Skip to content

Crunch time

The Time has come, as the Walrus said. With John Edwards dropping out today, I find I must finally make a choice between Hillary and Barack. I knew this day would come, but I’m still not ready. My wife is no help. This is an even numbered day, so she’s for Hillary. Odd numbered days she’s for Barack. Of course, that pattern changes on the first, since there will be two odd days in a row, so it looks like she’ll be voting for Hillary.

There’s two considerations of course. Which can win, and which would be the better president.

Hillary must be a person of great personal strength. No one would voluntarily expose themselves to the onslaught of pure hate that will be directed at her if she gets the nomination. She has no illusions about what she’s getting into, and she’s doing it anyway. Were I in the same position, I think I’d take a pass. Not only does she know it’s coming, but she’s ready and willing to give as good as she gets. I’m not sure Barack either appreciates what will be in store for him, or is ready to fight back. If he really believes his talk about bi-partisan sweetness and light then he’s in for a shocker. But, if he can keep to that line while effectively dealing with the opposition, then he could do well. But, granting that Hillary is ready to fight back, have she and Bill perhaps developed political tin ears. Their negative campaign against Obama has been unsuccessful to date, but maybe they would be more effective against their natural enemies.

This might well be the dirtiest campaign in history. McCain has learned his lesson, and he’s prepared to sling mud. He’ll be enabled by the media, for whom he can do no wrong.

On balance, I’d say Hillary is more prepared for the road to the White House.

As to once they get there, I’m inclined toward Obama. I think he has the potential to be a more successful president. Hillary will be a repeat in many ways of the Clinton years. The media and the right will combine to gang up on her, and she will have difficulty accomplishing anything. Moreover, it’s pretty clear that her goals, as she has articulated them, are modest. We won’t have any startling departure from the status quo. Were she to try, the right would go into attack mode, and she’d get nowhere. They will not be cowed by her victory, no matter how overwhelming it might be, and I question whether she could rally the country around her. People will vote for her because they don’t want the alternative, and because they know she’ll do a competent job. Obama, on the other hand, generates real enthusiasm, and the Republicans might find themselves on the defensive if they get too oppositional with him. Maybe, once he’s elected, he’ll move toward the left a bit, and forcefully articulate a progressive vision, something he certainly hasn’t done yet. He’s certainly more of a blank slate than she is. Both would be good presidents, he has an outside chance to be a great president. On the other hand, if he really believes that bilge about Reagan he was spewing, then we have a problem.

I truly wish that Edwards had stayed in, so I could put off this choice. I have a sinking feeling I’ll be making it in the voting booth. My consolation, and it’s a big one, is that I could support either one with as much enthusiasm as a confirmed cynic can muster.

America’s Mayor

Via Atrios, I couldn’t resist:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH47iuMTuC8[/youtube]

The Times: what FISA bill?

I realize that it is mandatory that the press cover the State of the Union address, so I am not criticizing the New York Times for doing so. However, it is emblematic of all that is wrong with the press in this nation that the real important event that took place yesterday, the fact that the Senate Democrats finally took a stand, however temporary, against the White House and Senate Republicans on FISA, was not covered at all. There is not a single article in the Times on the issue.

There is a brief mention of it in the article reporting on the speech, in which the issue is cast in a light favorable to Bush:

He asked lawmakers to make his tax cuts permanent, and implored them to renew legislation permitting intelligence officials to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects and to provide legal immunity to phone companies that have helped in the wiretapping efforts.

The bill doesn’t just permit intelligence officials to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects, it permits them to eavedrop on all international communications and opens the door for even wider abuses. The article implies that the phone companies were co-operating with wiretaps authorized by the bill, but in fact they were engaging in clearly illegal wiretaps, which they knew to be illegal, at a period before the present law was in effect.

But, back to the coverage. There’s an even briefer mention in an article about Congressional reaction to the speech which notes that Clinton and Obama returned to the Senate “for a couple of intelligence-related votes”.

The FISA debate got less ink in the Times than the heartwarming vignette about the Bush twins taking time off from partying to watch Daddy give a State of the Union speech for the very first time.

Bush’s speech will be old news tomorrow. The FISA votes go to the heart of our democracy. The fact that this issue, so heavily covered on the blogs (see firedoglake’s coverage, for example), is ignored by the Times speaks volumes about the real State of the Union.

Was Willard Wired?

In the interest of fairness (and in Willard’s case it’s hard to be interested), I must report that my source for the claim that Willard’s handlers admitted he takes direction at debates from a remote puppeteer (a la George Bush), now reports that his source is suspect.

This doesn’t mean that he wasn’t wearing a wire, only that there has been no admission. I guess I’m actually inclined to believe he wasn’t wearing a wire, since it would be far easier to just update his internal programming before every appearance.

