News came out this morning that one of the major reasons why the Bailout Bill failed was because House Republicans refused to vote in favor of it due to caustic partisan remarks made by Speaker of the House (and Democrat) Nancy Pelosi, just before the vote. Millions of married men everywhere, when hearing about this, silently laughed and shook their heads -- because we KNOW the feeling: women must always have the last word, good or bad. You picked a helluva time to mouth off, Madame Speaker.
Sure, there's good to come of this -- the bill needs to be given more time for review (after all, it's only 700 BILLION dollars we're talking about here), but it also brings to light several very interesting tidbits:
1) We still don't exactly know what makes up the $700 billion figure. We got this number from a 3-page bill suggestion from the Bush Administration via the Secretary of the Treasury. An administration (and possibly Secretary) that will be out of office in 4 short months, yet the funding is to carry over 8-10 years minimum.
2) This means that all the House members were to vote "yea" on the largest funding package ever, yet have no specific idea how it's to be allocated. It's no wonder that most of the House was skeptical at best, especially only 7 weeks from election day. Many were concerned that a "yea" vote would sink their campaigns, so naturally they took the high road.
3) Neither Obama nor McCain was able to make a difference in the voting. Obama had a meeting with the Black Caucus on Sunday -- the same group that voted "no" on the bill. I guess he didn't have enough time to discuss and persuade the caucus to vote the same "yea" way he would vote, and this certainly can't bode well for him -- one could turn this around and say the same things the Dems are saying about Palin: if Obama can't sell the Black Caucus, how can we expect him to sell Putin? Meanwhile, McCain was unable to convince enough House Republicans to vote the same "yea" way he would vote, either. In fact, most of the House Reps from McCain's home state of Arizona voted "no" on the bill. Again, where is the effective leadership?
4) No help from a weak POTUS and a weaker SotH. Reagan didn't have these issues when he wanted important legislation passed, and do you think Tip O'Neil would have let this happen the way it did? No way. Both Bush and Pelosi suffer from the lowest approval ratings in history, so they have no mandate to help them influence the fence-straddlers.
5) Nancy's piehole. What in the world was she thinking? That didn't help your reputation to the American people, Nance. Ever hear of "discretion is the better part of valor"? Next time, use some decorum and work harder to set the example. We expect better from you.
Finally, I'm still wondering what exactly constitutes $700 Billion and what it specifically relates to in the accounting. Why can we not get more information on this? It is because of all this grey area in the numbers that I'm not concerned about the market suffering yesterday. And further proof can be found in today's market activity: up over 450 points, the very next day, so you know the 777 point drop was artificial -- of course it is! It's all speculation anyway!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
First Debate Post-Op
The first POTUS debate was held last night in Oxford, MS, and the theme was foreign policy, yet everyone knew that, in light of recent events involving the financial crisis, the opening remarks were going to be monopolized with the candidates' viewpoints on how to solve this mess. The pre-game consensus was that this worked to Obama's advantage because McCain is seen as light on economic issues, plus he has the weight of the current administration on his back (due to they sharing the same party affiliation). McCain's saving grace was to be his advantage in foreign policy experience, so the debate was shaping up to be a toss-up. Obama's focus was to come off as presidential without seeming aloof, while McCain's focus was to come off as independent of the Bush administration yet still viable as a reformer.
The first half was dominated by the financial bailout and the mistakes that got us to this point. On this topic, I felt that both candidates were equally lukewarm. They both benefited from using sweeping generalities that sounded good but carried little substance. This shouldn't be a surprise, given that both candidates either have little knowledge of specifics or are too wary of hanging themselves with statements that may or may not have credibility in their logic. Obama had several golden opportunities where he could have piled on McCain and effectively associated him with the status quo, but he continually missed -- my impression was that Obama was overcoached on this topic and was (therefore) unable to put any type of constructive thought together that made sense. I think McCain sensed this early and pulled back, letting Obama trip all over himself, and it worked. Obama could not close his arguments, which is a serious flaw in his preparations. It will be interesting to see if his advisors will help him correct this or if they even notice it in time before the next debate. I was looking for any hook that I could grab onto, from either candidate, that demonstrated strength and determination in resolving the crisis, and I got nothing. Advantage: push.
The second half of the debate brought us back to the reality of the current foreign policy, and again I was amazed that Obama failed to jump on openings or create obstacles that would force McCain to back-pedal. McCain came off much better on this topic, but I felt his comments were slightly off-set by his demeanor. McCain rarely, if ever, looked at his opponent, giving an impression of being condescending and disrespectful. In post-debate coverage, GOP pundits were describing it as the warrior in McCain, working on a posture of stiff defense as he prepared for battle. Well, that's taking it to a ridiculous level, in my opinion. Most media experts know you must always remember that you are pitching to an audience of 6th grade level, so keep it simple, clear and repeat as necessary, but avoid being disdainful and bored. McCain, with his posturing, in my opinion, came off as stand-offish and, dare I say, elitist. Obama held up well with his knowledge of foreign matters, but again did not recognize the opportunities presented -- either he didn't see it or he was following a game plan and didn't want to stray from it. McCain seemed to have a better grasp of foreign policy, but his body language and snide comments negated any advantage gained. Obama seemed to be comfortable on this topic and came off very well, but he failed to gain ground because he refused to improvise on his remarks, thus letting McCain off the hook. Advantage: push.
Like most of America, I was hoping to see one of these guys take an early advantage, but it never materialized. I'm afraid that, because both didn't distance themselves from the other, the impression to America will be that, in light of the current events, we remain unconvinced and wary that anything can and will be resolved by either of these guys.
The first half was dominated by the financial bailout and the mistakes that got us to this point. On this topic, I felt that both candidates were equally lukewarm. They both benefited from using sweeping generalities that sounded good but carried little substance. This shouldn't be a surprise, given that both candidates either have little knowledge of specifics or are too wary of hanging themselves with statements that may or may not have credibility in their logic. Obama had several golden opportunities where he could have piled on McCain and effectively associated him with the status quo, but he continually missed -- my impression was that Obama was overcoached on this topic and was (therefore) unable to put any type of constructive thought together that made sense. I think McCain sensed this early and pulled back, letting Obama trip all over himself, and it worked. Obama could not close his arguments, which is a serious flaw in his preparations. It will be interesting to see if his advisors will help him correct this or if they even notice it in time before the next debate. I was looking for any hook that I could grab onto, from either candidate, that demonstrated strength and determination in resolving the crisis, and I got nothing. Advantage: push.
The second half of the debate brought us back to the reality of the current foreign policy, and again I was amazed that Obama failed to jump on openings or create obstacles that would force McCain to back-pedal. McCain came off much better on this topic, but I felt his comments were slightly off-set by his demeanor. McCain rarely, if ever, looked at his opponent, giving an impression of being condescending and disrespectful. In post-debate coverage, GOP pundits were describing it as the warrior in McCain, working on a posture of stiff defense as he prepared for battle. Well, that's taking it to a ridiculous level, in my opinion. Most media experts know you must always remember that you are pitching to an audience of 6th grade level, so keep it simple, clear and repeat as necessary, but avoid being disdainful and bored. McCain, with his posturing, in my opinion, came off as stand-offish and, dare I say, elitist. Obama held up well with his knowledge of foreign matters, but again did not recognize the opportunities presented -- either he didn't see it or he was following a game plan and didn't want to stray from it. McCain seemed to have a better grasp of foreign policy, but his body language and snide comments negated any advantage gained. Obama seemed to be comfortable on this topic and came off very well, but he failed to gain ground because he refused to improvise on his remarks, thus letting McCain off the hook. Advantage: push.
