The Blog to Be Named Later

The Wisdom Post

2012-01-12T22:40:00.001-05:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a discussion of the wisdom of George Walker Bush. This is not so simply that I could write a sentence that has never been written before, but because a particular quote by W fits quite nicely into a discussion of the diminished expectations that people have for this year’s crop of presidential candidates.

Referring once to education policy, President Bush the Dumber once chastised Democrats for the “soft bigotry of soft expectations.” This phrase perfectly describes the apathy voters feel toward this year’s candidates, although I wouldn’t call it bigotry so much as well- deserved contempt.

Republicans currently have the dilemma of choosing a nominee who can defeat President Barack Obama. While former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has led the field and has won the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, lingering suspicion about his conservative bona fides has left many Republicans longing for a realistic alternative. One by one, the other candidates in the race have gotten their moment in the spotlight, and ultimately been found wanting. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum have been scrutinized and then rejected, to one degree or another. Congressman Ron Paul has chugged along, holding on to a base of rabid supporters but seemingly unable to build upon it. Former Utah governor and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman lingers in the race, hoping to catch on or at least avoid joining Bachmann, Cain and Tim Pawlenty on the sidelines.
Recently, I encouraged several New Hampshire residents in my family to consider voting for Jon Huntsman. I did this not as an Obama supporter, but in spite of my desire to see the president re-elected. I continue to believe that Jon Huntsman, should he somehow secure the Republican nomination, would be the most formidable candidate against Obama.

I say this because history teaches us that re-election campaigns are referendums on the incumbent. In the event that an incumbent president is running for re-election but not generating enthusiasm, the task among his campaign team involves winning a war of attrition. Barack Obama and his prospective performance as president is known to the American people, and divided roughly equally between those who find it acceptable and favor a second term and those who do not and prefer a change. The challenge for Obama is to gain those few remaining undecided voters and shore up a lukewarm base. He cannot do this by generating enthusiasm. Many people have complained that Obama is another Bush. Well, to win re-election he needs to be. Like the son, or the father.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush ran for president as a pseudo incumbent president, the supposed heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. The problem is, most of the American public found Bush far less likable and inspiring than Reagan. Polling indicated that on the issues, voters sided with Democrats and in generic polls, indicated a preference to elect a Democratic president. So Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and the rest of the Bush team proceeded to elect their candidate the only way they could: by making his opponent unacceptable to the voting public. The focus of the Bush campaign in 1988 was not to advertise the virtues of George Bush. It was to make Michael Dukakis look like an unpatriotic weirdo who was completely out of step with traditional American values. Never mind that the origin of the “unpatriotic” tag was Dukakis vetoing a bill requiring students to say the pledge of allegiance. Which is illegal, because you can’t require anyone to take an oath of allegiance. Dukakis vetoed the bill not only on constitutional grounds, but to save the public’s money from being wasted on a useless court defense of said bill. So of course we want to forget that part, since Dukakis was a liberal and liberals want to waste your money.
The point is that there were broad strokes to paint Dukakis with, and the substance found in the smaller details couldn’t save him. This is what Obama must do to the Republican nominee, because the substance of his own record can’t get him a second term, since those important details are lost in a larger, largely false narrative that the Democrats have lost control of.

Even if one does not accept the premise that there is a difference in quality between the perception and reality of Obama’s record, there is still a path to victory for him, and in this case, he would follow the pattern of the son, not the father. In 2004, very few Republicans seriously argued for the re-election of George W. Bush. Instead, they argued against the election of Senator John Kerry. The rationale was, “Okay, so Bush isn’t perfect. But he has kept us safe, has kept the terrorists on the run, and anyway, he’s not an effete wishy washy windsurfer.” I’m just kidding, most Republicans couldn’t come up with a turn of phrase like that. Most Republicans couldn’t read a turn of phrase like that. Anyway, they persuaded enough people to buy into that narrative, and forget about all of those other tiny, insignificant details, like starting an unnecessary war by attacking the wrong country, spending billions of dollars occupying Iraq while Afghanistan slipped out of control, shredding the Constitution for the sake of public safety and cutting taxes in wartime for the first time in American history, producing record deficits that burdened an economy already headed toward a historic collapse. You know, the small stuff.

Despite those issues, ultimately George W. owes his re-election to the supremely important and relevant fact that….black people in Ohio are homophobic. Yes, that’s correct. In a time of war, and great expense of treasure and blood, the Republican Party stirred up so much agita about the prospect of gay marriage that Bush’s vote in Ohio inched up enough to provide his margin of victory over Kerry in the state, and therefore the electoral college. Man, for a guy that could barely count, Georgie sure had a lot of success with electoral math. If you don’t believe me, look it up on the internet, brought to you by Al Gore.

If a candidate for the worst president in American history can crawl to re-election to a second term in that office, then apparently, another president who many think fits that description can do the same. This is why the Republican Party should choose as its nominee one Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr.

In the absolute circus that is the Republican primary, one question should be paramount in the minds of Republican voters. Which one of the guys tumbling out of the clown car is the most acceptable alternative to Barack Obama? Or rather, which of them is the least objectionable? Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Ron Paul? No, it’s Mitt Romney. Unless it’s Huntsman. Let’s pretend that these two are culinary dishes. The recipe for both includes: conservative but not an out and out right winger. Calm demeanor. Equitable balance between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Picture perfect family. Mormon. Former governor. The only difference between these two dishes is that when you want to make a Huntsman, you hold the bullshit.

Remember how much Republicans hated Bill Clinton? Then why did they help re-elect him by propping up old Bob Dole onto the ticket? Mitt is a younger Dole, minus the sense of humor. The other wing nuts running this year would have fit in quite well in that race. At the time, the Clinton White House prayed that one candidate wouldn’t catch on. Who? Boring, plaid shirt wearing, unobjectionable Lamar Alexander. Old Lamar didn’t excite anyone, but he would have been the most formidable candidate against the controversial Democratic president because he didn’t bother anyone either. Huntsman presents the same danger to Obama, but the Republican Party probably won’t recognize it. And Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Wait, why am I telling anyone this? Never mind! Go Romney!

The Silence Post

2010-09-02T16:50:00.005-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a possibly futile appeal to reason.

The so called “stimulus bill” has become the whipping boy for every conservative political commentator in this country. The discontent over this measure has trickled down to the average guy, who works harder and earns less, and who doesn’t understand why the government is “pissing his money away.” Americans hear the term “stimulus” and naturally expect some stimulation. It hasn't happened, and people are angry. People are furious. Tea parties are underway.

But is it rational anger? I doubt it. Any time Congress approves a large expenditure, there is always going to be senators and congressmen slipping things into the bill that don’t belong there. I won’t defend that, although some people’s definition of “pork” is either very broad or very misleading.

For instance, this summer two Republican senators, John McCain and Tom Coburn, released a joint report highlighting the most wasteful spending provisions of the stimulus bill. One oft mentioned item is the $54 million that the government gave to the Napa Valley Wine Train. This does not sound like a good use of taxpayer money. The only problem is, the money didn't go to this train and these senators knew it.

Oh, I know, the idea that John McCain would screw up on money matters and do something irrational and reckless is completely out of character. There was $54 million dollars of stimulus money directed to the Napa Valley, but it was appropriated for flood control. It has nothing to do with this wine train, whatever that is, except that apparently the train passes through the area. This is like saying the government wrote me a check for $54 million dollars because I drove on Interstate 95 last week. It sounds outrageous, but it just ain’t so.

Still, there is no doubt that there must be truly wasteful projects slipped into this bill, and that McCain and Coburn have (I hope) an actual point and aren’t completely playing politics with this. And the larger point is inescapable: the stimulus bill isn’t stimulating the economy, right? Surely that’s true, right? Right?

Wrong. The money spent in the stimulus bill has put people back to work and has saved the jobs of millions of people. Is the economy great? Of course not. But think of it this way. Let’s say you fail to take care of yourself. For years, you drink too much, you eat too much, you don’t get any exercise or display any discipline. So you have a major heart attack and you’re rushed to the hospital. At the emergency room, you are revived and stabilized. Then you’re moved to intensive care. Would you try to sit up in bed and claim that the treatment didn’t work? No, of course not. You’re not on your feet again yet, but you’re still alive.

That’s what Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill did. It kept the economy alive. Just like Bush’s Wall Street bailout the previous year. People hated it, but it was medicine. It tasted bad going down, but we needed it. Had it not been enacted, there would have been a catastrophic failure of this economy. You think it’s bad now? Imagine 80% of small businesses in this country out of business because of a lack of available financing. Imagine dozens of Fortune 500 companies out of business. Imagine tens of millions more people out of work and without health insurance. Imagine the overall unemployment rate not at 10%, but at 25%. Imagine a new Great Depression. Yeah, that sounds great. We should have done that. Look, I understand wanting to stick it to the fat cats who caused this situation. But I’m not going to cut my own throat to do it, and I think if people who bitched about the bailout stopped and thought about it, they would come to the same conclusion.

There’s a joke about hurricanes and how they are named. They don’t sound menacing enough, and people fail to take notice. Earl? Sounds like some dumbass coming to town in a pickup truck. Katrina? I knew a German foreign exchange student named Katrina once. She was cute. They need to use names that better convey danger. If you turned on the news, and saw that Hurricane Bad Motherfucker was headed your way, you’d leave town, wouldn’t you?

This is the problem with the stimulus bill. It’s known by the wrong name. It’s not a stimulus bill. It’s a stay afloat bill, chock full of things that we just have to pay for, whether they help the economy flourish or not. Because of political necessity, it was sold as some kind of steroid for the economy that was going to fix everything. And that’s ridiculous. But that’s modern politics. You have to sell things to the American citizen, even legislation, because we have the attention span of a three year old at Chuck E. Cheese. Consequently, we’re all familiar with the stimulus bill, which we hate. And yet, we know nothing about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even though it just saved our collective asses. Guess what? They’re the same thing.

So what did Obama and the Democrats “piss money away” on with this legislation? Well, let’s look at the big ticket items:

-$53 billion in aid to local school districts, preventing teacher layoffs and further cutbacks in education. I don’t know, that sounds important. You’d think that the average mom or dad on Facebook who can’t speak two words without mentioning their kids could get on board with this one.

-$105 billion for infrastructure development, including highways and bridges. Hmm. I don’t know. Yes, it’s true that infrastructure is vital to commerce in this country and helps create jobs both in construction and in the development of new industries. And of course, it’s nice to drive on an interstate bridge without plunging 100 feet to your death as happened to those folks in Minnesota a couple of years ago. Still, I don’t know. Commerce, employment, public safety? Sounds kind of frivolous to me.

-$18 billion for water, sewage and environmental cleanup, including $4.6 billion for flood control. Anybody in Louisiana really want to argue about the need for flood control? If you like, we could just figure out the cost of half a million life preservers and give them out if you’d prefer that. That would be cheaper. No? Okay.

-$25 billion to keep the COBRA program alive for people who have involuntarily lost their jobs. My brother worked in the publishing industry for thirty years. In 2008, he was diagnosed with cancer. A few months later, he was laid off. Ask him if funding COBRA is a good idea. Don’t want to argue that one either? Okay then.

I know what you’re thinking. "He's cherry picking different items to make it sound like this wasn’t a huge, wasteful government program. Surely the most expensive items are not this noble."

And you’re right. Sort of. Because I haven’t mentioned the single biggest expenditure of Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill. Conjure up your worst nightmare, conservatives. Is it comprehensive health care? Welfare? A grant to build mosques on every block in America? No, it’s worse! It’s tax cuts!

“Oh no, tax cuts! Aaaaahhhhh!.....Wait, what? Tax cuts? Really? In Obama’s stimulus bill? And that’s the biggest item in the bill? Come on. “

It’s true. $288 billion in tax cuts.

“Oh, I get it. More tax cuts for the fat cats, for Wall Street, and I get to pay for it.”

Nope. There are billions of dollars for corporate tax credits and reductions, but over 80% of the tax cuts are for individuals. Payroll tax credits, child tax credits, college tax credits, homebuyer tax credits, deduction of sales tax from car purchases, and reduction in personal income taxes.

*Silence*

Yeah, I thought so.

The Stupid Post

2010-07-02T12:53:00.003-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a sad but true fact. The American people don’t know who they are.

See, to understand who you are, you have to know where you came from. You have to know your own story. When somebody says, “Where ya from?” you can’t answer with a blank stare. When someone asks you to tell them about yourself, you can’t simply mention your love for Crocs and mixed martial arts and think that’s a sufficient response. And when a pollster comes up to you, an American citizen, and asks you to name the country that America declared its independence from, you can’t get the answer wrong.

But that is exactly what has happened. In a new poll conducted by Marist College, more than 1 in 4 Americans failed to correctly identify the country from which the United States declared its independence in 1776. To be fair, that means that 74% of Americans can identify Great Britain as the country in question. It also means that based on the current estimate of the U.S. population, no less than 75 million Americans would get the answer wrong.

The results of the survey, when broken down, are essentially an indictment of this country’s educational system. 20% of those surveyed failed to name any country at all, preferring to go with “Unsure” as their answer. Other responses include China, Japan, and Mexico. Yes, that’s correct, we declared our independence from Mexico. As a resident of New England, we frequently have ceremonies commemorating Paul Revere’s midnight ride to warn citizens, “The Mexicans are coming!” Oh wait…

I am particularly happy to see that there are people who think that the United States was once a colony of Japan. That makes perfect sense. I guess when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they were bombing their own people? What, exactly, was the reason that we revolted against Japan? Didn’t like sushi?

Of course, I can understand people thinking that America once belonged to China. They basically own us now, so that’s not such a leap.

We love to roll our eyes about these things. Ha ha, look at the dummy on Leno, getting the question wrong. On some level, it makes us feel better about ourselves. But it shouldn’t. We should each feel worse, because while it’s easy to laugh in the present, history is as much about the future as the past. In The Tempest, Shakespeare said “What’s past is prologue.” Of course, Shakespeare lived in England, and knew nothing of our great revolutionary struggle against…er…uh…hang on, it’ll come to me…

The Red Herring Post

2010-06-01T01:27:00.002-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for a brief rebuttal on a silly issue. There is a tradition of sorts that the President of the United States visits Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day to lay a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Unfortunately, we now have a president who was not born in this country, who has no respect for the military, cares nothing for the troops or their families and would rather spend Memorial Day on vacation rather than honor this nation’s heroes.

Or some would have you believe, anyway. President Obama chose not to attend this year’s ceremonies, opting instead to send the Vice President in his place, and instead took his family back to Chicago for a much delayed visit home. Of course, the burdens of the presidency do not leave the occupant of the office, whether or not he is actually in the office. I don’t think this is primarily a controversy about vacation time. I think most people regard the president, any president, taking a break from work as entirely understandable. The previous occupant of the White House spent 490 days, more than one year of his eight in office, at his ranch in Texas. It was not terribly controversial, except for the perception that this president was disengaged in the summer of 2001 prior to 9/11, and was disinterested and disengaged in the summer of 2005 during Katrina. But the fairness of those charges really should be separate from the question of vacation. I think most people would agree that some time off from one of the toughest jobs in the world is a good idea.

No, the main “issue” seems to be that the president didn’t spend Memorial Day honoring the troops at a ceremony. Which is a great story that seems to indicate that the president really doesn’t have the proper respect for the military.

Except for the fact that it’s not true.

You see, while Arlington is the most famous of our national cemeteries, it is not the only one. It turns out that the president went to Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Illinois for a ceremony there. He then followed that with a trip to the Hines Fisher House at the Edward Hines VA Hospital, where he met with wounded veterans.

Yes, that is outrageous conduct. I can see why people are pissed.

People should be upset, but not at the president. People should be mad at organizations like Fox News, that stir up bullshit stories like this. People should be annoyed at their friends who copy silly stories like this into their Facebook status without checking the facts. And people should be critical of themselves. Why? Because in addition to getting too much of our news from entertainment driven media, we have become far too vulnerable to the impulse to believe anything bad about any public official. Sure, there are bad apples. And there is plenty of good reason to be cynical. But it doesn’t have to be the only reaction we are capable of.

The Reason Post

2010-03-22T20:48:00.005-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later Returns in defense of reason. This is not to say in defense of health care reform, although I reluctantly favor it. More than legislation is under assault today. The American ability to debate issues calmly is in danger of extinction.

This trend is evident in the halls of Congress, on television, on message boards. I am generally of the opinion that Facebook is more enjoyable without politics. What is normally a forum for catching up with friends becomes something of a virtual war zone when politics is mentioned. Yet while I deplore the war, I will not unilaterally disarm.

I readily confess that I am guilty of what I accuse others of. Since last night, when the House of Representatives passed the Senate health care bill, provoking an onslaught of negative commentary from my “friends” on Facebook, I have referred to some of them as “stupid bastards” and posted a quote from scripture that essentially accuses Christians who oppose the charitable functions of this legislation as being hypocrites. However, I am pleased to stand by those remarks. Allow me to explain.

Several weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh announced plans to leave the country if health care reform passed. Although I have offered to help him pack, I am not yet aware of any travel arrangements that Rush has made. Therefore I assume his comment was satirical in nature. I’m not entirely sure what to make of a comment I read on Facebook last night, that perhaps it was now time to “succeed” from the United States. That’s not satirical, it’s just stupid. If you’re going to re-fight the Civil War to avoid giving health care to the poor, then learn what secession is. At least the people who wanted to keep slavery could spell the word.

As for my other remarks, I have no preference for another person’s religious affiliation. The next person I convert will be my first. I’m not even settled on my own religious views. However, because of the nature of my studies, I have become somewhat acquainted with at least the history of religion. I’ve noticed that many of the same people who frequently use Facebook to post requests for prayer, quote scripture and so forth, are the ones furiously typing expletives and complaints in all caps because of the passage of this bill. To these apparently devout Christians, let me offer the following passage: In the book of Mark, Jesus said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Now, I’m no Bible scholar, but that sounds very different from “Why I gotta pay more taxes to the gummint so someone who don’t work gets to go to the doctor? Nuh uh!”

Of course, I realize that you can find a passage in scripture in support of or against pretty much anything, because these words were written by flawed, imperfect human beings. Still, Christianity, as I understand it, is not religion a la carte, where you pick and choose which teaching of Jesus that you happen to like. It is therefore inconsistent and, dare I say, hypocritical, to oppose these reforms solely on that basis after spending months turning your Facebook page into a prayer group. Find another objection. Say we can’t afford it. Say it’s unconstitutional. Fine. You could make a reasonable case for either of those. But please, take a deep breath and type in lower case characters first.

