same day.
Today, McCain's people posted the following bulletin from Roger Staubach. I'll let you read the message, and then my response, which follows, without any further commentary.
When the clock is running down and the game is on the line, the team huddle is one of the most important parts of the game for a quarterback. It's the last chance he has to pull his team together and inspire them to victory.
As the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys and U.S. Naval Academy Midshipmen, I learned early on that everyone in the huddle was looking to me to display confidence that we would win. They can see it in your eyes - and it's often the difference between victory and defeat.
If you look in John McCain's eyes, you see a man ready to win and confident in victory. He is a leader-- focused on getting his message out and energized for this important stretch in the campaign.
The fourth quarter of this year is going to be the most important in this campaign. That's why it's important for us not to stand on the sidelines and watch - it's time to get in the game right now. We can't do our job in the fourth quarter unless we play hard in the third.
The end of the third quarter of this year on September 30th marks another important fundraising deadline, and it's crucial that John McCain has the resources necessary to win heading into the final stretch of the campaign. Whether we like it or not the national press uses these fundraising numbers as a benchmark on how well the campaign is doing.
Dear Sen. McCain, and the folks who run your MySpace profile. Please accept this email as some respectfully submitted constructive criticism, and not a slam...
Posting a bulletin message of support from Roger Staubach will have nearly zero impact on the MySpace audience. As great a serviceman, and quarterback as Mr. Staubach was, and regardless of how wonderful a person he is, he is 65 year old, white male, who retired from the NFL in 1979. That means, he's most likely the age of a MySpace user's father or grandfather, and he retired before most of the MySpacers were even born.
Great spokesperson if you're hitting up the Texas audience, or the AARP, but not MySpace - even if you're hitting the upper age demo on MySpace. Trotting out an elder statesman, like Staubach, just isn't going to sway the average 18+ year old. And, I fear that it simply adds fuel to the argument that Sen. McCain is out of touch with the youth of this country.
While you don't need to pander by lining up a (God forbid) Britney, Lindsay, or Paris, finding a solid, knowledgeable, well-known 20 or 30-something for an endorsement, wouldn't be the worst idea.
Good luck with your campaign, and best wishes on reaching the youth market.
Sincerely,
Jamie
Leaving the content of Staubach's message aside - fundraising, fourth quarter, the media, blah, blah, blah - I really, riehle do believe that McCain's people, or what's left of his staff at this point, are missing the boat in their use of MySpace. It's that, "Oh, grandpa..." moment, and underscores the fact that McCain, if elected, would be the oldest elected president in the history of the United States...yes, that includes Ronald Reagan, and he was oooollllllllld. If McCain has to trot out some elderly supporters, at least go with Andy Griffith - today's kids know him from "Andy Griffith Show" re-runs, the occasional movie cameo (like in "Waitress"), and countless Grandpa Simpson references to "Maaaatlock."
incredulous
on fire
surprised
a-ok
