Bill Keller's First Op-Ed: Fill[ing] In the Blanks

Bill Keller (long an unhinged liberal) was the Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2003 until just recently. As he gradually descended into complete liberal psychosis -- beyond even the Times’ fairly lenient stance towards such behavior -- the powers-that-be at The Gray Lady finally did what was right, and he was effectively fired as Executive Editor. (Note that this version of events is based on what I've heard and read, and is contrary to the official story that portrayed the move as Keller’s “stepping down”). Naturally, though – and in true Times’ fashion – he was then awarded for his delusions by being given one of the coveted slots on the paper’s op-ed page! 

His inaugural effort in this new capacity was today, and he penned a column entitled Fill In the Blanks. I found it so wrong-headed and objectionable that I felt compelled to submit a comment. To my slight surprise, my comment was posted, and I thought I would share it with any readers who may still remain following my extended absence from the blogosphere! I'd advise reading Keller's piece first (you can find it here), and then if you're interested, here is my response, which can also be found here on the Times' website. (My comment is posted under the username tbv1977):

It boggles the mind, Mr. Keller, that you (and President Obama) would continue to blame George W. Bush for the problems Obama faces as president and we face as a country. Let's not forget that he sought this job, and did so with a full understanding of the so-called "mess" that Bush had left for him. What's the statute of limitations on blaming one's predecessor? If Obama is reelected will he blame his own first term failings if conditions fail to improve in a second Obama term?

I'm also amazed by your selective memory in blaming Republican resistance for Obama's ineffectiveness. It seems you conveniently forget that Obama had significant majorities in the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. A president's political capital is never higher than early in his term, and when that capital is coupled with the large congressional majorities he enjoyed for two years, there is literally no one else to blame but Obama and Democrats for not accomplishing more than they did. Sure, they passed healthcare reform and they passed the stimulus, but no one can blame Bush or Republicans for the fact that healthcare reform was (and is) unpopular with most Americans, or for the fact that the stimulus simply did not work (and arguably made matters worse). Republicans didn't "succeed" in "turning 'stimulus' into an expletive" -- the abject failure of the stimulus itself accomplished that. Likewise, the GOP didn't enjoy a victory in "portraying 'Obamacare' as socialized medicine" -- the view of many Americans that Obamacare effectively *is* socialized medicine can take that credit. 

The reality is that apparently you, your wife and your daughters were -- like millions of other Americans -- seduced and duped by the rhetorical magic of Candidate Obama. What has become clear to most Americans by now is that when the teleprompter and grand backdrops are stripped away, the [president] has no clothes. Obama and those who elected him are the only ones to blame for that.

So, readers, what do you think?

Hope & Change ???

Hey, look on the bright side, folks! It could be worse! Am I right, or am I right?



Meanwhile, Joe "It's a Big F#cking Deal" Biden was on a roll of his own... In a fundraising email, Biden warned recipients that the GOP will be unleashing a "blitzkrieg" of attacks against Democrats this Fall. Nice.

Hope and change...

Wake Me Up When There's An Election...Oh, Wait...

Hello to any "readers" of Bragging Writes who may still be out there. My sincere apologies for the complete and total lack of blogging for the last, well, let's not quantify it...let's just say it's been awhile!

So where have I been? Well...in a nutshell, it's really quite simple: when push comes to shove, this is a hobby and not a job, and so my job and any job-related activities must come first. But that's only part of the story. I must also admit that I seem to have misplaced my "muse". Or maybe I've realized that my muse only comes out during election years! Put differently, I find myself most inspired to write in the midst of the part of politics that I have always found most interesting -- the "horse race". Elections.

On that note, you may have heard there are a few elections today that have garnered some pretty significant national attention. In Virginia, the Gubernatorial Election has Republican Bob McDonnell facing off against Democrat Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is up against Republican Chris Christie. And last but not least, in (way) upstate New York, near the Canadian Border, there is a race for the House of Representatives (New York 23) that now pits Conservative Party candidate -- note: not Republican Party candidate -- Doug Hoffman against Democrat Bill Owens. (The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race this past weekend and subsequently endorsed the Democrat).

These three races, all quite different in many ways, also have several very interesting things in common:

• All three are states (or districts, in the case of NY-23) carried by President Obama just a year ago;
• All three are races in which President Obama and/or his White House have had significant involvement;
• All three races -- as of this writing at 6:15pm Tuesday evening -- will, in my opinion, likely be won by the Republican (or, in NY-23, Conservative) candidate.

Last year, Obama won Virginia by a margin of 53% to 46% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RealClearPolitics Average (an average of all recent polling, a.k.a. "RCP Average") has Republican McDonnell ahead of Democrat Deeds 54% to 41%. Last year, Obama won New Jersey by a margin of 57% to 42% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RCP Average has Republican Christie ahead of Democrat (and incumbent) Corzine 43% to 42%. Last year, Obama carried New York's 23rd Congressional District by a margin of 52% to 47% of the vote over John McCain. The latest poll for this race (there is no RCP Average) has Conservative Hoffman ahead of Democrat Owens 41% to 36%. The race in Virginia is a foregone conclusion -- McDonnell will win that one handily. The polls in New Jersey have fluctuated wildly over the last few weeks, and most consider this race to be extremely tight. I happen to believe, however, that Christie will win by 3 to 5 points tonight. As for NY-23, this race is just a gigantic mess. The original Republican candidate, Scozzafava, never enjoyed the backing of all national Republicans, and ultimately some notable GOP figures including Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and yes, Sarah Palin, threw their support behind Hoffman over Scozzafava. Either way, though, it looks as though Hoffman will win tonight, and while he may not be an official Republican, his victory would be a loss for the Democrats.

