Washington, DC 2009
There have been a lot of changes in DC over the past few weeks and months. The new Obama administration has run into a lot of problems over the past few weeks. First, they announced their appointment of a new Treasury Secretary who failed to pay some $30,000 in self employment taxes. Even with this failure to pay, the Senate confirmed Secretary Geithner on January 26, 2009 with a 60-34 vote. Following the Treasury Secretary’s tax issues, the Health & Human Services nominee, former Senator Tom Daschle and White House chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer nominee withdrew their names from consideration on February 3, 2009 also over failure to pay taxes. These changes follow initial nominee to the Commerce Department, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson removed his name from consideration due to his being the subject of a grand jury investigation. Late this week it came out that Labor Secretary nominee Representative Hilda Solis also has some tax issues, her husband has failed to pay taxes and the State of California has a lien on the office property. These situations can not help President Obama lead the country.
This week also saw the creation of a so-called “stimulus bill” written behind closed doors by Speaker Pelosi and a few of her loyalists. The House bill was $825 billion and according to the Congressional Budget Office a majority of the money won’t be spent until 2011. The public outcry over money spent on std prevention and new grass for the national mall within an economic stimulus bill led the Senate to remove certain provisions. There was an agreement reached late Friday night between three Republican Senators to a package ranging from $780,000,000 to $820,000,000, which is a reduction from the proposed $940,000,000 that was where the Senate bill reached. Larry Summers, the White House’s Chairman of the National Economic Council stated the parameters of the economic stimulus – timely, targeted, and temporary. This bill doesn’t seem to be any of the three. It is an excessive spending bill that will create government jobs, not private sector jobs; was put together so quickly, behind closed doors, and outside the normal appropriations process in Congress that we don’t really know what is in the bill or if it will work. This is the largest spending bill in the history of the US and it is likely an enormous waste of all of our money… Somehow, I don’t think this was the Change that America voted for this past November.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, November 21, 2008
THANKS, BUT...
THANKS, BUT…
Detroit, Michigan has been the focus of Washington, DC this week with the Detroit Three (formerly referred to as the Big Three) auto company’s executives coming before Congress to plead their case for a financial bailout. All three chief executive officers as well as the head of the United Auto Workers union testified before both the House and the Senate relating to their request for a $25 billion bridge loan.
The reaction from both sides of the isle was harsh. The auto makers failure to adapt to a changing economy and their agreements with the UAW have led to a belief that the leadership of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were asleep at the wheel for the past few years and the soon to be bankruptcy is a just reward.
All four leaders’ testimony was terrible. They were unable to explain what they would do with the money, how they came up with the dollar amount, how it would be split among the three companies, what changes to their business model they were in the process of implementing so that they would not be back before Congress in a year asking for more money. It wasn’t just Republicans demanding answers, but Democrats as well. In fact, certain Democrats asked the tougher questions. Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Representative Sherman of California both questioned the rationale for Congress providing a bridge loan to the companies. The failure of the executives to explain the need for the loan and what changes to their business model they were either implementing or about to implement basically determined their fate.
Two Republican Senators, Kit Bond from Missouri and George Voinovich from Ohio went to work on trying to come up with a compromise plan that would change some of the conditions to money already allocated to the automakers. Instead of using the $25 billion in Energy Department loans to focus on more fuel efficient automobiles, they proposed using that money in the short term for the bridge loan. Initially, Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not to allow a vote on such a proposal. However, following the involvement of Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, Senator Reid decided to allow a vote Thursday afternoon. Following a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this vote was cancelled. Speaker Pelosi demanded plans for the money to be submitted by early December before a vote could take place. The plans have to be submitted to business leaders, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Both of these men were involved in the credit crisis by their continued support of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two “leaders” refused to allow any changes to the actions of Fannie and Freddie and when both institutions failed miserably over the past six months, they claimed ignorance. Now these two are going to be responsible for overseeing the automakers restructuring plans. The American people are now reliant on these two to protect our tax dollars and make sure that any plans submitted by the automakers are credible and a one time deal. Somehow, I am not confident that they have the capacity to even understand basic financial statements…
The other big news relating to Detroit out of Washington this week was the removal of Representative John Dingell as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaker Pelosi, unhappy with Dingell over the past several years for his “failure” to institute extreme environmental procedures that have caused the automakers so many problems, allowed fellow California liberal Representative Henry Waxman to challenge for the chairmanship. A secret vote took place (funny how Democrats support secret balloting when they have to make a decision but not for union considerations…) and Representative Waxman won by 15 votes. The longest serving Democrat in the House, is now no longer the Democratic leader of the Committee for which he has been the longest serving Democratic member since 1981. Since Representative Dingell has been removed in favor of another extreme environmentalist, one can only imagine how soon the automakers have higher café standards to deal with and individual state requirements.
