Speaking of Embarrassing...

Last month, I pointed you in the direction of "Our American Prayer", a video in which a variety of movie stars and pop stars were, it seemed, praying to Obama. I still think it's creepy, but today I came across something else that out-creeps "Our American Prayer". Take a look:



This strikes me as wrong on a number of levels. First and foremost, though, if you view this on YouTube and click on the "more info" link, you'll find the following description of what you have just watched:

Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered to sing original songs in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these nonvoting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.

Sing for Change was a confluence of hard work, good will, and shared vision. Inspired by ideas raised at a grassroots Obama fundraiser, a music teacher, Kathy Sawada, and the children composed and rehearsed the songs in less than two weeks. Several musicians heard of the effort and volunteered to accompany the children. Parents and older siblings designed and provided the T-Shirts and the banner. There's a first for everything, but rarely do so many firsts come together at once: for the children and their parents, this is their first performance, first video, first banner, and first involvement with grassroots work on a presidential campaign.

As Sunday approached, a neighbor volunteered a home. Production wizards got wind of the project and offered their help in recording it. The likes of Jeff Zucker, Holly Schiffer, Peter Rosenfeld, Darin Moran, Jean Martin, Andy Blumenthal, and Nick Phoenix rearranged schedules to participate. When Jeff Zucker went to pick up the camera package, Ted Schilowitz happened to be there and offered a RED camera set up on a Steadi Cam.

What we accomplished in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon embodies the nature of the Obama campaign: its grassroots inspiration, its inclusiveness, its community building. People pitched in quickly for a cause that resonated with them. There were not many conditions: "Think this is a good idea? Want to help? Great. Sunday at 12:00." At the heart of the project were 22 children and their music. The willingness of all involved to come together for them was a testament to our hope, unity, courage, joy and belief in the future represented by these children.

So let me quickly indicate just a few of my issues with this:

1. Some of these children are as young as 5 years old. Is a 5 year old (much less the children here who are between the ages of 6 and 12) really able to make a conscious political choice for himself or herself? I would argue probably not, and if you grant me that, how are these children not being used as political pawns by their parents and others involved in producing and disseminating this?
2. Given that this can be found here on Barack Obama's official website, Obama and his campaign therefore shares the responsibility for promoting it.
   
3. Heavily involved in apparently every aspect of this was Jeff Zucker. Jeff Zucker also happens to be the President and CEO of NBC Universal, which encompasses not only NBC News, but also MSNBC. That strikes me as a blatant conflict-of-interest at worst -- a clear indication of the bias held by the man atop NBC News and MSNBC at best.
4. While I obviously cannot prove this point, I would be willing to bet an awful lot that if this video featured children singing for John McCain (or George W. Bush), the liberal community would be in an uproar about the exploitation of children, etc. And I would bet even more that the phenomenon would be featured prominently on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC primetime show. (Yes, Jeff Zucker's MSNBC).

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons why I find this offensive, hypocritical and (with apologies for the repetition) creepy, but I'll stop here. I'd be curious to hear via the comments function what you think. Let me know!

Embarrassed Republican

Today, I am horribly embarrassed to be a Republican. The stubborn refusal of House Republicans to pass the Rescue Bill was extraordinarily wrong-headed. I understand sticking to the "conservative principles", but there are times when the urgency of the situation requires action that may run counter to one's instincts and/or convictions. This was one of those times.

Do these GOP legislators -- most attorneys by trade, I suspect -- truly believe that they know more about the financial system than Hank Paulson or Ben Bernanke (to say nothing of Warren Buffet and the other "experts" consulted on this)??? If these financial minds are telling you that this must be done, one should put aside partisan concerns, constituent complaints and simply do what is right for the country -- reelection be damned. I can assure them that their constituents will be a hell of a lot more angry tomorrow when their 401(k) has been devastated or when they can't get a loan of any kind. This is such a huge mistake. Think of the Democrats who likely acted counter to their beliefs after 9/11 for the greater good. This is the closest thing we've had to a financial 9/11, and the GOP has failed the country.

Republicans can kiss whatever fleeting hopes remained of maintaining the White House goodbye, (not to mention both Houses of Congress), and I am sad to say that it's deserved.