It's very important to note the involvement of the President and the White House in each of these races as well. Rather than try to analyze that myself, I'll leave it to a professional. John Fund of The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely today when he wrote the following:

"It can't be said that President Obama hasn't gone all-out for Democratic candidates in the three marquee off-year elections that will be decided today.

In Virginia, Mr. Obama appeared twice for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. The visits only stopped a few weeks ago after Mr. Deeds began dropping in the polls, when unnamed White House aides then contributed to a front-page Washington Post story that effectively had Team Obama washing its hands of any responsibility for his likely loss.

In the wild upstate New York special election for a House seat, the White House has been deeply involved from the start. It effectively created the vacancy by enticing GOP incumbent John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army. It also helped recruit Democrat Bill Owens, a wealthy trial lawyer, and President Obama held a fundraiser in New York for him. Just yesterday the White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to the district to drive up turnout and lambaste Republicans as intolerant. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also played an instrumental role over the weekend in convincing Dede Scozzafava, the now-withdrawn GOP nominee in the race, to endorse Mr. Owens rather than Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

But it's in New Jersey's governor's race that the White House footprint has been most visible and heavy. Last August, Team Obama was so worried that incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was trailing in the polls that it effectively ordered him to install top Obama political pollster Joel Benenson to mange strategy for the campaign. White House officials David Axelrod and Patrick Gaspard traveled to New Jersey to deliver the message in person to Mr. Corzine. Politico.com, citing three Corzine aides, reports that at one point the New Jersey governor even 'began to suspect that the White House was considering pushing him to step aside for another candidate -- a tactic the White House unsuccessfully tried against another northeastern Democrat in similar trouble -- New York Gov. David Paterson.'

That didn't happen, but with Mr. Benenson installed in the campaign, the White House jumped into the race with both feet. President Obama has been to New Jersey three times to rally Democrats. Sunday's visit lasted an entire day, a sharp contrast to the in-and-out stump campaigning most presidents do on behalf of candidates.

The fact is, President Obama has poured a lot more time and energy into these races than incumbent presidents usually do. At least some of his prestige and clout are on the line tonight along with the fate of his party's nominees."

And so the narrative is apparently written, right? Any Republican win tonight is a sign of trouble for Obama and the Democrats, and a Republican sweep would be a (politically) seismic event signaling a direct repudiation of Obama and the Democrats and the potential beginning of a Republican comeback, right? Well, maybe. You see, this is where I differ with many other Republicans and even with the way the headlines have already begun to be crafted by the media. Because again, as I write, I think we are looking at a Republican sweep tonight -- (assuming Hoffman is a de facto Republican in NY-23). And while I think this is certainly significant and while it would have been thought improbable six months ago and impossible twelve months ago, I don't believe the GOP should pop the champagne just yet.

In short, I think this is likely more of a rejection of Obama and Congressional Democrats than it is a sign of renewed confidence in or newfound affection for Republicans. Should my prediction hold true, I do think Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ought to be concerned. I do not, however, think that Republicans should begin licking their chops and dreaming of regaining majorities in the House and Senate next year on the way to taking back the White House in 2012.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid should be worried because of the real concerns that many of the same independent voters who put Obama in the White House now have about him and his Capital Hill cohorts -- the same independents who will likely tip these three elections away from Democrats tonight. Obama needs them to pass healthcare, and he needs them for electoral purposes both in the midterm elections next year and his own reelection in 2012. So while this should be something that raises the stress level in the West Wing, let's not go overboard. Three elections in an off-year do not signify a catastrophe for Obama and his party by any means, but they do likely signify the need to recalibrate a bit in order to prevent further political erosion.

As for the GOP, the Republican "brand" is so very damaged -- rightfully so, some might argue, (this writer being one of them, at least on certain issues) -- that three elections in an off-year will be only the first step in a long process of recovery and rebuilding. Would a "sweep" tonight be a feather in the GOP's cap? Sure. Would it energize a Republican base still licking their (largely self-inflicted) wounds from 2008? You bet. But if Republicans try to make too much out of what happens tonight, they risk returning immediately to the cocky and tone-deaf politics that brought the party to its knees a year ago. So as a Republican, my advice to the GOP tonight is the same advice a good football coach gives his players about how to behave after scoring a touchdown. Do you spike the ball and start dancing around like a maniac? Absolutely not. You calmly hand the referee the ball, return to the field, and get back to work. "Act like you've been there before", the coach says. Bingo. Republicans tonight should "act like [they've] been there before". If they do, perhaps it will indeed be the first of many steps required to actually get them back there again.

A 'Healthy' Debate

Tonight, President Obama will hold his fourth primetime press conference since taking office in January. Obama's primary topic for tonight will be the hotly debated issue of health care reform. With polls showing the public's approval of Obama's handling of the health care issue slipping, he undoubtedly realizes that his chances of signing meaningful reform into law are diminishing daily.

