Here's a quick glimpse at a true American:
Barack Obama enjoying the sweet taste of a Yuengling Lager.
Yuengling: America's Heineken
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Some true Americana....
Here's a quick glimpse at a true American:
Barack Obama enjoying the sweet taste of a Yuengling Lager.
Yuengling: America's Heineken
Monday, October 27, 2008
8 more days to go for change!.......but maybe not the way we envision it.
It is hard to believe that in 8 days, the world will begin the journey of change. However, what is of great concern is the phenomenon of voter disenfranchisement and fraud, which may block this change we so desperately need.
It is embarrassing to even fathom the notion of deliberate rejection of a tax-paying, of-age citizens from voting. Voter suppression is not getting the attention that it demands from the media, the citizenry, and our elected officials. Rest assured, there are both covert and overt operations in place to complete such a hideous and un-American task as denying individuals the right to vote.
Our nation's ideals of freedom and democracy are at it's most fragile. We need to stand up and make sure we protect our right to have a say in our elected democracy.
On election day, make sure you: 1) know where to go, 2) how to contact your county's voter election board in case of any trouble, 3) have your ID, 4) do not wear any political attire to the polls (THEY WILL TRY AND NOT LET YOU VOTE!!!!).
Let's get this right on November 4th. We waited too long for this change. Don't let them take it away from us..................AGAIN.
It is embarrassing to even fathom the notion of deliberate rejection of a tax-paying, of-age citizens from voting. Voter suppression is not getting the attention that it demands from the media, the citizenry, and our elected officials. Rest assured, there are both covert and overt operations in place to complete such a hideous and un-American task as denying individuals the right to vote.
Our nation's ideals of freedom and democracy are at it's most fragile. We need to stand up and make sure we protect our right to have a say in our elected democracy.
On election day, make sure you: 1) know where to go, 2) how to contact your county's voter election board in case of any trouble, 3) have your ID, 4) do not wear any political attire to the polls (THEY WILL TRY AND NOT LET YOU VOTE!!!!).
Let's get this right on November 4th. We waited too long for this change. Don't let them take it away from us..................AGAIN.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Campbell's Calls Create Cognitive Dissonance
Campbell Brown, host of CNN's flagship program No Bias - No Bull, is currently outspoken and offended at the level of coverage regarding the recent RNC shopping spree for Governor Sarah Palin. Brown makes the valid point that women are disproportionately judged by their appearance, putting them at a disadvantage before even one policy statement is spoken. As I listened to Brown expound on her position, I found myself feeling a bit uncomfortable. In my analysis of the many Palin missteps, including the egregious amount of money spent on, shall we say, "appearance enhancers", have I entered the dangerous territory of throwing out the baby with the bath water? As a devout proponent of an egalitarian society,have I still been guilty of perpetuating negative stereotypes against women?
In these particular scenarios, women are placed in a no-win situation. If we neglect our appearance, or make choices that fail to register as "attractive" in the court of public opinion, we risk dismissal at first sight. Hillary Clinton would probably be the first to vouch for this phenomenon, considering the intense scrutiny her appearance has received from the moment she became a public figure. Unfortunately, her substantive campaign, more often than not, was upstaged by her looks. Her message got lost in critiques of her pantsuits, providing a clear mirror for the female archetype imposed by society. The 18 million cracks Hillary successfully struck in the glass ceiling did not remove the reflection of one's appearance, ostensibly the primary criteria used to evaluate women.
So, given all of these facts, let us return to the issue of current import. While this is a debate that is certainly worth the public's attention, it must be noted that Campbell Brown has championed Sarah Palin throughout the whole campaign. In late September Brown, on her program, implored Camp McCain to "Free Sarah", calling for a release of Palin to the press, giving her permission to speak freely. We've recently learned that Republican insiders have known Palin was being deliberately cloistered; Brown would have been privy to this information, being married to Republican consultant Daniel Senor, a contributor at Fox News. Now, as Palin's clothing allowance has come under the microscope, Brown has used this story as a platform to emphasize the fact that women are held to a different standard. I would never quibble with this claim. We are held to an almost impossible standard, so much so that during the Primary season it led me to speculate on what constitutes the ideal female image. We are expected to give good face, project a sense of balanced strength ( feminine and tough), and demonstrate proficiency in all intellectual matters. The last expectation is reasonable; the middle expectation is a bit more of a challenge ( how does one meet a standard of feminine, yet tough as nails?) but the first one is a downright double standard. Unattractive men have made fine leaders since time began. Where is the logic in a system that demands a woman be both an intellectual AND a beautiful fashion plate?
Campbell Brown has, indeed, offered us an opportunity to examine our priorities as a nation, particularly as they relate to measuring female fitness for leadership roles. However, while the emphasis on Palin's spendthrift whirl through two luxury department stores may have been overly played, let us not lose the significance of the judgment issue. It is definitely unreasonable to assert Palin would have been taken seriously had she campaigned in "Hockey Mom" attire, as has been suggested. It is also, however, reasonable to conclude Palin could have vastly reduced the cost of her "make-over", selecting Anne Klien or even Ralph Lauren in favor of Dolce and Gabana or Valentino. Campbell Brown complained about the "Diva" label attached to Palin, claiming it is one more extension of the unfair double standards applied to women. Upon further examination, I must say, if it walks like a Diva, and talks like a Diva, and demands like a Diva..... it's certainly not a duck.
In these particular scenarios, women are placed in a no-win situation. If we neglect our appearance, or make choices that fail to register as "attractive" in the court of public opinion, we risk dismissal at first sight. Hillary Clinton would probably be the first to vouch for this phenomenon, considering the intense scrutiny her appearance has received from the moment she became a public figure. Unfortunately, her substantive campaign, more often than not, was upstaged by her looks. Her message got lost in critiques of her pantsuits, providing a clear mirror for the female archetype imposed by society. The 18 million cracks Hillary successfully struck in the glass ceiling did not remove the reflection of one's appearance, ostensibly the primary criteria used to evaluate women.
So, given all of these facts, let us return to the issue of current import. While this is a debate that is certainly worth the public's attention, it must be noted that Campbell Brown has championed Sarah Palin throughout the whole campaign. In late September Brown, on her program, implored Camp McCain to "Free Sarah", calling for a release of Palin to the press, giving her permission to speak freely. We've recently learned that Republican insiders have known Palin was being deliberately cloistered; Brown would have been privy to this information, being married to Republican consultant Daniel Senor, a contributor at Fox News. Now, as Palin's clothing allowance has come under the microscope, Brown has used this story as a platform to emphasize the fact that women are held to a different standard. I would never quibble with this claim. We are held to an almost impossible standard, so much so that during the Primary season it led me to speculate on what constitutes the ideal female image. We are expected to give good face, project a sense of balanced strength ( feminine and tough), and demonstrate proficiency in all intellectual matters. The last expectation is reasonable; the middle expectation is a bit more of a challenge ( how does one meet a standard of feminine, yet tough as nails?) but the first one is a downright double standard. Unattractive men have made fine leaders since time began. Where is the logic in a system that demands a woman be both an intellectual AND a beautiful fashion plate?
Campbell Brown has, indeed, offered us an opportunity to examine our priorities as a nation, particularly as they relate to measuring female fitness for leadership roles. However, while the emphasis on Palin's spendthrift whirl through two luxury department stores may have been overly played, let us not lose the significance of the judgment issue. It is definitely unreasonable to assert Palin would have been taken seriously had she campaigned in "Hockey Mom" attire, as has been suggested. It is also, however, reasonable to conclude Palin could have vastly reduced the cost of her "make-over", selecting Anne Klien or even Ralph Lauren in favor of Dolce and Gabana or Valentino. Campbell Brown complained about the "Diva" label attached to Palin, claiming it is one more extension of the unfair double standards applied to women. Upon further examination, I must say, if it walks like a Diva, and talks like a Diva, and demands like a Diva..... it's certainly not a duck.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Must- See Political theater : Diva Demands Exposure
All good dramas have characters who rivet the audience through various traits; a protagonist may be honorable to the point of personal sacrifice, charismatic, with an ability to inspire groups of people, or a common touch, conveying a sense of shared experiences with the audience. These qualities beget empathy, increasing affection for a character whom is easy to identify with. None of these role playing techniques have been lost on Camp McCain- Palin.
However, from the beginning Camp McCain deemed it best to keep Sarah Palin in the shadows, unveiling her under only the strictest, most controlled circumstances. The strategy was casting Palin in the role of "regular",attractive cheerleader. All second wing candidates serve at the pleasure of the one at the top of the ticket, fulfilling duties such as stump attack dog extraordinaire, assuring the American people he/she has the credentials to step into the role of President, should the most dreadful happen, and, perhaps, doing a little dance with the media to keep them ingratiated to the campaign, thus garnering favorable coverage. Sarah Palin has not been allowed to come out and play for the majority of this political season. She failed to play well with others when she was permitted to hop onto the public stage for a brief period, and her spontaneous moments caught on film are now legendary. The Pakistan contradiction debacle served as the genesis for this very site.
At first blush Sarah Palin appears to be a cute, non-threatening figure who may not have much wisdom to offer, a factor which automatically disqualifies her for Second in Command, but she doesn't present as someone who is dangerously aggressive. As we know, looks can be so deceiving.
As if the McCain campaign was not already painfully hemorrhaging in an uphill battle, Palin decided to break out of her confinement this week, giving an impromptu press conference on a tarmac in Colorado, courting journalists in order to get her opinions out there, basically doing the very things Camp McCain wanted her to avoid. It seems she feels she has been mishandled by the campaign, right from the beginning. She feels she has things of value to share, thank you very much. An investment was made to make her look the part, why shouldn't she get to play it?
The most salient problem with Palin's new found voice is this: she and McCain do not seem to be on the same page regarding a variety of issues. The question of Palin's suitability for the office of Vice Presidency has already been raised countless times; coming out in the public square to expressly disagree with her direct superior is an ill-advised move during the last two weeks of a hard fought campaign.
Sarah Palin's restlessness, combined with a lack of self discipline for controlling said restlessness, is evidence for why she was a mistake of epic proportions. The cynic in me, however, says she deserves more credit than we may be giving her. She may know exactly what she is doing. At this point, with the election all but lost, it is possible Palin has her gaze fixed somewhere beyond the 2008 horizon. She may beleive since this endeavor is doomed, she should seize the limited opportunity she still has to imprint herself into the public psyche. The bigger impression she makes in the present makes it that much easier to re-enter the national political arena at a later date. It also stands to reason she is one of those fourth quadrant persons, the ones who don't know what they don't know. McCain and company realized this early on, but Palin has stumbled along in this mode for so long she may be completely unaware. Perhaps her ego prevents her from recognizing her stunning deficits in domestic and foreign policy knowledge. One of her handlers, on an anonymous basis, of course, did label her a Diva.
As McCain careens, head first, to cross the finish line, Sarah Palin has turned this into a three legged race. She is discontented running behind McCain; she is now insisting she be allowed to run side by side, or, possibly ahead, of McCain, peer to peer, equal to equal. The only trouble with this demand is she obviously is not McCain's equal. Regardless of one's politics (mine could not be more diametrically opposed to McCain's if I tried), it can't be denied that McCain possesses some degree of experience which lends itself to claiming some political competencies. In this regard, Sarah Palin is not remotely in the same league. The original concern about the Palin folly involves McCain's judgment; selecting her, with the advanced knowledge of her insufficient credentials, leads one to ask the inevitable question. Why? Why would he have done this? The possible answers range from running a gimmick to appeal to women, or maybe a move to appease the ultra-conservative Republican base. Still, there are so many dimensions to the role of president, it must be noted that McCain may have considered one or two aspects that favored selecting Palin, but he did not account for all the potential pitfalls in this choice. In fact, no real research was done to learn about who Sarah Palin is. We are not in a time period where we can afford to have a one or two dimensional leader; we must have someone who covers all bases, no matter the time or effort this requires.
However, from the beginning Camp McCain deemed it best to keep Sarah Palin in the shadows, unveiling her under only the strictest, most controlled circumstances. The strategy was casting Palin in the role of "regular",attractive cheerleader. All second wing candidates serve at the pleasure of the one at the top of the ticket, fulfilling duties such as stump attack dog extraordinaire, assuring the American people he/she has the credentials to step into the role of President, should the most dreadful happen, and, perhaps, doing a little dance with the media to keep them ingratiated to the campaign, thus garnering favorable coverage. Sarah Palin has not been allowed to come out and play for the majority of this political season. She failed to play well with others when she was permitted to hop onto the public stage for a brief period, and her spontaneous moments caught on film are now legendary. The Pakistan contradiction debacle served as the genesis for this very site.
At first blush Sarah Palin appears to be a cute, non-threatening figure who may not have much wisdom to offer, a factor which automatically disqualifies her for Second in Command, but she doesn't present as someone who is dangerously aggressive. As we know, looks can be so deceiving.