The Free Advice Post

2010-02-17T15:39:00.004-05:00

In the presidential campaign of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was subjected to substantial abuse by his critics. He was called a “mean spirited, low lived fellow…sired by a mulatto father” and it was speculated that if he became president that “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced.”

That is but a short selection of what was said of our third president, and he was not known to have replied to such criticism, understanding that to do so would be to dignify it with a response. Jefferson also well understood the nature of politics and the passion with which people engage in it.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was described in a newspaper as a “grotesque baboon.” Lincoln ignored such commentary, except when he saw fit to make light of his own appearance with self deprecating remarks. He too understood the price of participation.

Throughout American history, presidents and other politicians have been forced to deal with an unrelenting barrage of criticism of their conduct, official and otherwise. They are mocked for their lack of personal charm (Richard Nixon) or their clumsiness (Gerald Ford). Politicians are teased for their deficiencies in spelling (Dan Quayle) or for wearing goofy outfits (Michael Dukakis). Often the criticism focuses on a public figure’s private life (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the list goes on and on). And once in a while, the criticism even centers on the politician’s children.

It is this singularly unfair part of being a public figure that has set you off once again. After taking offense at remarks made by David Letterman last summer, now you’re insulted by an apparent reference to you on the television show Family Guy.

Really, Sarah? Is your epidermis that delicate?

Look, nobody is saying that this sort of behavior is fair or right. But if you’re going to become the President of the United States, then in addition to sending you greetings from my new home in Montreal, could I suggest that you toughen up a bit? You’ve already confessed to a sneaking admiration for Hillary Clinton; you’re going to need to look to her husband for tips on how to handle the big time. Let’s face it: given all the personal drama, the Palin family is the Clinton family in snowshoes. If you’re going to have teen pregnancies, and aborted shotgun weddings, almost relatives posing in Playgirl, then maybe you should give Bill a call and learn how he handled the media pounding that resulted from tawdry behavior and familial black sheep.

I know what you’re thinking, Sarah. “But Clinton brought all that onto himself with his own personal conduct. This is about my children!” I know, the liberal media has no respect for your son or daughter and their right to grow up outside the public eye. This kind of dastardly conduct reminds me of the time someone told a nasty joke about poor Chelsea Clinton at a fundraiser. Oh, wait, that was John McCain that did that.

Anyway, Sarah, you can’t have it both ways. When some right wing group offers you $100,000 and two first class plane tickets to come make a snarky speech attacking President Obama, you can’t say “You Betcha!” and then complain when someone comes after you. You can’t quit your job when the scrutiny is too much and then step back onto the public stage by working for Fox News and expect a free pass. You can’t expect two hundred years of fierce criticism in American politics to pass you by, especially when you partake in that tradition yourself.

After all, Sarah, you know how to solve this problem. Go back to Alaska and stay there. Nobody teases Mike Dukakis anymore, now that he is quietly teaching at Northeastern University. People tend to leave Dan Quayle alone. Even George Walker Bush is granted a modicum of peace and quiet because he has left the stage. If you can take the pounding, by all means, remain in public life. But if not, perhaps you should follow the advice of another oft criticized politician named Harry Truman: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

The Speech Post

2009-09-08T10:57:00.003-04:00

When I was seven years old, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. I remember going to school on a cold New Hampshire January morning and being told we would not have our regular class because we were going to see the presidential inauguration. I wasn't quite sure what an inauguration was, but the idea of watching television at school seemed pretty good to me.

At the time, New Hampshire was a solidly Republican state, and one of the 40 that had gone for Reagan over Carter in the 1980 election. There was no controversy over the idea that kids should listen to a speech by the president, not because New Hampshire was a Republican state, but because it was an American state and this was an American president. It seemed perfectly normal to put the kids in front of the tv in that circumstance.

While New Hampshire in 1981 was a very red state, I lived in a very blue household. The fact that my Dad quietly voted for Ronald Reagan didn't compare to the fervor with which my mother worked for Jimmy Carter's reelection. She voted for every single Democratic nominee from LBJ to Bill Clinton. In her lifetime, she voted for exactly one Republican, for governor of Louisiana in 1991, and only because I was working for him. A more dedicated member of the Democratic Party did not exist. As a small child, I didn't understand the antipathy adults had toward certain political figures. I certainly couldn't grasp the complexities of politics. I only understood that my mother was no fan of Ronald Reagan.

Two months after the inauguration, on March 30, 1981, President Reagan was shot. In the hours that followed the shooting, with no definitive word on the president's condition, I found myself confused by my mother's reaction. Why was she upset? I thought Reagan was "bad"?

When I expressed this opinion, I was told in no uncertain terms that whatever party Reagan belonged to, he was still our president. It was explained to me that while she didn't agree with his policies, he still deserved respect and certainly didn't deserve to be shot.
Looking back, I realize now that it would never have occurred to my mother to keep me home from school in order to prevent me from listening to a speech by President Reagan, or any president. She fiercely guarded my well being. But she was guided by a sense of patriotism, not partisanship.

The Driving Post

2009-08-28T12:02:00.010-04:00

On June 13, 2009, four year old Diya Patel stepped into a crosswalk on Washington Street in Stoughton. As she made her way across the street, accompanied by her grandfather and two siblings, Diya was struck by a Toyota Camry driven by 89 year old Ilse Horn of Canton.

Diya, who was to enter kindergarten this fall, was thrown over 60 feet by the collision. Later, an investigation showed no evidence of pre or post crash emergency braking by the car.

Early the next morning, Diya died at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

What happened on that street in Stoughton is becoming far too common. Across New England and around the country, elderly drivers are causing accidents at an alarming rate. Just four days ago, Officer Michael Davey, a 34 year old veteran and father of three children, was killed when he was struck by a pickup truck driven by a 79 year old man, who now faces charges. This adds to a long list of elderly folks driving cars into crowds, through store fronts and into other cars.

Jacqueline Sorensen, 83, drove her Mustang convertible through the front of a liquor store in Natick, injuring the cashier. What's more out of place here, that you can't work in a store without being hit by a car, or that an 83 year old woman drives a Mustang convertible?

This sort of thing has been going on for far too long because no one has the will to address it. Any proposal of reform is immediately denounced by the AARP as age discrimination.

Age discrimination? Tell that to Diya Patel's family.

It's a question of basic freedom, we are told. Okay. Then try explaining to Michael Davey's children why they are free to grow up without a father.

Look, nobody wants to pick on old people. After all, we're talking about protecting them from harm as well. But we have do something about this. By the year 2025, one in four drivers on the road will be an over the age of 65. Public policy, however, is not going to solve this problem.

For example, here in Massachusetts, the governor is proposing legislation that would require annual driving exams for everyone over the age of 85. That age is too high. Hell, I'm 36 and I can feel my own skills beginning to decline. Why not set it at 65? That is usually the age at which people retire. Is it too much to ask that they take a half day to ensure that their driving skills have not eroded to the point of danger?

But this is really beside the point. The burden, and most of the blame, resides not with elderly folks, many of whom no longer know any better. It's not with the state, which is not the parent of its citizens. It's about the kids. Not the little ones in the crosswalk, but the middle aged children of these elderly people.

In time the child becomes the parent. It is inevitable, it is natural, and it is far more feasible than the government determining whether each individual is fit to drive. I have seen keys taken from senior citizens who were once fiercely independent. It hurts their pride, but it is far less harmful than a head on collision.

The Teddy Post

2009-08-26T12:55:00.002-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for commentary on the news of the day, the passing of Ted Kennedy.

In 1968, at the funeral of Robert Kennedy at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, Senator Edward Kennedy said, "My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death what he was in life." Today, admirers will disregard Teddy's words as they mark his own passing. Detractors will bite their tongues because it lacks grace to denounce the recently deceased. And a great many Americans, disengaged from the world of politics and preoccupied with their own lives, will simply shrug at the news and go about their day.

For forty years, John and Robert Kennedy have, in fact, been idealized, and in a sense that is unfortunate. Not because they are unworthy, but because it's unworthy of them. What John F. Kennedy achieved is far more impressive when he is viewed as a flawed, imperfect human being, much like you and I. His life is more compelling as a person than as some remote idol or icon. President Kennedy is remembered for his youth and vitality. Yet a majority of the days he spent on Earth were ones of severe physical pain. His back was so weak from football and war injuries that he could not lift his children. After his death, aides wrote of Kennedy arriving for a public appearance, painfully making his way into the venue on crutches, agony etched on his face. At the edge of the stage, he would cast the crutches aside and stride confidently onto the stage as if in perfect health.

I suppose that your reaction to that story depends on your point of view. To me, it's a display of courage and triumph over adversity. To others, perhaps, it is an unworthy deception. However it is interpreted, it is nonetheless illuminating, because it's real. Similarly, I vastly prefer the real Robert Kennedy to the two competing images of him that are recorded in history. He was not a villain, he was not a messiah. He evolved during the course of his public life from someone primarily concerned with law and order to someone who was an advocate for the weak and suffering. This process was slow and difficult, and he made mistakes along the way. He was real. He was gifted, and he was flawed.

It is dangerous when a society fails to understand its own history. That is the country in which we live today. This is so partly because a vast majority of Americans live in ignorance of our nation's story and how it fits into the history of the world. Then there are those who read history, but misinterpret it. When public figures pass from the scene, as Ted Kennedy did today, it is important to see past the idolatry of the media, but also to disregard the whispered criticism, and find the middle ground in between, where some semblance of the truth resides.

Edward Kennedy spent more than half his life in the United States Senate, holding his seat from 1962 until last night. That is an enormously long career in public service, yet in some ways that reality is overshadowed, as ever, by the controversies provoked by his private life. That he endured enormous personal tragedy is well known, but perhaps not fully appreciated. It is not "merely" that John and Robert Kennedy were assassinated; Ted Kennedy buried sisters and nephews prematurely, endured his father's stroke and incapacitation, his son's cancer, a plane crash, and finally cancer of his own.

Just as he was defined by tragedy, Kennedy was known for a personal life that was, by all accounts (including his own), not up to the standard one might expect. There were episodes of womanizing and excessive drinking, but of course they all pale to what happened on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.

All of these things obscure the daily grind of Ted Kennedy's life. He was no dilettante, no absentee senator. For forty six years he trudged up Capitol Hill to countless committee and subcommittee meetings. He was the last living symbol of the glory years of the Kennedy family, but there was nothing glamorous about the grind of paperwork and negotiations and drudgery of legislative work.

Why did he do this into his seventh decade? It could not have been ambition. Teddy long ago renounced any notion of the presidency. It wasn't to hold on to his Senate seat. Could he ever have been defeated in Massachusetts? No. He certainly didn't do it because he had to. He need never have worked a day in his life if he chose not to.

I can only conclude that his motives, in this instance, were pure. He wanted to help people. Kennedy was described this morning on NPR as a fine senator and a compassionate human being. I suspect he would be content to be remembered that way.

The Prison Post

2009-08-20T12:14:00.012-04:00

This morning NFL player Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty to a weapons charge and will serve two years in prison. The Blog To Be Named Later returns to ponder the logic, or lack thereof, of sentencing guidelines in this country.

So Plaxico Burress shows up at a nightclub. Instead of hiring a security detail to protect him, he carries a gun. There is no evidence at all that Burress intended to use the gun in the commission of a crime, violent or otherwise. The idiot then proceeds to shoot himself in the leg accidentally. Now’s he is going to jail for two years. For what? Being an idiot?

How does this make sense? There is a shortage of jail space for actual criminals, many of whom get off on technicalities, but we’re going to spend $50,000 over two years to imprison a millionaire football player whose only crime was possessing a gun to protect himself? Yeah, I understand, it was an unregistered gun, he was in a state with strict weapons possession guidelines. Still, where’s the victim here?

Wouldn’t it have been far more productive to impose a stiff fine and use the money to educate people about gun safety? Wouldn’t it be better to give Burress 500 hours of community service and make him an advocate for the issue?

This reminds me of the Martha Stewart case.

In another instance of legal brilliance, Martha Stewart was sent to prison for insider trading because she sold stock to avoid a $45,000 loss. She’s worth $1 billion. The fine she paid? $30,000. Lovely. Let’s have the public spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to try, convict, and imprison a billionaire and then fine her $30,000. Well done.

I have a better idea. Next time Martha commits another victimless crime, let’s try MAKING some money off this deal. You take half of Martha’s money away. That’s $500 million, leaving her with only half a billion. Wah. Then you take that $500 million, and with an average cost of $14.5 million, build 34 schools with the money. Doesn’t that make more sense?

In my home state, former governor Edwin Edwards was sent to prison in 2002. He’s still there. His crime was taking $400,000 from the (then) owner of the San Francisco 49ers in exchange for assistance in getting a casino license in Louisiana. First of all, I’m not sure I see the crime here. Maybe it’s blackmail, or maybe it’s just a straight up business deal. Edwards was no longer governor when this happened. He took money in exchange for a promise to use his political influence to get public officials to do something. That’s called lobbying.

Second, if it is a crime, who’s the victim? DeBartolo, the owner? No. He wanted the deal. Actually, if he’s a victim of anything, it’s being pulled into court to testify, which eventually cost him his team.

The U.S. Attorney in the case identified the victim as the State of Louisiana, because of the damage to its reputation Edwards caused. Excuse me? How the hell do you damage the reputation of Louisiana?!? Is that possible? Consider:

-State Treasurer Edward Burke, who fled to Honduras in the late nineteenth century with $600,000 of the people’s money. (That’s about $130 million in today’s dollars)

-Governor Richard Leche, who famously said, "When I took the oath of office I didn't take any vow of poverty”, and then stole millions of dollars from LSU.

-The three consecutive Insurance Commissioners who went to prison over the last twenty years.

-Louisiana has more federal corruption convictions per person than any state in the country.

-Louisiana citizens elected the former Grand Wizard of the KKK to its state legislature. Later, he went to prison too.

Yeah, it was Edwin Edwards that made Louisiana look bad. Whatever the merits of the Edwards case, in the end the United States Government sent a 75 year old man to prison for ten years for a white collar crime. Instead of taking away an old man’s last few years of life, why not punish him financially and let the poor people of Louisiana benefit? Why not do this with all wealthy individuals convicted of a non-violent crime? Or does that make too much sense?

The Protest Post

2009-08-11T17:52:00.008-04:00

Apparently, August is the silly season for protests. How do you protest the protests?
As Mitch Hedberg once said, “I’m against picketing, but I don’t know how to show it.”

Today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire the President of the United States, or as one advertisement sinisterly put it “Barack Hussein Obama” visited the region to have a town hall meeting about health care reform.

My understanding is that the event itself went okay, and the audience managed to remain civilized, even after the president asked for questions from those who were skeptical about his proposal. Outside, of course, it was a different matter. Police erected rope lines which separated protesters from supporters.
I don’t think it is any secret that I am a supporter. Maybe that disqualifies me from trying to write about this with some measure of reason. I don’t think so, however, and so the Blog To Be Named Later returns with a rebuttal of the signs and comments from today’s event:

#1 – “WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD”
Um, no. I have heard this argument before: "Hey, if our health care system is so bad, how come people from other countries come here for medical treatment?"

Because there is a difference between having the highest quality at the very top, and having overall quality. You wouldn’t say based on the luxury boxes that Fenway Park has the best seats in all of sports. Not when you’re sitting in the grandstand in a seat designed in 1912 designed for a citizen of Lilliput. And to stretch this analogy, what if you’re one of the 50 million people who can’t get in to see the game at all?

The fact is that the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world. If you’re happy with your health care, great. Guess what, under the president’s plan, you get to keep it just the way it is. No, wait, it could be cheaper. Sorry about that.

#2 – “Communism Kills, Freedom Works”
Okay, first of all, the guy holding the sign clearly needs better health care. He’s the best argument for reform I have ever seen. But we’ll take the point straight on. Adding a public option to the health care system is NOT COMMUNISM, IT IS CAPITALISM. It’s called “competition”.

I love how ultra conservatives have these deeply held beliefs that they cling to only until they become inconvenient. Remember devolution? For years Republicans wanted everything decided at the state level. States rights. On all matters. We insist. Wait, not presidential recounts!

#3 – “A Public Health Care Option will drive private insurers out of business”/”A government program will be awful, nobody will want it, and it will just be a big waste of money.”

Okay, fellas. I understand that you’re upset, but you’re going to have to pick an argument here. These are two completely contradictory statements being made by the same group of people. Make up your fucking mind.

#4 “I’ve Changed” – (Obama with Hitler mustache)

Ah, see, now you’ve finally hit on an argument that makes sense! Well done! I happen to be a student of history, and I well remember when Hitler and the Nazis conquered Europe so that they could make sure that everyone had decent health care! Those were the days!

By the way, just as a reference for this guy, Communism is extreme leftism, Fascism is extreme rightism. Obama can’t be both Stalin and Hitler. Again, you guys need to make up your mind which argument you are making.

#5 – “I don’t want the government to choose my doctor”

Oh My God. *slaps palm to forehead*

Please listen to me. Please. Just stop waving your cardboard and stick and listen. Nobody is going to choose your doctor for you. No one is talking about making you change your health care AT ALL IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT. Health care reform is about adding a public option. Let’s break that down. Adding, not subtracting. Option, not mandate. Do you understand that? Or are you just pretending not to?

Here’s another simple analogy for the simple minded. Protesting a public option for health care is very much like going to your favorite restaurant, seeing something new added to the menu, and immediately becoming hysterical because you believe that the hamburger you’ve been ordering for ten years is going to be suddenly taken away by evil chefs that you are sure exist just behind the kitchen door. Calm down. In the meantime, let me replace those sharp things with some plastic utensils.

The Survey Post

2009-02-16T12:17:00.012-05:00

C-SPAN recently conducted a survey of over fifty historians and observers of the American presidency, and have ranked the presidents on ten individual categories such as Public Persuasion, Economic Management, International Relations, etc. The scores were averaged and produced an overall ranking of the Presidents of the United States.

Of course, this is only opinion, but it’s the opinion of a pretty broad ideological range of qualified historians. When Richard Nixon was about to resign in disgrace, Henry Kissinger assured him that history would remember him more favorably than his contemporaries. Nixon’s reply was, “It depends on who writes the history.”

