Staff and supporters are trying to rescue Senate President Harry Reid from his racist gaffe --- pressuring Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to appoint a white person to the Senate over the more logical choices of such African-Americans as Congressmen Danny Davis or Jesse Jackons, or former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, and now Roland Burris. As the spin goes, old Harry is only interested in getting a candidate who is electable in two years. It is not about race, they say. Given who is about to move into the White House, I guess I would sing the same tune, too, if I were in Reid's choir.
The spin is all balderdash, however. Reid's stark contrast between black and white is too distinct and uncompromised to be a matter of "electability." They say Reid would be happy to support a qualified black candidate, just that there is no such thing -- at least in Illinois. Reid does not think blacks are generally electable ... period.
How can Reid think that no black candidate is electable from a state that has twice elected black senators, a black secretary of state, a black mayor of Chicago and, in Roland Burris himself, both comptroller and attorney general? In each instance, the racist political subculture claimed the candidate was unelectable for only one reason ... color of skin. Reid is proffering the same opinion for the same reasons.
Monday, January 05, 2009
REACT: Kick Reid out of the Senate.
I could not believe my eyes as I read the latest audacious comment from the power-crazed, arrogant and slightly nutty Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate, the not-so-honorable Harry Reid.
In referring to the chaos he generated by summarily rejecting the duly and legally appointed replacement for President-elect Barack Obama, Reid opened the door to seating appointee Roland Burris by saying ... here goes ... saying "there's always room to negotiate".
WHAT???
That's right! The one time trial lawyer (<-- Maybe this explains a few things.) said he is willing to "negotiate" the seating of Burris. So ... the sanctimonious hypocrite refused to obey the law so he could "negotiate" something for himself. Isn't that what caused the whole problem in the first place?
What are Reid's terms? That Burris surrender his legal right to run for re-election -- denying the people of Illinois the ultimate decision? Does Burris have to agree to some sort of personal loyalty to Reid on key issues? Does he have to help raise money for the Democrat's campaign committee? Just what is there to negotiate?
First there is the refusal to seat the new Illinois senator. Then Reid is found rejecting all the other likely black candidates in a behind-the-scenes chat with none other than the toxic Governor Rod Blagojevich. Now he wants to "negotiate" a deal if Burris has any chance of winning his approval.
Perhaps it is Reid who should be booted from the Senate.
In referring to the chaos he generated by summarily rejecting the duly and legally appointed replacement for President-elect Barack Obama, Reid opened the door to seating appointee Roland Burris by saying ... here goes ... saying "there's always room to negotiate".WHAT???
That's right! The one time trial lawyer (<-- Maybe this explains a few things.) said he is willing to "negotiate" the seating of Burris. So ... the sanctimonious hypocrite refused to obey the law so he could "negotiate" something for himself. Isn't that what caused the whole problem in the first place?
What are Reid's terms? That Burris surrender his legal right to run for re-election -- denying the people of Illinois the ultimate decision? Does Burris have to agree to some sort of personal loyalty to Reid on key issues? Does he have to help raise money for the Democrat's campaign committee? Just what is there to negotiate?
First there is the refusal to seat the new Illinois senator. Then Reid is found rejecting all the other likely black candidates in a behind-the-scenes chat with none other than the toxic Governor Rod Blagojevich. Now he wants to "negotiate" a deal if Burris has any chance of winning his approval.
Perhaps it is Reid who should be booted from the Senate.
OP ED: Obama is getting it right ... and the left is feeling left out
President-elect Barack Obama is off to a pretty good start. I know this – if for no other reason – because the so-c
alled progressive (<-- read that archliberal) radio gabbers are apoplectic. Just as the far right feared, the far left believed that Obama was a radical leftist who would initiate some sort of “age of socialism” by personal edict – a communist Camelot, if you will. The left wingers chose to forget that Obama (with Mayor Daley, left) was the product of old time corrupt Chicago politics. In doing so, they overlooked the fact that politically, the Democrat machine of his political upbringing is a bit right of center. Also, Obama and his people (the Chicago crowd) know that his legacy depends on being a centrist President. If he wants to be remembered for more than the first half black guy to work out of the Oval Office, he has to have accomplishments. Starting class warfare is not going to do the trick.
So, what has happened since Election Day that keeps my conservative anxiety in check?
First, his appointments have been pretty good … considering. Most of the Cabinet picks are moderates who have been hanging around Washington bars since the Clinton administration, waiting for the next meal ticket. Obama has won praise from such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and televangelist Pat Robertson (right). Who would have thought?
His team of economic advisors, who will be the vanguard in setting down the economic recovery
plan, are mostly free market guys. None have a history of supporting systemic socialism. America’s leading capitalist, Steve Forbes (left), gives the team pretty high marks. That’s good enough for me.
Obama has already let it be known that he will most likely not reverse the Bush temporary tax cuts as the progressives believed he would. They assumed that this was a slam dunk on day one. Instead, Obama has decided to allow those tax cuts to run their course. The left is clinging to a hope that when the cuts run out in 2010, Obama will let them die. I say … don’t be so sure.
The difference between his view and Bush’s view of the various corporate bailout schemes is negligible – though in this case, I think they are both wrong. Nonetheless, Obama is in the political mainstream of the moment on this.
Though he opposed getting into the Iraq war, Obama has proven himself to be quite malleable on the strategies to end it. He is not a cut and run appeasement guy. There is a general consensus that a phased pull out will occur. Bush, Obama and the Iraq government seem to be in general agreement on the timing.
On the other hand, Obama favors a kick-ass build up in Afghanistan. The fact that he is keeping both General David Patraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in place seems to suggest that there will be no dramatic change in the conduct of the war on terrorism. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a very high priority for the President-elect.
When not focusing on the economy and the war, Obama took time to assure the gun owners of America that he is “no enemy of the Second Amendment.” He stated his belief in the right of gun ownership with responsible regulation – a view closer to the National Rifle Association than the Brady Bunch (<-- referring to the Jim Brady, who was wounded alongside President Reagan and whose wife is our nation’s number one gun grabber). I recall hearing the squeals of disbelief and disappointment on (hot) Air America when Obama joined John McCain for a polite debate hosted by conservative Pastor Rick Warren (seen being embraced by Obama -- literally and figuratively), of the
Saddleback mega church. Now … Obama has passed over all those other reverends in his past life, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Pfleger, to have Reverend Warren provide the historic invocation.
Because of Warren’s opposition to gay marriage, the gay rights leaders are all a twitter over his selection. They feel betrayed. Hellooooooo. While mostly avoiding the issue -- but when pressed -- Obama was squarely in the ranks of those opposing gay marriage. He is not likely to jump on board the stupid anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, but he will not be out there pushing for gay weddings. Mostly he leaves that up to the several states – a good position constitutionally and politically.
Now, I am sure that Obama is going to give me a lot of reasons to toss a shoe or two in his direction over the course of the next four or eight years, but so far I am not even untying them.
alled progressive (<-- read that archliberal) radio gabbers are apoplectic. Just as the far right feared, the far left believed that Obama was a radical leftist who would initiate some sort of “age of socialism” by personal edict – a communist Camelot, if you will. The left wingers chose to forget that Obama (with Mayor Daley, left) was the product of old time corrupt Chicago politics. In doing so, they overlooked the fact that politically, the Democrat machine of his political upbringing is a bit right of center. Also, Obama and his people (the Chicago crowd) know that his legacy depends on being a centrist President. If he wants to be remembered for more than the first half black guy to work out of the Oval Office, he has to have accomplishments. Starting class warfare is not going to do the trick.So, what has happened since Election Day that keeps my conservative anxiety in check?
First, his appointments have been pretty good … considering. Most of the Cabinet picks are moderates who have been hanging around Washington bars since the Clinton administration, waiting for the next meal ticket. Obama has won praise from such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and televangelist Pat Robertson (right). Who would have thought?
His team of economic advisors, who will be the vanguard in setting down the economic recovery
plan, are mostly free market guys. None have a history of supporting systemic socialism. America’s leading capitalist, Steve Forbes (left), gives the team pretty high marks. That’s good enough for me.Obama has already let it be known that he will most likely not reverse the Bush temporary tax cuts as the progressives believed he would. They assumed that this was a slam dunk on day one. Instead, Obama has decided to allow those tax cuts to run their course. The left is clinging to a hope that when the cuts run out in 2010, Obama will let them die. I say … don’t be so sure.
The difference between his view and Bush’s view of the various corporate bailout schemes is negligible – though in this case, I think they are both wrong. Nonetheless, Obama is in the political mainstream of the moment on this.
Though he opposed getting into the Iraq war, Obama has proven himself to be quite malleable on the strategies to end it. He is not a cut and run appeasement guy. There is a general consensus that a phased pull out will occur. Bush, Obama and the Iraq government seem to be in general agreement on the timing.
On the other hand, Obama favors a kick-ass build up in Afghanistan. The fact that he is keeping both General David Patraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in place seems to suggest that there will be no dramatic change in the conduct of the war on terrorism. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a very high priority for the President-elect.
When not focusing on the economy and the war, Obama took time to assure the gun owners of America that he is “no enemy of the Second Amendment.” He stated his belief in the right of gun ownership with responsible regulation – a view closer to the National Rifle Association than the Brady Bunch (<-- referring to the Jim Brady, who was wounded alongside President Reagan and whose wife is our nation’s number one gun grabber). I recall hearing the squeals of disbelief and disappointment on (hot) Air America when Obama joined John McCain for a polite debate hosted by conservative Pastor Rick Warren (seen being embraced by Obama -- literally and figuratively), of the
Saddleback mega church. Now … Obama has passed over all those other reverends in his past life, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Pfleger, to have Reverend Warren provide the historic invocation.Because of Warren’s opposition to gay marriage, the gay rights leaders are all a twitter over his selection. They feel betrayed. Hellooooooo. While mostly avoiding the issue -- but when pressed -- Obama was squarely in the ranks of those opposing gay marriage. He is not likely to jump on board the stupid anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, but he will not be out there pushing for gay weddings. Mostly he leaves that up to the several states – a good position constitutionally and politically.