As if the McCain campaign was not already painfully hemorrhaging in an uphill battle, Palin decided to break out of her confinement this week, giving an impromptu press conference on a tarmac in Colorado, courting journalists in order to get her opinions out there, basically doing the very things Camp McCain wanted her to avoid. It seems she feels she has been mishandled by the campaign, right from the beginning. She feels she has things of value to share, thank you very much. An investment was made to make her look the part, why shouldn't she get to play it?
The most salient problem with Palin's new found voice is this: she and McCain do not seem to be on the same page regarding a variety of issues. The question of Palin's suitability for the office of Vice Presidency has already been raised countless times; coming out in the public square to expressly disagree with her direct superior is an ill-advised move during the last two weeks of a hard fought campaign.
Sarah Palin's restlessness, combined with a lack of self discipline for controlling said restlessness, is evidence for why she was a mistake of epic proportions. The cynic in me, however, says she deserves more credit than we may be giving her. She may know exactly what she is doing. At this point, with the election all but lost, it is possible Palin has her gaze fixed somewhere beyond the 2008 horizon. She may beleive since this endeavor is doomed, she should seize the limited opportunity she still has to imprint herself into the public psyche. The bigger impression she makes in the present makes it that much easier to re-enter the national political arena at a later date. It also stands to reason she is one of those fourth quadrant persons, the ones who don't know what they don't know. McCain and company realized this early on, but Palin has stumbled along in this mode for so long she may be completely unaware. Perhaps her ego prevents her from recognizing her stunning deficits in domestic and foreign policy knowledge. One of her handlers, on an anonymous basis, of course, did label her a Diva.
As McCain careens, head first, to cross the finish line, Sarah Palin has turned this into a three legged race. She is discontented running behind McCain; she is now insisting she be allowed to run side by side, or, possibly ahead, of McCain, peer to peer, equal to equal. The only trouble with this demand is she obviously is not McCain's equal. Regardless of one's politics (mine could not be more diametrically opposed to McCain's if I tried), it can't be denied that McCain possesses some degree of experience which lends itself to claiming some political competencies. In this regard, Sarah Palin is not remotely in the same league. The original concern about the Palin folly involves McCain's judgment; selecting her, with the advanced knowledge of her insufficient credentials, leads one to ask the inevitable question. Why? Why would he have done this? The possible answers range from running a gimmick to appeal to women, or maybe a move to appease the ultra-conservative Republican base. Still, there are so many dimensions to the role of president, it must be noted that McCain may have considered one or two aspects that favored selecting Palin, but he did not account for all the potential pitfalls in this choice. In fact, no real research was done to learn about who Sarah Palin is. We are not in a time period where we can afford to have a one or two dimensional leader; we must have someone who covers all bases, no matter the time or effort this requires.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
As Wall Street Continues to Tumble, Palin Engages in Retail Therapy
The stories which call forth our disbelief seem to be never ending. In yet another news bit that reflects the priorities of the McCain-Palin ticket, we learned today that the GOP spent $150,000.00 on wardrobe and styling costs ( hair, make-up, etc.) for Sarah Palin during the month of September. Mrs. Palin obviously has champagne taste; the new, improved Palin was constructed at the high end store Neiman Marcus, with other expensive professional stylists rounding out her "image consulting" team. When President Reagan was in office, the first lady, Nancy Reagan, was criticized for lavish spending in the first two years of their White House tenure, with unemployment during this period edging 10 %. The shock and disgust over Mrs. Reagan's priorities, encouraging ketchup to be considered as a vegetable for young children dependent on the reduced lunch program, while lining her closet with designer clothes and stocking up on top shelf china, was palpable.
So, here we are, twenty something years later, in the same predicament. The country is either in a recession, or dancing very closely toward one, and we have another GOP fashionesta placing her own image over the needs of a struggling electorate. Only this time, there is added cause for concern; with Nancy Reagan, she was a figurehead, someone Ronald Reagan may have consulted, but only on the most superficial level. Sarah Palin wants to be vice president.... a heartbeat away from being THE president. Her claims of reducing wasteful spending for Alaskan tax payers rings hollow as we've recently discovered she's used an estimated $40,000.00 of their money to fund travel for herself and her family. Now we learn she has engaged in retail therapy of the highest order, using campaign funds to outfit herself in only the finest threads. People, please! During the course of a measly two months we've heard story after story about this woman abusing her power. How many more of these do we need to hear, especially in a time of fiscal crisis?!
With only 13 days left before the election, it is vital we apply pressure on the media to investigate all happenings in this clearly corrupt group of politicians, and demand accountability from the persons in question. Palin has been skewering Obama for his "judgment" of late.... can she really raise this issue with a straight face, as an economic down slide of dramatic proportions prevails, and she mills through the luxury clothes at Neiman's?
So, here we are, twenty something years later, in the same predicament. The country is either in a recession, or dancing very closely toward one, and we have another GOP fashionesta placing her own image over the needs of a struggling electorate. Only this time, there is added cause for concern; with Nancy Reagan, she was a figurehead, someone Ronald Reagan may have consulted, but only on the most superficial level. Sarah Palin wants to be vice president.... a heartbeat away from being THE president. Her claims of reducing wasteful spending for Alaskan tax payers rings hollow as we've recently discovered she's used an estimated $40,000.00 of their money to fund travel for herself and her family. Now we learn she has engaged in retail therapy of the highest order, using campaign funds to outfit herself in only the finest threads. People, please! During the course of a measly two months we've heard story after story about this woman abusing her power. How many more of these do we need to hear, especially in a time of fiscal crisis?!
With only 13 days left before the election, it is vital we apply pressure on the media to investigate all happenings in this clearly corrupt group of politicians, and demand accountability from the persons in question. Palin has been skewering Obama for his "judgment" of late.... can she really raise this issue with a straight face, as an economic down slide of dramatic proportions prevails, and she mills through the luxury clothes at Neiman's?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Palin Delusion
Can you believe that Gov. Palin criticized Sen. Obama at a rally yesterday about his views on Pakistani crossborder incursion from Afghanistan? I wish I was making this up.
Apparently, she forgot the conversation her and I had with each other @ Tony Lukes last month.
The era of lying and deceit needs to end.
Check out the links.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/palin-ignores-her-own-pakistan-remark-while-criticizing-obama/
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/21/politics/fromtheroad/entry4536737.shtml#ccmm
Apparently, she forgot the conversation her and I had with each other @ Tony Lukes last month.
The era of lying and deceit needs to end.
Check out the links.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/palin-ignores-her-own-pakistan-remark-while-criticizing-obama/
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/21/politics/fromtheroad/entry4536737.shtml#ccmm
Monday, October 20, 2008
Weekend in Review
As we slog into the final weeks of the presidential campaign ( two more weeks from tomorrow, to be exact), the "news floats" over the weekend contained some interesting chunks of information.
Perhaps the most striking event of the weekend was Colin Powell's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. Powell, a lifelong Republican, stated he feels Obama is the right man for these specific times, citing Obama's ability to energize and mobilize citizens toward right action. Powell astutely observed we are living in times that require a dynamic leader who can restore the good will we've always enjoyed abroad, as well as someone who can successfully handle the domestic issues we have facing us.
Meanwhile, it was also announced that Obama raised a record 150 million dollars in September, breaking all records for campaign fund raising. McCain has since suggested that Obama's good fortune with fund raising will inevitable lead to a "scandal." That's incredible..... if Obama is ahead in fund raising, it's a scandal; I've no doubt if he were behind, Camp McCain would be crowing about its "whoop" on Team Obama. Will it ever end?
In the midst of all this "real" news, Saturday Night Live brought us some comic relief.... sort of. Sarah Palin was a guest on the show, providing a few opportunities for laugh- out-loud moments, but not from Mrs. Palin herself. She appeared annoyed with the whole process, with a posture of " I can't believe I'm having to schlep with these people." I must admit, however, Palin's attempt to "raise the roof" was pretty hilarious.
This weekend provided some comedy, along with a few serious moments, to keep us fortified in this last stretch of a seemingly endless campaign. Obama stands today with a five point lead over Senator McCain.... but two weeks is an eternity in politics, as has been proven many times before. Obama supporters need not become complacent.... there are many phone calls to make, many doors to be knocked on... it ain't over yet.
Perhaps the most striking event of the weekend was Colin Powell's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. Powell, a lifelong Republican, stated he feels Obama is the right man for these specific times, citing Obama's ability to energize and mobilize citizens toward right action. Powell astutely observed we are living in times that require a dynamic leader who can restore the good will we've always enjoyed abroad, as well as someone who can successfully handle the domestic issues we have facing us.
Meanwhile, it was also announced that Obama raised a record 150 million dollars in September, breaking all records for campaign fund raising. McCain has since suggested that Obama's good fortune with fund raising will inevitable lead to a "scandal." That's incredible..... if Obama is ahead in fund raising, it's a scandal; I've no doubt if he were behind, Camp McCain would be crowing about its "whoop" on Team Obama. Will it ever end?
In the midst of all this "real" news, Saturday Night Live brought us some comic relief.... sort of. Sarah Palin was a guest on the show, providing a few opportunities for laugh- out-loud moments, but not from Mrs. Palin herself. She appeared annoyed with the whole process, with a posture of " I can't believe I'm having to schlep with these people." I must admit, however, Palin's attempt to "raise the roof" was pretty hilarious.
This weekend provided some comedy, along with a few serious moments, to keep us fortified in this last stretch of a seemingly endless campaign. Obama stands today with a five point lead over Senator McCain.... but two weeks is an eternity in politics, as has been proven many times before. Obama supporters need not become complacent.... there are many phone calls to make, many doors to be knocked on... it ain't over yet.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Rovito vs. Joe the Plumber
The links below demonstrate the hypocrisy in the treating of my question with Joe the Plumber's. The conservative machine painted me as a gotcha journalist, but Joe as some patriot asking a simple question. I am sickened.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/plumber-waziristan/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/palin-praises-joe-the-plumber-for-ruining-obamas-photo-op/
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/18/palin-re-counts-obama-story-that-sounds-like-her-own/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/plumber-waziristan/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/palin-praises-joe-the-plumber-for-ruining-obamas-photo-op/
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/18/palin-re-counts-obama-story-that-sounds-like-her-own/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A call for authors!
The Rovito Review is growing and is looking to expand its author list. If you are interested (or know someone who is) in giving your opinion on social commentary or political satire, send us an email with your resume and a short writing sample (approx. 4 paragraphs) to: rovitoreview@gmail.com.
-Michael
-Michael
Update
The Rovito Review will be switching to a new interface: Ning. I am currently developing the new site and will let everyone know when it is launched.
-Michael
-Michael
Vetting Lite : Not So Much
John McCain has made some more "friends" lately, and one of them is someone he thinks the American people should be acquainted with as well. The debate last night provided an introduction of a brand new character on the political stage. "Joe the Plumber", the most recent addition to this marathon campaign, became a disproportional focal point to illustrate the argument against the GOP branded "Spread the Wealth" policy of Barack Obama. In last night's presentation, "Joe" was painted to be an eager entrepreneur, a man filled with a deep desire to buy the plumbing business he currently works for. Yet, with Obama's tax plan, poor Joe will not be able to realize his long held dream. Curse that Barack "Robin Hood" Obama.
Now, naturally, when something like this occurs, the media is all over it. There are accounts of "Joe the Plumber" being contacted during the debate, with journalists asking for a real time response to his new found celebrity.
Here's the deal about Joe; Joe was at an Obama rally in Ohio this past weekend. As Obama made his way through the crowd, Joe got an opportunity to face the Democratic candidate to ask him directly if his tax plan would prevent him from fulfilling his dream of owning the plumbing company he works for. Obama gave a straightforward answer.... if the business nets over $250,000.00, then yes, there would be a 3% increase in his taxes. Of course, all of this was in the context of an assumption that Mr.Joe Plumber reached his goal and acquired the plumbing business he has yearned to own.
McCain's version of the "Joe" scenario received more attention from the candidate than any platform issue, including, but not limited to, education, health care, energy, and judge appointments to the highest Court in the land. John McCain hammered on the plight of "Joe the Plumber" like there was no tomorrow, using this new stage player as the poster child, emblematic figure who represents all small business owners in America! McCain has already asked his favorite new "friend" to join him on the campaign trail to give anecdotal evidence as to why Obama is a wild-eyed wealth distribution maniac. Yet, as we've learned today, there is a slight problem with the homespun story of McCain's new buddy.
"Joe the Plumber" is not a plumber. He works FOR a plumbing company, but he is not a licensed plumber. No, as it turns out, Joe is not a plumber, he is just Joe. Actually, it seems, he's Joe the tax evader; later reports indicate there is a lien on his home imposed by the state of Ohio until he pays approximately $1200.00 in back taxes. He wasn't kidding around with his tax question!