The House revealed its version of a health care reform bill last week, and the bill's unveiling was met with almost instantaneous controversy. Obama did not seem worried, though, and forcefully reiterated his intention of passing a health care reform bill before Congress' August recess, telling reporters:

"We are going to get this done...Don't bet against us...We are going to make this happen."

I don't know anyone who would argue that the country's current health care system is good. Indeed, there are unquestionably problems with the status quo, not the least of which being the number of uninsured Americans. So the debate, it seems to me, does not hinge on the issue of whether or not improvement is needed, but rather on how that improvement should be made.

The sweeping changes proposed by the House (and supported by Obama) would, according to the Associated Press:

"...require everyone to have health insurance and make employers provide it or pay a penalty; subsidize the poor to help them buy care; and create a new public insurance plan modeled after Medicare to compete with private insurance companies."

While the merits of these proposed changes are debatable, what is not debatable is that health care comprises one-sixth of our entire economy, and that changes like those in the current House bill will literally affect every single American. Making any fundamental change to a system that holds such economic significance and that will be felt by every person is no small task. Making the sorts of changes that Obama is asking for will be an extraordinarily complex task. The logistics of implementing such a change are not only maddeningly complicated, they are also very expensive.

The president was dealt a blow last week when the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, testified before the Senate Budget Committee. From The Washington Post:

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

By no means do I pretend to be an expert on health care or health care reform. Further, I would in no way classify myself as one who is diametrically opposed to making necessary changes to a system that is not working properly. That said, there are a few areas where I differ with the President and with the Democrats in Congress. The following is a sample of some of the questions and areas of concern I have:

1. Why is President Obama in such a hurry to "get this done" before Congress' August recess? It seems to me that if such significant changes are going to be made to such a vital aspect of our country and her people, they should be done with extreme caution and only after careful deliberation. Rarely (if ever) is there an effective "quick fix" to a big problem, and I see no reason why this is an exception. Obama's arbitrary deadline seems based more on politics than on ensuring that whatever reform he signs into law has been thoroughly evaluated and considered -- not only by the members of Congress who will vote on it, but by the American people who will be affected by it.
2. When has the government ever really "fixed" anything? Does the government truly "run" anything well? Many opponents of the current proposal use the DMV as an example of what we can expect out of government-run health care, and while I think that's an extreme comparison, the underlying point has some validity. Do we want to entrust our health care to the federal government? Think about that for a bit, and I suspect you might have some concerns.
3. Is raising taxes and spending -- undeniably required for this to be enacted -- the wisest course of action given the fact that we are already in a recession and already facing the largest deficits in U.S. history? It's not just Republicans who express concerns about the fiscal implications of the current proposal, but also the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats", a group of roughly 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives who pride themselves on their fiscal conservatism. Even some Democratic Governors have expressed concerns, with Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen referring to the House bill as "the mother of all unfunded mandates".

Yesterday, President Obama accused those who oppose his health care reform proposal of playing politics. While that may be true, it seems to me that it is Obama himself who is playing politics, and he is doing so with an issue that is too serious and far-reaching for the "same old Washington politics" that Candidate Obama promised to end. The president realizes that his political capital is diminishing, and with it, the political "window" for pushing the kind of reform he wants through Congress is slowly closing. And while I agree reform of some kind is needed, I do not necessarily agree that the current proposal is the right answer, and I vehemently disagree with the politically-calculated rush that President Obama has placed on the reform process.

I think it would be beneficial for every American to tune in to the president's press conference tonight (8:00pm Eastern). If the press are appropriately inquisitive -- not always the case when they question Obama -- we could all learn a lot about what may be in store for us in the near future, and how, precisely, it will all be paid for.

Robert Gibbs (and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week)

It hasn't been the best week for Robert Gibbs, President Obama's Press Secretary.

On Monday, he told NBC News' Chuck Todd that we should "begin to judge [Obama's stimulus package] now". Take a look:



Fair enough, Mr. Gibbs. With this morning's news that 467,000 jobs were lost in June and that the unemployment rate has climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5%, I don't think many people will judge the Obama stimulus plan to have been successful thus far.

Yesterday wasn't a very good day for Gibbs, either. When the White House Press Corps realized that Obama's "online town hall" about health care yesterday didn't represent as much "change" as Candidate Obama promised to deliver, things got a little testy during Gibbs' daily briefing. You see, the questioners at yesterday's town hall were hand-picked (and their questions were pre-screened) by the White House -- something that sometimes occurred for President Bush's town hall meetings, but for which Bush was routinely excoriated by the Democrats and the media alike. To my great shock, CBS News' Chip Reid called Obama and his team out on their hypocrisy, eventually aided by the always cantankerous Helen Thomas. I give a lot of credit to Reid and Thomas for doing something that the mainstream media have largely failed to do thus far: actually challenging the Obama Administration on what is now a series of hedges, broken promises, and examples of the "same old Washington politics" against which Obama so frequently railed on the campaign trail last year. Here's yesterday's exchange between Gibbs, Reid and Thomas:



So again, it's been a hard week for Robert Gibbs, and amid increasing signs that President Obama's proverbial honeymoon -- with the American people and with the mainstream media -- might be nearing its end, perhaps Gibbs should prepare for more tough weeks to come.

