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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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!

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/).

Should the GOP Just Mail It In This Year?

It’s a tough time for the Republican Party. GOP purists would argue that the party has lost its way, no longer adhering to the central tenets of “The Reagan Revolution”, particularly with regard to spending. Republicans had simultaneous control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House from 2002 until 2006, and yet most would agree that the party emerged from that opportunity with very little to show for it. Voters took notice, it seems, and the 2006 Midterm Elections served as something of a comeuppance for Republicans, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

Going into the 2008 Elections, it’s not looking good. As things stand now, it appears the Republican minorities in both the House and Senate are going to widen. Topping the GOP Ticket this year is John McCain, a nominee for whom enthusiasm is lukewarm at best, and whose chances are not helped by facing Barack Obama, one of the most eloquent, charismatic and well-funded candidates in history. With such a bleak outlook, a controversial school of thought has emerged in certain Republican circles, proponents of which make the case that the GOP should essentially concede this election cycle to the Democrats, allowing them to assume simultaneous control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Then, the theory holds, the country could watch the Democrats make a fine mess of things, paving the way for a triumphant Republican resurgence in 2010 or 2012. It’s a romantic idea, and one whose merits I can understand and even appreciate to a certain extent, but in the end, mark me down as one Republican vehemently opposed to this strategy.

Currently in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold a 236 to 199 seat majority. To make matters worse, all signs point to Democrats increasing their majority in November. The latest generic Congressional poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal gives Democrats an edge over Republicans of 48.7% to 37.3% (despite Congressional approval ratings at only 15%, even lower than President Bush who sits at 30%). Republicans are only hurting their prospects more with a near-record number of retirements on the horizon. At least 26 House Members have announced their intentions to call it quits this year, ceding the huge advantage of incumbency to the Democrats by creating open seats in a year in which voters do not hold the GOP in high regard.

The situation is really no better in the Senate, either. While the Democratic majority in the Senate is much narrower (50 seats to 49 seats with 1 Independent), the implications of an increased majority in the Senate are much more significant. Should the Democrats manage to increase their majority to 60 seats – the so-called “Magic 60” – the consequences for the GOP are enormous because the Democrats’ edge would be “filibuster proof”. A filibuster-proof majority gives the Democrats an enormous amount of power, and would be particularly important in several key areas. First and foremost, the agenda of a President Obama would essentially be fast-tracked without the threat of any real Republican challenge or ability to stop it. Secondly, with no threat of a filibuster, Democrats would be able to quickly and easily push through any and all judicial nominations – including, of course, nominations for the Supreme Court. Lastly, assuming an increased majority in the House to boot, the Democrats would quite literally be running the country, with Republicans marginalized to little more than spectators.

For some Republicans and conservatives, this scenario has appeal, providing Democrats, they would contend, just enough rope to hang themselves. And this strategy, it should be noted, has some high profile backers. Among those making this argument over the past few months are Rush Limbaugh, and various writers and editors at The National Review, the preeminent conservative publication in the country. With the Democrats in complete control, Limbaugh has said, “the country would go to hell in a hand basket”. Once that happens, claim those who subscribe to this theory, Americans would be forced to recognize the misguided, erroneous and foolish nature of the Democrats’ policies. The GOP, hitting a cathartic bottom, would have no choice but to return to its best conservative traditions and roots, emerging from its political wilderness as a stronger, more united, and more philosophically pure Republican Party, ready to again earn the Americans’ confidence and return to political superiority.

Not so fast, says this Republican, however. To be sure, like many, I too am disappointed by President Bush and by the Republican Party in general, and by their missteps and the missed opportunities of the last 6 to 8 years. I further agree that the GOP has lost sight of many of its foundational principles – many of which were what attracted me to the party in the first place. I also concur that the party needs a wake-up call, but here is where I begin to diverge from Rush Limbaugh and others. I would argue that the sad state of the Republican Party today should be sufficient in giving the party the slap across the face it clearly needs. And while I also believe that the Democrats would make a mess of things if given unfettered control of the federal government, I am not prepared to simply concede this election and let them wreak havoc purely for long-term political gains. The stakes are simply too high – not only for the country as a whole, but for me personally.