Like most of America, I was hoping to see one of these guys take an early advantage, but it never materialized. I'm afraid that, because both didn't distance themselves from the other, the impression to America will be that, in light of the current events, we remain unconvinced and wary that anything can and will be resolved by either of these guys.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Beggin' the Captain's Pardon
Was that the President of the United States on television the other night, explaining how MBS's work? Holy Crap -- now that's a sight that I would have never guessed would happen (although it needs to happen more often -- let's never forget the power and benefit of too much information). As a card-carrying member of the residential mortgage financing consultant community, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the POTUS run down the schematics of investments collateralized by Mortgage Backed Securities...until he directly blamed the sub prime house financing mismanagement for this crisis. Uh, No, Mr. President, that is not correct. This mess started long before 1999 when FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) loosened their underwriting guidelines so that borrowers with less-than perfect credit can qualify for home mortgages.
Most of us who have worked (and/or are currently working) in the financial field know that this all started over 25 years ago on Wall Street when Salomon Brothers began the collateralized investment pools. If you really want a good "primer" on this subject, I suggest you buy the book "Liar's Poker" by Michael Lewis and give it a good read. You will come away with the knowledge that the seeds of nouveau greed were planted at that time, and it changed with the tides as each endeavor was crushed. Greed just moved and assimilated from one opportunity to another. From junk bonds to MBO's. From MBO's to Internet stocks. From Internet stocks to sub-prime housing. From sub-prime housing to Credit Default Swaps. And on it goes. Another good reference book is "Den of Thieves", by James B. Stewart. Check them out and tell me your thoughts -- I think you will agree with me that it's the system that's generating this economic virus.
The other day, I was talking to a guy who asked me what I did for a living. When I told him that I was a mortgage loan officer, he immediately recoiled and, in raised voice, said "so you're the guys that are to blame for this mess!" and gave me a sideways glare. I was not amused. I couldn't decide what disgusted me more: his utter ignorance or his easily manipulated viewpoint that (most certainly) came from some pablum morning "news" show. I shot back with comments about how he shouldn't be so quick to judge without knowing both sides of the story, and it's unfortunate that most people jump to conclusions before raising their level of awareness, especially when everyone knows that bad news sells more newspapers and gathers more viewers -- it would be great if people were more likely to question the media and seek the truth, if not both sides of the story. Then began the backpedaling, but it was too late for me; I marched on with the explanation that it's not my fault that John Q. Public doesn't understand how to budget his finances and not try to live beyond their means.
Affordable house financing was a boon to Wall Street, but we now see that the good times were all artificial. Loan officers worked hard to help more people reach the American Dream of homeownership. The only problem was that we did such a good job of restructuring personal debt service that Mr. and Mrs. Public became aggressive consumers. Let's get a newer car with more extras! Let's get a newer computer with more bells and whistles! Let's get that jumbotron-like flat screen tv! Ipods! Cell phones -- We need another, more expensive phone and an equally expensive minutes plan, because it's not enough to just have a land phone! Satellite or digital cable tv to go with that fancy flat screen tv! It goes on and on. Suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Public are deep in debt, and guess which payment doesn't get made? The largest one -- the mortgage payment. And most people don't realize that the absolute worst thing to do to damage your credit (outside of filing for bankruptcy) is to default on your mortgage payment. Most underwriting can forgive and work around history of late payments on consumer credit accounts (provided there's a reasonable explanation of a one-time event, in writing from the borrower), but there's no forgiveness for late mortgage payments. It's a message that gets easily lost in the moment, until the time comes when new credit is needed, and by then it's too late.
So I say to you, Mr. President, and also to you, members of Congress, in all due respect, please raise your level of awareness. It's not the mortgage crisis that's causing this sickness in the markets -- it's the system that allowed the greed to fester and manifest itself within our free market economy. Your $700 billion relief package is nothing more than a bandage on a deep flesh wound. The problem runs deeper than that.
The Wall Street financial crisis is blowing up in our faces...or so we are being told. Are you like me and are wondering just what exactly justifies a price tag of $700 BILLION dollars? Why not $500 billion? Why not $100 billion or even $7 billion? Plus, we're being told that this must happen NOW. What is the reference point? Why not disclose what's behind all this? Or are we not being told because no one really knows? Let me know what you think. More to come...
Most of us who have worked (and/or are currently working) in the financial field know that this all started over 25 years ago on Wall Street when Salomon Brothers began the collateralized investment pools. If you really want a good "primer" on this subject, I suggest you buy the book "Liar's Poker" by Michael Lewis and give it a good read. You will come away with the knowledge that the seeds of nouveau greed were planted at that time, and it changed with the tides as each endeavor was crushed. Greed just moved and assimilated from one opportunity to another. From junk bonds to MBO's. From MBO's to Internet stocks. From Internet stocks to sub-prime housing. From sub-prime housing to Credit Default Swaps. And on it goes. Another good reference book is "Den of Thieves", by James B. Stewart. Check them out and tell me your thoughts -- I think you will agree with me that it's the system that's generating this economic virus.
The other day, I was talking to a guy who asked me what I did for a living. When I told him that I was a mortgage loan officer, he immediately recoiled and, in raised voice, said "so you're the guys that are to blame for this mess!" and gave me a sideways glare. I was not amused. I couldn't decide what disgusted me more: his utter ignorance or his easily manipulated viewpoint that (most certainly) came from some pablum morning "news" show. I shot back with comments about how he shouldn't be so quick to judge without knowing both sides of the story, and it's unfortunate that most people jump to conclusions before raising their level of awareness, especially when everyone knows that bad news sells more newspapers and gathers more viewers -- it would be great if people were more likely to question the media and seek the truth, if not both sides of the story. Then began the backpedaling, but it was too late for me; I marched on with the explanation that it's not my fault that John Q. Public doesn't understand how to budget his finances and not try to live beyond their means.
Affordable house financing was a boon to Wall Street, but we now see that the good times were all artificial. Loan officers worked hard to help more people reach the American Dream of homeownership. The only problem was that we did such a good job of restructuring personal debt service that Mr. and Mrs. Public became aggressive consumers. Let's get a newer car with more extras! Let's get a newer computer with more bells and whistles! Let's get that jumbotron-like flat screen tv! Ipods! Cell phones -- We need another, more expensive phone and an equally expensive minutes plan, because it's not enough to just have a land phone! Satellite or digital cable tv to go with that fancy flat screen tv! It goes on and on. Suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Public are deep in debt, and guess which payment doesn't get made? The largest one -- the mortgage payment. And most people don't realize that the absolute worst thing to do to damage your credit (outside of filing for bankruptcy) is to default on your mortgage payment. Most underwriting can forgive and work around history of late payments on consumer credit accounts (provided there's a reasonable explanation of a one-time event, in writing from the borrower), but there's no forgiveness for late mortgage payments. It's a message that gets easily lost in the moment, until the time comes when new credit is needed, and by then it's too late.
So I say to you, Mr. President, and also to you, members of Congress, in all due respect, please raise your level of awareness. It's not the mortgage crisis that's causing this sickness in the markets -- it's the system that allowed the greed to fester and manifest itself within our free market economy. Your $700 billion relief package is nothing more than a bandage on a deep flesh wound. The problem runs deeper than that.
The Wall Street financial crisis is blowing up in our faces...or so we are being told. Are you like me and are wondering just what exactly justifies a price tag of $700 BILLION dollars? Why not $500 billion? Why not $100 billion or even $7 billion? Plus, we're being told that this must happen NOW. What is the reference point? Why not disclose what's behind all this? Or are we not being told because no one really knows? Let me know what you think. More to come...
Monday, September 15, 2008
Correction (already)
Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, not Ch. 7 as previously mentioned...
[dealbreaker.com]
All apologies...
[dealbreaker.com]
All apologies...
Monday Musings...
(trying to make this a regular event every Monday...)
Politics...Sports...Current Events...Entertainment...Potpourri...it's all here. Chime in anytime.