---

Note: Commenter "craig" indicated that he was waiting for me to weigh in on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his utterly disgraceful and increasingly bizarre behavior. I intend to do so in the near future, but quite frankly, I don't think we've seen the end of this story yet. Whether there will be additional revelations from Mr. Sanford (let's all hope not) or whether he ends up resigning in the coming days (I hope so), we haven't reached the conclusion yet. Once we do, I'll happily share my thoughts. Thanks for the comment, craig, and thanks to all for reading.

The Republican Party: An "Endangered Species"?

There’s no question that it’s a tough time to be a Republican. Look no further than the cover of this week’s Time Magazine (left), which features the trademark Republican elephant below the ominous descriptor: “Endangered Species”. So let's take stock of where things stand. Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate, and if recent polls are accurate, the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans too. Arlen Specter’s defection and Al Franken’s inevitable “victory” in Minnesota will give Senate Democrats a coveted, filibuster-proof 60 seat-majority in the Senate. House Republicans are led ineffectively and are in no position to mount a credible challenge to any legislation that President Obama or the Democratic majority wish to see passed. New RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been a colossal disappointment, and now borders on earning “national joke” status. Any fair-minded person would admit that the media are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, only furthering the inability of Republicans to mount any sort of quasi-effective counteroffensive. But “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln”, how do things look for the GOP?

It’s indeed hard to deny that the Republican Party is facing something of a nadir right now – certainly for my generation. We grew up during the “Reagan Revolution”, saw the Democrats briefly resurge when Bill Clinton was elected, but then witnessed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 in which the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate – the former for the first time in four decades. And there were heady times initially in the George W. Bush years, too, particularly when, very briefly, it was the Republican Party who controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. But shortly after Bush was reelected in 2004, things began to go very badly very quickly for the GOP. President Bush squandered considerable goodwill from the electorate and enormous political capital, most notably in the mishandling of the first years of the Iraq War, as well as with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The severity of the GOP’s dire straits began to be confirmed in the 2006 midterm elections, and the situation only worsened for the party as it stumbled into the 2008 elections. John McCain never had a chance in November (and really, no Republican candidate would have), and the Democrats built upon the legislative majorities they already held. So what now for the Republican Party? Are Republicans, in fact, an “endangered species”?

The irony for the GOP is that this daunting low point could, in fact, be a great opportunity. Americans have not seen a government this liberal in recent history. Between Obama – who as president is belying his “most liberal Senator” rating – Harry Reid and his soon-to-be unchecked Senate, and last but not least, Nancy Pelosi, we as a country are dealing with individuals in the key positions of power who are arguably further to the political left than any in history. With no legislative or popular leverage for Republicans, Obama’s agenda will sail through the House and the Senate, and in a matter of months, there could be some very significant changes in our country that will affect Americans in their day-to-day lives. As a Republican, I obviously believe that the majority of people will not be happy with everything that Obama has done, not to mention the more worrisome things he has yet to do. And it is here where opportunity may knock for the GOP. A popular backlash to Obama’s policies would give Republicans the chance to remind the voters who they are, what they stand for, and to present a stark contrast from what we are sure to see from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.

This is an opportunity that the GOP has not had since Ronald Reagan assumed office following President Carter’s disastrous single term. Unlike today, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for the majority of his two terms, and perhaps more importantly, Clinton often led from the center of the political spectrum. Clinton’s poll-driven and fickle “centrism” offered no true chance for a Republican contrast. The situation is different now. There is no such moderation in President Obama, and he’s too ambitious not to take advantage of having such decisive control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. But with great power comes great responsibility, and should the various items on the Obama agenda fail, there will be no one else for the Democratic Party to blame.

It’s not that simple, though. While perhaps optimistic Republicans would argue that Obama and his party now have “just enough rope to hang themselves”, the president is too smart to walk into such an obvious trap. No, Obama and the Democrats won’t implode on their own -- certainly not if the media can help it -- and to the extent they do fail and suffer for it politically, Republicans still have to present a cohesive and coherent alternative for those who may become disaffected with the Democrats. The Republican Party of May, 2009 is not a party capable of rising to this challenge. Ideological fault lines have created deep divisions within the GOP, a party that used to pride itself on its “big tent” philosophy, and on its ability to accept and embrace people of varying views – particularly with regard to social policy. Certain wings of the party still practice this, but others have become far more stringent about the litmus tests applied to those who seek to identify themselves as Republicans. This constricted and narrow-minded approach to party ideology is an impediment that must be dealt with before the GOP can rise again.

But who will take them there? As of now, there is no clear leader who can both begin the GOP’s recovery and serve as its face and voice. The person or persons who exhibit the ability to unite the currently divided party will likely earn Reagan-esque levels of admiration for achieving such a feat. I don’t know who this person is. I’m not sure any Republican really does. Perhaps it is someone who is young and only now beginning a political career. Or, perhaps it’s a more unlikely figure, maybe even someone who has been around for awhile. Either way, I tend to doubt the Republican Party will find this person in time to mount a credible challenge in 2012, but eventually, they will find him (or her). Because from adversity comes strength, and the ideals that Republicans of every ilk still commonly hold dear remain powerful, identifiable and appealing to many Americans – even if those who fail to lead The Grand Old Party now have temporarily lost sight of them.