Now, I am sure that Obama is going to give me a lot of reasons to toss a shoe or two in his direction over the course of the next four or eight years, but so far I am not even untying them.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
OBSERVATION: Irony within tragedy.
It was reported that Danny Platt (right), of New Orleans, killed his two year old son because he didn't want to pay court ordered child support. I mean, you can't just go around killing your kid because he is an economic inconvience, right? Unless, of course, you call it an abortion. Maybe Platt just saw this as sort of a late term abortion -- just a little later than most. The point is ... once you start devaluing life as a sacred and social treasure to be perserved at almost all costs, you can get a lot of ugly unintended consequences. Killing kids is just not right -- after or before they leave what should be the protective womb of the mother.
REACT: Reid is okay with all white senate.
“How dare he.” That was what I said in a previous blog about the Democrat’s Senate President Harry Reid. My scold was because of his arrogant refusal to seat ANY U.S. senator from Illinois because the appointing 
governor, Rod Blagojevich, is allegedly a crook. Upon the appointment of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, a worthy choice, Reid promised to use the Capitol Hill police to bar the appointee.
Weeeeell. Now it is a double “how dare he.” Seems that Reid actually phoned up the alleged crooked Governor to offer his recommendations for the seat. While he found Tammy Duckworth (the wounded war hero, who lost a congressional election to Rep. Peter Roskum) and Attorney General Lisa Madigan both “acceptable,” he begged Blago not to appoint Congressmen Danny Davis or Jesse Jackson, nor former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones.
Interestingly, both acceptable candidates are white, and all the unacceptable candidates, including the appointee, are black. Apparently Reid misplaced his invitation to the post racial party hosted by Barack Obama.
If Reid was a Republican, I can only image the national media fury he would have caused for thumbing his nose (Well, I guess he is not exactly thumbing his nose in the photo, eh?) at all those African-American candidates.
governor, Rod Blagojevich, is allegedly a crook. Upon the appointment of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, a worthy choice, Reid promised to use the Capitol Hill police to bar the appointee.Weeeeell. Now it is a double “how dare he.” Seems that Reid actually phoned up the alleged crooked Governor to offer his recommendations for the seat. While he found Tammy Duckworth (the wounded war hero, who lost a congressional election to Rep. Peter Roskum) and Attorney General Lisa Madigan both “acceptable,” he begged Blago not to appoint Congressmen Danny Davis or Jesse Jackson, nor former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones.
Interestingly, both acceptable candidates are white, and all the unacceptable candidates, including the appointee, are black. Apparently Reid misplaced his invitation to the post racial party hosted by Barack Obama.
If Reid was a Republican, I can only image the national media fury he would have caused for thumbing his nose (Well, I guess he is not exactly thumbing his nose in the photo, eh?) at all those African-American candidates.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
OBSERVATION: Sitting in judgment in the Senate.
Ok, so the Governor has suffered scandals that clearly bring into question his honesty and integrity – although not convicted of anything, as of yet. The person he would designate to fill the vacant seat in the United States Senate is a scandal-free well known political figure – albeit some say not qualified to hold the office. In such a situation, should the appointee be denied the seat because the person with the appointive power is tainted? Leaders in the Senate seem to think so.
Should the senators simply choose to ignore the law and block the doors of the chamber to prevent the newly appointed senator from entering? I say no.
If it is the legal right of New York Governor David Paterson to make the appointment, then I think Caroline Kennedy has every legal right to serve – regardless of my personal opinion of the appointee. Its a no brainer.
AND ... THEREFORE ... ERGO ... THUS ...
The same is true for Roland Burris – who, on his worst day, has more integrity than quite a number of sitting senators who are addressed as “the honorable” and commonly characterized as serving “with distinction.”
Should the senators simply choose to ignore the law and block the doors of the chamber to prevent the newly appointed senator from entering? I say no.
If it is the legal right of New York Governor David Paterson to make the appointment, then I think Caroline Kennedy has every legal right to serve – regardless of my personal opinion of the appointee. Its a no brainer.
AND ... THEREFORE ... ERGO ... THUS ...
The same is true for Roland Burris – who, on his worst day, has more integrity than quite a number of sitting senators who are addressed as “the honorable” and commonly characterized as serving “with distinction.”
Friday, January 02, 2009
REACT: White's blocking of a black is not a black and white issue.
Jesse White (below left) has been a pretty good Illinois Secretary of State, by most measure, but in the matter of the appointment of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris as the replacement for President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, the guy made a bad call – a very bad call.
Basically, it is the job of the Secretary of State to file the paperwork when the Governor exercises his exclusive constitutional authority to make an appointment, as in the case of Obama’s replacement.
For reasons that can only be described as personal or political, White announced that he would refuse to sign off on the paperwork in order to block the appointment. Nowhere in the Illinois Constitution is there a provision granting the Secretary of State a check on gubernatorial appointments – and well there should not be.
In refusing to file the paperwork, White is violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and usurping the authority of not only this flawed governor, but potentially all future governors. It is a dangerous precedent.
In the interest of the public and the republic, let’s hope that the Illinois Supreme Court will swiftly order White to do his administrative job and file the paperwork.
This has nothing to do with the allegations against the Governor, or his dismal level of popularity. It has everything to do with the rules that must stand firm against arbitrary disobedience. It is often said, we are a nation governed by laws and not by the whim of men. Which is it to be?
Basically, it is the job of the Secretary of State to file the paperwork when the Governor exercises his exclusive constitutional authority to make an appointment, as in the case of Obama’s replacement.
For reasons that can only be described as personal or political, White announced that he would refuse to sign off on the paperwork in order to block the appointment. Nowhere in the Illinois Constitution is there a provision granting the Secretary of State a check on gubernatorial appointments – and well there should not be.
In refusing to file the paperwork, White is violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and usurping the authority of not only this flawed governor, but potentially all future governors. It is a dangerous precedent.
In the interest of the public and the republic, let’s hope that the Illinois Supreme Court will swiftly order White to do his administrative job and file the paperwork.
This has nothing to do with the allegations against the Governor, or his dismal level of popularity. It has everything to do with the rules that must stand firm against arbitrary disobedience. It is often said, we are a nation governed by laws and not by the whim of men. Which is it to be?
OBSERVATION: Kwanzaa is over ... I mean OVER
As soon-to-be-President Barack Obama leads us into the recently dubbed post-racial era, I am pleased to report that it appears that one of the results of this new age of enlightenment is the slipping way of th
e Kwanzaa pseudo holiday.
That’s right folks. What I noticed this holiday season was something that I didn’t notice. The once ubiquitous Kwanzaa greetings and events seem to have faded from media attention – the first sign that the recently concocted holiday has lost its allure with the politically correct. We can only hope.
The President dropped any acknowledgement of the so-called holiday for the first time in recent years. I hope that Obama will follow this example, but I fear he could bring Kwanzaa back to the White House as an ethnic sop for the segregationists in the African-American community.
While I am sure that I missed a reference or two, I am not aware of any newscaster offering Kwanzaa greetings alongside the Christmas/Hanukkah tributes.
This is a good thing.
Kwanzaa was invented in the mid 1960s by black militant (and part time FBI informer) named Ron Karenga, which he Africanized and intellectualized to Dr. Maulana Karenga. He founded a group called United Slaves, which maybe the first time “slaves” were united since winning the freedom to be un-united by Abraham Lincoln.
The holiday was designed to provide the black community with a celebration to compete with Christmas, notwithstanding that most black folks are Christians.
The sole purpose of Kwanzaa was to coalesce the black community in opposition to the white community. Its unstated function was to resist assimilation. It is nothing less than a celebration of strident racism camouflaged as faux religious celebration.
This is not like the Martin Luther King holiday, which recognizes and honors the good work a person in the struggle for equality and justice. Quite the opposite. Kwanzaa is an artificial holiday that perpetuates de facto segregation.
It is particular offensive because it makes no pretense of any historic validation. It has no more relevancy to historic events or traditions than Walt Disney’s “All Dogs go to Heaven” is a theological documentary. The neo traditions, symbols, rituals, costumes and music of Kwanzaa are just random scraps of African lore stitched together in a patchwork of meaningless ritual.
I say … let’s forget Kwanzaa and save the next Afro-centric American holiday for Barack Obama’s birthday. I can see that one coming … and at least it is something we can all celebrate together.
e Kwanzaa pseudo holiday.That’s right folks. What I noticed this holiday season was something that I didn’t notice. The once ubiquitous Kwanzaa greetings and events seem to have faded from media attention – the first sign that the recently concocted holiday has lost its allure with the politically correct. We can only hope.
The President dropped any acknowledgement of the so-called holiday for the first time in recent years. I hope that Obama will follow this example, but I fear he could bring Kwanzaa back to the White House as an ethnic sop for the segregationists in the African-American community.
While I am sure that I missed a reference or two, I am not aware of any newscaster offering Kwanzaa greetings alongside the Christmas/Hanukkah tributes.
This is a good thing.
Kwanzaa was invented in the mid 1960s by black militant (and part time FBI informer) named Ron Karenga, which he Africanized and intellectualized to Dr. Maulana Karenga. He founded a group called United Slaves, which maybe the first time “slaves” were united since winning the freedom to be un-united by Abraham Lincoln.
The holiday was designed to provide the black community with a celebration to compete with Christmas, notwithstanding that most black folks are Christians.
The sole purpose of Kwanzaa was to coalesce the black community in opposition to the white community. Its unstated function was to resist assimilation. It is nothing less than a celebration of strident racism camouflaged as faux religious celebration.
This is not like the Martin Luther King holiday, which recognizes and honors the good work a person in the struggle for equality and justice. Quite the opposite. Kwanzaa is an artificial holiday that perpetuates de facto segregation.
It is particular offensive because it makes no pretense of any historic validation. It has no more relevancy to historic events or traditions than Walt Disney’s “All Dogs go to Heaven” is a theological documentary. The neo traditions, symbols, rituals, costumes and music of Kwanzaa are just random scraps of African lore stitched together in a patchwork of meaningless ritual.