Detroit should give a big thank you to Speaker Pelosi, since she is the driving force behind all the strings attached to any Detroit bailout. The Detroit area and the state of Michigan voted Democratic overwhelmingly this past November and now they get to deal with those results – the last one in Detroit can turn off the lights…
Detroit, Michigan has been the focus of Washington, DC this week with the Detroit Three (formerly referred to as the Big Three) auto company’s executives coming before Congress to plead their case for a financial bailout. All three chief executive officers as well as the head of the United Auto Workers union testified before both the House and the Senate relating to their request for a $25 billion bridge loan.
The reaction from both sides of the isle was harsh. The auto makers failure to adapt to a changing economy and their agreements with the UAW have led to a belief that the leadership of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were asleep at the wheel for the past few years and the soon to be bankruptcy is a just reward.
All four leaders’ testimony was terrible. They were unable to explain what they would do with the money, how they came up with the dollar amount, how it would be split among the three companies, what changes to their business model they were in the process of implementing so that they would not be back before Congress in a year asking for more money. It wasn’t just Republicans demanding answers, but Democrats as well. In fact, certain Democrats asked the tougher questions. Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Representative Sherman of California both questioned the rationale for Congress providing a bridge loan to the companies. The failure of the executives to explain the need for the loan and what changes to their business model they were either implementing or about to implement basically determined their fate.
Two Republican Senators, Kit Bond from Missouri and George Voinovich from Ohio went to work on trying to come up with a compromise plan that would change some of the conditions to money already allocated to the automakers. Instead of using the $25 billion in Energy Department loans to focus on more fuel efficient automobiles, they proposed using that money in the short term for the bridge loan. Initially, Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not to allow a vote on such a proposal. However, following the involvement of Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, Senator Reid decided to allow a vote Thursday afternoon. Following a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this vote was cancelled. Speaker Pelosi demanded plans for the money to be submitted by early December before a vote could take place. The plans have to be submitted to business leaders, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Both of these men were involved in the credit crisis by their continued support of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two “leaders” refused to allow any changes to the actions of Fannie and Freddie and when both institutions failed miserably over the past six months, they claimed ignorance. Now these two are going to be responsible for overseeing the automakers restructuring plans. The American people are now reliant on these two to protect our tax dollars and make sure that any plans submitted by the automakers are credible and a one time deal. Somehow, I am not confident that they have the capacity to even understand basic financial statements…
The other big news relating to Detroit out of Washington this week was the removal of Representative John Dingell as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaker Pelosi, unhappy with Dingell over the past several years for his “failure” to institute extreme environmental procedures that have caused the automakers so many problems, allowed fellow California liberal Representative Henry Waxman to challenge for the chairmanship. A secret vote took place (funny how Democrats support secret balloting when they have to make a decision but not for union considerations…) and Representative Waxman won by 15 votes. The longest serving Democrat in the House, is now no longer the Democratic leader of the Committee for which he has been the longest serving Democratic member since 1981. Since Representative Dingell has been removed in favor of another extreme environmentalist, one can only imagine how soon the automakers have higher café standards to deal with and individual state requirements.
Detroit should give a big thank you to Speaker Pelosi, since she is the driving force behind all the strings attached to any Detroit bailout. The Detroit area and the state of Michigan voted Democratic overwhelmingly this past November and now they get to deal with those results – the last one in Detroit can turn off the lights…
Saturday, November 15, 2008
NOW WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT?