---

Update (4:15pm): Republicans are pointing to the speech that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave on the House Floor prior to the vote as part of the reason the bill failed to pass. I will let you watch her speech for yourself below, but I do want to note that her remarks truly were mean-spirited, partisan and uncalled-for. There was absolutely no reason to make such a speech prior to what needed to be a bipartisan effort to pass the bill. Secondly, it was dishonest, blaming all of the problems in the financial industry on the Bush Administration. Any honest observer will acknowledge that, as I posted here last week, there is plenty of blame to go around. Certain portions at the root of the current crisis began during the Clinton Administration. (Take a look at this New York Times article from 1999 if you need corroboration). Speaker Pelosi knows this, and her choice to take the disingenuous cheap shots she took -- and to do so when she did -- was despicable.

With that said, her ugly rhetoric does not -- I repeat, does NOT -- serve as an excuse for the Republicans who abdicated responsible represenation in voting against this bill (or for the Democrats who did the same thing, for that matter). This was a moment in which those in the GOP voting "no" simply needed to swallow their pride and, as the saying goes, "man up".

Here is Pelosi for you to see and hear for yourself:

Slipping Away

This election is beginnig to slip away from John McCain. To be clear, I wouldn't necessariliy argue that the election was ever firmly in his grasp, however he has managed to keep things close and competitive so far. I had thought things would remain very tight heading into Election Day, and until yesterday, I would probably have predicted another long election night with no winner declared until early the following morning. But now my gut feeling is that it's getting ugly out there, and more worrisome for McCain, I don't think the prospects for a comeback are very good. A few primary contributors to McCain's current predicament:

1. McCain's campaign suspension and return to Washington last week were widely viewed as a political stunt, and one that now appears to have backfired.
2. Initial post-debate reaction seemed to hold that either McCain had been slightly better or that it had effectively been a draw. Either way, that's likely a net win for Obama. Why? Because as the one trailing in the polls, McCain has the burden of significant outperformance on him, and it would be difficult to argue that he significantly outperformed Obama Friday night. Secondly, the foreign policy area was perceived as Obama's possible weakness. By holding his own in the debate, he probably alleviated concerns some voters may have had about his commander-in-chief qualifications. Over the weekend, though, a quasi-consensus developed that Obama had, in fact, won the debate outright -- from a stylistic a perspective as well as a substantive perspective.
3. Sarah Palin has derailed. McCain's choice of Palin, initially a wildly successful political move, may come back to haunt him. In the immediate days following Palin's selection, the Republican base was both excited and relieved. The media buzz surrounding the selection effectively buried the positive reactions to Obama's convention acceptance speech, and questions about her experience (or lack thereof) had the (unintended?) effect of reflecting the experience question back onto Obama. The wheels began to fall off during Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News. Though he was condescending and arguably looking to trip her up, the result was nonetheless a perception that she had been a bit shaky in her performance. If the Gibson interview was shaky, her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News last week, however, was an unmitigated disaster. The impression likely left on those who watched the interview was that of someone who is in over her head -- not the impression the McCain wants to leave with a 72-year old nominee. The stakes were enormously high for her convention speech a few weeks ago, and she delivered a game-changing performance. If it is possible, the stakes are even higher now for the vice presidential debate on Thursday, but my confidence in Palin's ability to again deliver a game-changing performance is lacking, and the choice of Palin as a running mate is quickly beginning to look like a big mistake. Palin can turn this around, but she'll have to be nearly perfect on Thursday night.
   
4. The media continue to aid Obama. Ironically, he might not need their help, but nevertheless, the media bias in this election is rather striking. Talking heads on television, op-ed writers in newspapers -- these are people who have enormous power in terms of driving the national conversation, and they have consistently driven that conversation in a decidedly pro-Obama, anti-McCain fashion. (The New York Times has been particularly shameful). This shows no sign of abating any time soon, and it simply adds to the litany of factors now making a victory for McCain unlikely.

Obviously a lot can happen in the next 36 days, but as I write, McCain has likely reached the lowest point of his General Election campaign to date. At this point, I simply don't see a way that McCain will be able to make enough of the uphill climb necessary to turn things around. I suspect this may begin to snowball, that we'll see continued movement towards Obama in the coming weeks, and that on November 4th, we might be going to bed early.

(If this morning's news is any indication, chances are I'm in for another crazy week at work. I will try to chime in when possible, but wanted to get these thoughts "out there" before the "fun" at work begins)...

The Great Unknown

I took the opportunity in my weekly SpliceToday column this week to discuss our country's current financial crisis. I cannot recall a period of time in nearly nine years on Wall Street when I'v been busier or more stretched to the limit. As I prepare to head into work today, there is still no agreement on a bailout (or rescue -- see below) plan, and my Blackberry was buzzing last night with news of Washington Mutual's failure and subsequent acquisition by JP Morgan. These are crazy times...and it ain't over yet. Hang in there!