I say … let’s forget Kwanzaa and save the next Afro-centric American holiday for Barack Obama’s birthday. I can see that one coming … and at least it is something we can all celebrate together.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
OP ED: Blago trumps critics with Burris appointment
I am no fan of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (left in target). In making the appointment for the Obama senate seat, however, Blago has proven that his adversaries have a tiger by the tail.
In a demonstration of testicular virility, the Guv has shown his unabated authority to appoint a new senator. In doing so, he selected an African-American with a distinguished public service record unsullied by scandal -- a person of impeccable credentials -- Roland Burris (right)
(You may recall that in my December 15th blog, I suggested that Blago go ahead and appoint a senator -- a person of impeccable reputation --as he is legally authorized to do. I proposed former school board honcho, George Munoz, but Blago was in the same spirit with the Burris appointment.)
Given the failure of the Illinois legislature to pass a special election bill, Blago had every right – maybe duty -- to exercise his authority. Like it or not, he IS the governor. More importantly, he made a good choice.
Allowing the Governor to make the selection means we play by the rules. Though I am sure I would like a more conservative senator, I do not believe in gerry-rigging the rules for contemporary political convenience or advantage. The appointment of Burris is no effrontery to the electorate since they already rejected my opinion and gave the Senate seat to a black liberal Democrat.
In making his move, the Governor has befuddled his critics, however.
He gave the Republicans yet another opportunity to continue there largely irrelevant role as the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as they attempt to smear the reputations of Lt. Governor Patrick Quinn and now Roland Burris. The GOP wants to change the rules in favor of an expensive election only for the slim opportunity that they could somehow overcome their institutional ineptitude and actually win a statewide contest.
The appointment appears to have put Governor-in-Waiting Quinn over the edge. His near
hysterical press conference made him look more like a deranged political assassin than the calm and responsible heir apparent. His constant reference to “what the people want” was both gratuitous and unsubstantiated. We govern by rules, not personal opinion.
Furthermore, Quinn’s unqualified assertion that the Governor will be impeached and convicted by mid-February smacks of arrogance and does further disservice to the legislature’s impeachment hearings by undermining any impression of fairness.
So crazed is the Democrat leadership that the otherwise level-headed Secretary of State Jesse
White is opting to violate his oath of office, requiring that he uphold the law, by politically refusing to advance the necessary paperwork for the appointment.
The Illinois legislature, having botched a timely bill for a special election and now making the impeachment process look like a kangaroo court, is looking impotent in the face of the Governor’s persistence in acting like he IS the Governor.
Then there is U.S. Senate President Harry Reid, refusing to seat any person appointed by Blago.
How dare he! Who is he to say that the people of Illinois are not entitled to representation? Burris should be judged on HIS character and qualifications, not on the ethical lapses of the Governor.
And is Reid prepared to give away the only African-American seat in the entire United States Senate? Where does Obama come down on that one?
All of the aforementioned characters are being stampeded by a major media that is encourage this lynch mob mentality. The once condemned "guilt by association" is now the centerpiece of their campaign against Burris.
Collectively, Blagojevich’s critics have done something virtually impossible. They have set off a wave of public sympathy for the Governor. The Governor has exercised his legal right. Roland Burris is an exemplary choice. We claim that the “rule of law” is pre-eminent. Let’s prove it and send Burris to Washington.
In a demonstration of testicular virility, the Guv has shown his unabated authority to appoint a new senator. In doing so, he selected an African-American with a distinguished public service record unsullied by scandal -- a person of impeccable credentials -- Roland Burris (right)
(You may recall that in my December 15th blog, I suggested that Blago go ahead and appoint a senator -- a person of impeccable reputation --as he is legally authorized to do. I proposed former school board honcho, George Munoz, but Blago was in the same spirit with the Burris appointment.)
Given the failure of the Illinois legislature to pass a special election bill, Blago had every right – maybe duty -- to exercise his authority. Like it or not, he IS the governor. More importantly, he made a good choice.
Allowing the Governor to make the selection means we play by the rules. Though I am sure I would like a more conservative senator, I do not believe in gerry-rigging the rules for contemporary political convenience or advantage. The appointment of Burris is no effrontery to the electorate since they already rejected my opinion and gave the Senate seat to a black liberal Democrat.
In making his move, the Governor has befuddled his critics, however.
He gave the Republicans yet another opportunity to continue there largely irrelevant role as the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as they attempt to smear the reputations of Lt. Governor Patrick Quinn and now Roland Burris. The GOP wants to change the rules in favor of an expensive election only for the slim opportunity that they could somehow overcome their institutional ineptitude and actually win a statewide contest.
The appointment appears to have put Governor-in-Waiting Quinn over the edge. His near
hysterical press conference made him look more like a deranged political assassin than the calm and responsible heir apparent. His constant reference to “what the people want” was both gratuitous and unsubstantiated. We govern by rules, not personal opinion.Furthermore, Quinn’s unqualified assertion that the Governor will be impeached and convicted by mid-February smacks of arrogance and does further disservice to the legislature’s impeachment hearings by undermining any impression of fairness.
So crazed is the Democrat leadership that the otherwise level-headed Secretary of State Jesse
White is opting to violate his oath of office, requiring that he uphold the law, by politically refusing to advance the necessary paperwork for the appointment.The Illinois legislature, having botched a timely bill for a special election and now making the impeachment process look like a kangaroo court, is looking impotent in the face of the Governor’s persistence in acting like he IS the Governor.
Then there is U.S. Senate President Harry Reid, refusing to seat any person appointed by Blago.
How dare he! Who is he to say that the people of Illinois are not entitled to representation? Burris should be judged on HIS character and qualifications, not on the ethical lapses of the Governor.And is Reid prepared to give away the only African-American seat in the entire United States Senate? Where does Obama come down on that one?
All of the aforementioned characters are being stampeded by a major media that is encourage this lynch mob mentality. The once condemned "guilt by association" is now the centerpiece of their campaign against Burris.
Collectively, Blagojevich’s critics have done something virtually impossible. They have set off a wave of public sympathy for the Governor. The Governor has exercised his legal right. Roland Burris is an exemplary choice. We claim that the “rule of law” is pre-eminent. Let’s prove it and send Burris to Washington.
Monday, December 15, 2008
SUGGESTION: Appoint the senator aleady.
For the most part, I tend to support Republican positions on most issues – but by far not all the time. The selection of Senator Replacement to fill the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama is one of those exceptions.
Oh! I know w
hy the GOP wants a costly election. They have a good chance of winning the seat. That is exactly why the Dems are now against an election. They could lose it. The cost of the election has nothing … nada … to do with the Democrat’s desire to keep it as an appointment.
Now … as a taxpayer, I DO care about the cost of an election. All things being equal, I suppose I would be happy to cough up my money to give the people a choice. However, there are two other things that put me on the side of an appointment.
First, it is the long standing rule that the governor appoints. As much as I personally would like to see a more conservative senator take the seat, I hate when the politicians change the rules to game the system. If it were not for Governor Rod Blagojevich being escorted from his home in handcuffs, there would be no question as to the proper procedure – a gubernatorial appointment.
Now, I know my stand on principle will not get me that conservative senator I desire, but there is another consideration. The voters of Illinois – contrary to my advice – did elect a Democrat, and a liberal one at that. It is not a disservice to the electorate to have the Democrat governor name Democrat colleague – and one who might even do him so political good. (This does not mean I endorse auctioning off the seat for hard cold cash. No. No. No.)
I really do not care if the appointment is made by Governor Slammerbound or Governor-In-Waiting Patrick Quinn, if he should step into Blago’s teeny shoes. In either case, let the merits of the person appointed stand on their own.
And that brings me to one of the Democrats leading loose cannons, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He has announced that no senator appointed by Blago will be seated. To underscore his determination, Reid had 49 of his Democrat colleagues repeat this in an open letter.
How dare Reid! Who in the hell does he think he is to say that the people of Illinois are not entitled to representation unless he personally approves. Anyone appointed to that seat should be judged on HIS or HER character and qualifications, not on the ethical lapses of the Governor.
Fr
ankly, if I were Blagojevich, I would forget about all those conniving to get the appointment and appoint an outstanding individual. Just as an example, what if he appointed former School Board President George Munoz (left) – or a person of that caliber?** Would any one dare to say it is a bad appointment? I think not. Would Reid & Co. dare to reject such a distinguished and qualified candidate? On what basis?
Hmmmm. Now that I said it out loud, the Munoz appointment would be outstanding -- and may serve the Governor well in the long run. Naming a Hispanic has not only political pluses, but if he wants to get some friends on an eventual jury, this could do the trick. There will undoubtedly be some Hispanics on the jury. Of course, Governor/jail bird George Ryan tried to influence the jury pool by emptying death row of the mostly black inmates – but it didn’t work. Sure the connection between appointing a Hispanic senator and locking in an acquittal vote in some eventual jury is a very long shot, but given Blago’s situation, long shots are all he has.
At any rate … I think the Governor should shove it down that arrogant Reid’s throat and make the senate appointment ASAP. And if he gets tossed out before he can, then Governor Quinn should make the appointment as his first official act. I am sure both Blago and Quinn have a pretty good idea who they will name by now.
** For those who do not know him … not only was Munoz an outstanding school board president, but he went on to be Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of the Treasury and then President and Chief Executive Officer of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. He holds advance degrees in law, public policy and economics.
Oh! I know w
hy the GOP wants a costly election. They have a good chance of winning the seat. That is exactly why the Dems are now against an election. They could lose it. The cost of the election has nothing … nada … to do with the Democrat’s desire to keep it as an appointment.Now … as a taxpayer, I DO care about the cost of an election. All things being equal, I suppose I would be happy to cough up my money to give the people a choice. However, there are two other things that put me on the side of an appointment.
First, it is the long standing rule that the governor appoints. As much as I personally would like to see a more conservative senator take the seat, I hate when the politicians change the rules to game the system. If it were not for Governor Rod Blagojevich being escorted from his home in handcuffs, there would be no question as to the proper procedure – a gubernatorial appointment.
