David Jacobson's Mighty Blog on Independent Thought, Politics & Culture

Do Non-Compete Agreements Hurt Massachusetts Workers?

2010-05-06T19:33:00.003-04:00

I had to stop writing for a while because I recently joined the 10% of the population that was looking for work. Happily, my severance package was generous and I have now found a job where I’m working 30 hours a week with benefits. But I discovered two interesting local facts after being unemployed for the first time in many years.

The first is that Massachusetts still has the nation’s most generous unemployment benefits. I actually decided not to file for unemployment until my severance ran out because of the issue described in this post, but by then I had found work. The second is that signing a non-compete agreement now seems to be standard practice in accepting a job offer, and I believe this is a huge disadvantage to Massachusetts workers and entrepreneurs. I got offered two jobs, and non-compete agreements were given to me at each of them. They also came up in other job discussions where I didn't get an offer, and people I know who run local offices of major companies told me non-competes are part of the job offer.

I first became aware of the non-compete issue in Alison Lobron’s fine story in Commonwealth Magazine last summer (I got to catch up on my reading the last three months). The story details how non-compete agreements can not only trap workers in jobs they hate, but also may be stifling entrepreneurship by preventing Massachusetts workers from starting any business that could conceivably compete with their old company for months or years after they leave. And many agreements also include bans against hiring workers from the former company, or taking any type of program or intellectual property – even if it is something like a software program the worker developed by him or herself.

Most states seem to have non-compete clauses but Lobron’s article details how they are unenforceable in California. California certainly has its economic problems, but entrepreneurship is definitely not one of them. The number of startups in technology alone dwarf any other state, and most of these company founders either left their former company to start a competitor or just had a great idea and found the venture backing to start it. Naturally, the first place they tap for workers are their former colleagues who can easily jump ship because of the lack of non-compete agreements.

This is largely not possible in Massachusetts, where restrictions in non-compete clauses can be harsh. Recently two PR agencies went to court over a former employee allegedly breaking a non-compete agreement. The case has not been decided yet, but the contract’s language – not working for another PR firm within 50 miles for six months – is not unusual. Restrictions like that can put a damper in any employee’s job search, even if they want to leave on good terms.

New restaurants are founded all the time in Boston, mostly by sous chefs who want to own their own place and cook their food their way. What if there was a non-compete clause in the restaurant business (please tell me if there is) and sous chefs were forbidden from cooking at another restaurant within 50 miles for six months? It would sound ridiculous. And it is ridiculous. Yet workers – especially those who are unemployed or looking for their first job – are forced to sign non-competes that handcuff them to companies or prevent them from looking at competitors that might pay and treat them better. They often have no choice. In this economy Massachusetts needs good new businesses, and workers should not be restricted from their livelihood if they want to leave.

My lawyer told me there is always a way to go around a non-compete. This can include paying someone as a consultant until the time limit expires, or having your colleagues contact you for a job if you are forbidden from soliciting them. But not everyone can afford a good lawyer, and local businesses and workers shouldn’t have to resort to loopholes. And if an employee is fired or downsized, the non-compete should immediately become null and void.

Hearing vs. Listening

2010-01-29T17:24:00.003-05:00

I’ve talked enough in the last few posts about anti-incumbency and mad voters driving recent election results from Virginia to Massachusetts. Here in the Bay State, some politicians seem to listening. Here is Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA, 9th district).

“I think there is a message there and the people of Mass want us to listen. They are not happy about the economy. They're not happy about this health care bill. So they want us to listen.”

But then there’s this from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute
in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people.

And this gem from The New York Times:

But it should not be impossible if Congressional Democrats and the White House show courage and creativity. Health care reform is too important to throw away,and it is not too late to persuade voters that it is in their interest.

This is the difference between listening to voters, as Rep. Lynch seems to be doing, and just hearing noise as Pelosi and the Times editorial page does. I had cited the Suffolk poll the day before the election as the bellwether to watch. Not only did it nail the election results, but also cited that 51% of Massachusetts voters oppose the health care plan and 61% said the country cannot afford it. And this is in Massachusetts, which already has a universal health care mandate!

Much has been written about the health care bill legislation and debate being conducted behind closed doors, and only getting passed with sweetheart deals to specific senators. The lack of transparency has only exacerbated public opinion against the bill. The health care debate was never properly communicated and sold to the public in the first place.

Should Democrats not listen to the voters of the “blue” states of New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, it is proof they have no interest in what the public has told them. The American people do not want this bill, and if the majority party covers its ears and keeps ignoring what the voters are telling them, prepare for a GOP resurgence in November.

Roll Over Ted Kennedy

2010-01-18T13:21:00.001-05:00

Once again, the political future hangs in the balance of a Massachusetts Democrat. I would not be at all surprised if history repeats itself again. Mike Dukakis and John Kerry were both able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and Martha Coakley looks ready to do the same. What would Ted Kennedy say?

I first met Scott Brown a couple of years ago at a local event and my first thought was, “This guy is way too smart to be a state senator.” When he announced his candidacy I didn’t think he had a shot at winning, but didn’t think Coakley would underestimate him. I was wrong on both counts – Brown has campaigned hard (I’ve run into him twice by chance as he was pounding the pavement) and Coakley took the race for granted. The polls have been everywhere, but I’d place my money on Dave Paleologos’ Suffolk poll, which showed Brown at 50%, Coakley at 46%, a libertarian party at 3% and a jaw-dropping 1% undecided. Statistically it’s a dead heat, but that low undecided vote doesn’t give anyone much swing room.

How could this happen in Massachusetts? First, there is the Occam’s Razor principle that I’ve already discussed – Brown was a better candidate and ran a better campaign than Coakley. But you also need to ignore the “Bluest of Blue States” conventional wisdom. Massachusetts is a blue state for presidential elections, but all other politics is local and there is a long history of Republican governors and independent voters here in Massachusetts. If you look at ballot questions over the last two decades Bay State voters have abolished rent control, refused to let supermarkets sell alcohol, rolled back income taxes and refused to let day care center operators unionize. Does that sound like a blue state to you?

I believe Coakley also ran into the anti-incumbent buzzsaw that has sliced up so many elected officials the last two cycles and will likely reoccur this year. Look again at the Suffolk poll and see how many voters dislike the president’s health care plan, think the state is on the wrong track and dislike Governor Deval Patrick, a close Obama aide who also will face an uphill election battle. And those are people in Massachusetts! This is less about which political party has the upper hand and better platform and more about who is currently in office when the voters take their frustrations out on the ballot box. The Democrats benefitted the last two cycles, and it’s quite likely the Republicans will benefit this year.

The race will be close and it could come down to turnout, but I just saw two ads that almost say it all. The first was Scott Brown driving around in his truck meeting people in Worcester. The other was a 527 ad by a liberal group just as heinous as the Swift Boat ads, claiming that Brown will roll back a woman’s right to choose. In the current economy with unemployment being what it is, health care and financial bailouts dominating the news and a huge anti-Beacon Hill backlash evident, it’s safe to say abortion is pretty far down the list of voter priorities this year. How come Team Coakley can’t figure that out?

More Info: Yesterday, Coakley appeared with President Obama in Boston. Scott Brown appeared in Worcester with Curt Schilling and…Doug Flutie! Guess who had a larger crowd?

Resurrecting the Media

2009-12-31T16:22:00.002-05:00

As the decade draws to a merciful close, one market that has been beaten down further than the Republicans and our retirement portfolios combined has been the media. I’ve opined over and over and over about the media’s continuing insignificance in the 21st century, but I may also see a way out for the Fourth Estate.

First, downsize staff and cut pages if you must, but by all means please stop cutting back on writers and foreign bureaus. Writers and foreign bureaus are the oil that keeps dailies and newsweeklies running. Many colleges are in financial trouble, but the last place they cut staff is in academia because then the quality of education suffers, followed by the quality of the institution. Same for professional sports teams; if they cut their best players the team will suffer and fans will desert. It’s no different when the media cuts back on writers and stories. Laying off journalists is killing professional journalism.

Twenty years ago when journalists and foreign bureaus existed we watched successful revolutions across Eastern Europe – many have said Western journalism helped get these stories out and fueled the protestors for democracy. We currently have a revolution beginning to bubble in Iran and the lack of Western media actually over there covering the story is shocking. If you only get your news from mainstream media you would have no idea what is happening there. Fortunately we have DIY journalism on YouTube, Flickr and Facebook to spread the word, and ironically I’ve seen pleas from mainstream media asking these brave Iranians to act as (unpaid) correspondents! Sorry guys, you reap what you sow.

But there have been some media success stories this decade. Just as the online audience has fragmented and narrowcasted, the successful media outlets have been ahead of the curve and provided terrific coverage and breaking commentary first. Specifically, I’m thinking of TMZ.com. TMZ was the first to break Michael Jackson’s death, Tiger Woods’ er, “mishaps” and is actually expanding into sports. Why has TMZ succeeded? Because it completely eschews the old-school media model in favor of non-printed breaking news – almost an AP for gossip. They also have the old media model of a small army pounding the pavement looking for news (or dirt).

Do they pay for tips, if not stories? Yes, sometimes they do. But TMZ has never pretended to be anything other than what it is. And with NBC now crossing the same lines TMZ ignores, it’s quite possible that checkbook journalism will become a stronger player within the mainstream media in the next decade, if only to keep up with its smaller, faster rivals. TMZ’s success and accuracy cannot be ignored any longer. There is a lesson here.

More info: Politico is another good example of the new Web media working. And they’re hiring. If you were a recent journalism grad, where would you go?

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part IV - The Conclusion

2009-12-28T19:07:00.001-05:00

If you have read all the posts so far and still believe CFR laws are either correct or effective, there is additional information I have researched that I did not discuss here. One is that fundraising success, not media time or attention, is the most effective gauge of popular support for candidates and causes. A review of www.opensecrets.org reveals that PACs and so-called special interests actually supply a small minority of the voluntary donations provide the fuel that power political communications to inform and educate the electorate, something that Jefferson said was necessary to the health of a democracy. Obama’s fundraising strength – 100% of which came from voluntary donations – gave him the means to wage an effective campaign against both Clinton and McCain. The media did not take candidates like Howard Dean and Ron Paul seriously until their fundraising totals showed they enjoyed a great deal of popular support.

But CFR laws passed in the guise of “money undermining the public” and “taking the money and interest groups out of politics” have not achieved these goals. In fact, they have exacerbated the situation by the sharp rise in incumbency and millionaires winning office. In the hope of limiting private donations, they have made politicians more reliant on fundraising than ever before as the realities of the marketplace require increased time spent on raising funds. Limits on donations mean more time spent fundraising, and lower donation amounts obviously leads to increased interaction with those who can give the maximum.

Most alarmingly for political communication, regulating donations limits the ways citizens can participate in the political process and also limits the ways politicians can present themselves and their platform to the electorate. Any law that restricts freedom of speech, limits freedom of expression and affects the outcome of election should be a violation of the First Amendment and a detriment to popular sovereignty. Yet these laws continue to be popular with the public, who are clearly unaware of these serious consequences and unable to follow the complexities of CFR. Even among CFR supporters, there is a backlash because they do not believe the laws are working. When a CFR champion like John McCain abandons the Presidential Campaign Fund and begins employing the same techniques he excoriated others for using, it is obvious the current system is broken.

The challenge, then, is whether to keep passing new CFR laws or try something radical like gutting the entire CFR structure. The answer is likely to be neither in the near term, although the current makeup of the Supreme Court may encourage some organization to challenge the laws on First Amendment issues. In 2007, the Court weakened the 60-day ad provision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, ruling that the BCRA's limitations on political advertising were unconstitutional when applied to issue ads similar to ones the Wisconsin organization wanted to run.

There is one CFR facet I agree with because it assists politicians, the public and the First Amendment – the call for transparency and added disclosure. The public deserves to know where politicians, PACs, 527s and other organizations are getting their money, and how they are spending it. Web sites like www.opensecrets.org present this information in great detail. It helps create a money trail and assists with accountability. Anything that continues to promote good governance should be encouraged.

But by and large, CFR laws are preventing effective political communication. The laws were designed to prevent inequities, but social and economic inequality will always exist in our society regardless of the level of campaign contributions from the private sector. The more money a candidate can get, the more they will be able to communicate with the voters. The more informed voters are, the better informed they will be. It’s conceivable that Obama’s huge base of support simultaneously comes from and is driven by the large amount of private contributions he has raised from the public. And remember, he also rejected the matching funds from the Presidential Campaign because he thought he would need more money to win the campaign. It turned out he was absolutely right.

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part III - Why Incumbents and Millionaires Love Them

2009-12-27T17:42:00.003-05:00

Even if you disagree with both my posts on Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) so far, there are three incontrovertible truths about what has happened since the Supreme Court upheld part of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. First, since 1976 there has been a huge jump in the number of incumbents that have been reelected. Second, there is a growing number of millionaires being elected to public office. And third, so-called “public financing” of elections to purge the system is not a viable option and – in the case where it has existed since 1976 – is dying on the vine. These are additional reasons why CFR laws have been a complete failure, made politicians more dependent on money than ever and have made the political system and money more interdependent than ever.

Let’s talk about incumbency first. Incumbency has always been a difficult mountain for political challengers at any level to overcome. Unless an incumbent is truly unpopular or besieged by scandal, challengers everywhere have an uphill battle for name recognition, let alone victory. That is why so much attention is devoted to “open seats,” where there is no incumbent running. Since CFR laws were passed, this difficult task has been made close to impossible because these laws discriminate against challengers by making it almost impossible for them to raise enough money to effectively challenge sitting congressmen and senators. Is this why CFR laws always pass by wide margins?

Below are the results for Congressional incumbents pre- and post-Buckley up to 2000. If you want to view the 2000-2008 results visit the House Clerk's page but I promise the results are the same.

House Races 1920-1974

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 9,733 1,005
Winning Percentage 90.6% 9.4%

House Races 1976-2000

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 4,826 218
Winning Percentage 95.7% 4.3%

Senate Races 1920-1974

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 454 161
Winning Percentage 73.8% 26.2%

Senate Races 1976-2000

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 230 45
Winning Percentage 83.6% 16.4%

Source: Rodney Smith, Money, Power & Politics, LSU Press, 2006, p.9.

The most important thing a challenger must do in any election is build up name recognition, and the way to do that is through political communication – direct mail, advertising, lawn signs, bumper stickers and other established methods. If a challenger cannot effectively communicate because his or her fundraising is being handicapped by CFR laws, those laws are not only breaking the First Amendment but also interfering in election outcomes. This is not the only reason so many incumbents are re-elected, but it is the primary reason why challengers have become less successful overall since these laws first took effect.

While incumbents must adhere to the same contribution limits, they are not prevented from raising money while in office, and this has led to a perpetual fundraising quest so incumbents can also overcome contribution limits while simultaneously building up war chests to discourage competitors. Virtually every elected official in Congress develops a PAC, and naturally seeks out individuals and other PACs who can donate large amounts of money. Massachusetts has a $500 limit on contributions, and while state races are less expensive the lower amount causes local politicians to spend even more time fundraising to compensate. And when there's a war chest to build up to both run campaigns and deter challengers, a politician is practically forced to spend time soliciting those individuals or PACs that can give him or her the maximum amount.

But there is one glaring loophole to CFR laws – spending one’s own money to win elections. While being the richest candidate does not always guarantee success (just ask John Corzine in NJ, or Jack E. Robinson here in Massachusetts), being able to tap one’s own wealth makes CFR laws moot. The richest candidate may not always win, but the candidate who spends the most money generally does and both parties are increasingly turning to millionaires as viable candidates – candidates who are rarely representative of the districts and states they represent. Congress has become an exclusive club, far different than the citizen legislature it once was.

In 2004, Agence France Presse reported that 123 members of the 435-member House of Representatives earned at least $1 million in the prior year, and one in three U.S. Senators were also millionaires. Senators are not getting this rich from their salaries, which is $154,700 for newcomers. Financial wealth is a bipartisan issue, with Republicans and Democrats alike reporting huge financial assets; the wealth of Mass Democrats John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy are well-known. There is little doubt that CFR has made it infinitely easier for wealthier upper classes to run for public office because they can skirt campaign finance reform laws, while middle class office-seekers and other average Americans must contend with the existing system that places limits on how much cash is available for them. It is an uphill battle few of them can win.

One frequently cited solution to CFR is the public financing of elections. Common Cause says this is a way to, “give voters more control over government, make politicians accountable to constituents rather than campaign contributors, save taxpayers money and level the playing field by giving all citizens a fair shot at getting elected.” Unfortunately the most prominent public financing of all – the Presidential Campaign Fund – is atrophying from a lack of interest from the public and a growing number of candidates opting out of the system. The Fund is founded by taxpayers who voluntarily mark off a $3 donation on their federal tax returns. The law then gives candidates a fixed amount that is indexed for inflation to spend before the primaries, and a larger amount for the two nominees to spend between the conventions and Election Day. In return, the candidates must adhere to a spending limit and not spend more than $50,000 of their own money.

Both party candidates used the system until 2000, despite the fact that the largest percentage of taxpayers to ever check the “Yes” box was 28.7% in 1980; by 1994 only 13% checked the box and in 2007 only 9% said yes. The steady decline indicates the lack of public support for the system. In 2000, George W. Bush became the first candidate to decline public funding, believing that in a campaign season that had grown longer and more costly he would not have enough money to win the election if he had to abide by spending limits. Bush was also able to raise far more funds than he would have received from the Fund. In 2004, Bush, Kerry and Howard Dean all declined money from the Fund for the same reason, and their fundraising success was a watershed moment for presidential candidates. In 2008 Democrats Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson opted out, as did Republicans McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Paul and Huckabee for the same reasons the 2004 candidates did. The success many of these candidates had raising money from the private sector (or in Romney’s case, tapping his own fortune) proves that the Fund has become antiquated, if not irrelevant.

I'll wrap this up in the next post.

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part II - The First Amendment

2009-12-23T23:08:00.002-05:00

Many liberals have fond memories of the late Senator Gene McCarthy, whose anti-Vietnam presidential platform caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 campaign. But very few of them know that in 1974, McCarthy went to court with fellow Senator James Buckley and a host of other groups ranging from the New York Civil Liberties Union to the Mississippi Republican Party to sue the United States against new amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The coalition of ultra-liberals and arch-conservatives believed the new stipulations were unconstitutional, muzzled free speech and caused the government to influence election results and compromise popular sovereignty.

Two years later, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (Buckley got the recognition because his name was first) did indeed agree with McCarthy and others and threw out the bulk of the new laws but upheld some key provisions, including the creation of the FEC, public financing of presidential elections and capped campaign contribution limits at $1,000. The court ruled that limits on individual and campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment, but contribution limits did not.

But is that truly the case, and was Gene McCarthy and the NY Civil Liberties Union 100% correct? In my opinion, yes. All forms of political communication to a mass audience of voters and constituents require money to create (often by hiring consultants), produce (everything from direct mail to bumper stickers and advertising copy) and distribute or broadcast. Political advertising and speeches is clearly communications and deserves the same protections as any other form of speech, including the partisan rhetoric of 527 ads and the personal views expressed on this blog.

By limiting campaign contributions, Buckley v. Valeo is limiting the contents and varieties of political communication available to political campaigns. It is also suppressing political dialogue and debate by preventing candidates from amassing enough resources to communicate with the public. Campaign contributions also enable other means of political communication, including grassroots mobilization and get-out-the-vote drives that further educate the public to a candidate’s positions.

The Court has ruled in numerous other decisions regarding communication that money equals speech, and politics is no exception. Money permits challengers and incumbents alike the power to communicate through advertising to try and persuade voters. But when the money spigot is curtailed or cut off, that severely limits the effectiveness of free speech and has the power to determine the outcome of elections. If Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) laws are hampering popular sovereignty, they are having a deleterious effect on democracy.

CFR laws also adversely affect people who wish to donate to their preferred candidates, parties and political causes. One of the best ways citizens can participate in the democratic process is by political contributions, but if a citizen wants to give more than is allotted by law their free speech rights are also being violated. Look at the figures from the 2008 elections at OpenSecrets.org and you will see that private donations from individuals provide the vast majority of money to the political system, not the PACs and nebulous “special interests” that CFR supporters claim. In fact, recent presidential candidates like Howard Dean, Barack Obama and Ron Paul became serious contenders entirely through private donations.

In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) was passed that created additional CFR restrictions. It included a ban on the “soft money” contributions made to political parties, raised the contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,300 and indexed it for inflation, and banned ads by organizations that identifies a candidate by name within 60 days of election. The Democratic and Republican parties used soft money for a myriad of reasons, but they were primarily used for issue debates ranging from the environment to taxes and were often used in conjunction with specific races. By banning these donations, the parties are also now subjugated to the same First Amendment issues raised earlier because they are being prevented from fully engaging in these political debates. Perhaps more insidiously, donations that used to go to the parties (that were fully disclosed) have been diverted to 527 organizations and other entities that are not required to be transparent or accountable for their actions.

CFR laws were certainly written with good intentions, but the consequences to the public, the parties and the candidates have unacceptably influenced elections by curtailing free speech. Unfortunately, CFR laws are undermining more than the First Amendment and are adversely affecting politics in other ways as well. I'll explore that next.

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part I

2009-11-30T17:49:00.002-05:00

If you ever tried to read anything about campaign finance reform (CFR), you probably gave up because you couldn’t figure it out. If you ever tried to sit down and actually study the reasons behind campaign finance reform, you definitely gave up because you couldn’t figure it out. The vast majority of Americans are against CFR, although very, very few can cogently explain their position beyond the clichés “There’s too much money in politics!” and “Special interests decide elections!” arguments. But there is one thing everyone on both sides agree on – CFR laws are not working. The slew of CFR laws has not stemmed one dime from entering a candidate’s coffer.

Yours truly HAS actually spent long hours studying CFR, and part of my day job is working with my company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) that donates funds to some members of Congress. I have learned many things about CFR and can tell you the primary reason why CFR does not work is an error in the very idea of “taking the money out of politics.” What that noble fact overlooks is that we live in a capitalist society, and anyone who has tried to start a business or works at a nonprofit knows that fundraising is absolutely essential to survival. You cannot take the money out of politics the same way you cannot take the money, or the necessity of money, out of Wall Street, non-profits or any business from a small startup to a Fortune 100. And that is why CFR laws do not work and never will work.

But since many Americans have a negative view of Washington, dislike negative political ads and often hear about financial waste and excess in the government, the idea of campaign finance reform is a concept that elicits a positive reaction with people who only follow politics and elections casually. I believe that because CFR is constructed under an unrealistic notion that money will be mitigated from politics, it has led to a series of unintended consequences that have not only failed to stem the money tide, but also led to serious issues that lie at the heart of how politicians are elected and how they communicate with the public.

CFR is an emotional topic, and you hear groups like Common Cause, PIRGs and even some politicians say claims like “Elections are for sale” and “Big money in politics undermines the public interest!” Like many emotional claims, these are made without understanding the situation and I have never seen any of these backed up by hard proof, a single footnote or simple empirical evidence. In the postings to come, I will explain how all of these claims are untrue, and how the unintended consequences of CFR have actually helped millionaires, incumbents, and undermined the First Amendment.

Reading the Post-Election Tea Leaves

2009-11-09T15:33:00.001-05:00

With the recent elections a week removed, I’ve read and heard Republicans saying their victories in New Jersey and Virginia mean the party is back in action. I’ve also read and heard Democrats saying their victory in upstate New York means their party is back in action and the conservative firebrands have been repudiated. None of it really means anything, because it’s the same thing I hear after every non-Presidential election. Here’s what it does mean:

With all due respect (and congratulations) to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, it would have been pretty difficult to lose to incumbent governors Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine. The Virginia election outcome was never in doubt, and the only strange thing about New Jersey was how close it was. But the outcomes had nothing to do with party, anti-GOP or anti-Obama mobilization. What did matter was (1) a reminder about what makes elections in America unique, (2) all politics remain local, and (3) anti-incumbency ruled the day; the party in charge was irrelevant.

The U.S. is unique among world democracies because it encourages voters to vote for the candidate instead of the party. There are partisans on both sides that will vote for any candidate that calls themselves a Democrat or Republican, but those are the minorities. Here you can vote for whomever you want, which accounts for the huge number of Americans that call themselves independents and usually end up deciding races. In Great Britain, India, Israel and most other democracies everyone belongs to a party and votes for the party they belong to (ballots in other countries sometimes do not have candidate names on them) and the head of that party becomes the man or woman in charge. But it’s different here. Voters can vote for their choice and cross party lines, and you can have candidates who are pro-life Democrats or pro-government health care Republicans.

Second, Tip O’Neill remains correct – all politics is local. I’ve continually ranted about how social conservatives are driving the pro-business and social libertarians out of the Republican Party, especially in the Northeast. So look again at Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell – not only did they not run on the socially conservative dogma espoused by the national GOP, but they rejected offers from the Sarah Palins, Glen Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world to help. They ran respectful campaigns and focused on local issues like property taxes in New Jersey and unemployment in Virginia. There was none of the ridiculous tea parties or equating Obama to Hitler rhetoric we’ve seen elsewhere, because they knew that would have the wrong effect in their states. In contrast, the effect of ignoring local politics in New York’s 23rd district has been well-documented and when a social conservative bumped the correct candidate off the ticket, the GOP lost a seat that had been Republican since 1852. That’s what happens when you ignore the local angle, and think voters place the party in higher esteem than the candidate.

Finally if you look at all three races it was the incumbent who lost (you could view the 23rd seat as a Republican incumbent) and Mayor Bloomberg of NYC barely squeaked by in what was supposed to be a cakewalk. In case you missed it, voters are pretty mad across the country and when unemployment is high, personal finance accounts are low and the economy is in a general rut incumbents have their work cut out for them. It’s not an anti-GOP or anti-Obama fervor hitting the voters, it’s an anti-political system, vote-the-bums-out policy that is targeting everyone in office. This is the anger fueling the votes, and politicians of every stripe and ideology ignore it at their peril.

I Think I Remember Rock and Roll Radio

2009-10-24T19:00:00.003-04:00

When the once mighty rock station WBCN in Boston disappeared this August, the reply from many was a disappointed shrug – disappointment in how one of the most important rock stations in the country was being transformed into a sports station by CBS, the corporation that owned it, and shrugs in that nobody was really surprised. If anything, many of the comments I’ve linked to ask why it took so long to happen.

This is not a eulogy for rock and roll music. Rock and roll is doing just fine, thank you. New bands like The Mars Volta, The Gaslight Anthem, Mastodon, Death Cab for Cutie and The Foo Fighters show the now-middle aged rock genre remains vibrant. Those are my choices for good rock music these days, and your opinion may differ. But what almost all these bands have in common is that you almost never hear them on the traditional radio stations or MTV. You can find them on the Internet, satellite radio and on tour, but almost never the way you used to.

When I came to Boston in 1987, EVERYONE listened to WBCN. Sure, it was a different time with fewer choices but within a week of being here my ears were opened to all the exciting music Boston had to offer. For every Bruce Springsteen song, they also played one by a great local band called Scruffy the Cat. Much has been written about WBCN being one of the first to break through Boston bands like Aerosmith, the J. Geils Band, The Cars and Til Tuesday. It was the classic story of local stations customizing their playlist to help local bands get known in their hometowns. Since Boston was, to paraphrase Spinal Tap, such a big college town, pushing local rock bands playing at local clubs went over well. WBCN’s practice was noticed by other bands on the edge of stardom, and whenever Bono and Sting played local arenas they always thanked WBCN for being one of the first stations to push them.

Eventually WBCN became part of the CBS empire, and you can guess what happened afterward. By the early 90s the local bands had vanished and it had basically become a classic rock station, playing the same 50 songs by Led Zeppelin and The Doors every other rock station plays. Rock music and the younger generation’s tastes had changed, but WBCN refused to acknowledge it. After the second Woodstock in 1994 there was a reboot, as if the suits finally realized new music existed, and the station went “alternative” just as alternative was becoming the mainstream. Within a few years it was playing the same 50 songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana and U2 again and again until CBS pulled the plug. Many were understandably angry.

But in hindsight, I think it was not only a mercy killing, but also pretty symbolic of the whole rut traditional rock radio finds itself in. You can’t goof on classic rock stations for making you sick of “Stairway to Heaven” when so-called modern rock stations do the same things with Pearl Jam’s “Daughter.” That song is now 16 years old, and Pearl Jam hasn’t really been relevant since it came out. Even if you like classic rock, do they play any new music by Dylan, Neil Young, Bowie and Springsteen or just the same old songs again and again?

Part of the problem is that rock is still considered rebellious music for younger generations and the bands being played on the radio are anything but that. It’s also that the programming and playlist decisions are made by middle aged men who are likely old farts when it comes to new music. But what has also happened is the concept of rock music and rock stars themselves have transformed, and the suits behind the rock stations are still mired in their past glory days with their heads in the sand.

The legendary rock journalist Stephen Davis has just come out with a new book on Guns n’ Roses called Watch You Bleed: The Saga of Guns n’ Roses. What Davis nails is that Gn’R was actually the last prototype of the classic rock and roll band. Remember the old Guns n’ Roses? It was the classic tale of poor band gets big, egos get bigger, excess consumes the band, members can’t get along until a classic implosion. All the while, the classic clichés of sex, drugs, lead-singer-as-petulant-idol/rebel and rags to riches worked. Guns n’ Roses also had the classic rock lineup of five guys, including the two guitarists and charismatic frontman.

Of course grunge changed all that and while grunge has come and gone, its changes to the classic rock music and rock band remain. Davis actually isn’t surprised the classic hard rock movement ended with Gn’R, as he writes all musical movements come to an end. But as I said, rock itself is just fine – you only need to look harder. And don’t look for it on commercial radio. WBCN’s demise is indeed the symbolic end of what became a lost era.

Putting Out Fires with Gasoline

2009-10-22T18:07:00.002-04:00

Most kids know that words will never hurt them. Can someone please tell the White House?

Obama’s press office has decided to treat Fox News like an enemy, saying it is “not a legitimate news organization but a wing of the Republican Party.” Fox News, the undisputed leader in cable news whose ratings are up 20%, probably couldn’t be happier. And you’d think the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize wouldn’t want to add a war with the media to his other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn’t all this seem a little beneath an American president and his office? There hasn’t been a single one in history that didn’t go through the media gauntlet unscathed. Look back 100 years ago to the age of yellow journalism and you’ll find things that would shock Glen Beck.