Without further ado, here's my Splice column...

---

It’s been an extraordinary two weeks in what was already a rather exceptional year in the financial services industry. I work “on Wall Street.” In nearly nine years in this business, I have seen some significant ups and downs—September 11th, 2001 most notable among them. 9/11 was traumatic for this industry, but in reality the trauma was primarily psychological or emotional in nature. The last two weeks have also been psychologically and emotionally jarring, but in this case, the financial system of our country has been shaken on a fundamental and systematic level. As I write, both presidential candidates have returned to Washington to work with President Bush and their fellow members of Congress so that the federal government can provide some sort of solution to the current crisis.

It would be reasonable to assume that because I work on Wall Street, I’d be able to offer a unique perspective on what we now face. Yet in many ways, I know as much (or as little, as it were) as anyone else. The extent to which the specifics of the current situation surpass my understanding points to a crucial element of how it is we got here: we as a country, we as taxpayers, we as investors and even we fellow financial services industry workers have been betrayed by the reckless, irresponsible and, yes, greedy, actions of a very few individuals.

So, what exactly is it that I do? Put in the simplest terms, I am a salesman. My job is to convince institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc.) to buy and sell stocks with my firm. If I am successful in convincing such an entity to begin doing business, I then become something of a relationship manager, by which I mean that my job evolves into maintaining the customer’s business and, whenever possible, increasing the level of that business over time. To do my job effectively, I need a solid understanding of the financial markets—the stock market specifically. My customers do not need my advice on what to buy and sell. They are trained to do that themselves, or someone above them directs their transactions accordingly. What they do need and rely on, though, is my knowledge and feel of when to buy and sell their stocks, and what sort of result they can anticipate once their trade is complete. They count on me to alert them to important news not only about the specific stocks they are trading, but also about the markets in general. Information is vital to success in my job, and the ability to effectively communicate that information is the real key. These last two weeks have been as volatile, uncertain and unpredictable as any I’ve experienced, and without a doubt, everyone’s abilities have been put to the test.

The rollercoaster ride began in earnest earlier in the year, as Bear Stearns fell apart. We shook it off, though, only to watch in amazement again this summer as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of failure, saved by a bailout from the federal government. Smart analysts had months ago warned that Lehman Brothers was in danger, noting the similarities between Bear and Lehman, and the uncomfortable correlation between the types of investments and debts weighing on both firms. While most believed there was no way that Lehman could (or would be allowed) to be “the next Bear,” early this month the writing was on the wall. The reasons for Lehman’s eventual failure are still being sorted out, but the impact of that failure had immediate repercussions.

There was panic. There was panic from customers who watched, ashen, as their portfolios lost value and their year-to-date gains disappeared. I saw very conservative, well-respected and cerebral investment firms engage in what I can only believe was true “panic selling.” There was panic from those entrusted with overseeing the very system now facing a real crisis. As is often the case, here too the panic largely resulted from the many, great unknowns. I certainly don’t know how much more toxic debt lies buried in the books of financial firms across our country, but there is no reason why I should know. More alarmingly, however, the men and women in charge of the very firms nearing their demise didn’t truly know the extent of their remaining exposure either. The SEC, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department—none truly knew the extent of the catastrophic precipice on which we found ourselves. Emergency actions were implemented such as a ban on the short selling of stock—something I could never have imagined as I had chuckled in the past on hearing of various emerging markets’ complete and total bans on short sales—or sometimes on selling at all! I’m not laughing any more.

The Thursday after Lehman filed for bankruptcy—in the midst of the most tumultuous week of trading I had ever seen—I had my only moment of true panic. Bear was gone. Lehman was now gone. Merrill Lynch was effectively gone, having been acquired days earlier by Bank of America. That left only two of the handful of Wall Street giants we had for so long been accustomed to: Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. I remember vividly that Thursday as I watched the share price of Morgan Stanley plummet with a velocity and an intensity I’ve never witnessed. Tens of millions of shares of the stock were trading every hour, and early that afternoon, it appeared Morgan Stanley was headed for a Bear- or Lehman-like fate. In the space of only 30 minutes, Morgan Stanley’s stock had fallen more than 50 percent, at one point flirting with single digits. It was only the breaking news of the plan being hatched by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that rallied the markets, taking Morgan higher with it.