NOW WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT?
With the election of Senator Barack Obama to be our country’s 44th President, a lot of the DC establishment is now trying to figure out what’s next? Most of these folks have nothing better to do than to offer their advice on how good/bad things are in the country. They are typically former journalists, academics, or campaign staffers. They have never created a job, made a payroll, or done much more than pushing some paper around. With the end of the campaign, in order to stay on tv or to be quoted in stories in the Washington Post, they offer their suggestions as to who should make up the new White House staff or cabinet, or what industry the taxpayers should bail out next.
President-elect Obama’s first personnel announcement was that Representative Rahm Emanuel would be his chief of staff. This announcement was met with some questions from Republicans and leading conservatives. Both Minority leader John Boehner and conservative advocate Sean Hannity thought it was a bad signal to send if the Obama administration was serious about all the bi-partisan claims that they announced during the campaign. I think the pick of Emanuel is a great choice. Representative Emanuel spent a lot of time in the White House during the Clinton Administration. He understands the workings of the White House and understands the workings of the federal government. He also has extensive relationships and experience on Capital Hill. This knowledge should help the administration push its agenda and potentially get things done. While Emanuel is a democratic partisan, who did the Republicans think the Obama administration would pick? A Republican? Representative Emanuel was a supporter of welfare reform and free trade during his time in the Clinton Administration. Aren’t these priorities of the Republicans? He has shown an ability to get things done in Washington and isn’t afraid to go against some of the Democrats largest contributors.
As the Obama administration starts to announce their choices for certain staff positions within its administration, I think it would be wise of the Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits to study the policy positions they have but not to denounce the pick without any examination.
One big issue that is currently being debated here in Washington is the potential “bail out” of the Detroit Three. The former Big Three auto companies claim that they need federal support in order to stay out of bankruptcy. Already the Congress has approved $25 billion to help them convert to more fuel efficient cars. They are also asking for as much as $50 billion more to allow them to stay in business. The biggest problem facing the automakers is the incredibly high legacy costs associated with each car produced. Some estimates value these costs at as much as $1,500 per vehicle. These costs include health care and pension liabilities for the workforce. Many retired auto workers do not have to pay a co-pay on their prescriptions or doctor visits. Everyone else pays a small co-pay for these services. Would it be too much for the UAW to agree to have its members pay a small co-pay to reduce some of the health care costs of the Detroit Three?
The big issue surrounding the debate in Washington is if the taxpayers provide the funds to keep them out of bankruptcy, what changes in the business model will they implement so that they don’t run into these problems in a year or two? Most of the conditions being discussed on Capital Hill have to do with executive compensation and bonuses. Nothing about restructuring their contracts with the UAW, nothing about issued such as the job banks that allow workers to not work, but still take home their salaries. Without a complete restructuring of their business models, the Detroit Three are not likely to be successful. Foreign automakers are building cars throughout the US, particularly in the south. Whether it’s Toyota, Honda, or BMW, foreign automakers are building cars more suited to today’s economy. They have less overhead costs to pass onto the buyer of their products.
Folks in Detroit are worried about their futures, and they should be worried. For too long, Detroit’s automakers did not believe that foreign competition was actual competition. Once Toyota and Honda became legitimate alternatives, the Detroit Three decided on the strategy of blaming the American public for not buying their products, then making bigger cars that do not get very good gas mileage, and now begging Congress to bail them out. Not once have they looked at their business models and decided to take the hit now to eliminate some of the problems facing it.
Do we really want Congress to be making decisions as to the business models of the automakers? They have a hard enough time trying to pass a budget, how are they going to make the needed, hard decisions to try and make the auto companies more competitive? The Detroit Three need to look at themselves and decide what they should do to make themselves competitive. They are the only ones that can do this. They should know the business and their customer needs better than anyone else. They have to adjust their products to fulfill the needs of the American public. The taxpayers should not be responsible for the failure of the auto companies to make the tough but needed decisions.