Here’s the link to the survey: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Index.aspx

In my view, there is much more right than wrong here. Lincoln is the obvious choice for number one. FDR, Truman and TR are ranked appropriately high. I tend to think that Theodore Roosevelt was the best president we ever had. He just didn't have the crises that Lincoln or FDR had to deal with. In any case, I take issue with some of the rankings. First of all, George H.W. Bush, as all distinguished historians would say, got jacked up. His overall ranking is 18th, which sounds okay, but the numbers that produced that average are grossly unfair. He received a 46 (out of 100) on economic management. No doubt this rating was fueled by memories of the recession that hit during Bush’s term, and his obvious discomfort debating economic issues with Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign.

It should be remembered, however, that a recession after the growth stimulated by the Reagan years was all but inevitable. Bush should be judged on how he responded to the downturn. In 1990, he brokered a deal to lower the deficit which contributed greatly to economic recovery and the booming economy of the 1990’s that Clinton gets so much credit for.

Bush’s numbers are part of an overall underestimation of his performance as president. I tend to believe that in this survey, the father is being punished for the sins of the son. Here are some shorter observations of the survey:

-George Washington is too high for the relative lack of concrete accomplishments he achieved during his presidency. It’s not a list of greatest Americans, it’s a list of greatest presidents.
-Teddy Roosevelt is rated far too low in the category of “Pursued Equal Justice for All”.
-Jimmy Carter was a pretty poor president, but a 62 in “Moral Authority”? That’s all he had was moral authority!
-Given the catastrophe of Vietnam, I cannot in good conscience agree with ranking LBJ our 11th greatest president. I’m sorry to say that, because he had greatness in him.
-The guys who did no harm, like Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison, should not be ranked below George W. Bush. I’m not sure anyone should be.

I could go on, but again, it’s all opinion. There are no correct answers, and the best that one can hope for from surveys like these is that they provoke debate. For those who are well versed in presidential history, the debate is the thing. For others, it’s a chance to become better acquainted with these figures who impacted our country.

The Double Take Post

2008-10-09T01:39:00.006-04:00

On Tuesday afternoon, during a visit to a children’s hospital in Nashville, Cindy McCain said that her husband’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, has “waged the dirtiest campaign in American history.”

Huh?

Maybe Cindy meant that Obama has been the target of the dirtiest campaign in American history. But I doubt it. No, she meant what she said, and it’s ironic that she made these remarks in a hospital. Back in 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted to stealing drugs from her own charity to sustain her personal addiction to Percocet and Vicodin. She also fired the administrator of that charity in an effort to cover up her crime.

If Barack Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in American history, as this woman alleges, why haven’t they mentioned these facts? Can you imagine what the McCain camp would do if it were Michelle Obama who had done this?

In the past several months, conservative advocates have spread vicious and unfounded rumors about Barack and Michelle Obama. He’s secretly a Muslim. She hates “Whitey”. The subtle and not so subtle instances of racism have been a consistent undercurrent to this campaign. With less than a month until Election Day, and with McCain’s poll numbers sinking like the NASDAQ, now the surrogates have stepped aside. Now the principals are directly involved in the slander.

It’s a simple matter, really. The American people are preoccupied with the economy. McCain’s own advisers admit that his poll numbers go down when he addresses economic issues. So if you’re losing, and you can’t talk about the one thing people really care about, what do you do? You throw bombs. You call your opponent “unpresidential” because he’s willing to negotiate with our enemies. You roll out the stewardess to say that Obama is “pallin’ around with domestic terrorists.” And now, in a new low, you trot out the trophy wife to engage in personal attacks and distortions.

Distortions? Oh, yes, I forgot to mention Cindy’s remarks on Wednesday. At a McCain rally in Pennsylvania, she said “The day that Senator Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you.”

No, Cindy, that was the Vicodin.

What Mrs. McCain declined to mention, or perhaps does not know, is that Senator Obama voted against a particular appropriations bill that did not include a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq. Now, I know that it goes against the policies of the last eight years to ask questions and demand accountability before handing out billions of dollars. But this is nothing but the same old foolishness of singling out one vote on a particular bill and ignoring the fact that a legislator voted for a different but similar bill instead. They did this to Kerry in 2004. At one time, I thought that this was one tactic we would not have to endure this year, because we had two senators running against each other, and presumably that would cancel out the effectiveness of the tactic.

What we have seen in this campaign, rather, is John McCain’s refusal to let facts get in the way of a good line. He continues to recount in speech after speech Governor Palin’s opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” even though it has been well documented that she was for it until it became a political issue, and only then did she oppose it. We have seen Senator McCain continue to claim that his opponent voted 94 times to raise taxes. What he doesn’t mention is that the votes in question were to lower taxes for most people, while raising them for a much smaller number of people. And neither the Senator nor his felon, I mean wife, bothers to mention that McCain himself voted against funding for the troops. McCain voted against a funding measure virtually identical to the one opposed by Obama. The difference? The bill McCain voted against included a timetable for withdrawal. You know, the same timetable that the Iraqis themselves have now adopted because they want us to leave.

So why does Cindy McCain say these things? Maybe she doesn’t know any better. Maybe she doesn’t care. Or maybe she can’t stand the thought of the next few years at home with a defeated John McCain. Maybe she’ll say or do anything to prevent him from going off on her and once again calling her (in public) a word that rhymes with runt.

What a wonderful First Couple they would have been...

The Apology Post

2008-10-06T20:39:00.008-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns, despite a relative lack of commentary expressed by its readers, either publicly or privately, because it is now necessary for me to issue a formal apology.

During the life of this blog, I have been awfully critical of our president. I have expressed evolving views of the candidates to succeed him, with one constant caveat: Whoever is elected to succeed him, I opined, it will be an improvement. After all, I could (and have, on occasion) made the case from a historical perspective that George W. Bush ranks 42nd out of 42nd in terms of successful presidents.*

Well, Mr. President, I owe you an apology, because it’s clear now that I am completely wrong, because President John McCain would obviously be much worse.

Why is this, as I say, “clear”? Well, there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial and concrete evidence that points to a McCain Administration eclipsing its predecessor in ineptitude.

First, there is the issue of ideological inconsistency. Say what you will about President Bush, but he has, over the last eight years, remained consistent with his core beliefs. I happen to think that they are wrong, but he has at least stuck with his principles. Whereas John McCain opposed offshore drilling as an impractical solution to the energy crisis, until he ran for president. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, until he ran for president. He sponsored campaign finance reform and decried negative campaigning, until he ran for president.

Second, there is the issue of the nature of their campaigns. Bush ran for president in 2000, and ran for re-election in 2004, promising smaller government, compassionate conservatism, reluctance to commit American forces to open ended military assignments, and ample funding for education. Okay, so he gave us the exact opposite of all that. But at least when he tarnished the honor and integrity of his opponent, he did it by inference. He suggested that John Kerry’s policies would leave the nation vulnerable to terrorists. John McCain and his running mate are now calling Barack Obama a terrorist.

Third, President Bush is in one sense the kind of person I admire. He’s an idiot, but he at least KNOWS he’s an idiot, so he recruited some smart, experienced guys to work in his administration. For instance, he selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. Now, I’m no fan of Dick Cheney. He has, in my view, routinely abused the power of his office and promoted an agenda favorable to Big Oil at the expense of the American people. But how does he compare to his potential Republican successor? He’s Abraham Fucking Lincoln.

Finally, there’s one major difference between Bush and McCain, and it’s not that Bush at least didn’t crash his planes when he was flying them in Alabama. No, the biggest single difference is that while I have never doubted Bush’s incompetence, I have also never doubted his sanity. Again, say what you will about George W. Bush, but at least he has been steady. At least he could be counted on to at least speak responsibly compared to Captain Chaos. It’s one thing to elect a dumb guy to be president. It’s quite another to elect someone who is unstable. And that’s what the Republican nominee for president is. I am referring to his apparently unresearched decision to select Sarah Palin to serve a heartbeat from the presidency after months of promising to select a running mate solely on the basis of qualifications. I am referring to the bizarre back and forth make believe shutting down of his campaign to address an economic crisis that he one week earlier denied existed. And I’m referring to the following quote from his own biography:

“I don't torture myself over decisions. I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often, my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

Well, I for one am not prepared to live with the consequences of President McCain’s quickly made decisions. And, after all, given the power of the presidency in these perilous times, millions of Americans might not get to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Senator McCain, in the absence of a coherent economic policy, lacking the ability or knowledge to address the health care crisis, burdened by decades of opposition to alternative energy, and desperate to escape the performance of his own party these last eight years, has spent a large portion of what he promised to be an “honorable campaign” trying to convince the American people that electing Barack Obama is too great a risk. Instead, he has amply demonstrated that he himself is the true risk.

And so as the McCain campaign thrashes around like a boxer, losing on points but desperately seeking a late round knockout, I say to you, Mr. President, I’m sorry. You weren’t so bad after all. Comparatively speaking, of course.

*George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. However, only 42 men have served as president. Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms and therefore counts twice.

The Provisional Post

2008-09-24T22:54:00.005-04:00

When the economy melted down last week, John McCain, saying the economy was fundamentally strong, continued his campaign. The situation continued to deteriorate. McCain campaigned on. Two new polls came out today, one from the Washington Post and one from FOX NEWS (!) showing that McCain is losing again, and NOW he is suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis.

I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact that he’s suddenly down in the polls, that he’s two days away from a presidential debate he is, by his own admission, unprepared for. I’m sure it has nothing to do that he is falling behind Obama because the economy has surged to the top of a range of issues, and by a wide margin people trust Obama to handle the issue better.

In the last two weeks, even KARL ROVE has admitted that McCain has crossed a line that makes previous campaigns look like truth and justice. He flat out lies in his commercials. He picks a running mate and potential successor solely for political reasons. Now he’s trying to hide his complete lack of knowledge regarding the economy by presenting himself, once again, as being above politics.

Okay, that’s fine. I’ll take McCain’s action at face value. I will consider this an act of patriotism. We all should, with one provision. Since Senator McCain feels that his duties as a senator are more important than the campaign, he should not only suspend his campaign, he should go one step further: Drop out.

C’mon, John. Put country first.

The Threat Post

2008-09-14T00:31:00.006-04:00

September 11, of course, was a terrible day in American history. The events of that day caused the deaths of several thousand Americans, and led to a dramatic shift in foreign policy that resulted in the deaths of thousands more.

The people who died in the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon, and in that field in Pennsylvania were innocent victims of a senseless attack. And as a people, we were right to want to see those responsible for this atrocity brought to justice.

However, I have to say, I think that there were more victims of September 11th than just the people who died that day. I think every American was a victim of that day, but not in the sense that you may think I mean. We’re all victims of 9/11 because on that day, we lost all sense of perspective.

In the last seven years, we have spent more than a trillion dollars fighting a “war on terror”. It has preoccupied our national conscience and consciousness. And we have allowed what happened on that day to overshadow several far greater threats to American security and prosperity.

I’m not talking about global warming. Not this time. The case for urgent action to address the climate crisis has already been made by far more persuasive and influential people than I.

Three thousand people died as a result of terrorism, on one day, seven years and two days ago. Since that day, more than three million Americans have died from cancer. And so I ask you: which is the greater threat?

I’m not belittling 9/11. I would just like to know why this is acceptable. What would happen to an external enemy, a country, that caused the deaths of half a million Americans? Can you imagine the destruction that would rain from the sky if that happened? But half a million people will die from cancer in the United States this year, and comparatively speaking, we do nothing.

Some crazy people fly planes into a building and kill thousands of people, and we mobilize, and we invade, and we think and vote and act differently. We even treat each other well for about a week. But half a million people die, and we’re not even aware of it, except on an individual level, when it happens to someone we know. And then we shake our heads in sincere regret, and move on with our lives.

That personal connection ought to mean more. Do you know anyone who died on 9/11? Probably not. Do you know anyone who died from cancer? Of course. Why isn’t this a national priority? Why is a crusade to cure cancer in 10 years the subject of one episode of The West Wing and not a national crusade in real life?

I guess this is partly because a major disease hasn’t really been cured since polio. I guess it’s partly because some people believe that a cure has to be found through private research and others think only the government has the resources to solve this problem. But I think the main reason is that we have lost our perspective.

John McCain is seventy two years old and still has his mother. Good for him. But I am thirty five and my mother has been gone long enough that I am starting to forget what her voice sounded like. And there are millions of people like me out there who could express similar thoughts.

I have written only sporadically about this presidential campaign for a number of reasons. I don’t want to write talking points for my side, so I only write when I think I have something to say. I also haven’t written much because this campaign is incredibly frustrating. I thought that maybe, just maybe, we had a chance this year for a campaign about ideas. That this election wouldn’t be about distortions and lies.

There are forgotten issues that we don’t deal with anymore, or never have. That’s what’s worth writing about, the campaign that never was. A campaign that included a discussion on catastrophic illness. A campaign that recognized poverty and remembered the homeless. A campaign with candidates who spoke honestly and with insight about the anxiety many people have about the future of this country.

People talk about 9/11 and what happened that day, and their bumper stickers and car magnets say “Never Forget”. Perhaps the trauma of that day has caused us to forget a lot of things. Or maybe that day has been exploited by people who want us to remember September 11, and not the other 364 days of the year.

The Surrender Post

2008-08-29T11:58:00.011-04:00

Senator John McCain, as I write this, is preparing to name Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. This is an out of the box, unconventional choice that will no doubt stir quite a bit of controversy. The Blog To Be Named Later returns to clarify the issue. It’s very simple: John McCain, the old warrior, has surrendered his principles once again for the sake of ambition.

What does that mean? If John McCain were running for president thirty years ago (he’s old enough to have done that) he would have been free to pick a running mate that met his own personal standard of “ready to be president.” But this is a very different Republican Party, and a different political environment.

If John McCain were a younger man, if this weren’t his last chance after watching a moron take the nomination away from him eight years ago, he would be less susceptible to making a crass political choice. But he’s not young; today is his 72nd birthday.

This choice will be presented of evidence of McCain’s maverick nature, that he would think outside the box and choose a woman. Don’t be fooled. This is a pick of desperation, and in many ways, a pick of surrender.

McCain is surrendering to the reality that his age stands in stark contrast to that of his opponent. That’s a reasonable political calculation, to pick a young, dynamic running mate. The problem is, John McCain has spent months attacking Barack Obama for youth and inexperience, and he has today chosen for vice president someone even younger and with less experience. There are two great problems with this. First, it exposes McCain to charges of hypocrisy. More importantly, it exposes the United States of America to the possibility that it could have a manifestly unqualified president in a dangerous time in this country’s history.

To be fair, Obama’s resume is not significantly more impressive than Palin’s. Yes, I prefer four years in the Senate to two years in an igloo. Yes, I prefer someone who has gone through the fire of a long presidential campaign and has the demonstrated ability to inspire and lead. Yes, I think Obama’s choice of Joe Biden compares very favorably to McCain’s pick. But an Obama supporter cannot fairly complain about Palin’s inexperience, and must instead accept her meager resume and say, okay, fine, now we can stop talking about readiness to be president.

Instead, I choose to focus on McCain’s greatest surrender, and that is to the far right wing of the Republican Party. Sarah Palin is a genuine conservative, and that makes her more acceptable to the “values” Republicans. For all McCain’s tough talk, the Republicans aren’t fundamentally about foreign policy and national security. If they were, John McCain would have selected Tom Ridge, the former governor of a major state and later the first Director of Homeland Security. Or Senator Joe Lieberman, a longtime Senate veteran and the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. By most accounts, McCain wanted to pick Lieberman. They are close friends, they agree on the war, Lieberman has been an effective campaign sidekick and advocate for McCain. If McCain were really a maverick, he would have taken the former Democrat turned Independent Senator from Connecticut.

Why didn't he? Lieberman and Ridge support abortion rights, and McCain is not willing to offend the conservatives who have always viewed McCain with suspicion. This is but the latest in an increasingly long series of examples of McCain’s desperation.

After he was defeated in 2000, unjustly and unfairly, through rumor and innuendo, and had to watch George W. Bush claim the nomination that he deserved, John McCain realized that if he were to keep his flickering presidential hopes alive, he was going to have to do some pretty unpleasant things. Like Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, he was going to have to crawl through shit to get where he wanted to go.

So he endorsed Bush for re-election, campaigned with him, hugged the bastard, and sold his soul. He could have made a principled decision to oppose an incompetent Commander in Chief, but instead he chose to embrace him.

During Bush’s second term, McCain watched as the occupation of Iraq was bungled and his own recommendations ignored. But he remained silent. Well, that’s not true. He actually remained vocal in his support of George W. Bush. As the 2008 election approached, McCain reached out to the evangelicals who scorned him in 2000. He mended fences with Jerry Falwell. He changed his position on tax cuts for the wealthy. He changed his position on abortion. He changed his position on ethanol. He solicited donations from corrupt businessmen that he had once accused of spending “dirty money” to defeat him. Strikingly, this heroic former prisoner of war, who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton, buckled to pressure from the Bush White House and gave up his opposition to torture.

And now, he has sacrificed his principles once again. This choice was made for crass political considerations. Don’t offend the right. Try to appeal to the female voter. Pick somebody young to offset his own advanced age.

In 2000, I watched John McCain’s campaign for president in admiration. As a supporter of Al Gore, I began to worry as McCain scored upset after upset against his better financed opponent. I worried because I viewed McCain as a very strong opponent in the general election. And I worried that if McCain won the nomination, I would face a very difficult personal decision between Gore and McCain, because I thought either one of them would have made a great president. The American people spared me that choice by passing on both men in favor of a trained monkey. Back then, it would have been hard not to vote for John McCain.

Not anymore.

The Media Post

2008-08-10T19:53:00.004-04:00

The contest for the American presidency is almost never about what it should be about. What it should be about, of course, is open to debate. Some say it should be about a particular issue. Which candidate can best revive the American economy? Who can solve the Iraq dilemma? What about global warming, health care, education, immigration, human rights?

If a campaign for the presidency were about only one of these issues, it would be a campaign too narrowly defined, but at least it would be one of substance. However, this campaign is turning out to be a Seinfeld campaign: it’s an election about nothing. And it’s the media’s fault.

The 2008 election is vastly different from, say, the 1908 election, and the differences are fueled mainly by the existence of a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week news cycle. Reporters covering the Taft-Bryan race a hundred years ago couldn’t afford to waste their limited copy space writing about silly, inconsequential things. Now those sorts of minutiae help television networks fill up hours of airtime. If you watch CNN, or Fox News, or MSNBC, you might be too appalled by the lack of objectivity to notice that what these folks are really doing is stalling, waiting for something else to happen.