So, once again, Camp McCain has egg on its collective face. Continuing to tout the story of "Joe the Plumber" may not be the wisest move; because, in point of fact, he's not a plumber. Further, he's a tax dodger. Give the media a little more time. I've no doubt this will evolve from " Joe the Plumber" to " Joe Dirt Part II."
The overarching lesson in this latest fiasco, at least for McCain, should be.... VET!!! Vet all persons you attach to your campaign. This would have been a great thing to do with your choice for Vice President, but that horse is out of the gate. However, going forward, if you want to pull in an "everyman" to add a common touch to your stump speeches, fine, but make sure, to the extent possible, they don't leave you looking like a befuddled, baffled old man, wondering what just happened to his "Slam Dunk " stage pony.
Once again, we are confronted with a persistent, stark reality; John McCain is impulsive, erratic, and obviously quick to make a move without doing a sufficient amount of homework. We are not living in times which call for a leader whom is the first one to finish the race. We are living in times which call for a leader whom plotted his course and ran the race intelligently.
Bob Schiefer asked the two candidates last night if they would agree to a cease fire policy regarding negative attacks against one another. One of the combative words Schiefer cited that Obama has used... erratic. How else, precisely, would one classify McCain's behavior, especially in a situation where contrasts and comparisons must be drawn? The pattern which has emerged indicates when McCain is feeling pressed up against the wall ( late August, right now), he tends to lurch toward a "quick-fix" solution that looks good on paper. Yeah, sure, the challenging, complex times we live in will benefit from this style of leadership, no doubt.
McCain and Palin have insisted the American people have a right to know all things about the candidates. There is no alternative for Barack Obama but to call it like he, and a whole host of logical thinkers, see it. This is not a combative act; it's an important distinction which serves to highlight Obama's steady eyes and hands.
Now, naturally, when something like this occurs, the media is all over it. There are accounts of "Joe the Plumber" being contacted during the debate, with journalists asking for a real time response to his new found celebrity.
Here's the deal about Joe; Joe was at an Obama rally in Ohio this past weekend. As Obama made his way through the crowd, Joe got an opportunity to face the Democratic candidate to ask him directly if his tax plan would prevent him from fulfilling his dream of owning the plumbing company he works for. Obama gave a straightforward answer.... if the business nets over $250,000.00, then yes, there would be a 3% increase in his taxes. Of course, all of this was in the context of an assumption that Mr.Joe Plumber reached his goal and acquired the plumbing business he has yearned to own.
McCain's version of the "Joe" scenario received more attention from the candidate than any platform issue, including, but not limited to, education, health care, energy, and judge appointments to the highest Court in the land. John McCain hammered on the plight of "Joe the Plumber" like there was no tomorrow, using this new stage player as the poster child, emblematic figure who represents all small business owners in America! McCain has already asked his favorite new "friend" to join him on the campaign trail to give anecdotal evidence as to why Obama is a wild-eyed wealth distribution maniac. Yet, as we've learned today, there is a slight problem with the homespun story of McCain's new buddy.
"Joe the Plumber" is not a plumber. He works FOR a plumbing company, but he is not a licensed plumber. No, as it turns out, Joe is not a plumber, he is just Joe. Actually, it seems, he's Joe the tax evader; later reports indicate there is a lien on his home imposed by the state of Ohio until he pays approximately $1200.00 in back taxes. He wasn't kidding around with his tax question!
So, once again, Camp McCain has egg on its collective face. Continuing to tout the story of "Joe the Plumber" may not be the wisest move; because, in point of fact, he's not a plumber. Further, he's a tax dodger. Give the media a little more time. I've no doubt this will evolve from " Joe the Plumber" to " Joe Dirt Part II."
The overarching lesson in this latest fiasco, at least for McCain, should be.... VET!!! Vet all persons you attach to your campaign. This would have been a great thing to do with your choice for Vice President, but that horse is out of the gate. However, going forward, if you want to pull in an "everyman" to add a common touch to your stump speeches, fine, but make sure, to the extent possible, they don't leave you looking like a befuddled, baffled old man, wondering what just happened to his "Slam Dunk " stage pony.
Once again, we are confronted with a persistent, stark reality; John McCain is impulsive, erratic, and obviously quick to make a move without doing a sufficient amount of homework. We are not living in times which call for a leader whom is the first one to finish the race. We are living in times which call for a leader whom plotted his course and ran the race intelligently.
Bob Schiefer asked the two candidates last night if they would agree to a cease fire policy regarding negative attacks against one another. One of the combative words Schiefer cited that Obama has used... erratic. How else, precisely, would one classify McCain's behavior, especially in a situation where contrasts and comparisons must be drawn? The pattern which has emerged indicates when McCain is feeling pressed up against the wall ( late August, right now), he tends to lurch toward a "quick-fix" solution that looks good on paper. Yeah, sure, the challenging, complex times we live in will benefit from this style of leadership, no doubt.
McCain and Palin have insisted the American people have a right to know all things about the candidates. There is no alternative for Barack Obama but to call it like he, and a whole host of logical thinkers, see it. This is not a combative act; it's an important distinction which serves to highlight Obama's steady eyes and hands.
Investment verses Incoherent
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's over.... the debates, at least. Truly, as far as I can see, however, barring a major gaffe of gigantic proportions from Team Obama, this is a wrap. Period.
The candidates did address ( or avoid) each issue, with one candidate offering a vision for the future, while the other candidate stumbled, stuttered, and consistently failed to offer any plans for real change. The following areas were volleyed back and forth :
* The Economy : Obama offered a plan which cuts taxes for 95% of Americans, stimulating the economy through jump starting consumption power in the middle class. Additionally, aspects of other portions of Obama's platform speak to the need for considering our middle class, including health care and education. Obama also proposed closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, strengthening and enforcing appropriate measures in trade agreements, and providing a $4000.00 tax credit to college students for tuition, in exchange for a commitment to public service. Senator McCain offered..... lowering taxes for everyone, but ESPECIALLY the upper 2%. We've been there, done that, McCain. It's not working so well.
* Health Care : Senator Obama assured the American people he fully intends to let individuals keep health care plans they are pleased with. He would like to offer a plan comparable to the insurance enjoyed by Senators and other federal employees, which, he pointed out, will be affordable because of the huge volume of enrolled citizens. Senator Obama also made the salient point that if we implement his proposal we reduce recipients of Medicaid and emergency room visits from the uninsured that drive up premiums for those of us who are insured. Not to mention, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!!! Senator McCain wants to offer a $5000.00 tax credit for all citizens, regardless of age or health conditions, with no mention of how he would handle persons with pre-existing conditions....oh, this is all after he institutes an additional tax. In McCain's words... " Got it?"
* The Environment : Senator Obama offered real solutions to climate change; Senator McCain offered slogans with no substance. The content of this segment reiterated Senator Obama's commitment to alternative energy sources and reduction of foreign oil use with concrete examples of possibilities for making these things happen. McCain said we must find alternative energy sources, and reduce foreign oil consumption..... that was it.
* Education : Finally, finally, education was introduced tonight as a vital issue in this country. Obama once again had a grasp of the issue, demonstrating command of the particulars involved in improving education. He expressed support for charter schools, advocates the student higher education tax credit previously mentioned under the education section, increased spending for Head Start, performance based incentives for teachers ( a measure I personally favor, opposed to automatic step increases), and the role of parental responsibility in a child's school performance. McCain rambled about the Civil Rights Movement.... I was never clear on how he correlated modern education with the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, but I digress.
* An issue which has been neglected, yet is of chief significance, was brought up tonight. The responsibility of appointing one, or, perhaps, more, Supreme Court Justices, was taken directly to both candidates, with a question regarding their respective criteria for appointing judges to this highest Court. In one fell swoop abortion and litmus tests were discussed, with each candidate expressing his views on how these two issues interact, while pulling out qualities required for fair, good judges. This issue cannot be under-estimated..... we have much to lose if the Supreme Court is tilted in a radical right direction.
Obama remained calm and steady, while McCain was visibly perturbed and agitated throughout the debate. He kept his anger to a minimum visibility the first third of the debate, but the remaining portion got the best of him. He once again, through his demeanor, demonstrated a very significant factor : he does not have the temperament to be the leader of the free world. It must be reiterated; imagine Senator McCain sitting down with a foreign leader whom he disagreed with. What good could possibly come from this interaction? Obama has consistently proven he is cool in a crisis, with a reassuring, stable presence in the face of adversity. Read: He has the disposition to be president.
The pundits are saying this was McCain's best debate.... perhaps this is true. However, the bar has not been raised too high for Senator McCain. Conversely, Senator Obama rounded the bases three for three, hitting another home run in this final debate.
I won't even attempt to delve into the inconsequential, negative smut pandering McCain engaged in tonight; it was boring enough the first time.
This was the last debate, and it appears to be curtains for Senator McCain.
The candidates did address ( or avoid) each issue, with one candidate offering a vision for the future, while the other candidate stumbled, stuttered, and consistently failed to offer any plans for real change. The following areas were volleyed back and forth :
* The Economy : Obama offered a plan which cuts taxes for 95% of Americans, stimulating the economy through jump starting consumption power in the middle class. Additionally, aspects of other portions of Obama's platform speak to the need for considering our middle class, including health care and education. Obama also proposed closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, strengthening and enforcing appropriate measures in trade agreements, and providing a $4000.00 tax credit to college students for tuition, in exchange for a commitment to public service. Senator McCain offered..... lowering taxes for everyone, but ESPECIALLY the upper 2%. We've been there, done that, McCain. It's not working so well.
* Health Care : Senator Obama assured the American people he fully intends to let individuals keep health care plans they are pleased with. He would like to offer a plan comparable to the insurance enjoyed by Senators and other federal employees, which, he pointed out, will be affordable because of the huge volume of enrolled citizens. Senator Obama also made the salient point that if we implement his proposal we reduce recipients of Medicaid and emergency room visits from the uninsured that drive up premiums for those of us who are insured. Not to mention, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!!! Senator McCain wants to offer a $5000.00 tax credit for all citizens, regardless of age or health conditions, with no mention of how he would handle persons with pre-existing conditions....oh, this is all after he institutes an additional tax. In McCain's words... " Got it?"
* The Environment : Senator Obama offered real solutions to climate change; Senator McCain offered slogans with no substance. The content of this segment reiterated Senator Obama's commitment to alternative energy sources and reduction of foreign oil use with concrete examples of possibilities for making these things happen. McCain said we must find alternative energy sources, and reduce foreign oil consumption..... that was it.
* Education : Finally, finally, education was introduced tonight as a vital issue in this country. Obama once again had a grasp of the issue, demonstrating command of the particulars involved in improving education. He expressed support for charter schools, advocates the student higher education tax credit previously mentioned under the education section, increased spending for Head Start, performance based incentives for teachers ( a measure I personally favor, opposed to automatic step increases), and the role of parental responsibility in a child's school performance. McCain rambled about the Civil Rights Movement.... I was never clear on how he correlated modern education with the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, but I digress.
* An issue which has been neglected, yet is of chief significance, was brought up tonight. The responsibility of appointing one, or, perhaps, more, Supreme Court Justices, was taken directly to both candidates, with a question regarding their respective criteria for appointing judges to this highest Court. In one fell swoop abortion and litmus tests were discussed, with each candidate expressing his views on how these two issues interact, while pulling out qualities required for fair, good judges. This issue cannot be under-estimated..... we have much to lose if the Supreme Court is tilted in a radical right direction.
Obama remained calm and steady, while McCain was visibly perturbed and agitated throughout the debate. He kept his anger to a minimum visibility the first third of the debate, but the remaining portion got the best of him. He once again, through his demeanor, demonstrated a very significant factor : he does not have the temperament to be the leader of the free world. It must be reiterated; imagine Senator McCain sitting down with a foreign leader whom he disagreed with. What good could possibly come from this interaction? Obama has consistently proven he is cool in a crisis, with a reassuring, stable presence in the face of adversity. Read: He has the disposition to be president.
The pundits are saying this was McCain's best debate.... perhaps this is true. However, the bar has not been raised too high for Senator McCain. Conversely, Senator Obama rounded the bases three for three, hitting another home run in this final debate.
I won't even attempt to delve into the inconsequential, negative smut pandering McCain engaged in tonight; it was boring enough the first time.
This was the last debate, and it appears to be curtains for Senator McCain.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What the hell is happening with higher education?
Coming from the viewpoint of a student, an instructor, and a citizen, I can steadfastly state that higher education is becoming less of a privilege and more of a commodity. Some may disagree with the privilege comment, but isn't higher education supposed to be something to work towards and not take for granted? Are students just supposed to go to college just because? What ever happened to the standards used to keep high the excellence of education, if there ever was one? Why is it that going to college doesn't mean much anymore? Short answer: there is no long term plan to employ this supposed educated workforce. There is hardly oportunity. There is much uncertanity.