The White House posturing conjures up dozens of worn but true clichés: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Never let them see you sweat. Don’t let it get under your skin, etc. Has the White House forgotten how low the public regards the media? Outside of a very noisy minority of diehard partisans, does anyone take Glen Beck seriously? What would the president gain by giving him more attention than he deserves? Will it ever come out unspoiled in a mud wrestling match with Sean Hannity?

But there’s an even bigger mistake the White House is making. George W. Bush actually said it best. One day in Texas he invited some media to a barbecue. An editor there asked that if he didn’t read the papers, how would he know what the public thinks? Bush said, “You’re making a huge assumption – that you represent what the public thinks.”

If Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest of Fox News’ on-air talent had that much pull, how come McCain isn’t in the White House? In fact, why isn’t Fred Thompson in the White House? Limbaugh and his cronies pushed for Thompson, then Romney, then Hillary Clinton after McCain won the nomination. I don’t doubt the ratings of these guys, I’m sure they have plenty of fans and they make for good TV. But never think elections and bill debate are won and lost in the media. Don’t think Fox News represents the Republican Party. Obama needs to work with and influence the Republican Party, not Fox News. If you’re reading this and you like Rush Limbaugh, do you do every single thing he tells you to do and agree with everything he says? Of course not. Why on earth would the White House believe it?

I’ve worked with the media for years and can tell you that George W. Bush is absolutely right. Not only does the media not represent the public, but people outside the media who drink that Kool Aid are in serious trouble when it comes to gauging public opinion. It’s been disheartening to watch Republican leaders kowtow to people like Limbaugh and Hannity who they believe represents their Party, their voters and the so-called “Real America.” It’s beyond baffling to watch the White House press corps make the same mistake.

Dave's Mighty 2009 NFL Predictions

2009-09-09T23:51:00.002-04:00

Has it only been seven months since the great sport of football last graced our televisions? Do you remember looking back on my predictions that stated the Arizona Cardinals would be NFC Champions at 9-7? That Kerry Collins would come off the bench and lead Tennessee to a 13-3 record? You don’t? Well, how about where I compared Matt Millen to a box of rocks and said Detroit had nothing to be proud of? I nailed that one.

If you haven’t done so, it’s time to stimulate the economy like I did and start watching football on a REALLY BIG TV. I can even read the player’s tattoos.
So here we go, along with my dark horse picks. Just a warning: My political musings are usually more accurate than my NFL ones.

NFC EAST
1) NY Giants: You’re going to notice a trend this year. Good teams have good defenses and good running games. Bad teams have neither. The Giants are a study in the former. Is there a better offensive or defensive line in football? Brandon Jacobs loves to hit people, and he’s not even on defense. Eli Manning is streaky, but tends to just squeak through in the clutch.
2) Philadelphia: Wild Card Team. I’ll say this for Philly this year – they won’t be boring. I don’t think the players have the slightest idea what’s going to happen if McNabb enters a funk and Vick is on the bench. That said, I’m not sure how much gas Westbrook has left, and Jim Johnson’s death leaves a mighty big void.
3) Dallas: There’s no T.O., but they’re not getting younger, especially on the offensive line. They’ve got some talent at RB with Marion Barber and Felix Jones (when Barber’s healthy) and DeMarcus Ware is great, but after Ware the defense kind of slacks off. Look out Wade!
4) Washington: The good news is they have Albert Haynesworth, although Dan Snyder overpaid as usual. But it’s not good when Snyder tries to dump the QB that the coach is trying to build around. If Jason Campbell heats up the Skins might surprise us, but there’s not enough pop in the team.

NFC NORTH
1) Green Bay: Surprise! The Packers were 6-10 last year but Aaron Rodgers played well and the offense is great, with Greg Jennings and Ryan Grant. They’ve switched to the 3-4 defense which might take a game or two to settle in but will provide more flexible to LBs Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk. And as nice as the people in Wisconsin are, don’t you just know what’s going to happen when Farve shows up?
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Yes, Farve makes the Vikings better. Yes, everyone has forgotten how he single-handedly destroyed the Jets late last year with bad mistakes. The defense is actually pretty good, provided their best player – Pat Williams – doesn’t get suspended.
3) Chicago: Lots of people are picking the Bears as their NFC Champion because of Jay Cutler. This is the same Jay Cutler that led the Broncos to a mighty 8-8, and that’s when he actually had someone good to throw to. Cutler won’t solve the Bears’ defensive and injury woes either.
4) Detroit: For years I laughed at Detroit because of Matt Millen’s bonehead mind, decisions, leadership, scouting and overall football knowledge. But when the Lions finally got what they deserved and threw him out, now I actually feel bad for them and want them to win. I’m tempted to make them my Dark Horse team because if they win three games, they’re the most improved. I’ll resist the temptation, but three wins sounds right.

NFC SOUTH
1) Atlanta: It will be tougher this year and this is a good division. But there are too many new stars on this team; Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White on offense (plus Tony Gonzalez joined), plus John Abraham, Mike Peterson and Curtis Lofton on defense. Atlanta just seems hungrier than the other teams here.
2) New Orleans: No problem on offense with Drew Brees gunslinging, but the defense stinks more than a Bourbon Street gutter. And their best defensive players – Will Smith and Charles Grant – will likely be suspended for four games. That’s too big a hole to climb out of.
3) Carolina: Tough ride for QB Jake Delhomme. He’s solid, but I think the beating they took in the playoffs last year still stings. A great RB with DeAngelo Williams and a mean defensive line, but they lack the eye of the tiger.
4) Tampa Bay: It’s not a good sign when I couldn’t remember the last team in this division. When I did, I also remembered the new offensive coordinator got fired last week, longtime defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is gone and Byron Leftwich is the starting QB. Next!

NFC WEST
1) Arizona: True, I did not pick the Cardinals to win the division last year but they were my dark horse team. And in what could be the weakest division, another 9-7 season could clinch it again. Offensively the Cards are fun to watch and Kurt Warner is the perfect QB for the spread offense they use, although the running could be better. Defense is another story, but when your division opponents are the three teams below how good do you need to be?
2) San Francisco: Dark Horse Team. I’m picking the Niners to surprise a few teams and finish around .500 because of coach Mike Singletary. If he is half as scary on the sidelines as he was on the field, the Niners will not only fear for their lives but he will become the meanest player to become a good coach since Jack Del Rio. He’s not afraid to bench starters and probably screams louder than anyone else in the locker room. It’s not good when the starting QB is someone named Shaun Hill, but Frank Gore is the RB and there’s signs of life on defense.
3) Seattle: No team got hurt more last year than the Seahawks. QB Matt Hasselback returns and can throw to TJ Houshmandzadeh. The defense is good. But the starting RB is Julius Jones.
4) St. Louis: Best of luck to former Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo on his new gig. It’s good there’s no pressure on him this year, because turning the Rams defense into something respectable is at least 365 days away. RB Steven Jackson can’t do it all, and I think Marc Bulger has been quarterback since Kurt Warner left town.

AFC EAST
1) New England: Not a tough pick, but methinks trouble looms ahead on defense. Longtime leaders Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau are gone. That said, Belichick is good at making lemonade and Brady is back with Wes Welker, Randy Moss and Joey Galloway. The league’s best offense should overcome.
2) Miami: Two reasons they won’t repeat. First, they went from a last place schedule to a first place schedule, and second, everyone’s ready for the Wildcat now. But the offensive line is good and Ronnie Brown is a great RB.
3) NY Jets: The focus is on new QB Mark Sanchez (who, by the way, only has WR Jerricho Cotchery to throw at. Hello, double coverage?). But look at the rest of the Jets team; they’re…good. Not great, but good. RB Thomas Jones got 1500 yards but is 31. DT Kris Jenkins is good but won’t start anyone’s fantasy league.
4) Buffalo: Everyone is excited about T.O. and the no-huddle offense. When Buffalo last run a no-huddle, they had the league’s best offensive line and Jim Kelly was QB. This time they have the league’s worst offensive line and Trent Edwards is QB. RB Marshawn Lynch is suspended for three or four games. Looks like another long winter.

AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh: Not a tough pick, part two. Everyone is back from last year, but I’m curious to see if teams try to spread the Steelers mighty defense across the field this time after the Cardinals almost pulled it off in the Super Bowl. How cool are James Harrison and Troy Polamalu?
2) Baltimore: Wild Card Team. Ferocious defense? Check (Haloti Ngati, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs). Good QB? Check (Joe Flacco). Good RB? Maybe (Ray Rice and Laron McClain, no relation to the Arizona senator). If one of those RBs shines, look out Pittsburgh.
3) Cincinnati: Well, there’s Carson Palmer and that Ochocinco guy and then, uh, who’s on defense? Wasn’t Marvin Lewis supposed to fix that five or six years ago?
4) Cleveland: I understand that new head coaches usually start with a bad team, but not even Bill Walsh could turn this team around. Besides the QB debacle, can you name one player? And if you can, does he impress you?

AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis: This was a tough pick, because Tony Dungy and Marvin Harrison are gone. But Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Adam Vinatieri and Dwight Freeney are still there. But the Colts are no longer elite and I don’t see them going far in the playoffs, let alone against New England or Pittsburgh.
2) Tennessee: Wild Card Team. I just can’t see the Titans going 13-3 again, especially without Albert Haynesworth and Jim Schwartz on defense. And as much as I like Kerry Collins, his age and streakiness don’t bode well in the long run.
3) Houston: Dark Horse Team. In a weaker division, the Texans would be in the playoffs this year, and they may sneak in if the Titans or Colts screw up. Matt Schaub has become a solid QB and Andre Johnson is one of the best WRs in football. The defense is great with future stars DT Mario Williams and LB DeMeco Ryans. If they can cut the turnovers and get a good divisional record, they could pull it off.
4) Jacksonville: Two years ago Jacksonville was 11-5 and I thought 2008 was their year. Then their best offensive lineman got shot the first week of the season and injuries flattened the rest of them. The new GM has cleaned house and while everyone likes RB Maurice Jones-Drew, this is what they call a “rebuilding year.” Eh.

AFC WEST
1) San Diego: This is how bad this division is. The Chargers won with an 8-8 record. As predicted, Coach Norv Turner has underachieved as usual, although it would be tough to mess up a club with Philip Rivers, Antonio Gates, LaDanian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman.
2) Kansas City: Look at this way – when you have four games against Denver and Oakland you can go 4-12 and in this division, 4-12 is good enough for second. The Chiefs seem to have the fewest problems among the three doormats here provided QB Matt Cassell gets healthy fast, and with Dwayne Bowe and Larry Johnson the offense could show signs of life.
3) Denver: Let’s see. New coach Josh McDaniels got rid of the starting QB for…Kyle Orton. The best remaining player, WR Brandon Marshall, wants a trade. Except for new CB Champ Bailey, there is no defense to speak of, and I’ve never heard of the RB. Apart from that, everything’s peachy.
4) Oakland: Richard Seymour just got traded here and he has refused to report to the team. Can you blame him? Oh, and the team got rid of QB Jeff Garcia so JaMarcus Russell can keep up his good work.

Why I'll Miss Ted Kennedy

2009-09-01T18:44:00.002-04:00

“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which much be recognized--the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old…When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”

Ted Kennedy, August 3, 1971

I am not from Massachusetts and never bought into the Kennedy mystique. He was, at the end of the day, a politician – and one who, like the example above shows, flip flopped as much as any other. He cared about the environment, but opposed putting a wind farm off Nantucket Sound. When his fellow Massachusetts senator John Kerry was close to winning the presidency in 2004, he got his home state to change the law to make sure the then-Republican governor couldn’t appoint anyone to the position, but on his deathbed tried to change the very law he championed when a Democrat was governor. His drinking and sexual indulgences lasted into his 50s. And you could argue that Kennedy’s crusade against Robert Bork in 1987 set the stage for the hyperpartisan gnashing and voting that greets any Supreme Court nominee today.

Why then, will I miss Ted Kennedy? Well, first as a selfish Massachusetts resident Kennedy certainly had the chops to bring both the pork and bacon home to his constituents. But most importantly – and unlike his late brothers – Kennedy spent his career in the Senate and understood the art of compromise and the importance of deal-making in order to get things accomplished. The best advice I ever heard on negotiating was if someone offers you at least 51% of what you want, take it. Kennedy grasped this, and was unafraid to cross the aisles to work with Republicans to get him at least more than halfway to his eventual goal. I would divide Kennedy’s life in half. The first is pre-1980, when he literally got away with murder, was more known for boozing than legislating and embarked on a truly misguided presidential campaign and one of the most liberal convention speeches in history that gave Reagan the election on a silver platter.

But afterward, Kennedy became the new Henry Clay. He never renounced his liberalism but always strove to get things accomplished. Instead of going for the Hail Mary touchdown pass of liberalism he described in his convention speech, perhaps the 1980 campaign and election seemed to awaken the understanding that going yard by yard was a better way to get things done. Much has been written about how universal health care was his lifelong goal. That was never achieved – and it seems increasingly unlikely it will be achieved again this year. But look at Kennedy’s incremental health care accomplishments – Americans with Disabilities Act, SCHIP, COBRA, the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Those are impressive accomplishments that not only extend the liberal notion of health care access but are causes that nobody could refute.

And if you look not only at those accomplishments, but also at Kennedy’s more recent achievements like No Child Left Behind and the immigration bill that did not become law, you notice they were all bipartisan. Most were also achieved with people like John McCain, Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum – Republicans who also understood the art of the deal and the importance of compromise.

It’s a sad comparison to the state of Congress today, where both parties are headed by rabid hyperpartisans unversed in dealmaking and wanting an all-or-nothing approach. Much has been said that if Kennedy were still able to attend Senate hearings the last few months, a health care bill would have been passed. I would say that if Kennedy were still around, he’d be working on a compromise with Republican colleagues that would ensure something effective would be passed. It would probably not be everything the president wants, but it would be at least 51% of it.

More Info: Some people have said Kennedy is burning in hell. I haven’t seen such blind partisan hatred for the departed since, well, since liberals hoped Jerry Falwell was burning in hell.

It's the Message, Stupid!

2009-08-21T18:09:00.001-04:00

How can the Obama team, which did such a good job staying on message during the campaign, have lost the messaging war in the health care debate? Let us count the ways.

First, simplicity is always important. Selling a simple message like “Change” is easy. Selling a tough message like “health care reform” is a lot tougher. Just as many people dislike Congress but like their Congressman, many people think health care should be reformed but the 90% of people with health care insurance seem largely satisfied. They also seem to like their doctors and seniors with Medicare also don’t want things to change. Perhaps they could have used something like health care cost reform or health insurance reform, but it’s a bit late for that now.

Second, know your audience. You don’t have to convince all the people in an election, but if you’re president you need to speak to the people who didn’t vote to you. Since we all know what the Republican base is like and what most Americans value, it shouldn’t surprise many that getting Americans to understand the specifics of health care reform isn’t easy. This recent poll about American beliefs on health care reform says it all:

· 45% believe the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens
· 55% believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
· 54% believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system

All three of those items are absolutely wrong and have been debunked by those on the right and left alike. But people still believe them. Clearly the administration is not controlling the debate.
Finally, in PR we have what is called the “elevator pitch.” The story goes that if you’re riding in an elevator with an editor or Congressman, you have to clearly state what you want or what makes your company great, and get him to understand it before the elevator door opens. When the opposition says things like “death panels” and “costing over one trillion dollars,” it’s got the elevator pitch down cold. Average Americans understand elevator pitches. They will not understand long, drawn-out points. This is an unfortunate but standard fact of life that the President seems to have forgotten.

There are also three health care reform bills in Congress, which makes it complicated for people who understand long, drawn-out points. Mr. President, what is your ultimate goal with this bill? Lower costs? Coverage for all? A government-run system for people who can’t get or afford coverage? Making insurance companies accept all comers regardless of the risk? I don’t think anyone is quite sure. It may be all of that.

So if the president is reading, I advise him to regroup and repackage a single bill that has three or five easy to understand points that any American can grasp in about 60 seconds. And something about how he would pay for it would be nice too.

More Info: I’ve never blogged about Massachusetts’ universal health care law, but it was championed by former Governor Mitt Romney before he started flip flopping. An excellent NGO is Health Care for All, whose former leader (John McDonough) has a Ph.D. on health care costs and was instrumental in putting this important legislation together. Oh yeah, and he’s a very liberal Democrat who hates single-payer coverage. Here’s an old interview with him just before the Mass. law was passed.

Health Care Reform Will Not Cure Ignorance

2009-08-09T22:24:00.001-04:00

I recently had breakfast with Jim McGovern, Democrat from Massachusetts’ 3rd District by Worcester. He told a story of how he stopped by a McDonald’s near his home and five old men in a booth yelled at him to come over. They then accosted and berated him on the new health care bills in Congress, screaming how they didn’t want the government to get into the health care business (only in terms more crude than that).

McGovern then asked how many of them were on Medicare. They all said they were. He then asked if they had any major problems with it. Nope, they said, and they wanted it to stay that way. McGovern then asked, “Did you know Medicare is a government-run, single-payer health care system?” Blank stares were the only reply.

I know plenty of liberal partisans who blindly repeat whatever the New York Times says, but at least most of the Times’ articles and editorials are well-written and have a cursory basis in facts. But McGovern’s Mickey Dee’s moment, which is being played in town halls across the country, shows what happens when the opposing army sends their soldiers into battle without a plan or at least a few talking points. It doesn’t help when the topic is as byzantine and esoteric as health care, and there are currently three different health care bills circulating in Congress to confuse people who are actually trying to pay attention.

As with the prior phony “tea party” anti-tax protests in April, I like the whole idea of asking Congressmen and women tough, challenging questions at town hall meetings – Jefferson himself would have loved the concept. But Jefferson would also be floored at the lack of civility and utter ignorance showcased at these events. The irony of old people on Medicare hollering against a government-run health care system is to put it mildly, bizarre, and those who are just regurgitating whatever the so-called conservative firebrands tell them are going to miss that forest for the trees. It’s also interesting as an observer who watched liberals and progressives shriek apoplectically about anything George W. Bush did for eight years see the exact opposite crowd doing the exact same thing about Obama. Both types of these people seem so driven by rage that they can’t even think straight.

It’s a shame because there is a problem with health care in this country and a civil dialogue could get some important steps accomplished. Both sides could probably agree quickly to get something done about costs, particularly malpractice tort reform, excessive outlays and tests charged by hospitals, and how each state has a few dominant healthcare providers that charge what they want and extort fees from insurance companies and consumers alike. If the Republicans wanted to battle Obama on reining in health care costs instead of sending clowns and seniors to spew nonsense about euthanizing old people, then they’d actually be on to something. I also know far too many Canadians and Europeans who moved here for health reasons because of bureaucratic boondoggles in the foreign, single-payer health care systems Obama spotlights. But that would require arming foot soldiers and Congressmen alike with a plan and encourage them to discuss things rationally, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

More Info: Now this is how the Republicans should argue.

...And That's The Way It Is (Back Then)

2009-08-03T22:45:00.001-04:00

Walter Cronkite was lucky to live to 92, and even luckier to live when he did – at a time when everyone got their news from the same television station at the same time, and anchors were still required to be objective journalists. It didn’t matter if they wore glasses or spoke in a gravelly voice or appeared on TV in their sixties. Back then, it was OK to spend several minutes on a story to make sure viewers received all the facts, and the story never was influenced by ideologies or pressured by major advertisers.

If Walter was graduating today, he probably wouldn’t think of journalism as a career, and even if he did he would never be picked to anchor a local broadcast, let alone a national one. Too dour, people would say. Too much of a perfectionist. Walter is remembered today not so much for who he was, but what he represented. Some would say his editorial on Vietnam following the Tet Offensive was a switch from journalism to editorial, but to reach that conclusion he had the nerve to actually travel to Vietnam and find out the facts first. And when you watch him and listen to his voice, there is none of the condescension and taunting that flows from so many so-called news anchors and bloviators today. He spoke with absolute authority, for he had actually bothered to do his homework. The nerve of him.

Walter also had the politeness and the class to wait until he was retired (actually, forced into retirement) to begin making his true political feelings known. That was perfectly acceptable – he was no longer an anchor or journalist. I’m sure he was disappointed in many things concerning journalism and the media, especially the partisan sniping that masquerades as debate and the downfall of the once-mighty CBS News. But if I had the audacity to guess, I think what bothered him the most was both the move from reporting the news to editorializing the sensational and the trivial. President Obama recently said he was surprised the media made the recent “beer summit” the top story instead of the meeting he had with the president of the Philippines. He had to have been joking, but Cronkite would have said, “And right there…that’s why the mighty Fourth Estate has fallen.”

Massachusetts is not a Democracy

2009-07-20T18:52:00.002-04:00

If you only had one choice on the ballot for every election, would you think you live in a democracy? Unfortunately this describes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when it comes to local elections.

After I moved in the summer of 2006, I went to vote in the September primaries and found with the exception of the governor’s race, it appeared that every incumbent in my district, all of whom happened to be Democrats, were running unopposed. When I checked the statewide results the next day, it appeared that not only had many Democrats not faced any opposition, but also more races were being contested by Green Rainbow party candidates than Republican candidates. This trend repeated itself in the 2006 general election, the 2008 primaries and the 2008 general election. In fact, six of Massachusetts’ 10 U.S. Congressmen, all of whom are Democrats, did not face a challenger and the rest had token opposition. Numerous empirical studies have shown that Massachusetts is one of the least contested states in the country when it comes to local races. The 2008 state House and Senate results are notable for the dearth of any contested seats – in fact most challengers to Democratic seats were other Democrats.

The curious thing about this is while Massachusetts is a blue state in presidential elections, most registered voters are Independents and Republicans have a long history of inhabiting the Governor’s office. Deval Patrick ended a 16-year Republican run (1990-2006), and notable former governors like Francis Sargent and John Volpe were Republicans. Also if you look at the history of ballot questions, Massachusetts voters have voted to roll back income taxes, abolished rent control, approved term limits, rejected universal health care and rejected a bid for supermarkets to sell alcohol. Clearly Massachusetts voters are not all blind liberal partisans when it comes to social and economic issues.

If voters have just one candidate to choose from in repeated elections, it does more than give a tenure-like quality to Massachusetts legislative members. It also undermines the very idea of a democracy, where voters are expected to select the best of two or more candidates for office. The degree to which voters are not offered choices on the ballot raises significant questions about the health of a democracy and additional questions about the vitality and efficacy of the Republican Party providing voters with an alternative to the Democratic-dominated legislature. Currently Democrats control 141 out of 160 seats in the Massachusetts House, and 35 of 40 seats in the State Senate. That is not just a majority – it’s virtually a monopoly.

How could this have happened? Standard variables like the power of incumbency, gerrymandering and redistricting and the lack of the legislature to enact the term limits that voters wanted are part of the reason. But much of the blame must go to the state Republican Party, which never capitalized on its success in the 1990 election to build up a grassroots farm system of next-generation candidates. I doubt that even many Massachusetts Republicans could discuss what the party’s platform entails or how they can help end the tide of GOP failure at the Legislative level.

Another issue is the stigma the national Republican Party has made not just in Massachusetts, but across the Northeast. When you look at notable Republican governors and Senators across the Northeast – Maine’s Olympia Snowe, Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, Massachusetts governors from Bill Weld to the first Mitt Romney (hold that comment for a minute), Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, Connecticut’s Jodi Rell, New York’s George Pataki, New Jersey’s Christie Whitman and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter – a pattern begins to emerge. That is the classic fiscally conservative, socially liberal (almost Libertarian) northeast Yankee Republican. Because the national GOP has moved so far to the right on social issues, this species has been almost rendered extinct. The last two elections have not been easy for any Republican, but the shift in GOP attitudes coupled with their recent electoral failures have definitely trickled down to the state level. Romney won the governorship in the classic Northeast Republican mode, but he had to flip-flop his social positions to even be considered by the national GOP, making him appear disingenuous and costing him the nomination. Currently there are no Republican members of the House of Representatives in the entire Northeast.

Recently noted Republican Charlie Baker announced he would challenge Deval Patrick in the Massachusetts governor's race in 2010. I’m sure local Republicans are thrilled with the news, but they should devote the bulk of their time and energy to recruitment and winning more elections on Beacon Hill. Even the most diehard liberal Democrat in the Bay State would agree that having one choice on the ballot undermines the very concept of a democracy.

Supreme Diversity

2009-07-14T18:09:00.001-04:00

A minority goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a Supreme Court nominee. The nominee has an amazing personal history – born into poverty, a parent who died while they were young, the other parent persevering and a family who wouldn’t let them give up and who believed in the American Dream. The nominee became the first in their family to attend college and eventually graduated from an Ivy League law school. Clerkships and a legal career follow and soon the nominee becomes a judge, heading up the ladder to a Court of Appeals and is finally tapped by the president.

But wait. Accusations begin to fly about the nominee being a “token” because of race. Interest groups on all sides begin trading accusations and making projections. They worry because the nominee’s race, sex and background may affect their decisions in cases. Cries of racism and sexism become common. Soon partisans are lined up on both sides, and the vote tends to go largely down party lines as expected.

Is this the scenario for Sonia Sotomayor? Well, yes, but I was actually describing the life and nomination of Clarence Thomas. Thomas’ personal background is strikingly similar to Sotomayor’s. This shows you why the cries about diversity on the Court is largely a crock. If you dislike Thomas or Sotomayor, you really don’t give a hoot about their backgrounds or how they will diversify the Court. And once again, I find it illuminating how those who claim one nominee inspires them can be disgusted by another nominee, even if their backgrounds are the same. Cultural diversity is one thing, but diversity of opinion? Forget it. This goes for partisans on both sides.

And for those of you who think Sotomayor will definitely change the ideology of the Court for better or worse, I recommend reading my last post on this subject.

Decency and Credibility

2009-06-25T18:20:00.002-04:00

When Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons, was in high school he decided to run for class president. In what was likely a very clever goof, he ran on a platform called Teens for Decency and his slogan was, “If you’re against decency, what are you for?” His classmates, who were likely impressed and confused at the same time, elected Matt president.

I bring this up because I continue to be flabbergasted at the Republicans. Just five years removed from the height of their powers, they now wander aimlessly – against everything the president wants, but for absolutely nothing. You can look at the so-called “leaders” of the party like Limbaugh, Steele, Gingrich, Cheney and Palin to quickly see why – all of them have horrendously high unfavorable ratings, are polarizing figures and haven’t offered a single good idea to move the country forward. I’m not surprised there was a bloodless purge in the GOP after the election, but I was surprised that they haven’t rallied around a single likeable figure that may have appeal to people outside the Ozarks and Smokey Mountains.

Having the right leader would also help the GOP with its credibility. You can’t accuse a president of fiscal recklessness when the last Republican president spent money hand over fist and expanded government more than any president since Johnson. You can’t call a Supreme Court nominee racist when you’ve opposed anything that might help minorities. If an independent or someone with a better reputation mentioned some of these points, they may hold water. But if someone with no credibility and is unlikable to boot says them, forget it. You always need to consider the source.

As for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the GOP is probably relieved to have a heterosexual scandal for once. But once again, here’s what Sanford said about Bill Clinton when he was in Congress. If Sanford wanted impeachment for what Clinton did, he’d best step down himself. That is, if he still holds an ounce of credibility. Wasn’t the GOP damaged enough already before he blew it too?

The Revolution Will Not be Televised

2009-06-17T22:50:00.002-04:00

Leave it to the brave people of Iran to not only find a legitimate use for Twitter, but also to kick the mainstream media to its knees. Remember how the first Gulf War brought CNN and 24-hour cable news into the forefront by showing how antiquated the old network news broadcasts were? The current situation in Iran will go down in history as the first one to be brought to homes around the world through viral video, tweets, blogs and cell phones while traditional media fiddles around with Palin vs. Letterman. When you don’t cover such a volatile, important election in a critical part of the world, especially because you’ve carelessly cut your overseas bureau, expect to be caught flat-footed when the world passes you by.

It’s amazing how far things have progressed, not just in Iran but in the power of technology to empower people to take matters into their own hands. State-run media, clamping down on foreign correspondents and censorship count for nothing under these circumstances. Imagine what could have happened in China 20 years ago if the technology of today was around. Who needs the media to broadcast your message when you can do it even better by yourself?

Another variable few are mentioning is one even I am beginning to believe. The democracy that still has a fragile hold in Iraq is starting to sow seeds across the Middle East, hands down the most undemocratic region on Earth (except Israel). Recent elections in Lebanon went well and we could very well see be seeing the green shoots emerging here. It may be time to read this post again.

We are certainly hopeful in Iran that the people will prevail. You can see plenty of coverage in Iran across the Web (except the mainstream media sites) but here are three that show the marches:

Iran Protest March I
Iran Protest March II
Iran Protest March III

And here are three that show the government cracking down (some are graphic).

Iranian Police Cracking Down
Iranian Police Shooting Civilians
Protesters Rioting and Police Shooting Them

Thoughts from a Grumpy Old Man

2009-05-29T15:02:00.001-04:00

As I approach 40 I remember back to over half my lifetime ago and recall how aghast I would be when older people would have no clue what shows young people were watching (back then it was Miami Vice), music they were listening to (Depeche Mode for goth kids, Springsteen for regular kids, The Replacements for punk kids) and which celebrity was considered cool and a teen role model at the time. Of course back then there was no Internet and cable was only about 40 channels so there were basically two groups – the kids and few adults who knew this stuff and were “with it,” and the many adults and few kids that didn’t know what was happening in the mass market. I remember thinking that as an adult I would do my best to try and stay connected to popular trends so the next generation wouldn’t consider me an old fart.

Naturally, I was unsuccessful but guess what? I’m not ashamed; in fact, I’m proud of my pop culture ignorance. I think the turning point was just this past week when the brouhaha over the parents of “Jon & Kate Plus 8” came out and my first thought was: I’ve never heard of this show, I have no idea who Jon and Kate are and I DON’T CARE. And I felt much better about myself.

Part of this metamorphosis is the unavoidable fragmenting of the way we receive entertainment. Back in the 80s and early 90s you could watch TV, go to the movies, see a band, listen to the radio or buy a cassette. You knew where to get this information because there were only so many places to go. Now of course, the plethora of choices is too vast for any pop culture aficionado to simultaneously track. As choices proliferate, so too do the multiple audiences that find them fascinating. Shows like “American Idol” used to be the norm to find new entertainment to emulate (my generation’s was MTV); but now mass market shows like this are the exception.

Entertainment itself has also changed. While musical or acting talent is always in the eye of the beholder, you used to have to show at least some talent to achieve fame. Now of course, everyone has the means to be a celebrity and talent is less important. You can be famous for simply being famous. While I have never seen Jon & Kate’s show, I doubt there is anything on that show that only they can do. Most reality TV is resplendent in its ordinariness. We used to watch TV to see interesting characters or exciting scenarios. Now many watch TV and see ordinary people doing ordinary things. Does simply being on TV make the ordinary interesting or fascinating? Future anthropologists can decide that. I wonder what people like Margaret Mead or Andy Warhol would think of how popular culture is established today.