Now, I know my stand on principle will not get me that conservative senator I desire, but there is another consideration. The voters of Illinois – contrary to my advice – did elect a Democrat, and a liberal one at that. It is not a disservice to the electorate to have the Democrat governor name Democrat colleague – and one who might even do him so political good. (This does not mean I endorse auctioning off the seat for hard cold cash. No. No. No.)
I really do not care if the appointment is made by Governor Slammerbound or Governor-In-Waiting Patrick Quinn, if he should step into Blago’s teeny shoes. In either case, let the merits of the person appointed stand on their own.
And that brings me to one of the Democrats leading loose cannons, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He has announced that no senator appointed by Blago will be seated. To underscore his determination, Reid had 49 of his Democrat colleagues repeat this in an open letter.
How dare Reid! Who in the hell does he think he is to say that the people of Illinois are not entitled to representation unless he personally approves. Anyone appointed to that seat should be judged on HIS or HER character and qualifications, not on the ethical lapses of the Governor.
Fr
ankly, if I were Blagojevich, I would forget about all those conniving to get the appointment and appoint an outstanding individual. Just as an example, what if he appointed former School Board President George Munoz (left) – or a person of that caliber?** Would any one dare to say it is a bad appointment? I think not. Would Reid & Co. dare to reject such a distinguished and qualified candidate? On what basis?Hmmmm. Now that I said it out loud, the Munoz appointment would be outstanding -- and may serve the Governor well in the long run. Naming a Hispanic has not only political pluses, but if he wants to get some friends on an eventual jury, this could do the trick. There will undoubtedly be some Hispanics on the jury. Of course, Governor/jail bird George Ryan tried to influence the jury pool by emptying death row of the mostly black inmates – but it didn’t work. Sure the connection between appointing a Hispanic senator and locking in an acquittal vote in some eventual jury is a very long shot, but given Blago’s situation, long shots are all he has.
At any rate … I think the Governor should shove it down that arrogant Reid’s throat and make the senate appointment ASAP. And if he gets tossed out before he can, then Governor Quinn should make the appointment as his first official act. I am sure both Blago and Quinn have a pretty good idea who they will name by now.
** For those who do not know him … not only was Munoz an outstanding school board president, but he went on to be Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of the Treasury and then President and Chief Executive Officer of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. He holds advance degrees in law, public policy and economics.
REACT: Obama's seat up for grabs.
There is no doubt that the stunning arrest and indictment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has the Democrats reeling. For a moment, they almost forget who they are.
You will recall that in the moments following U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference, donkey party leaders from Chicago, Springfield and the nation’s capital starting calling for a
special election to avoid having the ethically compromised governor appoint the successor to the now sacrosanct Barack Obama seat in the U.S. Senate.
Weeeell … it was not long before they recovered enough to realize the shock of their own action. The leaders of the power-at-all-cost party actually proposed that the citizens of the Land of Lincoln be given a choice. This led them to further realize that the power players would lose the chance to hand pick the next senator. No guarantee the people would pick a black person. No guarantee it would be a political insider. No political benefits (and certianly no cash) for the person or persons making the appointment. Oh my God! No guarantee that the next senator would even be … A DEMOCRAT!
Well, as the aftershocks of “stupid governor-gate” diminished, and more traditional thinking was
restored, the same Democrat leaders did a quick one-eighty and decided that the new senator should be appointed by the Blagojevich successor – Lt. Governor Patrick Quinn.
Since Quinn’s rise to the governorship is in the hands of the Madigan family – Michael the Impeacher (right, hugging Blago) or Lisa the Litigator (left) – it is reasonable to guess that the price of promotion may be letting the Madigans pick the senator. Maybe cash is no long the quid for the political pro quo in Illinois, but that does not mean that old fashion horse
trading is dead.
The Dem new spin is that an election will be costly. True enough, but democracy in Illinois does not come cheap -- whether above board or under the table. And since when has the expense of ANYTHING bothered this tax-and-steal crowd? After all, they are the biggest OPM** abusers of all time – funding their habit out of the public treasury.
I guess there is some perverse comfort in knowing that our elected leaders have returned to some semblance of normalcy. You know … if it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey, it is still a Democrat.
** Other People’s Money
You will recall that in the moments following U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference, donkey party leaders from Chicago, Springfield and the nation’s capital starting calling for a
special election to avoid having the ethically compromised governor appoint the successor to the now sacrosanct Barack Obama seat in the U.S. Senate.Weeeell … it was not long before they recovered enough to realize the shock of their own action. The leaders of the power-at-all-cost party actually proposed that the citizens of the Land of Lincoln be given a choice. This led them to further realize that the power players would lose the chance to hand pick the next senator. No guarantee the people would pick a black person. No guarantee it would be a political insider. No political benefits (and certianly no cash) for the person or persons making the appointment. Oh my God! No guarantee that the next senator would even be … A DEMOCRAT!
Well, as the aftershocks of “stupid governor-gate” diminished, and more traditional thinking was
restored, the same Democrat leaders did a quick one-eighty and decided that the new senator should be appointed by the Blagojevich successor – Lt. Governor Patrick Quinn.Since Quinn’s rise to the governorship is in the hands of the Madigan family – Michael the Impeacher (right, hugging Blago) or Lisa the Litigator (left) – it is reasonable to guess that the price of promotion may be letting the Madigans pick the senator. Maybe cash is no long the quid for the political pro quo in Illinois, but that does not mean that old fashion horse
trading is dead.The Dem new spin is that an election will be costly. True enough, but democracy in Illinois does not come cheap -- whether above board or under the table. And since when has the expense of ANYTHING bothered this tax-and-steal crowd? After all, they are the biggest OPM** abusers of all time – funding their habit out of the public treasury.
I guess there is some perverse comfort in knowing that our elected leaders have returned to some semblance of normalcy. You know … if it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey, it is still a Democrat.
** Other People’s Money
Thursday, December 11, 2008
OBSERVATION: Global warming cooling off??
Amid all the election news coverage and the unending sagas of political scandals, there has been an unreported story. Seems like the theory of man-made, carbon-caused global warming has been put on the terminally ill list. That’s right. Even as activists and politicians posing as scientists (did the n
ame Al Gore come to mind?) are continuing their increasingly incredible scare tactics, it appears Mother Nature is not being very cooperative. Global thermometers have not risen since 1998. In fact, they have taken a dive in recent years. The earth seems to be cooling down. All over the world cold records are being broken.
Ignoring fact and science, global warming has continued to be a politically popular issue with know-it-all environmentalists and pandering politicians. But now with the worldwide economies cooling down, there is some rethinking goinh on about the climate issue. Most of the nations suffering from the pandemic recession are suddenly of the opinion that reducing man-made carbon emissions will exacerbate the economic crisis. Soooo … for the world leaders, money is now the number one green issue.
The problem is that the scary theories of contemporary scientists sound really well-informed and well-grounded – that is, until they go flatter than the pre-Eratosthenes earth.**
The developing nations, especially China, want the developed nations to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars annually to underwrite their carbon cutting programs. Fat chance of that happening. The industrial nations are back to burning coal and investing in traditional power generation.
To justify all this change of heart, there is now a growing chorus of scientists warning of global cooling – a mini ice age. The are getting the politicians ears these days. We had a similar cooling earth panic in the 1970s. This means that I already have lived through one mini-ice age, global warming and maybe soon another mini ice age. And you wonder why I am cynical when the Chicken Little’s in white lab coats start publishing papers promoting their pet apocalyptic prophesies.
What can you do as an individual to address climate change? Buy a parka.
** I thought you might be wondering. Eratosthenes was a Greek mathematician who proved that the earth was round a couple hundred years before the birth of Christ. For the next two millennia – give or take a couple hundred years -- this fact was kept secret from the peasants of Europe by a powerful cabal of politicians, scientists and church leaders. Sound familiar?
ame Al Gore come to mind?) are continuing their increasingly incredible scare tactics, it appears Mother Nature is not being very cooperative. Global thermometers have not risen since 1998. In fact, they have taken a dive in recent years. The earth seems to be cooling down. All over the world cold records are being broken.Ignoring fact and science, global warming has continued to be a politically popular issue with know-it-all environmentalists and pandering politicians. But now with the worldwide economies cooling down, there is some rethinking goinh on about the climate issue. Most of the nations suffering from the pandemic recession are suddenly of the opinion that reducing man-made carbon emissions will exacerbate the economic crisis. Soooo … for the world leaders, money is now the number one green issue.
The problem is that the scary theories of contemporary scientists sound really well-informed and well-grounded – that is, until they go flatter than the pre-Eratosthenes earth.**
The developing nations, especially China, want the developed nations to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars annually to underwrite their carbon cutting programs. Fat chance of that happening. The industrial nations are back to burning coal and investing in traditional power generation.
To justify all this change of heart, there is now a growing chorus of scientists warning of global cooling – a mini ice age. The are getting the politicians ears these days. We had a similar cooling earth panic in the 1970s. This means that I already have lived through one mini-ice age, global warming and maybe soon another mini ice age. And you wonder why I am cynical when the Chicken Little’s in white lab coats start publishing papers promoting their pet apocalyptic prophesies.
What can you do as an individual to address climate change? Buy a parka.
** I thought you might be wondering. Eratosthenes was a Greek mathematician who proved that the earth was round a couple hundred years before the birth of Christ. For the next two millennia – give or take a couple hundred years -- this fact was kept secret from the peasants of Europe by a powerful cabal of politicians, scientists and church leaders. Sound familiar?
OBSERVATION: Finally an issue worthy of getting behind
When you mix voodoo science with political correctness, you get some really funny stuff. Well … it would be really funny if it did not cost us taxpayer so much money to underwrite the foolishness. I often refer to the extreme environmentalists as being a bit … you know … anal. Little did I know how apt a description that might be.
Case in point.
Seems like our bureau
crats over at the Environmental Protection Agency are prepared to protect us from yet another imagined assault on our air quality. They are attempting to declare the farting of farm animals to be air pollution. (<-- If you want to read that again to see if it said what you think it said, be my guest).
To control the problem, they propose that farmers pay a fee for each cow, for example. (There is always money behind these crazy ideas, isn’t there?) The average dairy farmer could get hit with a $30,000 to $40,000 annual cost – which you would pay as an increase to the price of milk and cheese.