This small example points to the importance of what the media have taken to calling “the bailout plan.” I think a more appropriate moniker is “rescue.” We’re beyond bailing out. Bailing out is only a temporary stopgap. Bailing out invokes images of buckets fighting a losing battle against a vast amount of water. What we need is a rescue. Coast Guard helicopters, life boats, whatever it takes! Honestly, I can hardly believe I’m writing this. As a Republican (and a Republican primarily for fiscal reasons), the idea of increased government intervention or oversight on the nation’s economy is absolute anathema to me. With that said, it is my firm belief that Democrats and Republicans absolutely must come together to pass some version of the Paulson plan—and sooner rather than later. I hope it will be the most responsible plan possible with respect to the role the government will play in the financial industry in the future. I hope the Democrats won’t take advantage of the vulnerable situation we’re in to insert more government controls than are absolutely necessary. I hope the taxpayer will bear as little of the burden as possible, and that they will stand to reap the majority of the benefits of the plan’s potential upside. But I don’t feel as though now is a time to be picky, and I don’t think now is a time for partisanship.

Say what you will about President Bush, his speaking ability or anything else, but he was excellent when he addressed the nation on Wednesday night. In clear (if sobering) terms, he effectively laid out the facts of the present situation, and skillfully explained much of what led us here. As Bush said:

“The government’s top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, American could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail…The stock market would drop even more…The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically…More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs…it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.”

He’s right. This is unprecedented, and it’s dire. There is more bad news out there and more pain to come—the extent of which we just do not know. So the unknowns remain, and as unfortunate as it may be, a rescue from the federal government has become the best of a limited number of terrible choices. Those supposed to know don’t know. Those responsible for not letting this happen have let it happen. The actions of a very few have the very real possibility of dragging down all.

Remember, I’m no financial expert, but I do read the markets, and I do know my clients. The markets, my clients and my gut all agree that drastic action is necessary. Inaction is not an option. The sooner we swallow this pill, the sooner we can begin to heal. Take it from me—I’ve got a front row seat.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

There's Plenty of Blame to Go Around...

But most in the media (and certainly in the Democratic Party) seem to point the finger at George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Take a look at the clip below. (Yes, it is from Fox News, and while Fox News is seen as a conservative news network, the report consists primarily of video and audio footage, and direct quotes. Conservative or not, a fact is a fact, and the alleged political slant of the news network cannot be used as an excuse in this case)...

Short & Sweet

Well, unless you've had your head buried in the sand for the last week, you've probably noticed that things on Wall Street have been a little hectic. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, insurance giant AIG nearly did the same on Tuesday, and the markets have generally been in turmoil -- the Dow down nearly 450 points yesterday, and then up over 400 points today. In over eight years "in the business", I cannot recall a busier week -- nor can I can recall seeing more volatility. Most alarming for me, I think, is that I can't recall seeing more uncertainty, even from so-called "experts". With the government's apparent plan to create an entity in which to dispose of all of the toxic debt plaguing so many financial firms, the buyers returned today with more conviction than I've seen all week.

Long story short, I've barely had time for lunch this week, and what is already a fairly stressful job has been even more so this week. As a result, blogging has been the last thing on the agenda. The last hour or so of today brought the first signs of potential stability, and should tomorrow be a return to (some semblance) of normalcy, I'll hope to be able to write a post or two this weekend and early next week. In the meantime, a few quick thoughts to leave you with...

• The McCain-Palin "bounce" in the polls following the Republican National Convention appears to have exhausted itself. This is not unexpected -- a "bounce" is inherently temporary.
• With that said, though, McCain likely catalyzed the reversal in the polls this week when, in the midst of Lehman Brothers' declaration of bankruptcy and a stock market meltdown Monday, he affirmed his belief that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". He's not entirely incorrect, technically, but that was the last thing that nervous Americans wanted to hear, and it was remarkable in its political tone deafness given the slew of headlines people were seeing that indicated quite the opposite. The lead McCain has enjoyed in the polls since the convention immediately began to disappear, and as of today, he again trails Obama.
• According to CNN, Obama is now using the teleprompter for each and every speech he gives -- even for what would normally be considered fairly informal, casual stump speeches. I have a few thoughts on this bit of news. First, clearly the Obama Campaign had become concerned about the candidate's ability to stay "on message" when speaking extemporaneously, perhaps trying to avoid another "lipstick on a pig" moment. Second, this reinforces the belief many have that Obama lacks some degree of substance. He can absolutely write a great speech and he can sure as hell deliver a great speech, but every one of the "great" speeches he has delivered has been while using a teleprompter, and conversely, many of the missteps he has made have been when shooting from the hip. Lastly, this is just further evidence of the media's double-standard. Were this McCain who was now relying on a teleprompter for each and every word he uttered in public, the media would be in a frenzy, and the leftist blogs would be buzzing with claims that McCain is so old (or perhaps even approaching senility), and therefore he is unable to even remember his stump speech lines. (Were it President Bush who did this, the same crowd would be trumpeting how "stupid" Bush is, as evidenced by his need for a script whenever he speaks). With Obama, though, not so much as a peep. (NOTE: I stand corrected on this point thanks to a comment from a reader -- and a good friend -- Brandon. Thanks for the correction, Brando).
  