Another change in politics in the last century is the complete absence of privacy. The news media reports on subjects that were considered taboo in Theodore Roosevelt’s time. This has an enormous effect on the country. First, it thins the talent pool. There are a lot of good people who would never consider running for office now. They might have first class ability, or good ideas about how to tackle an issue, or an ability to inspire and persuade. But these people, as most people do, have something in their lives that they don’t want splashed across the front page of the New York Times. I’m not condoning immoral or illegal behavior. I am, in fact, rather disgusted with John Edwards. It’s not so much the extramarital affair as the hypocrisy it represents. However, human imperfection is a fact of life. If we were to exclude presidential candidates for things like this, our history would be vastly different and probably for the worse.

If the media reported on the candidates personal lives in 1960 they way they do now, obviously John F. Kennedy would never have become president. Good, some would argue. I cannot agree. When I think of Richard Nixon, faithful husband, taking Kennedy’s place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it gives me a chill.

By Nixon’s own admission, he would have invaded Cuba, likely triggering a nuclear war. I’m sorry, I’ll take the other guy, the one with the cool head and the hot girlfriend on the side.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with media coverage of this election isn’t the focus on silly stuff, although there is plenty of lapel pin foolishness to go around. It’s not even the lack of privacy, although I’m fairly sure the Edwards family would disagree. No, the biggest problem is that the coverage never ends. Take a break! Obama’s on vacation in Hawaii, McCain has spent some time at the ranch in Arizona, why can’t the media shut it down for a while? I remember a time, not so long ago, that if you watched a channel long enough, eventually they’d play the national anthem while showing footage of a fighter plane flying over mountains, and then the channel would go off the air.

There’s been a lot of discussion about media bias in favor of Barack Obama. And it’s probably true, at least to a certain degree. The reality is that media will cover anyone who’s a good story. The fifty people outside Lindsay Lohan’s house aren’t biased towards her, they just know that a picture of her getting out of a car is worth money. Especially if she forgets her underwear. It’s more or less the same with politicians. The media loved Bill Clinton, but did they go easy on him when the Lewinsky story broke? Of course not, they pounded him nonstop for a year. It’s the same with Obama. For most of 2007, all the stories were about Hillary and how she was inevitable. Then Obama caught on, and the media shifted to him, building him up. Then they tore him down a bit, breathlessly reporting that someone he knows said some things. Wow, thanks for the breaking news. Then they built him back up. And the cycle continues...

Still, there’s no denying that a majority of the media attention Obama receives is favorable. And that leads me to my final point. If the media is so in love with Obama, they should stop hurting him. How are they doing that? By covering him so relentlessly, by dwelling on every story and non-story that has the faintest hint of association with Obama that they’re making the American people sick of looking at him.

One of the stupid things that decided the 2000 election was the evening news test. That is, which of the two candidates could the American people stand to see and hear on the evening news for the next four years? Gore gave this one away by being pompous and condescending. Bush won it with unintentional comedy. And now, eight years later, the media is deciding this one for John McCain by overexposing Barack Obama. I’m for Obama and I’m tired of looking at him. So please, dear news media, find something else to talk about, just for a little while. And if you can’t think of anything, let’s see the fighter planes, let’s hear the national anthem, and let’s have a rest before the fall campaign is upon us.

The Irony Post

2008-06-17T21:15:00.001-04:00

Republicans love Ronald Reagan. When the Gipper left office in 1989, and was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, Republicans across America named stuff after him. National Airport in Washington was renamed in Reagan’s honor. The USS Ronald Reagan, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, was commissioned in 2003. There’s a Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway in Alabama (insert your own joke here). There was even talk of adding Reagan’s face to Mount Rushmore.

Given all this idolatry, it’s only fitting that the Republican Party, in its current effort to retain occupancy of the Oval Office, is running a campaign that is reminiscent of the man who was president back in 1981. But they’re not acting like Ronald Reagan. They’re acting like 1981’s other president: Jimmy Carter.

That’s right. The Grand Old Party is acting just like aw shucks, goofy smile, peanut farming James Earl Carter, Jr..

Not on the basis of the issues, mind you. Jimmy Carter, although he was not a successful president, was right on the big issues. He foresaw our current energy crisis and tried to get Americans to think about conservation and a comprehensive energy policy. The current Republican energy policy is whatever Exxon-Mobil says it is. Jimmy Carter used the power of the presidency to bring Arabs and Israelis together for the first time; the current president has used his term in office to inflame the Arab world with hatred for America. Jimmy Carter believed in a government that told the truth to the American people. Bush’s press secretary once said that the American people “better watch what they say.”

So how are the Republicans like Jimmy Carter? Well, as I said, Jimmy’s term of office did not go that well. Carter was a decent guy, but he should not have been president. He was a micromanager who disdained politics and distrusted Washington. Not surprisingly, he couldn’t get anything done. When the economy went south and the Iranians took 52 Americans hostage, he was doomed. So in 1980, when it came time for President Carter to run for re-election, he had a problem: he couldn’t win by running on his own record. The only alternative was to try and take the other guy down by any means necessary. So that’s what Carter did.

People forget this now, because a quarter century has gone by and Carter has been a great ex-president, but in 1980 Jimmy Carter ran one hell of a negative campaign. He tried to convince America that Ronald Reagan was not smart enough to be president, which wasn’t true. Carter argued that Reagan was uncaring and claimed Reagan had been opposed to Medicare, which also wasn’t true. Most galling of all, Carter ran a page from the LBJ playbook and claimed that to elect Ronald Reagan was to invite the beginning of World War III.

There are a lot of people who are going to make a principled decision to vote for John McCain, and I respect that. I know some McCain voters, and I wish I could change their minds, but I respect their decision. There will be people who will decide that McCain’s conservatism closely reflects their own personal ideology. Fine. There will be people who pull the level for McCain who like his long experience. Okay, I can see that. It’s perfectly valid to prefer a Senator who’s held that job for more than twenty years over the young guy who’s in his first term. And of course, we’ve seen over the last eight years what a thin resume in the Oval Office can mean. Abraham Lincoln had a thin resume too, but that’s another story.

There will, however, be a substantial number of people voting in this election who are susceptible to the kind of campaign sleaze that is currently under way. The whispering about Barack Obama’s “real” religious beliefs. The suggestions that Obama is not patriotic. The attacks on his wife, who as far as I can tell isn’t running for anything. Lincoln is instructive here as well. If we disqualified presidents because of their spouses, we would have lost the Civil War.

The Republicans and their surrogates will whisper this stuff to anyone will listen. They have to. They can’t run on their economic record. They can’t run on Iraq. They can’t run on global warming. They can’t run on health care. They can’t run on their record. They’re Jimmy Carter

On October 28, 1980, in his closing remarks during his debate with President Carter, Ronald Reagan looked at the camera and asked, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The Republican nominee this year cannot ask that question and hope to win the election. And that’s why, for the next 139 days, the party of Abraham Lincoln will campaign for the presidency on the basis of former pastors and flag pins.

The Twilight Post

2008-06-05T18:54:00.000-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with what was originally going to be an analysis of recent events in the presidential election. However, today the Blog takes a trip into the Twilight Zone, because that seems to be where the rest of the country has gone.

There may be no event more important than an American presidential election. It is a contest that determines who will lead the most powerful country the world has ever known. More than that, a presidential election decides the course the United States will take over the next four years. This affects not only the 300 million American citizens, it has an enormous impact upon the rest of the world, so entwined are we in economics, politics and diplomacy.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president at the precise time he was needed. He was preceded and succeeded by a series of mediocre presidents, but at the moment of crisis, whether through divine intervention or sheer luck, we had President Lincoln.

In 1901, by an assassin’s bullet, Theodore Roosevelt became president and led America into the twentieth century. It was Roosevelt who defined the modern presidency and served notice that America was now a world power. His own landslide election in 1904 was not an important election because its outcome was a forgone conclusion, but he was the right man for his time.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt won his own landslide over Herbert Hoover, and began a twelve year administration which ended the Great Depression and set the course for victory in World War II. At the time, Roosevelt was called “the indispensable man”, and there is merit to the nickname. He was succeeded by a plainspoken farmer from Missouri who never attended college, who was elected to the Senate by a corrupt political machine, and who had served less than three months as vice president, all the while completely in the dark on matters of state. His name was Harry Truman. All he did was make the momentous decision to drop the bomb on Japan, win the war, save Europe from communism through the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine and the Berlin Airlift, and prevent a police action in Korea from becoming World War III.

Still, for all of that, some elections are more important than others. In 1976, how much could it matter if Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter won the presidency? America, and the world, would not be much different. The same is true for many elections in American history. But there are some elections that matter very much, and this year is one of them.

We live now in times just as challenging, if not more so, than what Harry Truman had to deal with. This makes the choice of the next president all the more important. Unfortunately, we also live in times when the people of the United States have lost their way. Politics has become poisoned by money and partisan bickering. Political campaigns, which in Lincoln’s time were great debates of public policy, are venues for character assassination and stupid, shallow remarks made in thirty second commercials. Think about that for a moment. The single greatest factor in the selection of choosing the President of the United States is now television. Not the presidential debates, though. Not in substantive appearances by the candidates on news programs. Not by a legitimate comparison of the candidates by legitimate news organizations. No, the way to move a poll these days is with a commercial, tucked in between advertisements for Taco Bell and Free Credit Report Dot Com. This is what the presidency means to us now? We pick presidents like choosing between Bud Light and Heineken? Consider this: if we choose our presidents on TV via advertising, aren’t we explicitly saying that the presidency is for sale?

There’s something wrong with this country. There’s something wrong when pollsters are asking voters which presidential candidate they’d like to have a beer with. Do you choose your doctor that way? If you found a lump on a part of your body that should be smooth, would you pick the surgeon who’s going to operate on you based on how outgoing he is? No! You want a wall full of diplomas. You want credentials, you want evidence that this guy knows what he’s doing, and you don’t care if the other guy is pretentious or snobby if he can save your life. Maybe you pick the guy with the most experience, or maybe you pick the guy with the steady hand and the new idea. But you make your choice for good reasons. Just not when you’re electing a president.

There’s something wrong with this country. There’s something wrong when people complain that they don’t know much about the most talked about, most thoroughly covered, most photographed and researched political candidate in American history. And when I hear that, you know what it says to me? It says that people are using that as an excuse not to vote for someone who looks different from what they are used to, who has a name that’s not like theirs. In 2003, conservative Louisiana narrowly elected a liberal Democrat named Kathleen Blanco governor of Louisiana. Why? Because her opponent, a very bright, able, qualified Republican, is an Indian-American named Piyush Jindal. The fact that he goes by “Bobby” evidently wasn’t enough for people. Jindal was leading in the polls, but on Election Day, curiously, while his numbers in metropolitan areas were solid, Blanco outpolled him in rural areas. So Blanco won the election, and two years later, during the worst natural disaster in American history, Louisiana had a governor who couldn’t form a coherent sentence and got what it deserved.

There’s something wrong with this country. There’s something wrong when we’ve turned out back on our own history. The American people used to make informed decisions. We used to read newspapers. We used to subscribe to magazines that contained thoughtful, substantive articles. We used to watch Walter Cronkite. We used to know what We were talking about.

We don’t anymore. 15% of the American public thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim. This after three months of controversy over comments made by his pastor at the TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST. On the second anniversary of 9/11, nearly 70% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks. This despite a complete lack of evidence tying him to Bin Laden and a wealth of evidence that Bin Laden viewed Hussein as a traitor to Islam and essentially worse than America.

69% of Americans can identify Dick Cheney as Vice President, a respectable number, until you think about it and realize that nearly ONE OUT OF THREE AMERICANS DON’T KNOW WHO THE VICE PRESIDENT IS!

How important is this election? It’s hard to say, because I just don’t know if this country can recover from the downward slide it has been in for some time. It started after World War II, and in many ways was inevitable. We had too much power. This is what happens when you rule the world; you rot from within. It happened to the Persian Empire. It happened to the Romans. It happened to the Spaniards, to the British, to the French. And now it’s happening to us. You become drunk on power, there are no more worlds to conquer, and you begin to decay. You begin to slip generationally. The baby boomers didn’t accomplish as much as the WWII Generation, and now Generation X is falling short of the boomers. And don’t even mention Generation Y.

Is there no solution to this decline? Sure there is. It’s called knowledge. It’s called perspective. It’s called awareness. An informed, engaged, enlightened public making sure that it remains so. That is the hallmark of a great nation. But we’re not informed, we’re stupid. We’re not engaged, because we can’t be bothered. And we’re damn sure not enlightened. Not in a country filled with people who allow themselves to be made to fear, well, just about everybody. Watch out, or “the terrorists” will get you. Be careful, or gay people will get married and pretty soon you’ll be gay too! Be on your guard, or that Muslim guy will become president, and we’ll all have to wear turbans.

Forty years ago today, Robert F. Kennedy was murdered in Los Angeles. His death changed how a lot of people felt about this country. After the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, in the midst of the agony of Vietnam and race riots, Bobby Kennedy was the last great hope of that generation. Now, for the first time in four decades, there is another politician who has that kind of potential. The question is, do the people still have it as well?

The "Oh, Good Lord" Post

2008-04-22T11:25:00.002-04:00

Last night, all three of the remaining major presidential candidates made taped appearances on WWE Monday Night Raw.

*Silence*

*Uncomfortable pause*

*Crickets chirping*

I'm not sure that the above news item NEEDS commentary, but here it is anyway. The election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was the first contentious, if not the first contested, presidential election. I was going to refer to this election as a "race", but that's not correct, and precisely my point. The presidency used to be something that people did not chase after, or at least did not openly chase after.

In America we refer to the process of seeking election to public posts as "running for office". This is a phrase the rest of the world would be unfamiliar with. In Great Britain, one "stands" for Parliament, and that sounds much more dignified than the ambulance chasing connotation "running" for office has.

For all of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, presidential candidates did not campaign in the traditional sense, because it was considered undignified. Abraham Lincoln did not even attend the Chicago convention that made him the Republican nominee for president. Forty six years later, although opposed for the presidency by a young, charismatic and articulate opponent named William Jennings Bryan, the Republican nominee William McKinley campaigned for president by literally sitting on his front porch.

The lure of the presidency gradually became too great for candidates to sit idly by as their campaigns were conducted without them. By the time John Kennedy and Richard Nixon opposed each other in 1960, campaigns had become tests of endurance, with the neverending travel and countless speeches and ads we are accustomed to today.

When James Madison's entire presidential campaign was a series of thoughtful letters to colleagues that were published in newspapers, one could reasonably expect that the electorate would make their choice based on issues. The absence of a circus-like atmosphere contributed to the sober nature of the election. And candidates who came into office without campaigning and bargaining for the office could presumably consider themselves free to serve the American people rather than their contributors.

I think considering the personality and temperament of a presidential candidate is a perfectly valid part of choosing whom to vote for. And there are no doubt venues in which voters could be allowed to see their candidates in a more personal way. But to have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain on a WRESTLING PROGRAM? We have seen the President of the United States asked on national television whether he wears boxers or briefs. That same president, as the nominee of his party, played the saxophone on a late night television show.

Maybe this trend is not reversible. If that's the case, and presidential candidates are going to appear on entertainment shows, perhaps we could at least have them appear on the shows on which they belong. Allow me to make the first suggestion: Hillary on Desperate Housewives.

The Adams Post

2008-04-15T17:20:00.005-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for a discussion of John Adams, the man, and John Adams, the HBO mini-series.

Since the series began airing last month, I have come across several news articles praising the quality of the production and calling for a re-examination of Adams. I've heard a few people mention the subject, people I wouldn't necessarily think would be interested. Okay, so Adams hasn't become a cultural phenomenon
in the last few weeks, but I have been encouraged by the generally sensible and thoughtful things I have heard and read.

I've also been surprised by my own reaction. I thought I understood this subject pretty well. I read David McCullough's book, on which this series is based. I've been to the Adams home in Quincy. I've touched his gravestone and that of his son with my bare hand. But the more time I spend watching John Adams, the more I realize I've been as guilty as historians and Adams' contemporaries in failing to grasp how important he was to American history.

Adams has not lingered in popular memory for obvious and easily understood reasons. In the order of office, he served after the heroic Washington and before the intellectual giant Jefferson. Both the first and third presidents captured the popular imagination, and to some degree hold it to this day. Adams was short, round, arrogant, and dismissive of his critics. He was every bit the equal of his contemporaries in intellect, force of personality, and historical importance. However, although he fit well with Washington and Jefferson, he also had traces of Richard Nixon in him.

That statement may come as a slap in the face to Adams fans, if there are any to be found. I only mean that Adams, like Nixon, had the respect that comes with skill and accomplishment. But what Adams really wanted was to be loved by the American people, as Washington was. In this, he was much like Nixon gazing with envy at JFK's portrait in the White House. However, unlike Nixon, John Adams largely resisted the dark urges of his character. The better angels of his nature, as Lincoln would say, won out.

Historians are almost universally critical of Adams for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts during his term of office, and rightfully so. This legislation was the 18th century equivalent of the Patriot Act, which took away the freedom of citizens in the name of protecting them. But Adams made this mistake in the midst of a larger crisis, the spectre of a disastrous war with France. On that score, Adams did right, even if he was denied due credit. The members of his party, and indeed the country at large, clamored for war with France. The patriotic nature of the crisis swelled Adams' popularity. He had only to go along with this overwhelming public desire for war, and he would have swept to re-election. In this crucible moment, Adams held firm. He placed principle before politics. He chose peace when war was the smart political move.

George W. Bush should watch this series. Ah, never mind, it's on after his bedtime.

In a sense, Adams doesn't get his "props" because there's no simple answer as to why he was great. Lincoln saved the Union. FDR pulled the country out of the Depression and steered a course to victory against tyranny. Why was Adams great? He was, as Jefferson called him, the "colossus of independence", who played a crucial role in the Continental Congress. It was Adams who proposed Washington for command of the Continental Army. It was Adams who put the quill in Jefferson's hands to write the Declaration of Independence. He made these moves because he recognized the skill of these men, but also because he cleverly sought to nationalize what was then a regional conflict by involving two prominent Southerners in the struggle. He authored Thoughts on Government, which was the foundation for modern state government. He served a diplomatic role in France, in the Netherlands, and helped restore good will and commerce as America's first ambassador to Britain. Even in the then-inconsequential office of Vice President, he mattered, serving as a moderating influence between the extreme positions of Jefferson and Hamilton. When President Washington could not count on either because of their struggle, he could turn to Adams for reasonable counsel. As president, Adams not only prevented a needless war with a continental power, by so doing he preserved conditions which a few years later led to the Louisiana Purchase.