Can you believe that our bureaucrats have actually devised a scheme to tax farts? Can a levee on poop be far behind (no pun intended)?
One wonders where this slippery slope will find its nadir. Sure … the government can impose a “passing gas tax” on farm animals, but what about pets and free-range animals. Will they be allowed to indiscriminately foul our air? Maybe a ten buck tax on every four-legged pet. Five bucks on parakeets if we can prove they fart. As far as free-range animals, I am not sure what can be done. They pay no taxes and have no owners to foot the bill for them. Planned extinction seems to be the only remedy. After all, if they can't be taxed, what good are they?
Then there is the whole human issue. Because of certain legumes and the unique consumption of beer, man is among the more prodigious of the earth’s farters. I suppose we can’t make it outright illegal to fart, but maybe we can allow farting only in designated areas where the noxious expellant can be captured and properly disposed of. In other words, no farting out of doors or in the public commons.
If this seems a bit extreme, keep in mind that we currently do not allow people to go pooping anywhere they please like a bunch of Neanderthals. We have a designated area where "the noxious expellant can be captured and properly disposed of" -- the euphamistically designated "bathroom."
If you are a smoker/farter in this brave new world, I am not sure where you can go. Since farts are technically flammable, one should not fart in the presence of people with lighted matches anyway. I am sure the good people at the EPA will promulgate some regulations on that danger.
To pay for all this, we will need to have a head – or, better said -- a butt tax on every person. Individual public farting could be addressed with civil citations like traffic tickets. Police would be equipped with sniffing machines to nab the sneaky silent farters.
Thinking of the laws that require dog owners to clean up after their pets, can the civic-minded folks take individual responsibility by inhaling their own farts? Hmmm. Bad idea. But … maybe some genius will come up with a personal collection devise – on the principle of the pet poop pick-up products.
There is always the opportunity to reduce the consumption of fart producing foods by aggressive taxation. This would put the price of pinto beans beyond Rusian caviar.
In all likelihood, some of our left-wing city councils will follow the tradition they established for cigarettes and atomic bombs by declaring their communities to be fart-free zones without the foggiest idea of how to implement such a restriction.
On the global level, we might see the creation of fart credits. Nations with high fart producing diets would have to purchase fart credits from starving nations. While this might be a hardship on the Hispanic world and parts of Asia – not to mention the American fast-food industry -- it would help the undeveloped and under nourished nations of central Africa get more money for
their leaders to embezzle.
This could be the next major scientific panic-the-public project – “global browning,” if you will.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I am sure resting easier knowing there are people in Washington protecting my a__ … uh ... protecting me FROM my ass. And, I applaud these dedicated environmentalists who have made their personal contribution to finding a solution to the threat of anal asphyxiation by inserting their heads up theirs.
Case in point.
Seems like our bureau
crats over at the Environmental Protection Agency are prepared to protect us from yet another imagined assault on our air quality. They are attempting to declare the farting of farm animals to be air pollution. (<-- If you want to read that again to see if it said what you think it said, be my guest).To control the problem, they propose that farmers pay a fee for each cow, for example. (There is always money behind these crazy ideas, isn’t there?) The average dairy farmer could get hit with a $30,000 to $40,000 annual cost – which you would pay as an increase to the price of milk and cheese.
Can you believe that our bureaucrats have actually devised a scheme to tax farts? Can a levee on poop be far behind (no pun intended)?
One wonders where this slippery slope will find its nadir. Sure … the government can impose a “passing gas tax” on farm animals, but what about pets and free-range animals. Will they be allowed to indiscriminately foul our air? Maybe a ten buck tax on every four-legged pet. Five bucks on parakeets if we can prove they fart. As far as free-range animals, I am not sure what can be done. They pay no taxes and have no owners to foot the bill for them. Planned extinction seems to be the only remedy. After all, if they can't be taxed, what good are they?
Then there is the whole human issue. Because of certain legumes and the unique consumption of beer, man is among the more prodigious of the earth’s farters. I suppose we can’t make it outright illegal to fart, but maybe we can allow farting only in designated areas where the noxious expellant can be captured and properly disposed of. In other words, no farting out of doors or in the public commons.
If this seems a bit extreme, keep in mind that we currently do not allow people to go pooping anywhere they please like a bunch of Neanderthals. We have a designated area where "the noxious expellant can be captured and properly disposed of" -- the euphamistically designated "bathroom."
If you are a smoker/farter in this brave new world, I am not sure where you can go. Since farts are technically flammable, one should not fart in the presence of people with lighted matches anyway. I am sure the good people at the EPA will promulgate some regulations on that danger.
To pay for all this, we will need to have a head – or, better said -- a butt tax on every person. Individual public farting could be addressed with civil citations like traffic tickets. Police would be equipped with sniffing machines to nab the sneaky silent farters.
Thinking of the laws that require dog owners to clean up after their pets, can the civic-minded folks take individual responsibility by inhaling their own farts? Hmmm. Bad idea. But … maybe some genius will come up with a personal collection devise – on the principle of the pet poop pick-up products.
There is always the opportunity to reduce the consumption of fart producing foods by aggressive taxation. This would put the price of pinto beans beyond Rusian caviar.
In all likelihood, some of our left-wing city councils will follow the tradition they established for cigarettes and atomic bombs by declaring their communities to be fart-free zones without the foggiest idea of how to implement such a restriction.
On the global level, we might see the creation of fart credits. Nations with high fart producing diets would have to purchase fart credits from starving nations. While this might be a hardship on the Hispanic world and parts of Asia – not to mention the American fast-food industry -- it would help the undeveloped and under nourished nations of central Africa get more money for
their leaders to embezzle.This could be the next major scientific panic-the-public project – “global browning,” if you will.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I am sure resting easier knowing there are people in Washington protecting my a__ … uh ... protecting me FROM my ass. And, I applaud these dedicated environmentalists who have made their personal contribution to finding a solution to the threat of anal asphyxiation by inserting their heads up theirs.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
OBSERVATION: Smiling all the way to the White House
As a long time political consultant and advisor (no, I was not the guy how suggested that Lincoln take an evening off and go to the theater), I have come to the conclusion that one of the most 
important factors in a successful candidacy is rarely analyzed in the post-election punditry. Sure, we get all kinds of thoughtful opinions on issues and strategies, but not much on one of the biggest factors -- likeability. Yeah. Likeability. Frankly, I think it is more important than issues and strategies -- although they play a role.
We often use the word "like" when we mean prefer. I preferred John McCain, but Icannot say I liked him. In fact, I did not like him very much at all from the first time I met him privately in person.
Does anyone doubt that Barack Obama was more likeable than the strident and intense Hillary Clinton or the grumpy and testy McCain. You can disagree with Obama on issues, and even wonder about his dubious past associations, but it is damn near impossible not to like him. It also extends to his family. They look like a magazine advertisement for Better Homes and Gardens.
One of the reasons Obama could score high on the likeability scale is that he is a non-scary black guy. This is the reason those other black presidential candidates -- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm -- did not fare so well. Can you imagine ... President Jesse Jackson? It would be a cross between Halloween and April Fool's Day.
Then there is that smile. Obama has the best presidential smile since Dwight Eisenhower – who was so likeable that his campaign slogan was simply "I like Ike." Ike was the first president to make the smile a political asset. Most of his predecessors posed for portraits or photographs with haughty seriousness. I mean ... have you ever seen a smile on Thomas
Jefferson or a clear look at George Washington's fabled wooden teeth? I recall a photo of Abraham Lincoln with a slight grin, and Franklin Roosevelt sometimes held his fancy cigarette holder clenched between his upturned lips, but grins don't count. You have to show teeth.
If you project the likeability factor across the political spectrum, you can see why the GOP took a drubbing. Can you name the Republicans who are just plain likeable? Oh sure, Ronald Reagan, but he's dead. (But can you ever forget that smile?) Issues/shmissues. If the GOP hopes to do better next time, they need to find likeable candidates with big ear-to-ear smiles.
important factors in a successful candidacy is rarely analyzed in the post-election punditry. Sure, we get all kinds of thoughtful opinions on issues and strategies, but not much on one of the biggest factors -- likeability. Yeah. Likeability. Frankly, I think it is more important than issues and strategies -- although they play a role.We often use the word "like" when we mean prefer. I preferred John McCain, but Icannot say I liked him. In fact, I did not like him very much at all from the first time I met him privately in person.
Does anyone doubt that Barack Obama was more likeable than the strident and intense Hillary Clinton or the grumpy and testy McCain. You can disagree with Obama on issues, and even wonder about his dubious past associations, but it is damn near impossible not to like him. It also extends to his family. They look like a magazine advertisement for Better Homes and Gardens.
One of the reasons Obama could score high on the likeability scale is that he is a non-scary black guy. This is the reason those other black presidential candidates -- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm -- did not fare so well. Can you imagine ... President Jesse Jackson? It would be a cross between Halloween and April Fool's Day.
Then there is that smile. Obama has the best presidential smile since Dwight Eisenhower – who was so likeable that his campaign slogan was simply "I like Ike." Ike was the first president to make the smile a political asset. Most of his predecessors posed for portraits or photographs with haughty seriousness. I mean ... have you ever seen a smile on Thomas
Jefferson or a clear look at George Washington's fabled wooden teeth? I recall a photo of Abraham Lincoln with a slight grin, and Franklin Roosevelt sometimes held his fancy cigarette holder clenched between his upturned lips, but grins don't count. You have to show teeth.If you project the likeability factor across the political spectrum, you can see why the GOP took a drubbing. Can you name the Republicans who are just plain likeable? Oh sure, Ronald Reagan, but he's dead. (But can you ever forget that smile?) Issues/shmissues. If the GOP hopes to do better next time, they need to find likeable candidates with big ear-to-ear smiles.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
OPINION: Conservatism never made it past the primaries.
In the musical 1776, there is a scene in which John Adams, frustrated by seeming lack of support for his 
independence proposals, enters the empty assembly chamber and sings his lament with these opening lines.
Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?
He then continues to sing of his vision of a free America.