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

First Things First, Mr. President

Suppose I had my eye on a new house, a real “fixer-upper”. It’s a bigger house than I have now, and it’s more money than I want to spend, but I want it nonetheless. And maybe “fixer-upper” is too generous. There are leaks in the roof, the appliances are old and some are even broken, and the yard is overgrown. But I want this house, and I decide to pull out all the stops to make it mine, exhausting my savings and borrowing heavily. Then imagine that during the time between the acceptance of my offer and the closing, the leaks worsen until finally, right after we close, a full-fledged hole develops in the roof, allowing rain, cold air, debris and other undesirable things to enter the house through the hole, rendering it nearly uninhabitable. At this point, however, we are committed, this is our home, and so we proceed as planned and move in.

We have big plans for this house. We plan to add a new master bedroom to the back of the house, we want to put a pool in the back yard, and we also want to take the necessary steps to make the house “green”. Our first few weeks in the house, however, things aren’t going too well. The constant cold air rushing through the hole in the roof forces us to use the heat at all times, driving up our power and gas bills. The washer and dryer, already old and unreliable, finally kick the bucket, joining the refrigerator on the list of now defunct appliances. About a month after we move in, the area of the roof where the hole had been completely collapses, and now we have no roof over the dining room at all. Our new house is basically a living hell, and I find myself constantly reminding my wife that we didn’t cause the problems in the house. Did the previous owners really allow the house to fall into such a state of disrepair?

I promise my wife that we are, first and foremost, going to address the roof. It has to be done. We are basically living outdoors. We ask for a number of estimates on the roof, and despite the fact that one of the roofers has had his license revoked for construction violations, he says he has the most experience dealing with roof problems like ours, and so we hire him anyway. He begins to show up every day, but it seems as though he only examines the roof over and over again, taking pictures and measuring, but not actually doing anything. One day as I watch him again examining the missing roof, I ask him just when he plans to get to work. He tells me that he is still formulating the best plan of action, and that as soon as he has a full plan in place, he’s going to get started. I’m slightly irritated – there’s no roof over our dining room, after all – but he’s supposedly the best, and I figure it’s probably better if I don’t interfere too much.

In the meantime, I have promised the kids for years that we would have a pool as soon as we moved, and I just don’t think I can make them wait. I contact the pool company, and they come out to give me an estimate. It’s staggeringly expensive, but a promise is a promise, and so I go back to my bank where, miraculously, I’m given additional loans. At dinner the next night, I tell my kids that we’ll break ground on the new pool in a few weeks, and of course, they are ecstatic. My wife is worried, though, because of the other problems that remain unaddressed, but I think I know how to pacify her. I’ve been promising her the new master bedroom, and deep down, she’s as excited about that as the kids are about the pool. The next day, a contractor shows up to give us an estimate on the addition. It’s almost as much as the pool, and while I feel a little sick to my stomach, I am able to borrow against my mortgage to get the cash to pay for it. When she hears that we’re going to begin building her dream bedroom, she nearly forgets about the missing roof.

The following week, we’ve broken ground on the pool, the plans are in place for the new bedroom, and the roofer still shows up every day to tinker with his plan, but he hasn’t yet made the repairs. At the same time, the missing roof has become such a constant that we’re almost immune to the inconvenience and discomfort, and we continue to wait for the roofer to work his magic. But then things change dramatically when I get some bad news: I’ve been laid off at work. While they offer me a decent severance package, with the job market as tough as it is, I know it’s going to be hard to find work. In an attempt to soften the blow that the news will be to my wife, after I leave work for the last time, I go right to Sears and buy the best washer, dryer and refrigerator they have with my Sears Card – the only credit card on which I’m not maxed out!

When I get home, all is not well, though, as our pipes have burst and the first floor is flooded. The pool company asks if I still want to move forward with the pool, and the contractor offers to halt construction of the new master bedroom, but I am terrified of disappointing my wife and kids, so I go full speed ahead on both. Even the environmental company is nice enough to offer to cancel our consultation, but my in-laws have made it clear that they won’t visit us unless our house is environmentally friendly, and I do not want to cross my mother-in-law! The environmental consultant is aware of my situation, and amazingly, he tells me that I can delay my payment by a year if necessary, and so I tell him to go ahead and get started on making our house green. My mother-in-law is thrilled! All in all, things seem pretty good.

Does all of this sound completely and utterly crazy? It certainly should. The scary thing is that this is nearly the equivalent of what Barack Obama has done in his 50 days in office. In this little allegory, I’m President Obama. The house is the country. The roof is our economy and financial system, and the roofer, obviously, represents Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. My wife and kids are the various far Left constituencies who helped elect Obama, and to whom he is politically indebted. The pool represents the Obama budget, the master bedroom is the stimulus package, and the plans to make the house green symbolize Obama’s recently unveiled healthcare initiative. My father-in-law is Harry Reid, and my terrifying mother-in-law is Nancy Pelosi.