If you look at other developed nations, you will take note of highly developed, streamlined vocational training programs. Such programs here in the US are not taken seriously anymore and are discarded for the 'less-off' students. Why is that? I had woodshop in high school and I excelled. I would have loved to have gone to school to get trained in vocational education or even a custom-furniture craftsman....the advice I got from my guidance counselors was that I needed to be serious when choosing my profession. Huh? I was serious.
So I went to college. Four years of undergrad, two years of an M.A. program, and three years and counting for a PhD program, and I am 60,000 dollars in debt. I got off easy. I know others who are much worse off with not as much schooling. I am officially on a 300-month payment plan. If I only paid the bare minimum each month, I think I will be 65 when I finally pay off my loans. I am getting heartburn just thinking about it. I guess I could use my Social Security checks (if it still exists then) to pay off my student loans. That's a good plan, right? My god, save us now from this ridiculous state of affairs!!
They sell colleges to young people. They sell it to their parents. College is a product. It is consumed. It's a dog and pony show for a false sense of financial security fours years from now....and parents are eating this stuff up more ravenously than ever. Higher education has become distant from Joe and Jane Sixpack. Most parents do not know about education standard rankings, quality of professors, accreditation of different departments on a given campus, the reputation of the college's dean, president, or even alumni. Most parents see the commercials, hear the form speeches prepared for their visitation days during the semester, and the faux success stories of how the given college has a 95% employment rate post-graduation. How do colleges even measure that? Does Starbucks count as employment for physics grads?
College seems to be one large commercial ploy to create an entire new generation of young debtors. It's a business, not a place to foster your talents. What ever happened to working hard and succeeding and then having that hard work pay off in one large salary at your dream job? It's just that....a dream. We, the future of academia and society, need to reinstall the basic tenets of a an effective and efficient educational system here in these United States. We need to help our universities become what they were before: bastions of hope and progress where one could become a a success story, not a debtor.
During this campaign season, one person, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, has mentioned education and the sad state of affairs it is in. Why is no one else holding education at the same standards Sen. Dodd currently does? This next administration needs to address not only primary and secondary education woes in terms of inequities of public funding for individual school districts, but also foster vocational schools to create a skilled and educated workforce. Further, let us press our elected officials to raise public assistance funds and grants to assist with those individuals who cannot afford the rising costs of tuition. We want help, not an I.O.U. We want good-paying jobs with healthcare benefits, not part-time work in a cybercafe.
If you look at other developed nations, you will take note of highly developed, streamlined vocational training programs. Such programs here in the US are not taken seriously anymore and are discarded for the 'less-off' students. Why is that? I had woodshop in high school and I excelled. I would have loved to have gone to school to get trained in vocational education or even a custom-furniture craftsman....the advice I got from my guidance counselors was that I needed to be serious when choosing my profession. Huh? I was serious.
So I went to college. Four years of undergrad, two years of an M.A. program, and three years and counting for a PhD program, and I am 60,000 dollars in debt. I got off easy. I know others who are much worse off with not as much schooling. I am officially on a 300-month payment plan. If I only paid the bare minimum each month, I think I will be 65 when I finally pay off my loans. I am getting heartburn just thinking about it. I guess I could use my Social Security checks (if it still exists then) to pay off my student loans. That's a good plan, right? My god, save us now from this ridiculous state of affairs!!
They sell colleges to young people. They sell it to their parents. College is a product. It is consumed. It's a dog and pony show for a false sense of financial security fours years from now....and parents are eating this stuff up more ravenously than ever. Higher education has become distant from Joe and Jane Sixpack. Most parents do not know about education standard rankings, quality of professors, accreditation of different departments on a given campus, the reputation of the college's dean, president, or even alumni. Most parents see the commercials, hear the form speeches prepared for their visitation days during the semester, and the faux success stories of how the given college has a 95% employment rate post-graduation. How do colleges even measure that? Does Starbucks count as employment for physics grads?
College seems to be one large commercial ploy to create an entire new generation of young debtors. It's a business, not a place to foster your talents. What ever happened to working hard and succeeding and then having that hard work pay off in one large salary at your dream job? It's just that....a dream. We, the future of academia and society, need to reinstall the basic tenets of a an effective and efficient educational system here in these United States. We need to help our universities become what they were before: bastions of hope and progress where one could become a a success story, not a debtor.
During this campaign season, one person, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, has mentioned education and the sad state of affairs it is in. Why is no one else holding education at the same standards Sen. Dodd currently does? This next administration needs to address not only primary and secondary education woes in terms of inequities of public funding for individual school districts, but also foster vocational schools to create a skilled and educated workforce. Further, let us press our elected officials to raise public assistance funds and grants to assist with those individuals who cannot afford the rising costs of tuition. We want help, not an I.O.U. We want good-paying jobs with healthcare benefits, not part-time work in a cybercafe.
A Right or a Privilege?
In last week’s Nashville debate, the presidential candidates were asked whether they believed health care was a right or a privilege. Now, whatever one’s answer to that question, we should all be able to agree that it is THE question. The difference between ideologies can be defined just that easily. Does every American have a right to health care, and if so, how much health care, or is even basic health care a privilege to which no one is absolutely entitled? Like many of the issues being debated this election cycle, most voters can’t answer simply “yes,” or “no.” It’s a spectrum question for all but the most radical on both the right and left.
As we all examine the direct causes and effects of the economic downturn, it would be a mistake to discount the rising costs of health care and health insurance and the rising percentage of the average family’s income that is devoted to medical expenses. Some tout “personal responsibility” as the solution to uninsured and underinsured families, but this ignores so many facets of the crisis. It assumes that people are underinsured because they choose to be; because they prioritize other things that are less important; because they would rather get a free ride from someone else than take care of their own families’ needs. No doubt, that is true in some cases. There also, however, is the person whose health problems prevent him obtaining insurance. There is the family that cannot afford private insurance premiums and still maintain basic necessities like food and transportation. And of course, let us not forget the individual who pays those premiums and maintains health insurance, but still finds herself with outrageous bills left to pay because of pre-existing condition exclusions.
We have lived for eight years under an administration that has made great strides in shifting the cost of medical malpractice to its victims, sold to us as “tort reform.” At the same time that laws are passed to make it more difficult and costly to sue health care providers for grossly inadequate care, we see laws passed that protect the monopolies and price inflation by pharmaceutical companies. Far from being a solution to the health care crisis, these policies exacerbate the system’s inequities. That is not an accident.
In these ways, the Republican administration has used health care as its Trojan horse for pushing all sorts of social commentary down our throats. Take for instance, the Department of Health and Human Services proposal to amend and “clarify” the Public Health Service Act, a proposal to allow all health care providers, including assistants and volunteers, to object to providing care and information that contradicts their personal beliefs. Of course we all know where this is going: abortion and birth control. In a city with a Walgreens on every other corner and a CVS on the alternating corners with walk-in clinics in between, perhaps there is no real problem with this. Can’t get your emergency birth control from pharmacist Smith? Try the guy next door. Can’t find a doctor who will give you information on abortion availability? Pull out the phone book. But a large segment of the population doesn’t live in that world. In a rural community with only a few doctors and even fewer pharmacists, we face the very real and very foreseeable possibility of denying access to contraception and family planning to an entire area. To many entire areas. And then pretend that policy has anything to do with Public Health Services? Can we not all agree that contraception is one of the most basic public health services?
And that, after all, is the point. Is health care a right or a privilege? That absolutely is the question. But another question, no less important, is whether providing health care to every resident (no, I didn’t say citizen, or even legal resident) is in the best interests of the society we live in. Perhaps the society we wish we lived in. Can we get from where we are to where we want to be while still denying access to preventive health care, urgent care, palliative care, and so forth, to many of our neighbors? Can we get there by continuing to prioritize the profits of the health care industry over the needs of its clients? Can we get there by taxing health benefits? How do we get there from here?
As we all examine the direct causes and effects of the economic downturn, it would be a mistake to discount the rising costs of health care and health insurance and the rising percentage of the average family’s income that is devoted to medical expenses. Some tout “personal responsibility” as the solution to uninsured and underinsured families, but this ignores so many facets of the crisis. It assumes that people are underinsured because they choose to be; because they prioritize other things that are less important; because they would rather get a free ride from someone else than take care of their own families’ needs. No doubt, that is true in some cases. There also, however, is the person whose health problems prevent him obtaining insurance. There is the family that cannot afford private insurance premiums and still maintain basic necessities like food and transportation. And of course, let us not forget the individual who pays those premiums and maintains health insurance, but still finds herself with outrageous bills left to pay because of pre-existing condition exclusions.
We have lived for eight years under an administration that has made great strides in shifting the cost of medical malpractice to its victims, sold to us as “tort reform.” At the same time that laws are passed to make it more difficult and costly to sue health care providers for grossly inadequate care, we see laws passed that protect the monopolies and price inflation by pharmaceutical companies. Far from being a solution to the health care crisis, these policies exacerbate the system’s inequities. That is not an accident.
In these ways, the Republican administration has used health care as its Trojan horse for pushing all sorts of social commentary down our throats. Take for instance, the Department of Health and Human Services proposal to amend and “clarify” the Public Health Service Act, a proposal to allow all health care providers, including assistants and volunteers, to object to providing care and information that contradicts their personal beliefs. Of course we all know where this is going: abortion and birth control. In a city with a Walgreens on every other corner and a CVS on the alternating corners with walk-in clinics in between, perhaps there is no real problem with this. Can’t get your emergency birth control from pharmacist Smith? Try the guy next door. Can’t find a doctor who will give you information on abortion availability? Pull out the phone book. But a large segment of the population doesn’t live in that world. In a rural community with only a few doctors and even fewer pharmacists, we face the very real and very foreseeable possibility of denying access to contraception and family planning to an entire area. To many entire areas. And then pretend that policy has anything to do with Public Health Services? Can we not all agree that contraception is one of the most basic public health services?
And that, after all, is the point. Is health care a right or a privilege? That absolutely is the question. But another question, no less important, is whether providing health care to every resident (no, I didn’t say citizen, or even legal resident) is in the best interests of the society we live in. Perhaps the society we wish we lived in. Can we get from where we are to where we want to be while still denying access to preventive health care, urgent care, palliative care, and so forth, to many of our neighbors? Can we get there by continuing to prioritize the profits of the health care industry over the needs of its clients? Can we get there by taxing health benefits? How do we get there from here?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
"Family Values" Takes a Peculiar Fork in the Road
I don't believe in pulling children of candidates into political commentary. It is in poor taste to use an innocent bystander as fuel for any argument with the slightest political overtone.
There are always, however, circumstances where a particular journey forks, leading everyone into uncharted territory, where hard and fast rules cease to apply. It just so happens the voting public currently finds itself in the midst of such a situation.
Levi Johnston, fiance` of Bristol Palin, Governor Sarah Palin's daughter, decided to insert himself into the national conversation yesterday by providing "exclusive" access to a media source, detailing his plans for the immediate future and beyond. It appears the 18 year old Johnston has dropped out of high school (during his Senior year) in order to take a job offshore; he insists he always intended to marry Palin (they have dated since their freshman year of high school), nothing has changed, and he absolutely wants to go forward with the marriage, fatherhood, the whole nine yards. By all accounts, Johnston is taking the honorable high road regarding his responsibilities.
You know there is a colossal "but" in this story. Johnston is dropping out of high school; their baby is not due until December. So, at that point, he would have four months to complete a goal which would allow him to walk through a wide variety of doors, opposed to a minimal few doors, in an increasingly specialized job market. Johnston is doing the antithesis of what his future mother-in-law, a little over a year ago, implored all Alaskan high school students to do. Perhaps the best initiative to come out of her governance is a platform dedicated to reducing the drop-out rate of Alaskan teen agers. Last year Governor Palin introduced the plan, saying something to the effect of no situation is ever so dire that one should abandon school. There are always options. I must say, this is the only issue to date where I couldn't agree more with Palin's statement.
For the sake of argument let's assume there is a circumstance where attending school,unfortunately, becomes impossible for a high school student. There is another option; secure a GED. When circumstances loosen up, that could be the ticket one would need to pursue higher education.
I would never presume to criticize an individual's right to choose a career path; that decision is truly part and parcel of our guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, when a leader has, correctly, espoused a pro-education platform ( an issue, frankly, we've heard little to nothing about from the McCain Palin campaign), it comes off as a bit hypocritical when she condones her future son-in-law, the father of her unborn grandchild, dropping out of high school. It sends a very mixed signal of the greatest proportion. Governor Palin and Senator McCain have been trumpeting for two weeks the significance of one's character being illustrated by one's associates, and the actions of those associates. What does this say about Sarah Palin's "family values", never mind her stand on education, that she would continue to pursue a personal ambition when an associate of hers, one of the closest order, is about to make a dreadful mistake, compromising his future, her daughter's future, and an unborn baby's future?