Those of you who believe in the basic conservative values, and who have looked to the Republican Party to represent your cause, must share the feelings of John Adams at this moment. I sure do.
The GOP leadership abandoned our values for a cheap imitation of the Democrat big government agenda. Instead if offering an alternative to the historically oppressive and failed policies of statism, the party of Lincoln and Reagan has offered up an inferior brand. Lyndon Johnson's butter and guns policy that ravaged our economy for a score of years was revisited with avengence in the Bush adminsitration -- running the national debt through the stratosphere. The appitite of Republican legislators for earmarked pork was on par with any liberal Democrat. Under the weight of reckless greed, the economy tanked. The conservative standard bearers all fell in the primaries -- essentially removing the conservative agenda from the general election. Yes! McCain was too much like a Bush third term.
In this campaign season, the Democrats offered the people a better life, and the hope of a rescue from the ravages of an economy mismanaged by the Republicans’ abandonment of conservative monetary and fiscal policies. The fact that the Democrats were only offering a stronger dose of the same toxic snake oil did not matter. I looked like change … and gave hope. They offered something. The Republicans offered nothing.
In times of fear, it is not uncommon for people to surrender freedom for a sense of security, false as it maybe. We have seen this in times of war -- Lincoln suspends habeas corpus, Roosevelt inters innocent Japanese-Americans and Bush signs the falsely named Patriot Act. This is equally true in times of economic fear. Against every warning and admonition of the Founding Fathers, we entrust government to take care of us.
With the Democrats in full control of our national government, we can expect to see the creeping plague of socialism spreading further in the body politic. Even before the election, and with the compliance of thoughtless Republican leadership, we have seen the banks partially nationalized. Almost a trillion taxpayer dollars appropriated to take control of the national economic tiller from the steady hand of the free market – ergo the people – in favor of the oppressive hand of a government cabal.
In this election, the Democrats claimed the credit for rescuing the people from a burning house, never to reveal that they were the arsonists who set the blaze originally. The witless Republicans willingly provided some of the fuel in a moment of irrationality.
In listening to the excuses and rationalizations of so many GOP leaders, one has to conclude that nothing has been learned. Some see resurrection through the same failed policies of the past. Many call on the party to be even more like the Democrats, and further abandon the conservative principles. For their own self interest, they arrogantly point the finger of blame at those of us who prefer an alternative to the Democrats’ liberal tax, spend and control policies – not the poor quality imitation.
Conservatism did not fail in this election because it was never on the ballot. What failed was mock liberalism offered up by a second rate party with a philosophically corrupted leadership. The old guard has become the very old guard.
Conservatives lack an effective political vehicle to offer the alternative to liberal Democrat “big brother” government. We must either take over the Republican Party or find a new platform … a new party. One of the other – but not the divisiveness of trying to do both.
I think the party of Lincoln and Reagan is the best means for many reasons, but we cannot allow the America of John Adams to be lost by the additional incompetence of even conservative leaders and believers. If we blame the Republican leaders for discarding our conservative values and policies, and surrending the election to the Democrats, then we must look at the failure of the conservative leaders within the party to keep the GOP agenda on the right rightward course.
Newt Gingrich mobilized a nation behind a positive conservative platform in his "Contract with America." Ronald Reagan was super salesman of conservaitve ideology. Where are those kind of leaders now? Perhaps it is good that the current GOP establishment has been decimated by the Democrat sweep. There now is a vacuum. It will be filled by either the clones of the vanquished Republican establishment, or the political descendents of John Adams and Ronald Reagan. The future of America rests in the balance.
I wonder … does any one see what I see?
independence proposals, enters the empty assembly chamber and sings his lament with these opening lines.Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?
He then continues to sing of his vision of a free America.
Those of you who believe in the basic conservative values, and who have looked to the Republican Party to represent your cause, must share the feelings of John Adams at this moment. I sure do.
The GOP leadership abandoned our values for a cheap imitation of the Democrat big government agenda. Instead if offering an alternative to the historically oppressive and failed policies of statism, the party of Lincoln and Reagan has offered up an inferior brand. Lyndon Johnson's butter and guns policy that ravaged our economy for a score of years was revisited with avengence in the Bush adminsitration -- running the national debt through the stratosphere. The appitite of Republican legislators for earmarked pork was on par with any liberal Democrat. Under the weight of reckless greed, the economy tanked. The conservative standard bearers all fell in the primaries -- essentially removing the conservative agenda from the general election. Yes! McCain was too much like a Bush third term.
In this campaign season, the Democrats offered the people a better life, and the hope of a rescue from the ravages of an economy mismanaged by the Republicans’ abandonment of conservative monetary and fiscal policies. The fact that the Democrats were only offering a stronger dose of the same toxic snake oil did not matter. I looked like change … and gave hope. They offered something. The Republicans offered nothing.
In times of fear, it is not uncommon for people to surrender freedom for a sense of security, false as it maybe. We have seen this in times of war -- Lincoln suspends habeas corpus, Roosevelt inters innocent Japanese-Americans and Bush signs the falsely named Patriot Act. This is equally true in times of economic fear. Against every warning and admonition of the Founding Fathers, we entrust government to take care of us.
With the Democrats in full control of our national government, we can expect to see the creeping plague of socialism spreading further in the body politic. Even before the election, and with the compliance of thoughtless Republican leadership, we have seen the banks partially nationalized. Almost a trillion taxpayer dollars appropriated to take control of the national economic tiller from the steady hand of the free market – ergo the people – in favor of the oppressive hand of a government cabal.
In this election, the Democrats claimed the credit for rescuing the people from a burning house, never to reveal that they were the arsonists who set the blaze originally. The witless Republicans willingly provided some of the fuel in a moment of irrationality.
In listening to the excuses and rationalizations of so many GOP leaders, one has to conclude that nothing has been learned. Some see resurrection through the same failed policies of the past. Many call on the party to be even more like the Democrats, and further abandon the conservative principles. For their own self interest, they arrogantly point the finger of blame at those of us who prefer an alternative to the Democrats’ liberal tax, spend and control policies – not the poor quality imitation.
Conservatism did not fail in this election because it was never on the ballot. What failed was mock liberalism offered up by a second rate party with a philosophically corrupted leadership. The old guard has become the very old guard.
Conservatives lack an effective political vehicle to offer the alternative to liberal Democrat “big brother” government. We must either take over the Republican Party or find a new platform … a new party. One of the other – but not the divisiveness of trying to do both.
I think the party of Lincoln and Reagan is the best means for many reasons, but we cannot allow the America of John Adams to be lost by the additional incompetence of even conservative leaders and believers. If we blame the Republican leaders for discarding our conservative values and policies, and surrending the election to the Democrats, then we must look at the failure of the conservative leaders within the party to keep the GOP agenda on the right rightward course.
Newt Gingrich mobilized a nation behind a positive conservative platform in his "Contract with America." Ronald Reagan was super salesman of conservaitve ideology. Where are those kind of leaders now? Perhaps it is good that the current GOP establishment has been decimated by the Democrat sweep. There now is a vacuum. It will be filled by either the clones of the vanquished Republican establishment, or the political descendents of John Adams and Ronald Reagan. The future of America rests in the balance.
I wonder … does any one see what I see?
Saturday, November 08, 2008
OBSERVATION: Looking forward to the Chicago Olympics
Not considering the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, I felt pretty safe in predicting early on that Chicago will not get awarded the 2016 Olympics. My! My! How things can change.
If President Obama puts in a major effort, as he said he would and I have no doubt he will, then the odds change dramatically. When this decision is made next year, Obama will be at the peak of popularity as an international leader and personality. Other heads-of-state, who would have no reason to support the American bid under war-monger Bush or his look-alike successor, can be persuaded to gain points with the new leader of the free world by supporting the Olympic bid.jpg)
through their representative on the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
With ties to Africa, Asia and the Middle East, Obama is arguably the most international President we have since our English-bred founders. Most certainly, a number of national representatives on the liberal leaning IOC will find it appealing to indirectly endorse the election of America’s first African-American (with an Arabic name, no less) to hold the Oval Office. The OIC will like the image of President Barack Obama cutting the ribbon at the opening ceremonies.
Obama helps the Chicago bid in other ways. Chicago’s shortcomings in infrastructure will be quickly corrected by an infusion of federal dollars. If Obama removes U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the rising tide of indictments would likely crest before reaching the fifth floor of City Hall. Political leadership in Chicago will again be “stable.”
While any President may want the Olympics, Obama has the strongest motivation to put this higher up on his priority list. No only will he be lobbying on behalf of his country, but for the benefit of his home town – and the political machine that got him where he is today.
Another Obama advantage is taming the civic wolves. A lot of civic organizations, largely minority groups led by local community organizers, have already fired warnings across the bow of the local Olympic support committee. Civil unrest is never attractive to the IOC. Once their beloved Obama endorses the plan, these voices of opposition will fall silent.
From no chance, Obama, in my view, has transformed Chicago into the city to beat for the Olympics.
If President Obama puts in a major effort, as he said he would and I have no doubt he will, then the odds change dramatically. When this decision is made next year, Obama will be at the peak of popularity as an international leader and personality. Other heads-of-state, who would have no reason to support the American bid under war-monger Bush or his look-alike successor, can be persuaded to gain points with the new leader of the free world by supporting the Olympic bid
.jpg)
through their representative on the International Olympic Committee (IOC).With ties to Africa, Asia and the Middle East, Obama is arguably the most international President we have since our English-bred founders. Most certainly, a number of national representatives on the liberal leaning IOC will find it appealing to indirectly endorse the election of America’s first African-American (with an Arabic name, no less) to hold the Oval Office. The OIC will like the image of President Barack Obama cutting the ribbon at the opening ceremonies.
Obama helps the Chicago bid in other ways. Chicago’s shortcomings in infrastructure will be quickly corrected by an infusion of federal dollars. If Obama removes U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the rising tide of indictments would likely crest before reaching the fifth floor of City Hall. Political leadership in Chicago will again be “stable.”
While any President may want the Olympics, Obama has the strongest motivation to put this higher up on his priority list. No only will he be lobbying on behalf of his country, but for the benefit of his home town – and the political machine that got him where he is today.