A fair and just list of his service to this country would exceed my ability to recount the events as well as the patience of the reader. Suffice it to say that perhaps the most significant oversight in the memory and gratitude of this country is the absence of a national monument of any kind to John Adams.

So that's my read of John Adams. What about John Adams? I am forced to recommend it, despite certain inaccuracies. Paul Giamatti's portrayal of Adams is masterful, and Laura Linney is superb as Abigail Adams. In the end, the series passes the test of making you care how the story ends (even if you already know) and illuminating the importance of its subject.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe there is a simple explanation for Adams's greatness. How about this: Yes, Lincoln saved the Union.
But if not for John Adams, there might have been no Union to save.

The Dick Post: An Open Letter to the Vice President of the United States

2008-04-11T13:40:00.003-04:00

Dear Mr. Cheney,

This morning I read in the New York Times (you know, that paper that employs Adam Clymer, who you once referred to as a "major league asshole") that you appeared on Fox News yesterday and commented on the remarks made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Senator Barack Obama.

I am an American citizen and a taxpayer. In a sense, that makes me your boss, although you seem to not understand the idea that you serve the people of this country. After all, during an interview on the fifth anniversary of this war that you created, a reporter informed you that two-thirds of Americans now opposed the war. Your response was "So?" Therefore, it is with some measure of skepticism that I approach the idea that you would heed the wishes of any citizen on any issue, but I will make my request nonetheless: Please be quiet.

In the past eight years, you have taken actions that are ethically dubious, morally vacant, and possibly criminal. In the 2000 election, your presence on the Republican ticket gave undue credibility to a man wholly unqualified to be President of the United States. As Vice President, you have consistently urged through voice and action abuse of the power granted to the Executive Branch by the Constitution. You have undermined civil liberties in this country. You have transparently put the interests of big business before those of the American people. And you also shot a guy in the face.

We'll call that last action an accident, but all the others seem to have been quite deliberate. Given your long and sullied record, sir, you should consider yourself fortunate that you have not been impeached and removed from office. Happily, the 22nd Amendment will remove you and Mr. Bush in 2009. On the happy occasion of your departure from public office, it would be appropriate to quote Oliver Cromwell's remarks to the Rump Parliment in 1653: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Until that time, on behalf of anyone who reads this blog, and for the millions of Americans who don't know this blog exists but would agree with the sentiment: hold your tongue. Do not interfere with the effort to choose good and decent people to lead this country, because you have no knowledge of the subject.

The Customer Service Post

2008-01-30T00:49:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on recent developments in the presidential race as I watch John McCain declare victory in Florida and become the clear frontrunner for his party’s nomination:

This is going to be a different post from what you are accustomed to reading. This is true because I am, in a sense, answering mail from the suggestion box. I have been asked to expound on the Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama. I have also fielded a request for an explanation as to why Hillary Clinton turns so many people off. Those two issues dovetail nicely, so I’m glad to fulfill the request by writing this post. However, the other difference in this post is that it must now begin with a confession, or at least a declaration: I have no idea what’s going to happen in this race. In keeping with the theme of unpredictability, I will put no planning into the composition of this post. No outline, no preconceived thoughts, no structure real or implied. I’m just gonna write, and see what happens.

As I have mentioned before, I have spent countless hours reading about the American presidency. I’m the sort of deranged individual who will read Richard Nixon’s autobiography, then go back and read it again a few years later. And generally, when I’m reading these 900 page books, my favorite parts are the recounting of presidential elections. I love them. I love the ’48 campaign between Dewey and Truman. I love 1960, when Nixon and Kennedy, two supremely gifted politicians, squared off. I love the ’84 campaign, because it’s the first one in which I mastered all the details, knew all the candidates, understood all the issues. Did I have a girlfriend then? Um, no.

Still, despite my close familiarity with the details of every modern presidential election, I have to say I am utterly stymied by this one. There are just too many variables. First serious female candidate. First serious black candidate. First time since 1936 with no obvious Republican nominee. The polls are suddenly all wrong. Conventional wisdom does not apply. I wrote in this blog about McCain’s fading chances just as they were beginning to fade. I was right, he faded. And although I sensed he was regaining momentum as the voting in New Hampshire drew near, I have to admit, I am stunned to see him on the verge of the nomination.

John McCain is following in George W. Bush’s footsteps in more ways than one. Obviously, he’s after Bush’s job and hopes to be his successor. But there’s more. In the 2000 election, at least a dozen improbable things had to happen to make Bush president. He ran with a thin resume against an incumbent vice president who was manifestly qualified to be president. He had to run against the prosperity of the Clinton years. He had to run on domestic policy, normally fertile ground for Democrats, and hope he wasn’t asked any foreign policy questions because he didn’t (doesn’t) know anything about foreign policy. All of those things broke his way. Then, on Election Day, he still came out behind in the national vote, and probably in the intent of the voters of Florida. And another series of improbable events took place that ultimately resulted in Bush being declared the winner.

That’s what’s happening with John McCain. He won Florida tonight, polling ahead of the economy candidate Mitt Romney among voters most concerned about the economy! By McCain’s own admission, he’s hardly an economic expert. He barely talks about the issue, and yet somehow he won an economic debate against a businessman turned candidate, and did it with a poorly financed campaign.

McCain has been aided by a remarkable series of events. The rise of Mike Huckabee in Iowa benefited the senator from Arizona, simply because it hurt Mitt Romney. The presence of a multi-candidate field in South Carolina allowed McCain to win the state that derailed his campaign eight years ago. In a one on one showdown with Romney in South Carolina and/or Florida, Romney probably wins. Think about that for a second. There were a whole slew of Republican candidates for president to challenge McCain’s inevitability as the Republican nominee. But the presence of all those candidates split the vote and ultimately aided McCain’s candidacy.

Having said all this, I don’t think that this race is over. While the media rushes to coronate John McCain, I think I’ll hang back before pronouncing this one done. The available balance on one of Mitt Romney’s credit cards probably exceeds John McCain’s net worth. Next Tuesday brings a wave of primaries from coast to coast, requiring expensive radio and television ads and non-stop campaigning. And, of course, there are still a sizeable number of conservatives who will not accept John McCain as their leader. Think McCain’s won over the right wing? Hold your nose with one hand and type rushlimbaugh.com with the other, and you’ll be disabused of that notion fairly quickly.

As I said, I have no reliable sense of what’s going to happen. I would only issue a prediction at this point if it came with an expiration date. Right now, and I emphasize those two words, it looks like McCain, with maybe Huckabee as his running mate. But who knows?

If I seem uncertain about the identity of the Republican nominee, I’m absolutely puzzled as to whom the Democrats will nominate. Last week I studied many state by state polls to try to break down the huge February 5 primary and identify a trend. It seemed clear to me at that time that Hillary Clinton was the likely Democratic nominee. Although I was wise enough to say anything could happen, that’s what the results of my study seemed to indicate. Now, in the wake of Obama’s overwhelming victory in South Carolina, and his subsequent endorsement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, again, who knows?

I can’t tell you on the basis of the endorsement who’s going to win. I can say, however, that if an endorsement ever mattered, this is the time. For all the hoopla over Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama, Ted Kennedy’s is more important. The Oprah endorsement was a big news story, and demographically helped Obama by boosting his support among women. However, Obama didn’t really need the publicity Oprah’s endorsement gave him; he was already a celebrity candidate attracting an enormous amount of attention. And while the support among women helped, Obama was already competitive in that area.

Kennedy’s endorsement, however, could make a crucial difference in at least two ways. First, in a demographic sense, the magic of the Kennedy name still resonates deeply in the Latino community, and Ted Kennedy can deliver votes in a demographic that Clinton has thus far dominated. In a political sense, Kennedy can move organized labor into Obama’s corner. And the Kennedy endorsement, combined with those of Senator John Kerry and Governor Deval Patrick, probably puts Massachusetts in play.

But the real importance of the Kennedy endorsement is symbolic. Kennedy endorsed Obama at American University in Washington. This is not a randomly selected location. American University is where, in 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave one of his most important and well remembered speeches. In the course of a call to reexamine our attitudes toward the Soviet Union, President Kennedy said the following:

“For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."

And so when Senator Ted Kennedy took the stage at that same institution of higher learning and all but anointed Barack Obama as his brother’s political heir, it shook the ground of Democratic politics. It’s one thing for the media to make comparisons between Obama and JFK, or for me to do so on my blog that twelve people read. This was something else. And it sent a signal to Democrats across the country, saying that Obama’s candidacy is not some fleeting cause. It’s not a quixotic endeavor like Howard Dean’s candidacy four years ago. This is a serious effort to change the face of the Democratic Party.

And, of course, this was a dramatically unwelcome event for the Clintons, because, after all, they have been the face of the Democratic Party for fifteen years. What Kennedy’s endorsement does is shatter the sense that the establishment of the party is in Hillary’s corner and that ultimately her nomination is inevitable. This is not to say she’s finished; she may well be the nominee. But she’ll have to “go Churchill” to get it – blood, sweat and tears required. She’s already put forth the tears. Will she offer the other two, and will it be enough? I don’t know.

I can tell you this: I hope not. This brings me to the other requested topic, the case against Hillary. I don’t think that there is any single reason for the hatred she engenders. Much of it is undeserved, the byproduct of hypocrisy toward strong and assertive women. Some of it is thoughtless and shallow misinterpretation of her based on her relationship with Bill Clinton. Many people have long believed that their relationship is one of convenience rather than meaning. I don’t buy it.

No, my problems with Hillary are simpler to quantify. As a politician, I find her lacking. I can’t listen to her speak without thinking how much I’d rather listen to Obama, or Edwards, or her husband, for that matter. She’s simply not an inspiring leader. I also oppose her candidacy because I don’t want a co-presidency. I don’t want Bill Clinton pulling Hillary’s strings any more than I approved of President Reagan deciding what to do based on what Nancy’s astrologer said.

Back in 1962, when Ted Kennedy first ran for the Senate, he participated in a debate with his opponent for the Democratic nomination, who said something to the effect of “If his name was Edward Moore, rather than Edward Moore Kennedy, his candidacy would be a joke.” This was probably true, but in the midst of Camelot it didn’t matter; Teddy won in a walk. Consider this, though: If her name were Hillary Rodham, rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton, would she be within reach of the Democratic nomination for president?

Hillary is attempting to restore the Clinton dynasty, and her time, and her husband’s, is past. If this election unfolds as I hope it does, her candidacy will be remembered primarily as their failure to exit gracefully from the stage. This is not an election to restore the House of Clinton in opposition to the House of Bush. Ironically, it took the last brother of America’s greatest political dynasty to crystallize this argument. The heart of JFK’s New Frontier was a passing of the torch to a new generation of Americans. It is time to pass it again, to the junior senator from Illinois, the next president of the United States, Barack Obama.

The Flip Flop Post

2008-01-18T19:59:00.000-05:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns today with a discourse on the issue of flip flopping.

Casual observers of politics will associate the term “flip flopping” with Senator John Kerry, whose 2004 campaign for the presidency was marred by allegations of political opportunism. Speaking of the resolution to use force against Iraq, Senator Kerry said “I actually voted for it before I voted against it”, and this quote was used to devastating effect in the campaign.

In 2008, the alleged flip flopper is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has also been assailed for changing his views on the critical issues of the day. Although this line of attack is being used against Romney today, it’s far from a new tactic, as I shall soon illustrate. And, of course, there is a usually a stark difference between reality and what is said about a public figure during an election campaign. Note the use of the word “usually”.

Comparing modern presidential campaigns to those that took place a hundred years ago is an apples and oranges affair, and perhaps that’s just as well. After all, George Washington once served the Crown of England, and later led the American Revolution. Flip flopper. Thomas Jefferson was a fierce proponent of limited governmental powers, then purchased Louisiana without explicit authority to do so. Flip flopper. Franklin Roosevelt promised to balance the budget when he ran for president in 1932, then proceeded to combat the Great Depression with spending to stimulate the economy. Damn crippled flip flopper.

Of COURSE politicians say one thing and do something else. They are PEOPLE. EVERYBODY says one thing and does something else. Who among us has not pledged to rise with the sun and go exercise, only to slap the hell out of the snooze button at the moment of decision? Who hasn’t made New Year’s resolutions that are not only unfulfilled but ultimately forgotten? Who hasn’t agreed to do something, say something, write something, pay for something, only to ease an uncomfortable moment, with no real intention of following through?

Now, I do not advocate deliberate dishonesty among public figures. My point is that there is a difference between a thoughtful, reasoned change in position, and one made shamelessly for political expedience. What we have in America today is an electorate that falls into one of three categories. There are those who seek inspiration and crave leadership, and if given the chance, will take what politicians say at face value. (This is a rapidly diminishing group). Then there are those who automatically disbelieve what any politician says. And of course, the third and most populous group is of those who aren’t paying attention in the first place. What election? American Idol is on!

What we need in this country is a fourth category, made up of people who possess the virtues of those in the first three categories and none of the faults. We need a typical voter to have a certain amount of faith that progress is attainable, that government can be made to work for the people. This person would have a healthy amount of cynicism, but would be willing to invest some measure of trust in their candidate. And he or she would understand how important the choice of who sits in the Oval Office really is.

So let’s assume that not only do such people exist, they might be reading this blog. Let’s examine the modern era for accusations of flip flopping and try to separate the principled from the opportunistic. Then we’ll decide together (okay, I’ll decide myself and tell you) how important consistency on the issues really is.

In modern politics, this current unfortunate trend starts with George H.W. Bush. [Insert your own George W. Bush joke here] Back in 1980, George H.W. Bush (let’s call him 41 to avoid confusion) ran for the Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan. This seems funny now, for those who remember Bush as Reagan’s lapdog during the 1980’s. Bush 41 then ran in 1988 as Reagan’s chosen successor, and his son clearly fancies himself as Reagan’s ideological heir.

In 1980, however, Bush challenged Reagan, particularly on economic grounds, calling the Gipper’s supply side trickle down theories “voodoo economics”. Rather than wade into boring economic statistics, suffice it to say that Bush was not conservative enough to be the Republican nominee. After losing the nomination to Reagan, he accepted a spot on the ticket, and suddenly developed conservative fever and fully supported Reagan’s economic policies. He also became a full fledged pro lifer, something he had never been when he was his own man.

Bush 41 knew that for him ever to be referred to as 41, as in 41st President of the United States, he would have to run in 1988 as a genuine conservative. Those in the party were not fooled, however, and a slew of candidates ran against him for the nomination in 1988, all of them from Bush’s right. And although Bush won the nomination and ultimately the election, he did so as an ideological fraud, campaigning as the ultra conservative he never was.

Once he became president, he governed like the Ivy League moderate Republican he really is. Actually, I applaud him for doing so. As a candidate for the presidency, he was a political opportunist. As the occupant of the office itself, he turned away from his pseudo conservatism to act in what he believed to be the best interests of the country. The best example of this came in 1990, when President Bush abandoned his famous “Read my lips, no new taxes” mantra from ’88, and raised taxes. Why do I consider this admirable? Because Bush 41 recognized that taxes had to go up to address the deficit, and shrinking the deficit was vital to improving the economy. So even though he took a major hit from the red meat conservatives for abandoning his no tax pledge, he did what he thought was right, despite the political consequences.

Fast forward to 2004, when John Kerry ran against George W. Bush. I don’t think there’s any great need for me to point out yet another example of the current president's hypocrisy for attacking someone for changing positions. In 2000, Bush railed against nation building and promised a humble foreign policy, for Christ’s sake. Let’s look instead at Kerry and decide if the charge was valid.

If George Bush 41 had to exaggerate his conservative tendencies to become president in 1988, John Kerry had to moderate his liberal tendencies to win in 2004. He has been justifiably criticized for running an ineffective campaign, but he still had much to overcome. He was running against an incumbent president, one more than willing to exploit the powers of his office to win the election. (Remember the terror alerts every three days in October?) Kerry had to overcome the Massachusetts liberal image and the built in Republican southern electoral advantage. And of course, there was the issue of the Vietnam War. John Kerry, winner of medals and ribbons for service to his country, could not imagine his record would be successfully slandered by George W. Bush. After all, the only ribbon Bush saw in those years was the blue one on the Pabst can.

Kerry had to run as a moderate, strong on defense, and he agonized over whether to support the war. He thought it was the right action to take, but he had no faith in those directing the effort. So he voted for one version of a force resolution but ultimately voted against it. He fell into the classic trap that has doomed the candidacy of every senator since JFK who has run for the presidency: a congressional record is easy to distort. But he didn’t flip flop. He didn’t try to have it both ways. That wasn’t his sin. His sin was that he seized the nomination on the basis of electability, but failed to capture the imagination of the American people. He didn’t have the communication skills to beat George W. Bush. How ironic.

And now we come to one Willard Mitt Romney, candidate for the presidency.
I did not judge Bush, senior or Kerry on partisan grounds. I will not do so with Romney either. This blog aspires to be a forum for thoughtful discussion of public issues, so I apologize for this, but here’s the bottom line: Republicans and Democrats alike can unite in agreement that Mitt Romney isn’t a flip flopper, he’s just full of shit!

I have never, in twenty four years of observing political campaigns, after reading hundreds if not thousands of biographies of historical figures, after virtually memorizing the history of the American presidency, come across a candidate so universally disliked by the other candidates. Of course, the Democrats hate Romney. But the Republican candidates hate him too! Mitt better watch his words the next time he’s in a debate with John McCain. I don’t care if McCain is 71 years old and disabled; if Romney distorts McCain’s record once more, I fully expect the senator from Arizona to channel John Rambo and skin Romney alive.
And when he does, all the law and order Republican candidates for president will cheer.

Why is Romney hated? Because he’s a flip flopper? Not exactly. Hey, you can change your mind. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, after all. But Romney didn’t just change his positions. Try to follow this contortion act, if you can:

-Mitt Romney, in his first run for public office, publicly took positions on health care and gay rights more liberal than those of his opponent, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. He was to the left of Ted Kennedy, people. Only Romney and Chairman Mao have ever accomplished that.

-After losing to Kennedy in a landslide, Romney then ran for governor in 2002 as someone who could work successfully with a Democratic legislature, saying he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts and it would not be a stepping stone.

-Romney was elected and served only one term, declining to run for reelection and essentially abandoning the Commonwealth in the last year of his term to run for president.