• A week from tomorrow is the first of three presidential debates -- Friday, September 26th at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS. I predict that Obama will maintain his lead -- perhaps even build on it slightly -- and head into next week's debate with a 3-5 point lead in the polls. I believe the debates are crucial this election year. A disastrous showing by either candidate could have a significant impact on the polls and on the election's ultimate outcome, so be sure to tune in and watch.
• After a series of missteps and strategic errors, Obama and his campaign enjoyed their first good series of days this week since the Republican Convention. While they seem to have regained their footing for now, he still appears unable to close the deal with American voters. If he had done so, he'd likely be leading by double-digits given the poisonous political environment for any candidate with the Republican "R" next to his or her name. Even still, this election has been and remains Obama's to lose.

I'll be back soon...

The Puppy Formerly Known As Rocket **

Rather than trying to discern what Barack Obama intended when he made his now infamous "lipstick on a pig" remark yesterday, I decided it was time to have a post unrelated to politics. In that spirit, I'd like you to tell you about Henry...

It has often seemed to me that many of the big things in life happen when we are not planning for them, and so I probably shouldn't have been too surprised when my wife, Hayley, called me three weeks ago with the news. It wasn’t as though it was completely out of the blue, either, because as we near our second anniversary, she and I have found ourselves having discussions and debates that many couples at this stage in their marriage undoubtedly have. We thought we were ready around Christmas time, but ended up talking ourselves out of it. Could we pull it off while living in Manhattan? This spring, we again gave serious consideration to the matter, but in a tough year on Wall Street, we were concerned about what effect such a change in our home life might have on our careers. This time, though, it looked like it was really going to happen, and as soon as we hung up, I knew our lives were going to change dramatically.

“I found him”, Hayley said. “His name is Rocket, he’s six months old, he’s at a shelter in Brooklyn, and we can meet him tonight!” Rocket was a Labradoodle (a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle), and he was in need of rescuing after inexplicably being given up by his original owner. She had found him on Petfinder.com, probably her favorite website in the world, and one she has visited daily for the last year in a heretofore fruitless search for the third member of our small family.

After work that night, we went to Brooklyn as fast as we could. Arriving at the shelter, we announced that we had come to meet Rocket, and someone on the staff was dispatched to retrieve him. The door soon opened, and out bounded the scrawniest, most unkempt dog I’d seen in some time. He jumped on Hayley, then me, then back to her, moving with the frenetic energy that only a puppy has. A few minutes later they asked us if we wanted to take him for a walk around the block, and so we set out for our “test drive”. Once outside, it was obvious that Rocket was just happy to be free. He was sniffing everything, looking everywhere, trying to say hello to everyone, and generally just all over the place. His legs were too long for his body, like a 13-year old boy in his “awkward stage”, and he didn’t seem to know what to do with them when he would try to pick up his pace. Though dirty and a little too skinny, it was easy to see that underneath all of that was a truly gorgeous dog, and naturally, we were completely hooked. “This is our dog, Bragg,” Hayley said, and I couldn’t disagree.

Back at the shelter, we told the manager we wanted Rocket. He gave us an application to fill out, and began to rattle off the laundry list of supplies we would need to properly care for our new puppy. I felt like a cartoon character listening to the cash register “cha-ching” with every item he named. The application was lengthy, requested references, and, as is standard in New York, asked if our landlord allowed dogs and if so, whether there was a size limit. This was the question we had dreaded, because we were pretty sure we knew the answer. In the course of our deliberations about getting a dog, Hayley and our landlord had a hypothetical email exchange in which he informed her that dogs were allowed, but that there was a 10 pound limit. A 10 pound dog? Don’t most cats weigh more than 10 pounds? Hayley grew up with a Golden Retriever, and my family had a Standard Poodle – both large dogs. We are unequivocally “big dog people”, and unlike many fellow New Yorkers, we’d rather have a dog that could eat Hayley’s purse than one who could fit inside it. We made the joint decision to answer “yes” and “no”, respectively.