The couple keeping the baby is moral and honorable. The young man standing by his obligations, however misguided his plans, is quite commendable. The absence of Sarah Palin at this pivotal time, her neglect to advise and support her daughter and future son-in-law, in person, not through a conference call from the campaign trail, is unforgivable. She is demonstrating a failure of leadership within her own family. The governor knows, as we all do, dropping out of high school is, at best, a risky proposition, with plenty of opportunities for one to fall through the cracks. Education is the key to a secure future..... we deserve a government who believes this as well, demonstrating his or her committment to education, first and foremost, by promoting and providing for it in his or her own family.
There are always, however, circumstances where a particular journey forks, leading everyone into uncharted territory, where hard and fast rules cease to apply. It just so happens the voting public currently finds itself in the midst of such a situation.
Levi Johnston, fiance` of Bristol Palin, Governor Sarah Palin's daughter, decided to insert himself into the national conversation yesterday by providing "exclusive" access to a media source, detailing his plans for the immediate future and beyond. It appears the 18 year old Johnston has dropped out of high school (during his Senior year) in order to take a job offshore; he insists he always intended to marry Palin (they have dated since their freshman year of high school), nothing has changed, and he absolutely wants to go forward with the marriage, fatherhood, the whole nine yards. By all accounts, Johnston is taking the honorable high road regarding his responsibilities.
You know there is a colossal "but" in this story. Johnston is dropping out of high school; their baby is not due until December. So, at that point, he would have four months to complete a goal which would allow him to walk through a wide variety of doors, opposed to a minimal few doors, in an increasingly specialized job market. Johnston is doing the antithesis of what his future mother-in-law, a little over a year ago, implored all Alaskan high school students to do. Perhaps the best initiative to come out of her governance is a platform dedicated to reducing the drop-out rate of Alaskan teen agers. Last year Governor Palin introduced the plan, saying something to the effect of no situation is ever so dire that one should abandon school. There are always options. I must say, this is the only issue to date where I couldn't agree more with Palin's statement.
For the sake of argument let's assume there is a circumstance where attending school,unfortunately, becomes impossible for a high school student. There is another option; secure a GED. When circumstances loosen up, that could be the ticket one would need to pursue higher education.
I would never presume to criticize an individual's right to choose a career path; that decision is truly part and parcel of our guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, when a leader has, correctly, espoused a pro-education platform ( an issue, frankly, we've heard little to nothing about from the McCain Palin campaign), it comes off as a bit hypocritical when she condones her future son-in-law, the father of her unborn grandchild, dropping out of high school. It sends a very mixed signal of the greatest proportion. Governor Palin and Senator McCain have been trumpeting for two weeks the significance of one's character being illustrated by one's associates, and the actions of those associates. What does this say about Sarah Palin's "family values", never mind her stand on education, that she would continue to pursue a personal ambition when an associate of hers, one of the closest order, is about to make a dreadful mistake, compromising his future, her daughter's future, and an unborn baby's future?
The couple keeping the baby is moral and honorable. The young man standing by his obligations, however misguided his plans, is quite commendable. The absence of Sarah Palin at this pivotal time, her neglect to advise and support her daughter and future son-in-law, in person, not through a conference call from the campaign trail, is unforgivable. She is demonstrating a failure of leadership within her own family. The governor knows, as we all do, dropping out of high school is, at best, a risky proposition, with plenty of opportunities for one to fall through the cracks. Education is the key to a secure future..... we deserve a government who believes this as well, demonstrating his or her committment to education, first and foremost, by promoting and providing for it in his or her own family.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Stay out of my voting booth, Padre!
I went to church today. Admittedly, as a lapsed - sometimes cafeteria - Catholic, I hadn't participated in this institution in years. Aside from the occasional wedding, at least. While living in Philadelphia, I found the archdiocese to be too conservative to quench my liberation theology-variety thirst. And since I moved to the Cambridge, MA area, well, I've been lazy about church-shopping. I like my Saturday evenings and my Sundays. Now that I'm a nine-to-fiver, I love to sleep in when given the chance.
But my dad is sick. Really sick. And I've been feeling overwhelmed. So while driving today, with the windows down and singing my deafening rendition of Prince's "Kiss", I somewhat instinctively pulled into the parking lot of a Catholic church. I wasn't sure if I was planning on entering, except that others were getting out of their cars that were parked near mine. Oh no, I realized, great timing. I had been contemplating maybe sitting in one of the pews in solitude. Perhaps be able to hear myself think for once. Not today. Embarrassed that I looked like I might actually have been stalking the parish, I got out of my car and pretended that I was like any other God-fearing U.S. citizen: gearing up for another Sunday with the Lord.
At one point during the mass I found myself settling into the familiar routine of my childhood and young adulthood. I frequently joke that I was raised by nuns, but it's not too far from the truth: I was educated by the Sisters of Mercy from preschool through high school. For my college years, I opted for the more controversial Jesuits, individuals who taught me the nuanced intermingling of spirituality and social justice. Maybe it wasn't so weird to be back in church after all.
But as I was becoming comfortable in the warm light that was making playful shadows through the stained glass, something happened that shook me to my core: during his homily, the priest reminded the parishioners of the Church's stance on abortion, and to consider this when voting. Whaaat? What about the other tenets of Catholic Social Teaching that emphasize preferential option for the poor and vulnerable...community...simple living and solidarity with the marginalized...human dignity...social justice?
The oversimplification of this election based on one issue is both offensive and dangerous. Morality politics not only threaten to undermine landmark advances in human rights in our country; they also endanger the lives of global citizens. [A brief example: Bush's reinstation of the Mexico City Policy (or Global Gag Rule) - a policy based on pro-life principles - requires international health organizations to forgo comprehensive family planning activities in order to receive vital USAID funding. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and UNFPA are two examples of organizations that lost a portion of their funding from the U.S. These organizations promote equal access to health information and services, as well as combat violence against women, and rely on funding sources in order to ensure their activities reach vulnerable populations. ]
Furthermore, it is inappropriate for priests to persuade their parishioners to vote for one party or candidate over another. I took the liberty of double-checking this on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website. No, there wasn't a McCain-Palin sign hanging over the pulpit, but the negligence of other important social justice issues was tantamount to such a display. What about the Catholic view of migration and immigration (much more liberal than many would guess)? What about issues of poverty? Healthcare? How do these fit in with faith? This was the knowledge I craved.
Sure, we all know Palin loves a good fetus, but when I vote in November, I'll be looking at the larger picture. I'll undoubtedly draw on my education and experiences. And I'm sure, in some ways, that being Catholic - even a lapsed one - colors the lens through which I view current political issues (though in a surprisingly liberal, and I hope Arrupean, way). As a human rights advocate, I would love to hear what my parish priest thinks about a range of pressing issues and how the candidates might address them. It would be great to hear the various contexts in which my work fits. This, however, doesn't mean that I want Jesus' men in black snuggling up against me as I reach to press the button on November 4th.
But my dad is sick. Really sick. And I've been feeling overwhelmed. So while driving today, with the windows down and singing my deafening rendition of Prince's "Kiss", I somewhat instinctively pulled into the parking lot of a Catholic church. I wasn't sure if I was planning on entering, except that others were getting out of their cars that were parked near mine. Oh no, I realized, great timing. I had been contemplating maybe sitting in one of the pews in solitude. Perhaps be able to hear myself think for once. Not today. Embarrassed that I looked like I might actually have been stalking the parish, I got out of my car and pretended that I was like any other God-fearing U.S. citizen: gearing up for another Sunday with the Lord.
At one point during the mass I found myself settling into the familiar routine of my childhood and young adulthood. I frequently joke that I was raised by nuns, but it's not too far from the truth: I was educated by the Sisters of Mercy from preschool through high school. For my college years, I opted for the more controversial Jesuits, individuals who taught me the nuanced intermingling of spirituality and social justice. Maybe it wasn't so weird to be back in church after all.
But as I was becoming comfortable in the warm light that was making playful shadows through the stained glass, something happened that shook me to my core: during his homily, the priest reminded the parishioners of the Church's stance on abortion, and to consider this when voting. Whaaat? What about the other tenets of Catholic Social Teaching that emphasize preferential option for the poor and vulnerable...community...simple living and solidarity with the marginalized...human dignity...social justice?
The oversimplification of this election based on one issue is both offensive and dangerous. Morality politics not only threaten to undermine landmark advances in human rights in our country; they also endanger the lives of global citizens. [A brief example: Bush's reinstation of the Mexico City Policy (or Global Gag Rule) - a policy based on pro-life principles - requires international health organizations to forgo comprehensive family planning activities in order to receive vital USAID funding. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and UNFPA are two examples of organizations that lost a portion of their funding from the U.S. These organizations promote equal access to health information and services, as well as combat violence against women, and rely on funding sources in order to ensure their activities reach vulnerable populations. ]
Furthermore, it is inappropriate for priests to persuade their parishioners to vote for one party or candidate over another. I took the liberty of double-checking this on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website. No, there wasn't a McCain-Palin sign hanging over the pulpit, but the negligence of other important social justice issues was tantamount to such a display. What about the Catholic view of migration and immigration (much more liberal than many would guess)? What about issues of poverty? Healthcare? How do these fit in with faith? This was the knowledge I craved.
Sure, we all know Palin loves a good fetus, but when I vote in November, I'll be looking at the larger picture. I'll undoubtedly draw on my education and experiences. And I'm sure, in some ways, that being Catholic - even a lapsed one - colors the lens through which I view current political issues (though in a surprisingly liberal, and I hope Arrupean, way). As a human rights advocate, I would love to hear what my parish priest thinks about a range of pressing issues and how the candidates might address them. It would be great to hear the various contexts in which my work fits. This, however, doesn't mean that I want Jesus' men in black snuggling up against me as I reach to press the button on November 4th.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Dumb and.... Corrupter?
I am a victim of cognitive dissonance; it is a beautiful, sunny Saturday, and I have a mountain of work to do. Yet, amid all of these factors competing for my attention, I find my mind constantly wandering back to the most recent Palin revelation.
Abuse of power. The very phrase sounds menacing and, frankly, evil. It may not be illegal in the most technical sense, but it does conjure up some very vivid images of someone in authority, using that authority for wrong purposes. In fact, if parsed, abuse of power carries connotations of all the characateristics we find in our worst leaders; self-serving deceit, manipulation of subordinates for personal gain, violating the trust of those one serves to advance a cause which, if known, would likely not meet with a favorable concensus. Abuse of power .... a loaded verdict.
Sarah Palin has been found to have abused her power. Once again, this does not subject her to legal action..... but should she be entrusted with a position that would allow her to perpetuate this behavior at a much higher level? She has already indidcated her desire to expand the authority of the Vice President. She would be a literal heartbeat away from assuming the lead role herself. Abuse of power.....
We know these facts to be true. How big does the crater need to get before America sees the potential for falling into a very dangerous hole?
Abuse of power. The very phrase sounds menacing and, frankly, evil. It may not be illegal in the most technical sense, but it does conjure up some very vivid images of someone in authority, using that authority for wrong purposes. In fact, if parsed, abuse of power carries connotations of all the characateristics we find in our worst leaders; self-serving deceit, manipulation of subordinates for personal gain, violating the trust of those one serves to advance a cause which, if known, would likely not meet with a favorable concensus. Abuse of power .... a loaded verdict.
Sarah Palin has been found to have abused her power. Once again, this does not subject her to legal action..... but should she be entrusted with a position that would allow her to perpetuate this behavior at a much higher level? She has already indidcated her desire to expand the authority of the Vice President. She would be a literal heartbeat away from assuming the lead role herself. Abuse of power.....
We know these facts to be true. How big does the crater need to get before America sees the potential for falling into a very dangerous hole?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Smear and Fear Makes the Choice Crystal Clear
As might be expected in the home stretch of a, shall we say, adverserial campaign, things have turned combative this week. In fact, combat may be too gentle of a description, it might be more accurate to label this week as all-out warfare.
John McCain has seen a tremendous reversal of fortune, and for good reason. Each time he and/or his running mate, the always entertaining Sarah Palin, open their mouths, they remove all doubt as to what kind of leadership we could expect from them. If you've just mentally said to yourself " Well, from what I've seen, we truly would be getting more of the same we've had for eight years." I would respond....I believe you are correct.
Smear and fear. This is the title of the Republican playbook. Find an achilles heel in one's opponent, even if one's running mate apparently is not familiar with the term. It shouldn't be a point of fact, simply a bit of information that is fairly simple to distort. Repeat said item relentlessly. Then repeat some more. Stay on message..... smear the opponent with one hand, manipulate people's greatest fears with the other.