-As a presidential candidate, Romney has adopted ultra conservative opinions and castigated other candidates for not being a real conservative like him. He has spent millions of dollars on negative advertisements attacking his opponents by distorting their records to make them look moderate or even liberal. By the way, he denies taking the liberal positions he advocated in the 1994 Senate race, even though they are all captured on video and well documented.

-Since 2005, Romney has run a campaign based on his conservative credentials and experience. Then when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa caucus as agents of change, Romney suddenly began campaigning as the real agent of change, changing his stump speech, his website and even his yard signs. He then proceeded to begin attacking Senator McCain as a Washington insider who couldn’t bring change.

Now, a confession. I am a flip flopper myself. Some time ago, I endorsed John Edwards for president on this blog, and millions of people, swayed by my learned opinion, coalesced around my candidate.

Okay, fine, not even my wife followed my lead; she volunteered for Obama. Still, I came out for Edwards. Since that time, I have considered voting for Hillary Clinton. I blame this on a prolonged illness which caused disorientation and nausea, which by the way is exactly what Hillary herself causes.

I also thought of voting for John McCain, although I have decided to rationalize that temptation by simply supporting him for the Republican nomination and we’ll see what happens down the road.

I must confess that I am taken with Barack Obama. I always liked him; I just had concerns about his lack of experience. The current commander in chief had the thinnest resume of any modern president, and we all know how that worked out. However, I am (or was, anyway) a student of history. We once elected a president whose sum total of political experience was two years in Congress. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

Apart from that consideration, I am persuaded by the shaky voice but steady words of Theodore Sorensen, who compares Senator Obama to his former employer, President John F. Kennedy. The issue, argues Sorensen, isn’t experience. Cheney and Rumsfeld had all sorts of experience. The issue is judgment.

Senator Obama had the good sense to oppose the war in Iraq when Hillary supported it, when Edwards supported it, and when I supported it. I’m no dove. But I find myself belatedly in agreement with Senator Obama, who said in October, 2002: “I’m not opposed to all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”

I do not disqualify Senators Clinton or Edwards for the presidency because of their vote for the war. But this shining example of good judgment on behalf of Barack Obama dramatically underscores the judgment over experience rationale. And it has changed my mind as well. In the last year, I have bounced around from candidate to candidate, mainly because I’m discouraged that none of them is named Al Gore. I do not retract my endorsement of John Edwards, and I will probably vote for him out of loyalty on February 5. But I am now flip flopping and supporting Barack Obama for president. In part this is because I don’t think Edwards can win the nomination, but I have another reason, one that runs deeper. My interest in politics began in 1983, when as a ten year old boy, I came across a newspaper article marking the 20th anniversary of President Kennedy’s murder. And now, a quarter of a century later, I am beginning to feel as if perhaps Senator Obama is my generation’s JFK, and I can’t turn my back on that idea.

So in the end, I have made my choice despite many changes of direction, leaving me vulnerable to accusations of opportunism. But in the end, I’m supporting Obama because doing so feels right. And that is what we need in America, not only from the voter, but from whoever is elected president.

An Inconvenient Truth

2007-07-23T15:08:00.000-04:00

In 1875, commenting on his prospects as a Republican presidential candidate, William Tecumseh Sherman, who had just retired as Commanding General of the United States Army, provided reporters with a quote that would be cited by reluctant candidates for public office for generations: “If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.”

Sherman’s resolve to avoid running for public office has become a trend among public figures, although you’d never know it from the crowded stages at presidential forums in Iowa and New Hampshire. The difference is that most of the people on the stage are not people you would want to run for president.

There’s usually a handful of people in each generation that people would like to see run for president who want no part of it. Sometimes it’s someone who could be a serious candidate, sometimes it’s just somebody popular in another field. But whatever the circumstance, these real or supposed candidacies are more than just idle wishing. They are reflective of a desire for leadership.

The single greatest example of a public demand for a political candidate was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Actually, it began in 1948, when Eisenhower was so popular that President Harry Truman believed that if Ike’s name were placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention, Eisenhower and not Truman would have been nominated. Four years later, Eisenhower was so popular that there was at least speculation that he could receive both the Democratic and Republican nominations for president. Ultimately, this was too much even for Ike, but there is little doubt he could have had his choice between the two. And of course, in November of 1952, Eisenhower was elected in the first of two electoral landslides, personal triumphs that had nothing to do with party affiliation. The people wanted Ike, and they got him.
Unfortunately, that was the last time that there was a groundswell of support for a presidential candidate that resulted in that person’s election. Sure, there have been popular presidents. But the lure of national office has diminished in the age of modern politics. And so the wishful thinking of the average voter usually remains only that.

In the 1960’s, some folks wondered whether Vince Lombardi might make a good president. The Hall of Fame coach of the Green Bay Packers might seem an odd choice for the Oval Office. But it’s understandable when you think about it. If you watched the evening news in 1967, you’d see the war on television, and inevitably become frustrated that America couldn’t defeat this tiny little country. As people grew increasingly disenchanted with LBJ, and unwilling to consider Richard Nixon a suitable alternative, maybe the guy in the sports pages who could lead might seem a reasonable choice.
Of course, this political movement never got off the ground. It’s worth noting, however, that so great was the respect for Lombardi that he was considered for vice president by both Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon in 1968. And football fanatic Nixon was very interested and may very well have chosen Lombardi except for one small problem: Vince Lombardi was a dyed in the wool New Deal Democrat.

In the 1980's, the regular guy's ideal candidate for president was Lee Iacocca, the chairman of Chrysler. As previously mentioned in this blog, Iacocca’s popularity was so great that at one point, he was polling ahead of Vice President George Bush in a hypothetical 1988 matchup. Although Iacocca declined to run, the fervor for an Iacocca presidency is illustrative of what’s missing in American politics today.

The public longing for Lee Iacocca was not, as some have written, people confusing fame with popularity. Yes, he was on television in Chrysler commercials, and that’s how the regular person knew him. But it was the content that mattered. It was what he said, and how he said it. If it were just a matter of fame from commercials, then we would have elected President Joe Isuzu in 1988.

No, it was the straight talk. Iacocca bluntly said that Chrysler (and Detroit as a whole) had been making substandard cars and that things would be different. He took responsibility for his company’s failures (produced while he was still at Ford, by the way) and asked for a second chance. He spoke like an actual person, which you do not hear in politics any more.

But Lee Iacocca didn’t run for president. Neither did Mario Cuomo, another person people wanted to see in the Oval Office. Nor did Colin Powell. Why? Did they lack ambition? Certainly not.

Each one of them would have liked to be president.
But they didn’t want to run for president.
Those are two different things.

It’s not 1952 anymore. Nothing is private. If you’re the Vice President of the United States, expect your daughter’s sexual orientation to become a public issue. If you’re a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, expect the death of your teenage son a decade earlier to be something you’ll have to discuss with a perfect stranger. Right after that person spends ten minutes discussing your wife’s cancer diagnosis.

The media in this country is so completely out of control that before he announced his candidacy for president, it was necessary for Senator Barack Obama to quietly pay parking tickets he received as a law student at Harvard twenty years ago. Because, of course, if he had not done that, it would have actually been raised by the media as an indication of Obama’s flawed character.

And then there's Al Gore.

Okay, I’m biased here, but you could factually make the case that Al Gore is better prepared to be president than any other American. He served eight years in the House of Representatives, eight years in the Senate, and eight years as Vice President. He has done more than any other public figure to enhance public awareness of the climate crisis. He also, by the way, did more than any other public figure to bring the internet into the public domain.

That’s right, dammit, Al Gore invented the internet!

Al Gore first ran for president in 1988. I remember him talking in the debates about spending federal money to open up the information superhighway. And I had no fucking idea what he was talking about. Guess what? He was talking about the internet. In 1988. Did you know about the internet in 1988? Didn’t think so.

And this, my friends, is why he doesn’t want to run for president. Because anything he does is twisted by the pundits and capitalized upon by his political opponents who have to seize on this sort of thing because they cant actually debate the issues.

Now, granted, Gore has an unfortunate tendency to want to claim all the credit for things he was only partially involved in. And in 2000, if he could have resisted the urge to prove that he was the smartest guy in the room and just been content to be the smartest guy in the room, he’d be president today. But the point stands: why get into this race? Why subject yourself to that sort of malicious and false criticism? Why subject your family to it? Al Gore’s son has a substance abuse problem. You think that the media will treat that with subtlety and sensitivity?

General Sherman offered another quote on politics when he was asked repeatedly to run for president. This one isn’t as well known, but it’s fitting nonetheless: “If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.”

So this is where we are, choosing from the candidates who are willing to subject themselves and their families to abuse and scorn. You end up with the candidate with the thickest skin, not the biggest heart. You end up with a president who doesn’t read the newspaper, instead of one with a gifted mind. That’s the real inconvenient truth of politics.

The Reagan Legacy

2007-06-27T12:42:00.000-04:00

The Blog to Be Named Later returns from hiatus to discuss Fred Thompson, the actor turned senator turned actor turned prospective presidential candidate and heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

For those who aren’t familiar with Old Fred, you might remember him from various supporting roles in movies such as The Hunt for Red October, the second Die Hard movie, and Days of Thunder. He also followed up a stint as a real life Republican senator with a role on Law and Order, and you don't hear "Law and Order" and "Republican" used in the same sentence very often.

Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

Anyway, GOP faithful, as previously alluded to by yours truly, are not particularly enamored with their field of candidates. Now Fred Thompson, without actually having announced his candidacy, has surged to second place in the polls merely by acknowledging that he’s considering a run. And so Republicans everywhere are stirred by the idea of a second Ronald Reagan, a conservative actor turned politician who won the White House with folksy charm and promises of small government.

But hang on a minute, dear neo-cons. Time for a history lesson.

There’s a myth among historians and politicos that the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a shift toward conservatism in this country. And on the surface, that would seem to be accurate. In that election, Reagan won the first of two electoral landslides, solidified Republican control of the South, and paved the way for two Bush presidencies and a long period of Republican control of Congress.

However, it’s not particularly credible to claim a basic philosophical shift among the American people based on those events. Let’s consider how these things happened, what the real lessons are, what they mean for the presidential race of 2008.

Presidential elections that feature an incumbent president are inevitably a referendum on that particular president’s performance in office. This is always the case. Even the election of 1976 was a referendum on the incumbent, even though the president in question, Gerald Ford, had never been elected to that office in the first place. So 1980, fundamentally, was about Jimmy Carter.

Anyone who was alive at the time or has read about that period in American history knows that the Carter presidency didn’t go well. The economy was in terrible shape, there was a resurgence of the energy crisis, American citizens were held hostage in Iran for over a year. But the larger problem for Carter was the lack of confidence he inspired in the American people. He could get re-elected despite a poor first term (George W. Bush, anyone?) – in fact, no elected president had failed of re-election since 1928. But he could only win a second term if A) people still believed in him or B) they just couldn’t pull the lever for the other guy.

In 1980, people just wanted a president to rely on again. They hadn’t had one since Eisenhower: Kennedy got killed two years into his term, LBJ led us into a disastrous war (George W. Bush, anyone?) Nixon disgraced the office (George W. Bush, anyone?) and Gerry Ford proved to be an ineffectual administrator (George W. B.... ah, never mind. You get the idea.) And Jimmy Carter, for all his decency, for all his hard work, was not the answer. So there was an opportunity for Reagan.

It’s often difficult to see clearly through the haze of time past. Presidents and other public figures leave office, resentments fade, nostalgia develops, and their image changes. It’s true for both Carter and Reagan. The late former president is regarded differently now than he was in 1979. Back then, many people wondered if Ronald Reagan was dangerous. He had made frequently reckless and uninformed comments about foreign policy and the use of nuclear weapons. Many wondered whether he might start World War III if elected.

Granted, Reagan’s image as a potential warmonger was the creation of his political opponents; Barry Goldwater was undone the same way. But the point is that was his image as he began his campaign for the presidency, fair or not. He spent much of the 1980 campaign persuading voters through charm and affability that he was a safe choice. He did that because all he needed to do to win, and win big, was to be a safe choice. Reagan didn’t win in 1980 because of some seismic shift toward conservatism. Ronald Reagan won because he wasn’t Jimmy Carter.

What does all of this have to do with Fred Thompson, you may ask? It’s simple. Thompson can’t fulfill some sort of political Arthurian legend and pull the sword from the stone if Arthur never existed. So if there was no great shift toward conservative philosophy, then the only Reagan legacy that Fred Thompson could lay claim to would be this: He would be, in the minds of many, a suitable alternative for the average voter who just couldn’t bring himself to vote for the other guy. Or girl, in this case.....

The Chrysler Post

2007-05-14T14:55:00.000-04:00

In the news today, it has been announced that Daimler Chrysler is moving to “undo the most expensive and one of the least successful mergers in auto industry history” and “dump the money-losing Chrysler unit which it paid $37 billion for nine years ago” as CNN Money puts it.

This sounds like a sensible business move, a major company divesting itself of an unprofitable division. But all is not as it seems here. To tell the story correctly, we have to go back almost thirty years.

In 1978, the Chrysler Corporation was a publicly held company in severe danger of going under. It was led by a couple of accountants who didn’t really understand the auto industry, and although it was one of the “Big Three” American car companies, it lagged badly behind General Motors and Ford in both market share and profitability.

So when Lee Iacocca – generally regarded as the best car man in the business- became available in July of 1978, Chrysler moved aggressively to secure his services. Iacocca had just been fired as president of Ford despite the two previous years being the best in Ford’s history. Unfortunately for Iaccoca, his successes perversely harmed his reputation with Ford CEO Henry Ford II, who feared Iacocca would succeed him as Chairman.

So Iacocca instead became Chairman and CEO at Chrysler, and turned the company around. Iacocca and his top design man Hal Sperlich created the K car, a small front wheel drive family car that was perfect for a recession plagued country. The new CEO modernized Chrysler’s operations, improved relations with dealers, secured loan guarantees from the federal government, appeared in commercials for the company, and above all, built better cars. By 1983, Chrysler posted a $925 million profit, by far the best in the company’s history.

Iacocca’s dramatic turnaround of Chrysler and the fame he gained from being in company advertisements gave rise to speculation that he would run for president in 1988. In fact, a 1987 poll showed Iaccoca defeating Vice President George Bush in a hypothetical matchup. Although Iaccoca declined to run, he remained popular and Chrysler remained profitable. Before retiring in 1992, Iacocca introduced the minivan, which was a huge success and quickly copied by other automakers. He also acquired American motors, whose Jeep line remains Chrysler’s most profitable division, as well as buying Lamborghini and developing the Dodge Viper.

Although Chrysler struggled somewhat after Iaccoca’s retirement, by 1998 they remained an enormously profitable company. Then, in a stunning move, the company announced a merger with DaimlerBenz, the German manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz automobiles.

The deal was presented as a merger of equals, and was entered into by Chrysler officials who claimed the merger would be the best protection against a potential hostile takeover.

Over time, however, it became clear that the “merger” was a sham, and that DaimlerBenz had essentially purchased Chrysler. This came as a tremendous shock to the auto industry, but there was little that could be done. Still, what happened is incredible. Entering into a merger of unequals to avoid a hostile takeover is like approaching a criminal and giving him your car keys in the hope of avoiding a carjacking.

The dubious circumstances of the “merger” would have ultimately been forgotten if DaimlerChrysler succeeded, but in the last nine years Chrysler has struggled, despite the strong sales of the PT Cruiser and Dodge trucks. There have been rumors of a sale for months, and today it finally happened. Daimler will sell Chrysler to a private equity firm. Although the “sale” price is $4.7 billion, Daimler will not see any of that money. They are essentially paying to dump Chrysler and retire the debt they’ve accumulated.

So what happened? How has Chrysler fallen so far? For starters, they have the same problems that all American carmakers have. Labor problems, unfair trade policies with Japan, and legacy costs. The cost of health care for retirees is killing American automakers. Toyota, for instance, pays $200 per car in retiree health care. General Motors pays $1500 per car. That's a pretty significant disadvantage.

But that's not Chrysler's real problem. Their greatest handicap is that they haven’t had a competent management team since Lee Iacocca retired. During the 90’s, faceless bureaucrats ran Chrysler with no practical strategy for competing with Japan. Then the company was sold to foreigners who don’t really understand how to run an American car company.

Many people expected the Daimler success to rub off on Chrysler, but it doesn’t work that way. Manufacturing and selling a Mercedes in Stuttgart is a lot different from doing the same thing with a PT Cruiser in St. Louis. It’s like expecting a world class violinist to be able to effortlessly play jazz piano. It’s still music, but the process is slightly different.

Chrysler succeeded in the 1940’s because it’s founder, Walter P. Chrysler, understood the American market. The company enjoyed a brief renaissance in the late 60’s and early 70’s when they captured the street racing market with the Charger and Challenger. And obviously Iacocca knew his customers. He created the best selling car in the history of the automotive industry, the Ford Mustang, by recognizing the emerging buying power of the baby boomers and building a car that they would buy in droves.
That's how you run an American car company.

But now Chrysler is going to be the property of Cerberus Capital Management. They’re going to operate as a private company wholly owned by an equity investment firm that knows nothing about the car industry.

That’s not the worst part. We’ve seen what happens to car companies when the wrong people run it. Well, guess who runs one of the international divisions of Cerberus?

DAN QUAYLE!

So, Chrysler owners, dealers, suppliers, take note: you might want to bookmark the website bankruptcydata.com for your convenience. You’ll be needing it soon!

The Contrast Post

2007-03-26T15:30:00.000-04:00

Two weeks ago, the International Association of Fire Fighters held a forum for presidential candidates in Washington. Most of the major candidates of both parties accepted invitations to speak and did so without incident. Hillary Clinton gave a solid if unspectacular speech. John Edwards and Barack Obama acquitted themselves nicely. Some of the minor Democratic and Republican candidates also appeared, for whatever that’s worth.

The media made a fuss over Rudy Giuliani declining an invitation to this event, noting Rudy’s often tumultuous relationship with firefighters while he was mayor of New York. But I think the media missed the real story, which occurred when Senator John McCain spoke.

One must understand that the IAFF is a conservative bunch. True, they have never endorsed a Republican for president, but that’s largely the work of the union leadership. The rank and file members of the IAFF are bedrock Republicans. This would seem to be a perfect audience for Senator McCain. He was introduced to an enthusiastic round of applause, and as the audience settled in to listen to the senator, one could reasonably expect him to do well with this crowd.