Current Events
Hurricane Ike was devastating to the Gulf coast, especially the Texas shoreline. Didn't get much rain or wind here in Charlotte, NC -- instead, we got incredible price-gouging at the gas pumps. I got a call late Thursday night from a good friend, saying the word was out that, starting Friday morning, the price of gas would go up up up, and there's also talk of rationing. I didn't agree with my friend; how could there be a problem when the cost of a barrel of oil was back down to $100 and there was no mention of gas shortages anywhere on CNBC or any other business channels, even in spite of the oncoming hurricane? I didn't believe it...until I set out on the road early Friday and saw the long lines at the pumps and the price of gas being .50 to 1.00 higher than what I paid for it only 24 hours earlier. I turned on the local newsradio station to hear that some places were up over $1/gallon. By the afternoon, news was coming in that various suburbs were completely out of gas and people were scrambling. We were now up to $5/gallon in some places and, as I drove past gas stations, there were still lines (at the places that still had gas), and I noticed that people were filling up small portable gas tanks in addition to their cars. Notice was served later in the evening that the state attorney general and the governor were going to investigate price-gouging complaints, but as of this writing, there's still no progress or mention of arrests (I don't know what more proof they needed, but then again, this state's administration is weak at best, so I'm not holding my breath). All this while the national average went up only $.06 at most. It will be interesting to see how fast the local price will come back to prior levels once the hurricane is gone -- I have a strong feeling that the price will take much longer to come down than it did when it went up. And throw in the prediction that no one will be prosecuted for gouging...
Meanwhile, there is the pressure cooker that is the Financial Crisis. On Friday, the word was out that Lehman was aggressively looking for a buyer. By end of business, there was not resolution, but the Feds were now involved and planned to discuss options over the weekend. Uh-oh -- Last time this happened, we lost Bear Stearns. If the Fed works weekends, someone's gonna pay. This morning we hear that Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch, and Lehman filed for Ch 7 BK. We were witness to periodic shots of Lehman employees shuffling out of the building with their work belongings in boxes. Ken Lewis, CEO of BofA, was shown with a happy face, and this was just 6 months after saying he had enough "fun" with investment banks and was no longer interested in acquiring another. Today, he's saying the timing was right and that Merrill is the world leader of investment banks, and that BofA will become the premier world financial leader. Yeah, right. Talk about lipstick on a pig -- he also said that he didn't want Lehman when the Feds said there'd be no arrangement like JPMorgan got with Bear Stearns, but it didn't matter anyway, because this will be a great deal. Ohhhhhhkayy...why do I get the image of Luka Brazzi holding a gun to Ken's head, over a table, saying either Ken's signature or Ken's brains would be on the purchase agreement for Merrill or Lehman? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...
Politics
Didja catch the SNL parody of Palin and HRC? Great stuff -- Tina Fey was golden. The skit hit the morning shows with lots of fanfare, and I even read where Palin once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween! Talk about life imitating art imitating life...
Well, I see where Obama's camp has finally got it right and is focusing on McCain instead of being distracted by the shiny metal object that is Palin. You won't win if you keep fighting a girl. Only problem I have is that O's camp is issuing press releases that Mac is using dirty tactics and is being unprofessional with lies and mistruths -- dude, get a grip. No one likes a whining crybaby. Try coming out with substance, or do you have anything to offer? Give us some hope with some credible ideas or solutions. Stop with the finger-pointing or you'll lose...to an old man and a GIRL! bwah ha ha! America is getting beat up everywhere (or the perception is that we are), and we need to know if someone has the cajones to roll up sleeves and work this out -- seriously. I'm not saying I'm for one side or the other -- I'm still undecided, but this negative campaigning crap needs to stop. Again, we have candidates that want to bitch at each other instead of offering ideas or solutions, as if they're too scared to play their hand. Maybe there's a method to the madness. Maybe the hand can't be played too soon or else it gives the opposition more time to digest and counter it. Who wins? no one. Who loses? We all do.
Meanwhile, the market closes down over 500 points!!! Where is the damn bottom?? And now I see where Paulsen says the only way to pull us out of this mess is though the housing market. Wait...what? Dude, are you not aware that no one is buying houses right now? There's no reason to buy when everyone is still unsure of their financial future! Don't be waiting for the housing market to bail you out yet AGAIN. Try earning your salary and implement some policies that make sense for the country, long-term and short-term! Popular or not! Americans are tough and will take short-term pain if they know there will be a greater good served down the road. Just like any other sickness, the first and most important step is to admit that you are sick and acknowledge your weakness...
Politics...Sports...Current Events...Entertainment...Potpourri...it's all here. Chime in anytime.
Current Events
Hurricane Ike was devastating to the Gulf coast, especially the Texas shoreline. Didn't get much rain or wind here in Charlotte, NC -- instead, we got incredible price-gouging at the gas pumps. I got a call late Thursday night from a good friend, saying the word was out that, starting Friday morning, the price of gas would go up up up, and there's also talk of rationing. I didn't agree with my friend; how could there be a problem when the cost of a barrel of oil was back down to $100 and there was no mention of gas shortages anywhere on CNBC or any other business channels, even in spite of the oncoming hurricane? I didn't believe it...until I set out on the road early Friday and saw the long lines at the pumps and the price of gas being .50 to 1.00 higher than what I paid for it only 24 hours earlier. I turned on the local newsradio station to hear that some places were up over $1/gallon. By the afternoon, news was coming in that various suburbs were completely out of gas and people were scrambling. We were now up to $5/gallon in some places and, as I drove past gas stations, there were still lines (at the places that still had gas), and I noticed that people were filling up small portable gas tanks in addition to their cars. Notice was served later in the evening that the state attorney general and the governor were going to investigate price-gouging complaints, but as of this writing, there's still no progress or mention of arrests (I don't know what more proof they needed, but then again, this state's administration is weak at best, so I'm not holding my breath). All this while the national average went up only $.06 at most. It will be interesting to see how fast the local price will come back to prior levels once the hurricane is gone -- I have a strong feeling that the price will take much longer to come down than it did when it went up. And throw in the prediction that no one will be prosecuted for gouging...
Meanwhile, there is the pressure cooker that is the Financial Crisis. On Friday, the word was out that Lehman was aggressively looking for a buyer. By end of business, there was not resolution, but the Feds were now involved and planned to discuss options over the weekend. Uh-oh -- Last time this happened, we lost Bear Stearns. If the Fed works weekends, someone's gonna pay. This morning we hear that Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch, and Lehman filed for Ch 7 BK. We were witness to periodic shots of Lehman employees shuffling out of the building with their work belongings in boxes. Ken Lewis, CEO of BofA, was shown with a happy face, and this was just 6 months after saying he had enough "fun" with investment banks and was no longer interested in acquiring another. Today, he's saying the timing was right and that Merrill is the world leader of investment banks, and that BofA will become the premier world financial leader. Yeah, right. Talk about lipstick on a pig -- he also said that he didn't want Lehman when the Feds said there'd be no arrangement like JPMorgan got with Bear Stearns, but it didn't matter anyway, because this will be a great deal. Ohhhhhhkayy...why do I get the image of Luka Brazzi holding a gun to Ken's head, over a table, saying either Ken's signature or Ken's brains would be on the purchase agreement for Merrill or Lehman? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...
Politics
Didja catch the SNL parody of Palin and HRC? Great stuff -- Tina Fey was golden. The skit hit the morning shows with lots of fanfare, and I even read where Palin once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween! Talk about life imitating art imitating life...
Well, I see where Obama's camp has finally got it right and is focusing on McCain instead of being distracted by the shiny metal object that is Palin. You won't win if you keep fighting a girl. Only problem I have is that O's camp is issuing press releases that Mac is using dirty tactics and is being unprofessional with lies and mistruths -- dude, get a grip. No one likes a whining crybaby. Try coming out with substance, or do you have anything to offer? Give us some hope with some credible ideas or solutions. Stop with the finger-pointing or you'll lose...to an old man and a GIRL! bwah ha ha! America is getting beat up everywhere (or the perception is that we are), and we need to know if someone has the cajones to roll up sleeves and work this out -- seriously. I'm not saying I'm for one side or the other -- I'm still undecided, but this negative campaigning crap needs to stop. Again, we have candidates that want to bitch at each other instead of offering ideas or solutions, as if they're too scared to play their hand. Maybe there's a method to the madness. Maybe the hand can't be played too soon or else it gives the opposition more time to digest and counter it. Who wins? no one. Who loses? We all do.