With the election of Senator Barack Obama to be our country’s 44th President, a lot of the DC establishment is now trying to figure out what’s next? Most of these folks have nothing better to do than to offer their advice on how good/bad things are in the country. They are typically former journalists, academics, or campaign staffers. They have never created a job, made a payroll, or done much more than pushing some paper around. With the end of the campaign, in order to stay on tv or to be quoted in stories in the Washington Post, they offer their suggestions as to who should make up the new White House staff or cabinet, or what industry the taxpayers should bail out next.
President-elect Obama’s first personnel announcement was that Representative Rahm Emanuel would be his chief of staff. This announcement was met with some questions from Republicans and leading conservatives. Both Minority leader John Boehner and conservative advocate Sean Hannity thought it was a bad signal to send if the Obama administration was serious about all the bi-partisan claims that they announced during the campaign. I think the pick of Emanuel is a great choice. Representative Emanuel spent a lot of time in the White House during the Clinton Administration. He understands the workings of the White House and understands the workings of the federal government. He also has extensive relationships and experience on Capital Hill. This knowledge should help the administration push its agenda and potentially get things done. While Emanuel is a democratic partisan, who did the Republicans think the Obama administration would pick? A Republican? Representative Emanuel was a supporter of welfare reform and free trade during his time in the Clinton Administration. Aren’t these priorities of the Republicans? He has shown an ability to get things done in Washington and isn’t afraid to go against some of the Democrats largest contributors.
As the Obama administration starts to announce their choices for certain staff positions within its administration, I think it would be wise of the Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits to study the policy positions they have but not to denounce the pick without any examination.
One big issue that is currently being debated here in Washington is the potential “bail out” of the Detroit Three. The former Big Three auto companies claim that they need federal support in order to stay out of bankruptcy. Already the Congress has approved $25 billion to help them convert to more fuel efficient cars. They are also asking for as much as $50 billion more to allow them to stay in business. The biggest problem facing the automakers is the incredibly high legacy costs associated with each car produced. Some estimates value these costs at as much as $1,500 per vehicle. These costs include health care and pension liabilities for the workforce. Many retired auto workers do not have to pay a co-pay on their prescriptions or doctor visits. Everyone else pays a small co-pay for these services. Would it be too much for the UAW to agree to have its members pay a small co-pay to reduce some of the health care costs of the Detroit Three?
The big issue surrounding the debate in Washington is if the taxpayers provide the funds to keep them out of bankruptcy, what changes in the business model will they implement so that they don’t run into these problems in a year or two? Most of the conditions being discussed on Capital Hill have to do with executive compensation and bonuses. Nothing about restructuring their contracts with the UAW, nothing about issued such as the job banks that allow workers to not work, but still take home their salaries. Without a complete restructuring of their business models, the Detroit Three are not likely to be successful. Foreign automakers are building cars throughout the US, particularly in the south. Whether it’s Toyota, Honda, or BMW, foreign automakers are building cars more suited to today’s economy. They have less overhead costs to pass onto the buyer of their products.
Folks in Detroit are worried about their futures, and they should be worried. For too long, Detroit’s automakers did not believe that foreign competition was actual competition. Once Toyota and Honda became legitimate alternatives, the Detroit Three decided on the strategy of blaming the American public for not buying their products, then making bigger cars that do not get very good gas mileage, and now begging Congress to bail them out. Not once have they looked at their business models and decided to take the hit now to eliminate some of the problems facing it.
Do we really want Congress to be making decisions as to the business models of the automakers? They have a hard enough time trying to pass a budget, how are they going to make the needed, hard decisions to try and make the auto companies more competitive? The Detroit Three need to look at themselves and decide what they should do to make themselves competitive. They are the only ones that can do this. They should know the business and their customer needs better than anyone else. They have to adjust their products to fulfill the needs of the American public. The taxpayers should not be responsible for the failure of the auto companies to make the tough but needed decisions.
Monday, November 3, 2008
PLEASE VOTE!