There are three major areas of concern that preclude my signing on to the concession theory. First and foremost, a President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to raise taxes through the roof. At the very least, the top tax rate will go from 35% to 40%, the lowest tax rate from 10% to 15%, the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the tax on dividends from 15% to 40%. The so-called “marriage penalty”, now non-existent for couples making less than $150,000 a year, would under Obama’s plan, be in full effect from the first dollar earned. Under the current law, parents receive a child tax credit of $1000 per child. Obama, Pelosi and Reid would reduce this to $500 per child. For those who have been exposed to the archaic Alternative Minimum Tax in recent years, under Democratic control the AMT will continue to exact its disproportionate toll on taxpayers’ wallets. At a time when the economy is unquestionably hurting, the country cannot afford the massive tax increases that Democratic control would bring. From a personal standpoint, as my wife and I try to save money, work to purchase a home, and hopefully prepare for the financial aspects of raising children, we truly can’t afford to let Obama, Pelosi and Reid have their way when it comes to raising taxes. My financial stability is too important to passively watch the Democrats enjoy an unencumbered taxing and spending spree.

Second, I am not comfortable with the national security or foreign policy ramifications of the potential Democratic trifecta. Obama’s lack of experience is a major source of concern for me, and his stated willingness to meet with Iran and other rogue regimes as president with no preconditions raises concerns for me about his judgment in this area. Does he understand the nature and gravity of the terrorist threat to our country? I am not convinced he does. His continued refusal to acknowledge the success of the so-called “Surge” in Iraq (and his unwillingness to indicate he would have supported it had he known the benefits it would ultimately have) leads me to question his readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. Pelosi ushered the Democrats into the majority in 2006 with all sorts of reckless promises with regard to Iraq. While thankfully she hasn’t delivered on them – much to the chagrin of the moveon.org wing of her party – with the willing pen of a President Obama in the Oval Office and a compliant partner with an increased majority of his own in Harry Reid, it’s not unrealistic to think she would return to her dangerously dovish plans. Finally – and again from a personal perspective – as a resident of Manhattan incalculably grateful for the job that President Bush, Homeland Security, and the NYC authorities have done in keeping us safe since September 11^th, I am not convinced that Democrats in full control will be willing to make the touch choices required to maintain our national security. I would never put political gains ahead of the safety of my family and me, and so I cannot concede an election with the possible consequences so serious.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Judiciary. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 70, the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least two people to the Supreme Court, and likely more. While the Supreme Court currently consists of more Justices appointed by Republican Presidents than by Democratic Presidents, the ideological makeup of the Court is, in reality, rather balanced. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are considered reliably conservative; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are thought to be reliably liberal; and Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. With the possibility of several imminent retirements (or, morbidly, deaths), the next President could have a significant impact on the political leanings of the Court. If Republicans concede this year and allow President Obama to appoint judicial nominees of all levels without a realistic check on that power by the Republican minority in the Senate, the long-term consequences could be dire. Democrats in the Senate did an extremely effective job of reining in President Bush’s judicial nominees through the use of (or threat of) the filibuster. If the Democrats reach the “Magic 60”, the GOP will have no ability to influence the makeup of the Judicial Branch. While the ability to appoint nominees of his or her choosing is a right and privilege afforded to the president – and therefore a right and privilege Obama would rightfully have earned should he be elected – the vital system of checks and balances instituted by our Founding Fathers requires that the opposition party have some parliamentary powers at their disposal to provide that check. The far-reaching and wide-ranging powers of the Judiciary are far too consequential for the GOP to wave the white flag in November. Looking at it personally, the coming judicial nominees and their rulings are likely to affect me for the rest of my life, and I’m not willing to relinquish that advantage to the Democrats by taking a pass this year.

In many respects, frankly, the GOP deserves to be in the position in which we now find ourselves, and I have no doubt that Democrats delight in the current Republican dilemma. (I can’t say that I wouldn’t enjoy it were the tables turned)! I also can’t tell you with sincerity that I am really enthusiastic about John McCain, or about Congressional Republicans in general. It may well be that when I go to the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain and other GOP candidates, I’ll be doing so more to voice my opposition to unrestrained Democratic control than to express my wholehearted support for my party’s presidential or congressional candidates. But whatever my motivation ends up being, I can assure you that I will indeed be pulling that lever for McCain, and I encourage my fellow Republicans to do the same. There are different theories on how to extricate the Republican Party from its current predicament, but conceding an election to the Democrats and thereby handing them the keys to the entire federal government, is not the answer. The stakes are too high for the country, and the stakes are too high for me personally.

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

A Snitch Is A Snitch

Last week, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that President Bush’s former Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, had “slammed”, “walloped”, “stunned” or “blindsided” – pick your cliché – the Bush Administration with the claims he makes in his forthcoming book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.