And me? I used to eat up popular culture when I was younger too. But as I got older and started a family I inevitably got busier with work, kids, grad school, blogging (sometimes) and other more important things. In essence, I got a life. And if doing that takes time away from keeping track of TMZ, then I can very easily accept that. Instead of watching life I am living it. Just like Jon & Kate!

Yankees to NY Fans: Drop Dead

2009-04-28T18:20:00.003-04:00

It gives me zero pleasure as a lifelong Yankee fan to say this, but I am extremely happy not to live in New York and say that my tax dollars went to subsidize the most expensive baseball stadium in history that gives fans views like this:

And if that’s not enough, the Steinbrenners are shocked – shocked, I say! – to find people unwilling to shell out $2,500 for seats behind home plate. Today they cut prices 50%, as if that will make any difference. The result has been constant views like this on TV:

Just as politicians in Massachusetts may follow Herbert Hoover’s suicide example of raising taxes during a recession, the Yankees fleeced New York’s taxpayers out of $1.5 billion with a subsidized stadium. Then they fleeced their fans by charging four figures for a single seat or $5 for an obstructed view seat. An obstructed view seat is not worth five cents. And if all that wasn’t enough, this money is going to the highest payroll in baseball that boasts Chien-Ming Wang with a 34.50 ERA and Mark Teixeira with a .220 batting average. Why isn’t Joba back in the bullpen already?

Like all diehard sports fans, Yankee fanatics follow their team through good and bad. But occasionally something really, really stupid happens that sends fans in an uproar. This time, there were about 20 stupid things that have happened. It’s likely the Steinbrenners lowered the premium seating prices because they were embarrassed by the empty seats on TV. I happen to think people not paying for these seats is absolutely justified. You reap what you sow and you get what you pay for, and nobody is going to fork over four figures for a team that treats their fans this poorly, no matter what the economy is or what place the team is in.

The Steinbrenners still haven’t learned that you can’t buy a championship. It appears they also haven’t learned you can’t build a stadium at the taxpayers’ expense, overcharge them on everything from a $9 beer to a $1,250 plastic seat, and expect them to keep their blind devotion. It appears New Yorkers, never known for their patience, have finally had enough.

More Info: My earlier post on keeping George Steinbrenner the hell away from the Hall of Fame.

The Photo-Op Tea Party

2009-04-15T21:08:00.000-04:00

As a PR flack, I like the concept of the anti-tax, anti-bailout tea parties that took place today. We all lost money in our retirement plans last year, our wages are frozen and those of us lucky enough to have a job are hunkered down, but we still have to cut a check to the government. The government will then take much of this money and offer it to banks and investment firms that made dumb decisions on mortgage default swaps and CDOs, or auto makers that made dumb decisions on SUVs and continuing the mighty Buick brand.

Who wouldn’t be a little aggrieved by these decisions? The whole idea has a nice populist ring to it, and it appears the folks behind the tea parties (hold that thought for a minute) spread the word online through viral video and Twitter, showing the overhyped online service has another use besides telling everyone who’s not listening to the radio right now what song you’re hearing and hating.

But while the tea parties make good theater and the clueless media will eat it up, the whole thing came across as staged and phony. The idea did not match the execution. No American, regardless of their politics, likes to pay taxes, but what will be the outcome from these protests? Are people going to refuse to pay taxes? The colonists in 1773 had a plan – no unjust taxation without representation – and they stuck to their plan. To borrow a working phrase, what are the action items coming out of this protest?

Then there’s the tea party organizers. It’s no secret this was the brainchild of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, and then was spurred on by organizations like Freedom Works (Dick Armey’s group) and Top Conservatives on Twitter. Fox News has breathlessly overhyped the event, with live coverage across the nation. All of this is perfectly legitimate, of course.

But once again, where the hell were these so-called “conservatives” when our last president was spending money and expanding government hand-over-fist for the last eight years? If you don’t like the tax-and-spend policy, fine. But what is your answer for the current situation? If you don’t want a big stimulus package, how would you get the economy moving again? If you don’t want to bail out AIG or GM, what’s your answer for safeguarding the American jobs and industries that would vanish if both of them disappear like Lehman?

It’s natural for an opposition party to say it’s against something. But if you don’t offer an alternative, forget anyone on the fence jumping on board with you for long. And if you claim to be a “conservative” but didn’t flinch when Bush was doing the same things as Obama, you’re nothing but a partisan weather vane, as mindless as the partisans in Berkeley and Harvard Square that you claim to despise. You’ve actually got more in common with them than you think.

So while the tea parties might make you feel good for a week and will get you a photo op or two on Fox News, in a week it will all be forgotten without a real platform. They are full of sound and phony fury, signifying nothing.

The Media Keeps Circling the Drain

2009-03-25T14:00:00.001-04:00

Did you notice who did and did not get picked for a question in last night’s presidential press conference? Here are the winners:

Associated Press
NBC
ABC
CBS
Univision
Stars and Stripes
CNN
Fox News
Politico
Ebony
ABC Radio
Washington Times
AFP

Note who did NOT get called: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, etc – not a single leading daily paper. That’s gotta hurt these places, many of whom are already on life support. I’ve blogged many times about the media’s problems, including here and here.

When a president does a press conference, he usually has a chart stating who is attending and where they are sitting so he can choose who to ask. Remember this was a one hour conference with 13 selected questions, and since Obama likes to give long answers you’ve got a little over 4½ minutes per question. He can freely decide who to ask and who to ignore. Did Obama decide to ignore the daily papers because of their growing obsolescence, or was it an accidental oversight? May the conspiracy theories begin, but you know what I think.

I actually like some of these choices – Univision is the network of choice for the country’s fastest growing minority, Stars & Stripes is a wise selection and Politico is one of the rare media outlets that is actually growing because they're on to something. And by including Fox News and the Washington Times you can’t say he only chose places that would throw softballs. And except for Ann Compton at ABC Radio, all the questions were pretty good.

I am confident predicting that in the next couple of years the president will return to his high-tech outreach that worked well during the campaign, and conduct some webcasts and online-only exchanges with the public. I know I disparaged Twitter below, but grassroots mobilization for elections lends itself well to online social media as more industries realize you don’t need the media to be the messenger anymore. Everyone but the daily papers get that.

The AIG Bonus Dilemma

2009-03-20T11:47:00.003-04:00

In the days after 9/11, an almost unanimous Congress passed the Patriot Act. While most of the Act was indeed important and deserved to be passed – especially parts that improved border security, tracked foreign assets and allocated money to improve surveillance technology – debatable items like indefinite detentions without trial for suspected terrorists and the ability for the FBI to search personal records without a warrant have come under criticism by those who believe the Act violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. In its haste to respond to such an unbelievable act of terror, Congress may have rushed to judgment on some actions that should not have overlooked the Constitution.

Yesterday, the House fast-tracked a bill that would place impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to any AIG employees and employees of other financial companies that accepted at least $5 billion from the TARP bailout. It was approved by a vote of 328 to 93. I am having déjà vu all over again.

I am in no way defending the boneheads at AIG who destroyed the world’s largest insurance company by their over reliance on collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities. And I’m sure Congressional phones are ringing off the hook with outraged constituents gathering torches and pitchforks. The pressure for the government to act, after they may have overlooked this payment, must be enormous.

But in the heated mode to act fast and ask questions later, serious mistakes can be made. I call this the “ready-fire-aim” plan of action that I try to avoid on a personal level. By changing an existing contract – unfair as that contract may be – the government is setting a dangerous precedent as an unreliable and capricious business partner; one that can quickly change any written contract based on popular opinion, as opposed to the rules of law and the Constitution itself. That occurred with part of the Patriot Act and I feel it happening again.

Unfortunately the government needs the insurance companies and hedge funds of the world to fix this problem, especially if it unveils some kind of public/private sector combination of buying troubled assets from banks. If I ran a hedge fund (and still had a job) this would show me that the government cannot be trusted if it has the right to change the plans and redo compensation and benefit laws at will. This is a dangerous precedent that I doubt would stand up in a court of law.

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NY Times stated this very fact a few days ago, along with the possibility that the AIG people receiving these bonuses may be the only ones who know how to clean up their mess. I’m skeptical about the last part, and Sorkin has been raked over the coals for this. But he’s right about the contractual obligations and the knee-jerk response it has understandably and unfortunately set. In our rush to punish wrongdoers, we cannot overlook the law, even when it comes to detaining terrorists or suddenly taking bonuses away from people who have not deserved it.

UPDATE: Look who agrees with me -- Nate Silver, Henry Blodget and Paul Krugman. Holy crap!

Zero Credibility

2009-03-13T18:28:00.002-04:00

Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the top
Republicans in the House and the Senate, said they strongly opposed the massive
spending that the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved so far this
year. "Most of my constituents are wondering how long the spending binge
is going to go on here in Washington," Boehner, the House Minority Leader, told
reporters.

"We're spending the first 50 days of this new administration at the rate of
one billion dollars an hour," said McConnell. "At the rate we're going,
we're going to double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10
years," he said. "I don't think anybody seriously thinks that that's a good
idea."

I love, absolutely LOVE, those statements. The leaders of the party that stood by and supported the massive spending binge and bloated federal growth of the prior eight years have suddenly remembered they are supposed to be the ones preaching fiscal restraint and small government.

Much has been written about the leadership drift of the GOP – is it Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner or someone else? What is most troubling is that nobody can now specify exactly what the GOP stands for, or who exactly a “Republican” is right now. You can’t preach fiscal prudence when you’ve spent the last eight years spending like gamblers at a craps table. You can’t talk about removing government from people’s lives when you embrace social policies and leaders that place religion and intolerance front and center.

And most importantly, you cannot keep saying “no” to the new president’s policies without proposing some new ideas of your own. The old cutting taxes mantra is getting a bit stale by now. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they had big, populist ideas that everyone could understand and get behind, and the Democrats lost out because they kept saying “no” without offering a policy of their own. It took 15 years, but the tide has finally turned. Nobody knows whether Obama’s policies will work, but at least he’s not offering the same old recipe. Americans are giving him credit for empathizing and understanding the situation. This is a true crisis; an economic 9/11. And just as that date day begat an unusual and extraordinary response, so does the current situation.

If the GOP wants to restore their credibility and really make us believe they’ve ditched their holy roller wagon and are reborn with the true conservative religion, they need to stop yelling and badmouthing the president (and each other). They need to come up with some constructive ideas that will restore consumer confidence and help rescue the finance and auto industries. By treating this crisis as a crisis and dropping the mad-as-hell and sour grapes attitude, they may just score some sympathy votes and the public would at least give them a listen.

But when you’ve got Boehner and McConnell saying those ridiculous things, and polarizing firebrands like Limbaugh saying more ridiculous things, your biggest problem is credibility. And that's the first thing the GOP needs to restore before it can even think about proposing any new ideas. You’d think someone here would step up and take responsibility and declare what the party stands for. But with the current infighting and lack of focus, don’t plan on it happening anytime soon.

Not Atwitter Over Twitter

2009-03-11T18:36:00.001-04:00

Last year a couple of people I know told me I should start using Twitter, so I did. I almost lasted a whole day before junking it.

I was being completely overwhelmed with Tweets back and forth regarding traffic outside the office, lunch plans that I wasn’t even part of, what they should have for dinner, deadlines they weren’t ready for, songs they were listening to on the radio and other parts of their unremarkable day that I had zero interest in. While it seemed to be a good time waster if you didn’t feel like working, and a good way to keep in touch with someone if you had no cell phone, I saw no difference between Twitter and instant messaging.

Now, of course, I’ve got everyone from the media to other fellow PR flacks telling me I should get on the Twitter bandwagon. This is a temptation I can resist. I am not a luddite – I can’t work without a laptop and BlackBerry and push hard in my company to enhance our communications with RSS, XHTML, XBRL and everything in between. But when a fellow old fogey like Jon Stewart says he can’t stand Twitter, it is comforting to know that I’m not alone.

I often wonder how many of these people using Twitter – likely college-educated 20- and 30-somethings who often whine about the public and the media’s short attention span and focus on the superficial – notice how they are limiting their interaction with each other to 140 characters. And I’m reminded of the other thing I wondered about some other “hot” tech startups around a decade ago (or Second Life last year, or MySpace the year before, and so on)…exactly how is Twitter going to make money? And how smart could the twits at Twitter be to have turned down $500 million from Facebook in today’s economy? That doesn’t make me confident there’s a business plan or exit strategy at work here.

Twitter is the latest technology wave of social networking, which will never EVER replace real networking as a way to meet people and form lasting personal or business relationships. Ask anyone if it’s better to have a date or sales meeting in person or over the phone or Web. This is why it is especially difficult to hear public relations consultants say Twitter should become a mandatory part of my job. I will continue to maintain that there will never be a substitute for pounding the pavement and making the time to personally meet and establish a relationship with the influencers in media, the public, the government and the analyst communities that can help drive sales and enhance a company’s reputation.

Perhaps there will be a way to change Twitter into a more useful tool. Publishing your @Twitter address guarantees you will be bombarded with filler you couldn’t care less about and ingrates trying to sell you something you don’t need. And there may be room for it in either grassroots mobilization or marketing toward people whose lives are tuned out to other forms of communication. There are probably a handful of people who are currently doing it right. But by the time the folks at Twitter figure that out, there will be another technology to waste everyone’s time.

Octomom Backlash

2009-03-04T18:02:00.000-05:00

I was going to resist delving into gossip with my two or three cents on the feeding frenzy surrounding our newest media whore Nadya Suleman (hereafter referred to as “Octomom”), but I can no longer hold out.

When multiple births occur, most companies from Procter & Gamble to GM and Disney shower the overwhelmed family with gifts from diapers to minivans and clothes to vacations. This has notably not happened here. Why? Is it the stigma of single motherhood? Are companies less able to provide these freebies in the current economy? Is it because she’s considered a shady and possibly unstable character that may be addicted to pregnancy, or unethical and unreliable because of her reliance on government assistance while her house is in foreclosure? I find it interesting how much character and circumstance plays into such decisions on a corporate level.

It’s also fascinating how these play into the popular backlash as well. This is a bit less surprising, since as a society we help those who are victims of chance and reward those who have an independent work ethic, and frown upon people whose work ethic may be compromised or who willfully make choices society dislikes. Both of those instances apply to Octomom. We’re currently in a time and place where responsibility – especially at the government and corporate level – has vanished and ordinary people who played by the rules are left holding the bag and are understandably angry. When they see another example of someone who is not “responsible,” charity will not be their first reaction. What a surprise that the media is the only one giving this woman what she wants!

There has also been a call to better regulate fertility clinics since they did not stop her from implanting all those embryos. But that is dangerous ground – doctors often need to give patients what they ask for with voluntary medical procedures. They can take doctors to court if they refuse.

This is also a good time to note – especially to those of us who are pro-choice – that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose, but then try to legally restrict how many babies she can choose to have (naturally or artificially). If a “normal” unmarried executive or lesbian wanted to get pregnant through a fertility clinic and was refused, pro-choice people would be outraged. The same rules apply here. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose and then try to restrict access to fertility or have a law stating who is or is not capable of having a baby (or eight babies).

The Worst Part of the Stimulus

2009-02-12T17:56:00.002-05:00

It appears we may have a stimulus package that nobody likes and nobody thinks will fix the country. With all the partisanship gift packages in there – it appears the Democrats are trying to ram through everything they couldn’t do in the last eight years – there is one part of the package that is extremely unnerving that the media, naturally, has ignored. This is the noble but very badly flawed “Buy American” clause in the Stimulus Bill, which has an excellent potential of making the recession far steeper and deeper than it already is.

Introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), this would give “preference to American-produced materials and products,” especially commodities like raw materials and agriculture. In other words, if a new bridge is built preference would be given to American steel, cement, machines, etc. Sounds good? A nice payback against companies that outsource jobs? WRONG.

If the recession has taught us anything, it is that Tom Friedman was right. The world is truly flat and our economy is global. The recessions that whacked Japan and Russia 10 years ago barely registered elsewhere. But we have brought down the entire global financial system. When a financial crisis in the U.S. indirectly destroys the economy of Iceland, you’ve got a global problem.

Companies and cities that build bridges have as much right to find the best and most economical commodities they can. And many of them have been going overseas to find things like steel to build their bridges. This is one of the biggest benefits of the global economy and global trade. You don’t need me to tell you how vital exports and free trade are to American companies. “Buy American” would be a huge step backward to the days of isolationism and protectionism. In fact the last time the economy was this bad, protectionism boosters succeeded in passing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, one of the worst laws ever passed in modern history and something that prolonged the Great Depression for years.

Shutting off the trade flow to other countries will guarantee one thing – other countries will respond in kind. The result would cost far more American jobs than the stimulus could ever produce. Dorgan’s clause is not nearly as far-reaching as Smoot Hawley, but the global economy is far more linked than ever and a tit-for-tat closing of foreign markets to U.S. goods (and vice versa) would make the recession worse than it already is.

To his credit, President Obama has already stated he doesn’t like the clause. And I’ve got to hand it to John McCain, who has been all over Dorgan’s mistake. But it’s possible Obama will overlook it just to get the thing signed. Let’s hope he reconsiders, or the stimulus will be far less underwhelming than many already fear.

More Info:

The Organization for International Investment: A trade group my company belongs to lists the reasons why Buy American would be horrible for America.

Buy American Debate: A listing of op-eds from economists and union bosses who dread having Buy American as part of the Stimulus

My earlier post on why foreign trade and investment is good for U.S. companies and workers

Thanking Alex Rodriguez

2009-02-10T18:17:00.001-05:00

And so it has come to this. Whether you now call him A-Roid, A-Fraud or (my favorite, thanks to the NY Post) A-Hole, Alex Rodriguez has done one great thing. He has just made life an even bigger hell for Bud Selig, Don Fehr and Gene Orza – the three men who destroyed baseball. What was once the world’s most popular and greatest sport has sunk under these three men’s ineptitude and unwillingness to confront what the NFL and NBA did long ago. Their collective buck passing on cheaters and baseheads has once again alienated millions of fans and destroyed the credibility of an entire generation of players.

Rodriguez was supposed to be the Great Hope of these three. After Barry Bonds’ fiasco, they hoped A-Roid would help shatter the home run record and restore baseball’s reputation. Even Rodriguez’s haters in Boston and the Bronx would applaud him knocking Bonds off his pedestal. No longer. Now there may be another asterisk next to a record holder who will hopefully never enter the Hall of Fame.

And it’s another kick in the teeth for Yankees fans. Why do all the abusers end up in pinstripes? Whether it’s Clemens, Giambi, Sheffield, Pettitte or Rodriguez, the Yankees are amassing a reputation as the See-No-Evil team that rolls out the welcome mat for baseball’s worst role models. All baseball managers have tough jobs, but Joe Girardi’s just got even harder. At least they only have to deal with Rodriguez for another nine years.

Putting on my PR flack hat for a moment, it sure was one curious interview that Rodriguez gave the other day. The good news is that by at least admitting his guilt and apologizing, Rodriguez already showed he’s smarter than Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (not that that’s difficult). He also chose the vaunted Peter Gammons as his interviewer, and Gammons helped by throwing softballs without any follow up questions. Peter, you’re a great journalist, but why didn’t you ask A-Rod to specify which “banned substance” he took? How could Rodriguez not possibly know what substance he was taking? Was it injected or not? How many times did he take it in three years? Does he think he will still make the Hall with the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons, or wallow in disgrace with Bonds and Pete Rose? What about the 60 Minutes interview where he lied about steroids?

You could tell Rodriguez had tried to memorize a speech for his mea culpa, which he couldn’t quite pull off without saying the word “uh” about 200 times. He never used the word “steroids” once. He also looked like he had on way too much makeup and lip gloss for the TV cameras. Bet he won’t hear about that in the Yankee locker room.

At this point, it doesn’t look like an insurrection is going to topple Selig or Fehr from their perches, so baseball can continue losing fans, respect and advertising dollars while the ship keeps sinking. They probably won’t listen to advice from anyone who can help them save the game. But since you’ve been kind enough to read this, baseball is in dire need of a “Truth Commission” where players can come forward and offer some kind of confession in return for some sort of amnesty. Maybe they don’t get prosecuted and are eligible for the Hall, but all the statistics and records they set during the years they used PEDs are voided from their record. Until the truth comes out, prepare for more A-Rod scandals to emerge and for many of today’s best players to continue deceiving America.

More Info:

My earlier post on Thanking Barry Bonds

Your Pork, My Earmarks

2009-01-29T18:05:00.001-05:00

There was a lot of discussion over earmarks in the presidential campaign, with McCain singling out an Obama earmark for $3 million for Illinois’ Adler Planetarium, ostensibly to buy some new equipment. McCain, who has not requested any earmarks since he was involved in the Keating Five Scandal, cited this earmark as an example of government waste and frivolous spending. Why, he asked, should the U.S. government pay for a new planetarium projector system in Illinois?

Fair enough. And you’d also be correct in citing most earmarks as non-essential projects that are uninvolved with running the country. No earmark illustrates that better than the legendary Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere – which Sarah Palin was for before she was against – and was seen as a classic example of pork spending purely for now former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.

But the Bridge to Nowhere is unusual for a few reasons. The only reason it got noticed was because of its price tag – $398 million, which caused the Congressional Committee to actually take a look at it and see what a travesty it was. Most earmarks are overlooked because they cost far, far less than that. Despite McCain’s opposition, earmarks only count for 0.5% of the FY 2008 budget. Granted, that was $16.5 billion but it consisted of 11,524 earmarks – an average of $1.4 million each if my math is correct. Hiding $1.4 million in the mountain of appropriation bills that comprise almost a $3 trillion budget is nothing.

I can understand the frustration if someone doesn’t want the U.S. giving $3 million for projector equipment in Illinois. But what if you live in Illinois and your kids are taking a field trip to the Adler Planetarium? What if your kid sees the cool pictures of the universe the projector provides and becomes interested in science? What if the projector makes Adler one of the leading planetariums in the Midwest and the planetarium and local businesses reap in new money? Then you’d consider that money well-spent and you’d like to thank the government for the money, and Senator Obama for sneaking it into an anonymous bill that wasn’t vetted too carefully.

The truth about earmarks is that while they may be wasteful to most, it is one of the best ways for Congressmen and Senators to prove their worth to their constituents. Bringing home the bacon isn’t just the goal of family breadwinners; it’s also the goal of elected officials at the local and national level. Barney Frank is my Congressman, and he publishes a list of earmark requests on his Web site, although the cost is not included. Scanning them you see everything from Fall River sewer improvements to Taunton nursing home renovations. And yes, those two towns are part of his district. Part of his job is to get businesses, colleges and citizens the money they need to complete projects. To them, this is not pork – they are vital improvements that will benefit Massachusetts residents. Of course, if you’re not in Frank’s district you probably think they’re wasteful spending. Some will pass and some will not.

Are some earmarks unnecessary pork? Yes. Do they benefit friends and financial supporters of elected officials? Sometimes. Should there be better transparencies in the earmark process, including their full cost and what bills they are slapped onto? Absolutely. Should they be banned outright? No. While earmarks can be infuriating, they remain one of the best ways for members of Congress to send benefits and money directly to their districts. It helps them tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. And ironically if a Congressman isn’t bringing home enough earmarks, even their fiscally hawkish constituents may vote them out of office for not helping their towns enough and forgetting about the citizens they represent.

Jett Travolta's Death and Scientology - The Missing Link?

2009-01-05T14:16:00.002-05:00

Am I the only one who finds the tragic death of John Travota’s 16-year-old son suspicious? And am I the only one who believes the media is once again not doing its job in reporting and investigating it?

First, I am not a doctor. There are no autopsy reports (yet). But initial reports that the boy died from falling and hitting his head in the bathroom after a seizure seems too suspicious to accept at face value. But even if that is the case, reports are now filtering in that the boy was not on any medication even though he seemed to suffer one big seizure every week.

The Travoltas have also said their son suffered from Kawasaki Syndrome, which he got from inhaling carpet cleaner when he was a toddler. Here’s some links to Kawasaki here and here, and in NONE of these places does it list an environmental cause like carpet cleaner. It largely affects the heart and arterial systems and does not cause seizures, although a heart attack could cause one, and that would show up in an autopsy.

But the 800 pound gorilla here that nobody is discussing is Scientology. Travolta and his family are Scientologists and largely disdain medicine, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Tom Cruise, another prominent Scientologist, is now more famous for disparaging medicine in a famous interview than his acting. How someone with only a high school could know more about medicine and biotechnology than the world’s top doctors and the entire pharmaceutical industry is a topic you can judge for yourself, but his views are largely in agreement with other Scientologists.

If it is discovered that Jett Travolta’s death could have been prevented by medication that his parents refused to give him, expect the contretemps on religion and Scientology to erupt again. And if that is indeed the case, I believe Travolta and his wife should be prosecuted.

More Info: At least The New York Post is thinking the same way I am. I don't think we're alone either...

YOU are a Special Interest!

2009-01-02T17:18:00.001-05:00

One of the Pavlovian buzzwords that politicians and activists alike use to fire up the masses is “special interests.” Examples include, “Senator X is beholden to special interests,” or “As president, I will not answer to special interests,” and “It’s time we take Washington out of the pockets of special interests and give it back to the people!” The term special interests is rarely defined, but is generally meant to invoke shady back room deals by lobbyists, or paint a sinister insider group or association that controls the government while ignoring the people.

If you don’t follow politics or your democratic participation is limited to voting, then it all sounds good – take back the government and kick the special interests out of Washington! But guess what? You are not only a special person, but YOU are also a special interest! That’s right, the term “special interests” is not limited to unknown organizations and CEOs with deep pockets. If you write a letter to your Congressman or Senator telling them if they should vote for or against a bill, YOU are a special interest. If you belong to any group that tries to impact public policy – from a Chamber of Commerce to a union, and the NRA to the Sierra Club – YOU are a special interest. And if you speak out at your town’s Board of Selectmen meeting or call the mayor’s office to tell them your street is still unplowed, then YOU are being a special interest again.

Thanks to the First Amendment, anyone from a U.S. citizen to a Fortune 100 company has the right to address the government and tell it just how it feels about an issue. Do you want your neighbor to knock down his house and build a mega-mansion? If not, you have every right to request a change in zoning laws. You can even try and get your other neighbors to join you and start an organization, as strength in numbers make special interests even more special. If you are the CEO of a Fortune 100 company, and Congress is considering a bill that will force you to lose millions in revenue and lay off thousands of workers, you have every right to request a meeting with the chairman of the appropriate Congressional committee and tell them just that.

It’s easy for politicians and the media to deride special interests as what is ruining politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Special interests” sounds ominous, but addressing government from Washington to Town Hall is Democracy 101 in action. Any bill that is aimed at limiting special interests is doomed to fail on First Amendment grounds, as it well should. You may disagree with the NRA and want to limit their access to politicians, but would you also want to limit organizations like AARP or Greenpeace? Free speech is not discriminatory, and we are fortunate to live in a country where anyone has the right to address the government.

Perhaps another reason we hear about only certain types of special interests is because they are the ones most busy trying to influence the government. A new administration is coming to town in three weeks. It is going to do things much differently than the last one. It will make decisions that will impact every organization, company and person in America. Do you want to tell your Congressmen and Senators (who are representing YOU) what you think about this? They will correctly interpret your silence as neutrality or acquiescence. Or you can be a Special Interest, just like the ones you hear about, and tell them what they should know.

The Yankees Do it Again

2008-12-24T12:40:00.001-05:00

It is alarming and comforting at the same time that as we continue sliding through the worst recession of our lifetime, the New York Yankees are now on the hook for spending $805 million on four, yes FOUR, salaries. Alarming because while the rest of us fear for our retirement and our jobs, the Yankees are still lavishing their overpaid players with salaries that have nothing to do with performance (remind you of anyone else in New York?) while most other baseball teams continue to lament and fume in mediocrity with no hope of ever improving. And it’s comforting that the Yankees and the Steinbrenners in particular still have not learned that money and payroll can’t always buy you a championship and a collection of great stars does not guarantee a great team. Just ask a Mets fan about that last fact. And the Yankees still have no clue why the rest of the baseball world loathes them.

Many blame Scott Boras for these signings (Teixeira, A-Rod and Johnny Damon are just three high-profile Boras clients who recently signed with New York), but Boras is just trying to get the best deal for his clients. Others will blame the Red Sox for blinking or not upping the ante, but I actually admire Boston’s steadfast rules with player contracts – namely no contract longer than four years and a reluctance to engage in a bidding war with Boras or any other agent. And while Boras did represent Daisuke Matsuzaka last year, he was only dealing with Boston and if Boras did not complete a deal Dice-K was heading back to Japan.

No, Teixeira only got this obscene contract because Boras knew the Yankees would do what they always do – offer the most money and the longest-term contract, and with a no-trade clause to boot! Ever since the Steinbrenners came aboard, this has been the Yankee M.O. – how much do you want and for how long? This worked in the 70s when free agency was in its infancy, but the Yankee free agent track record in the last decade or so has not been stellar. Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Damon, Carl Pavano, Andy Pettite’s second turn are just some of the higher profile busts. Others were a bit better – Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens (steroids notwithstanding) – but they certainly haven’t produced a championship. And as teams like Boston and Tampa Bay have recently shown, there’s still something to be said for a good farm system and solid prospects. Posada, Jeter, Rivera and Joba Chamberlain are fine examples.

But what is most disturbing is what I have ranted about long before – how baseball’s class system is contributing to the long-term decline of baseball’s relevance today. Baseball still ranks fourth in popularity of all professional sports. The luxury tax has helped a bit, but the Teixeira signing could finally be the straw that breaks the Pittsburgh and Kansas City’s fans backs. Every other sport has a salary cap to prevent these inequities, and perhaps this could finally pave the way for this to happen in baseball.

And something else is lost too. When I was a kid, my dad would often take me to games at Yankee Stadium, where we would often sit near first base. Total costs for transportation from Jersey, parking, hot dogs, tickets and souvenirs would be less than $30 for both of us. Now, as this great Sports Illustrated article illustrates, attending professional sports games is practically impossible for a middle class family.

It has also been disgraceful to see a team with the Yankees’ wealth fleece the City of New York for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds on top of the $940 million they were already given to build their new billion dollar stadium. No city, especially one with New York’s budget issues, deserves to lavish public subsidies on a team that does not pay property taxes.