Meanwhile, the market closes down over 500 points!!! Where is the damn bottom?? And now I see where Paulsen says the only way to pull us out of this mess is though the housing market. Wait...what? Dude, are you not aware that no one is buying houses right now? There's no reason to buy when everyone is still unsure of their financial future! Don't be waiting for the housing market to bail you out yet AGAIN. Try earning your salary and implement some policies that make sense for the country, long-term and short-term! Popular or not! Americans are tough and will take short-term pain if they know there will be a greater good served down the road. Just like any other sickness, the first and most important step is to admit that you are sick and acknowledge your weakness...
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Spin Cycle
Oh, how I love to see expert spin doctoring at works, especially in a political campaign. I want to share these tidbits with you:
1) from the very smart writers at The Daily Show: http://email.comedycentral.com/a/hBIxZceBAhkQSB7S4rVBNRz8AJN/cc10-1
Yes, the Dems have had their moments, too, but in light of todays' events, I found the aforementioned spins very amusing...
2) But by far, my most favorite clip from The Daily Show -- it blows me away: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&title=Bristol-Palin's-Choice
"another word for alternative...what's the word I'm looking for?"... bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Comedy Central and The Daily Show -- you made my week!
1) from the very smart writers at The Daily Show: http://email.comedycentral.com/a/hBIxZceBAhkQSB7S4rVBNRz8AJN/cc10-1
Yes, the Dems have had their moments, too, but in light of todays' events, I found the aforementioned spins very amusing...
2) But by far, my most favorite clip from The Daily Show -- it blows me away: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&title=Bristol-Palin's-Choice
"another word for alternative...what's the word I'm looking for?"... bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Comedy Central and The Daily Show -- you made my week!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
It was 7 years ago today...
I remember it well. In Charlotte, the weather was much the same as it was in New York and Washington: sunny and clear skies. It was a little after 8:30am, and the kids were off to school, the wife was off to work, and I was on my way to my favorite bagel shop for a quick breakfast sandwich before I start my visits to various business partners. My partners don't normally get started before 10am, so I knew I had some time to take in a few newspapers and trade magazines. As I was driving into the city, I tuned my radio to the local AM News/Traffic station, to get an update on the traffic congestion. The morning team was moving along with their usual cheery, light-hearted banter. "Today is National 9-1-1 Day,", the radio dude started to say, "in recognition of phone number used for emergency purposes"... as if this ironic statement was a precursor of what was about to come. My eyes were rolling in the back of my head as I heard this -- yeah, like we need another National Recognition Day, soon every little thing will have their own "national" day, what's next? Is this the best you've got for me? Where's the traffic report so that I can switch back to the morning sports radio station?...
The radio chick interrupts her partner: "this just came across the wires -- there is a report of a small fire in one of the World Trade Center towers, and some are saying it may be the result of a small plane possibly hitting one of the towers"...Hmmm, I thought, it's possible, and we haven't heard of this happening in quite a while...the radio voices continue: "you remember the Empire State Building was hit years ago by a small plane, I wonder if this is the same thing...we don't have a lot of information to pass along to you, but as soon as it comes to us, we'll get it to you"...the normal stuff you hear from news programs -- serious but still nothing to worry about as you make your way into work...
Then it all became clear, at 9:04am: "we have just been informed that another plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, and now both towers are in flames..." Wait, what? I turned my car around and raced back home -- this didn't sound like your ordinary small plane event, and I'm sure this would be thoroughly covered by all television news sources. Plus, I knew it would impact the markets, which would impact the rates that affects my livelihood, so I had a vested interest in getting more info -- and these local deejays were clearly in over their heads on this and couldn't get out of their own way with the various reports coming in.
Once at home, I tuned the TV to Fox News -- at the time, Fox News was new and trying to establish an identity, so I had a hunch that they would work harder to get the more unique visuals that others would not get, and I was right. The Big 3 and MSNBC were broadcasting traditional views, but Fox was getting better shots. I turned on my Picture-In-Picture and put on CNBC for that side, and I was equally rewarded: the financial markets were directly hit, and who better to report from their perspective than the financial news network? So there I was, toggling between Fox and CNBC, and I was amazed that CNBC had views that no one else had. The point was made when they showed their everyday opening show shot of the WTC skyline, the skyline we took for granted every day, only this day the skyline was covered in smoke, something we had never seen before. The CNBC announcers were visibly shaken. Suddenly, on Fox, there was the report that the Pentagon had been hit, and early feeds were coming in. My cell phone rang -- it was the wife, and she was frantic. No hello, no what's up. "Are you watching this? What's going on?" She was clearly agitated and was borderline frantic (as we all were). I told her the Pentagon just got hit, and she immediately repeated it loudly, as if she wanted the others in the office to hear her. "Where are you hearing this? What channel are you watching?" she shouted back to me. "Turn to Fox News or the local Fox channel", I said. I heard her repeat the instruction to others in the room, followed shortly by gasps from her and the others. She continued, "are we under attack? I heard that we are under attack! What about the children? Should I go get them?"...Oh my. I wasn't expecting this, I was so mesmerized by what I was watching that I wasn't prepared to discuss the kids' situation, but I knew I had to snap out of it. "Call the school to see what they are doing and if they're letting the kids out", I suggested. "I'm closer to the school so call me back and I'll go get them asap." "I'm scared", she said to me. "What is going on?" Her voice was shaken, and it was in the tone that none of us want to hear. "There's nothing going on here, it looks like it's only in New York and Washington. I'm watching it and I'll let you know if I hear anything that we need to know or do locally," I tried to assure her. She sounded more calm as she hung up, and I went back to the TV.
I was glued to it, like a bad car or train wreck that you just cannot stop looking at or turning your head from. "This is crazy", I thought...and just when I thought it couldn't get any crazier, the towers fell down. The phone rang again -- the wife is calling back. "I just called the school. The kids are alright, and they haven't said yet if or when they'll let school out early. Did you see the towers fall?"....yes, I said, I did. And it was then that I knew the world would never be the same.
What's your memory of that day? Has it changed you? I'll be discussing that question in a later blog -- it's amazing to me how deeply this event has shaken people -- it certainly warrants a more in-depth examination of the psyche that is forever etched in many minds and policy-makers going forward...
The radio chick interrupts her partner: "this just came across the wires -- there is a report of a small fire in one of the World Trade Center towers, and some are saying it may be the result of a small plane possibly hitting one of the towers"...Hmmm, I thought, it's possible, and we haven't heard of this happening in quite a while...the radio voices continue: "you remember the Empire State Building was hit years ago by a small plane, I wonder if this is the same thing...we don't have a lot of information to pass along to you, but as soon as it comes to us, we'll get it to you"...the normal stuff you hear from news programs -- serious but still nothing to worry about as you make your way into work...
Then it all became clear, at 9:04am: "we have just been informed that another plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, and now both towers are in flames..." Wait, what? I turned my car around and raced back home -- this didn't sound like your ordinary small plane event, and I'm sure this would be thoroughly covered by all television news sources. Plus, I knew it would impact the markets, which would impact the rates that affects my livelihood, so I had a vested interest in getting more info -- and these local deejays were clearly in over their heads on this and couldn't get out of their own way with the various reports coming in.