While Republicans typically do not need an invitation to employ these tactics, a curious thing happened earlier this week, something that doesn't quite rate on the truth detector. At a rally in Wisconsin, formatted in the "town hall" configuration McCain is so fond of, numerous supporters stepped up to the mike to make a brief statement. Yet the first one shown by the media wasn't so brief. Basically, an older gentleman claimed that he and his associates felt disinfranchised, wanted to know when McCain was going to grow a backbone and take on Obama directly, because, you see, these voters are MAD! They are MAD that nobody is taking THEIR concerns seriously, mad that Obama is surging in the polls, mad that, (gasp), the other side of the aisle may have a crack at untangeling us from the web we find ourselves trapped in under Neo-Con policies. A succession of speakers followed, each with a variation on the first speaker's sentiments. This was, indeed, a curious event.....
Let's consider for a moment the element of theater in politics. Some candidates take the high road and deliver sincere speeches with thoughtful, reasonable platforms designed to benefit the greater good. However, while it's painful to acknowledge this fact, many more politicians do a bit every time they step on stage. Be it a funny bit, or a grave bit, an impassioned bit, or a heartfelt bit, it's all coming from the same theater. The voice we hear projecting is the candidate's "message"; the real man is the Oz figure behind the curtain, where nobody can see him.
Now, let's revisit the rally in Wisconsin. Isn't it a coincidence these voters all banded together in a small town, in a state where Obama currently enjoys a lead in the polls, to dress McCain down, then promptly beg him to come out swinging harder, give them the red meat they're craving?! Perhaps I'm cynical, but the timing of this plea for more smut smacks of...... posing. These people presented as posers, stunt props, the voice of the "people" appealing to their leader to please make Obama's life more misreable. How could Senator McCain refuse such requests? If the American public feels they haven't gotten a fair share of campaigning which speaks to our utmost base instincts, who is John McCain to deny them this rite of the election cycle?
Let me be more direct.... the rally, in my humble opinion, appears to have been a set-up, a clever, yet somewhat transparent idea for selling the public on the idea that Senator McCain, going forward, would merely answer the call of his constituents. He was now duty bound to deliver the garbage the electorate yearns for, on their front step in the mornings, through their televisions, on the radio, and, of course, on the ever-trusted internet. Let the games begin!
Team McCain, however, once again miscalculated. Polls show most Americans are not impressed with the smear and fear.... in fact, they disapprove of it. So, as of this writing, we have a new direction in the McCain camp, fresh off the trail from the old "new" marching orders given this week. They are diamtetrically opposed.... which makes for some interesting dramatic viewing.
John McCain has seen a tremendous reversal of fortune, and for good reason. Each time he and/or his running mate, the always entertaining Sarah Palin, open their mouths, they remove all doubt as to what kind of leadership we could expect from them. If you've just mentally said to yourself " Well, from what I've seen, we truly would be getting more of the same we've had for eight years." I would respond....I believe you are correct.
Smear and fear. This is the title of the Republican playbook. Find an achilles heel in one's opponent, even if one's running mate apparently is not familiar with the term. It shouldn't be a point of fact, simply a bit of information that is fairly simple to distort. Repeat said item relentlessly. Then repeat some more. Stay on message..... smear the opponent with one hand, manipulate people's greatest fears with the other.
While Republicans typically do not need an invitation to employ these tactics, a curious thing happened earlier this week, something that doesn't quite rate on the truth detector. At a rally in Wisconsin, formatted in the "town hall" configuration McCain is so fond of, numerous supporters stepped up to the mike to make a brief statement. Yet the first one shown by the media wasn't so brief. Basically, an older gentleman claimed that he and his associates felt disinfranchised, wanted to know when McCain was going to grow a backbone and take on Obama directly, because, you see, these voters are MAD! They are MAD that nobody is taking THEIR concerns seriously, mad that Obama is surging in the polls, mad that, (gasp), the other side of the aisle may have a crack at untangeling us from the web we find ourselves trapped in under Neo-Con policies. A succession of speakers followed, each with a variation on the first speaker's sentiments. This was, indeed, a curious event.....
Let's consider for a moment the element of theater in politics. Some candidates take the high road and deliver sincere speeches with thoughtful, reasonable platforms designed to benefit the greater good. However, while it's painful to acknowledge this fact, many more politicians do a bit every time they step on stage. Be it a funny bit, or a grave bit, an impassioned bit, or a heartfelt bit, it's all coming from the same theater. The voice we hear projecting is the candidate's "message"; the real man is the Oz figure behind the curtain, where nobody can see him.
Now, let's revisit the rally in Wisconsin. Isn't it a coincidence these voters all banded together in a small town, in a state where Obama currently enjoys a lead in the polls, to dress McCain down, then promptly beg him to come out swinging harder, give them the red meat they're craving?! Perhaps I'm cynical, but the timing of this plea for more smut smacks of...... posing. These people presented as posers, stunt props, the voice of the "people" appealing to their leader to please make Obama's life more misreable. How could Senator McCain refuse such requests? If the American public feels they haven't gotten a fair share of campaigning which speaks to our utmost base instincts, who is John McCain to deny them this rite of the election cycle?
Let me be more direct.... the rally, in my humble opinion, appears to have been a set-up, a clever, yet somewhat transparent idea for selling the public on the idea that Senator McCain, going forward, would merely answer the call of his constituents. He was now duty bound to deliver the garbage the electorate yearns for, on their front step in the mornings, through their televisions, on the radio, and, of course, on the ever-trusted internet. Let the games begin!
Team McCain, however, once again miscalculated. Polls show most Americans are not impressed with the smear and fear.... in fact, they disapprove of it. So, as of this writing, we have a new direction in the McCain camp, fresh off the trail from the old "new" marching orders given this week. They are diamtetrically opposed.... which makes for some interesting dramatic viewing.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Link to Interview with NPR's Marty Moss-Coane
This interview touched on government accountability. Check it out.
http://www.whyy.org/91FM/radiotimes.html
http://www.whyy.org/91FM/radiotimes.html
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Nathan Shrader's latest column: As the Cheese Steak Goes, So Goes the Nation
Nathan is a great friend of mine and a rising star in politics. Here is a link to his latest article.
http://patownhall.com/article/3576
-Michael
http://patownhall.com/article/
-Michael
Round Two : Obama Moves Past Talking Points While McCain ...Doesn't.
As we approach the finish line of this marathon campaign, when candidate fatigue is quite possibly setting in, Americans can take comfort in this fact; we're two down, one to go. The stakes were high tonight, with both McCain and Obama needing a victory, each man for very different reasons. Obama needed to pull this off to ensure no break in his stride, the momentum has been on his side recently, a win tonight could only extend his roll. McCain, conversely, needed a win tonight to convince not only Independents, but his own base, he's still a viable contender.
Flash polls are not entirely reliable..... however, they provide a nice snapshot of immediacy, the gut level reactions felt by the average voter. It appears, according to the data, once again, Obama ran the board. This viewer had the same take-away as the majority of those polled; several factors contributed to this response.
A. The Town Hall format has been fabled to favor John McCain; this arena has been touted as the stage where he would shine. Either Senator McCain was having an off night, or this particular crowd of mixed voters (bi-partisan) failed to inspire him toward a winning performance. Although McCain's demeanor was somewhat modified from the previous debate, the senator presented tonight as condescending, superficial and somewhat confrontational. Once again, McCain did not deliver, with a favorable asset in his corner (tonight's format), just as he fell short in the first debate, with the advantage of his strength serving as the debate topic (foreign policy and national security.)
B. The American people are so eager to hear an actual platform from these two candidates. The electorate has grown weary of tap dancing. People are now demanding these two get serious and concrete regarding their strategy and tactics for achieving success across a broad spectrum of issues. Barack Obama managed to articulate a coherent plan tonight which addressed all key areas of the national conversation, including the economy, job creation, health care, energy independence, the budget (priorities toward the end of reasonable maintenance of services while responsibly curtailing spending), foreign policy and international relations, and climate change. Senator McCain offered one concrete plan that will surely not sit well with the fiscally conservative branch of the party; a buy-out of bad mortgages, at current market value, to assist the ailing economy. This plan would be hugely expensive, as well as, presumably, hugely socialistic by traditional conservative standards. Outside of this ill-conceived proposal, Senator McCain offered no new initiatives, no fresh strategies, nothing tangible to comfort and assure voters that change is, indeed, coming.
C. Finally, the most salient feature of Senator McCain's weak performance tonight was the visceral, highly visible contempt he holds for Senator Obama. Obama has been quoted as saying "We can disagree without being disagreeable", but this is an idea McCain clearly does not embrace. During the debate McCain referred to Senator Obama as though he were an object ( the sure to be repeated instance of nodding toward Obama during a talking point, saying ".... and this one over here."), used humor,as this columnist predicted, to deflect attention from the issue at hand, with attempts at "funny" coming off as snarky digs ( Note to McCain: Definitely don't quit your day job.), and, at the conclusion of the debate, displayed a glaring lack of basic manners, blocking Senator Obama's attempt to shake his hand, instead choosing to sprint out of the hall as soon as possible. If John McCain cannot treat a campaign opponent with more dignity than this, how can we expect him to interact with the global community, particularly those who may not fully agree with his positions? We are no longer operating in an environment where leaders can unofficially declare America as isolated, or unilaterally dictate the rules of engagement. We now live in a global economy, interdependent on other nations to move forward. I should correct myself and say it is possible to conduct foreign policy in this manner, but it hasn't met with stellar results for the past eight years.
We have now seen another commanding performance from the Obama/Biden ticket, with Senator Obama prevailing as an informed, reasoned, poised presidential presence. Those who would argue experience beats judgment and decorum, take a closer look at tonight's debate. Given the current conditions in this country, and where the calendar stands in relation to election day, tonight may have, indeed, been a "game changer."
Flash polls are not entirely reliable..... however, they provide a nice snapshot of immediacy, the gut level reactions felt by the average voter. It appears, according to the data, once again, Obama ran the board. This viewer had the same take-away as the majority of those polled; several factors contributed to this response.
A. The Town Hall format has been fabled to favor John McCain; this arena has been touted as the stage where he would shine. Either Senator McCain was having an off night, or this particular crowd of mixed voters (bi-partisan) failed to inspire him toward a winning performance. Although McCain's demeanor was somewhat modified from the previous debate, the senator presented tonight as condescending, superficial and somewhat confrontational. Once again, McCain did not deliver, with a favorable asset in his corner (tonight's format), just as he fell short in the first debate, with the advantage of his strength serving as the debate topic (foreign policy and national security.)
B. The American people are so eager to hear an actual platform from these two candidates. The electorate has grown weary of tap dancing. People are now demanding these two get serious and concrete regarding their strategy and tactics for achieving success across a broad spectrum of issues. Barack Obama managed to articulate a coherent plan tonight which addressed all key areas of the national conversation, including the economy, job creation, health care, energy independence, the budget (priorities toward the end of reasonable maintenance of services while responsibly curtailing spending), foreign policy and international relations, and climate change. Senator McCain offered one concrete plan that will surely not sit well with the fiscally conservative branch of the party; a buy-out of bad mortgages, at current market value, to assist the ailing economy. This plan would be hugely expensive, as well as, presumably, hugely socialistic by traditional conservative standards. Outside of this ill-conceived proposal, Senator McCain offered no new initiatives, no fresh strategies, nothing tangible to comfort and assure voters that change is, indeed, coming.
C. Finally, the most salient feature of Senator McCain's weak performance tonight was the visceral, highly visible contempt he holds for Senator Obama. Obama has been quoted as saying "We can disagree without being disagreeable", but this is an idea McCain clearly does not embrace. During the debate McCain referred to Senator Obama as though he were an object ( the sure to be repeated instance of nodding toward Obama during a talking point, saying ".... and this one over here."), used humor,as this columnist predicted, to deflect attention from the issue at hand, with attempts at "funny" coming off as snarky digs ( Note to McCain: Definitely don't quit your day job.), and, at the conclusion of the debate, displayed a glaring lack of basic manners, blocking Senator Obama's attempt to shake his hand, instead choosing to sprint out of the hall as soon as possible. If John McCain cannot treat a campaign opponent with more dignity than this, how can we expect him to interact with the global community, particularly those who may not fully agree with his positions? We are no longer operating in an environment where leaders can unofficially declare America as isolated, or unilaterally dictate the rules of engagement. We now live in a global economy, interdependent on other nations to move forward. I should correct myself and say it is possible to conduct foreign policy in this manner, but it hasn't met with stellar results for the past eight years.
We have now seen another commanding performance from the Obama/Biden ticket, with Senator Obama prevailing as an informed, reasoned, poised presidential presence. Those who would argue experience beats judgment and decorum, take a closer look at tonight's debate. Given the current conditions in this country, and where the calendar stands in relation to election day, tonight may have, indeed, been a "game changer."