Perhaps Teixeira and Sabathia are the missing pieces the Yankees need to win a championship. But even if that is the case, there is still something artificial and greedy about the whole affair. I recently read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with my kids, and I realize the Yankees have become Veruca Salt – getting whatever they want no matter what the cost is to them, to their fans who ultimately pay for it, or whatever they sacrifice in respect and class along the way.

Song of the South: Disney's Great Unknown

2008-12-19T11:40:00.002-05:00

One of Disney World’s most popular rides is Splash Mountain, which is based on the 1946 Disney movie “Song of the South.” When my kids asked about the movie, I couldn’t tell them anything because I’ve never seen it. It has never been on video or DVD in the U.S., has only been sporadically re-released in theaters (the last time was in 1986) and Disney has no current plans to change this policy.

While the ride focuses on the animated parts of the film with Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear, Brer Fox and the rest of the Briar Patch crew, Song of the South was actually Disney’s very first foray into films that combined live action with animation, decades before Mary Poppins. Fans of Southern literature also may know the movie is based on the Uncle Remus tales of Joel Chandler Harris that were published after the Civil War. Harris based his (fictional) Uncle’s tales on stories told by freed slaves in the South at that time.

There’s a few web sites that are dedicated to the movie, most of which are petitioning Disney to finally release it. The movie’s animated sequences are told outside of the live action sections, where Uncle Remus tells Chandler’s stories to both black and white children. Allegedly Remus and other African Americans live as sharecroppers on a huge, white-owned plantation where they are extremely happy with their lives and work. And that appears to be the main reason why Disney has kept Song of the South in its vault despite growing requests to release it, most likely spurred by the ride. When released, the NAACP condemned the movie for its sugarcoated master/slave depiction and the alleged happy subservience of African Americans to their white landowners. I say “alleged” and “appears” a few times here since I haven’t seen the movie and can’t say whether this is accurate.

Perhaps when it was released in 1946, Song of the South was a product of its time and Disney did not think it was racist. And it was depicting the Reconstruction-era South, (which did not have slavery but life was not much better for African Americans then either). But the film won two Oscars – a special one for James Baskett, who plays Uncle Remus and another for best song (Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah). Baskett was the first African American man to ever win an Oscar and Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah remains one of Disney’s most popular songs. You can see and hear clips and songs from the movie on Disney compilation DVDs and CDs, and videos of the whole movie have been released overseas. But nothing in America.

Should Song of the South be released, or kept in the vault because of its (potentially) racist undertones? I have two ideas. The first would be to remake the movie. There is more than enough demand and new interest thanks to Splash Mountain for Disney to make an updated Song of the South with new animation while keeping the classic songs. At the same time, I’m quite sure Disney could do a much better and updated job with handling the racial climate of Reconstruction in the 21st century, and I bet lots of today’s big African American celebrities would jump at the chance to either be in the movie or do voice-over work.

The second idea would be to finally issue the movie on DVD, but use the occasion to properly frame the movie in its context of both 1946 and the time it represents. Disney can have plenty of material on the DVD that could address the film’s history and its reluctance to reissue it. Confronting the issue properly could start very useful dialogue with kids regarding our past.
When we have America’s first African American president about to take office, I vote that it’s time for the public to finally view Song of the South and determine either if the movie was truly racist in the first place or if it has been a lost and misunderstood classic. If that never happens, the movie will eventually enter the public domain in 2039.

More Info: Song of the South Fan Site, including info about the film, pictures and how to petition Disney to rerelease it.
Urban Legends on the Movie from Snopes
A Two Minute YouTube clip from the movie - Short, but judge for yourself

The Nepotism Factor

2008-12-11T18:41:00.000-05:00

Before we collectively marveled in revulsion at Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich offering Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder, I seemed to be one of the few equally perturbed that Caroline Kennedy, a respectable woman with absolutely zero interest and experience in politics or public affairs until a few months ago, was being considered as a front-runner for a New York Senate seat that was also to be filled by special appointment.

I have always been allergic to nepotism in public and private practice. Maybe it’s because my parents didn’t have a business where I could start as a vice president right out of college because they told me I had to earn my career the hard way. And there certainly was no political seat they kept warm for me either. And unlike Caroline, Paris and others, the Jacobson name doesn’t open many doors or ensure you’re born on third base or home plate either. But when many deride the special interests that consume politics, they should make room for the most special interest of all – families from the Bushes to the Kennedys on down trying to form oligarchies to govern plebians like us.

I’m not from Massachusetts and I don’t buy into the Kennedy mystique. In my home state of New Jersey, voters recently denied Tom Kean Jr., son of a former governor who had amassed an unspectacular record as a state senator, a U.S. senate seat in 2006. And I don’t think they would re-elect any senator who had gone through the driving and drinking trials of Ted Kennedy either. But if you look around at the recent political families that run so much of our country, you find little to assure you that these families are winning elections because of their brains. From the slew of Kennedys here to the Landrieus of Louisiana and the Daleys of Chicago, the overall track record of these families is pretty mediocre. While that may be no better or worse than your average politician, it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton was Hillary Smith and Caroline Kennedy was Caroline Jones, do you think either of them would be considered for or elected to Congress with their track records?

And guess who may take over Joe Biden’s seat in Delaware? That’s right – Joe Biden III! In a move that Blagojevich would approve, Delaware Governor recently appointed Vice President-Elect Joe Biden’s chief of staff to fill his seat while Biden III prepares for a quite obvious run when he returns from Iraq. At least Biden has currently served almost 18 months as Delaware’s attorney general, giving him far more experience than Caroline Kennedy.

Nepotism is nothing new in American politics. The Adams of Massachusetts, the Roosevelts of New York and the Tafts of Ohio existed long ago and more families will arise. Name recognition is always important when running for office. But it’s a shame that so many voters and governors who must appoint members to Congress never look beyond pedigree or last name.

My Nomination to Fix Detroit

2008-12-05T18:04:00.002-05:00

It is very, very difficult for any of us to feel sorry for the U.S. auto industry. For years we have watched these once-mighty titans get their behinds kicked by foreign automakers, who have run rings around them in innovation, fuel efficiency, worker relations and cars that are just better and more fun to drive. And while Detroit comes to Congress with its hat in hand, foreign automakers are doing just fine, insourcing thousands of jobs to America and opening new plants. Toyota is opening a new plant to meet the huge demand for Priuses down in Mississippi while GM is still scrambling to get the cost of batteries in its still-nascent Volt down to the level that Toyota already has.

Much has been made of the Big Three’s ride on corporate jets to Washington and having no concrete plan for what to do with the bailout money. Not quite as much has been made about the ridiculous contracts the UAW extracts for its workers that helps bleed these companies. It took ample PR embarrassment for the unions to finally drop the JOBS bank, which literally paid downsized workers the bulk of their wages while they did no work for years. Imagine how much better these companies would be if these executive and union perks were cut years ago.

Many are trying to place the blame on either the executives or the unions. Like the financial services industry or the Iraq war, failure this massive cannot be drilled down to a single issue but rather spread out among collective idiocy. Even if the Big Three’s compensation and benefits were in line with foreign automakers, can anyone at GM tell me the difference between Buicks and Pontiacs? Why keep both of these lines of business? And a special dummy prize must be shared among the longtime Congressmen and Senators from Michigan, many of whom fought tooth and nail against raising fuel standards, giving incentives to hybrid cars and doing anything possible to shield Detroit from the smarter foreign competition that was eating its lunch. I fully understand why they were trying to protect the businesses and constituents in their state and districts, but part of being a Congressman requires tough love and explaining to these companies why some of these mileage and environmental rules would make them more competitive. And let’s not forget all those consumers who kept giving the junkie drugs by buying SUVs and minivans they clearly didn’t need.

So should Detroit get its bailout money? I am honestly on the fence about this. Bad behavior should never be rewarded, and all of these executives, union chiefs and congressmen like John Dingell, Dale Kildee, John Conyers and Senator Carl Levin should all resign for collectively helping to destroy the auto industry. But just as the financial services industry could not be allowed to implode, the auto industry is in a similar position. Our economy is far too fragile at this stage, and if even one of the Big Three went bankrupt or disappeared the ripple effects would make the recession far worse than it already is.

There’s widespread agreement that an “auto czar” should be in charge of the industry. But who? Some have recommended Steve Jobs. I have two ideas. The first is Lee Iacocca, a man who’s been though this before and could be the right one for the job.

Now here’s my other idea: James Spears, Britney Spears’ father. Say what? Here’s where I’m going. A year ago Britney was out of control – wasted on drugs, flashing strangers in public, spending truckloads of money on crap and hanging out with undesirables who catered to her every whim. Then her father stepped in and now she’s on a tight allowance, has kept her clothes on, is only with people who can help her out and has her career back on track.

OK, maybe not. But that’s the discipline Detroit needs to end its self-destruction. If your kids wreck your car, you don’t just give them a blank check and tell them to buy whatever car they want. Let’s hope Congress doesn’t do the same.

More Info: Mitt Romney was for the auto bailout before he was against it.

The Hangover's Coming

2008-11-26T16:37:00.000-05:00

So you thought that once George W. Bush was out of office and Barack Obama was president everything would turn into sunshine and puppies, right? Just like Disney princess wannabes who just need to find their Prince Charming so their lives can turn into a fairy tale? Or the clueless CEOs at Internet startups I used to meet who thought all they needed was one story in the Wall Street Journal and the sales phones would ring off the hook?

Hopefully you do not think that way. But I’m willing to bet many do, especially the first-time voters among young Americans and minorities who are now looking at Obama as their savior. Unfortunately reality will soon bite them back. The last time I saw this much praising a new president among the youth and the media alike was…1992. Clinton came in as the last Democratic messiah who kicked the evil GOP out of the White House, and just two years later was so unpopular he ushered in Republican majorities in Congress.

Nobody knows what will happen in two years but a few things will definitely occur. First, Obama appears to be lining the Cabinet with longtime Democratic insiders. They are eminently qualified and cannot be worse than the current White House advisors and Cabinet, but anyone who voted for Obama because he promised change and was bringing an outsider’s and Mr. Smith type idealism to Washington is probably disappointed already.

Second, anyone who voted for Obama on a single issue (for example, because he would end the war in Iraq ASAP or institute a national health plan) is going to get disappointed. Getting anything done in Washington is like turning the Titanic. Change may come, but it’s not coming fast.

Third, at some point in the next four years, Barack Obama is going to make a mistake. In fact he may make more than one mistake. We’ll see how the newcomers to politics react when he makes this mistake. It may be something completely understandable or minor to wonks or political insiders, but if it involves breaking a campaign promise he could lose much of the goodwill he achieved.

The reason so many are jaded about politics is that candidates promise so much during the campaign but once they are in office they either realize they will be unable to deliver much of what they promise, or because circumstances arise that place different priorities on the front burner. Items fall through the cracks in every job, but politicians have so much scrutiny and so many people depending on them that those errors are magnified. I’d advise everyone who voted for the first time, especially in light of the current economy, to be patient with their expectations. Change may be coming, but it’s a long time coming.

Print Journalism - Burning Out or Fading Away?

2008-11-03T19:21:00.001-05:00

Here’s my first prediction for the reign of the next president – the print journalism industry will continue to vanish, and journalism itself will continue to flourish.

Last week was beyond bad for print journalists. Time Inc. announced 600 layoffs. Gannett cut 10% of its workforce. McGraw Hill downsized 270. The advertising industry, which heavily subsidizes print journalism, sees rough times ahead for the next few quarters. And for grisly humor, the Motley Fool has a newspaper stock death pool.

Most ominous of all, the staid NY Times publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger blames the industry’s woes on an overkill of information. But he claims people will eventually turn to “trusted” places like The New York Times to gain the right perspective on the all the clutter and noise emanating from blogs, cell phones and competing 24-hour newscycles where everything older than 15 minutes is antiquated. I must say that Pinchy’s thoughts don’t exactly sound correct to me. If anything, it is reminiscent of the superior attitude that the Times’ critics routinely deride it for. And notice which company is part of that death pool.

Regular readers of The Boston Globe, which is going through the declining ad revenue, layoffs and page shrinkage problems throughout the industry have undoubtedly noticed that the print version is starting to resemble USA Today – same four sections and same shorter stories. But if you only read the Globe online, you’d never notice the difference and you’d still get the same content. I’m not sure if Boston.com is profitable yet, but obviously the Globe (owned by The New York Times) is headed in the right direction. Long gone are the times when the news media controlled the airwaves and political parties. If anything, the Internet has liberated the public from that. The plethora of choices and the ability to interact with the audience online are the future for both independent media and the stalwarts who can correctly embrace them. This was not possible as recently as 10 years ago.

And here’s one paper that’s getting it right – remember the Christian Science Monitor? It’s going online only next year. The future of substantive media can currently be seen in the success stories of Salon and Slate, plus the bloggers who were either smart enough to get on the wagon early or who have the talent and time to make their blogs successful (I don’t fall into that category yet. Maybe one day…)

Will newspapers disappear? No. Stalwarts like The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have the brand power to stick around in some smaller form. Planes and automobiles didn’t completely kill trains either. But I do see many newspapers moving to Sunday-only print versions or evolving into some other kind of niche where they can exist. Or it can follow the Monitor’s lead and embrace the future instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

Last One in the GOP Can Turn Out the Lights

2008-10-24T18:13:00.002-04:00

No matter what happens on November 4, there is going to be some serious soul-searching in the Republican Party. The party that just four years ago was supremely disciplined and knew exactly what it stood for has shattered.

It would have been tough for any Republican to win in this environment, but what has been most alarming are the once-loyal GOP legions who are abandoning ship in droves.
This week alone you’ve had Bill Weld, Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, Charlie Fried, Ken Adelman, Nicholas Cafardi and many other standard-bearers, along with 22% of people who identify themselves as conservative, announcing they were behind Obama. It’s that 22% number that’s most impressive – the big names might be angling for new jobs, but there’s a groundswell of grassroots support that is astonishing.

So who will be turning out the lights in GOP headquarters? It seems the only ones who are sticking by McCain and Caribou Barbie are the bloviators on talk radio and Fox News. And when you see and hear some of the comments that have been made at some of their rallies, you know that many – surely not all – of these supporters have bought the smear attacks without hesitation. Many of these continue to blame their party’s woes on the usual suspects – the liberal media, academics, abortion supporters – and will continue to do so after the election. To them, the GOP can do no wrong.

But when you look at the names and figures in my second paragraph – not to mention the conservative stalwarts like George Will, Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan, who lost confidence in the Republicans long ago – you realize that the people who once led the party’s ideology have deserted. In its desire to appeal to what appeared to be the new base of evangelicals, Joe Six-Packs and Joe the Plumber, the GOP turned into not only a party that ran on wedge issues, but also one that disdained intellectuals and any shades of gray. Long-held tenets like fiscal responsibility were dropped in favor of love-it-or-leave-it patriotism and partisanship. Anyone who questioned or dissented was labeled a traitor and un-American.

By acting like a bunch of adolescents who think they know everything, anyone who disagreed with the my-way-or-the-highway GOP chose the highway. The immediate GOP reaction on November 5 will probably be a mixture of sour grapes and petulance, but to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, those who felt the Republican Party left them know the truth. When you run on an anti-intellectual platform that boasts of dividing America between real Americans in small towns and lesser Americans in cities and suburbs, expect those in cities and suburbs to leave you. When you urge a new round of McCarthyism to investigate the majority of Americans who may vote for Democrats, you will lose the vote of anybody that has the slightest memory of those dark days, unless they’re someone who is drinking the same Kool-Aid you are. Is it any wonder that Republicans have lost not just the brains of their own party, but also so many college graduates, recent immigrants, doctors and white collar workers that used to be solid GOP voters? For years liberals screamed about class warfare and ridiculed anyone who disagreed with them; it got them nowhere. Now the Republicans are doing the same thing, with similar results.

I was legitimately excited this time last year when Rudy Giuliani and McCain were in the primaries. I thought we would see at least the two of them take a populist, intelligent approach to campaigning. It’s disheartening to not only see McCain unwisely drop his once well-regarded viewpoints for this vapid dogma, but also to hear Giuliani’s robocalls telling people not to vote for Obama because of his lack of support for mandatory prison sentences. If the GOP thinks people are going to base their votes on that issue in this day and age, it could act as the party’s coda. Both of these smart and capable men should be ashamed of themselves for adopting and endorsing these beliefs.

So what’s left is a party that basically shoved much of its former base out the door, abandoned the core principles of Reagan and Goldwater, has no central campaign theme that addresses the current economic situation, and – on top of everything – done a miserable job the last four years. What you reap is what you sow.

Does Negative Campaigning Work?

2008-10-10T18:14:00.002-04:00

Sometimes.

Gossip spreads faster than good news. We still remember the warnings our parents and childhood friends told us about hot stoves and creepy people in scary houses. And the ads we remember after the dust clears are the negative ones – the Swift Boat Veterans, the Willie Hortons and the legendary Daisy ad, which only ran twice. Something about human nature means we tend to remember the salacious and the dangerous, and that is why despite the public’s abhorrence of negative ads and campaigning, the tactic can work IF it is done correctly.

With fewer people than ever watching the news or reading papers, negative ads are how most Americans learn about the candidates. I never knew about the tax consequences of McCain’s health care plan until I saw the Obama ad discussing it. And many probably knew nothing about Obama’s distant relationship with terrorist David Ayers until the McCain ad ran. With the media focusing on the horse race and little else, this is one of the few places Americans can get relevant information, albeit strictly filtered by each candidate.

But there’s a difference between a negative ad that does its job and one that voters perceive as mean-spirited and mudslinging. It often boils down to attacking the candidate vs. attacking the candidate’s policy. Most Americans dislike personal attacks on any candidate, and those tend to backfire because they’re not seen as relevant to the issues at hand. But attacking a candidate’s policies will always be fair game. And occasionally these two intertwine – what if Candidate A says taxes are too high, but then Candidate B learns that A has not paid taxes in five years? Here’s a 2004 negative Bush ad that was able to thread the needle between personal and policies.

However, if you are running a long-shot campaign against an opponent that you have almost no chance of beating then it is almost mandatory to go negative. That could be the only way you can draw enough attention to yourself to win. But you still need to walk that fine line between raising legitimate points to issues that resonate with voters, and crossing the line into personal attacks that will turn them off.

With McCain down in the polls, it’s unsurprising that he appears to have gone all negative all the time. It shows that he knows that he’s behind, but it’s how he goes negative that needs to be watched. Will he attack the policies or the candidate? If it’s the latter, it may be the final nail in what has become an increasingly erratic and undisciplined campaign.

More Info: A rare positive ad that worked, and was memorable

Ladies Choice

2008-10-06T18:25:00.002-04:00

Today I’m going to venture into dangerous territory…assessing women in politics. It is no secret that women in politics are judged far differently and more harshly than men on their appearance and mannerisms, and much of the harshest criticism often comes from other women. I remember Katharine Harris, Florida’s secretary of state in the 2000 recount, being vilified by women for the color of her lipstick and Hillary Clinton being goofed on by women of both parties for her pantsuit schedule. If a man made any of these comments, he would be correctly vilified as sexist. Women made the bulk of these remarks and guess what? They’re still sexist.

But judging people by appearance is something we all do in our material- and youth-obsessed society, so if you’re running for public office (which has been called “show business for ugly people”) appearance and mannerisms are fair game. The college-educated women I work with remain incredulous at how Sarah Palin, after another vapid debate performance last week, remains popular and draws big crowds. There are numerous reasons for this, but the unfortunate but most realistic answer is that she is attractive – with good hair and a fine sense of style (again, according to the women I work with). There has been far more interoffice discussion on why she doesn’t wear her hair down than on her policies or verbal faux pas.

This morning I read on Andrew Sullivan how part of her appeal may be the “cocktail waitress” aspect. At the debate she winked at me a few times and used the aw-shucks, you’re-darn-tootin’ speak straight out of Fargo. Sullivan wondered if she was trying to flirt with Biden or the audience. I doubt Palin was flirting with anyone, although many women certainly flirt everywhere from work to bars to get what they may want or need. But I do not doubt that the GOP is using her to rally both the base and some wayward and not-too-bright men that see an attractive woman and lose much of their good sense and judgment. I also believe that she is somewhat symbolic of our culture – where looking good and repeating carefully screened, canned answers is more important than answering tough questions.

Maybe many educated and smart women are threatened and fascinated by Palin at the same time. Perhaps she’s as deep as a puddle, but at least she looks good doing what she does. While she comes across as more feminine than, say, Hillary Clinton, does that mean that Hillary Clinton lost because she wasn’t feminine enough? Would Hillary have done better if she ditched the pantsuit for the dresses Palin wears? I don’t know, but remember how appearance is far more important than substance today, and how fast people form opinions on all of us based on how we look.

Hillary tried playing the gender card a little bit and it backfired. The reason it did was because she always came across as an equal to the men she ran against, and that is the right way to do it. Think of all the amazing female politicians we have– from Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condoleeza Rice and Barbara Boxer to pioneers like Margaret Thatcher and Ann Richards. They never cried sexism when they didn’t get their way. They never let their appearance get in the way of their accomplishments or let people judge them by their looks. And I’m sure they never winked during a debate.

How Not to Win Votes

2008-09-26T18:58:00.003-04:00

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.

It’s even worse when you watch it!

I’ve mentioned before that I am a PR flack, and part of my job involves media training, writing “talking points” or “sound bites” for executives giving interviews and making sure people clearly communicate what they want people to hear in 100 words or less. Because of this, I am bookmarking Sarah Palin’s interview as a classic example of what not to do when you’re dealing with the media.

It was clear coming out of the Republican Convention that McCain was going to rally the troops by declaring war on the media, specifically the left-leaning New York Times. It’s a tried-and-true approach, especially for a campaign that doesn’t seem to have a central theme (a serious problem). The media is regarded by the public somewhere between child molesters and personal injury lawyers on its best days. But there’s another old saying: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

If you’re being interviewed by the media, you better have your act together. At the very least, you have to give the appearance that you have command of whatever it is you’re talking about. To drill the point home, there are a few talking points you need to hit on and make sure the interviewer and (most importantly) the viewer can chew on. And most importantly, it’s gotta look authentic and believable. People see through staged events like photo ops but remember people who wowed them (Obama six months ago) or made them cringe (see above).

So the McCain team faces a very tricky task of excoriating the media while trying to acquiesce to it at the same time by granting limited interviews where they can control the situation as much as possible. By shielding both candidates from the media, they could give the appearance of scorning an often reviled establishment. But ignoring the media won’t stop it from reporting about you, and absence can lead to speculation – particularly with an unknown commodity like Palin. “Why does she ignore us?” the media speculates. Is she not press-savvy? Does she have something to hide?

The truth now appears to be she (a) was being media trained by someone far worse than I am, or (b) is an utter nitwit. I think it could be both. First, look at how many times she repeats the buzzwords that someone told her to rattle off. Health care reform, shoring up the economy and job creation all appear twice in one paragraph. Even weirder was this sentence:

So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans.

Wow, that’s an entire platform right there! But review it to see how carefully this has to be done to be effective. Would anyone here argue that health care reform, reducing taxes, reining in spending, tax reductions (same as reducing taxes, actually) and tax relief (ditto) are bad things? Of course not. But does it make sense in the realm of that amazing answer? Does it make sense at all? No way. This is why so many people dislike politicians and don’t watch Meet the Press and similar shows. The politicians get asked questions and never answer the question. They stick to their message, although most do it much better than the moose hunter here.

When I media train anyone, we go over and over potential questions and rehearse the answers until I’m satisfied the person can authentically speak without sounding like a robot. Some people, however, are just not good at it. Some freeze under the pressure, while others have a bad habit of turning a short answer into a long story. But I’ve never had someone just randomly spout out the talking points without at least sorta answering the question, and I’m proud to say none of my students has ever come across that badly on television.

RIP Jack Falla

2008-09-18T14:08:00.002-04:00

Part of having a blog is that you can write whatever you want. So I am taking time this week to eulogize a mentor of mine you probably don't know, unless you are a journalism or sports journalism major at Boston University’s College of Communication. This past Sunday, Jack Falla suddenly passed away of a heart attack at 62. Jack was not just a teacher but also a mentor, advisor and very good friend.

Jack was someone who also was able to devote his life to the two things he was passionate about – writing and teaching (although he would call the latter “coaching” to use one of his endless sports metaphors.) Many people write well. Jack was an incredibly gifted writer who was able to become a sports journalist, and was on staff for Hockey News and Sports Illustrated in the 1980s. He then started to freelance and teach at BU. He also loved hockey, so he decided to build a hockey rink in his backyard. After some humorous trial and error it worked, and he rebuilt it every winter.

I was one of the few who did NOT have Jack for sports journalism at 8 a.m., but rather a regular writing class at COM in 1989. I picked his class by chance and it changed my life. Not only was Jack one of the best teachers I ever had, but we became friends and kept in touch long after graduation. I had lunch with him less than two months ago and he was exactly the same – an all-around great guy. His premature death has left me extremely sad, but I truly am a better person (and writer) for having known him.

To this day, I remember much of what Jack told me. In one of my first assignments for him that was maybe 400 words, he told me to cut 20 words out. When I finished he said, “Now cut another 25 words out.” I got through it and he said, “How many of those were adjectives and adverbs?” They almost all were. I never forgot that lesson, plus his loathing of exclamation points and love of sports metaphors. There are many good writers, but not all of them have the skill to teach writing well. Jack did.

Throughout the years Jack served as a reference, mentor and drinking buddy. He never said no to anything. When I found an athlete who I thought had a great story I told Jack, fully confident he would send out the word to his minions in the sports world who would be interested in the story. Naturally he found someone, and the athlete was profiled in the Sunday Globe. When I was applying to grad school a few years ago, I put Jack on standby as a reference in case one of my former bosses couldn’t pull through. Sure enough, my old boss went AWOL and Jack delivered a reference even though he had taught me over 15 years ago. That’s the kind of man he was; always willing to help out and eager to swap stories.

After Jack’s book Home Ice, I learned much more about Jack’s rink and his family. His love and care for them was evident throughout its pages. Of course I will be reading his new book Open Ice with a heavy heart, but he told me at our last meal together how pleased he was with it and he was very proud of some of the essays inside.

It’s been said that you can tell a man’s worth by what he leaves behind after he passes away. Jack leaves a stadium full of professional and amateur sportswriters and others who all seem to have identical memories of this amazing family man, teacher and coach. I can truly say my life is better for having known him well. And for his sports journalism class, there are currently three writers in the Boston Globe sports section, one Yankee writer at the Daily News, on columnist at the Chicago Tribune, four PR directors at four different professional sports franchises and one PR director for the NHL that are alumni of Jack’s classes. And those are just the ones I know about.

If you’re looking for a good read this fall, do yourself a favor and purchase either Home Ice or Open Ice. Even if you don’t skate, the stories will make you laugh and warm your heart.

Here are additional eulogies on Jack from others at The Boston Herald, BU's Daily Free Press, The NY Daily News, the Metrowest Daily News and The Boston Globe. Almost all were written by former students like me.

Abstract Distractions

2008-09-12T19:01:00.001-04:00

So you thought the Democrats were going to run away with this thing because they are featuring a smarter candidate who lies less than the other guys and because the current economic and international climate favors them, right? That’s just what they said in 1968, 1988, 2000 and 2004. And you thought Sarah Palin was going to knock John McCain out for good, correct? Democrats have attacked VP candidates from Richard Nixon to Dan Quayle, with absolutely zero effect. No wonder the polls are tied. This is going to be a lot closer than anybody thought.

If your political opponent is kicking your tail, the best way to change things in your favor is to distract everyone with an issue or topic that will focus more attention on you. With the media and the American public having the collective attention span of a five-year-old, McCain’s Hail Mary desperation pass of Sarah Palin has (so far) been brilliant. How can the Democrats possibly compete against an attractive 44-year-old mother of five whose oldest child is heading to Iraq, young baby has Down’s Syndrome, and whose daughter is knocked up? Now THAT’S a distraction!

Much has been written about how the women who now love Sarah Palin are totally at odds with her politics. This is completely unimportant. Most Americans are uninterested in the nuances of politics and often vote for a candidate based on likeability, appearance and whoever makes them feel better about their families and their future. Where those candidates stand on their political positions is secondary, although whichever candidate explains it in a way that resonates best with voters has the edge. This is one of those regrettable but true facts about our culture – and one the Democrats just do not get.

You can see Democrats and the media (who still want Obama to win, although Palin is a great story that they won’t drop) repeatedly trying to catch her on issues like earmarks and abortion. I hate to tell both these groups the obvious, but abortion has never been a major factor in any recent election, and most Americans have no clue what an earmark is. And attacking her experience and job history won’t work either since that will draw inevitable comparisons to Obama’s weaknesses there.

Worst of all for the Democrats, they now seem to be obsessed with Palin and try to trot her out as red meat at every opportunity. That may work with partisans who will vote for them anyway, but it comes across as mean-spirited to many women and independents that they should be attracting. And when Palin started to get in trouble, the GOP trot out the “lipstick on a pig” distraction. Of course they knew it wasn’t directed at her, but that was unimportant. It was a way to get into the Democrats’ head, again.

So how do the Democrats get out of this? That’s easy – create a distraction of their own. Obama won the nomination by being an atypical, charismatic candidate who was short on specifics but terrific on getting viewers to bond with him on a visceral, gut level (kind of like what Palin is doing now!) He’s since been transformed into running a typical, cerebral Democratic presidential campaign that always goes down in flames. He needs to go back to the emotional candidate who reminds viewers of the past eight years and stirs them into action. And one who is absolutely, completely undistracted by Sarah Palin.

Dave's 2008 NFL Forecast

2008-09-04T00:07:00.001-04:00

Last year, I predicted the Patriots would be undefeated but would fall to my hometown favorite team, the New York Giants, in an upset for the ages.

OK, that didn’t quite happen. I think I had the Giants third. But did anyone see any of those things happening? That’s why football is so great and these predictions are so goofy and fun.

Here’s my picks for this year. As of today, I am 100% confident I’m right. In fact, I’m going to do just as well this year as last year! Teams are picked in order of finish, with two wild cards and my “dark horse” pick for either most improved team or at least the team that will get some traction going.