Once at home, I tuned the TV to Fox News -- at the time, Fox News was new and trying to establish an identity, so I had a hunch that they would work harder to get the more unique visuals that others would not get, and I was right. The Big 3 and MSNBC were broadcasting traditional views, but Fox was getting better shots. I turned on my Picture-In-Picture and put on CNBC for that side, and I was equally rewarded: the financial markets were directly hit, and who better to report from their perspective than the financial news network? So there I was, toggling between Fox and CNBC, and I was amazed that CNBC had views that no one else had. The point was made when they showed their everyday opening show shot of the WTC skyline, the skyline we took for granted every day, only this day the skyline was covered in smoke, something we had never seen before. The CNBC announcers were visibly shaken. Suddenly, on Fox, there was the report that the Pentagon had been hit, and early feeds were coming in. My cell phone rang -- it was the wife, and she was frantic. No hello, no what's up. "Are you watching this? What's going on?" She was clearly agitated and was borderline frantic (as we all were). I told her the Pentagon just got hit, and she immediately repeated it loudly, as if she wanted the others in the office to hear her. "Where are you hearing this? What channel are you watching?" she shouted back to me. "Turn to Fox News or the local Fox channel", I said. I heard her repeat the instruction to others in the room, followed shortly by gasps from her and the others. She continued, "are we under attack? I heard that we are under attack! What about the children? Should I go get them?"...Oh my. I wasn't expecting this, I was so mesmerized by what I was watching that I wasn't prepared to discuss the kids' situation, but I knew I had to snap out of it. "Call the school to see what they are doing and if they're letting the kids out", I suggested. "I'm closer to the school so call me back and I'll go get them asap." "I'm scared", she said to me. "What is going on?" Her voice was shaken, and it was in the tone that none of us want to hear. "There's nothing going on here, it looks like it's only in New York and Washington. I'm watching it and I'll let you know if I hear anything that we need to know or do locally," I tried to assure her. She sounded more calm as she hung up, and I went back to the TV.
I was glued to it, like a bad car or train wreck that you just cannot stop looking at or turning your head from. "This is crazy", I thought...and just when I thought it couldn't get any crazier, the towers fell down. The phone rang again -- the wife is calling back. "I just called the school. The kids are alright, and they haven't said yet if or when they'll let school out early. Did you see the towers fall?"....yes, I said, I did. And it was then that I knew the world would never be the same.
What's your memory of that day? Has it changed you? I'll be discussing that question in a later blog -- it's amazing to me how deeply this event has shaken people -- it certainly warrants a more in-depth examination of the psyche that is forever etched in many minds and policy-makers going forward...
The New Republic(ans)
In the wake of the final day of the RNC and the NBA-style speech of John McCain (boring until the last 5 minutes), there seems to be an underlying shift going on within the Republican party -- namely, the need to change within itself to get back to the fundamentals that made the party more in line with mainstream conservative thought. It was astounding to see McCain apologize for the deviations of the past 8 years and vow to make things right again. It had to be done -- many conservatives are currently disappointed in what's going on lately and are wondering why the party has lost its focus; out of control spending on the federal level, lack of strong and no-nonsense leadership on foreign policy affairs (would Reagan hold hands with the Saudi prince?), the creation of more layers of government bureaucracy, not less -- did we really need a Department of Homeland Security? Isn't that like saying our decision to have a INS and a Customs Division was wrong and a waste of time and money from the beginning? Wouldn't it have been easier and more logical to reorganize the FBI and CIA, as well as the INS and Customs, without having to add yet another Cabinet department? But I digress...
Then again, the GOP knew they had to change tatics to recreate their image. The current state was not working and was dying in the polls. The only option was to attack as the true agent of change, to turn it back on the Dems. The response has been enthusiastic within the party mainstream. The Palin pick has been a major disruption to the process -- it's as if the controversy was designed to overshadow the current state of despair; as if to say "see? we are the team of change already with this pick. Bush/Cheney wouldn't have done this! This is a sign of how progressively intelligent we can be, and there's more where that came from!"
And the party is buying it. McCain, in his nomination acceptance speech, acknowledged the party mistakes of the past, and vowed to correct them, in essence distancing himself from the current administration. This move is also to counter the attacks from the Dems that McCain is more of the same, to get the message out to the undecideds that this team is different from the current team in office. McCain is being portrayed as a maverick who won't bow to the path of least resistance or unpopular agenda that has no net positive effect to the American people. Is it feasible? In terms of Washington politics, highly unlikely, but it would most certainly be welcome -- even the effort would be a refreshing change, provided it was proactive and not reactive like we've seen lately.
Palin is a risk and the party is getting chastised for not putting her out there to the wolves (i.e. press). It's similar to what you see when the accused refuses to take the witness stand. It's a strategy that will play itself out in the next few weeks via the debates and other events where someone is going to stumble. We haven't see the last of Sarah Palin in this election, but it would be nice to see where she stands vs. where she comes from.
Then again, the GOP knew they had to change tatics to recreate their image. The current state was not working and was dying in the polls. The only option was to attack as the true agent of change, to turn it back on the Dems. The response has been enthusiastic within the party mainstream. The Palin pick has been a major disruption to the process -- it's as if the controversy was designed to overshadow the current state of despair; as if to say "see? we are the team of change already with this pick. Bush/Cheney wouldn't have done this! This is a sign of how progressively intelligent we can be, and there's more where that came from!"
And the party is buying it. McCain, in his nomination acceptance speech, acknowledged the party mistakes of the past, and vowed to correct them, in essence distancing himself from the current administration. This move is also to counter the attacks from the Dems that McCain is more of the same, to get the message out to the undecideds that this team is different from the current team in office. McCain is being portrayed as a maverick who won't bow to the path of least resistance or unpopular agenda that has no net positive effect to the American people. Is it feasible? In terms of Washington politics, highly unlikely, but it would most certainly be welcome -- even the effort would be a refreshing change, provided it was proactive and not reactive like we've seen lately.
Palin is a risk and the party is getting chastised for not putting her out there to the wolves (i.e. press). It's similar to what you see when the accused refuses to take the witness stand. It's a strategy that will play itself out in the next few weeks via the debates and other events where someone is going to stumble. We haven't see the last of Sarah Palin in this election, but it would be nice to see where she stands vs. where she comes from.
Friday, September 05, 2008
RNC -- Day 3
Forgive me for taking some time to report on the final two days of the RNC -- after being mesmerized by Sarah Palin's speech on Wednesday night, I knew it would light a bonfire of comments and opinions from the various legitimate news sources, and I wanted to take it all in. Next thing I knew, it was time for the final night, and I also knew that I'd have plenty of time to ponder and opine during that 30-minute void ERRR McCain's acceptance speech...
DAY 3 -- First up: Meg Whitman, the eBay queen. Many are saying she will be the next governor of California, hand-picked by Ah-nuld himself, and it's common poly-sci knowledge that the Cali govnah job is always considered Presidential timber (provided said govnah is born in the U.S.), so I was interested in checking it out. Whitman's speech was very level, very standard -- I would say she had an agenda of not getting too crazy or too boring, so it was very Goldilocks, very safe. Next up was former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, and her speech was dry but she tried. I always wondered what happened to her, but she didn't look like she was suffering too much from being unemployed, so I'm glad I don't have to worry too much about her. Following Carly was Mitt Romney -- oh, yeah, now I remember why I just couldn't get my arms around this guy. Mitt's speech was delivered with gusto, as if someone told him to wake up the crowd following Whitman and Fiorina. Mitt was enthused to a fault, but he did his job...again. If McCain wins, look for Mitt to land on his feet within the administration. Mike Huckabee was next, and my perception is that he's still bitter about not being the nominee. For a former preacher, I found his speech to be non-contrite, and that kind of hypocrisy just strengthens the uneasiness many of us have with so-called religious zealots. Thankfully, next up was Rudy Guiliani, and I had to laugh -- oh, Rudy, you are the typical rabid New Yawkah. Rudy was like the yard dog you see chained to the tree in the back yard, not a piece of grass on the ground, barking up a storm as you pass by. Rudy revved up the crowd and did what Mitt could not -- he went directly at the Dems and their candidates, then he buttered up the crowd with rah-rahs for McCain and especially for Sarah Palin. Rudy left no stone unturned, and his speech set it up for the next speaker....