Poor George, people are ignoring his economic miracle

We adjourned our Charter Revision Commission early enough to allow for members to watch the State of the Union. I’m no masochist, so I won’t be tuning in. In fact, I’ll soon be turning in, because I’m dead tired.

But I did want to point out this very interesting phenomenon, which Dean Baker points out at the American Prospect.

The New York Times reports this morning:

Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq.

There’s a similar lead in an article in the Day, which was culled from the Washington Post:

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation’s strong economic performance because of public discontent over the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

Apparently, the strong economic performance is proven by the fact that Bush and his handlers say there has been strong economic performance. The facts (in the form of average annual GDP growth), to which we reality based folks still cling, seem to state otherwise:

President Bush’s growth record is better than his father’s, but it is worse than the record of every other president in the last half century. It’s not clear why [other presidents] would be envious. It is also not clear what his political advisers have to complain about.

Yet complain they do, and in the fact free zone that is our mainstream media, that’s good enough. If they say economic growth has been strong under Bush, why look at the facts. After all, would Bush or his handlers lie to us?

Addendum: the other premise of these quotes is wrong too. Bush is not getting credit for the “improvement in Iraq” because 1) the surge has not succeeded on the terms on which it was sold, and 2) everyone suspects, and rightly so, that the situation will go south again soon.

Willard wearing a wire

Willard Romney’s campaign confirms that he wears an earpiece so that his handlers can feed him debate responses. I wonder if he wears it in other venues, and whether they tailor his responses to suit the audience of the moment.

The Day hearts USA Today

Today we readers of the Day are invited to vote among several new “looks” for the Day, each of which is a variation on the USA Today theme of less is less. Each dedicates more space on the lead pages (not sure about inside pages) to useless graphics. Needless to say, “none of the above” is not an option.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Of late, the Day has been following the Courant’s lead in headlining fluff. Recently, for example, we were treated to a front page story about a local lad who felt compelled to realize himself by going into the trade of boxing. It is not clear why we dedicating one’s life to bashing and getting bashed merited a front page, and of course, adulatory story.

The sad thing about all this is that there is no excuse for the trivialization of journalism at the Day. It is owned by a charitable trust. One purpose of the trust was to:

“preserve the newspaper as, to paraphrase Bodenwein’s will, a protector of the public interest and defender of the people’s rights.”

Too rich to fail

Query: should it make us feel better to know that the folks in the bottom 99% of the top 1% sometimes take a hit quite like that we bottom 99ers so often take from them? (Can you follow that?)

In today’s Times we learn that the guys most directly responsible for losing billions at the top financial institution (who often walked away with multi-million dollar severance packages) are being actively sought for high paying jobs to wreak destruction elsewhere, while the folks at the bottom of that section of the totem pole who were laid off due to the fallout from the havoc caused by those exalted few have few if any prospects for finding new jobs:

Under the stewardship of Dow Kim and Thomas G. Maheras, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup built positions in subprime-related securities that led to $34 billion in write-downs last year. The debacle cost chief executives their jobs and brought two of the world’s premier financial institutions to their knees.

In any other industry, Mr. Kim and Mr. Maheras would be pariahs. But in the looking-glass world of Wall Street, they — and others like them — are hot properties. The two executives are well on their way to reviving their careers, even as global markets shudder at the prospect that Merrill and Citigroup may report further subprime losses in the coming months.

Who can blame them. After all, no one but the looney left saw this one coming. In any event, they have precedent on their side:

Perhaps the most notorious example of failure leading to prosperity is John Meriwether. Ousted from Salomon Brothers in 1991 for his role in a bond trading scandal, he became a co-founder of Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund that nearly collapsed in 1998, rattling markets worldwide. He has since founded a second fund, JWM Partners, with assets of around $3 billion.

More recently, Brian Hunter, the energy trader at Amaranth Advisors whose disastrous bets led to the disintegration of that $9 billion hedge fund, is now advising a private equity fund called Peak Ridge on starting a hedge fund. Howard A. Rubin, a trader at Merrill Lynch, who lost $377 million in 1987, quickly landed a job at Bear Stearns, where he had a successful career.

But for the relatively hapless folks occupying the lower rungs, things don’t look so good:

The quick comebacks of these executives stand in stark contrast to the plight of the hundreds of investment bankers who have received pink slips in the last two weeks. They also illuminate a peculiar aspect of Wall Street’s own version of a class divide. Senior movers and shakers often land on their feet, no matter how egregious the losses tied to them. The industry rank and file, however, from mergers-and-acquisitions bankers at Bank of America to sales executives in Citigroup’s hedge-fund servicing business, see their jobs eliminated despite being far removed from the subprime crisis.