My Philadelphia Inquirer Op-Ed (10-07-08)
Mistaken identity and 'gotcha journalism'
A Temple student wasn't trying to trap Sarah Palin. He questioned her as a citizen concerned about his country.
Michael Rovito is pursuing a doctorate in public health at TempleI spent the Saturday before last attending the Temple University homecoming game with family members visiting from out of town. After the game was over, like many in the crowd, we headed to Tony Luke's on Oregon Avenue for sandwiches.
These were the mundane highlights of our family outing before we got to Tony Luke's to find an unexpected fellow customer: Sarah Palin. The would-be vice president was there to greet voters and get a bite to eat with her daughter.
No one was engaging the Alaska governor beyond small talk. Most of the people in the crowd appeared starstruck, including some Obama supporters we had spotted earlier.
I felt compelled to ask the governor about the U.S. incursions into Pakistan that had been in the news recently. My parents urged me not to, but I thought she might respond in this informal setting.
She did, and I soon found myself in a back-and-forth that was well-documented in news accounts over the next several days. Our exchange drew a lot of attention because Palin said the United States should pursue terrorists into Pakistan's territory - agreeing with Barack Obama and differing from her running mate, John McCain, who had roundly criticized the Democrat for that stance.
To make matters stranger, I awoke the next morning to an e-mail from a journalist named Michael Rovito. He explained that he is a reporter from Wasilla, Alaska, who has been covering Sarah Palin for the last few years. He alerted me that some of the reactions to the reports of my encounter with the governor suggested a case of mistaken identity.
The conspiracy theory went something like this: Michael Rovito of Wasilla, Alaska, tracked Sarah Palin to Philadelphia, donned a Temple T-shirt, and found an opportunity to ask Palin about her foreign-policy views over cheesesteaks. And Palin did not recognize the reporter in his Temple disguise.
Now that I was deep within the Twilight Zone, my reaction was to laugh and search the Internet. I soon discovered that McCain had been asked about the Tony Luke's incident the next morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He retracted Palin's statement and assured the viewing public that Palin agreed with him, not Obama. The exchange also came up in an interview with CBS's Katie Couric, during which McCain and Palin dismissed my question as "gotcha journalism."
Since then, many reporters have asked why I engaged Palin at Tony Luke's, why I asked those questions, whether I thought Palin understood them, if the exchange was authentic, and whether I participated in "gotcha journalism."
Students have asked me about being a voice for voters who can't interact authentically with candidates. Friends have warned me about the backlash I might face as a Democrat who questioned a Republican. My professors, meanwhile, are concerned that "gotcha-journalist" accusations could harm my academic career.
I have made it clear in interviews that I am not a journalist, have no training in journalism, and have no plans to become a journalist. I did not aim to stump Sarah Palin, and she did not seem to take offense at my questions; actually, I thought she responded openly.
I questioned Palin because I am a voter with profound concerns about the ramifications of this election for the future of our country. I don't think that makes me an unusual voter, but rather a typical one. I genuinely wanted to know her thoughts on conducting the war on terror, because a lot of my friends and former students are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As I contemplate the communications swirling around me now, I am struck by the tyrannical connotations of being called a "gotcha journalist." I am concerned that this is a blow to the integrity of journalists and informed, taxpaying citizens, who have the right to demand accountability from their elected officials. Why should I, or the journalists who work to inform the public, be scorned for asking fundamental questions such as those I asked?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Tuesday's Showcase : Judgment, Center Stage, in Music City
Nashville, "Music City", as it is fondly known, will serve as the backdrop for the second presidential debate of the election season. The campus of Belmont University will host the affair; the format is set to resemble a town hall meeting, a configuration which has historically served John McCain very well. However,indications from today's performances on the campaign trail suggest McCain is going to come out swinging, while Obama deftly dodges, with a bit of offense preparation for good measure.
As the numbers for McCain/Palin continue their downward trend, the campaign presents as desperate to slow Obama's momentum, doing whatever it takes to achieve this goal. McCain himself, along with Proxy Palin, stumped over the weekend, into today, with a clear message: Barack Obama hangs with some dangerous folks. The data offered is weak, at best; Obama's colleague ( read: professional associate), Bill Ayers, has been cited most often as the risky character lurking in Obama's cadre of "pals", yet the evidence doesn't bear out this claim. While it is true that Ayers was a radical in the sixties, he is now a professor at Columbia....a bastion of higher education that is hardly known as a haven for harboring terrorists.
Voters have indicated these peripheral issues to which McCain appears attached are not what they are interested in hearing; voters want to know how each candidate plans to handle the hemmoraging economy, foreign relations, military engagement, our education system and health care, among other substanitive matters. This is an encouraging sign for our democracy; the general public's preference for "journalism lite", a necessary conspirator with administrations who mislead the nation, has reduced the quality of news we've received over the past several years. It seems the American people are finally realizing when "we the people" cede our powers for minding the store to perosnalities replete with smoke and mirrors, we end up getting robbed.
Presumably, tomorrow night, the undecided voters here in Nashville will challenge each of the candidates to answer the "big" questions, demanding a little depth beyond talking points and platitudes. It will require each candidate to deliver thoughtful answers based on a solid platform of ideas. The nation is serious about change at this juncture; winging it will not suffice.
It would behoove each candidate to recognize that snark, smears and stylistic devices will not likely be tolerated. This is where McCain's judgment will once again be on display for all to see. If McCain calculates he can use "humor" to deflect the real issues, changing the tone of the debate from informative to combative, he will demonstrate a complete disregard for the nation's longing to hear plans, policies, ideas, and prescriptions for renewing the peace and prosperity that was commonplace eight years ago. Incidentally, President Bush is now at an approval rating commiserate with Richard Nixon's poll ratings.... immediately following his White House departure after Watergate. Only 24% of today's sample thinks Bush is doing a good job; McCain might want to reflect on this number as he prepares his statements for tomorrow night. Bush, Cheney, Rove.... we have tired of these tactics. Obama's momentum will only increase if McCain shows poor judgment, as he did with his choice of running mate, by isisting on using insults and innuendo as departure points for debate dialogue. Senator Obama can then reiterate the argument that judgment just might trump experience as the most important quality for the nation's commander in chief, the first diplomat. Stay tuned....
As the numbers for McCain/Palin continue their downward trend, the campaign presents as desperate to slow Obama's momentum, doing whatever it takes to achieve this goal. McCain himself, along with Proxy Palin, stumped over the weekend, into today, with a clear message: Barack Obama hangs with some dangerous folks. The data offered is weak, at best; Obama's colleague ( read: professional associate), Bill Ayers, has been cited most often as the risky character lurking in Obama's cadre of "pals", yet the evidence doesn't bear out this claim. While it is true that Ayers was a radical in the sixties, he is now a professor at Columbia....a bastion of higher education that is hardly known as a haven for harboring terrorists.
Voters have indicated these peripheral issues to which McCain appears attached are not what they are interested in hearing; voters want to know how each candidate plans to handle the hemmoraging economy, foreign relations, military engagement, our education system and health care, among other substanitive matters. This is an encouraging sign for our democracy; the general public's preference for "journalism lite", a necessary conspirator with administrations who mislead the nation, has reduced the quality of news we've received over the past several years. It seems the American people are finally realizing when "we the people" cede our powers for minding the store to perosnalities replete with smoke and mirrors, we end up getting robbed.
Presumably, tomorrow night, the undecided voters here in Nashville will challenge each of the candidates to answer the "big" questions, demanding a little depth beyond talking points and platitudes. It will require each candidate to deliver thoughtful answers based on a solid platform of ideas. The nation is serious about change at this juncture; winging it will not suffice.
It would behoove each candidate to recognize that snark, smears and stylistic devices will not likely be tolerated. This is where McCain's judgment will once again be on display for all to see. If McCain calculates he can use "humor" to deflect the real issues, changing the tone of the debate from informative to combative, he will demonstrate a complete disregard for the nation's longing to hear plans, policies, ideas, and prescriptions for renewing the peace and prosperity that was commonplace eight years ago. Incidentally, President Bush is now at an approval rating commiserate with Richard Nixon's poll ratings.... immediately following his White House departure after Watergate. Only 24% of today's sample thinks Bush is doing a good job; McCain might want to reflect on this number as he prepares his statements for tomorrow night. Bush, Cheney, Rove.... we have tired of these tactics. Obama's momentum will only increase if McCain shows poor judgment, as he did with his choice of running mate, by isisting on using insults and innuendo as departure points for debate dialogue. Senator Obama can then reiterate the argument that judgment just might trump experience as the most important quality for the nation's commander in chief, the first diplomat. Stay tuned....
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Financial Bailout: A National Hobson's Choice
“But in the present instance I see the necessity of yielding for this time…for the sake of the union, and to save us from the greatest of all Calamities.”
So said Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to fellow Virginian James Monroe as the great argument over “assumption” raged in the summer of 1790. It was, like all events of that day, one which, if not handled with care and political grace, could cause the infant union to fracture. Also characteristic of this debate was the necessity of friends, brothers-in-arms, and nascent statesmen to forge a compromise, or at least a bargain, to discern what was truly in the “national interest”; even as regional and parochial interests became more apparent.
The question was this: Should the federal government assume the debt of the several states, which was then estimated at approximately $25 million. The figures and personalities on each side of the debate wrestled with complex and conflicting notions of regional interests and political philosophy. Alexander Hamilton, a champion of federal consolidation of economic policy and firmly associated with the “urban elite” of merchants, bankers, and speculators, was pitted against the likes of Jefferson, whose deep-seeded skepticism of “money men” and his agrarian roots combined with his philosophical view that the centralization of economic control and power was antithetical to the principles of the Revolution. This feeling greatly superseded any sound and rational discussion of the liquidity of the national economy and the soundness of the public credit so well articulated and championed by Hamilton.
Why should the people of the Old Dominion and other southern states who liquidated much of their war debt be saddled with the debt of the other states? Compounding the issue was the fact that many Revolutionary War veterans had sold their securities (given as compensation during the War) to speculators. The result was a dramatic change in tune by James Madison who, despite opposing feelings during his collaboration with Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, viewed the assumption proposal as antithetical to the Spirit of ’76.
Concurrent with this question was another, perhaps more fundamental question: Where should the seat of the federal government be situated? The debate over the “residency question” naturally pitted the regions against each other to vie for a permanent seat of the federal government (then situated in New York City and soon to reside in Philadelphia). Compelling cases were made for several spots in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
So what was to be done? As it turns out, the trade-off between assumption and residency designated a Potomac location for the seat of the federal government, with President Washington given the discretion to designate (with a needed surveying assist from Jefferson and Madison) the geographical boundaries of the “Potomac site.” What resulted was a location of the capital separated from, at least in geography, the financial sector in Philadelphia and New York.
In return for the capital on the Potomac, the federal government assumed the debt of the several states; thereby restoring the public credit (for a time), averting a potentially damaging indictment of the feasibility of the newly-created federal system (the multiple defects of the Articles of Confederation fresh in all minds), and serving as a power play by the federal government concerning its primacy in fiscal policy and affairs.
We face a similar question in the current debate over the short and long-term health of our national economy. We are now confronted with somewhat of a Hobson’s Choice: Accept the bailout package in its imperfect form with the hope of long-term economic recovery, or do nothing and hope that the market self-corrects in the long-run. In the short-term, prospects look mediocre at best.
In short, both the system and the actors failed. The system failed due to a long progression of loose regulations on the nature and permissibility of certain investments by various financial services firms (the debate over which is a complex milieu of Congressional authorization, multiple failures by the Federal Reserve, and a collective blind-eye to the issue) and the actors (us) gobbling-up homes and other assets that we could not afford. In short, we are all in this together; just ask anyone who is invested in a mutual fund.
The irony of the allegiances that have cropped-up during this debate are truly incredible. Who would have ever thought that top Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, would join with John Boehner and other high Congressional Republican leadership to back a rescue package proferred by Bush-Paulson-Bernanke? The towering irony of a Republican administration crafting such a plan is perhaps even more remarkable. Of course, chalking this up to mere “irony” may provide an escape hatch and rationalization to the entire affair, realizing that many of the plan’s Congressional supporters truly believe that such a plan is generally sound public policy.
So, will we believe the factional interests and those in denial who claim that this package is a “bailout” for only Wall Street and investment banks who made poor lending decisions because the system allowed for it and ignore the interconnectedness of how (and who) allowed this to come to pass in the first place? Or, like the “Compromise of 1790,” will we accept that multiple points in the system failed and the consequences of inaction are far worse than the needed one-two punch of the recovery plan and comprehensive regulatory reform? Sometimes it may be necessary to rescue those who made foolish decisions to prevent all of us from being drowned in their wake.