NFC EAST
1) Dallas: The sad thing is Adam Jones, or Pacman Jones, or whatever his name is, may be just what this team needs. Of course with Terrell Owens still aboard and Jessica Simpson nearby, the good news is Dallas may replace the Patriots as the team America loves to hate.
2) NY Giants: Wild Card Team. The entire offense is back. The defense, er, is not. Justin Tuck can fill Strahan’s shoes, but filling Osi Umenyiora’s will be tougher. Some questions also remain at linebacker, but I have confidence in defensive coordinator Steve “Spags” Spagnuolo.
3) Philadelphia: Always a threat, but Donovan McNabb goes down for a month whenever he stubs his toe. The Eagles did upgrade their secondary with Asante Samuel, but those guys aren’t supposed to win the game for you.
4) Washington: I see promise in QB Jason Campbell, but I don’t think the Skins have the receivers for the West Coast offense the new coach wants to put in. The learning curve will be too steep for Washington to advance in the NFC East.

NFC CENTRAL
1) Green Bay: Favre is gone, but overall this team is way more balanced than the Vikings, especially on D. Solid cornerbacks in Harris and Woodson, great LBs in Hawk and Garnett and Aaron Kampman is a monster. If Aaron Rodgers doesn’t make too many mistakes and the running game holds out, there should be no problems repeating.
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Lots of people are picking the Vikings as their NFC Champion. They may win this weak division but I’m not sold on QB Tavaris Jackson, who was way too weak to get a team out of the first round of the playoffs. There’s promise with Jared Allen and Adrian Peterson is the real thing.
3) Detroit: Every year I rip GM Matt Millen for being dumber than a box of rocks. Last year the Lions started 6-2 and I didn’t panic. Sure enough, they finished 7-9. So what happens? Millen fires offensive coordinator Mike Martz, whose downfield scheme was perfect for the underachieving WRs Millen specializes in drafting. He also continued his seven year trend of ignoring defensive needs. Look for 2007 to be the high point of Millen’s career.
4) Chicago: Picking Kyle Orton to start over Rex Grossman at QB is like picking Newark over Camden as the best city in New Jersey. The only thing worse could be the rest of the offense.

NFC SOUTH
1) New Orleans: Last year everyone picked the Saints to win it all. Then they started 0-4 and finished 7-9. Injuries decimated the team, but now Deuce McAllister and Mike McKenzie are healthy and the Saints made some great free agent pickups with Jonathan Vilma and Jeremy Shockey. I’m not saying they’ll be champs, but I am saying bounceback.
2) Tampa Bay: This team seems to have the same players that won the Super Bowl in 2002 – Joey Galloway, Warrick Dunn, Derrick Brooks, Ronde Barber, etc. So how old are they now? The only new guy is QB Jeff Garcia, who is older than all of them.
3) Carolina: I like coach John Fox, but too much is riding on QB Jake Delhomme. If his elbow holds out the Panthers might finish 9-7, but WR Steve Smith is unhappy and DE Julius Peppers is way past his prime.
4) Atlanta: Let’s be charitable and call this a “rebuilding” year for all involved. I predict their coach won’t quit in the middle of the season, and next year’s very high draft choice will have an impact in 2009.

NFC WEST
1) Seattle: There’s two reasons Seattle has won the West for four years running. One is that Mike Holmgren always puts together a solid, if unspectacular, team that plays hard. Second is that the rest of the division is REALLY bad.
2) Arizona: Dark Horse Team. For a while the Cardinals have reminded me of a fly stuck behind a small sheet of glass in the middle of a field. There’s freedom around it, but it keeps banging into the glass. I admit it doesn’t look good when Kurt Warner beats out Matt Leinart for the starting QB, but the Cardinals have signed long-term contracts with talent like Larry Fitzgerald, Adrian Wilson and Anquan Boldin. Edgerrin James may have lost a step, but the Cardinals should surprise some teams and have no reason for finishing under .500.
3) St. Louis: RB Steven Jackson is one of the best in football, which is good because nobody else on the team can score a thing and the Rams have ignored the defense since the Greatest Show on Turf.
4) San Francisco: The good news is Mike Martz is out of Detroit. The bad news is he’s in San Francisco, trying to make lemonade out of QB J.T. O’Sullivan and WR Isaac Bruce (he’s 35) and no offensive line.

AFC EAST
1) New England: No duh. But don’t look for 16-0 this time. The Giants and Baltimore showed how to rattle the Patriots if you have a relentless pass rush and keep Brady running. A weak AFC East keeps the Patriots on top, but every team wants to beat them this year – real bad.
2) NY Jets: Dark Horse Team. Just when you thought the Jets were cooked the cavalry rides in. So how’s the rest of the team? Mangini plays a 3-4, and new defenseman Kris Jenkins will play nose tackle. Nose Tackle! The pass rush isn’t bad either, and Favre actually has Lavernaeus Coles to throw to.
3) Buffalo: No team has gone longer without getting to the playoffs than the Bills, but you can’t blame them for lack of effort. Buffalo actually has a good D with Aaron Schobel and Marcus Stroud and Marshawn Lynch is a solid RB. But there’s too much talent elsewhere to keep the Bills from nine wins.
4) Miami: I think Miami will win five or six this year, if only because Parcells will throw the fear of God into them if they stink up the place. Chad Pennington is an upgrade, but there’s too much to still be done.

AFC NORTH
1) Cleveland: Yes! This is the year for the Brownies. I’m not sold on QB Derek Anderson but Cleveland has drafted well and the team is loaded on offense with Kellen Winslow and Braylon Edwards. Both offensive and defensive lines are tight. If everyone stays healthy, this team could go far.
2) Pittsburgh: Wild Card Team. And if Cleveland stumbles, the Steelers will drive ahead. Pittsburgh has settled into a solid, grind-it-out team that does everything well but nothing great. Lots of weapons on offense, but except for Troy Polamalu the defense is not as great. Pittsburgh also has a very tough schedule this year.
3) Cincinnati: On paper they’re better than Tennessee, but this is a mentally beaten team that is getting hosed by its front office. Problematic troublemakers abound. The offense is good, but defense has never improved. QB Carson Palmer and coach Marvin Lewis deserve better.
4) Baltimore: Good defense, mediocre offense. Haven’t we been saying that since this franchise began? Rookie QB Joe Flacco will learn on the job, mostly on his back or running for his life.

AFC SOUTH
1) Jacksonville: I believe this is the year the Jaguars finally make the leap from good to great and finally knock the Colts down a peg. The defense is frightening, although they let up too easy on the Patriots last year. David Garrard was the right move at QB, and the offense has Maurice Jones-Drew and the ageless Fred Taylor. If the stars are aligned right, the Jaguars are ready to rumble.
2) Indianapolis: Wild Card Team. Sure, the Colts remain a very good team, but age and injuries are beginning to creep up on them. Peyton Manning, Jeff Saturday, Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney and Bob Sanders are hurting. Tony Dungy’s last year could be the last roundup.
3) Houston: The Texans are slowly becoming respectable, and may even break .500 if they were in an easier division. The defense is coming along nicely with Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans, and WR Andre Johnson is a legitimate deep threat. But QB Matt Schaub is not yet over the hump.
4) Tennessee: I like the defense, especially Albert Haynesworth and Kyle Vanden Bosch, but QB Vince Young remains a work in progress who either plays better than anyone or horrendously. And he still has nobody to throw to.

AFC WEST
1) San Diego: Coach Norv Turner is still overrated, but he finally won some playoff games last year. And just like last year, it will be hard to screw up with a team as talented as this one. Remember that in last year’s AFC championship they played without QB Philip Rivers, RB LaDanian Tomlinson and TE Antonio Gates, all among the league’s best. Keep the injuries down and there may be a new AFC champ this year.
2) Denver: Denver is not a good team, but will finish second due to the scrap heap of remaining teams here. No defense except Champ Bailey, no offense except Jay Cutler throwing to Brandon Marshall spells another 7-9 year, or worse.
3) Oakland: The Raiders are out of the cellar, but that’s due more to the Chiefs falling than their growth. JaMarcus Russell will finally show the world whether Al Davis didn’t overpay somebody for once.
4) Kansas City: Even the Chiefs are calling this a rebuilding year. That’s code for “don’t bother showing up at Arrowhead.” Herman Edwards left the Jets for this?

More Partisan Hypocrisy

2008-09-03T18:41:00.002-04:00

Am I the only one to remember that Republicans are supposed to be the party of “family values?” It used to be they were the party that attacked unwed mothers, parents who couldn’t stop their kids from sleeping around and getting knocked up, and celebrities as poor role models – from Murphy Brown to Barack Obama.

It remains too early to see what Sarah Palin will do to the GOP, but it seems to have transformed the party overnight into an all-welcoming clan that now embraces teen pregnancy (Sarah Palin’s, but not Jamie Lynn Spears!), mothers who work full time with an infant child (Sarah Palin, but not middle class mothers!) and denounces sexism (Sarah Palin, but not Hillary Clinton!). If I was Bristol Palin’s father, I would find the guy who impregnated my daughter and lay the smack down. But now the kid, instead of being investigated for statutory rape, will be showcased by the family values party as someone who is taking responsibility. The flip flopping is the worst of political grandstanding and reeks of desperation. The question is whether the American public will buy it.

I wonder if McCain picked Palin completely on his own without having anyone on his staff or the GOP doing a simple background check on her. If you view the blogosphere, you’ll find more things the mainstream media naturally has not touched. Here’s what was on the daddy-to-be’s MySpace page. Here’s info on a Jews for Jesus preacher that speaks at Palin’s church. And here’s Palin's support for the Bridge to Nowhere, a huge earmark of pork that McCain denounced.

Maybe there’s something Machiavellian about all this. I still maintain through my post below that most people don’t regard the VP too highly when they’re casting a vote. And McCain definitely knew he had to take the attention off Obama after last week, and since this pick was announced I have heard nothing about Obama in the mainstream media. It’s a classic diversion. When you’re losing a propaganda or PR war with an opponent, your best bet is to create a distraction to get the attention off your adversary and onto you.

I always thought McCain would pick Romney for his VP slot to fire up the new GOP religious right-wing base, which basically votes on abortion, creationism, gay marriage and nothing else (to be fair, there’s plenty on the left that vote the same way). He picked Palin instead, and succeeded in firing up the base but may have alienated too many others (here’s a CNN poll showing where those three issues rank to most voters – less than 2%). But those are the folks who show up on Election Day. To date, the Democrats still cannot mobilize their base the same way, and that’s why I think the final result will be far closer than most people think.

The Veepstakes

2008-08-29T18:04:00.002-04:00

Two things have been said about picking a vice presidential candidate, both of which I think are hogwash. One is that the presidential candidate’s first decision tells you quite a lot about their judgment. No, it doesn’t and shouldn’t. It often falls into who the best person is to provide a foil for the better half of the ticket and give some sort of counterbalance by ideology, experience or another variable the consultants deem important. The second is that the wrong pick will doom a candidacy. To that I present you J. Danforth Quayle. If he couldn’t stop the elder Bush from becoming president, no VP candidate can.

When I look at Joe Biden, all I can think of is what a capable Senator he is and the plagiarism charges that squashed his first presidential run in 1988. What made this even wilder is that he then served on the Senate Ethics Committee with Ted Kennedy when he questioned Oliver North. Since then Biden appears to have settled into a solid, if unspectacular, senator whose charisma is so bland it got him nowhere in his presidential run this year. When Hillary Clinton’s supporters talked about how important experience was in their decision, why weren’t they voting for Biden? He had more experience than any other presidential candidate this year. He is a safe and solid, if unspectacular, choice.

Today John McCain made a much riskier choice with the completely unknown Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. The photo above is the downtown area of Wasilla, the town Palin ran as mayor just two years ago. This Alaskan blog has some good stories about Wasilla and Alaskan politics, which don’t appear to be too different from anywhere else. Wasilla has about 6,000 people and appears to be in the heart of Alaska’s Bible Belt (I never even thought about such a place existing). And apparently her husband is the current champion of Alaska’s Iron Dog snowmobiling competition. Now that’s cool.

I always admire gutsy moves like this from candidates, which tend to wildly succeed or spectacularly fail. It’s a bit early to tell at this stage since I know as much about this woman as you do. But my gut feeling is it seems a bit odd. Was this a lame attempt to attract disgruntled Hillary supporters? Wait until they hear Palin’s views on abortion and creationism. Her support for ANWR drilling may also be problematic to women, but not Reagan Democrats and I don’t think you’ll find any politician from Alaska who doesn’t want to drill up there.

McCain did need to do something unique and he’s certainly done it. What will be truly interesting is how the former Wasilla, Alaska mayor will act debating a pro like Biden or when she’s questioned about the wedge issues like Iraq and stem cell research that most people in the lower 48 have very clear ideas on. And the GOP certainly can’t use the inexperience argument any more.

Politics as Usual

2008-08-26T18:02:00.000-04:00

Were you excited when John McCain and Barack Obama – two politicians that don’t fit the typical Republican and Democratic mold – became the nominees? Did it excite you that two Senators who often go with their gut and were popular with both the public and the media have an opportunity to become the world’s most powerful person? Did you expect a fresh start and an invigorated campaign that rivaled Lincoln/Douglas or Weld/Kerry here in Massachusetts?

What has struck me so far is just how boring the campaign has been. Everything has been typical so far – negative ads, attacking the other candidate and adherence to general talking points. McCain, who had a reputation as a maverick who bucks the party platform, is now talking in sound bites and endlessly referring to his POW stint – the same way Kerry endlessly referred to his time as a Vietnam veteran. Why on earth are both men trying to convince voters to judge them through those contexts? Is that the criteria in which they’ll make their decisions?

You’d think all Obama would need to do is talk to voters directly and use the same inspirational rhetoric that worked so well for him before, especially now that more Americans are paying attention to this. Nope. He’s too busy retreating into standard candidate mode – attacking without offering alternatives, saying what he’d do without telling people who he is, and making the campaign about himself instead of the voters. This may work for a standard politician, but Obama didn’t gain his success by going the well-traveled route.

My guess is that both candidates are too busy listening to the myriad pollsters, consultants and, worst of all, the party leaders who are giving them conflicting opinions on how to win. This has resulted in a pedestrian race, and I’m unsurprised both men are tied in the polls. They need to shrug off the conventional advice and go with their gut more. They didn’t win the nomination by being ordinary, and it’s a shame that both campaigns are exceedingly vanilla so far.

Keep George Out

2008-08-05T10:15:00.002-04:00

This is not a posting about George W. Bush. This is about another George who tried to enforce his will on the world and is unbelievably stubborn in his ways. Another George who made the colossus he ran hated by millions and was summarily punished, and yet there are some people who love this George and say he deserves the highest of honors. By now you’ve guessed it – it’s George Steinbrenner, and I’ve heard some people from Goose Gossage to Tim McCarver calling for Steinbrenner to be enshrined in Baseball’s Hall of Fame.

If this happens, it would be the equivalent of carving George W. Bush’s head on Mt. Rushmore, and baseball will continue slipping into irrelevance and mediocrity. I can’t think of anyone less qualified to represent America’s pastime than Steinbrenner. Since Steinbrenner is now elderly, ailing and appears to have lost most of his marbles, there has been a recent tendency to overlook his decades of mistakes and virulence, and focus on the Yankee dynasties in the 70s and 90s that emerged while he was the team’s de facto owner and overlord. If baseball was like the NFL (where a candidate’s character is irrelevant to on-field performance) this may be valid. But Cooperstown maintains character as a prerequisite, which is why Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds will never enter the hall and why Steinbrenner should be excluded for the rest of his life and beyond.

For baseball and Yankee fans alike with long-term memory issues, here’s a review of Steinbrenner’s “accomplishments” that may have slipped their minds that gives plenty of insight on his character:

· Steinbrenner pled guilty to obstructing justice and making illegal campaign contributions to Nixon in 1974. He was suspended by MLB for 15 months. Ronald Reagan pardoned him in 1988.
· Was banned again for life by Commissioner Fay Vincent for hiring a thug to find dirt on Dave Winfield after Steinbrenner refused to make a charitable donation to Winfield’s charity. The payment was part of a 10-year, $23 million contract Steinbrenner signed that was the highest ever in baseball at the time. When this was announced to the hometown Yankee crowd, they responded with a standing ovation because Steinbrenner was so despised.
· The Yankee dynasty of the 70s was largely due to Steinbrenner’s dexterity in the new free agent era. He became the first to sign top players to huge contracts that teams without the Yankee war chest could never match. While this is now standard practice, it has led to the current overclass and underclass that exists in baseball with the same rich teams and poor teams perennially at the top and bottom of the standings year after year. Changing baseball to an oligarchic practice is one reason it has fallen from America’s top sport to number four in popularity, revenue and TV ratings.
· Much has been written about Steinbrenner’s martinet reputation and the continual and repeated annual firings of managers and general managers if the Yankees did not win a title (and let’s see what happens to Joe Girardi in October). When Steinbrenner finally stopped this practice with Joe Torre and Brian Cashman in the mid-90s, success returned to the ballclub.

You will never find a Yankee fan that disputes the team plays better when Steinbrenner stays out of the way and stops interfering. Is baseball considering putting him in the Hall of Fame because after 20 years he finally learned how to do his job? Is he being rewarded because he is less involved and the team succeeds when he has nothing to do with it? When Steinbrenner was involved in manager selection (Dallas Green, Clyde King, Stump Merill, Bucky Dent) the choices were either disasters or - in the case of Billy Martin and Lou Piniella - Steinbrenner kicked them to the curb if they failed to win the World Series. The players Steinbrenner insisted on getting (Ken Phelps, Ed Whitson, Steve Trout, Rick Rhoden, Dale Murray, Butch Wynegar, Danny Tartabull, Kevin Maas, Steve Howe and I’m forgetting at least 50 others) were either overpaid over the hill or both. Notice a pattern here?

Steinbrenner is not totally without merit. He did make the Yankees winners again in bursts (again, mainly when he was completely UNINVOLVED with baseball) and the Yankees are now worth more than most companies, let alone baseball teams. He did install an attitude of winning in the club, albeit with the subtleness of Mussolini. But forget this ridiculousness about putting him in the same pantheon as honorable men like Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Hank Aaron. If either of them was thrown out of baseball twice and did one-third of the things Steinbrenner did, they wouldn’t be Hall of Famers. Let’s hope voters subject owners to the same character criteria they do with players. If they’re fair, it shouldn’t even be close.

Perish This Thought...

2008-07-25T17:29:00.001-04:00

In the winter of 2007 I was discussing “Profiles in Courage” with a political science professor. We were batting around potential future candidates in case anyone writes a sequel, and I decided to swing for the fences. I asked him to suppose, just suppose, that Iraq settles down, violence subsides, and the country truly becomes a bastion of democracy in the Middle East, acting as a hedge against Iran and establishes itself as a stalwart U.S. ally. If that happened, could George W. Bush become a future “profile in courage?” A politician in the same realm as Sam Houston, Thomas Hart Benton and Edmund Ross – men who took actions that were correct but so unpopular their careers ended, and it took decades for people to finally recognize them for their dignity and valor?

The professor thought for a good minute and finally said yes. Yes, that would establish him as a potential candidate for Profiles in Courage (the sequel). But he thought the chances of it happening were the same as a meteor crashing through the roof in the next five minutes. I agreed with him on both counts.

But look at Iraq today. The peace is fragile but holding. Bush and company made far, far too many mistakes and lost too many lives to get to where they are today, but all the things he envisioned Iraq becoming now don’t seem too far fetched anymore, except for those pesky weapons of mass destruction thing.

Some would say Iraq’s progress is less about Bush and more about General Petraeus successfully executing “the surge” and they have a point. It could be that it unfortunately took four years for Bush to find the right general to execute his mission. It took Lincoln a while to find his right general as well.

When presidents leave office, they often go through a period where they are intensely unpopular for a few years, then extremely popular until a few years after their death. It takes at least 25 years after that for history to finally determine what kind of president they really were. Currently Clinton’s popularity is very low, although his recent actions are partly to blame for that. However, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush’s popularity are high, although both were far less effective as president than Clinton was.

The one candidate who would definitely qualify as a new Profile in Courage would be Harry Truman. Truman made decisions that were increasingly unpopular during his eight years in office and left as the president with a 22% approval rating – still the lowest ever. Yet today he is regarded as one of our best presidents and the unpopular decisions he made – from desegregating the armed forces to firing MacArthur and beginning the containment policy to limit the spread of communism – are now seen as prescient and acts that helped the U.S. rebound from World War II. Will George W. Bush, who currently has similar approval ratings, regain a stature similar to Truman? Check back with me in 25 years.

More Info: My earlier blog comparing the Iraq War with the Philippine War

This Bud's for the U.S.

2008-07-16T18:10:00.003-04:00

If you’re upset about the American icon Budweiser being bought out by (gasp) - a foreign company! - you can settle down. Welcome to the global economy. Bud and Bud Light is not going anywhere, Spuds McKenzie will not suddenly reappear during football season and maybe the Belgians can get Americans to start drinking better beer.

You hear a lot about outsourcing – U.S. companies that send domestic jobs overseas. What you don’t hear about is insourcing, which is foreign companies that come here and provide good jobs in America to Americans. Some of these companies include Toyota, Michelin, ING, L’Oreal, Sony, Nestle, Philips and many others. You’ve probably got several of these companies’ products in your house, and are invested in several of them in your portfolio. In the interest of full disclosure, I work for a foreign company here in Boston, but not one of the ones just mentioned.

Is your U.S. company outsourcing or just shedding jobs like sick icon GM? Foreign companies insource over 5 million jobs in the U.S., and you can soon add InBev/Budweiser to the list. When you pursue a weak dollar policy like the Bush Administration does, you’re basically rolling out the For Sale sign on the border. And that is not necessarily a bad thing – no matter where you live, your governor probably spends much of his time abroad lobbying foreign companies to invest in your state, either by opening a satellite office, building a new plant or buying the state’s bonds. If they come, the foreign companies will create the same jobs and pay the same taxes the American companies do.

And Budweiser (legally Anheuser-Busch)? Before the unsolicited bid, its sales and stock had been basically flat for five years. InBev pulled a neat move by getting renegade family uncle Adolphus Busch in its corner before raising its offer. Missouri’s senators are whining about losing “part of America’s heritage.” They seem to have forgotten that Anheuser-Busch was started by German immigrants, and the brewers had previously announced plans to lay off over 1,100 workers. A foreign buyout is nowhere near a worst case scenario for its workers and stockholders.

Globalization and free trade agreements are frowned upon, but the end result ends up being positive for all parties. Main Street Americans will eventually accept the deal, grumbling into their Budweisers as they pull off in their Ford trucks (which were built in Mexico).

More Info: An Empirical Study on the Economic Importance of Insourcing

With Friends Like The New Yorker...

2008-07-14T18:23:00.002-04:00

I once met someone who told me she was so liberal she “screamed at The New Yorker because its political stance infuriates me.” That person is probably screaming at The New Yorker today for a whole new reason, mainly their cover “cartoon” which may just cost Obama the presidency.

Like many, I have tried to make sense of numerous New Yorker cartoons over the years and given up. Perhaps in a snooty aren’t-we-clever-because-we-live-in-NY way, tens of people find them funny or satirical. There was even a whole Seinfeld episode devoted to the absurdity of this topic.

Editorial cartoons are supposed to make you laugh, or at least think. So let’s see – we have a man who could be president dressed like a Muslim (which 12% of Americans still think he is), with his wife dressed as a terrorist, with a photo of Osama bin Laden on his wall and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Are you laughing? Are you amazed by the satirical nature of the image? Do you get the joke?

Obama certainly doesn’t find it funny. It doesn’t matter if the accompanying article is a critique of American paranoia and how Obama fits into that. And The New Yorker’s excuse that the cover “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are,” is jaw-dropping. I consider myself relatively intelligent (although obviously too dumb to understand The New Yorker) and the “joke” is totally lost on me and anyone else I’ve spoken to.

Maybe what the New Yorker sees is a witty and satirical poke at the American mindset. That attitude alone won’t win them any new converts or readers. The mistake they made is assuming that everyone else in America would see it their way, and their churlish response means that if you don’t understand it, you’re not as smart as us.

Context is unimportant, especially with art. The most effective political communication works on emotion and gut, and an image must stand together with context to work. With this cover art, The New Yorker has just given ammunition and excuses to the bigots and ignorant who think Obama is a Muslim, dislikes America and will go soft on terrorists. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity now have free reign to make as many racist comments as they want – hey, if The New Yorker can do it and excuse it as “satire” then they can too, right?

Get ready to see this cartoon appear ad nauseam on Fox News, billboards and anti-Obama 527 rhetoric until November. It is red meat for conservative partisans who need no explanation to spin it to uninformed and undecided voters. And if you think I’m wrong, how would you feel if this was the cover of the National Review?

More Info: The New Yorker's Self-Confessed View of the World (now this is satire, I think)

Senator Obama, Say Goodbye to Hollywood

2008-06-25T12:32:00.003-04:00

Dear Senator Obama,

Congratulations on finally winning the Democratic nomination for president. I don’t know if I’m voting for you yet, but I like what I hear so far and will be happy to provide you and your GOP counterpart with some free advice on occasion. And here is my first tip for you.

You know that Hollywood rally you attended last night? Make that your first – and absolutely last – interaction with celebrities. The sooner you disassociate from them, the better. If any actor, musician or any Paris Hilton-like demi-celebrity offers to appear with you or stump for you anywhere, it’s a trick and you should run away.

Remember you need to buff up your image and support with blue collar workers, white males and Main Street Americans in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. That’s as far from the Hollywood lifestyle as it gets, and linking yourself with celebrities who have zero in common with people who live paycheck to paycheck will not help your cause or win the election for you, despite the good intentions.

Even people who follow celebrities closely will never call them good role models. Senator, would you want your daughters to emulate the lifestyle of those they watch on TV or hear on the radio? Would it please you if they hung out with these people? It probably would not. Yet, you did just that last night.

As with politicians, there is no IQ test to become a celebrity. The vapidness of notable celebrities is well documented. Others who have at least a passing knowledge of current events too often communicate their political views in a way that alienates far more than it persuades. When celebrities stoop to either insulting an opponent or the views of anyone who thinks differently than they do, it is a huge turnoff to Main Street Americans (most of whom are polite to a fault). It also does nothing to deflate the egotistical, self-absorbed image most people have of Hollywood stars and celebrities. For a politician that often derides “special interests,” it is curious why you would associate with people whose only interests are themselves.

Moral values were cited as an issue in the last election. While I personally did not buy into this – who could say they are against moral values? – many celebrities and Hollywood in general would never be commended for morality. But with Main Street America and a growing number of even evangelical votes up for grabs this year, it would not behoove you to associate with a crowd that is not only completely out of touch with these voters, but also is (perhaps unfairly) cited as the primary reason for lowering standards in this country. One only needs to look at top grossing movies and CDs to see the messages Hollywood is sending to this country. And while most Americans can discern between entertainment and reality, celebrity actions and words prove that may not be the case in Tinseltown. Even if most of these Americans will see Sex in the City and buy 50 Cent, they expect better from their politicians.

Finally, most celebrities rushing to promote their political views or preferred candidates tend to shoot themselves in the foot far too often, and end up alienating former fans with their vitriol and hurting the politicians they support. Four years ago, John Kerry’s celebrity boosters did not help him one iota. Whoopi Goldberg insulted thousands by telling a bad dirty joke at a fundraiser, and also lost a sponsorship as a result. John Mellencamp called Bush a “cheap thug,” in one of the kinder descriptions used by Kerry’s celebrity supporters. The outcome was so bad Kerry’s team had to repeatedly issue releases saying the celebrities’ comments did not reflect the campaign’s views. We won’t even discuss Michael Moore, whose anti-GOP rhetoric is so divisive that he is kryptonite to anyone appealing to the Independents that will ultimately decide the election.

Senator Obama, celebrities are welcome to say whatever they want. But as our parents told us, you are judged by the company you keep. Associating with celebrities – with their prevalent lifestyles and attitudes – will not endear you to struggling, open-minded and undecided voters. Neither will appearing with celebrities who repeatedly call Bush supporters and Republicans idiots or worse (many of them are thinking of voting for you this year).

The sooner you ban celebrities from your commercials, appearances and fundraising events, the better your chances will be.

They Didn't Give Willie a Chance

2008-06-17T16:02:00.001-04:00

You’re not supposed to take being laid off personally, but I cannot sit back and quietly accept the Mets firing Willie Randolph, a childhood hero that finally got a big chance to manage the New York Mets three years ago and was undeservingly kicked to the curb at 3 a.m. this morning.

Managing a major league baseball team is probably the toughest job in sports. The expectations are enormous and I can think of two managers in my life (Tommy Lasorda and Joe Torre) that got to leave on their own terms. Everyone else gets fired. But managers are not miracle workers, and they’re not responsible for the players’ mistakes on the ball field. Is it Willie’s fault that former ace closer Billy Wagner blew three straight saves? Or that Carlos Delgado is batting .242 while making $16 million a year? Or that Pedro Martinez has been on a seemingly permanent DL and has started just four games this year with only 12 strikeouts?

There are a very small number of managers whose very presence can electrify a team – Jim Leyland is one. But ask Casey Stengel if the Mets teams he managed were the same as the Yankee teams. In baseball, it is largely the General Manager who is charged with acquiring and moving the right players to create a championship. And while Willie did take the Mets to within one out of the pennant in 2006, a real sports fan cannot hold him entirely responsible for the collapse at the end of 2007 and certainly not for the dreadful underachievers like Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran this year. And the bullpen is beyond putrid.

The Mets currently have the second highest payroll in baseball at $137.4 million, but as Washington owner Daniel Snyder and the Steinbrenners have yet to learn, money does not automatically buy you a championship. When the season started, the Mets had the players but I didn’t believe they had the right team. But Willie did not assemble this bunch of slackers. GM Omar Minaya did, but Minaya is still employed because he works well with the Met owners. Remind you of anyone else?

Even if you disagree and think Willie Randolph deserved to be fired, the handling of the situation was absolutely disgraceful and unprofessional. The Mets were on the road and had won two in a row, yet the brass flew in to fire Willie and then sent out a press release in the middle of the night, as if they thought nobody would notice. As of today they have yet to offer a press conference or additional reasons for their actions.

I hope Willie perseveres. He certainly made some mistakes, but he remains a hero and a class act. Here’s hoping he manages again one day with the GM he deserves.

The Newseum is Old News

2008-06-06T11:22:00.002-04:00

I went to an event in Washington D.C. last week and had a lunch at the brand new Newseum, right off the Mall at Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street. While I didn’t have time to see the whole thing, the building is certainly spiffy and has some cool exhibits – including one place where they’ll video you as an anchorman, a First Amendment center and a memorial to journalists killed in the line of duty.