That night we went home to “puppy-proof” our apartment for Rocket’s arrival the next day, and as we sat down to dinner, I addressed the elephant in the room. “Hayley, what are we doing to do about our landlord?” Even though we didn’t want to admit it, we both knew that in fairness to the dog, we had to call our landlord and officially ask permission. After all, if he denied our request, it might hurt us, but the dog would be fine and would end up being adopted by someone else. If, however, we just brought the dog home in defiance of our building’s policy, we risked hurting not only ourselves, but more importantly, we risked hurting the dog too, and that was a risk we weren’t willing to take.

The next day we woke up early and prepared “talking points” for our upcoming discussion with the landlord. When I got to work, I called the shelter to inform them that we might have a complication, and that I would get back to them with a definite answer by noon. I asked about Rocket’s weight, and was told he was “between 15 and 20 pounds”. I asked if he would likely grow much more, and was told he was probably close to full grown. Armed with this information, we called our landlord. He asked what kind of dog it was (“a poodle mix” I hedged), and then he asked how big he was. “Well,” I said, “he’s about 15 or 20 pounds, but not expected to be much bigger”. “No problem”, the landlord responded to our great surprise, and Hayley and I hung up absolutely elated. We went to pick up Rocket that night.

Our first night with Rocket was somewhat turbulent, but we all made it through. Hayley and I had both taken the next day off from work to begin dealing with all of the logistics of our newfound “parenthood”. While driving him home the night before, we decided we didn’t think the name Rocket fit him well, and since we were told that at his age, there was not yet any name association or recognition, we decided to make a change. After throwing around a few names, we settled on Henry. We liked the name, we didn’t know any other dogs named Henry, and well, he just sort of looked like a Henry. We did, however, feel it was only proper to honor the first name he was ever given, so we made Rocket his middle name: Henry R. Van Antwerp, our dog.



We decided to take him to the vet for a full check-up, nervous new parents that we were, and a few surprises emerged from our visit. For one, Henry was not six months old, he was five months old. No big deal there. But a few of the other revelations were not as innocuous. We learned that Henry weighed 32 pounds – just a tad bigger than the “15 to 20 pounds” the shelter had told us (and that we had in turn told our landlord). Additionally, he wasn’t even close to being fully grown (as we had also told our landlord). In fact, said the vet, we were probably looking at a 70 to 90 pound dog when it was all said and done. Oh and by the way, he also has pneumonia! So a few hundred dollars later, we left the vet a little poorer, a tad shell-shocked, but still falling madly in love with our new puppy.

The last few weeks have been busy ones in the Van Antwerp household. I don’t think I’ve gotten more than five hours of sleep since Henry’s arrival, and Hayley isn’t faring much better. I haven’t had time to go to the gym, and she has fallen behind in her training for the New York Marathon. A small fortune has been spent on the vet, low-calorie, grain-free food, an endless amount of miscellaneous supplies, and of course, entirely too many toys. A woman we only met three weeks ago now enters our apartment three times a day with a copy of our key to walk Henry for 30 minutes. (She then calls Hayley or me to let us know how – or perhaps more appropriately, what – he did while walking). Along those lines, we have had more discussions about our dog’s “elimination” than I ever imagined, and in greater detail than I ever thought possible – to say nothing of what we have cleaned off our apartment floor or picked up off the Manhattan sidewalks. Baby Talk is now the official language of our apartment, and much to our chagrin, we both now occasionally refer to ourselves as “Mom” or “Dad” – in the first person! I have had several business meetings in which I have reached into my pocket only to find a dog treat there instead of my card. In short, our lives have been turned upside down, but we knew that would happen, and it was part of what we signed up for when we rescued Henry. The bottom line is that when I come home from work and he’s there to greet me, his tail wagging so hard that his whole body begins to wag with it – just those few seconds alone make every lost hour of sleep, every dollar spent, and every single change to our lives absolutely worth it. (But I think we may wait a little longer on kids)!

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

** Special thanks to John Lingan, Managing Editor of Splice Today, for the title of this post!

Grand Slam !!!

Sarah Palin is simply a phenomenal politician and, more importantly, a tremendously good choice by McCain as a Vice Presidential Nominee. With the stakes as high as possible, she came through with a fantastic speech and perfect delivery.

Democrats should be concerned, I think, but so should Palin. If the Democrats and the media have been tough over the last few days, the pressure will only increase now that they have seen what she can do. They will recognize the real threat that her addition to the McCain Ticket singlehandedly poses to Obama's chances, and they will stop at nothing to tear her down. Something tells me she'll be ready, though.