The SARAH-meister! The hockey mom! Kid outta nowhere! Cinderella story! But no tears in her eyes in this moment -- she was on a mission, and to paraphrase the old line, Hell hath no fury as a mother whose child is publicly ridiculed. Right off the bat, as she walked to the stage up to the time she said her first word of her speech, the crowd was in full applause, complete with 5 minute standing ovation. If you were wondering what the party response would be to all the questionable press about Sarah and her family in the prior 72 hours, you got your answer right at this moment. You knew she would have to absolutely crash and burn on the speech to screw this up, but you also knew she wasn't going to blow it -- it was well-known that she had expert GOP speechwriters and policy consultants working full-time with her since last Sunday. Her speech was borderline spiteful, yet full of substance and midwest charm, as only a PTA parent could deliver. She came out swinging against the Dems in general, and Obama in particular. The only thing she didn't say about Obama was "bless his heart", which, if you live in the South, you know that's the kiss of death. And I couldn't stop watching it. Sarah was not the most comfortable on the podium -- yeah, like any of us would be able to keep it all together on a stage like that, in front of a full house, and oh by the way, with 37 MILLION viewers on top of it. There were times that I thought I heard her voice crack -- very slight but noticeable to someone familiar with public speaking. She rallied well, and fed off the pauses she got from the applause breaks within her speech, and you could see her getting her mojo going, especially after the now-famous "lipstick" line (yeah, yeah, we know it's an old joke, originally used for female attorneys in the 70's, but effective nonetheless). Sarah came off as tough, no nonsense, and not giving quarter to the Dems, but really, what did you expect? She had to come out fast and hard, as if to convince us all that this was no fluke. Yes, it could be said that this is typical for women, that they have more barriers to overcome immediately if they are to be taken seriously. That may be true to some extent, but I can tell you that she got my attention right away, and I couldn't stop thinking about the comics' line of "rocking that dangerous sexy librarian look". And that accent -- it worked on the televised speech, but don't try it again on the radio; her voice on various newsradio shows was not comforting. The speechwriters used her to voice their spite to the Dems, and even better, she was comfortable being their spokesperson. My belief is that the goal was to get the Dems riled up
I'll save my opinions about her record and qualifications for later (I'm like you, I have questions and concerns, too). But what I did notice was that the Dems are still pissed about this pick, and the success of Sarah's speech is just adding gas to the flame. The interwebs are alive with vicious and caustic attacks on her character, her record, her attitude, and the irony that their girl, HRC, would be skewered alive by the 'publicans if the situation was reversed...more on that later....and more on Mac Daddy's speech last night...stay tuned...and thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming!
DAY 3 -- First up: Meg Whitman, the eBay queen. Many are saying she will be the next governor of California, hand-picked by Ah-nuld himself, and it's common poly-sci knowledge that the Cali govnah job is always considered Presidential timber (provided said govnah is born in the U.S.), so I was interested in checking it out. Whitman's speech was very level, very standard -- I would say she had an agenda of not getting too crazy or too boring, so it was very Goldilocks, very safe. Next up was former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, and her speech was dry but she tried. I always wondered what happened to her, but she didn't look like she was suffering too much from being unemployed, so I'm glad I don't have to worry too much about her. Following Carly was Mitt Romney -- oh, yeah, now I remember why I just couldn't get my arms around this guy. Mitt's speech was delivered with gusto, as if someone told him to wake up the crowd following Whitman and Fiorina. Mitt was enthused to a fault, but he did his job...again. If McCain wins, look for Mitt to land on his feet within the administration. Mike Huckabee was next, and my perception is that he's still bitter about not being the nominee. For a former preacher, I found his speech to be non-contrite, and that kind of hypocrisy just strengthens the uneasiness many of us have with so-called religious zealots. Thankfully, next up was Rudy Guiliani, and I had to laugh -- oh, Rudy, you are the typical rabid New Yawkah. Rudy was like the yard dog you see chained to the tree in the back yard, not a piece of grass on the ground, barking up a storm as you pass by. Rudy revved up the crowd and did what Mitt could not -- he went directly at the Dems and their candidates, then he buttered up the crowd with rah-rahs for McCain and especially for Sarah Palin. Rudy left no stone unturned, and his speech set it up for the next speaker....
The SARAH-meister! The hockey mom! Kid outta nowhere! Cinderella story! But no tears in her eyes in this moment -- she was on a mission, and to paraphrase the old line, Hell hath no fury as a mother whose child is publicly ridiculed. Right off the bat, as she walked to the stage up to the time she said her first word of her speech, the crowd was in full applause, complete with 5 minute standing ovation. If you were wondering what the party response would be to all the questionable press about Sarah and her family in the prior 72 hours, you got your answer right at this moment. You knew she would have to absolutely crash and burn on the speech to screw this up, but you also knew she wasn't going to blow it -- it was well-known that she had expert GOP speechwriters and policy consultants working full-time with her since last Sunday. Her speech was borderline spiteful, yet full of substance and midwest charm, as only a PTA parent could deliver. She came out swinging against the Dems in general, and Obama in particular. The only thing she didn't say about Obama was "bless his heart", which, if you live in the South, you know that's the kiss of death. And I couldn't stop watching it. Sarah was not the most comfortable on the podium -- yeah, like any of us would be able to keep it all together on a stage like that, in front of a full house, and oh by the way, with 37 MILLION viewers on top of it. There were times that I thought I heard her voice crack -- very slight but noticeable to someone familiar with public speaking. She rallied well, and fed off the pauses she got from the applause breaks within her speech, and you could see her getting her mojo going, especially after the now-famous "lipstick" line (yeah, yeah, we know it's an old joke, originally used for female attorneys in the 70's, but effective nonetheless). Sarah came off as tough, no nonsense, and not giving quarter to the Dems, but really, what did you expect? She had to come out fast and hard, as if to convince us all that this was no fluke. Yes, it could be said that this is typical for women, that they have more barriers to overcome immediately if they are to be taken seriously. That may be true to some extent, but I can tell you that she got my attention right away, and I couldn't stop thinking about the comics' line of "rocking that dangerous sexy librarian look". And that accent -- it worked on the televised speech, but don't try it again on the radio; her voice on various newsradio shows was not comforting. The speechwriters used her to voice their spite to the Dems, and even better, she was comfortable being their spokesperson. My belief is that the goal was to get the Dems riled up
I'll save my opinions about her record and qualifications for later (I'm like you, I have questions and concerns, too). But what I did notice was that the Dems are still pissed about this pick, and the success of Sarah's speech is just adding gas to the flame. The interwebs are alive with vicious and caustic attacks on her character, her record, her attitude, and the irony that their girl, HRC, would be skewered alive by the 'publicans if the situation was reversed...more on that later....and more on Mac Daddy's speech last night...stay tuned...and thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming!
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
RNC, Day 2
(Due to the attention given Hurricane Gustav and the low-key agenda for Day 1 of the RNC, we skip to Day 2)
My first thoughts of this year's RNC is that I'm not expecting much from this crowd -- they are, after all, the party that has held the White House for 8 years now, so what more can be said? Of course we all know the motive is to continue to elect the POTUS from their party, but the problem I see is the reality of what is going on in this country. The Iraq conflict (and the billions upon billions of dollars spent on it, without recourse from the same oil-rich country) is not popular. The economic stagnation is not popular (though some would say it's returning to normal from previous unnatural levels). The mortgage mess is not popular (although the system is failing from its own self-serving attempts to loosen the guidelines of homeownership -- I can personally attest to this, having been a part of this industry for over 11 years, but I'll save that for another post). The widening discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is not popular (will this issue ever go away in this country that relies on free enterprise and capitalism? No.).
McCain has his work cut out for him -- his predecessor has not left him with much to work with, and it's going to be difficult to disassociate himself from the current (and very unpopular) POTUS. The question becomes: how to market yourself as equal but separate? Let's use another sports analogy to analyze this: whenever a team dominates their sport for an extended number of seasons, it becomes a dynasty, but it also becomes a victim of its own success. Other teams openly court key players of the dynasty with offers of more money, less work, more control of their own schedule. The coaching staffs are robbed with promises of head coaching jobs to current assistants of the dynasty. The public fall prey to the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt" and lose interest in watching the same team win over and over again. Thus, the dynasty breaks down -- unless the dynasty becomes proactive and plans for the inevitable changes by making decisions that are so unexpected, so bombastic that no one saw them coming. The New England Patriots were consistent winners, and in the off-season they cut popular (but aging) players who were formerly instrumental to their success -- the team had to move on to stay competitive, and this is not a popularity contest. The New York Yankees were consistent winners, and in their off-season, they did the same as the Patriots, cutting loose of key players or (even worse!) signing players from their arch-rivals, because the team had to move on to stay competitive, PLUS stay in front of the public eye by making moves that made people talk about them.