That’s not what happened. McCain launched into an energetic defense of the Iraq war. Here’s an excerpt from Dana Milbank’s account in the Washington Post:

McCain told the crowd the war “is not hopeless.” No response in the audience except for somebody coughing.

Reading his speech and stealing quick glances at his listeners, he continued. "The hour is late, but we must try, we must!" Beefy firemen, arms folded on chests, stared back silently.

This is not, I am sure, what John McCain thought his second try for the White House would be like. The senator from Arizona is already slipping in the polls. Chuck Hagel’s entry into the race could be the nail in the coffin, because Hagel occupies the same ground that McCain does, but with a critical advantage: he opposes the war.

I’ve struggled somewhat to write about Chuck Hagel. He’s an unknown quantity in national politics. He doesn’t have the outsized personality of John McCain. He doesn’t evoke the dramatic echoes of 9/11 like Rudy Giuliani. His candidacy doesn’t have the potential to make history like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

That’s not as much of an obstacle as it used to be, however. In the era of negative campaigning, 30 second attack ads, 527 groups, etc. you don’t have to define yourself, you only have to define your opponent.
While that’s not exactly the sort of optimism one would like a presidential campaign to be about, as Robert DeNiro says, "it is what it is."

Or, in another GoodFella-ism:

"You may know who we are, but we know who you are."

So let’s see how Chuck Hagel compares to others of his Republican brethren:

Let’s start with how this prospective president compares with the incumbent. George W. Bush is the son of a former president, evaded combat in Vietnam, failed as a businessman, and as president has led the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war.

Hagel is a study in contrast. He grew up in a small town in Nebraska, the son of a lumberman. Charles Hagel died in 1962, when his eldest son Chuck was only fifteen. Five years later, Chuck went to Vietnam and served as an infantry sergeant. After the war, Hagel worked for a Republican congressman on Capitol Hill and later in the Veterans Administration.

After leaving government service, Hagel made millions in mobile phones and investment banking. He then ran for the Senate in 1996 and has made a name for himself by being the sole outspoken Republican critic of the war in Iraq.

In 2000, ironically, Hagel was considered as Bush’s running mate, a job that obviously went to Dick Cheney. It might be fun to compare these two as well. Take a look at this timeline, originally published by Slate magazine and enhanced at length by yours truly:

1959: Dick Cheney turns eighteen and becomes eligible for the draft.

February, 1962: Cheney is classified 1-A, “available immediately for military service.”

June, 1962: Cheney returns to Wyoming after doing poorly at Yale University.
January, 1963: Cheney enrolls at Casper Community College.

March, 1963: Cheney applies for and is given a student deferment, the first of three undergraduate deferments he would apply for and receive.

May 19, 1965: Dick Cheney graduates from college after six years. The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A again.

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

November 1, 1965 Cheney receives his fourth student deferment as he begins graduate school at the University of Wyoming.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

Summer, 1967: Chuck Hagel and his brother Tom are inducted into the U.S. Army. They are assigned to the same unit and become infantry squad leaders in the U.S. Army’s Ninth Infantry Division.

1968: The Hagel brothers are deployed to Vietnam. Chuck attains the rank of sergeant and wins two Purple Hearts for injuries sustained in combat.

1989: When questioned why he did not serve in the military, Secretary of Defense Cheney tells a Washington Post reporter: “I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

That about says it all, doesn’t it?

So on a personal level, Hagel differs considerably from Bush and Cheney. He and McCain didn't have "other priorities." They wanted to serve their country, and did so with honor. That reflects well upon them, but the Republican nominee has to answer questions about Iraq, not Vietnam. So how does Hagel fare in that comparison?

President Bush thought this war would be quick and easy. Hagel knew better:

“We should not be seduced by the expectations of "dancing in the streets" after Saddam's regime has fallen, the kites, the candy, and cheering crowds we expect to greet our troops, but instead, focus on the great challenges ahead…We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions. We need only look to Afghanistan where the Afghan people joyously welcomed our liberation force but, months later, a fragile transition government grapples with rebuilding a fractured political culture, economy, and country.” - Chuck Hagel, from the Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Vice President Cheney thought that we were “winning” in Iraq and that the insurgency was “in its last throes.” Hagel knew better:

"Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN.
"If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do." - Chuck Hagel, August 18, 2005.

Now, two years later, McCain argues that we must continue the fight, that the surge is necessary and tactically sound. Hagel’s response?

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska described the move as “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.” – on the Senate floor, January 11, 2007.

For these remarks and others, Chuck Hagel has earned the enmity of many Republicans in Washington. What Hagel perceives as his duty as a senator and as an American, others consider to be party disloyalty. Certainly Ole Dick isn't a fan:

“Let’s say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it’s very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, January 29, 2007.

The differences between Chuck Hagel and the party leaders are clear. They are just as stark as the differences between Hagel, who is not yet a candidate for president, and his potential rivals. There is a vacuum on the Republican right that McCain cannot fill, that Giuliani certainly cannot fill. Mitt Romney is trying to do so, but he’s troubled by the uncomfortable fact that he was a moderate Republican until he decided to run for president. While these three candidates compete for the centrist vote, the conservative base of the party, the folks who actually choose the nominee, are looking for a candidate.

Now, Hagel has challenges to overcome. He has to raise money. He needs to become better known. Perhaps most of all, he needs to develop a positive political persona. So far he’s only been the critic, telling us what we can’t do. He has to do more, he has to tell us what we can do, what’s possible, what to reach for. Despite what I said before about only having to define your opponent, there is still an advantage to be gained for a presidential candidate who can inspire people.

So the last hurdle to be overcome is history, the long standing tendency of Republicans to nominate the front runner. Yes, they go with a guy when it’s his “turn.” But if ever there were an election when a Republican could cut in line, this is it.

The Veteran Post

2007-03-15T02:08:00.000-04:00

Let's take a closer look at another contender for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona. I'm going to describe some events here that will be a bit unpleasant to read, but to understand John McCain, you've got to know what he's endured.

First, a little backstory for the politically disengaged. John McCain served in the Navy and is a veteran of the Vietnam War. He was injured in an explosion on the USS Forrestal in 1967 which resulted in shrapnel being lodged in his chest and legs. Despite this injury, he continued to serve as a pilot until his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down on October 26 of that year. The crash broke both his arms and a leg. He crawled from the wreckage of the plane, and was beset upon by a mob of Vietnamese citizens, who spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothing. He was then taken into custody by Vietnamese soldiers who bayonetted his left foot and groin, and crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt. Barely conscious after this ordeal, McCain was then taken to Hoa La Prison, better known as the Hanoi Hilton, where he would remain a prisoner of war for the next five and one half years.

McCain's father was an Navy Admiral who was the commander of all United States forces in Vietnam at the time of his son's capture. The Vietnamese learned of this, and the younger McCain was offered his release in a prisoner exchange program. McCain refused, saying he could not accept early release when so many of his fellow American prisoners had been incarcerated longer. This refusal extended McCain's incarceration by more than five years, during which time he was repeatedly tortured and beaten. He was finally released in 1973, returned to active duty, and retired from the Navy in 1981. In 1986, McCain was elected to fill the seat of retiring Senator Barry Goldwater, and has been re-elected three times. He sought the Republican nomination in 2000, and scored some early victories, but the nomination eventually went to George W. Bush for reasons that I will touch on later.

There are a lot of people in this country who think you have to have served in the military to be president, that you can’t be the Commander in Chief unless you’ve seen combat yourself. There’s just one problem with this idea, one teeny tiny little detail...

If this standard were applied to past occupants of the Oval Office when they ran for office, it would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt! Okay, technically, Lincoln served in the militia during the Black Hawk War, but he never saw combat. Kind of like George W. Bush.

Also, if we’re going to have this sort of requirement, then we have to extend it to other issues. For instance, Hillary Clinton would not be qualified to be president and confront the issue of abortion because she’s (presumably) never had an abortion herself. Barack Obama would not be qualified to be president and deal with race relations because he was never lynched by the Klan. John Edwards couldn’t become president and address gay and lesbian issues because he is not, despite what Ann Coulter says, a homosexual.

I was going to use the example of saying Rudy Giuliani couldn’t be president and deal with women’s issues because he’s not a woman, but…..

However, on balance, I would agree that it’s a plus if not a prerequisite for a presidential candidate to have served in the military. This is especially true for a president succeeding George Bush in office. It would be nice to have a president whose prior public service was in some way involved in foreign policy. John McCain could be that man. He has the political resume, and the physical sacrifice he made in service of his country is awe inspiring. This is a man who campaigns and climbs on stage and waves to a mass of enthusiastic supporters, just like any candidate does. But the difference is that McCain's waving is a bit restrained. Why? Because he can't raise his arms over his head. Let that one sink in for a second. A man who can't wave to a cheering crowd because he was hung by his arms for years.

So McCain has been the darling of the press, if not necessarily the Republican base for years. He has tremendous crossover appeal and could take away millions of votes from a Democratic candidate. Even more impressive, McCain appeals to independents and could even draw people to the polls who traditionally don't bother to vote. It's been a given for years that John McCain would be virtually unbeatable in a general election, if he can only gain his party's nomination.

And why shouldn't Republicans love him too? Whether they will admit it or not, they want a change, someone as different from Bush as possible, and McCain fits the bill. Consider:

- John McCain has developed a reputation for being a straight talker, whereas George W. Bush has developed a reputation for not being able to talk straight.

- During his Senate career, McCain has been deeply involved in foreign affairs, whereas in Bush’s time as governor of Texas he was deeply involved in…er….um….

- McCain, of course, served his country during the Vietnam War, whereas Bush was served many drinks during the Vietnam War.

- McCain is an independent thinker, whereas George W. Bush is dependent on others to do his thinking for him.

So it's obvious, right? Republicans looking for their next presidential nominee have a clear choice. They have the opportunity to nominate a man of integrity, a Vietnam veteran who knows what it's like to be a soldier in a hopeless situation. A man whose long experience in the United States Senate has prepared him to serve this country as president. Yes, ladies and gentlmen, the time has come for the Republican party to turn to....Senator Chuck Hagel!

That's right, Chuck Hagel. Who's he? I'll get to that in a minute. Let me first explain why the Republicans should pass on John McCain. As previously mentioned, in 2000 McCain ran for the Republican nomination against George W. Bush. McCain crushed Bush in New Hampshire, and headed to South Carolina. A win there would have probably given McCain the momentum necessary to capture the nomination. So naturally, the Bush campaign went negative. What else could they do? Tout their guy's credentials?

The Bush campaign in South Carolina (or their unofficial surrogates) ran a play right out of the Nixon playbook. Anonymous phone calls warned conservative Republican voters that John McCain had a black child out of wedlock. This "revelation" horrified racists and people with "traditional values" (In South Carolina, these are usually the same people, but that's another story). Not that it really matters, but the truth is that McCain and his wife adopted a young girl from Bangladesh. A noble thing, which was turned into an accusation. McCain lost the primary, Bush regained his momentum, and with his massive financial advantage, cruised to the nomination. Along the way, McCain criticized Christian conservatives, whom he blamed for his South Carolina defeat.

Now, seven years later, McCain is essentially kissing the very asses he once kicked among the Far Right, convinced that its his ticket to the White House. He once called Jerry Falwell (correctly) an "agent of intolerance." Now they're buddies! McCain even agreed to serve as the commencement speaker at Falwell's Liberty University last spring. This sort of pandering is bad enough, but in my view McCain did something even worse in his lust for the presidency: He pretended to like and admire the man who defeated him in 2000, President Bush. He endorsed him for re-election in 2004, campaigned with him, he even hugged him!

Why would he do such a thing? Because McCain knows Republican party politics. He learned it at the knee of his predecessor, Barry Goldwater. McCain is a student of history, and he knows the Republicans are the party of primogeniture. They nominate a guy when it's his "turn." I've mentioned this before. The Democrats will nominate someone you weren't expecting. They chose the young Catholic senator from Massachusetts in 1960, when no one thought a Catholic could be elected. They nominated an obscure former Georgia governor in 1976, and then a largely unknown Arkansas governor in 1992. But the Republicans are more predictable. They nominate the frontrunner, because its his turn. They haven't abandoned this tendency since 1952, when the Republicans nominated Eisenhower over a man nicknamed "Mr. Republican", Robert Taft, a Senator from Ohio and the son of a former president. They only did it then because they had lost five straight elections to Roosevelt and Truman, and they would have nominated Joseph Stalin if it meant victory in November. But other than that one year, the Republicans wait their turn. It was Nixon's turn, then it was Reagan's turn, then it was Bush Senior's turn, then it was Dole's turn, etc. Now it's John McCain's turn. And now that's he's made nice with President Bush, now that he's snuggled up to the Religious Right, he thinks he's in great shape. But there's one little problem.

There's a war going on in Iraq, one that as of today, based on congressional appropriations, has cost the American people $408 billion. There have been over 3100 American soldiers killed, more than 23,000 wounded. At least 58,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war. America has become perhaps the most hated country in the world because of this war, and John McCain wants to continue it. In fact, he wants to escalate it. McCain has gone from the "Straight Talk Express" bus tour of 2000 to being one of the people who say "Hey, if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home!" Even so, he still has integrity, at least on the war. He's willing to take an unpopular position. But will his party stand with him?

The Republicans should abandon McCain because he's turned into another double talking hypocrite, a man who pretends to like people he actually can't stand for the sake of getting elected. But chances are they will abandon him over the issue of Iraq. Yeah, Republicans generally favor the war, but they know it's a loser. They remember last November, when they got their asses handed to them. They have to put up with Nancy Pelosi holding the speaker's gavel in the House of Representatives, and they'll be damned if they want to see Hillary Clinton put her hand on the Bible and take the oath in January of 2009. So if they throw McCain over the side, they'll do it over the war. Ever since he came out in favor of the surge plan, he's gone from being in a virtual dead heat with Rudy Giuliani to being twenty points behind. And we already know what's gonna happen to Rudy, don't we? So the Republicans need a horse.

Which brings me to Chuck Hagel. He'll be the subject of the next post, but a quick word on the senator from Nebraska. This is a guy who genuinely is what McCain claims to be. This is a Republican senator who once said about the Bush Administration, "To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic." Echoes of Thomas Jefferson there. Not a bad comparison for a presidential aspirant to earn. Senator Hagel has come out full square against the war, and resisted pressure from members of his party to pipe down about it. Can it be? A politician who says what he thinks? Fire up the Straight Talk Express, there may be a new driver behind the wheel!

The Commander in Chief Post

2007-03-12T19:02:00.000-04:00

2008 is shaping up to be a year in which foreign policy remains at the forefront of voter's minds. This is a rarity in American politics. Usually the economy and the personalities of the candidates are the focus of attention. But in post- 9/11 America, foreign policy has become a staple of presidential politics. So in honor of this new trend, before we examine any other presidential contenders, let's take a look back at the current occupant of the Oval Office when he was a candidate for president in 2000.

Of course, we know all about the sterling record of President George W. Bush, who has presided over the war on civil liberties - I mean, terror, excuse me - since taking office in 2001. We all know his exemplary conduct as Commander in Chief, particularly when he attacked the wrong country - I mean, America's enemies - and committed American forces to protecting freedom around the world. And we've all heard the stories of young George W. Bush, the heroic fighter pilot, who spent the Vietnam War flying jets in the perilous skies above...um, Alabama.

Wait, that's not exactly correct. Bush didn't report for duty most of the time.

Anyway, as a candidate for president in 2000, the soon to be CINC didn't really talk much about foreign policy. Maybe this was because the extent of his foreign policy experience was signing Dominicans to play for the Texas Rangers. Regardless, foreign policy was not a major issue in the 2000 election. The country was at peace. The horror of 9/11 was still a year away. Iraq was a non-factor. The budget was not only balanced, there was a surplus, and George W. Bush barely mentioned foreign policy in his stump speech in 2000, and avoided the subject whenever possible during the presidential debates.

For anyone considering voting for John McCain next year, consider this interesting exchange between moderator Jim Lehrer and Governor Bush in the second presidential debate, held on October 11, 2000:

MODERATOR: The use of the military -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."

Well! Isn't that interesting?!?

What does this have to do with John McCain, you ask? I'll get into the full biography of McCain soon, but for the moment, consider this: Presidential candidates rarely tell you what they're actually going to do if they become president. FDR and Reagan promised to balance the federal budget. Instead they dramatically increased it. LBJ promised to stay out of Vietnam. Two years after the election, there were half a million American soldiers deployed there. The first President Bush famously promised "No new taxes", a pledge he broke in his second year in office.

And now, in the early days of a presidential campaign, a majority of the American people want to see a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The sooner the better. And yet Senator McCain, who is a candidate for president, is not for a withdrawal. As previously mentioned in this blog, he is for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. The point is this: When it comes to foreign policy, whether you agree with him or not (and I don't), John McCain will tell you what he really thinks.

When times are good, presidential campaigns are about fluff. When the economy is in good shape, when the country is at peace, we have time to worry about things like how silly Mike Dukakis looks riding on a tank, or whether Bob Dole is too mean, or whether you'd rather have Al Gore or George W. Bush over to the family barbecue(An actual polling question). And so, in 2000, times were good, and having decided that they would prefer to have a beer with Bush (even though he's a recovering alcoholic) the American people elected George W. Bush in a landslide, giving him a strong electoral mandate to enact his conservative agenda.

Wait, that's not right....I mean, after careful consideration of the issues, people decided that Bush was closer to their own beliefs, and narrowly elected him over Al Gore, who just lacked the resume necessary to be president.

Hang on, I don't think that's right either.....Hmm.

Wait, I've got it. And so, after eight years of record prosperity under Bill Clinton, the American people chose Al Gore to succeed him, with Gore's 24 years of experience in elective office, his comprehensive plans to extend American prosperity into the 21st century, his commitment to reducing the effects of global warming, and his basic competence on the issues of the day making the difference between himself and a candidate who was an irrelevant governor, a lackluster owner of a bad baseball team and a failed businessman.

But Bush became president anyway.

Now, finally, after eight years of George W. Bush, we're going to pick a new president. And the Republican Party will choose a nominee, hopefully someone who is qualified to be the Commander in Chief in fact, not just in name, if that person should be elected. We've already discussed the temporary frontrunner, Mr. Giuliani. Now it's time to take a closer look at Senator McCain.

A short biography of the senator and an assessment of his prospects will appear in the next post on this blog. Thanks for reading.