In the meantime, Republicans have found a politician who generates more excitement and enthusiasm than anyone else in the GOP since Ronald Reagan.

Job well done, Governor Palin.

Mixed Emotions

It has certainly been an interesting few days for Sarah Palin, her family, and the Republican Party. As indicated here on Friday, I was extremely enthusiastic about John McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate. This enthusiasm only grew over the weekend as I was able to hear more of her on the stump, and also to gauge the almost unanimously positive reactions of the people to whom I spoke. But then, on Monday, news broke that her 17-year old daughter Bristol was pregnant, and I began to feel far less optimistic about Palin and the overall chances for the ticket.

Full of newfound doubts, on Monday, I wrote the following, which now appears at Splice Today:

Well, it was a fine three-day run for the McCain campaign, and Republicans in general. As we went to bed last Thursday night, it appeared McCain was on the verge of tapping Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty for the veep slot, and the more I thought about that, I was disappointed, particularly when juxtaposed with Obama’s acceptance speech. Pawlenty is qualified, but he is essentially the personification of “boring white guy.” Friday morning by the time I got to work, the room was buzzing about the rumor that McCain had instead chosen the nearly unknown Sarah Palin. Soon it was confirmed, and I was thrilled. I was familiar with her, but thought she was a long shot at best, particularly with the cloud of an investigation involving the Alaska public safety commission hanging over her. Now that she had been picked, though, I assumed that the team vetting McCain’s potential running mates had looked at the situation closely and determined she had done no wrong, or at least that the controversy wasn’t sufficiently detrimental to disqualify her from being chosen. What’s that saying about the folly of assumptions? Something about making an ass out of you and me?

Friday’s official introduction of Palin energized Republicans; many probably had their first genuine moment of enthusiasm about voting for McCain. To the extent that enthusiasm extended to their wallets, the windfall of contributions the campaign received over the weekend seemed to confirm GOP voters’ newfound excitement. In talking to a variety of friends and relatives of varying degrees of political interest and multiple political leanings Friday, I found the reaction to Palin uniformly positive. Palin’s enthusiasm, her verve, her genuineness, her refreshing departure from typical Washington politics and politicians—all were among the attributes positively cited by those I spoke to. Perhaps more importantly, though, her conservative bona fides are unassailable, and for a Republican base still suspicious of McCain’s sincerity on social issues, this was a choice that put many of those lingering concerns to rest. Over the weekend, McCain’s rallies had an energy level higher than any his campaign has seen so far. Record crowds turned out to see the Alaska governor in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Predictably, the media questioned her experience (despite their general disinclination to do the same for Barack Obama), but in reality, she’s not much less experienced than Obama, and by virtue of having even a day of executive experience, she bests that of Obama, McCain and Joe Biden combined. Whether intentional or not, in a brilliant stroke of political jujitsu, every time the experience of the #2 person on the GOP ticket was questioned, the focus was implicitly or sub-consciously turned back to the inexperience of Barack Obama—the man at the top of the Democratic ticket.

But the subsequent news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy reminded me of that moment in movies when the thriving dance party is suddenly interrupted by the sound of a record scratching. Was she properly vetted? On its face, the issue of her daughter’s pregnancy is just not a big deal. Nearly every family has had a similar instance, and based on the Palin family’s statement about the issues, it sounds as though they are dealing with it in a loving and unified way. But it is a very big deal in its implications. Does her daughter’s teenage pregnancy make her unfit to be the vice president? Of course not. But if McCain knew about this when he selected her, it raises serious doubts about his judgment and political acumen. If he indeed knew, and if he decided it was not sufficiently damaging to stop him from choosing her, then his campaign should have made this fact known shortly after unveiling her on Friday. Surely that would have been preferable to the bombshell news breaking on the first day of the Republican National Convention and in the midst of one of McCain’s only true momentum surges this year. I frankly don’t believe he did know, and if his vetters couldn’t unearth that, is there anything else that McCain’s campaign doesn’t know about Palin? And if Palin herself didn’t tell him, what does that tell us about her?