In the last few months, our economic and financial problems have worsened dramatically, and as things have deteriorated, the administration has looked at the problems, talked about the problems, but really done nothing to fix the problems. Despite this glaring and fundamental issue, Obama continues his incredibly ambitious and expensive plans with almost no regard for the growing economic mayhem around him. Last week, on the same day the Dow again lost another 4%, Obama announced plans for healthcare reform with a $650 Billion price tag. He is prepared to sign a $3.6 Trillion budget which will not only double our national debt and add more to our deficit than all of his predecessors combined, he is prepared to sign this budget replete with its 8570 earmarks – earmarks Obama promised to do away with. All the while, our economic and financial predicaments become more and more severe, and Tim Geithner has yet to offer any sort of concrete plans to address it. The proverbial house is crumbling around him, but the president seems determined to make it bigger anyway.

Our new president didn’t cause the problems he now faces, but he has exacerbated them. What Obama and his administration should have done – and perhaps still can and should do – is set aside their other plans and focus almost myopically on the economy. The other initiatives can and must wait. Fix this, and the political capital Obama will have will be nearly limitless, and the American people will support almost anything he wants. But fix it, and fix it now. As one of the ubiquitous talking heads noted on television recently, Obama and his team are remarkably good at politics, but are they as skilled at governing? Let's hope so.

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

No Thanks from an Ungrateful Nation

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming the 44^th President of the United States. Obama’s swearing-in also represented the end of the George W. Bush Administration, a fact greeted with vindictive glee by many across the country. Even though I did not vote for President Obama, I wish him well, and I appreciate seeing our democracy at work. There is something very powerful and very moving about the peaceful transfer of power we are privileged to witness every four or eight years. I also join so many others in celebrating our country’s first African-American president – a truly extraordinary and historic moment for our nation. I cannot, however, take part in the mean-spirited jubilation that accompanied the end of Bush’s tenure in the White House.

It is very fashionable to deride Bush, his administration, and his record. It is “cool” to hate President Bush, and to flippantly talk of how he “shredded the Constitution” after September 11^th, or “lied to the country” in the run-up to the Iraq War. It’s popular to fault Bush and Bush alone for the current financial crisis. So loud were the criticisms and so organized the accompanying media narrative that it is simply assumed Bush deserved all of the blame for the myriad missteps in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. East Coast elites ridicule Bush’s inarticulateness and sneer with certainty at his alleged stupidity. West Coast, Hollywood-types blanch at his lack of “sophistication” and even professed shame for their citizenship in a country led by the proudly un-hip Texan. The mainstream media not only share these sentiments, but have also perpetuated the same narratives through sometimes alarmingly blatant and slanted reporting. Through it all, Bush refused to alter his course, resisted what might have been a natural inclination to change for the sake of popularity or political expedience, and in doing so, only further enraged them all.

Of course President Bush made mistakes. All presidents do – all people do. 9/11 forced Bush into some difficult and sometimes controversial decisions, but to assign ulterior and sinister motives to his choices is simply unfounded. While I do not agree with those who believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, I absolutely believe that for far too long, the war was managed poorly, and as Commander-in-Chief, Bush is ultimately responsible. He indeed deserves some of the blame for the financial and economic predicaments in which we now find ourselves, but in fairness, many of the seeds of this systemic failure were planted over a long period of time, including during previous administrations and in years when oversight was the responsibility of a Democratic Congress. Without question, there were mistakes made during Hurricane Katrina and the botched handling of her aftermath – at every level of government – yet somehow then-Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin both seemed to avoid the finger-pointing directed at President Bush. Admittedly, Bush is a poor speaker, and in this era of modern media, the ability to skillfully communicate is a very important quality for an effective president. And while his poor diction often failed him in making his case to the American people, ineloquent oratory does not always equate to idiocy. As I recently argued to a friend, while Bush is surely no genius, it is simply impossible for anyone to run and win a national campaign – much less to function as the most powerful man in the world – without a degree of intelligence that surpasses that of the average person. Bush is no exception, and he is no idiot either.

Seemingly lost in the frenzy of hatred and criticism surrounding Bush is the proverbial elephant in the room: there has not been a single subsequent terrorist attack in America in the seven years and four months since September 11^th, 2001. The apparent ease with which so many seemingly disregard this singular but seminal accomplishment reflects an unattractive and ignorant naivety on their part, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we now live. How quickly so many seem to forget the pain we collectively felt when, as a country, we were blindsided by that horrific day. How shortsighted so many appear to be in blocking out the intense fear that those heinous acts caused us. How ungrateful so many apparently are for the fact that Bush and his administration managed to do what even the most optimistic of us would have considered impossible that horrible day. And how ironic that New York, the city most affected by the horrors of 9/11, served as the effective epicenter of the anti-Bush movement.