In the McCain camp, we have the same thing going on. McCain needs to provide the same ol', same ol' with something different, but not too different so as to jeopardize the home base. McCain and Bush never got along, and were friendly adversaries at best. Their only connection was that they both belong to the same political party, so they had to make the peace if they wanted their party to have a future (and with all the millions of dollars in donated campaign funds over the years, they both had heavy "debts" to pay back, one way or another, and BTW, this is not isolated to the GOP, either). To see Bush up there, promoting McCain with conviction and emphasis, was, for lack of a better word, weird. All would agree that the best thing to happen to McCain was to have Bush not be there in St. Paul. The party got what it wanted in keeping the Bush speech short and sweet. Heck, the speech was even pre-recorded, so I'm sure Bush was watching SportsCenter while his speech was being played to the crowd. But that's ok with the party. Speaking of OK: I thought Laura Bush did a great job -- this woman is a teacher, so she is comfortable with commanding an audience, and she was not heard from enough these past 8 years, in my opinion.
Fab Freddy Thompson came up next, after a short film on McCain's service record as narrated by Gary Sinise (Lt. Dan to most of us). Fred did a great job telling the story of McCain's suffering as a POW. It was moving and inspiring, but every once in a while, I couldn't help wonder about the mentality of someone who would put up with this crap for 5.5 years. I wonder if McCain has secret desires to give the order to flatten all of Vietnam within five minutes after taking the oath. Or secretly commissioning a "massaud-like" team to go in there and find his captors and pull a Marcellus Wallace on 'em. But I digress...
After a video tribute to Ronald Reagan (which I thought was sloppily produced and lacking in key rallying points), we were treated to a speech from Joe Lieberman. Or at least, I heard he spoke -- I dozed off around then and don't remember much about it. Seriously, Joe should have been replaced by Rudy Guliani in that spot. Who is planning this convention agenda?
The best part of the night was when a reporter interviewed Newt Gingrich after Joe's speech -- when Newt was asked to explain Sarah Palin's experience (or lack of it), Newt went off on a tirade that was so incredible, I had to rewind the DVR and hear it again, because I just knew that Keith Olbermann was stewing about it and just couldn't wait to unleash his attack dog Rachel Maddow on it -- and I was right. Only problem for Keith was that it was followed by commercial break, then an on-the-spot interview by Andrea Mitchell with Joe Lieberman, then a segue to Chris Matthews' panel who quickly diffused the speeches properly, as we expect political discussion to be handled. Sorry, Keith, no one wants to hear what you and Rachel have to say, mainly because you don't know what you're talking about anyway, plus that's not the way to run a political discussion group. Watch the experts like Matthews and Buchanan, and learn.
All speakers were complimentary to Sarah Palin, and with good reason. Palin is going through an incredible amount of scrutiny in the past 48 hours, and most of it is uncalled for and lacking in professionalism, but it's not surprising (I blogged about this yesterday). Palin gets to speak tonight, and I would expect it to be one of the most watched speeches of either convention. Stay tuned...
My first thoughts of this year's RNC is that I'm not expecting much from this crowd -- they are, after all, the party that has held the White House for 8 years now, so what more can be said? Of course we all know the motive is to continue to elect the POTUS from their party, but the problem I see is the reality of what is going on in this country. The Iraq conflict (and the billions upon billions of dollars spent on it, without recourse from the same oil-rich country) is not popular. The economic stagnation is not popular (though some would say it's returning to normal from previous unnatural levels). The mortgage mess is not popular (although the system is failing from its own self-serving attempts to loosen the guidelines of homeownership -- I can personally attest to this, having been a part of this industry for over 11 years, but I'll save that for another post). The widening discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is not popular (will this issue ever go away in this country that relies on free enterprise and capitalism? No.).
McCain has his work cut out for him -- his predecessor has not left him with much to work with, and it's going to be difficult to disassociate himself from the current (and very unpopular) POTUS. The question becomes: how to market yourself as equal but separate? Let's use another sports analogy to analyze this: whenever a team dominates their sport for an extended number of seasons, it becomes a dynasty, but it also becomes a victim of its own success. Other teams openly court key players of the dynasty with offers of more money, less work, more control of their own schedule. The coaching staffs are robbed with promises of head coaching jobs to current assistants of the dynasty. The public fall prey to the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt" and lose interest in watching the same team win over and over again. Thus, the dynasty breaks down -- unless the dynasty becomes proactive and plans for the inevitable changes by making decisions that are so unexpected, so bombastic that no one saw them coming. The New England Patriots were consistent winners, and in the off-season they cut popular (but aging) players who were formerly instrumental to their success -- the team had to move on to stay competitive, and this is not a popularity contest. The New York Yankees were consistent winners, and in their off-season, they did the same as the Patriots, cutting loose of key players or (even worse!) signing players from their arch-rivals, because the team had to move on to stay competitive, PLUS stay in front of the public eye by making moves that made people talk about them.
In the McCain camp, we have the same thing going on. McCain needs to provide the same ol', same ol' with something different, but not too different so as to jeopardize the home base. McCain and Bush never got along, and were friendly adversaries at best. Their only connection was that they both belong to the same political party, so they had to make the peace if they wanted their party to have a future (and with all the millions of dollars in donated campaign funds over the years, they both had heavy "debts" to pay back, one way or another, and BTW, this is not isolated to the GOP, either). To see Bush up there, promoting McCain with conviction and emphasis, was, for lack of a better word, weird. All would agree that the best thing to happen to McCain was to have Bush not be there in St. Paul. The party got what it wanted in keeping the Bush speech short and sweet. Heck, the speech was even pre-recorded, so I'm sure Bush was watching SportsCenter while his speech was being played to the crowd. But that's ok with the party. Speaking of OK: I thought Laura Bush did a great job -- this woman is a teacher, so she is comfortable with commanding an audience, and she was not heard from enough these past 8 years, in my opinion.
Fab Freddy Thompson came up next, after a short film on McCain's service record as narrated by Gary Sinise (Lt. Dan to most of us). Fred did a great job telling the story of McCain's suffering as a POW. It was moving and inspiring, but every once in a while, I couldn't help wonder about the mentality of someone who would put up with this crap for 5.5 years. I wonder if McCain has secret desires to give the order to flatten all of Vietnam within five minutes after taking the oath. Or secretly commissioning a "massaud-like" team to go in there and find his captors and pull a Marcellus Wallace on 'em. But I digress...
After a video tribute to Ronald Reagan (which I thought was sloppily produced and lacking in key rallying points), we were treated to a speech from Joe Lieberman. Or at least, I heard he spoke -- I dozed off around then and don't remember much about it. Seriously, Joe should have been replaced by Rudy Guliani in that spot. Who is planning this convention agenda?
The best part of the night was when a reporter interviewed Newt Gingrich after Joe's speech -- when Newt was asked to explain Sarah Palin's experience (or lack of it), Newt went off on a tirade that was so incredible, I had to rewind the DVR and hear it again, because I just knew that Keith Olbermann was stewing about it and just couldn't wait to unleash his attack dog Rachel Maddow on it -- and I was right. Only problem for Keith was that it was followed by commercial break, then an on-the-spot interview by Andrea Mitchell with Joe Lieberman, then a segue to Chris Matthews' panel who quickly diffused the speeches properly, as we expect political discussion to be handled. Sorry, Keith, no one wants to hear what you and Rachel have to say, mainly because you don't know what you're talking about anyway, plus that's not the way to run a political discussion group. Watch the experts like Matthews and Buchanan, and learn.