As new as it is, the Newseum also epitomizes much of what is wrong with the mainstream media today. News and journalism is a dynamic medium where citizens now have not only a plethora of choices to get their information, but today’s technology can let everyone be at least an armchair journalist. By the time you get the news it's already happened, and if you get it from a newspaper it's really old. Mainstream media outlets and daily papers are in serious financial trouble, but you'd never know that after looking at the Newseum.

It’s also no secret that many people get information from blogs like this one, download free images from Flickr instead of paying for them at Getty Images, and more people get their everyday news from Web sites like CNN.com and Fox News online instead of their broadcast counterparts. Yet the Newseum only has a small section devoted to the Internet, and I didn’t see anything focused on blogs or other forms of citizen journalism.

Much of the Newseum is focused to yesterday’s older, static images – newspapers, magazines, TV and books. It is fitting that the Newseum has these because that is where much of this belongs – in a museum. When the Washington Post Company gets more income from its Kaplan Testing division than its newspapers, you know the tide is irreversible. I think it’s a mistake to have the bulk of the Newseum’s exhibits centered on the way we used to get the news yesterday. It is the old media’s reluctance to change that is dooming the mainstream media, along with its focus on the superficial and sensational.

Outside the Newseum are print front pages from across the country. While this is interesting, especially for visitors to Washington, it’s not enough of a draw to lure people in – especially with so many other museums around the corner. In fact, the Newseum is not part of the Smithsonian and charges $20 for adults and $13 for kids to get in. Will the family of four visiting from Kansas pay $56 to go here, or nothing to go to the Air & Space Museum three blocks away? For me, the Newseum’s charging for access is similar to the question of why anyone would pay for a daily paper when there are so many ways to get the same information for free. It’s a changing world that the media just doesn’t seem to get, even when it’s building a monument to celebrate its achievements.

More Info:
Why Journalists Hate Journalism

One of My Earlier Media Rants, And Another

Don't Count Your Chickens Yet

2008-06-05T18:01:00.002-04:00

Ding dong, the witch is dead! But beware, the dead have been known to rise again…

Millions of trees and quadrants of cyberspace will be written over the next few months detailing how Hillary thankfully self-destructed. Many of these will be accurate. There’s no need for me to recount them all here, but here’s the best I’ve seen and here’s the second best. But none of them recount what I believe is the true reason, and one which I stated back in October – Hillary is just not a likable person.

That sounds superficial and it is. But Americans won’t vote for someone they dislike, no matter how much money they have, what their last name is or what their positions on the issues are. There is nothing harder than raising a candidate’s unfavorable ratings, and Hillary did absolutely nothing over the course of the campaign to change them.

But nobody ever dreamed that Bill Clinton would become so unlikable as well. The two of them were always attached at the hip, and by acting in such an unpresidential manner Clinton was able to drag his wife’s reputation down with him. The damage he has done to his own legacy is incalculable, and he helped drive the last nails in her coffin.

When you think of the Clintons now, what words come to mind? For me it’s ego, power-driven, unapologetic and narcissistic. If you’re a die-hard Democrat, you should be glad there is finally a nominee, but don’t count your chickens quite yet. Both of them will need to be appeased at the convention. Both of them will have to be given primetime speeches, which make me very nervous (and I’m not a die-hard Democrat). I am confident there will be a further Clinton attempt to sabotage or undermine Obama, possibly close to the election. And should Obama lose, expect them to say, “We told you so,” shortly afterward. Remind you of any psycho ex-girlfriends you know?

Nothing could be worse than Hillary on the VP ticket. This woman is toxic to the entire party and kryptonite to the Independent voters who will decide the election. Would it make sense if the New York Giants had to ask the New England Patriots for permission or advice on their championship parade and Super Bowl rings? The same logic applies to Obama having to check with Hillary on anything from this point forward.

Now, not all is rosy for Obama as well. If anything he stumbled to the finish line losing important states like Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and New Mexico. He needs to shore up support with the beer drinkers who compose most of the base of the party. Unfortunately there is a racial element here that the media will not cover. Many of these Democrats, particularly older ones, will not vote for an African-American candidate. But there’s a long, long way to go.

The Clintons - Unpresidential Communicators

2008-05-27T15:10:00.002-04:00

As a professional communicator, one of my mantras is it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. Yes, I stole it from Frank Luntz, a man I greatly admire. But it speaks volumes about what will hopefully be the final flameout of Hillary Clinton that went down this past weekend.

First, let’s hold our noses and assume Hillary was not implying anything when she said a certain charismatic presidential candidate was assassinated in 1968. Let’s also pretend she didn’t imply anything sinister when she said Obama was not a Muslim, “as far as I know.” And let’s give her yet another pass when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

After her assassination comments (even more poorly timed given Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer diagnosis), Bill Clinton joined her by shoving both his feet in his mouth. He claimed he’d “Never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running,” and that, “she will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't.”

Just who would “they” be, Bill? It’s amazing that in the last six months, Bill Clinton has gone from esteemed ex-president to professional crackpot. People used to wince whenever President Bush opened his mouth. Bill Clinton now shares that same horrendous stigma. He has permanently damaged his legacy, perhaps even more than Monica Lewinsky did.

But both Clintons have failed to understand that even if they said all these words with the best intentions, they failed miserably when it comes to convincing the public. This cuts to the quick of why a growing number of people hate the Clintons – all their communication revolves around whatever is best for them. They may think they’re telling us they are the best choice for the country. But they don’t get that we are hearing nothing except their sense of entitlement. It is a huge turnoff, and their unshameful egotism obviously comes at the expense of the Democratic Party and the majority of Democratic voters and delegates who think otherwise.

If you’re a diehard Democrat, you’re probably shaking your head at all this. But hopefully this has a silver lining and means Hillary is permanently off the list as a VP candidate. Now you only have one more serious worry left – what both of these unbalanced party “leaders” will say at the convention.

More Info:

What the Liberal Blogs Think of The Clintons Now

Blue Dogs -- Ready to Bite

2008-05-22T19:07:00.002-04:00

We don’t know who will be president next year, but it’s safe to say that Congress will remain Democratic. In fact, conventional wisdom states the Democrats will probably add to their majorities in both Houses. What that wisdom is not stating is what kind of Democratic Party will control Congress.

Take a look at the newest Democratic Senators – potential VP nominee Jim Webb, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Nobody will mistake these freshmen for being your stereotypical liberal, big city Democrats. The House members are even more notable for the number of freshmen and women who have joined the Blue Dog Coalition – a group that now numbers 48 and can wield some clout if they stick together.

Much has been written about the three recent special elections where the GOP lost, including the most recent one in Mississippi that had been held by Republicans since 1995 (and was previously held by old school Southern Democratic segregationist Jamie Whitten). But the demographics in this district have not changed – the Democratic candidate has. For example, the new Mississippi Congressman Travis Childers is a successful businessman, is pro-life and anti-gun conrol, but also believes the Iraqi war was a mistake and thinks the middle class deserves better education and lower taxes in their paycheck. Think the Blue Dogs will soon break the 50 number?

I’m starting to see a subtle shift in the Democratic makeup of Congress. Maybe Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is paying off, as is voter backlash against an unpopular president and a lifeless GOP strategy and communication effort. But the Democratic Leadership Committee may not be leading the liberal, tax-and-spend policy the media and John McCain wants you to believe. The new blood tells me very different and interesting changes are approaching.

The Enablers

2008-05-12T18:09:00.002-04:00

Some dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the despots in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan are fortunate to have national resources at their disposal to at least give their oppressed citizens some standard of living. But most dictators like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Cuba’s Castro brothers and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il not only murder and subjugate their own citizens, but also lead the world’s poorest countries due to widespread corruption, sanctions and numerous other reasons. How do these tyrants stay in power so long?

Because in many cases there are one or two countries that enable these companies through foreign aid, trade or support to prop up these dictatorships and keep them running. A lone gunman in a town can be brought down if everyone hunts him down, but if he comes with a gang and has safe houses to hide it will be close to impossible to bring him to justice. Enron and MCI were made possible not by one rogue VP or CEO, but by a glut of greedy executives who didn’t care about their employees, shareholders or customers as long as they got rich at everyone else’s expense. They enabled those meltdowns to happen.

And like those executives, the world’s worst dictators crave power and control more than anything. We are compassionate and naturally expect all politicians to care about their citizens in times of natural disasters, and are shocked when it doesn’t happen (like New Orleans). So many are correctly outraged when the military dictators who rule Burma – who I’ve blogged about before – reject and stymie foreign assistance. They did not warn their citizens about the impending cyclone, or even evacuate them to higher ground. We are baffled why they would refuse visas to foreigners who want to help, or keep foreign food supplies and rescue vehicles out of the country. Why would they be indifferent to the fact that their actions will kill more of their people than the cyclone?

The answers are straightforward: Dictators on the right and left don’t care about public opinion, their citizens’ freedoms, lives or deaths, or raising the country’s standard of living. They only care about themselves. But the main reason these countries don’t collapse economically or through revolution is because there is always one or two countries enabling them. We can pass plenty of sanctions against Burma, but if an enabler like China keeps trading with them it will do little good except make the Burmese people suffer more. Ditto for Zimbabwe – as long as South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to enable Mugabe’s reign of terror it doesn’t matter. As long as China and South Africa keep cutting checks for economic aid and stand by the dictators, nothing will change. Of course, the U.S. is not alone in this – our assistance kept a dictator like the Shah of Iran and the Philippine’s Fernando Marcos in power for years. It was only after we pulled support that those governments fell, and they fell rather quickly.

Last week, China – Burma’s enabler – refused to let the UN Security Council hear a humanitarian chief detail how the Burmese junta refuses to help its people. China claims it didn’t want to politicize the issue. Russia said the same thing. Both countries make big money selling arms to the Burmese military government. If both countries dropped their support or at least twisted some arms in Burma, there might be progress. Don’t expect it to happen. Dictators don’t care what others think, except for their enablers.

More Info: A blogger on the ground in Burma.

Appealing to Main Street

2008-05-05T18:20:00.001-04:00

I’ve spent so much time excoriating Hillary Clinton that I need to step back and remind myself who she is appealing to. In fact, the slash-and-burn technique she is currently using is part desperation, part a preview look at what her presidency would be like and part a reminder that Main Street America rarely elects a candidate on issues.

Most Americans do not have a college education, live paycheck to paycheck, want a better life for themselves and their children, and do not follow the nuances of politics closely. In fact, the limited political knowledge they do have is clouded by cynicism and memories of broken promises. I am absolutely not demeaning or belittling average, Main Street Americans – they work hard and deserve thanks and respect.

But Main Street Americans are not policy wonks like me, and probably you. In this economic climate, Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s ridiculous proposal to lower the gas tax will score points with them. Few of them will have the time to learn it will save an average family about $28, or the money will come out of funds to repair our highways and bridges, or the oil companies will never sit back and allow the government to rapidly raise taxes on their revenues. While most Americans should know this, they have lives to lead and are more concerned with the price of gas right now. It’s not necessarily their fault they don’t know this.

But when Hillary and McCain slam Obama for not supporting gas tax relief, it’s actually smart campaigning to do so. They know Obama’s explanation, as correct as it is, will unfortunately sail over many people’s heads. All his opponents have to say is, “Barack Obama doesn’t want to save you money at the gas pump. He’d rather it go into the pockets of big oil.”

Another X factor was correctly summed up in The New York Times this week: patriotism. Main Street Americans love America and many, unlike their city counterparts and the so-called “elite,” have actually fought for America. They do not look kindly on people who associate with preachers who scream, “Goddamn America.” Whether your next president wears a flag pin or not matters to many people. Some still believe Obama is Muslim, and Hillary has helped fuel the fire.

The Times article stated that only 29 percent of Americans believe Obama is “very patriotic.” The Republicans don’t have much going for them this year. Do you think they’ll make that a wedge issue? Of course they will. In fact, Hillary already has. This is not correct or fair, but it’s the way it is.

All is fair in love, war and campaigning. Now that Hillary has found her niche among Main Street Americans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, she will ride the issues that matter to them as long as she can. Or at least until the polls say otherwise.

Clinton's March

2008-05-02T18:36:00.003-04:00

It was fascinating to watch the Pennsylvania primaries last week. James Carville called the state, “Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other side and Alabama in the middle.” Keeping that in mind, it is becoming increasingly clear how the Democrats are falling apart and how Karl Rove was right once again.

Rove mentioned how there were more beer drinkers than wine sippers in the Democratic Party and Hillary was the choice of the beer drinkers. Stepping further into the Yuengling stereotypes, it’s also clear this is a battle royale that has put the younger, better educated, upper middle class Chardonnay sippers on one side for Obama, and the older, high-school educated, lower middle class Iron City chuggers on the other. And you thought the Democrats had united and abandoned their coalition mentality! Well, at least now we know where everyone stands.

Much has been written about the racial element re-emerging in this campaign. Unfortunately I think that racial element never went away. Recall that Pennsylvania had a closed primary – only registered Democrats could vote. If Obama hangs on and becomes the nominee, that ugliness among less educated and older voters will re-emerge in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

And Hillary? If anything, my opinion of her continues to circle the drain. Her recent gas tax pander is the latest bad idea driven by polls and quick fixes. Branding Obama as an elitist given her background and social status is disgraceful. Someone asked if she remineded me of Gene McCarthy in 1968. I replied her increasingly desperate campaign reminded me more of Sherman’s March in the Civil War. Sherman’s scored earth policy mirrors what she and her husband have done to the Democratic Party – that is, if she can’t win the nomination she’ll do everything possible to make sure Obama won’t win it either. And if she does win, the Party will be so divided and damaged that all of the excitement, money and new supporters Obama gift wrapped for the party will die away. But as long as she wins, that’s unimportant.

Great for Democracy, Doom for the Democrats

2008-04-18T17:59:00.005-04:00

Are you sick of the Democratic primary? Does your formerly high opinion of Bill Clinton keep sinking? Don’t worry you’re not alone. While the media focuses on flag lapels and the horse race, the key factors that are better indicators of popular support – fundraising and likeability – tell the better story.

Here’s the latest tabulation from the Washington Post. Head down to question four, and notice the whopping unfavorable numbers for Hillary AND Bill Clinton. Hillary’s are unsurprising, as her unfavorable rating has never been below 40%. Bill Clinton, a president I used to hold in high regard, has now hit 51% unfavorable. Both Clintons are faring worse the longer the campaign drags on.

This long primary is good for our overall democracy. It is horrible for the Democratic Party. There are two possibilities left. The first is Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and Democrats will once again have nominated a terrible candidate that is disliked by most of the country, and all the new voters and energy Obama has brought to the Party completely dissipates. Americans obviously will not vote for someone they don’t like. You can call the race over right there.

The other possibility is Hillary refuses to fall on her sword and fights and scratches all the way to the convention. The gulf between the candidates and their supporters grow wider. Some delegates refuse to support Obama if he becomes the candidate, and many supporters refuse to unite and help their Party’s candidate win. Superdelegates meet behind closed doors to determine the final outcome. It could get worse before the smoke clears out of that room.

In some twisted sense, I admire Hillary’s determination and refusal to quit. But she’s not running for sixth grade president here. The damage she’s done to both herself and her husband’s legacy is enormous. Her campaign has been horribly managed from Day One. She’s never met an unverified rumor or public opinion poll finding she didn’t try to co-opt or plagiarize. And worst of all if you’re a Democrat, she is very capable of pulling a Carrie White and destroying the whole party if she doesn’t get what she thinks she deserves.

Debate Disgust

2008-04-17T17:36:00.002-04:00

Last night I did something I hadn’t done so far this year – watch a Democratic debate. I expected someone (I won’t say who, but you can guess who she is) to completely disgust me, insult the American people’s intelligence and leave us all with a feeling of upcoming doom. That happened, except it goes to George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for asking the most vapid and worst questions possible. Most people would want to know what these candidates would do about the economy, Iraq, health care, the environment, terrorism, inflation and a host of other issues.

Here are the questions these two formerly esteemed “journalists” asked:

· Why wouldn’t one of them be the other’s VP choice
· Addressing Obama’s recent “bitterness” comment on rural voters
· Asking Clinton if Obama could beat McCain and if he could win at all
· Two questions asking Obama about Rev. Wright’s comments from Gibson
· Two more questions asking Obama about Rev. Wright’s comments from Stephanopoulos
· Asking Clinton about the Bosnia trip where she falsely claimed to be under enemy fire
· Asking Obama if Clinton was being truthful about her past
· Asking Obama why he doesn’t wear a flag lapel
· Asking Obama about William Ayers of the Weather Underground
· Asking both candidates about potential withdrawal from Iraq (we are now at about the 50 minute mark)
· Asking about how they would respond to an Iranian attack on Israel
· Asking about raising taxes on the middle class
· Asking about the capital gains tax
· Asking about the payroll tax
· A couple of questions about gun control
· Asking Obama about affirmative action
· Asking about gas prices
· Asking about energy independence
· Asking about how George W. Bush could help them
· Asking how they would talk to the superdelegates

No substantive questions until 50 minutes in. One question about Iraq. Cursory questions about the environment and the economy. Repeated questions about gun control and affirmative action, which don’t even come up in the polls. And nothing on health care. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about history, and I don’t have the slightest idea who William Ayers is (how many regular people watching do?) But of course the flag pin issue was brought up. Thank God Gibson was booed at the end.

I’ve ranted before about the ineptitude of the mainstream media, and also how the media is aiding the overall superficiality of our culture. But this was not a reality show or entertainment update. One of those two people onstage last night could be our next president. To serve them a bunch of softballs while so many Americans are looking for leadership in a time of war and economic downturn was insulting. Nobody who watched last night ended up with anything of substance, we did not learn more about the candidates and I don’t think it helped make up anyone’s mind in Pennsylvania.

Fortunately, George and Charlie will have trouble sitting today thanks to the new ones everyone has ripped them. Here’s Tom Shales, and the comments on ABC News. As of now there are 16,683 comments and skimming around I saw one positive one. Some people say Stephanopoulos was fed comments by FOX News. I think FOX would have done a better job, because it may have had the nerve to actually ask candidates some hardballs on the issues. They certainly would not have been worse.

What Goes Around Comes Around

2008-03-12T14:11:00.003-04:00

Eliot Spitzer doesn’t seem to be a particularly big or threatening fellow, but bullies come in all shapes and sizes. Some are the physical bullies of grade school who take your lunch money under the flagpole. Others are the more cowardly, big-mouthed verbal ones like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter that hide behind desks while spewing vitriol. All are thin-skinned cowards who are addicted to power, eschewing negotiation and using confrontation to get what they want.

Bullies are good for things like loan sharking (which is where most of the schoolyard ones will end up) or for the partisan bloviating that passes for political debate on mainstream media outlets since they’re good on TV. But they do not make good politicians, where compromise and relationships are only accomplished by meeting your adversaries halfway. This, along with his idiotic turn as Client 9, made Eliot Spitzer's downfall the fitting end to a hubristic governor that, in the end, alienated and tried to bully everyone.

I don’t follow New York state politics that closely, but last year I spoke at a conference where a speaker on my panel detailed Spitzer’s difficult first year in office. I was legitimately surprised by Spitzer’s actions, especially his vendetta against Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno – a man he would need to work with to get anything accomplished for the citizens of New York. What on earth would possess a governor to do such an inadvisable thing? The speaker believed that Spitzer was still acting as a prosecutor who saw anyone who disagreed with him as an enemy that needed to be squashed like a bug. These actions correctly led the majority of New Yorkers who voted for Spitzer to abandon him. His actions this week caused his die-hard supporters to do the same.

Of course, Spitzer made his name prosecuting white collar, Wall Street types in the anti-Enron atmosphere of five to six years ago. Sure, many of these executives were making too much money while their stock tanked and ordinary workers were downsized. But how many of the executives Spitzer accused were actually indicted or convicted? Very, very few. Most settled for fines and minor changes in their operations to quickly make the charges disappear, but by accepting these pleas Spitzer never really was able to prove these charges in court, which left a bitter taste in many business leaders mouths, and undisputed schadenfreude at his end. Even former NYSE Dick Grasso, the king of executive compensation excess, remains uncharged and still counting his hundreds of millions.

The media loved Attorney GeneralSpitzer, since even perceived and unproven executive malfeasance makes good copy. But this story from a Wall Street Journal editorialist who said Spitzer was going too far speaks volumes about this bully when Spitzer called him and said the following:

"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I
will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and
you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written
that letter."

Just like any tragedy, it’s easy to look back and see the warning signs – Spitzer’s unreported loan to his 1994 campaign, his inability even charge executives after publicly naming them, the disastrous idea to find dirt on politicians who did not share his views. Even Spitzer’s use of the Martin Act, an incredibly obscure law passed in 1921 before entities like the FDIC and SEC were established to protect consumers, should have set off alarm bells for civil libertarians. The Act, which gives “broad power to prosecute any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of any false pretense, representation, or promise,” meant Spitzer did not even have to build a case before charging others with crimes.

In the end, Spitzer got what was coming to him. Bullies always do. I earlier asked why politicians are held to a higher moral standard, when celebrities today are celebrated for their lack of morals. Part of the answer is that way more is expected of them. We should expect attorneys to honor and uphold the law, and governors to do what is best for the citizens of their states. Spitzer did neither. He was just another bully.

Smearing John McCain

2008-02-28T12:32:00.002-05:00

The New York Times certainly is doing its best to help John McCain’s credentials and fundraising among hard-line conservatives with its second bogus attack against the senator in less than a week. We would expect this yellow journalism from a third-rate newspaper or partisan blog or web site that circulates propaganda and smear tactics instead of facts or bona fide news. But seeing The New York Times wallow in the mud with these anti-stories is making it increasingly difficult to defend.

Today’s smear questions whether John McCain can run for president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (and you thought smearing Barack Obama for living in Indonesia for a year was low). According to the Constitution, anyone running for president must be 35 and a “natural-born” citizen. The latter point is generally accepted as someone who was born in the 50 states and was not born outside the country, although this is not officially declared in any laws or bylines.

When McCain was born in 1936, the United States still owned the Panama Canal and the entire Panama Canal Zone was considered sovereign U.S. territory. That alone should squash any left-wing claims to the contrary, although we’ll doubtless see reports trying to determine whether the hospital where McCain was born was in the zone or not.

The Times also lists several other candidates who were born abroad who ran for president without controversy, although none were successful. These include Mitt Romney’s father (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and Barry Goldwater (born in the Arizona territory before it became a state). Interestingly, if you want to take the constitution’s language literally, then none of our first seven presidents would qualify to run for office because they were all born before July 4, 1776, meaning they were born in the British colonies and not in the true United States of America. Martin Van Buren would then be the first “natural born” president since he was born in 1782. This also may be why Alexander Hamilton never ran for president, as he was born on the island of Nevis – while other founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson were born on what was to be U.S. soil.

Personally, I think naturalized citizens should be able to run for president. I believe that new U.S. citizens are much more appreciative and understanding of the freedoms that too many of us “natural born” folks take for granted. In studying for their citizenship tests, they probably learn more about our history than most of the masses. I’ll bet they’re also more likely to vote, start a business, speak freely and work hard because many of them come from countries where none of those things were possible. They try to accomplish the American Dream so their children will have a better life, just as my great-grandparents did when they immigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia over a century ago.

Besides naturalized individuals, the Times tempest in a drop of tea also brings up other questions. What about people born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or Guam? Can they run for president? It’s bad enough that people who live in Washington, D.C. still have taxation without representation.

Nobody would ever question McCain’s patriotism, service to his country or ability to serve as president and commander-in-chief. It’s disgraceful that The New York Times is resorting to foul methods to discredit him. Just as Michael Moore helped Bush get re-elected, the NY Times could accomplish the same feat for McCain if it keeps this up.

Leave Ralph Nader Alone

2008-02-26T11:13:00.001-05:00

Ralph Nader has every right to waste his time on another quixotic presidential campaign. What’s getting tiring is Democrats and liberals whining about him being a spoiler and siphoning votes away from their candidates.

For the last time: Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore lost that election all by himself. If he had run a better campaign and been a better candidate, he would have generated enough support and excitement to win his home state of Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and other states where third party votes made a difference.

We should all be thankful for Nader’s battles for consumers earlier in his lifetime. Without him there would be no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belts and airbags. Nader can also be considered a grandfather of the entire PIRG movement, which led at least indirectly to the creation of the EPA, OSHA and scores of non-governmental organizations that have improved the voice of the average citizen in Washington. He also made the government more transparent and accountable through laws like the Freedom of Information Act.

As for Nader’s political views, they speak for themselves. His current vision of slashing the defense budget by double digits would require hundreds of thousands of layoffs and gut the military-industrial complex that has driven technology and employment in America for over 50 years. It would also show our enemies we are not serious about defending ourselves and would tremendously jeopardize our homeland security. He clearly has no chance of winning.

But please let Ralph run his campaign. Don’t call him a spoiler or blame him for other candidates’ mistakes. What’s great about America is that anyone can run for public office, and in local races independent and third party candidates have a legitimate shot of winning if they can raise enough money and have a good grassroots organization. Ralph Nader’s 2000 vote tally showed he was on to something, and it was Gore’s fault he did not anticipate Nader’s popularity at the time and take him more seriously. And as for Nader’s 2000 proclamation that it wouldn’t matter if Gore or Bush was elected because they were practically the same candidate – well, you can decide if he was right on that one as well.

Much Ado About Nothing

2008-02-25T12:13:00.002-05:00

There were three big developments this week, which I will rank in order of patheticness.

1) The Plagiarism Non-Issue: As Hillary’s campaign began its hopeful final downward spiral, she comes out with the charge that Obama has plagiarized speeches and sayings from our own Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. The similarities between the two candidates are unmistakable. Since Patrick doesn’t care, it’s a dead issue. And it’s tough for Clinton to make this claim when she co-opted the change mantra and the “Yes we Can!” cry from Obama, not to mention the race card from Karl Rove.

I’ll delve into the parallels between Obama and Patrick if Hillary finally goes down, because there are similarities. Patrick’s motto was “Together We Can.” In the best anti-sign defacing I’ve ever seen, I saw one of his signs read, “Together We Can…What?” Man cannot run by hope alone.

2) McCain vs. NY Times: A paper that had finally started to return to respectability gets knocked down yet again with prominent notion to a complete non-story. It’s hardly a news flash that most lobbyists provide invaluable knowledge, support and, yes, donations to politicians to advance their agendas. Private citizens do the same thing. Campaign donations do not buy votes. That would be bribery, and you can count the number of federal politicians convicted of bribery during the last eight years on one hand with fingers to spare. The money buys access, which is certainly not the way it should be but unfortunately is the way it is. But this is all perfectly legal. For all of McCain’s talk against “special interests,” he uses special interests as much as any other state or federal politicians, especially with his work on the Armed Services, Commerce and Indian Affairs committees.

I truly have no idea what the Times was trying to accomplish with this story, and I can’t believe an editor like Bill Keller let it run unless he let his personal feelings trump his journalistic integrity. Were they trying to embarrass McCain, who had no reason to be embarrassed for anything? Were they trying to catch him in a sexual scandal, when there was zero evidence of one? It has done one thing – united more conservatives behind him who used the Times story as a rallying cry. Donations to McCain’s campaign exploded after it ran. And here's a huge overview of what the blogosphere said.

3) Hillary Goes Wild!: Watching Hillary pretend to be angry because her opponent had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to criticize her health care strategy was humorous and horrific at the same time. It was like watching a professional wrestler trying to intimidate a fake opponent before they go into a ring for a beating everyone knows is coming to them. When this sad spectacle is hopefully over soon, Hillary will go down as a warning to any future candidate that thinks they can easily win by flip flopping to poll results, and sycophantic consultants who refuse to tell the empress she has no clothes. Her clumsy lurches from nice to nasty and back again do not leave a good impression with undecided voters, and her new reliance on crying when she doesn’t get her way reminds me of my three-year-old. You can sense the panic setting in that she may not get what she wants, and if she can’t maturely handle rejection on the campaign trail, let alone successfully manage a campaign for the long haul, she has no business being in the White House.

Superdelegates and the Democratic Elite

2008-02-13T10:57:00.003-05:00

Quick – when was the last time a political party entered its nominating convention without an official nominee? It was 1968, when the Democrats entered their very ill-fated convention in Chicago. What people remember were the huge fights and protests with the Chicago police and on the convention floor. What people have forgotten were the huge fights and protests within the Democratic party, when closed-door backroom deals gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, a decision that satisfied nobody except the party’s elite, led to howls of dissension among Democratic voters and a terrible candidate who lost to Nixon.

In response to Humphrey’s shellacking inside and outside the party, the McGovern-Fraser commission was established to make the process more transparent. Naturally George McGovern, who was probably planning to run for president at the time, took advantage of this to become the Democratic nominee in 1972, which became the worst Democratic loss in modern history. However, the commission’s recommendations did move the selection process from the convention (where the nominee was often decided in secret by the elite) to the primaries (where voters decide the nominee and everything is in the open). Republicans largely adopted this practice shortly afterward.

But after another huge loss in 1980, the Democrats decided to fix what wasn’t broken and initiated the superdelegate concept. The “superdelegates” is a throwback to the British House of Lords and has the possibility of usurping popular sovereignty, and causing protests in the Democratic Party that will make 1968 look like a tea party.

Superdelegates, which compose about 20% of all Democratic delegates, are basically elected party leaders that compose the establishment and the elite in local and state politics. Here in Massachusetts, superdelegates include Governor Patrick, both senators, most or all congressmen and various Democratic leaders. It’s basically a nanny system made up of the leaders to make sure the kids (the voters and regular plebian delegates) don’t go crazy making rash decisions, such as making sure the person who gets the most votes is the nominee. Superdelegates made their mark in 1984 when Gary Hart won more primaries than Walter Mondale, but Mondale had lined up all the superdelegates beforehand and was easily nominated, leading to the second worst Democratic loss in modern history. Yep, those party elites sure understand the voters.

With Obama’s February sweep, he is now leading in popular votes and delegate count, but he’s still behind in superdelegates. Since superdelegates can flip flop their votes and support, Clinton’s count here is not ironclad but she still has the party elite behind her. If neither candidate hits the 2,025 mark before the convention there will be a major fight at the convention. And it is very, very possible that the 700 or so superdelegates will then meet in secret and decide that since most of them are Clinton backers, they will make her the nominee, completely subjugating the will of the people and their own party.

Could it happen? Yes it could. I believe the Clintons will do any fair or foul trick possible to keep the party in their grip, and you may see a throwback to the smoke-filled rooms of machine- and boss-dominated politics that used to determine party candidates no matter what the people wanted. Should Obama continue his surge but Clinton maintains her role as champion of the superdelegates, there could be a true old-school convention showdown this summer.