There are increasing signs that Bush’s successor has begun to understand the difficult realities of the world and maybe even to gain some appreciation for the job that President Bush did under circumstances you and I cannot fully know. The most telling of these, obviously, was Obama’s decision to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was also striking that, even while he fulfilled his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay, he is not sure what precisely to do with its detainees and not finding many prisons (here or abroad) eager to welcome those currently held there – problems also cited by the Bush Administration as hindrances to closing GITMO. The story was similar with the issue of “torture”, a favorite charge of the anti-Bush crowd, and an issue on which their leader, Obama, is also now hedging. I imagine the fact that he now receives a daily intelligence briefing has something to do with the beginnings of this migration from Candidate Obama to President Obama. I predict we’ll see further moves on the part of our new president that, while probably done quietly or masked cleverly, will still serve to maintain many of the same practices and policies for which he and his party so roundly criticized Bush. In many ways, this would be the ultimate exoneration for President Bush.

I suspect – and frankly hope – that the same Americans who so cavalierly badmouth Bush today will eventually understand the good he did while president. While it may take years, as more facts come to light about Bush’s tenure, I hope that his steadfast judgment and pragmatic choices will eventually be vindicated as I believe they should be. We cannot know now and may never be able to fully know the information to which he was privy – the information on which so many of his most controversial decisions were likely based. But what we should know and appreciate now is that the last eight years have been among the most challenging ever faced by any president, and that in this time of unfamiliar and unprecedented difficulties, we as a nation were served well by President Bush’s consistency, by his commitment to principles, and by his constant goal of doing what he felt would best keep this country safe.

While I know that George W. Bush is not one to be caught up in concerns about his legacy, he deserves one far better than that which his critics are already trying to write for him now, he deserves more than the jeers and boos he received from the crowds on the National Mall at the Inauguration, and most immediately, he deserves the thanks of what is currently an ungrateful nation.

I Pledge...

Today we inaugurated Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. It was wonderful moment for our nation. I am sincerely proud of our country, and of our new president.

And while I hate to be negative on such an overwhelmingly positive day, something was brought to my attention today that I simply cannot ignore. This is not the fault of President Obama or of any Democrat or politician. I do not blame them in the least.

I do, however, blame the participants in the below video (as well as the like-minded people they are representing) for being so self-congratulatory, self-righteous, narcissistic and immature. (It even dwarfs "Our American Prayer", though they are part of the same disturbing trend of Hollywood celebrities vastly overstepping their boundaries, and because of their wealth and fame, reaching -- and, frighteningly, probably influencing -- millions).

Let me make one thing perfectly clear about what I pledge. Unlike the men and women in the below video, I pledge to always do everything I can to be a better person and yes, a better citizen. It does not matter whether the man or woman for whom I voted occupies the White House, or whether the political winds are blowing my way. I am first and always a proud American, and just as I was a proud American witnessing Obama's inauguration yesterday, I will remain a proud American throughout the four or even eight years he remains my president, regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies and decisions. That is my pledge.

Apparently the same cannot be said for Ashton, Demi and friends, now apparently awakened to their newfound patriotism and commitment to the greater good. Where was this altruism over the last eight years? Could Laura Linney really not stop using the plastic bags at the grocery store while Bush was president? Why is it that only when getting their [political] way are they willing to use their bully pulpit for an inarguably good cause?

I encourage and welcome your thoughts and reactions.

Without further ado...

MySpace Celebrity and Katalyst present The Presidential Pledge

A New Kind of Politics?

Like many, I watched with interest yesterday as President-elect Obama visited President Bush at the White House. While watching the video and seeing the pictures of Bush and Obama, I was sincerely moved. Sometimes the beauty of our democracy is apparent when I would least expect it, and yesterday was a wonderful example of so much of what makes our country great. Last night, when I read that Bush and Obama had talked for over an hour -- but without any aides, note-takers, etc. -- literally alone -- I was again somewhat awed by the magnitude of the moment. Here were only the 43rd and soon-to-be 44th people to hold this office in the history of our country, talking in a refreshingly frank, open (and presumably off-the-record) manner.

Yesterday was another example of the grace with which President Bush has handled the transition so far. Bush's magnanimity here should not be surprising, though, because despite whatever faults he has, Bush should be credited for the deep, clearly genuine and emotional reverence he has always displayed for the office and institution of the presidency. It's a level of respect that I would hope all presidents would show for the office, and for the extraordinary responsibilities accompanying it.

In the wake of yesterday's meeting, however, I was disappointed in Obama when he and/or his aides leaked details of Obama's and Bush's conversation to the media. Making matters worse, the leak was done for crass political posturing, specifically about the question of whether the federal government should bail out GM or other struggling US automakers. I would think (or at least hope), that even "the One" would hold some things sacred, and that accordingly, he would maintain the confidentiality and trust that such a meeting deserves. Apparently I was wrong.

Barack Obama will soon be my president too, and while he wasn't my choice this election year, I wish him nothing but success. He won last week in part by promising a new kind of politics, and while I was never clear what precisely that meant, I hope this isn't the first example of it. If so, it's neither the path to success nor the way to win the support of the 57 million Americans who voted for another candidate.

President Barack Obama

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America.

He was a remarkable candidate, and the historic nature of his victory tonight is truly extraordinary.

While I supported John McCain in this election, I can certainly recognize why Obama appealed to so many Americans.

And I hope that every American can set aside differences in political party or ideology and appreciate the significance of our country's first African-American president.

There will be a time to look back and analyze how Obama won or why McCain lost, and without a doubt, this 2008 campaign has been one of the most interesting, exciting and complex races in modern politics.