The polls open in just a few hours and soon we will have a new President-elect. So many things have contributed to this being an interesting race, but one that could go down as the biggest mistake in history. All we have heard about in the past few weeks is that this election is over and Senator Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. This may in fact happen, in fact it is likely to happen. However, it is not guaranteed to happen.
Tomorrow evening is going to be pretty interesting in seeing how the different networks call each state. Are they basing their calls strictly on exit polls? Are they making calls before all the polls in the state have closed? Let’s hope that the media does not act as they have in previous elections. Following the 2004 election, the networks examined how the exit polls had over-estimated Senator Kerry’s support by about 5.5%. If this years exit poll sample is as wrong as in 2004, do you think that might make a difference in a state such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, or North Carolina? All of these states have been labeled toss ups at one point in the campaign. If exit polls give Senator Obama wins of 3-5 points in some of these states, and the networks call the race his, what happens if they are again off by 5.5% and Senator McCain in fact wins those states?
A lot of talk has also focused on the fact that the toss-up states are mostly states that President Bush won in 2004. Of course they are. President Bush won more states than needed and if Senator Obama is going to win, he has to win some “red” states. Senator McCain does not need to win all of the Bush, “red” states in order to be elected President. McCain can lose some Bush states, such as New Hampshire or Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico and still be elected. He can’t afford to lose too many of these states, but he can lose one or two of them.
I feel that the race is going to be a lot closer than the pundits predict. I am not sure if Senator McCain is going to be able to over come all the negative coverage that he has had to deal with from the national media and more importantly all the money that Senator Obama has spent on his campaign for President. The one thing that I am sure about as a result of this election is that public financing of Presidential campaigns is over. Any candidate that takes public money will be so far behind and have such limited resources that it will put their campaigns too far behind before they even start. This is a good thing. Let viable candidates raise their own money and spend it in anyway they choose. If they determine that the state of Ohio is the only toss up state in an election and they want to spend $100 million on ads, personnel, mail, and phones in Ohio, so be it. Let them do whatever they want to do.
If you don’t vote tomorrow, you have no right to complain if your candidate does not win or if the President and the new Congress act on positions you don’t agree with. If you don’t vote, you only have to blame yourself.
Tomorrow evening is going to be pretty interesting in seeing how the different networks call each state. Are they basing their calls strictly on exit polls? Are they making calls before all the polls in the state have closed? Let’s hope that the media does not act as they have in previous elections. Following the 2004 election, the networks examined how the exit polls had over-estimated Senator Kerry’s support by about 5.5%. If this years exit poll sample is as wrong as in 2004, do you think that might make a difference in a state such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, or North Carolina? All of these states have been labeled toss ups at one point in the campaign. If exit polls give Senator Obama wins of 3-5 points in some of these states, and the networks call the race his, what happens if they are again off by 5.5% and Senator McCain in fact wins those states?
A lot of talk has also focused on the fact that the toss-up states are mostly states that President Bush won in 2004. Of course they are. President Bush won more states than needed and if Senator Obama is going to win, he has to win some “red” states. Senator McCain does not need to win all of the Bush, “red” states in order to be elected President. McCain can lose some Bush states, such as New Hampshire or Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico and still be elected. He can’t afford to lose too many of these states, but he can lose one or two of them.
I feel that the race is going to be a lot closer than the pundits predict. I am not sure if Senator McCain is going to be able to over come all the negative coverage that he has had to deal with from the national media and more importantly all the money that Senator Obama has spent on his campaign for President. The one thing that I am sure about as a result of this election is that public financing of Presidential campaigns is over. Any candidate that takes public money will be so far behind and have such limited resources that it will put their campaigns too far behind before they even start. This is a good thing. Let viable candidates raise their own money and spend it in anyway they choose. If they determine that the state of Ohio is the only toss up state in an election and they want to spend $100 million on ads, personnel, mail, and phones in Ohio, so be it. Let them do whatever they want to do.