All speakers were complimentary to Sarah Palin, and with good reason. Palin is going through an incredible amount of scrutiny in the past 48 hours, and most of it is uncalled for and lacking in professionalism, but it's not surprising (I blogged about this yesterday). Palin gets to speak tonight, and I would expect it to be one of the most watched speeches of either convention. Stay tuned...
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The Very Idea of Sarah Palin
WELL, Well, well. McCain pulls the string on a pitch while the Dems were sitting on dead red on a 3-2 count with runners in scoring position. For you non-baseball folks out there, what I'm saying is that the GOP went with a pick that no one saw coming, and as a result has the opponents scrambling to counter. Just as it's commonly considered a bold move to throw a change-up in the above baseball example, it was equally bold for McCain to pick someone that was way off the radar of conventional thought, especially given her political experience. But the most caustic issue seems to be her gender. Over the weekend, I've scoured the op-ed pages, and all agree of the opinion that the move was made solely to appeal to the HRC hold-outs. I cannot imagine that McCain would make this pick just to pick up a few thousand votes -- we all know that most of the HRC supporters' ideologies do not agree with Palin's, therefore it wouldn't make sense to, in essence, throw this pick away. What I did find, however, was that women were very polarized by this pick, and the female liberal base was so upset about it that they could not see beyond the blood boiling in their eye sockets.
As a long-time admirer of the female persuasion, I felt as if I've seen this reaction before. You can generalize it and criticize it and debate it all you want, but the fact remains: women do not like not having the last word. When Obama made his triumphant nomination acceptance speech, the euphoria attached to it was embraced by all Obama supporters like a warm quilt on a snowy evening. And just as sobering and unsettling, that same quilt was yanked away within 12 hours, courtesy of the Palin pick (to be honest with you, I was fully prepared to see McCain announce his pick DURING the Obama speech, as a political ploy to split up the media attention. The very idea that this did not happen tells me the two candidates want to share a "gentleman's agreement" to keep things as civil as possible, outside of the negative ads. I believe this "agreement" carried over to Obama's reaction later about Palin's private family matters, but more on that later). The vitriol that spewed from the various female blogs (see the commentary on jezebel.com, for example) was so one-sided, so eye-opening in terms of getting a feel for what the reaction was on the pick. Women feel both threatened and angered by the pick, for all of the reasons you've (no doubt) heard by now. This speaks to me of fear -- fear that their feel-good story has been shattered, and maybe this Obama election victory may not be such a sure thing after all. Suddenly the Bush-dread has come back and it's deja vu all over again. Suddenly the feeling of doubt has re-appeared in the minds of the formerly euphoric Dems, and it's only human nature that when fear appears, one of the first immediate reactions is to get defensive.
This pick was not made to capture the disgruntled HRC supporter vote -- if that happened, it would be considered an added benefit. This pick was made to soothe the staunch conservative base, and, as evidenced by the incredible fundraising bounce in the past 72 hours, it is a home run with them. Palin is the ideal pick: attractive, tough, pro-life, pro-NRA, a devoted wife and mother, and not afraid to fight for the cause. And please stop with all the conjecture that she's only a heartbeat away -- have we not learned anything from Watergate? It's the people you surround yourself with that will make or break you. Don't we always tell our children the same thing? McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will hold the posts, but the real policy will be shaped by the administration, and the real decisions will be made by the three branches of government. For instance, Palin is pro-life, but if elected, she and the GOP will still have a very difficult time rescinding Roe v. Wade. And with congressional elections held every two years, the balance of power is never a sure thing.
Personally, I think Palin is in for a very rough ride. She's a mother of five children, and most parents with children know how tough it is to juggle work and family schedules, with every child adding an expotential number of obstacles with it. The Dems will not be kind to her, just as the GOP will not be kind to Obama (by the way, please remember that the campaign is just getting started, the dirt has yet to fly). She has, to bring back the baseball analogy, gone from Single-A ball to the major leagues overnight, and is expected to perform at the top level from this day forward. Any player that has gone through a similar flight will tell you the pressure is enormous at the top, especially when compared to where they came from. I'm sure the McCain camp talked through all of this before making the pick, but you still never know how someone will do when put under the microscope (see Eagleton in recent history, for example). I just cannot imagine how she will hold up under this scrutiny. In one respect, it's only 65 days, so I guess she can look at it that way, saying to herself that she'll exchange 65 days for a personal and professional life that will never be the same after the election, for her and her family, win or lose. Think of the doors that will open for her and her family if she loses. Regardless of outcome, she's now a part of history, plus she's a role model for all young women, as a symbol of strength in moving closer to shattering that glass ceiling. My only comment to that is, "be careful what you wish for".
As a long-time admirer of the female persuasion, I felt as if I've seen this reaction before. You can generalize it and criticize it and debate it all you want, but the fact remains: women do not like not having the last word. When Obama made his triumphant nomination acceptance speech, the euphoria attached to it was embraced by all Obama supporters like a warm quilt on a snowy evening. And just as sobering and unsettling, that same quilt was yanked away within 12 hours, courtesy of the Palin pick (to be honest with you, I was fully prepared to see McCain announce his pick DURING the Obama speech, as a political ploy to split up the media attention. The very idea that this did not happen tells me the two candidates want to share a "gentleman's agreement" to keep things as civil as possible, outside of the negative ads. I believe this "agreement" carried over to Obama's reaction later about Palin's private family matters, but more on that later). The vitriol that spewed from the various female blogs (see the commentary on jezebel.com, for example) was so one-sided, so eye-opening in terms of getting a feel for what the reaction was on the pick. Women feel both threatened and angered by the pick, for all of the reasons you've (no doubt) heard by now. This speaks to me of fear -- fear that their feel-good story has been shattered, and maybe this Obama election victory may not be such a sure thing after all. Suddenly the Bush-dread has come back and it's deja vu all over again. Suddenly the feeling of doubt has re-appeared in the minds of the formerly euphoric Dems, and it's only human nature that when fear appears, one of the first immediate reactions is to get defensive.
This pick was not made to capture the disgruntled HRC supporter vote -- if that happened, it would be considered an added benefit. This pick was made to soothe the staunch conservative base, and, as evidenced by the incredible fundraising bounce in the past 72 hours, it is a home run with them. Palin is the ideal pick: attractive, tough, pro-life, pro-NRA, a devoted wife and mother, and not afraid to fight for the cause. And please stop with all the conjecture that she's only a heartbeat away -- have we not learned anything from Watergate? It's the people you surround yourself with that will make or break you. Don't we always tell our children the same thing? McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will hold the posts, but the real policy will be shaped by the administration, and the real decisions will be made by the three branches of government. For instance, Palin is pro-life, but if elected, she and the GOP will still have a very difficult time rescinding Roe v. Wade. And with congressional elections held every two years, the balance of power is never a sure thing.
Personally, I think Palin is in for a very rough ride. She's a mother of five children, and most parents with children know how tough it is to juggle work and family schedules, with every child adding an expotential number of obstacles with it. The Dems will not be kind to her, just as the GOP will not be kind to Obama (by the way, please remember that the campaign is just getting started, the dirt has yet to fly). She has, to bring back the baseball analogy, gone from Single-A ball to the major leagues overnight, and is expected to perform at the top level from this day forward. Any player that has gone through a similar flight will tell you the pressure is enormous at the top, especially when compared to where they came from. I'm sure the McCain camp talked through all of this before making the pick, but you still never know how someone will do when put under the microscope (see Eagleton in recent history, for example). I just cannot imagine how she will hold up under this scrutiny. In one respect, it's only 65 days, so I guess she can look at it that way, saying to herself that she'll exchange 65 days for a personal and professional life that will never be the same after the election, for her and her family, win or lose. Think of the doors that will open for her and her family if she loses. Regardless of outcome, she's now a part of history, plus she's a role model for all young women, as a symbol of strength in moving closer to shattering that glass ceiling. My only comment to that is, "be careful what you wish for".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)