Another Obama advantage is taming the civic wolves. A lot of civic organizations, largely minority groups led by local community organizers, have already fired warnings across the bow of the local Olympic support committee. Civil unrest is never attractive to the IOC. Once their beloved Obama endorses the plan, these voices of opposition will fall silent.
From no chance, Obama, in my view, has transformed Chicago into the city to beat for the Olympics.
OBSERVATION: How to spell Obama? D-A-V-I-D- A-X-E-L-R-O-D
When looking at the making of the president 2008, the most important single factor has been largely overlooked or under appreciated by the press. David Axelrod.
Sure, he has appeared on a few interview programs and taken the podium at some press conferences, but for a guy in his position, he has maintained a surprisingly low profile -- at least before Election Day. That is the Axelrod style.
As political consultants in the same Chicago political arena for many years, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have had modest association with him on various campaign trials. I have known him, and of him, since he was a reporter. We have been counterpoints on any number of talk shows. Can’t say I know him well personally, but I do know him professionally.
David is probably the most determined and aggressive political guru in America, but he has almost no desire to be a celebrity in his own right. He keeps his total focus on his clients, and he has impressive ones – Mayor Daley, Bill Clinton and a number of leading Democrat candidates across the country. He does not confuse celebrity with success, as many political advisors do.
I would argue against anyone who says that Barack Obama could have made it to the White House without David. Frankly, without David, I think Obama would still be a community-based activist. Don’t get me wrong. Obama is brilliant, articulate and ambitious, and he brings a lot of natural candidate talent to the table -- but so do a lot of other people.
Obama is a great raw product, but with many distasteful features. David is the genius who could not only package and sell Obama by highlighting and playing on his strong points, but who to make the other products unpalatable by comparison.
I never thought Obama could make it to the White House without a major crises and an inept opponent (and he got both). He has run for office four times. With more ambition than brains, he took on Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush in a Democrat primary. He didn’t win against this seasoned and savvy opponent, but he did get noticed. Lowering his sights, Obama went for the Illinois State Senate. Rather than risk a competent opponent, Obama, with the help of the fabled Chicago Democrat machine, used aggressive technical challenges -- and the cooperation of machine election officials -- to remove all his opponents form the ballot -- including the incumbent. He ran unopposed.
His jump to the U.S. Senate was a bold endeavor for a neophyte state legislator. Again, it was ambition over brains, but this time he got lucky. He signed up David Axelrod. Then he got even luckier. The hapless Illinois GOP first floundered with millionaire businessman Jack Ryan, a worthy opponent until it was revealed that he and his movie star wife (Jeri Ryan) had visited sex clubs in New York and Paris.
The Republicans, in an effort to advance their reputation as the stupid party, imported conservative gadfly Alan Keyes, a kooky black perennial presidential candidate. After only a couple undistinguished years in the Senate, Obama succumbed to the siren call of the presidency. Again it as a precocious move – challenging the all but certain nomination of Hillary Clinton. This time Obama was facing real competition, but he got lucky again. The Early primaries featured a bunch of moderate white candidates to divide up the vote – leaving Obama with a unified black/progressive core.
Once he secured the nomination, he was just another unelectable Democrat … unless … unless there was some seismic political event or the GOP opponent screwed up. Again, he was lucky. Instead of “or,” Obama got “and.” The economy tanked at just the right time – as the Republicans were experiencing the beginning of a post-election surge. AND … the Republicans offered up maverick John McCain, who proceeded to run one of the worse campaigns in American history.
But, what about David Axelrod?
NONE of this would have gotten Obama elected had it not been for the genius of Axelrod. Conversely, I am convinced David would have guided Clinton to the Oval Office had he accepted her invitation to be part of the Clinton team, as he was in the past.
No defection cost Clinton more than David Axelrod. David IS strategy. You hire him, you get the Axelrod method -- and a winning one it is. The Clinton campaign should have made him an offer he could not refuse. The decision to let him go doomed her candidacy, as it turned out.
David never believed in the conventional political wisdom that you do not respond to negative attacks. In fact, David takes the position that no attack, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should go unchallenged. Without this aggressive and effective strategy of refutation, Obama’s candidacy would have sunk early on under the weight of mini-scandals, questionable associations, a cloudy, if not shady, past and a political philosophy far too liberal for mainstream America.
Rather than allow his past to be discovered by others, like his one time opponent, Jack Ryan, Obama laid out most of it in his books. As the political jargon goes, he “inoculated” against criticism. This is classic Axelrod.
David knew that to become the President, Obama had to look and sound presidential. Orating like Jesse Jackson was a kiss of death. Obama's Harvard education and artidulation were natural tools. David created and controlled the visual and verbal imagery. He treated Obama like an actor, and he, David, would show him how to play the part of President of the United States. The clothes, the staging, the photos, the gestures, the oratory. All very carefully crafted and scripted.
Just as important as David’s craftsmanship was Obama’s willingness to stick to the script. He played the part to perfection. In an amazing turn-about, the first black candidate for the presidency actually looked, acted and sounded more presidential than the classic gray-haired white guy.
More than any consultant I know, David understands the issue of credibility. Having taught college-level course in credibility, and having invented a credibility management concept, I have always been in awe of David. He never took one of my courses, but he is a natural. He knows, that if you destroy an opponents credibility, there is nothing they can say or do to convince the public of anything.
If you look at the Obama campaign through the credibility lens, you can see how the campaign used every possible technique to strip first Hillary Clinton, then McCain, and finally the whole Republican Party, or their credibility. Every time McCain changed his mind, or said something that seemed at odds with an earlier statement, the Obama campaign trumpeted it. These “inconsistencies” were then elevated to lies. McCain lies. Palin lies. Bush lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Republican = lies.
The success of this strategy was even more impressive since McCain came into this campaign aboard the “straight talk express.” HE was the straight talker. HE was the man good as his word. HE was the tell-it-like-it-is guy. Thanks to Axelrod, the straight talk express got derailed, and McCain limped into town with the reputation of a snake oil salesman -- or more specifically, the third term of the unpopular George Bush. With the very credibility of the Repbulican brand damaged, Obama's every word became gospel and McCain could say nothing believeable to the electorate.
David also has a great talent for generating discipline. Rarely will one see a campaign were the entire team worked so well together. Through his own example, David was able to get the team to set aside the usual political differences and prima donna attitudes and focus on two things -- candidate and message.
Wherever Axelrod lands in the coming months – White House aide, outside consultant – he will play a major role in guiding the entire Democrat ship as its guru-in-chief. He will be the strategy connection between his President, the Democrat National Committee, and the Senate and house campaign committees. He will be issuing the guidelines to the state parties and candidates. David could well be the most powerful political figure in America next to President Obama. He is the personification of the Chicago machine coming to Washington. He is Karl Rove on steroids.
Just you watch.
Sure, he has appeared on a few interview programs and taken the podium at some press conferences, but for a guy in his position, he has maintained a surprisingly low profile -- at least before Election Day. That is the Axelrod style.
As political consultants in the same Chicago political arena for many years, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have had modest association with him on various campaign trials. I have known him, and of him, since he was a reporter. We have been counterpoints on any number of talk shows. Can’t say I know him well personally, but I do know him professionally.
David is probably the most determined and aggressive political guru in America, but he has almost no desire to be a celebrity in his own right. He keeps his total focus on his clients, and he has impressive ones – Mayor Daley, Bill Clinton and a number of leading Democrat candidates across the country. He does not confuse celebrity with success, as many political advisors do.
I would argue against anyone who says that Barack Obama could have made it to the White House without David. Frankly, without David, I think Obama would still be a community-based activist. Don’t get me wrong. Obama is brilliant, articulate and ambitious, and he brings a lot of natural candidate talent to the table -- but so do a lot of other people.
Obama is a great raw product, but with many distasteful features. David is the genius who could not only package and sell Obama by highlighting and playing on his strong points, but who to make the other products unpalatable by comparison.
I never thought Obama could make it to the White House without a major crises and an inept opponent (and he got both). He has run for office four times. With more ambition than brains, he took on Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush in a Democrat primary. He didn’t win against this seasoned and savvy opponent, but he did get noticed. Lowering his sights, Obama went for the Illinois State Senate. Rather than risk a competent opponent, Obama, with the help of the fabled Chicago Democrat machine, used aggressive technical challenges -- and the cooperation of machine election officials -- to remove all his opponents form the ballot -- including the incumbent. He ran unopposed.
His jump to the U.S. Senate was a bold endeavor for a neophyte state legislator. Again, it was ambition over brains, but this time he got lucky. He signed up David Axelrod. Then he got even luckier. The hapless Illinois GOP first floundered with millionaire businessman Jack Ryan, a worthy opponent until it was revealed that he and his movie star wife (Jeri Ryan) had visited sex clubs in New York and Paris.
The Republicans, in an effort to advance their reputation as the stupid party, imported conservative gadfly Alan Keyes, a kooky black perennial presidential candidate. After only a couple undistinguished years in the Senate, Obama succumbed to the siren call of the presidency. Again it as a precocious move – challenging the all but certain nomination of Hillary Clinton. This time Obama was facing real competition, but he got lucky again. The Early primaries featured a bunch of moderate white candidates to divide up the vote – leaving Obama with a unified black/progressive core.
Once he secured the nomination, he was just another unelectable Democrat … unless … unless there was some seismic political event or the GOP opponent screwed up. Again, he was lucky. Instead of “or,” Obama got “and.” The economy tanked at just the right time – as the Republicans were experiencing the beginning of a post-election surge. AND … the Republicans offered up maverick John McCain, who proceeded to run one of the worse campaigns in American history.
But, what about David Axelrod?
NONE of this would have gotten Obama elected had it not been for the genius of Axelrod. Conversely, I am convinced David would have guided Clinton to the Oval Office had he accepted her invitation to be part of the Clinton team, as he was in the past.
No defection cost Clinton more than David Axelrod. David IS strategy. You hire him, you get the Axelrod method -- and a winning one it is. The Clinton campaign should have made him an offer he could not refuse. The decision to let him go doomed her candidacy, as it turned out.