If you don’t vote tomorrow, you have no right to complain if your candidate does not win or if the President and the new Congress act on positions you don’t agree with. If you don’t vote, you only have to blame yourself.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin
Governor Sarah Palin, September 4, 2008
Last night, the country was introduced to Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. The Governor’s speech at the Republican National Convention was an interesting speech that exceeded all expectations. Prior to the speech, many inside the Beltway establishment elites thought that the new Governor was not up to the task of being a Vice Presidential nominee. She is not one of them, someone whose goal in life is to be invited to the Georgetown cocktail parties and to pontificate on the Sunday morning talk shows. Since she is not one of them, they viewed her as unqualified. Over the past week, the establishment has tried to knock her down, and to have Senator McCain drop her from the ticket. The rumors about her son actually being her daughters son, the playing up of the “ethics” investigation over certain firings in Alaska, and the fact that she was just a “small town mayor.” They had this goal, since that would lead to the claim that McCain makes bad decisions. This theory was shot down last night early and often.
Following the speech, a number of different attitudes and reactions from the television commentators came across. On MSNBC, the word that kept coming up was “sarcastic”; FOXNEWS’ Howard Wolfson and CNN’s Anderson Cooper both mentioned that she was able to stick the knife in the back of Senator Obama with a smile on her face. She was able to point out the differences and weaknesses of the Obama campaign in a casual, friendly way. It was not a Pat Buchanan type convention speech.
I found it interesting that MSNBC kept using sarcastic in their evaluation of the speech. Is it sarcastic to point out the differences? Did they phrase it sarcastic when Senator Joe Biden attacked the McCain record last week? No. Why did they use this term? Was it because the establishment did not know how to react to an attractive, young, female Governor who was not afraid to point out the differences between the two campaigns and the Obama news network, aka MSNBC, did not like it? Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews, two liberal commentators who hosted the MSNBC coverage after last weeks Democratic convention basically said the election was over
A couple of lines from the speech last night caught both my attention and the media’s. One line that was released early was, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.” This line delivered a huge roar from the crowd at the Convention and also led to coverage in the media. CNN had a commentator who spoke of his parents who are community organizers. He mentioned that this line might fire up the inner city machine type politics. From my opinion that is fine. Most people don’t really know what these organizers do. What is the job? What are the responsibilities? What are the accomplishments? Most people in America live in small towns, not big cities. From my background, small towns don’t have many community organizers, rather active citizens. Being active in your local government or community typically is not a job description. Every day that the Obama campaign has to discuss what he did as a community organizer, is another day where the American people will see that he is not qualified to be President. I wish that Governor Palin would have spoken a little bit more about what she has done as both a mayor and Governor. If she had pointed out specific accomplishments during both jobs, it would have been an even stronger point.
Another line that I think really truck a cord with the audience and the American public was, “But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.” This line stresses that Governor Palin is different from the Obama campaign and typical Washington insiders. She is not interested in appealing to the Georgetown crowd, but rather to small town America and those living outside the Beltway. She is not interested in cocktail parties, but rather serving the American public. She is not interested in becoming an entrenched DC power source, but rather someone who comes in and gets the job done.
A final line that really was a hit was, “But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.” This line points out two big issues that the McCain team has been trying to highlight – Senator Obama’s celebrity and his lack of experience. Much has been made of Governor Palin’s lack of Washington experience and the line turns the questions directly back on Senator Obama. If he is such a change leader in Washington, how come he has authored no legislation? If he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and has no legislative experience, how is he going to lead this country? The fact that he has written two memoirs shows that he is a media celebrity. The fact that the American public is willing to purchase these books, show that he is an interesting character. However, does this mean that he is ready to be President? The speech by Sarah Palin was an important speech. A lot was made that she was not ready for prime time since she was just a first term governor from Alaska. However, with her introductory speech last week in Dayton and her speech last night in Minnesota, Governor Sarah Palin has shown that she is not a light weight. She relishes the upcoming campaign and has the ability to activate the base of the Republican Party and make in roads with independents and women. She has changed the tenor of the campaign and given the McCain campaign a huge lift. Now it is up to Senator McCain to deliver tonight in his acceptance speech and for the campaign to schedule her in swing states across the country. As MSNBC now proclaims, “A GOP Star is Born.”