The Giuliani Post

2007-03-06T11:42:00.000-05:00

So now we come to the contenders for the Republican nomination for president. Let's look at this in terms of strategy, or if you're George W. Bush, strategery. Today, we'll start with the man who according to the most recent polls is the frontrunner for the nomination, the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani.

At first, I didn't understand why Rudy Giuliani would run for president. He's a smart guy, he's old enough to remember what happened to Nelson Rockefeller, what happens to New York Republicans with different ideas on social issues who run for their party's nomination. They're demonized, mocked, booed at the convention, and most importantly, not nominated. And that was the pre-Reagan Republican Party, when someone like Giuliani would only be tarred and feathered figuratively. Now, they might actually do it.

So why is Rudy running? Because he thinks he can take that political currency he built up as "America's Mayor" and buy a ticket to the White House. Maybe he's right, but not for the reason that many people think. More on that later.

When you look at the race for the Republican nomination, for Rudolph Giuliani to become his party's candidate for president, he will have to overcome two long standing axioms among Republicans: that the party faithful will not accept a social liberal as their nominee, and that Republicans are a party of primogeniture; they nominate a guy when it's his "turn", and it's John McCain's turn this time.

Let's look at the ideological question first. At the risk of overusing Kennedy analogies, Giuliani's current lead in the polls reminds me of JFK in 1960. Senator Kennedy held an early lead over Hubert Humphrey in heavily Protestant West Virginia. This was surprising because of Kennedy's Catholicism. So what happened? The voters of West Virginia learned more about Kennedy as Election Day approached, found out he was Catholic, and collectively said "Never mind!"

This is what's going to happen when Republican voters start paying closer attention. They're going to get a closer look at Rudy's position on abortion, on gay rights, they're going to see a picture of Rudy in drag, they're going to learn that he's on his third marriage after cheating on his second wife, and suddenly "America's Mayor" is not going to be twenty five points ahead of John McCain for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

But here's the thing: JFK won the West Virginia primary in 1960, and maybe Giuliani can win the Republican nomination the same way: by reframing the debate. Kennedy turned the Catholic question around by telling patriotic tough minded West Virginians that nobody asked his religion when he commanded a PT Boat in the Navy during World War II, and nobody asked his brother's religion when he volunteered for a dangerous bomber mission that he never came back from. Kennedy spoke to the things that resonated with the particular voters he was courting, and diverted attention away from the aspects of his own personality and record that were less favorable to run on. Giuliani, if he walks a very delicate line, might be able to do the same thing. Here's how:

First of all, and this is purely a political calculation, Giuliani needs the war to continue, because while Giuliani is for it, McCain is REALLY for it. If McCain were a company, he'd be the corporate sponsor of the surge plan. This hurts McCain among independents and Democrats, generates negative stories about him in the press, and dampens speculation that McCain would be unbeatable in a general election, which was always presumed to be his strongest selling point. The continuation of the war also helps Giuliani by providing a nice contrast with the current occupant of the Oval Office, Dick Ch- I mean, George W. Bush.

This is the key point. It's not merely Giuliani running because he's a "hero." That doesn't get you elected. Do you remember President John Glenn? Didn't think so. No, Rudy's great opportunity here is not to run in the first open contest for the Republican nomination since 9/11, it's to run in the first open contest for the Republican nomination since 9/11 and eight years of the Bush Administration. It's not public desire for a hero that Rudy can capitalize on, it's the hunger for executive ability. It's not just 9/11, it's the cleanup of New York City, the ability to succeed as the Republican mayor of one of America's most heavily Democratic cities. It's the promise of managerial excellence at a time when mere competence would be a relief. Do you think if a major natural disaster struck the United States, President Giuliani would be playing the guitar?

http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/08/august_2930_200.html

A couple of final points: First, this commentary is not an endorsement of Giuliani's candidacy. If it were up to me, based on his record, I would vote for him - to be Chancellor of Germany, circa 1933. Second, in considering Giuliani's prospects, I'm pointing out HOW it can be done, not predicting that it will happen. It may be possible within the realm of physics to demonstrate how a snowball might prosper in a Hades-like environment. Whether it actually will? Don't put any money on it.

So, if not Rudy, then who? McCain? Romney? Brownback? The corpse of Ronald Reagan? (Hmm....)

In the near future I'll be examining the prospects for other contenders. And if it looks like I'm spending more time analyzing the Republicans than the Democrats, you're right. And the reason is simple: it's much harder to figure out why people vote Republican!

Postscript Wednesday March 7: See?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html

The Democratic Post

2007-02-23T15:08:00.000-05:00

Let's take a brief look at current and prospective candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008:

Hillary Clinton

Pluses: Clear frontrunner in name recognition, can probably raise more money than anyone else, has the benefit of being married to the brightest political mind of our time.

Minuses: Higher negative ratings than anyone ever elected president, probably needs every penny of that bankroll to gain enough momentum to make anti-war Democrats forget that she voted "Aye" on the big issue, has the drawback of being married to the brightest political mind of her generation and she pales in comparison.

Outlook: Hillary HAS to win early and often, or she will be toppled. Has a tough choice to make whether to contest Iowa or move on to New Hampshire. Despite her tough talk on being able to beat the Republicans who she says "fear" her and Bill, Hillary is, in my view, too polarizing a figure to make history and become the first woman president.

Barack Obama

Pluses: Excitement at the mere mention of his name. Charisma, eloquence. Can raise tons of money.

Minuses: Three years ago, Barack Obama was a state senator. Now he's running for president. Is that too far, too fast?

Outlook: I have this sense when I look at Senator Obama that I'm looking at a future president of the United States. I'm just not sure he's taking the oath in 2009. He's a first term senator, he doesn't have much of a record, and he will have to avoid giving people an excuse to say, "Yeah, but...." if he is to make history of his own.

Then again, they said this about John F. Kennedy in 1960, you're too young, you have the Catholic hurdle to overcome, etc....

John Edwards

Pluses: Like Obama, charming and eloquent But Edwards has the advantage of having been through the fire of a national campaign before. Like Hillary, has high name recognition, but without the high negative ratings. Strong so far in Iowa, and a win there would give him tremendous momentum going into New Hampshire. Has a clear sense of where he wants to take the country.

Minuses: Has he tacked too far to the left in the effort to outflank Hillary? Also, Edwards only had one term in the Senate and thus can't present himself as the credentials candidate. Hillary has the resume, Obama has the excitement. What does Edwards have?

Outlook: Everyone is so obsessed with the possibility of the first female president, the first black president. Guess what? In all likelihood, it's probably going to be another white male. That's unfortunate, but I lived in a "red" state for 25 years. Maybe here in Massachusetts we don't see color or gender as much, but come on. It's still there. And as tacky as this sounds, this is good for Edwards. He said last week on Bill Maher's show that he's perfectly comfortable with the idea of being people's second choice as long as he ends up with the nomination. And he just might.

The Rest

Biden, Dodd, Vilsack, Kucinich, etc.

Well, Vilsack dropped out today in a concession to
A. Reality
and
B. The fact that he was the governor of Iowa until last month and yesterday he was polling fifth in Iowa behind Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Mayor George Shinn of River City.

Anyway, none of these guys are going to be the nominee. Every four years somebody runs for president even though they're running behind the "Also Receiving Votes" asterisk in the polls. They do it because they remember Jimmy Carter in 1976, criscrossing Iowa for a year and a half and catching fire just at the right time. Well, lightning strikes are remarkable because they are rare. Oh, and stop saying Bill Clinton came out of nowhere in 1992. If you didn't know about him in 1991, you weren't paying attention.

So there you have it. In all likelihood, it's Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. My guess and my preference is John Edwards, provided that one remaining possible candidate declines to make the race. Yeah, I know, I spoiled the surprise by posting his picture. C'mon Al. Run for president. Save the planet.

The Calvin and Hobbes Post

2007-02-21T16:47:00.000-05:00

The Sorkin Post

2007-02-20T14:09:00.000-05:00

Last night NBC aired what may very well be the last episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, this show clearly suffered in the shadow of it's spiritual predecessor, The West Wing. People expected this tremendous show that captured the imagination the way Wing did when it premiered in 1999. NBC certainly expected a hit, something that would drive ratings and haul in advertising dollars, particularly among the key 18 to 49 year old demographic.

There was just one problem with this scenario: Studio 60 isn't (wasn't?) as good as The West Wing. It was good, but not good enough given the inevitable comparisons. The cast of the new show didn't measure up to that of the old show, but the larger problem is this: when you go from the White House to a late night comedy show, inevitably you lower the stakes. What's the worst thing that can happen to the characters on Studio 60? Their show gets canceled, which ironically is the worst case scenario for its real life creator. That scenario is about to play out, and the reasons why are clear.

Having said that, the seemingly inevitable cancellation of Studio 60 says something about our taste, does it not? Don't judge Studio 60 against the West Wing, judge it against what's on television now. Intelligent shows like Studio 60 don't belong on television anymore, not opposite shows where contestants eat live cockroaches. Maybe the American viewing public is happier watching the formulaic sitcom where the mom is hot, the dad is a slovenly idiot, and the kids are snarky observers of the family chaos. Why don't we just combine all those sitcoms into one and call it The King of Everyone Who Loves Two Guys Til Death and make room for ONE show that entertains and makes people think at the same time? Because it would just make room for yet another night of American Idol, that's why.

The Sorensen Post

2007-02-19T17:30:00.000-05:00

This afternoon, I attended a forum at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum in Boston. The topic was presidential speechwriters, and the main attraction was Theodore Sorensen. While Mr. Sorensen is not a household name, he's without question the best known presidential speechwriter in American history. My friends who only casually follow politics will not know Mr. Sorensen's name. They will likely, however, recognize this little phrase that Mr. Sorensen wrote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Actually, many historians think that Kennedy himself wrote that quote, but there is no denying that Ted Sorensen wrote most if not all of JFK's speeches. It was even alleged that Sorensen was the ghostwriter who penned Profiles in Courage, a Pulitzer Prize winning book authored by Senator John F. Kennedy. Sorensen was the star attraction at this forum. Also on the dais was Ray Price, the man who wrote Nixon's resignation speech, and speechwriters for George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. But at this venue, in this city, the other three guests might as well have been shadows for the relative attention that they received. I have to admit, given the opportunity to ask a question (okay, fine, I showed up early to be able to sit closest to the Q&A microphone) I directed my question to none other than Ted Sorensen. (He said it was a thoughtful question, by the way.)

It was an interesting afternoon. All of the panelists were informed and engaging. The forum was very well attended, with the large auditorium filled to capacity and then some. But the lingering image for me doesn't spring from the forum at all. It's from something that happened before I even walked in the door.

As I said, I arrived early. On the way in, I passed a limousine on Columbia Road headed toward the library. Sure enough, Ted Sorensen was the passenger. So I arrived and parked, and I walked in just behind him. I was struck by how delicately he moved. He was assisted into the library by a young woman who grasped his arm to steady him and he proceeded very slowly inside. Later, when he ascended the dais in the auditorium, he again moved quite gingerly while taking his place.

Now this is unavoidable. The man was born in 1928. Of course he's not going to rocket up the stairs like a seventeen year old. Still, I was struck by the irony. Here we were in a library dedicated to the memory of a president frozen in our memories as a young man, and his much younger adviser needs assistance getting in the door. That's how much time has passed since John F. Kennedy was president. Does it seem that long to Mr. Sorensen? Does it sometimes seem like it was yesterday? That's the question I would have liked to ask him. I didn't, because I wanted to pose a scholarly question, and I also didn't want to inject a melancholy note into the proceedings. But that's what lingers in the mind. That, and how different JFK was from the president we have now.

The Wikipedia Post

2007-02-17T19:38:00.000-05:00

This evening, I read an article on ESPN.com about the imminent retirement of Frank Broyles, who has been either football coach or athletic director at the University of Arkansas since 1958. This led me to look up something on Wikipedia related to this event, where I read the following sentence: "Houston Nutt is married to his wife, Diana."

Really? He's married to his wife? That's amazing! How did he manage that?!?

And here, folks, is why Wikipedia is a bad thing. ANYONE CAN EDIT IT. This is not good. If we're going to have a widely accessed online reference tool available for anyone to edit, then we're only helping the sort of people who want Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments shown after An Inconvenient Truth because we need to hear both sides of the argument on global warming.

The Nixon Post

2007-02-17T11:59:00.000-05:00

Continuing with the apparently unavoidable theme of each post having nothing to do with the previous one, let us now discuss Richard Milhous Nixon.

I am not a fan of history learned by television. My cousin will bring up something about a president and I'll ask where he got that information and invariably he will reply, "Oh, I saw it on the History Channel." Now, don't get me wrong, I would much prefer that people take enough of an interest in history to at least watch it on television. But to my mind, there is no substitute for a good thick book on the subject. Serious history is far too shaded with subtlety and imbued with meaning to be told in 44 minutes with 16 set aside for Cialis ads.

So it may come as a surprise that last night I watched a portion of the History Channel's examination of the Nixon Presidency. They called it "Nixon: A Presidency Revealed" and then proceeded to "reveal" Watergate for two hours.

Now, I'm no fan of Richard Nixon. I wasn't even alive in 1960 and I have a Kennedy campaign poster from that year hanging from my office wall. But I am a fan of the idea that history shouldn't reduce important figures to one line epitaphs. For instance, the word "Iraq" will undoubtedly appear in George W. Bush's obituary someday. Which is fine, but hey, let's not forget about all the other things he's fucked up in the last six years!

You might think I'm making the same point as Nixon, but I'm not. What gets lost in the History Channelization of Richard Nixon is why he matters beyond Watergate, and the sum of that relevance is enormous. His story is told badly by contemporary historians, in a way that not only doesn't account for his accomplishments, it's also just bad storytelling. In his farewell speech, Nixon said, "Only when you have been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." The problem is, the people who learn about Nixon from the History Channel only hear about his journey in the deep valley of Watergate. You never hear about Nixon on the highest mountain.

I'm not just talking about Nixon going to China, although that was a stunning diplomatic triumph. Nixon brilliantly played China and the Soviet Union off of each other to get a good arms treaty for the United States, paving the way for the end of the Cold War. Nixon was the one who carried out the desegregation policies that were largely theoretical before he became president. He planned an ambitious and surprisingly progressive domestic agenda that really would have been "compassionate conservatism." He contributed to the quality of American life in many relatively unnoticed ways - the creation of the Product Safety Commission comes to mind.

So, in the end, yes, Nixon was a bastard. He was intensely paranoid and maintained a fierce hatred for his enemies, both real and perceived. The excesses of his conduct and the abuse of his presidential power are documented fact. The Watergate scandal, for which he rightfully bears responsibility, produced a constitutional crisis in this country unrivaled since the Civil War. Perhaps most importantly, Watergate eroded the public's confidence in the presidency and government as a whole, and I'm not sure that trust has ever been fully regained. All of these things are true, and deserve to be the lead item and focus of any biography of Richard Nixon. But what makes Nixon a great story is that while he routinely ranks among the worst presidents, he could have been one of the very best if not for his flaws. Maybe they could mention that before they cut to the commercial break.

The Katrina Post

2007-02-16T21:06:00.000-05:00

I'm typing this from my comfortable residence in Medford, Massachusetts. But before Hurricane Katrina, I called New Orleans home. Here are a couple of pictures from my 1st trip back, in September of 2006.

What you see below are two photos of the first game back in the Louisiana Superdome after Katrina. The New Orleans Saints, who spent the entire 2005 season on the road, occasionally practicing in parking lots for lack of space, took on the Atlanta Falcons in a nationally televised game on Monday Night Football. U2 and Green Day performed before the game, and former president George H.W. Bush did the coin toss. A multitude of celebrities descended upon New Orleans for this game. The top photo was taken immediately after the emotional win by the Saints. Immediately below is an odd but interesting shot of Saints rookie Reggie Bush arriving at the Superdome in his brand new Hummer.

Still further down you see evidence of not only destruction but neglect. These pictures were taken more than a year after Katrina, and clearly nothing had been done. I drove through the streets of the Ninth Ward in my goofy rental car, and it was like driving through a ghost town. This was an area I knew well. I used to drive through this neighborhood every day to get to work. I would pass through the Ninth Ward before dawn and even then there was activity. Now, on a Monday afternoon, it was deathly still, and that's the correct phrase.

It may seem incongruous to post pictures from a football game next to those from a natural disaster. Many people have been critical that the Superdome was fixed before neighborhoods were rebuilt. There are a couple of points about that I want to make:

-First of all, I had to flee that storm with my wife, our two dogs and four cats. We stayed in a motel for as long as we could. Then we had to burden her aunt and uncle, spent weeks wondering when we could go home, wondering if everything we owned was destroyed. I spent hours online trying to find out if the kids I taught for three years survived the 20 foot storm surge that destroyed St. Bernard Parish. Then we had to burden MY aunt and uncle for five months until I found a job to replace the one Katrina took from me. And this is the Cliff's Notes version of the experience! The point is, I don't want to hear criticism about how things are done in New Orleans from people who don't know what Pat O'Brien's is, who can't pronounce Tchoupitoulas because they never drove on that street, who don't know what it means when you find the baby in the king cake.

- Second, look at the people reaching out to Reggie Bush in those pictures. Look at the people in the crowd cheering after the game. You can see what this meant to them. They NEEDED this. I grant you that these are mostly white faces, and you wouldn't have seen those faces in the Ninth Ward even before Katrina. But I talked to rich white people who arrived at the Superdome in a Lexus, and I talked to the black fellow who drove me there in his taxi, and they held the same opinion that this was a good thing. Hell, it meant more to the guy driving the cab because he finally had another Saints game to generate business.

- Finally, I don't really expect many people to see these pictures, because I don't expect many people to see this blog. It's mostly for my own amusement. I'll get my friends to check it out, and that will be about it. But I feel about this post kind of the way I felt about teaching. Whenever I would get frustrated trying to help a kid who wouldn't or couldn't help himself, I would remind myself that if just one student benefitted from what I taught, then that in itself was a victory. And so if just one person - someone in my family, a colleague from work - ANYBODY - remembers what happened in New Orleans from seeing this post, then mission accomplished.

The Emersonian Post

2007-02-16T17:06:00.000-05:00

Anything written alongside a photograph like this ought to be Emersonian, reflecting a love of nature and beauty. I realize Thoreau would have been a better reference but how would you write that? Thoreauzian? Thoreauistic?

Anyway, the point is...well, I'm not sure. Maybe the photograph says more than I could even if you gave me the stereotypical thousand words to work with.

-Photo taken at Camp Clement in Maine on a quiet afternoon in November of 2006