I have to hand it to him, for someone enjoying his “fifteen minutes of fame,” McClellan has made the most of them. I personally saw him on NBC’s “Today Show”, CNN’s “The Situation Room”, CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”, MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”, CBS’ “CBS Evening News”, ABC’s “World News” and NBC’s “Meet the Press”, and I’m sure there were other appearances I missed and perhaps more yet to come. In watching his various interviews, I came away decidedly unimpressed with him – though in the interest of full disclosure, I always felt he was a horrendous press secretary, so I don’t know why I thought my opinion would change now. I don’t think, though, that my distaste for him and for what he’s done in writing his book can entirely be chalked up to my support for his former boss. In fact, I don’t think McClellan is a particularly popular person anywhere right now – regardless of one’s view of President Bush or general political leanings.

For those few like me who support President Bush, McClellan is a disloyal loser clearly capitalizing (literally) on his powerful former position and on the media’s appetite for blood when it comes to criticism of Bush. McClellan’s no fool, and he knew very well the frenzy his “revelations” would ignite, and surely hoped it would translate into boffo book sales. Given my negative feelings about his work as press secretary, I was never a fan of his, particularly when his incompetence in pushing the White House “message” forward so often occurred during critical times and with regard to critical issues of the Bush Presidency. In today’s non-stop news cycle of the internet and 24 hour cable news networks, a failed messenger was a crippling weakness for the White House. More to the point, though, I have my doubts about the sincerity of his current claims, particularly when he admits that he never once voiced any concerns about what was going on around him to President Bush or anyone else in the White House while they were happening. Further, while he officially resigned, most of Washington and most of the political punditry felt that his resignation was hardly voluntary, particularly when his successor was the far more talented and far more respected Tony Snow. It’s hard to imagine, then, that he wasn’t at least a tad bitter and potentially vengeful too. In my view, his motives are beyond questionable.

On the opposite end are those who despise President Bush or who are vehemently opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq (or both). Here too lies one of the most ironic aspects of this whole episode, as it was the same liberal crowd now fighting to interview him who once mercilessly hounded him at the White House podium and very openly derided his lame attempts at “spin”. But things have changed, and McClellan has received an entirely different and more positive reaction – at least initially – from the same formerly tough crowd. I think his former boss and predecessor as White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, said it best last week:

“Poor Scott. Scott is about to borrow some friends for 24 hours on the political left, who will throw him out as soon as they are done with him, and he’s burnt an awful lot of bridges to people who really always thought fondly and highly of him.”

Fleischer was right on the money. The knee jerk reaction of this camp was to celebrate and praise this brave bastion of truth, epitomized by the hater of all Bush haters, Keith Olbermann, dedicating the entire hour of his show to an interview with McClellan. Already, though, the tone has begun to change, and some on the left have become critical of McClellan for not speaking out sooner – preferably at the very time he had his alleged misgivings and disillusionments. And, they ask, wasn’t he being dishonest himself in his daily promotions of the Bush Administration’s view and policies – view and policies about which we now learn he apparently had very serious concerns? Perhaps Bush could have been impeached, they no doubt imagine, if only he could have blown the whistle earlier. Those primarily focused on Iraq, meanwhile, have taken to wondering how many lives in Iraq could have been saved if McClellan had been able to find his voice sooner, potentially precipitating an end to the war. Regardless of how unlikely either happening as a result of an explosive McClellan resignation several years ago was, it’s obvious that his usefulness to them is already waning, and by the time he appeared on “Meet the Press” Sunday, the distinct feeling that this was old news was hard to deny.

Even though I do remain a Bush supporter, I certainly have my share of disappointments with him and others in his administration. By no means do I feel that the war has been handled as well as it could have or should have been, the Hurricane Katrina episode was deplorable, and the president’s ability to communicate with the American people is fatally flawed. I absolutely have my own questions about those and other decisions made over the last seven years, but I’m not going to write a book about them, and I particularly would not write a book about them if I had spent nearly 10 years working for Bush, first for his election, and then very prominently as a member of his senior staff – particularly not while he is still in office. Perhaps there is an unwritten rule of decorum violated here that upsets me most, even if I do sympathize to some extent with some of the issues that apparently troubled McClellan. Actually, it seems to me that most anyone witnessing this who is able to remove his or her political lens momentarily and observe it from a personal or human perspective can’t help but view McClellan as somewhat sleazy. Everything seems all too convenient, the issues on which he allegedly differed all too fashionable, and his interviews over the last week – much like his erstwhile White House press briefings – all too unconvincing and meek. No one likes a “snitch”, after all, and it’s hard to view McClellan’s book as much more than snitching on a grand scale – and a lucrative one at that. When Bob Dole of all people emerges from retirement to publicly label him a “miserable creature” and “a total ingrate”, I think it’s clear McClellan made an error in judgment, and one from which his reputation and future career prospects are unlikely to ever recover.

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