The Democrats and the Obama campaign probably are not real excited about the upcoming two months. In what they thought was going to be an easy campaign with the help of the media establishment, now is going to be a tough fight between the two campaings. Senator Obama is no longer the "rock star" of this campaign. Governor Palin has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Democrats and given a lot of hope to the McCain campaign and other Republicans.
Last night, the country was introduced to Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. The Governor’s speech at the Republican National Convention was an interesting speech that exceeded all expectations. Prior to the speech, many inside the Beltway establishment elites thought that the new Governor was not up to the task of being a Vice Presidential nominee. She is not one of them, someone whose goal in life is to be invited to the Georgetown cocktail parties and to pontificate on the Sunday morning talk shows. Since she is not one of them, they viewed her as unqualified. Over the past week, the establishment has tried to knock her down, and to have Senator McCain drop her from the ticket. The rumors about her son actually being her daughters son, the playing up of the “ethics” investigation over certain firings in Alaska, and the fact that she was just a “small town mayor.” They had this goal, since that would lead to the claim that McCain makes bad decisions. This theory was shot down last night early and often.
Following the speech, a number of different attitudes and reactions from the television commentators came across. On MSNBC, the word that kept coming up was “sarcastic”; FOXNEWS’ Howard Wolfson and CNN’s Anderson Cooper both mentioned that she was able to stick the knife in the back of Senator Obama with a smile on her face. She was able to point out the differences and weaknesses of the Obama campaign in a casual, friendly way. It was not a Pat Buchanan type convention speech.
I found it interesting that MSNBC kept using sarcastic in their evaluation of the speech. Is it sarcastic to point out the differences? Did they phrase it sarcastic when Senator Joe Biden attacked the McCain record last week? No. Why did they use this term? Was it because the establishment did not know how to react to an attractive, young, female Governor who was not afraid to point out the differences between the two campaigns and the Obama news network, aka MSNBC, did not like it? Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews, two liberal commentators who hosted the MSNBC coverage after last weeks Democratic convention basically said the election was over
A couple of lines from the speech last night caught both my attention and the media’s. One line that was released early was, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.” This line delivered a huge roar from the crowd at the Convention and also led to coverage in the media. CNN had a commentator who spoke of his parents who are community organizers. He mentioned that this line might fire up the inner city machine type politics. From my opinion that is fine. Most people don’t really know what these organizers do. What is the job? What are the responsibilities? What are the accomplishments? Most people in America live in small towns, not big cities. From my background, small towns don’t have many community organizers, rather active citizens. Being active in your local government or community typically is not a job description. Every day that the Obama campaign has to discuss what he did as a community organizer, is another day where the American people will see that he is not qualified to be President. I wish that Governor Palin would have spoken a little bit more about what she has done as both a mayor and Governor. If she had pointed out specific accomplishments during both jobs, it would have been an even stronger point.
Another line that I think really truck a cord with the audience and the American public was, “But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.” This line stresses that Governor Palin is different from the Obama campaign and typical Washington insiders. She is not interested in appealing to the Georgetown crowd, but rather to small town America and those living outside the Beltway. She is not interested in cocktail parties, but rather serving the American public. She is not interested in becoming an entrenched DC power source, but rather someone who comes in and gets the job done.
A final line that really was a hit was, “But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.” This line points out two big issues that the McCain team has been trying to highlight – Senator Obama’s celebrity and his lack of experience. Much has been made of Governor Palin’s lack of Washington experience and the line turns the questions directly back on Senator Obama. If he is such a change leader in Washington, how come he has authored no legislation? If he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and has no legislative experience, how is he going to lead this country? The fact that he has written two memoirs shows that he is a media celebrity. The fact that the American public is willing to purchase these books, show that he is an interesting character. However, does this mean that he is ready to be President? The speech by Sarah Palin was an important speech. A lot was made that she was not ready for prime time since she was just a first term governor from Alaska. However, with her introductory speech last week in Dayton and her speech last night in Minnesota, Governor Sarah Palin has shown that she is not a light weight. She relishes the upcoming campaign and has the ability to activate the base of the Republican Party and make in roads with independents and women. She has changed the tenor of the campaign and given the McCain campaign a huge lift. Now it is up to Senator McCain to deliver tonight in his acceptance speech and for the campaign to schedule her in swing states across the country. As MSNBC now proclaims, “A GOP Star is Born.”