Groton Dems pass resolution-but this is really yet another rant about the spineless Dems

I am proud to report that on Thursday our Groton Democratic Town Committee passed a resolution calling on our state legislators to require a special election in the case of a Senatorial vacancy. Based on the feedback we’ve gotten from some of those legislators there is no chance that our veto proof majority will pass such a statute because:

1. A couple of state legislators who plan to run for governor don’t want their own wings clipped, in the unlikely event they get elected; and because;

2. It wouldn’t “look good” for the Democrats to engage in such a raw exercise of political power, because it might look like an exercise of political power. Apparently it would be tacky to take advantage of political power. They’ll leave that to the governor.

Thus we see that our state legislature is pretty much the same as our national legislature: victims of the battered legislator’s syndrome. We see it in this morning’s Courant, where the Democrats whine about the fact that Jodi Rell is calling them soft on crime for not passing a “three strikes” law which has proven unworkable everywhere it has been tried. We see it in our national legislature, where Harry Reid is in the pre-cave stage on the FISA debate.

The Kennedys were reputed to live by a “Don’t get mad, get even”, code of conduct. That’s something that the Democrats here in Connecticut should consider whenever Rell engages in this type of political hit job. They have the power to hit her back where it hurts, but they have to be willing to do so. Instead they whine, and worry about whether they will “look good”, which they never do, since no one looks that good when they’re on their knees.

Republicans, on the other hand, don’t seem to care about whether they “look good”. In the U.S. Senate they are engaged in an exercise in raw political gamesmanship, threatening to filibuster any amendment to the FISA bill so that George Bush can excoriate the Democrats during the State of the Union address. Harry Reid appears to be maybe, finally, timidly learning that the proper response is to fight back, but unfortunately his method of “fighting” retains too much of the whine to do much good. He doesn’t understand that most of the country has long since accepted the fact that George Bush is a congenital liar, so no one would really be shocked, more likely they’d be pleasantly surprised, if Reid simply said that George Bush is lying about the FISA bill and he’s demanding telecom immunity only to make sure he can cover up his own criminal behavior. Not only would that constitute a bit of push back, but it’s the truth.

I’d say there’s a 90% chance that Reid will find some way to cave and give Bush what he wants. Here in Connecticut, the legislature will continue to get whipsawed by a third rate governor. Lucky for them, on the “three strikes” issue, they’ll likely find that it’s an issue about which voters will show more maturity than the politicians or the press.

UPDATE: A commenter asks if I have the language for the resolution. I actually drafted the resolution, but all the inflammatory stuff I put in about Lieberman was removed, as well as a lot of other whereases, so it’s now definitely the work of a committee. It reads as follows:

Whereas, Connecticut law currently provides that if a
U.S. Senate seat becomes vacant the Governor selects a
replacement who serves until the next federal election
and

Whereas, no person, not even the Governor should have
the power to select the person who will represent over
two million citizens of the State of Connecticut in
the United States Senate;

Now, therefore, we, the Groton Democratic Town
Committee, urge our legislators in the Connecticut
House of Representatives and the Connecticut Senate to
use their veto proof majority to amend Connecticut law
to provide that U.S. Senate vacancies shall be filled
by special election.

UPDATE TWO: In view of the comments below, I should add that the Town Committee also cut language (the “other whereases” to which I referred) about the possibility of Dodd leaving the Senate from the resolution. In my own view, he would be an ideal VP choice if Obama got the nomination, and he could certainly ably fill a top Cabinet position. While I admire and respect Andy Maynard, I respectfully disagree that now is not the time to do this. Not only is it the right thing to do, but there will never come a time when it is done except when the sitting governor is a member of the party in the minority in the legislature. It will always draw charges that it is politically motivated. Almost everything Rell does is politically motivated (witness the ‘soft on crime’ stuff referenced in the post), and it hasn’t seemed to hurt her at all.

Friday night Zappa

A couple of days ago I thought I’d try to find some Frank Zappa for a Friday night concert. What brought Frank to mind was this post on Americablog, that featured this video appearance of Frank on Crossfire.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc[/youtube]

He makes them all look sort of stupid, doesn’t he?

Zappa was a musical genius, but he’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and the pickings on youtube, though many in number, are rather sparse from a musical variety point of view. I’m no prude, but I’m not interesting in offending, so some of the classic stuff is sort of off limits. Then there’s the bizarre, such as the clip here of a very young and conservatively coiffed Zappa on the Steve Allen Show playing the bicycle. Yes, you read that right. Steve actually had Zappa on for almost 15 minutes (the video is in two parts). I finally settled on this, which features some great guitar playing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_i_HVBD9ks[/youtube]