In general, it seems that most of the same conservative bloggers and writers who were heralding her choice Friday were now downplaying the political implications of her daughter’s pregnancy. The pro-life crowd is predictably ecstatic that Bristol Palin was choosing to keep her baby, and the emerging party line seems to be that the manner in which Sarah Palin and her husband had embraced the news only made her more appealing as a mother, and further, how dare the media and the Democrats invade the Palin’s privacy in this way! Obama, to his credit, almost immediately announced that the families of candidates should be off-limits, and that, oh, by the way, his mother had only been 18 when he was born. This was a classy reaction from Obama, and it was also politically pitch-perfect. Magnanimity is the shrewd play here, and Obama and Democrats will now sit back and give Palin and the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. As for Republicans and conservatives now claiming that this will have no backlash (or even that it will somehow be a net positive), they are simply kidding themselves—drunk, I can only assume, from a weekend bender of political enthusiasm after several painful years on the wagon.

Palin was unquestionably a risky choice for McCain, and for the pick to work out she had to be controversy-free until Election Day. While this was the gamble I thought McCain had to take in order to change the game and catalyze his candidacy, it was only worth it if he and his campaign were 100 percent certain there were no surprises about Palin waiting in the wings. Obviously they weren’t, and so in apparently failing to properly vet her, McCain will now find his judgment questioned, and rightfully so. As a committed Republican, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief and disappointment.

Tim Pawlenty is looking pretty good right about now. Perhaps there’s something to be said for the boring white guy after all.

Since writing that, however, I have started to return to the happy, optimistic Bragg of the weekend. Well, almost...

Here's the bottom line: I still think this was a terrific pick by McCain. I think Palin is a star already, and on her way to even bigger and better things (regardless of whether that ascendance begins with the vice presidency this time around or not). I am extremely interested in watching her speak tonight at the Republican National Convention, and I am even looking forward to watching her debate Joe Biden next month. On the other hand, I feel like what could have been the absolutely perfect pick has been somewhat tainted, even if only slightly. I think that to take the risk McCain took in picking her, the whole package (the candidate, the vetting process, etc.) had to be pristine, and it has not been. A part me of me, then, still feels deflated and disappointed, but then on the other hand, is it possible that all of this could still become a positive? Can the McCain-Palin ticket bounce back after a rough few days? If you'd asked me Monday -- as evidenced by my Splice post above -- I'd have said there was no way to come back from this. But the more I think about it and the more I watch the media (predictably) overplay their hand, the more I think this whole thing could, in fact, boomerang in Palin's favor.

The aggressiveness and borderline glee with which liberal bloggers, the mainstream media and some Democrats have attacked Palin is astonishing. The reason the news of Bristol Palin's pregancy even came to light at all is because hateful bloggers at Daily Kos (a preeminent liberal blog) were alleging that Palin had faked her most recent pregnancy (which resulted in the birth of her son, Trig, 5 months old, who suffers from Down Syndrome) in order to cover up her daughter's. In other words, they were alleging that Trig was in fact Palin's grandson. It was truly despicable. The Obama Campaign itself had to back down from their initial official reaction after the consensus held that it had been overly hostile. The media have, as expected, questioned her experience despite their willingness, by and large, to allow questions about Obama's -- the person at the top of the Democratic ticket -- to go unasked. Some reporters have questioned her ability to run for (much less serve as) vice president while still being able to adequately mother her children, a blatantly sexist inquiry. Has anyone ever asked Barack Obama if he feels he can be a good father to his two young daughters while running for (much less serving as) president?

The reality is that she is hardly less qualified than Obama no matter how one measures experience. And if executive experience is the benchmark, well then she has more than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. The fact that Obama on Tuesday felt compelled to compare his experience with that of Palin's -- again, the person in the #2 spot on the opposing ticket -- shows not only some measure of concern on the part of Obama and his campaign, but also the political brilliance of the Palin choice. Going one step further, McCain's campaign responded today with a new ad addressing the experience question, and I think it's fairly effective. Have a look:


I'm going to have to cut this shorter than I had wanted, but I'll be back later this week with more. In summary, I absolutely wish that the McCain Campaign had revealed Bristol Palin's pregnancy at the outset (even as a part of Sarah Palin's biography -- "expectant grandmother," maybe???) rather than let the news come out on the first day of the Convention, but perhaps they had their reasons. If I have learned one thing over the last few weeks, it's that I have consistently underestimated the political instincts of the McCain Campaign. Perhaps this is all part of their grand plan? Whether it is or not -- and whether that plan will work -- remain to be seen.

Tonight's speech would have been make-or-break for her even without the distractions of the last few days, but because of it, the stakes are astronomically high for Palin as she prepares for her primetime address to the GOP Delegates and, in all likelihood, millions of Americans watching at home. Here's hoping it's her turn to hit a home run!