The Democrats and the Obama campaign probably are not real excited about the upcoming two months. In what they thought was going to be an easy campaign with the help of the media establishment, now is going to be a tough fight between the two campaings. Senator Obama is no longer the "rock star" of this campaign. Governor Palin has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Democrats and given a lot of hope to the McCain campaign and other Republicans.
Friday, August 29, 2008
I LIKE THE PICK
Today, Senator John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice President, surprising all the supposed experts. I like the pick. I think it was an under the radar, outside DC choice that has left the Obama campaign saying, "Huh?" It caught them flat footed and also doesn't allow them to run the same type of ads that McCain was able to run showing the disagreements between Biden and Obama. I think the Obama response was fascinating in that the campaign Communications director went after small town America. This is the second time that his campaign has basically made fun of small towns and enhances the elists perception that America has about Obama. I think the pick also goes against the Obama slogan of Change. Their campaign is two men from the most exclusive club in the world, the US Senate. Two members of the DC establishment don't really personify changing Washington. She is also the only person running with executive experience.
The McCain campaign did a great job of teasing America about who the pick was going to be and when the pick was going to be announced. Yesterday, when all the rumors started flying that he would make the announcement through a TV ad placed last night, the Obama campaign called it campaign malpractice, since it would take away from Obama's speech. The talk continued last night about Romney jumping on a plane with an overnight bag, and Pawlenty canceling his schedule for today, which just fueled the talk about the McCain campaign as opposed to Obama's speech. Then to have the McCain team place the congratulatory ad by McCain to Obama last night instead of a VP announcement ad also got a lot of positive press coverage and got the Obama people on the defensive. The ability to keep the choice a secret until about 10:30am this morning was really impressive and completely changed the story of the day. Instead of the cable talk sows talking about how great Obama's speech was last night, it was all about who the pick was going to be. The McCain choice is the story of the day and that should be a positive for McCain. I think she appeals to social conservatives; there was an interview on CNN this morning where a reporter from the Christian Broadcast Network was speaking about how excited the grassroots social conservatives were over the pick. If they are motivated to get out and help, it is a huge benefit to McCain. Also, if she is able to pick off any of the 18 million Clinton supporters, that is just icing on the cake. It should be interesting, but she needs to get a crash course in foreign policy and economic policy that she can articulate as opposed to Obama and Biden.
The McCain campaign did a great job of teasing America about who the pick was going to be and when the pick was going to be announced. Yesterday, when all the rumors started flying that he would make the announcement through a TV ad placed last night, the Obama campaign called it campaign malpractice, since it would take away from Obama's speech. The talk continued last night about Romney jumping on a plane with an overnight bag, and Pawlenty canceling his schedule for today, which just fueled the talk about the McCain campaign as opposed to Obama's speech. Then to have the McCain team place the congratulatory ad by McCain to Obama last night instead of a VP announcement ad also got a lot of positive press coverage and got the Obama people on the defensive. The ability to keep the choice a secret until about 10:30am this morning was really impressive and completely changed the story of the day. Instead of the cable talk sows talking about how great Obama's speech was last night, it was all about who the pick was going to be. The McCain choice is the story of the day and that should be a positive for McCain. I think she appeals to social conservatives; there was an interview on CNN this morning where a reporter from the Christian Broadcast Network was speaking about how excited the grassroots social conservatives were over the pick. If they are motivated to get out and help, it is a huge benefit to McCain. Also, if she is able to pick off any of the 18 million Clinton supporters, that is just icing on the cake. It should be interesting, but she needs to get a crash course in foreign policy and economic policy that she can articulate as opposed to Obama and Biden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)