For now, though, I hope America can collectively celebrate this incredible milestone in the history of our great country.

Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, to his campaign, and to his supporters.

The Case for John McCain

Last week, the free newspaper here in NYC, amNewYork, asked me to "make the case for John McCain in 400 words or less". Now, as frequent readers of BraggingWrites know, brevity is not my strong suit! Nevertheless, I managed to make my case (in 402 words!), and I think it nicely -- and yes, succinctly -- sums up why I will vote for John McCain on Tuesday.

For those of you in New York, look for this in your amNewYork tomorrow morning. And for everyone reading, below is my case for John McCain as submitted to the newspaper. If it manages to convince someone on the fence to vote for McCain, that's great, but if I were to ask one thing of anyone reading this regardless of which candidate you support, it would be that you just simply vote tomorrow. Period. I realize that voting can be inconvenient and it can be tempting to just "sit one out", but I think it is important that we never forget how envious so many people in so many places around the world are of our political system, and of our rights and our freedoms.

With that said, I give you the case for John McCain:

---

The events of today often makes it easy to forget what happened yesterday or what might happen tomorrow. Today, we have been kept safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for more than seven years. Today, the situation in Iraq is more stable – both militarily and politically – than at any point since the war began. Today, Americans are intensely focused and concerned about what is in their wallets and their 401(k) plans. Today, voters are wondering if the value of their homes will return to previous levels and if their jobs are secure. All of these facts obscure the harsh reality that we are living in a new and dangerous era – today and tomorrow.

In this time in which our national security remains under constant threat, John McCain is the right candidate to assume the weighty responsibilities of the presidency. His foreign policy knowledge and instincts are tested and proven. His support for the so-called “Surge” strategy in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular is testament to that. His opposition to “spreading the wealth around” through redistributionist tax policies is correct. Cutting taxes for all Americans and lowering the taxes on corporations and small businesses alike will keep more money in Americans’ pockets and create more jobs – exactly the right tonic for our ailing economy. A President McCain would represent a crucial check and balance against the ultra-liberal Pelosi House and Reid Senate, creating the scenario in which true bipartisan compromise can and must be achieved.

Lost in the midst of Barack Obama’s impressive domination of the “change” mantle is the fact that McCain represents change, too. He is not President Bush. In fact, he ran against Bush in 2000, and has been a frequent critic of Bush and his policies throughout the last eight years. Drowned out by Obama’s empty promises to usher in a new kind of politics is the reality that it is McCain who has the long and distinguished record of putting political party aside in order to reach across the aisle for results. As impressive a politician as Obama is, he lacks the record, the experience and the judgment that John McCain possesses in spades.

With his long and dedicated service to our country, John McCain is the right choice on Election Day – not because he deserves the presidency, but because he is the president that the American people deserve – today and tomorrow.

Bottom of the Ninth...Two Outs, Two Strikes...

Apologies for the sports analogy, but that's a pretty apt description of where John McCain finds himself tonight heading into the third and final presidential debate. While the degree to which he trails varies, there is no denying that McCain is definitely running behind Barack Obama and that, had the election been held today, Obama would have won -- likely handily.

And so here we are with one last debate, one last chance for an extremely large audience of voters for both candidates. Obama's mission tonight is quite simple: don't screw up. Continuing the sports lingo, Obama is very close to being able to "take a knee" and "run the clock out", and should he dispatch with McCain in tonight's debate, he'll almost certainly be able to do just that.

McCain's task is extraordinarily more complex and difficult. Without question, he is going to have to be more aggressive tonight. He is going to have to challenge Obama in ways and about things he has thus far been unable or unwilling to do. The biggest quandary he faces is that he risks being labeled desperate by the mainstream media, (and indeed he is almost guaranteed as much). If McCain brings up William Ayers, he'll at best be accused by the media of trying to avoid the "real issues" or the "issues that matter" -- at worst accused of racism or inciting anger, two charges McCain has recently faced for virtually anything negative he says about Obama. The reality is, with the relatively little we know about Obama given his brief political career, his past associations are important and speak to his judgment. We as voters deserve to know what the man who will likely be our next president thinks about the person in whose living room his political career was launched -- the same person who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and feels he "didn't do enough".

As for the "real issues" and the "issues that matter", McCain does absolutely need to do a better job of articulating his plan for getting us out of the current financial crisis and for repairing a badly damaged economy. He blundered with his "campaign suspension" during the congressional bailout negotiations, and he has never really regained his footing -- not on economic issues and not on the race in general.

This is do-or-die for McCain tonight, and based on Obama's past performances, he's unlikely to make a blunder that will give McCain a boost. So the onus is on McCain, he's come from behind before, and if he's going to do it again, he absolutely has to start tonight. Let's watch!

Are We Done Here?

I sort of think we are done here, by which I mean it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

This is my gut reaction after watching the second debate between Obama and John McCain.

I'll elaborate more when I have time (and on that note, apologies for the relative blog silence of late. Work, as one might imagine, has been absolutely nuts over the last few weeks).

The bottom line tonight is that McCain needed to either have Obama make a gargantuan blunder or McCain had to have some sort of breakthrough performance in which he was able to significantly outshine Obama. Neither happened.

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!

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)...

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!

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!