David never believed in the conventional political wisdom that you do not respond to negative attacks. In fact, David takes the position that no attack, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should go unchallenged. Without this aggressive and effective strategy of refutation, Obama’s candidacy would have sunk early on under the weight of mini-scandals, questionable associations, a cloudy, if not shady, past and a political philosophy far too liberal for mainstream America.
Rather than allow his past to be discovered by others, like his one time opponent, Jack Ryan, Obama laid out most of it in his books. As the political jargon goes, he “inoculated” against criticism. This is classic Axelrod.
David knew that to become the President, Obama had to look and sound presidential. Orating like Jesse Jackson was a kiss of death. Obama's Harvard education and artidulation were natural tools. David created and controlled the visual and verbal imagery. He treated Obama like an actor, and he, David, would show him how to play the part of President of the United States. The clothes, the staging, the photos, the gestures, the oratory. All very carefully crafted and scripted.
Just as important as David’s craftsmanship was Obama’s willingness to stick to the script. He played the part to perfection. In an amazing turn-about, the first black candidate for the presidency actually looked, acted and sounded more presidential than the classic gray-haired white guy.
More than any consultant I know, David understands the issue of credibility. Having taught college-level course in credibility, and having invented a credibility management concept, I have always been in awe of David. He never took one of my courses, but he is a natural. He knows, that if you destroy an opponents credibility, there is nothing they can say or do to convince the public of anything.
If you look at the Obama campaign through the credibility lens, you can see how the campaign used every possible technique to strip first Hillary Clinton, then McCain, and finally the whole Republican Party, or their credibility. Every time McCain changed his mind, or said something that seemed at odds with an earlier statement, the Obama campaign trumpeted it. These “inconsistencies” were then elevated to lies. McCain lies. Palin lies. Bush lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Republican = lies.
The success of this strategy was even more impressive since McCain came into this campaign aboard the “straight talk express.” HE was the straight talker. HE was the man good as his word. HE was the tell-it-like-it-is guy. Thanks to Axelrod, the straight talk express got derailed, and McCain limped into town with the reputation of a snake oil salesman -- or more specifically, the third term of the unpopular George Bush. With the very credibility of the Repbulican brand damaged, Obama's every word became gospel and McCain could say nothing believeable to the electorate.
David also has a great talent for generating discipline. Rarely will one see a campaign were the entire team worked so well together. Through his own example, David was able to get the team to set aside the usual political differences and prima donna attitudes and focus on two things -- candidate and message.
Wherever Axelrod lands in the coming months – White House aide, outside consultant – he will play a major role in guiding the entire Democrat ship as its guru-in-chief. He will be the strategy connection between his President, the Democrat National Committee, and the Senate and house campaign committees. He will be issuing the guidelines to the state parties and candidates. David could well be the most powerful political figure in America next to President Obama. He is the personification of the Chicago machine coming to Washington. He is Karl Rove on steroids.
Just you watch.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
REACT: Rahm Emanuel -- Beware of dog.
Like all presidential candidates, President-elect Barack Obama promised to reach out to the 
opposition as a bipartisan leader. Well ... his first appointment undermines any hope of that being the case. In picking Rahm Emanuel as his chief-of-staff, Obama has given the second most powerful post in Washington to a strident, brittle take-no-prisoners partisan Democrat. In canine terms, Emanuel has been described as a junk yard dog and a pit bull on steroids. The "yellow dog" Republicans and the "blue dog" Democrats will find themselves facing a fang-bearing "mad dog." With David Axelrod already in the inner inner circle, the appointment of Emanuel will assure America an adminsitration run right out of the hard line Chicago machine play book. (See blog: The Chicago-izing of America).
Some good news ... maybe? The same dogged deterimnation that will give the GOP fits in Washington, will also be felt by world leaders -- which could benefit the United States on the international stage.
More good news? For those who feared (me included) that an Obama administration would tilt more toward the Arab positions in the Middle East, take heart. With a Jewish chief-of-staff (especially this one), and possibly Penny Pritzker in the Cabinet, Obama will have the interests of Israel well represented.
opposition as a bipartisan leader. Well ... his first appointment undermines any hope of that being the case. In picking Rahm Emanuel as his chief-of-staff, Obama has given the second most powerful post in Washington to a strident, brittle take-no-prisoners partisan Democrat. In canine terms, Emanuel has been described as a junk yard dog and a pit bull on steroids. The "yellow dog" Republicans and the "blue dog" Democrats will find themselves facing a fang-bearing "mad dog." With David Axelrod already in the inner inner circle, the appointment of Emanuel will assure America an adminsitration run right out of the hard line Chicago machine play book. (See blog: The Chicago-izing of America).Some good news ... maybe? The same dogged deterimnation that will give the GOP fits in Washington, will also be felt by world leaders -- which could benefit the United States on the international stage.
More good news? For those who feared (me included) that an Obama administration would tilt more toward the Arab positions in the Middle East, take heart. With a Jewish chief-of-staff (especially this one), and possibly Penny Pritzker in the Cabinet, Obama will have the interests of Israel well represented.
AFTERMATH: Please pass the crow.
I spent the better part of a year explaining why Barack Obama was unelectable. I made my prediction despite my longstanding belief that John McCain was the least electable Republican candidate (see blog: Is McCain able?). In terms of Obama, boy, was I wrong. Well ... only partially. I quote from my blog of February 20, 2008:
Okay, I will risk being made the fool. I don’t think Barack Obama can win a general election, short of some catastrophic political event or campaign stupidity that would wipe out McCain. (Hmmm! Perhaps I should not be so bold in my prediction)
Well, Obama was the benefactor of BOTH a "catastrophic political event" and "campaign stupidity" by McCain.
As soon as the economic meltdown reached atomic levels, I surrendered to the notion that Obama was electable (see blog: President Obama? Arrrrrrgh!). In terms of "campaign stupidity," the list of examples is far too long to delineate here -- but you do not have to go much past Sarah Palin to identify self-inflicted mortal political wounds. Yes, Sarah got roughed up by a very biased press, but that still leaves a lot of room for justifiable criticism.
Given the closeness of the popular vote, I stand by my original analysis that Obama could not have been elected without both of the aforementioned conditions. Even the pollsters say the rush to Obama came at the time of the bailout. Oh yeah! The bailout. Major stupidity number two for McCain.
Having
made my excuses, I will now admit that the scope of Obama’s victory was impressive. Even before the polls closed on the west coast, he was already the winner. Since I preferred his opponent without much enthusiasm, I am not overly chagrined by Obama's victory. 
Outside of the black vote, it was pleasant to see that America is not nearly as racially prejudiced as those politically correct liberals like to contend.
Okay, I will risk being made the fool. I don’t think Barack Obama can win a general election, short of some catastrophic political event or campaign stupidity that would wipe out McCain. (Hmmm! Perhaps I should not be so bold in my prediction)
Well, Obama was the benefactor of BOTH a "catastrophic political event" and "campaign stupidity" by McCain.
As soon as the economic meltdown reached atomic levels, I surrendered to the notion that Obama was electable (see blog: President Obama? Arrrrrrgh!). In terms of "campaign stupidity," the list of examples is far too long to delineate here -- but you do not have to go much past Sarah Palin to identify self-inflicted mortal political wounds. Yes, Sarah got roughed up by a very biased press, but that still leaves a lot of room for justifiable criticism.
Given the closeness of the popular vote, I stand by my original analysis that Obama could not have been elected without both of the aforementioned conditions. Even the pollsters say the rush to Obama came at the time of the bailout. Oh yeah! The bailout. Major stupidity number two for McCain.
Having
made my excuses, I will now admit that the scope of Obama’s victory was impressive. Even before the polls closed on the west coast, he was already the winner. Since I preferred his opponent without much enthusiasm, I am not overly chagrined by Obama's victory. 
Outside of the black vote, it was pleasant to see that America is not nearly as racially prejudiced as those politically correct liberals like to contend.
Bottom line ... Obama won ... and I get a serving of humble pie a la crow.
OBSERVATION: Lucky Joe Lieberman.
Seems like most pundits and politicos have placed Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman in the loser column after he jumped party to support his Republican friend and colleague John McCain for President. Not so fast. Methinks we might want to nickname him "Lucky Lieberman."
Though he is officially an Independent, he was part of the Democrat caucus, from whence he derives his seniority and committee assignments. There were a lot of Capitol Hill donkeys braying for his ouster. However, the Dems only had a one vote majority in the Senate, so they tolerated old Joe, and let him have his chairmanships according to his seniority.
You recall ... the reason Joe is an Independent is that the Dems dumped him in their 2006 primary election, only to have him return to the ballot on his own and trounce the anointed candidate.
With the coming of the new and bigger Dem majority, the knives were out again. This was to be their one chance to punish and ostracize the renegade.
Well ... not so fast, again. With the Dems approaching a veto-proof Senate, old Joe's vote could be critical. So, do the Senate jackasses throw him overboard and give more power to the Republicans to stop legislation by filibuster? Or, do they hold their noses, swallow their pride, bite the bullet -- and whatever else they need do -- and let the errant senator keep his seniority and chairmanships?
What to do? What go do?
Though he is officially an Independent, he was part of the Democrat caucus, from whence he derives his seniority and committee assignments. There were a lot of Capitol Hill donkeys braying for his ouster. However, the Dems only had a one vote majority in the Senate, so they tolerated old Joe, and let him have his chairmanships according to his seniority.
You recall ... the reason Joe is an Independent is that the Dems dumped him in their 2006 primary election, only to have him return to the ballot on his own and trounce the anointed candidate.
With the coming of the new and bigger Dem majority, the knives were out again. This was to be their one chance to punish and ostracize the renegade.
Well ... not so fast, again. With the Dems approaching a veto-proof Senate, old Joe's vote could be critical. So, do the Senate jackasses throw him overboard and give more power to the Republicans to stop legislation by filibuster? Or, do they hold their noses, swallow their pride, bite the bullet -- and whatever else they need do -- and let the errant senator keep his seniority and chairmanships?
What to do? What go do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=link}