More Info:

You know the Democratic Party could have trouble when The Nation criticizes the superdelegate process.

A good overview in Commentary. Includes quotes from some leading Democrats on what they'll do if the superdelegates decide the nominee.

Democratic Reality Check

2008-02-07T18:05:00.000-05:00

With all the hype and excitement surrounding Obama, the time is overdue for a Democratic reality check.

Even the most partisan, die-hard Democrat can admit in hindsight the party has a stunning ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Already I can see overconfident Democrats and the media buzzing with the excitement of election inevitability, no matter who is nominated. Sorry, but it IS the candidate, stupid. With most Americans either independent, unenrolled or apathetic, the candidate with the most appeal to the masses (buttressed by the proper language and image) and charisma tends to win. It’s like running for student body president – popularity and messaging trumps issues. The smartest person doesn’t deserve to win, nor the richest (although money helps). "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.

So with that in mind, let’s review the two Democrats left standing. Obama had a huge fundraising month in January with $32 million raised, while Clinton raised $16 million and just lent herself $5 million to keep up. Fundraising is a terrific gauge and measure of popular support. Obama originated and continues to run on a message of change and hope, while Hillary also began using the “hope” message when the polls said it was what voters wanted. Hillary also brought the ugly factors of race and gender into the campaign (she alternates between using her gender as an excuse to vote for her and a liability when she’s being attacked), using her aides, allies and husband as attack dogs. Bill Clinton – remember how admired he used to be? – has made snide comments deriding Obama’s grade-school desire to be president, comparing his South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson and lied about his own comments on Iraq. He has brought irreparable damage to his reputation and his wife’s campaign in the process, and is now back on the sidelines.

Obama, meanwhile, has dominated the recent rounds of debates. He has huge crowds in Idaho -- Idaho! He is the darling of the media, which skew leftward and help frame so much of the debate. His favorable ratings eclipse Hillary’s by a longshot, especially among the undecideds in places like Ohio and Florida that decide the election. He has become a hero among Generation Y and those old enough to vote in their first election (although whether they end up voting is an open question). In short, he is certainly the person best qualified to represent the party if the Democrats want to win the White House.

Now look at Super Tuesday’s results. Obama won more states by larger majorities that tend to be red – Kansas, Colorado, Georgia and Alaska. Clinton won the states that are largely blue, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. It’s still a close race. But when you look at the delegate and superdelegate count Clinton is winning, especially among the Democratic base (who Rove calls the “beer drinkers” and who the media ignores). And these are the people who vote in primaries. There is still an excellent chance she will be the nominee, and have zero shot against McCain because he won the same states as Obama and polls well with the same people who would vote for Obama.

Does Obama deserve to win? It doesn’t matter; “deserve” has nothing to do with it. This is the Democratic Party. This is the party that still had no identity until Obama supplied it with one. This is the party that has nominated vapid candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry. This is the party that lost to George W. Bush – twice. This is the party that may nominate someone who 40% of the population said they will never, ever vote for.

Have the Democrats forgotten that both Clintons have too much scandal and dirty laundry surrounding them? Have they realized that much of the country has neither forgotten nor will ever forgive the Clintons for some of their actions in the White House? Do they see that the GOP is on its knees and they have the new JFK and RFK fighting the party’s own base, establishment and former president for the nomination? Will they notice that despite the candidate’s unabashed liberalism, he has huge appeal to Republicans and Independents alike, almost all of whom will never vote for Hillary?

If Obama doesn’t win the nomination – especially with the huge fundraising and favorability advantages he has – because the Democratic base and establishment don’t want him, they deserve more than to lose in November. They deserve to lose all the new converts to the party. They deserve to lose the excitement and passion that Obama has gift-wrapped for them. They deserve another four years of wandering in the wilderness. I don’t know if it will happen. But based on the Democrats’ history and their recent candidates, I can’t say I’ll be surprised if it does.

UPDATE: It's always nice when someone as smart as Nicholas Kristof backs you up.

My Party or Yours?

2008-01-22T16:18:00.000-05:00

I regard David Brooks’ column today as manna from heaven, especially if you are an independent, undecided voter like me who is disgusted with the ideological partisans that dominate both political parties. It’s bad enough when both parties keep pushing preferred candidates that voters reject. It’s worse when these ideologues hijack the meaning of words like ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ and kick people out of the tent when they have the nerve to disagree with one of the party’s platforms. Are you pro-life and like smaller government, but don’t want to completely close the nation’s borders? Then the people who run the Republican Party don’t want you. Same with the Democrats if you are pro-choice and pro-labor, but have the nerve to support the death penalty.

When parties start pushing their choices on the public too hard, the tail will stop wagging the dog. This election is already drawing large voter turnout and huge public interest, and this country can ill afford to have the mediocre, divisive, party-anointed candidates as official nominees if they don’t want them or like them.

With no clear front-runner in either party, you can see both parties starting to get torn asunder from within. On the Democratic side, former President Clinton has been relegated to his wife’s attack dog, which has the potential of undermining his entire legacy among the wine-swillers who once loved him so much. While the public and the media wants Obama, the Clintons and the party elite want Hillary no matter how distasteful she is to the non-partisans who refuse to completely tow the party line, let alone the 500,000 independents in Florida and Ohio who will decide the election.

I’ve neglected the Republican side in all this lately, but it could be worse there than the Democratic side. Again, you can see the public surging behind McCain and Huckabee, while the self-appointed arbiters of conservatism push for Romney and Thompson (whose quixotic campaign came to a merciful end today) because of their self-adherence to the laundry list of what partisans think every GOP candidate must possess.

You’d think both parties would either want the public to determine who the best candidate is, or get behind the candidate that has the most appeal to the general public in November. But that would require people from Ann Coulter and Grover Norquist to Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi to make room in their tent for anyone who dares to have a differing opinion. Should Hillary or Romney get the nomination, these so-called leaders will be like Nero fiddling while what’s left of their party flees the burning city.

Karl Rove on Hillary's Victory

2008-01-15T11:14:00.000-05:00

Just a few scattered comments for now. Who better to explain Hillary’s resurgence than Karl Rove? If you’re lucky enough to have a Wall Street Journal subscription you need to read this. If not, here are the best nuggets:

Sen. Hillary Clinton won working-class neighborhoods and less-affluent rural
areas. Sen. Barack Obama won the college towns and the gentrified neighborhoods
of more affluent communities. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton won the beer
drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd. And there are more beer drinkers than
wine swillers in the Democratic Party.

So could it be Obama is capturing the limousine liberal, Harvard Square, Upper West Side vote? And Clinton the true Democratic base which, if Rove is correct, is more receptive to the recent negative campaigning and race-baiting that are becoming her modus operandi? The Democrats remain a coalition party, and if Hillary is aiming to lose a few members of the coalition to win the wider war by any means necessary, that is actually not a bad strategy. Of course, she will remain above it all while everyone from aides like Bill Shaheen to associates like Robert Johnson and even her husband attack Obama from every angle.

Here’s Rove’s best observation:

While Mr. Obama can draw on the deep doubts of many Democrats about Mrs.
Clinton, he can't close out the argument. Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure
playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First
Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too. When it comes to
making the case against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama comes across as a
vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson. His rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at
times, has been too often light as air.

Here in Massachusetts, we had a similar gubernatorial campaign last year when Deval Patrick won on a similar message of unification, hope and prosperity without offering a single concrete proposal. Patrick just finished what can charitably described as a difficult first year in office, where he was plagued by missteps and could not see eye to eye with an entrenched Massachusetts legislature, even though he is also a Democrat.

Obama is going to have to deliver a knockout punch in the next few weeks, either in South Carolina on the 26th or Florida on the 29th, hopefully both. Should he fail, there are going to be lots of disaffected and forlorn “wine swillers” and Independents who will never vote for her. McCain Democrats, anyone?

One last point other bloggers have mentioned. When George W. Bush first became president, his father said he was not going to interfere in any way. It’s safe to say that definitely happened. If Hillary is elected president, you KNOW that Bill Clinton will be involved in quite the opposite matter. Both of them are love ‘em or hate ‘em figures. But that’s just what this country needs to get the partisanship and gridlock out of politics, right?

New Hampshire Surprise

2008-01-09T10:42:00.000-05:00

So you thought the voters wanted change, huh?

I think one thing everyone (including me) needs to acknowledge is that despite the front-loaded primary schedule this year, this is a marathon and not a sprint. Perhaps we were all a bit too eager to pin the nominee label on Obama – and it’s quite clear who the media is pushing in this race now. And as I thought, it’s also quite clear who the GOP wants to win. A quick look here reveals the telling quote – “We might get our chance at Hillary if Obama can’t do it.” Truer words have never been spoken. Vote for Hillary, and you’re ensuring another four years of Republicans in the White House.

So what happened? It was unseasonably warm in New Hampshire yesterday with highs in the 60s, which turned into a huge turnout. Also in New Hampshire independents can vote for either party, so that took some independent votes away from Obama and toward McCain, who also polls well with them. And we’ve all read Maureen Dowd this morning, but it could just be that Hillary’s emotional breakdown showed she actually may have a soul underneath all that plastic after all. Some have written about how that moment made women vote for her. I don’t even pretend to know enough about women to pontificate on how the female mind works, so I’m not even going there.

Some have cited “experience” as the reason for going with Hillary. I’m unconvinced by this explanation. If voters truly value experience, they would have voted for Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Christopher Dodd, who each have more political experience than Hillary does. Funny how experience never emerges in GOP circles as an attribute.

Romney’s campaign is in serious trouble now. Massachusetts politicians have always done well in New Hampshire (Kerry won in 2004 and even Paul Tsongas won here in 1992), and he has been organized here long before any other candidate. And does anyone remember the former front runner, Rudy Giuliani? Whatever happened to him? Does he really expect to take the next month off and then emerge from nowhere to recapture the lead? Who is advising this guy, and why is he listening to them?

One last thought: I’ve previously mentioned the dangers of having two families dominate politics in America. We have a new intern at my real job that was born in 1989. That means that I am not only old, but during her entire life either a Bush or Clinton has run the country. She represents a new generation that will vote in its first election. Just how will voting for Hillary “change” America? If her name was Hillary Smith, would she have any consideration or be taken this seriously as a candidate?

More Info: Complete NH polling results

Viva la Revolucion!

2008-01-04T15:00:00.000-05:00

Wow! It’s only the first step but exciting things can even happen in Iowa. What we saw last night was extremely encouraging – a complete renunciation of both parties’ preferred candidates and the overall establishment. Obama and Huckabee are outsiders in their own parties who had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to combat uninspiring and unpopular front-runners pushed by the insiders. And both of them pulled it off. Kudos to both, and I do wish them continued success.

Just like you, I believed Hillary’s nomination was inevitable and was already counting the Democrats out. She is now in a truly difficult situation (wipe that smile off your face). The only way to bring him down now is to go negative and attack. Unfortunately, voters are less convinced when a female candidate fights dirty, and it has a very strong potential to further backfire. If she finishes second in New Hampshire, you can drive the stake in. If she pulls it off, prepare for a long and ugly road ahead.

And Mike Huckabee? I’m with Andrew Sullivan on this: He is the perfect candidate for today’s GOP. If you build a theocratic base, you will get a theocratic candidate. Huckabee is a Baptist preacher who thinks the world is 6,000 years old. He seems to have no clue about current events. He knows nothing about foreign policy. He is pushing a populist tax scheme that sounds deceptively easy and, if enacted, would lead this country to a very deep recession, and longtime Republican supporters in the business world know it. But as long as he wants to ban abortion and homosexuality, then the GOP base doesn’t care. And unlike our current “compassionate conservative” leader, Huckabee really does seem to be compassionate about the less fortunate. As Arkansas governor, he continually raised taxes to help improve social services for poor families. He’ll be trounced in a general election and I’d never vote for him, but I do wish Huckabee the best. It’s a pleasure to see blowhards like Limbaugh stew over this because voters have the unmitigated gall to not do what he tells them to. And did you notice Ron Paul got 10% of the vote? There’s definitely a revolution brewing here, even more than in the Democratic Party.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was whining to my wife about the potential of having Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, the two most plastic, unlikable, polarizing, lying flip floppers in the race today being the candidates. This time next month, that could be just a very bad dream the entire country had at once.

On to New Hampshire, a state I know pretty well. The state is dominated by classic New England Independents – socially liberal, fiscally conservative and deeply distrustful of evangelicals or anyone else telling them what to do. Ron Paul and John McCain will do better here. Stay tuned.

As Iowa Caucuses...

2008-01-03T17:20:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year and hope you’re ready for 366 days of presidential campaign overload. First up: The people who don’t understand how the Iowa caucus works. I’d like to see a poll of how many people in Iowa don’t understand it. Warren Buffet said if you don’t understand what a company does, don’t buy its stock. How many people blogging and bloviating about the Iowa caucus understand it?

I don’t know, but I’m heartened by the latest polls that show integrity may be making a comeback. Obama appears to be the Democratic frontrunner, and also appears to be ahead in New Hampshire, whose primary is a much easier process to comprehend. Should Clinton lose, watch for Bill to be permanently attached to her side for the next week in a desperate attempt to prop her up. It has been fascinating and entertaining to watch this terrible candidacy lurch from bad to worse. Whether it’s been race-baiting, smearing Obama as a Muslim, Bill falsely saying he never approved of the Iraq War and Hillary campaigning with her mother and daughter in a dire attempt to combat her huge negative ratings with women, Democrats will be doing their party a huge favor if she fails.

Future campaign managers should study Hillary and the equally vapid and virulent Mitt Romney as future textbook examples in how not to run. Much has been written about the Boston Herald’s, Concord Monitor’s and the New Hampshire Union-Leader’s anti-endorsement of Romney. These are three conservative papers in blue state country. All three know Romney very well from his time in Massachusetts. Their knowledge and experience speak volumes. To paraphrase myself, Republicans will be doing their party a huge favor if he fails.

Finally, read this fascinating editorial on John Edwards from an editor at Boomer Market Advisor, a financial publication aimed at financial advisors and planners.

The populist rhetoric of John Edwards kills me. "The gap between rich and poor is widening at a frightening pace," he trumpets. "We must do more to ensure income equality." Never mind that he lives in a 25,000 square foot house, gets $90,000 to give a speech about poverty and is an associate at hedge fund Fortis Investments (advocates for the poor peg hedge funds as a major contributor to wealth disparity)...I find it ironic that he calls for greater retirement saving while at the same time doing all he can to ensure more regulation and lower returns within retirement accounts. His proposal reads like a textbook case for class action tort lawyers. Knowing Edwards, what else could we expect?

Obviously the editor is biased toward his audience, but these are points worth mentioning. Also, guess who have been Edwards’ biggest supporters?

More Info: Here’s how the Iowa caucus works. I’ve seen legal contracts that are easier to understand.

Death of the Dapper, and More

2007-12-21T11:06:00.000-05:00

If you don’t live in Boston, today’s death of Albert “Dapper” O’Neil at 87 means nothing to you. I’ll address more on Dapper himself in a moment, but no matter where you live there is a Dapper O’Neil in your city or town.

Your version of Dapper is someone who has been involved with city or town politics his or her entire life. They are correctly labeled as “old school” and often espouse personal and political views that may have been fashionable when your parents or grandparents were young, yet are now hopelessly outdated. While time and politics have evolved, your Dapper O’Neil continues to act as if nothing has changed and is often excoriated for his or her beliefs, and is often labeled a nuisance at best or a roadblock to progress (to be polite) at worst. Yet despite their firebrand and polarizing personalities, your Dapper O’Neil has legions of devoted fans and constituents. These people see your Dapper O’Neil as a throwback to what they consider the golden days and are fiercely loyal, knowing that without their beloved representative (who is often everyone else’s headache) there would be no bastion of decency or contact in City Hall, the town meeting or even Capitol Hill.

Dapper O’Neil, whose obituary is here, served on the Boston City Council from 1971 to 1999. Nobody typified the old Irish Catholic Boston political stereotype better. On one hand if you approached O’Neil for help with a problem, or you happened to be a blue collar Caucasian, you had a friend for life. If you were anybody else, God help you. There was no bigger foe of school integration or gays marching in Southie’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade. If you thought hippies, liberals and abortion were ruining America, Dapper was your man. If you hated political correctness and didn’t think it was inappropriate to say “Nice gams!” to a woman as she walked by, Dapper would like you. Think of Archie Bunker as a city councilor, and you’ve got Dapper in a nutshell.

And yet, despite all this, Dapper also had a heart. He openly acknowledged he could not and would not change with the times. Here is Kevin Cullen’s tribute, which also mentions the Archie Bunker angle. It seems that everyone has two memories of Dapper, and they tend to be one of him screaming at blacks during the busing riots of the 1970s and the other one of his admiration of fellow city councilor David Scondras, who happened to be openly gay.

Dapper’s hero was legendary Boston Mayor James Curley, another Irish Catholic who served time as mayor and in jail (including part of one mayoral stint in jail). Like other legendary Boston politicians – including Billy Bulger, Ray Flynn and Kevin White – he was Catholic first and was extremely socially conservative. And as the 90s went on, Dapper was seen more as an anachronism and throwback. When he finally lost his election in 1999, it was seen as a sign of progress and moving the deadwood out of City Hall. You could hear liberals and immigrants alike sigh with relief.

Dapper’s death, of course, has set off well-intentioned tributes and some additional longing for the good old days when councilors knew all their constituents by name. It’s easy to remember Dapper’s faults. For every chuckle (O’Neil once rented a truck in the early 1970s and threw soap at hippies) there’s a worse embarrassment (the crack about Vietnamese immigrants in Dorchester was disgraceful). But then you also read Cullen’s story about O’Neil helping a Haitian immigrant navigate through Boston zoning laws, and you start changing your mind. You also get the feeling by now that if you had asked City Hall to fill the pothole on your street for a month with no avail, you could get fed up and call Dapper. And you know that Dapper would not only have the crews out there in an hour, but he would also show up, apologize profusely to you and then scream at the crew for your amusement the entire time.

So the reality about these old school politicians, especially as the tributes pile up, is a bit more complicated. Consider the Dapper in your neighborhood. You probably wish he or she would just go away. But if they did, what would happen to the interests of the middle class town residents they champion? And who would you call to get your street plowed or pothole filled?

More Info: How Dapper Got Out the (Female) Vote

Comments on Howie Carr's Tribute: Far better than the tribute itself

GOP Desperation

2007-12-12T18:08:00.000-05:00

Frank Luntz said the Democrats were in trouble when they became known as the angry party. They were way too serious, ran dour campaigns on gloom and doom platforms, and just never, ever smiled. The media still doesn’t get that likeability is a huge issue in any election – people won’t vote for someone they don’t like or who talks down to them, and that probably explains why Huckabee is starting to make inroads. He’s the only Republican candidate that seems like a legitimately nice guy.

But how times have changed! The GOP is now the party of hate. They hate immigrants. They hate homosexuals. They hate Mormons. They hate the poor. They hate the environment. In short, they seem to hate everyone who thinks differently from them. The one thing they all seem to like is war, whether it’s in Iraq or against Iran or elsewhere. No wonder the GOP electorate is undecided and the leading candidates are having trouble breaking away from the pact.

I’m not a Republican but watching this has been like watching a has-been athlete trying to make an ill-advised comeback. For years the GOP has been so good on messaging and communicating with voters. When you can get George W. Bush elected president twice and a Republican Congress in power for 12 years, you don’t have a superior product as much as you have good messaging. And it’s amazing how fast it has all come to an end.

I never thought I would see Rudy Giuliani, a man who I greatly respected and admired this time last year shaking hands with Pat Robertson, a virulent demagogue who said America deserved what it got on 9/11 because of its support of homosexuality and abortion. I knew three people who were murdered that day, and for Giuliani to shake hands with someone like that destroyed any credibility he once had with me. It doesn’t matter if he did it to pander to evangelicals who have assumed control of the GOP base. Anyone with integrity who lived through that day like Giuliani did would never stoop so low. That was beyond the realm of decency and a deal breaker for me.

And did you catch Mitt Romney’s appearance on Today this morning? While I watched it, all I could think of was the following: Romney ran Bain Capital for years. Then he ran for Senate in 1994, guided the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, successfully ran for governor in Massachusetts in 2002 and stayed for one term. Not once in that entire time was his religion a problem. Nobody brought it up his entire tenure – not one Democratic opponent. But once he moved onto the larger GOP stage it suddenly became an issue, and he is increasingly forced to defend his religious beliefs right here in America. He’s not being attacked on his politics or the issues. And yesterday a poll reported that 33% of Republican voters said most people would not vote for a Mormon candidate. What do you think that figure would be among Democratic or Independent voters?

Karl Rove originally tapped evangelical Christians because they would deliver a solid voting block. But somehow over the last two years the nonstop spending, a mismanaged war and an unpopular president have erased the GOP’s traditional voting base. A new batch of candidates all trying to out-hate the others and run on a gloom and doom platform isn’t driving in new voters or doing Frank Luntz any favors. And the new base now appears to be rejecting one of its leading candidates on religious grounds and making another sell his soul in a shameless display of pandering that independent voters will see right through. The GOP had a nice run, but it has now reaped what it has sown.

Words of Wisdom from David Gergen

2007-11-29T16:05:00.000-05:00

I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergen speak this week at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Gergen was an advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, and is currently a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. This guy knows what he’s talking about, and what he talked about this week was leadership. Specifically, what kind of leader do we need to elect in 2008?

Gergen firmly believes that our next president will face the most challenging and troubling world any new president has faced since 1932. For foreign policy, there is the question of what to do in Iraq. Pull out or stay the course, and what is the timetable? Next, what will be done about Iran and the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? How about Pakistan, an increasingly unstable region in the midst of a leadership crisis? These issues, which are also intertwined with the ongoing War on Terror, must be dealt with.

Problems on the home front are no less pressing, although Gergen’s experience has shown that presidents spend about 75% of their time on foreign issues. We are also entering a critical time period in regards to energy policy and global warming. Even though the U.S. never signed the Kyoto Treaty (which, Gergen noted, was rejected by a 95-0 vote in the Senate) it will expire for the countries that did sign it soon. There are also critical questions that must be dealt with concerning the tax codes (Bush’s tax cuts, which include the estate tax, are due to expire in 2011). Health care costs and Social Security, both compounded by the upcoming demographic shift in retiring Baby Boomers over the next 10-20 years, are also dealt with.

While every new president has challenges, Gergen noted that the timing and urgency of all of these challenges are what makes this situation dire. All of these issues, without exception, must be dealt with in the next four years. Furthermore, Gergen noted that nothing proactive gets accomplished in the first year of any president because they are always busy cleaning up the mess left by the president who came before them.

In short, our next president needs to be a visionary – someone with big ideas and the charisma to convince both a skeptical public and other countries to step up and meet the challenges. A partisan and polarizing leader (like the one we have now, or quite a few who are trying to be president) will accomplish nothing and is not what the U.S. needs to maintain its superiority.

Compare these issues to what was discussed in last night's debate – gun control, immigration, abortion and The Bible – and suddenly things don’t look too promising for one party anymore.

More Presidential Musings

2007-11-27T18:10:00.000-05:00

It’s getting even worse for the now-not-quite-predetermined front runner, which is good news for the Democratic Party. Hillary now polls behind every GOP frontrunner, and they didn’t even compare her to Mike Huckabee, who is gaining fast in Iowa. Huckabee may think the world is just 6,000 years old, but don’t discount his likeability and aw-shucks manner that work well in rural states. Plus he definitely has the coolest ad so far.

In more bad news for Clinton, both Obama and Edwards polled far better than her among GOP leaders. Plus her latest endorsement isn’t going to impress many undecideds and independents, let alone Democrats.

You can sense the hostility building between Obama and Clinton as the debates go on, the race tightens and the primaries edge closer. My personal feeling is that Romney and Clinton are very much alike. Both will shift their positions to whichever way the polls tell them. Both have no trouble changing their ideologies and flip-flopping their viewpoints in a flash if they think it will get them elected. And both have a respectable chance of being their parties’ nominees. Good grief.

So far, I’ve actually been most impressed with people like Ron Paul, John McCain and Barack Obama, all of whom have stuck to their ideological guns and are appealing to the voters with new ideas for what promises to be an increasingly dangerous world and very challenging times for America. Not all of their solutions are correct, but none of them will sink to the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney to win. Can you picture Ron Paul planting questions at a press conference like Clinton’s team did?

One last thing: Should Clinton win the election, two families will have run our country for 24 years. This is a democracy, not a monarchy or even Dynasty. It should be stopped.

Why (Independent) Media Matters

2007-11-09T20:58:00.000-05:00

I am a capitalist by religion and believe unnecessary government interference or regulation can burden businesses with often gratuitous costs and delay innovation. But when a business operates in a monopoly-like setting with a small set of large players stifling competition and making it impossible for independent, middle-market players to survive, then the government should step in. One of these examples was Major League Baseball, where a luxury tax has helped level the playing field so smaller budget teams like Cleveland, Colorado and Arizona can compete (OK, so it wasn’t the government, but you get the idea).

But one market that is indeed being squeezed by larger players is the media. In fact, thanks to some boneheaded FCC decisions (that were championed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the media in this country is now dominated by four players – GE, Disney, News Corp., and Viacom. Virtually every major TV broadcast, cable network, top Internet information site and radio show is owned by one of these four players. The result has been a homogenization of the airwaves from a disparate choice of independent choices and voices to an industry dominated by the four big companies of today. While there is an undercurrent of underground and alternative newspapers and web sites, they largely represent extreme political viewpoints that would not find a widespread audience or are constricted to local audiences.

The real trouble began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the large media companies won an FCC ruling deregulating the industry. Media companies were now allowed to own any number of stations and outlets in a market provided their reach did not exceed 35% of the available audience. What followed was consolidation on an enormous pace. Radio companies like Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting gobbled up independent stations, who were then given set playlists (for music) and syndicated DJs who could not contribute on local issues (if you tune into an R&B or rock station in Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles, all three will probably be playing the exact same songs). It also erased the line between the broadcast networks and their syndication partners, meaning the networks were not obligated to work with independent production studios. This finally set off alarm bells when Viacom – CBS’ syndication partner – bought CBS in 2000.

Besides the public, the losers have been independent, local outlets who are best equipped to provide their local communities with the information they need. Local media outlets are a disappearing breed. The four players will say there are plenty of choices for viewers on cable, satellite radio and the Internet. But the majority of large choices on these mediums are also owned by the big four. For example, News Corp. owns everything named Fox, FX Network, DirecTV, TV Guide, Dow Jones and scores of other newspapers, Harper Collins, myspace.com, and a slew of other highly-trafficked web sites. Disney, Viacom and GE’s lists of holdings are equally vast. In fact the top 20 Internet news sites are owned by one of these four companies. They don’t care if their broadcast networks are losing audiences when they’re only going to the cable or Internet sites they also own.

In 2003, with the blessing of former FCC Bonehead Michael Powell, the FCC raised the audience reach-cap to 45%. The backlash was huge. Lobbying (by everyone from the NRA to NOW) was almost unnecessary due to the bipartisan pushback, spurred by grassroots efforts to the FCC. Powell ended up with a compromise and raised the cap to 39%. Now new FCC head Kevin Martin, who appears just as bright as Powell, is now considering removing the longstanding cross-ownership rules. This would permit a media company to own a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market. Martin wanted to ram these rules through before the end of the year, but now a bipartisan group of senators (including Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott) are pushing for a 90-day delay to amass opposition.

When an issue unites people as diverse as Ted Turner and William Safire, let alone the senators we mentioned, it means it has widespread support and the FCC is in the minority. If you care about independent, minority and local freedom of expression in this country, please write your senators and congressmen and ask them to stop this new FCC proposal. It is bad for capitalism and worse for democracy.

More Info: A timeline of FCC mismanagement

Scarier than President Romney

2007-10-31T21:08:00.000-04:00

You think The Shining is scary? How about dressing as Hillary Clinton for Halloween? Thirty-seven percent voted her the scariest candidate. Giuliani was a distant second at 14%, with nobody else higher than 6%.

Here’s the kicker:

Clinton was the choice of four in 10 men and one-third of women. While a
predictable two-thirds of Republicans picked her, she also was the choice of 18
percent of Democrats. Among members of her own party, that made her second only to Giuliani as the scariest costume. About one-third of independents, nearly
half of whites and just over half of conservatives and white evangelicals
selected her.

Eighteen percent of Democrats and 33% of women and independents picked Hillary?! Only 10% of evangelicals picked Giuliani as frightening. Sheesh.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Nobody will unite the disorganized, disaffected and demoralized right-wingers faster than Hillary Clinton. She will even accomplish the impossible: Get Southern Baptists to vote for a Mormon. Not even the most hardened right-wing radical is this polarizing. If the Democrats nominate someone this unfavorable they will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hey Joe

2007-10-19T18:16:00.000-04:00

In all the writings and musings about Joe Torre’s dismissal from the Yankees, the one word that keeps coming up is class. Few have mentioned Torre’s four World Series victories (and two additional trips there) or his inevitable and well-deserved trip to Cooperstown. Most people today are talking about Torre’s character and people skills, which speak volumes about the respect he has earned as a manager. It also leaves quite a bit unsaid about the class and character of the Yankee front office that made him an offer he could, and should have, refused.

Even here in Boston, the heart of blind and knee-jerk Yankee hating, people are actually upset for Torre and wish him well. That speaks volumes to the kind of competitor he is. While he didn’t quite leave on his own terms, it always looks good when you’re able to leave a job with your dignity intact and character uncompromised. What he said in his press conference today says it best: “It’s not the money that’s going to be the determining factor,” Mr. Torre said. “It’s the commitment and trust. You can’t have one without the other.”

A year from now, after invaluable longtime Yankees like Jorge Posada are gone and the Yankees still have that overpaid and over-the-hill payroll they seem to always end up with, whichever Steinbrenner is running the team will then realize – too late – how valuable Torre was. They will see how he always managed to get a high-ego team focused and productive. They’ll understand how he was able to coax wins out of teams that were not as good as their record, either by forcing high pitch counts from opponents or loading up on runs because he knew the Yankees could only win by scores like 9-7. Can you see Don Mattingly, Joe Girardi or Larry Bowa simultaneously juggle the Yankee roster, front office, media pressure and rabid fan base and deliver 12 straight playoff appearances?

It’s been said people don’t appreciate the best things in life until they’re taken away. The Steinbrenner family is about to discover that the hard way. The Bronx will soon be burning again.

Base of Extremists

2007-10-14T20:42:00.000-04:00

There are Democratic and Republican partisans who will always vote the party line but will admit it when their party or party’s candidates screw up. But there are also people who partisans also loathe – party extremists, who often comprise the “base” or core of the party’s faithful. Extremists on both sides often represent the very top of a party leadership or the very grassroots – but both believe they represent the views of the entire party, and woe to the Republican or Democrat who dares to have a different opinion.

Because these extremists are very loud and crass, the mass media gives them way more attention than they deserve. Because they claim to represent the party, people who don’t follow politics get a warped view of how the whole process works. And because the extremists can’t open their mouths without sticking their entire feet inside, ordinary people with normal views get disgusted and turned off by politics. And the media keeps giving us more and more, whether we want it or not.

There’s been a few extremists making fools of themselves and discrediting both the parties they claim to represent today. I am going to give the first, Ann Coulter, as little time as possible because she really is the most virulent sort of extremist around. It also shows the media keep falling for what I scientifically call, “The Hot Famous White Chick Syndrome.” This means that if anybody else did what a hot famous white chick does (think Britney, Anna Nicole, Ann C., plus others) we would have banished that person from our subconscious and the airwaves long ago. Her anti-Semitic diatribe can be read here. My favorite line isn’t even the “Jews need to be perfected” but “You have to obey.” So far the extremists – many who fall under the guise of fundamentalists – have alienated African Americans, homosexuals, Hispanics and now Jews from the GOP.

It wasn’t just right-wing radicals today. Barney Frank, the only openly gay member of Congress and head of the House Finance Committee, is also receiving scorn from left-wing extremists because he has removed “gender identity” language from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill would protect homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace, but extremists and some gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it does not cover transsexuals and transgender individuals. They now regard Frank as a Benedict Arnold.

What extremists do not understand is that compromise is the way things get done, not just in Washington but in life. I’ve met some of these extremists on both sides and they tend to have pretty poor people skills and just don’t understand that sometimes 80%, or even 51% of what you want is the best you’re going to get. Extremists have no ability to grasp this – anything else is a sell-out.

Most politicians are smart and reasonable people who understand this. But they need to continually balance keeping their so-called “base” happy with actually getting things done for all Americans. The real danger is when some of these “base” people become politicians and then become leaders of the party. George McGovern was one of them, but was so extreme even Nixon trounced him. But some of them – like Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney – have attained power, and it is only then that we see how far away from the mainstream they really are.

All's Fair in Baseball?

2007-10-09T20:23:00.000-04:00

Don’t look now but parity might be returning to Major League Baseball. Seven of the eight teams that qualified for the postseason this year didn’t make the playoffs in 2006, and I even see signs of life in perennial cellar dwellers like Milwaukee (with baseball’s best infield) and Seattle.

Looking at payroll, it’s unbelievable to see the rank of underachievers at the top and the surprising surge of good teams closer to the bottom. It’s also interesting to see something else in the payroll stats – a middle class. Are owners finally ponying up for good free agents or is the luxury tax finally evening the spread across the board? Or is good scouting and the new trend of small-market teams not trading emerging stars when they can’t afford them finally paying off? Perhaps the answer is all of the above.

The end result is a better, fairer game for all involved. I’m genuinely excited to watch Arizona and Colorado, two teams I know nothing about, fight hard to get to the World Series. It’s almost like politics. The folks with more money usually win, but money alone does not guarantee victory. Sometime money can reach a saturation point, and that’s where the intangibles tend to kick in. It’s the intangibles that make other sports like football more exciting, and baseball might finally be learning its lesson.

More Presidential Musings

2007-10-08T22:03:00.000-04:00

Things are not looking good for the GOP right now. With Alan Greenspan jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon, 60% of Republicans now opposing free trade, social conservatives threatening to leave if Giuliani is the nominee, and the leading candidates pledging to continue with an unpopular war, you could certainly handicap the race against the Republican Party right now. What could possibly stop the Democrats from winning next year?

Two words: Hillary Clinton. Clinton continues to have tremendously high negative and unfavorable ratings, with over 40% of all respondents claiming they would never vote for her. With Clinton appearing to be the likely nominee at this point, you can just see the Rove-tutored GOP strategists tapping kegs in glee. They probably can’t believe their good luck. Already Clinton is providing GOP fundraisers with fodder for cash. Despite any upcoming schism in the Republican ranks, nothing will bring them all together faster than another Clinton presidency. Especially a Clinton who has little of the talent or charisma of her husband.

Here’s a completely unscientific but true story that speaks volumes to me. I know several young, liberal die-hard Democrats who are currently doing grassroots work for Obama in New Hampshire. I asked how their work was going and why they decided to help Obama instead of Clinton. Their answer was unanimous – they know making Clinton the nominee will be throwing red meat to the lions. They consider her unelectable, but will reluctantly support her if she wins. If a candidate can’t inspire the people in her own party, how on earth will she win the support of the undecided voters in Florida and Ohio that decide the election?

Mission for Burma

2007-10-06T17:18:00.000-04:00

The mainstream media has, of course, moved on from the democracy crackdown in Burma to more important news like Britney Spears’ custody battle. But the Internet is still humming with plenty of sites and bloggers despite the military dictatorship’s attempts to black out the country. The sites urging everyone to do more in Burma are on the political left and the right, and I’ve listed some of the best-known blog sites below. Please check them out and drop them a line to let them know they are not forgotten.

You can really see how much technology has changed our lives since the last Burmese uprising against its ruling military junta 20 years ago. With the advent of everything from blogs to cell phone cameras, news about these types of revolutions and abuse can be seen by all. While small citizen uprisings might go unnoticed, it is now impossible to keep a mass revolt or upheaval suppressed by the state any longer. Imagine how much faster the Iron Curtain could have fallen with today’s technology.

It’s also startling to see just how brutal the military dictators are in Burma, and how much they have set their country back. A generation ago, Burma was pretty much on par with its neighbors. Now the countries surrounding Burma – China, India and Thailand, plus neighboring countries like Singapore and Vietnam – are booming, with thriving economies and a much higher standard of living for their citizens. Burma remains as it was – possibly the second least advanced and poorest country in Asia after North Korea.

Here's some smuggled video of protesters being beaten. Here's to one Burmese blog that includes links to some others, including photos that are quite gruesome. Here's the blog of Ko Htike, who is very good and also writes in English. In line with how technology is aiding Burmese monks and dissidents, here's a story about how satellite technology (similar to Google Earth) is going around the military's blackout.

Finally, here's an online petition you can sign to protest what is happening. I don't know if it will actually accomplish anything, but it's better than doing nothing and it will send you periodic updates if you wish.

2007 NFL Predictions, Determined by Dave (and My Magic 8 Ball)

2007-09-06T12:33:00.000-04:00

This looks like another great football season. In the AFC you have the Patriots, the Colts, the Ravens, the Chargers, the Broncos, the Jaguars and a couple of surprises as top-notch teams and Super Bowl contenders. In the NFC you have the Saints and, uh, well, maybe the Bears and, uuuuhhhhhhh…I guess the Eagles are OK if McNabb stays healthy. Errr…did I mention the Saints already?

It’s not easy making picks when free agency and salary caps give every team a fighting chance. It’s even tougher when you look at the super-talented AFC North (except Cleveland) and the talent-challenged NFC South (except New Orleans) and try to determine who’s going to be on top in 17 weeks. But that’s what makes the NFL so great and the office pools so maddening.

Here goes nothing, including my playoff picks along with two Dark Horses for surprising and most improved teams in each conference (that would have been the Saints last year, if I knew what I was doing).

NFC EAST

1) Philadelphia – If McNabb stays healthy, the Eagles are a lock. What is not a lock is McNabb staying healthy. Some good additions (Takeo Spikes) and weird subtractions (Jeremiah Trotter) should shore up the defense as well.

2) Dallas – Wild Card Team. If the Eagles falter, nothing should stop Dallas from taking the division as well. Tony Romo was the spark Dallas needed last year, and new coach Wade Phillips can only improve a porous defense. In the AFC, Dallas would be lucky to go .500, but in the NFC they’re a shoo-in for the wild card.

3) NY Giants – Boy Eli has talent but lacks his brother’s accuracy and eye of the tiger. Tiki Barber’s retirement will put even more pressure on Eli, and the Giants’ horrendous secondary will squash their third consecutive playoff bid.

4) Washington – I see flashes of hope with QB Jason Campbell, but the Redskins’ defense has toast written all over it. Somewhere, Darrell Green weeps. But everyone will see Joe Gibbs weeping soon.

NFC NORTH

1) Chicago – This division is so putrid that the Bears’ practice squad could tap dance all over it. The 2007 Bears’ defense isn’t as good as the Ravens, but it’s not half bad either. Lance Briggs, Brian Urlacher and Tommie Harris are rocks. The big question is QB Rex Grossman. He stunk last year, but the NFC competition was so bad it wasn’t a factor. Will he get past the Saints and Eagles this year?

2) Green Bay – Brett Farve’s last hurrah. The Packers surprised everyone last year by going 8-8, but management did nothing to improve the team and lead RB Ahman Green left town. The Packers should get 7 or 8 wins with a decent defense, and that will be more than enough to contend in the NFC North.

3) Detroit – Here’s my annual shoutout to GM Matt Millen, HERO OF THE STUPID. Since hiring Millen, Detroit has gone 24-72. He has drafted three receivers in the last four years with the first pick, two of whom are warming the bench. Guess what he did this year? He drafted ANOTHER RECEIVER! Perhaps he could have paid attention to the offensive line, which will not keep QB John Kitna off injured reserve, or the defense that has been consistently among the league’s worst? As long as Millen has a job, your employment future is gonna be OK.

4) Minnesota – Battling Detroit for the basement will be the once-mighty Vikings, who will be led by mighty QB Tavaris Jackson. The starting RB is a rookie. I can’t name anyone on defense. That just about wraps up the team.

NFC SOUTH

1) New Orleans – Goodbye Aints! Believe it – the Saints are the best team in the NFC. Last year new coach Sean Payton, QB Drew Brees and RBs Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister led the best offense in football. And, in a brilliant move, New Orleans spent its free agency money on defense, signing a new secondary including CB Jason David from the Colts. Defensive ends Charles Grant and Will Smith are angry and hungry. There may just be a new NFC Super Bowl representative this year.

2) Carolina – The challenge with the rest of the NFC North is deciding which team sucks least. I’ll take the Panthers who, despite WR Steve Smith, have a pretty lame offense. The defense is reliable but apart from Julius Peppers lacks big names and is getting near my age. It won’t be hard to go .500 in the NFC South, but the Panthers won’t do much better than that.

3) Tampa Bay – Were you asked to try out for QB in Tampa this summer? The Bucs will start with four quarterbacks, with Jeff Garcia throwing to, uh, somebody. Cadillac Williams tailed off last year, and long-starting DE Simeon Rice was cut after failing his physical.

4) Atlanta – The good news is Michael Vick won’t be a distraction. The bad news is Joey Harrington is the new starting quarterback. Things kind of go downhill from there.

NFC WEST

1) Seattle – I’m less sure about this pick than any other. Seattle seems good, as long as QB Tim Hasselbeck and RB Shaun Alexander stay healthy and the defense is decent, but I don’t sense a passion or urgency behind them. Even if I’m wrong, they lack the talent to get past Chicago or New Orleans if they make the playoffs.

2) San Francisco – Wild Card and my NFC Dark Horse. When you’re as bad as the 49ers are for a long time, you accumulate a lot of high draft choices. Unless your team is run by Matt Millen, eventually this should make you good. San Francisco now has enough talent accumulated to make a run at the Wild Card. Last year they went 7-9 and QB Alex Smith and RB Frank Gore showed improvement. This year they spent money like drunken sailors on free agency and signed four good defensive starters (including LB Tully Banta-Cain and CB Nate Clements) and had two first round picks. Next year they could be really good, but this year they should be good enough.

3) St. Louis – I love RB Steven Jackson (who put Marshall Faulk on the bench) and QB Mark Bulger, and acknowledge the Rams are an offensive machine. But there wasn’t much upgrade to the defense, which is last against the run. Unless there’s a lot of 35-31 victories, they’re stuck at .500 again.

4) Arizona – I’m getting tired of being burned by these guys. On paper they’re great and have good players but fall apart at game time. If they ever get an offensive line I’ll take another look.

AFC EAST

1) New England – Well, duh. Not sure what made the Patriots change their character image, but Randy Moss should be well-behaved for most of the year. But the real steal was LB Adalius Thomas who anchored the Ravens’ mighty defense. The absences of CB Rodney Harrison and DE extraordinaire Richard Seymour might make the first month tough, but the Patriots bench is mighty deep and they will be sitting on top by the end of the year.

2) NY Jets – Last year’s Cinderella becomes this year’s wannabes. The Jets have a better rushing game with Thomas Jones and two good WRs with Jerricho Cotchery and Lavarneus Coles and two new defensive draft picks will contribute, but it’s gonna take more than that to knock the Pats off their perch. Also, will QB Chad Pennington stay healthy all season?

3) Buffalo – I am slowly gaining respect for QB JP Losman, but losing the best three defensive players in free agency (London Fletcher, Nate Clements and Takeo Spikes) won’t help stop the run anytime soon. Looks like the Bills remain stalled at 7-9.

4) Miami – New coach Cam Cameron has his work cut out for him trying to make a Swiss Cheese offensive line protect 37-year-old QB Trent Green, who has never been especially mobile. Anyone know who’s starting at RB?

AFC NORTH

1) Baltimore – The Ravens played better than I thought last year as the defense was banging and QB Steve “Air” McNair proved he still had gas in the tank. The Ravens’ D-line is the NFL’s best, their secondary is the league’s best and the LBs are at least the second-best. If RB Willis McGahee does what he used to do in Buffalo, the Ravens will take off.

2) Cincinnati – I never thought that Marvin Lewis, the original architect of the Ravens defense, would run a team that played so loosy goosey on defense. Nobody doubts Lewis, QB Carson Palmer, WR Chad Johnson and the TE whose name I’m not even going to try and spell. But what’s with the defense? You’re never going to beat the Patriots and Colts without some upgrades there.

3) Pittsburgh – I’m sure new coach Mike Tomlin will be here for a while, and he’ll need a year or two to get Pittsburgh set straight. Pittsburgh is not a bad team but made too many mistakes (Roethlisberger had 23 interceptions last year). CB Troy Polamalu is still my man.

4) Cleveland – The Browns finally got the QB they wanted and their top draft picks got through the preseason without ending on IR. There’s too many gaps on defense and the Browns will probably win around six games, but this could be next year’s dark horse.

AFC SOUTH

1) Indianapolis – Well, duh take II. No Super Jinx here as the Colts should have no trouble repeating as division champs. Peyton, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark are the best throwing/receiving team in the NFL. But trouble may lurk as the Colts lost six starters to free agency or injury so far, none more telling than LT Tarik Glenn. A second-year player will now be protecting Peyton’s blind side. Look out!

2) Jacksonville – Wild Card Team and my AFC Dark Horse. I’m taking a chance here, like coach Jack Del Rio is taking by dumping Byron Leftwich for David Garrard. If Garrard works out, he’s the last piece in the puzzle as Jacksonville has a ferocious defense and a great RB in Maurice Jones-Drew. The receivers are iffy, but a good QB is all that’s holding this team back from greatness.

3) Tennessee – QB Vince Young was exciting last year but he can’t do it all, especially when the team lost its starting RB and both starting WRs to free agency and its best defensive player was Pacman Jones.

4) Houston – Dumping David Carr and signing QB Matt Schaub and RB Ahman Green were good steps. The defense has potential but is young. The Texans are still in a holding pattern.

AFC WEST

1) San Diego – Many people are anointing the Chargers as the next Super Bowl champs. I have two words for you – Norv Turner. This guy is the Matt Millen of head coaches, with a 58-82-1 record despite inheriting teams with great talent. It would be tough to mess up San Diego with names like Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson, Shawn Merriman and Antonio Gates, but I’m fully confident Norv can do it right around playoff time. San Diego also has a truly punishing schedule.

2) Denver – Wild Card Team. Now that Jake the Fake Plummer has been banished again, Jay Cutler will get a chance to shine. Should he do so, the Broncos will do well. Good signings like CB Dre Bly (a killer secondary combo with Champ Bailey), TE Daniel Graham and RB Travis Henry should bring normalcy back to Mile High again, where the Broncos were oddly 4-4 last year.

3) Kansas City – The Chiefs made the playoffs last year but will stay home in 2008. Running the show will QB Damon Huard, who will make way for rookie Brodie Croyle, who will have a very long season.

4) Oakland – The Raiders actually have a good defense and I toyed with making them my Dark Horse team because they could double their win total from last year. But that would still make them 4-12. Note to Al Davis: If you take the top pick in the draft and name him the future of your franchise, try to have him signed by Opening Day.

Moral Values: Larry Craig vs. Paris Hilton

2007-08-30T11:36:00.000-04:00

“I believe he (Larry Craig) should resign because I believe character is an
extremely important qualification for public service," said Bryan Fischer of the
Idaho Values Alliance. "And I believe the senator, by his own admission, has
acknowledged that he has fallen short of the standard that we should expect from
public servants."

Yesterday, I talked about the hypocrisy of using moral values as a platform when you are living either an immoral life, or engage in activities that do not conform to what you preach (and the triumph many of us feel when people who want to impose their “ideal” lifestyles on others are caught doing what they claim to despise).

But “moral values” is one of those nebulous terms that mean different things to different folks. Nobody can truly say they are against moral values, but whose moral values should be held as a model?

We live in a society that follows every move of someone like Paris Hilton, who can hardly be described as having moral values, yet we scorn and despise people like Larry Craig and Bill Clinton for their indiscretions. Clinton and Craig’s immorality caused them to lose respect and (almost) their jobs. But when celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or tomorrow’s petulant teen musician is caught on video or breaking the law, they tend to get additional exposure, a higher Q score and new fans. Why is this?

Moreover, if an ordinary person with an ordinary job like you or I were caught doing what Larry Craig had done, we would obviously not make the papers but an arrest would probably not cause us to lose our jobs. We would certainly have to answer to our families and friends, but we would not have to find a new career. Ditto for celebrities.

So if the public has such little regard for politicians, why are they held to the highest of ethical standards? It seems that if you are considering running for public office, anything in your past can be held against you, no matter how long ago it was or how irrelevant it currently is. Somewhere in America, a bunch of 30-something people who would make excellent senators or presidents have opted not to run for office because there is a picture of him or her drinking a beer in college before they turned 21. Any whiff of a scandal can produce an unprovoked media feeding frenzy that can overwhelm the most thick-skinned candidate. Except for places like Louisiana and Rhode Island where corruption and politics are synonymous, the days when politicians like Ted Kennedy could openly flout his drinking, womanizing and ability to be above the law are long over.

And maybe that’s the answer. People have a low opinion of politics and politicians, but they expect a lot from them and do hold them to a higher standard. While celebrities are worshipped and followed, people do not consider them very important. And while many celebrities should not be role models, at least they are not moralizing to others or advocating their values as a moral compass. Maybe politicians can learn something from celebrities after all.

More Info: Here's three people to look at for moral values

Socrates

Jesus

David Hume

And a politician without too many moral values:

News Flash: Another Gay Male Exposed as Family Values Republican

2007-08-29T10:58:00.000-04:00

Yes, I ripped off the headline from The Onion. But the long list of GOP scandals tramples on and on, from financial scandals like Jack Abramoff (and folks under investigation like Ted Stevens and Rick Renzi) to a growing line of sexual scandals. Mark Foley, David Vitter, once-trusty ally Ted Haggard and now men’s room denizen Larry Craig are digging the hole deeper.

What the Republicans really need now is some kind of leader who can unite them and set them straight, similar to the tough love “coach” approach John Feehery discusses in this story. With an unpopular president, an equally unpopular war and religious firebrands as a base, it’s getting increasingly difficult for the GOP to defend its position and relevance to mainstream America. It’s been distressing and fascinating at the same time to watch the once-disciplined party unwind.

At the same time, there’s a schadenfreude aspect to watching Bible-toting, homosexual-hating and moralizing firebrands like Foley and Craig get their just desserts as we learn what their real family values are. The same people who denigrated both Bill Clinton and gays for their sexual exploits are now ironically caught in their own moral web. Americans are aware they are imperfect people, and tend to resent anyone from Kathie Lee Gifford to Martha Stewart and Larry Craig who presents themselves as perfect and infallible. Resentment at these so-called perfect people can quickly turn to glee when they suffer misfortune, often by their own doing.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve lived my entire life in the Northeast, but I also believe Americans do not want to be told how to live their lives and will rebel against anyone who tries to limit or take away their freedoms. If someone in Washington starts railing about family values and morality, their own house had better be in order. Nothing will ruin a public figure faster than exposing them as a straw man, especially if their now-phony platform threatened a liberty that people cherish.

Karl Rove's Legacy

2007-08-16T16:29:00.000-04:00

What shall be The Architect’s legacy? Depends on where you look.

Rove’s skill and genius as a campaign manager cannot be denied. When you can get George W. Bush elected governor twice and the president twice – especially given the circumstances surrounding the latter – you are a genius. An evil genius perhaps, but still a genius.

It’s surprising so little has been said in the press about Rove’s incredible transformation of the Texas Republican Party. When he arrived in Texas, Democrats had long controlled state government. In two decades, the GOP owned the entire state government, and Rove helped get Kay Bailey Hutchinson elected senator and also helped numerous Republican judges win election as well. It was in Texas that Rove honed his legendary campaign skills of appealing to the base, get out the vote drives and attacking the core strengths of the opponent (seen later in the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry), not to mention the numerous times he raised homosexual rumors and anti-gay prejudice to help win elections.

You may be saying that the Rove-based approach has denigrated political campaigning and made negative attack ads standard today, and you certainly have a good point. But when you are a campaign manager, your job is to win the campaign at any cost short of breaking the law or telling outright lies. You do not worry about votes you can’t possibly win. Your only concern is to get that 50% plus 1 vote total to ensure victory. James Carville has repeatedly said this, and Rove’s campaign tactics will be studied and used by candidates and their teams on both sides of the aisle for years to come.

But what tainted Rove’s legacy – and where he got into serious trouble – is when he left the partisan campaign manager role and entered the White House. The president and his team should put politics aside to determine what is best for the country. It seems that Rove never checked his partisanship at the door and remained on a pro-GOP vendetta, regardless of how that may affect the White House or the country in the end. This has caused serious internal conflict within the party and has alienated millions of moderate Republicans and independents who once backed the war and the president, and now back neither. If anything, they are considering the opposition.

In political campaigns there are “wedge issues.” These are black and white issues that tend to divide the electorate into for-it or against-it camps, such as abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, war, etc. Rove, who had been so successful at studying polls to find what wedge issues would win campaigns in the past, turned the Bush White House into a series of never-ending wedge issues. They cumulatively divided most of the population against the president, and have now divided the GOP against itself. It’s amazing that the Democrats, a loosely-banded coalition party with no identity or central platform, are now in a better position than ever. The 2006 elections could be the first step on a long road for Republicans, and Rove’s tactics as presidential advisor is largely to blame.

So what will be Karl Rove’s legacy? The successful campaign manager who continually delivered victory for the party he loved, or the White House advisor who did everything possible to continue serving the party at the expense of the country? History will have to answer that.

More Info: Dave Frum's opinion

Farewell, Scooter

2007-08-15T11:26:00.001-04:00

When I grew up in New Jersey in the 1980s, the Yankees were still on free TV. All I remember from those games are some really bad teams and some hilarious comments by Rizzuto, who was probably approaching senility at that time. But although he would spend entire innings ignoring the game while talking about his wife Cora's manicotti recipes, you bizarrely kept watching and listening. I didn't have an older brother so Scooter was the weird but nice old guy down the street who introduced me to baseball.

Here's some other weird facts I remember. He always called his co-announcers by their last names: "Hey White! Hey Murcer! Hey Seaver!" Anytime a rookie came up, he always called "The Kid" for the first couple of months until he distinguished himself. And he would always leave after the seventh inning stretch during a home game. Later I found out this was because he wanted to beat the traffic home back to Jersey. It didn't matter if it was an important game or a blowout.

I saw the Scooter once. A friend and I were walking by his house and he was just standing in the driveway. We yelled, "Hey Scooter!" He smiled and waved. I didn't even think of shaking his hand or anything. I was struck by how small he was. Naturally I never saw him play, but I've been reading the tributes and knew about his bunting DiMaggio home during a botched squeeze play and his defense. Is it true Ted Williams said if Scooter had been on the Red Sox they would have won something? That's gotta hurt Johnny Pesky.

The last game I remember Scooter calling was when I was home sometime in the mid 1990s. He was rambling even more than ever. After a commercial, they showed a live shot of the George Washington Bridge and the Hudson. Scooter said, "Boy, look at that beautiful shot of the Atlantic Ocean."

His partner (maybe Mercer) said, "Phil, that's the Hudson River."

"Oh gee, is it the Hudson River? Well, how about that," said Scooter. He seemed oblivious that he failed to recognize the bridge and river he had driven over every day for the last 40+ years. But nobody cared. A fitting finale.

More Info:
The Day Phil Rizzuto Got a Holy Cow
A Few Phil Rizzuto Quotes and Jokes
O Holy Cow: The Poetry of Phil Rizzuto

Thanking Barry Bonds

2007-08-07T17:22:00.000-04:00

There’s been a lot of venom and vitriol written in the last few weeks about Barry Bonds. But I would actually like to spend a moment thanking (in order) Mr. Bonds, the cream, the clear, Greg Anderson and George Mitchell, whose investigation length is beyond interminal. They have helped the world focus on a true baseball hero and worthy role model – Hank Aaron.

It has been said that hitting a home run off a major league-caliber pitcher is the hardest accomplishment in any sport. That is why I have spent the last few days in unbelievable awe at what Aaron accomplished. For 22 years, Aaron was the standard of what can be accomplished by discipline, determination, God-given talent and grace. Aaron not only holds the major league home run record (in my opinion and everyone else’s), but also still holds the record for RBIs, extra-base hits and total bases. It was also not revealed until a few years ago that Aaron endured an enormous amount of bigotry, racism and death threats because he was an African American about to break a famous white man’s record. Aaron would not reveal this during the chase because he was a gentleman, and he did not allow the hatred to distract him from his goal.

Aaron has continued to show his class by refusing to comment on Bonds’ accomplishments, let alone showing up to witness the feat. I continue to be awestruck by this decision, which is far more mature than anything I would have done. While Bud Selig putters and frets, reaping the steroid scandal both he and Don Fehr sowed by ignoring the problem for years, Aaron continues on his business speaking out for more minority ownership in baseball and running his Chasing the Dream Foundation to help inner-city children.

If my kids need a role model one day, I will point them to Hank Aaron. And if they need an example for cheating and the danger of drugs, then I will thank Barry Bonds again. See you at the Grand Jury, Barry!

For the record, here's Barry in his rookie year (21 years old) and today (43 years old):

More Info: SI's excerpts from Game of Shadows

Compassion and Conservatism

2007-07-30T23:18:00.000-04:00

I’ve been thinking about the “compassionate conservative” mandate that President Bush used to win election in 2000. Like campaign promises everywhere, it withered as soon as the election was determined. We also know that traditional conservatism – in terms of smaller government, individualism trumping the state and fiscal prudence – no longer exists in the Bush Administration and much of the Republican Party. But what about the compassion?

Since traditional conservatism in the current administration has been trumped by social and religious conservatism, one would think that this administration would be more compassionate than most. Compassion denotes a strong sense of ethics, and President Bush is a born-again Christian who has repeatedly noted the War on Terror as a battle of good against evil, thus placing the U.S. as the force of good. Ethics is a highly subjective area, but by the repeated use of the compassionate conservative mandate, the recurring use of religious themes in his work and the growing adherence of his party platform to a theocratic base the president deserves to be held to the highest of ethical standards. His power, if anything, compounds this scrutiny.

The President often casts his decisions in a moral framework. So far he has vetoed just one bill (stem cell research) and is threatening a veto on another (increasing funds on children’s health insurance, funded by a 61 cent tax on cigarettes). He vetoed the stem cell bill by saying it “crossed a moral boundary…if this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” His threatened veto of the Children’s Health Bill (SCHIP) is due to “expanding (government) health care through the SCHIP program - a huge tax increase for the American people.”
It is difficult to determine the compassion in those actions. The benefits of stem cell research are well-documented, and Bush’s concern for the embryos is not without merits. But as noble as that is, how does the respect he holds for the human life in embryos contrast with the innocent human life that has been destroyed through the war we started in Iraq? Or the numerous felons who were executed on Death Row when Bush was governor?

There is a serious disconnect in the president’s compassion and logic here. I’m not saying that all human action must follow a logical or utilitarian pattern, but the President’s action and reasoning deserves our judgment, particularly by his insistence on morally framing his decisions. And as I’ve said before, morality and ethics are not interchangeable. The same can be said for the health care veto. Wouldn’t a true compassionate and ethical person do what was necessary to increase funds for children’s health care? Especially one that drew its own source of funding?

More of the president’s actions also show his platform of compassion (and conservatism) to be on shaky ground. Consider the compassionate, moral and ethical implications of the following actions:

· Suspending habeas corpus for prisoners, and instructing the attorney general to find a way to make it pass Constitutional muster
· Endorsing torture as an acceptable interrogation technique
· Cutting scores of social program budgets, especially in the first term, that would most benefit those who need them
· The 2001 tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans most (and the so-far unsuccessful attempt to abolish the Estate Tax), although the wealthy have little need for additional income
· Endorsing free trade, then continuing subsidies for numerous industries like steel and agriculture so developing countries cannot compete in American markets
· Relaxing scores of environmental laws and mandates, which will have detrimental impact on the climate for generations and force billions to fix or alleviate
· Not being forceful enough to try and stop the current holocaust and genocide occurring in Darfur

If anything, reviewing these actions should certainly make one question not only the president’s compassion and morality, but just how deep “moral values” and religious compassion run in the dwindling number of core Bush supporters. It is a deeply theocratic force that has appointed itself the judge of morality and acceptability in the Republican Party. Is that the compassion and values the GOP wants?

I’m sure President Bush truly believes he is doing the right thing, and does not wish to cause undue harm with his actions. And some of his actions, such as dramatically increasing AIDS funding to Africa, does pass the compassion and ethical test. And while he has not done much on the Darfur genocide, it is already far more than Bill Clinton ever did in Rwanda. But by presenting himself as the defender of good and repeatedly using morality and religion to make his case, President Bush – more than any other President before him – deserves to have his actions judged by how moral and compassionate they are in the world around him. Because of this, his actions need to be judged by how his moral philosophy is weighed against its consequences.