-Andrew
So said Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to fellow Virginian James Monroe as the great argument over “assumption” raged in the summer of 1790. It was, like all events of that day, one which, if not handled with care and political grace, could cause the infant union to fracture. Also characteristic of this debate was the necessity of friends, brothers-in-arms, and nascent statesmen to forge a compromise, or at least a bargain, to discern what was truly in the “national interest”; even as regional and parochial interests became more apparent.
The question was this: Should the federal government assume the debt of the several states, which was then estimated at approximately $25 million. The figures and personalities on each side of the debate wrestled with complex and conflicting notions of regional interests and political philosophy. Alexander Hamilton, a champion of federal consolidation of economic policy and firmly associated with the “urban elite” of merchants, bankers, and speculators, was pitted against the likes of Jefferson, whose deep-seeded skepticism of “money men” and his agrarian roots combined with his philosophical view that the centralization of economic control and power was antithetical to the principles of the Revolution. This feeling greatly superseded any sound and rational discussion of the liquidity of the national economy and the soundness of the public credit so well articulated and championed by Hamilton.
Why should the people of the Old Dominion and other southern states who liquidated much of their war debt be saddled with the debt of the other states? Compounding the issue was the fact that many Revolutionary War veterans had sold their securities (given as compensation during the War) to speculators. The result was a dramatic change in tune by James Madison who, despite opposing feelings during his collaboration with Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, viewed the assumption proposal as antithetical to the Spirit of ’76.
Concurrent with this question was another, perhaps more fundamental question: Where should the seat of the federal government be situated? The debate over the “residency question” naturally pitted the regions against each other to vie for a permanent seat of the federal government (then situated in New York City and soon to reside in Philadelphia). Compelling cases were made for several spots in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
So what was to be done? As it turns out, the trade-off between assumption and residency designated a Potomac location for the seat of the federal government, with President Washington given the discretion to designate (with a needed surveying assist from Jefferson and Madison) the geographical boundaries of the “Potomac site.” What resulted was a location of the capital separated from, at least in geography, the financial sector in Philadelphia and New York.
In return for the capital on the Potomac, the federal government assumed the debt of the several states; thereby restoring the public credit (for a time), averting a potentially damaging indictment of the feasibility of the newly-created federal system (the multiple defects of the Articles of Confederation fresh in all minds), and serving as a power play by the federal government concerning its primacy in fiscal policy and affairs.
We face a similar question in the current debate over the short and long-term health of our national economy. We are now confronted with somewhat of a Hobson’s Choice: Accept the bailout package in its imperfect form with the hope of long-term economic recovery, or do nothing and hope that the market self-corrects in the long-run. In the short-term, prospects look mediocre at best.
In short, both the system and the actors failed. The system failed due to a long progression of loose regulations on the nature and permissibility of certain investments by various financial services firms (the debate over which is a complex milieu of Congressional authorization, multiple failures by the Federal Reserve, and a collective blind-eye to the issue) and the actors (us) gobbling-up homes and other assets that we could not afford. In short, we are all in this together; just ask anyone who is invested in a mutual fund.
The irony of the allegiances that have cropped-up during this debate are truly incredible. Who would have ever thought that top Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, would join with John Boehner and other high Congressional Republican leadership to back a rescue package proferred by Bush-Paulson-Bernanke? The towering irony of a Republican administration crafting such a plan is perhaps even more remarkable. Of course, chalking this up to mere “irony” may provide an escape hatch and rationalization to the entire affair, realizing that many of the plan’s Congressional supporters truly believe that such a plan is generally sound public policy.
So, will we believe the factional interests and those in denial who claim that this package is a “bailout” for only Wall Street and investment banks who made poor lending decisions because the system allowed for it and ignore the interconnectedness of how (and who) allowed this to come to pass in the first place? Or, like the “Compromise of 1790,” will we accept that multiple points in the system failed and the consequences of inaction are far worse than the needed one-two punch of the recovery plan and comprehensive regulatory reform? Sometimes it may be necessary to rescue those who made foolish decisions to prevent all of us from being drowned in their wake.
-Andrew
Update
I'm tentatively scheduled to be the guest on RumpRoast.com's BlogRadio show this upcoming Wednesday @ 9pm. There's a link to their site on the 'Keeping You Connected' sidebar. Be sure to check them out as well as my interview.
-Michael
-Michael
Kathleen Parker's Misfortune Provides Perspective on Fighting GOP City Hall
Kathleen Parker, a well respected conservative commentator, recently wrote a post on The National Review website, offering an assessment of Sarah Palin's contribution to the 2008 GOP presidential ticket. In Ms. Parker's estimation, Palin would do the party a great favor if she would gracefully offer a reason for stepping off the national stage, leaving John McCain the option of selecting a running mate who brings more gravitas and, frankly, better credentials, to the ticket. A collective gasp could be heard across the country as conservatives choked on their toast and coffee.... how dare one of their own suggest McCain committed an error in judgement, or even worse, express such strong doubts about a fellow Republican, one of the persons charged with the task of keeping the White House in GOP hands?! Ms. Parker will be the first to tell anyone, the response she received regarding her honest assessment called for consideration of a body guard. Thousands of angry Republicans have made their displeasure known, accusing Ms. Parker of everything from treasonous speech to jealousy of Palin's "beauty", claiming Ms. Parker is simply envious of Palin being both gorgeous and powerful. These are, indeed, serious allegations.
Ms. Parker's unfair harrassment dovetails perfectly with the experience that served as the genesis for our site. An ordinary citizen, of extraordinary intelligence and awareness, garnered a fair amount of criticism for doing one of the most patriotic things an American can do; asking a question which reflected a genuine interest in his country, while also demonstrating a better than cursory grasp of foreign policy issues that cover a lot of ground ( War on Terror, international relations.) The ridiculous charges leveled against this act of citizenship have been troubling enough. Yet,we can now evaluate the GOP demand for lockstep compliance with an even broader lens. It is one thing to attack an "elitist graduate student", as one exceedingly charming conservative labeled Mr. Rovito; it is quite another to assault a member of one's own party for articulating sincere concerns about the direction of her party. The overarching, troublesome take-away from the Parker flap is this: The Republicans seem to be saying something to the effect of "We not only call out the dogs on outsiders, we also eat our own. If someone dares to challenge the status quo, there will be a price to pay." Must it be reiterated that some quite frightening regimes ruled with this identical iron fist?
The bigger question, one of the key subjects which begs for attention at the moment, is the notion of "With us or against us." President Bush coined this term on the public stage after 9/11, and it's obviously taken some strong roots among the Republican party faithful. Palin indicated in Thursday night's debate she favors (officially) expanding the authority of the Vice President, giving more rights and privileges to the Veep, particularly as the role relates to presiding over the Senate. Interesting....connect the dots and one can easily see, in a McCain/Palin administration, Sarah Palin could very well have greater powers than Dick Cheney, a man who has been no shrinking violet as VP himself. Couple this with the GOP consensus that you're with us or you're against us, and the eventual outcome of this scenario is quite clear. The Kathleen Parkers of the GOP are no longer welcome at the table; either lend complete support to McCain/Palin, or any other potentially harmful combination we put on your plate, or push your chair back in, you are no longer breaking bread with us. A new motto.... dissension will not be tolerated... and dissenstion includes any shadings of doubt.
Mental health experts will confirm that a reasonable level of doubt, especially in situations with far-reaching consequences, is healthy. It serves as a counterpoint to absolute certainty. President Bush has shown us absolute certainty is absolutely unwise. Considering the lessons we have before us, how wise are we? Only election day results will answer this question.
Ms. Parker's unfair harrassment dovetails perfectly with the experience that served as the genesis for our site. An ordinary citizen, of extraordinary intelligence and awareness, garnered a fair amount of criticism for doing one of the most patriotic things an American can do; asking a question which reflected a genuine interest in his country, while also demonstrating a better than cursory grasp of foreign policy issues that cover a lot of ground ( War on Terror, international relations.) The ridiculous charges leveled against this act of citizenship have been troubling enough. Yet,we can now evaluate the GOP demand for lockstep compliance with an even broader lens. It is one thing to attack an "elitist graduate student", as one exceedingly charming conservative labeled Mr. Rovito; it is quite another to assault a member of one's own party for articulating sincere concerns about the direction of her party. The overarching, troublesome take-away from the Parker flap is this: The Republicans seem to be saying something to the effect of "We not only call out the dogs on outsiders, we also eat our own. If someone dares to challenge the status quo, there will be a price to pay." Must it be reiterated that some quite frightening regimes ruled with this identical iron fist?
The bigger question, one of the key subjects which begs for attention at the moment, is the notion of "With us or against us." President Bush coined this term on the public stage after 9/11, and it's obviously taken some strong roots among the Republican party faithful. Palin indicated in Thursday night's debate she favors (officially) expanding the authority of the Vice President, giving more rights and privileges to the Veep, particularly as the role relates to presiding over the Senate. Interesting....connect the dots and one can easily see, in a McCain/Palin administration, Sarah Palin could very well have greater powers than Dick Cheney, a man who has been no shrinking violet as VP himself. Couple this with the GOP consensus that you're with us or you're against us, and the eventual outcome of this scenario is quite clear. The Kathleen Parkers of the GOP are no longer welcome at the table; either lend complete support to McCain/Palin, or any other potentially harmful combination we put on your plate, or push your chair back in, you are no longer breaking bread with us. A new motto.... dissension will not be tolerated... and dissenstion includes any shadings of doubt.
Mental health experts will confirm that a reasonable level of doubt, especially in situations with far-reaching consequences, is healthy. It serves as a counterpoint to absolute certainty. President Bush has shown us absolute certainty is absolutely unwise. Considering the lessons we have before us, how wise are we? Only election day results will answer this question.
My response to Gov. Palin misquoting Sec. Albright
From The Huffington Post....
ROVITO: Let's just call this for what it is already. Gov. Palin is nervous and unprepared. I almost feel sorry for her. Well, I don't feel sorry for the fact that she is continuing to subject herself to this kind of scrutiny. I mean, she can get out whenever she wants. I feel bad for her because she had no choice but to join the ticket and go along for the ride, probably not knowing what was actually in store for her.
Her gaffes continue to define her. The ripple effect from every misnomer/gaffe pushes more and more voters to Obama. The strategy of 'Joe Sixpack' worked for the first 3 weeks of the campaign, but now it's insulting. I come from 'Joe Sixpack' country and everyone that I talk to in Central Pennsylvania finds her more annoying everyday.
My family wanted her to represent them, but not really. How does this make sense? Well, they want someone from 'their ranks' to represent them well and represent them with a sense of direction and clarity, not within the persona of a clueless toadie. Maybe Sarah Palin could have had the qualities of the everyday American and represented us well. We all see how that is turning out.
I say to Gov. Palin: Think about what you really want. The game is almost up. John McCain may have your interests @ heart, but from how they've been treating you, maybe that's not as sound of a statement as it once was.
ROVITO: Let's just call this for what it is already. Gov. Palin is nervous and unprepared. I almost feel sorry for her. Well, I don't feel sorry for the fact that she is continuing to subject herself to this kind of scrutiny. I mean, she can get out whenever she wants. I feel bad for her because she had no choice but to join the ticket and go along for the ride, probably not knowing what was actually in store for her.
Her gaffes continue to define her. The ripple effect from every misnomer/gaffe pushes more and more voters to Obama. The strategy of 'Joe Sixpack' worked for the first 3 weeks of the campaign, but now it's insulting. I come from 'Joe Sixpack' country and everyone that I talk to in Central Pennsylvania finds her more annoying everyday.
My family wanted her to represent them, but not really. How does this make sense? Well, they want someone from 'their ranks' to represent them well and represent them with a sense of direction and clarity, not within the persona of a clueless toadie. Maybe Sarah Palin could have had the qualities of the everyday American and represented us well. We all see how that is turning out.
I say to Gov. Palin: Think about what you really want. The game is almost up. John McCain may have your interests @ heart, but from how they've been treating you, maybe that's not as sound of a statement as it once was.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
My Interview on HuffPo with Brett McKenzie
Check out the interview posted today on HuffingtonPost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brett-ashley-mckenzie/the-gotcha-journalist-an_b_131600.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brett-ashley-mckenzie/the-gotcha-journalist-an_b_131600.html
Friday, October 3, 2008
Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer
I have an op-ed coming out in the Philadelphia Inquirer coming out early next week highlighting my perspective of what transpired between Gov. Palin and myself last Saturday. This is a direct response to the Katie Couric interview where Sen. McCain defined me as a 'gotcha journalist'. I'll post the link as soon as it hits the press.
-Michael
-Michael
Bailout Blues
The middle class, the engine of our American economy, seems to always bear the burden of financial downturns in this country. It's become a given expectation, the middle class will shore up any disaster, regardless of who imposed the grief. At the moment we are waiting to see if President Bush will sign off on the revised Bail-out bill, approved by Congress, to rescue corporate America. However, the particulars of this circumstance dictates that Wall Street and Main Street are interdependent in this situation, leaving small businesses and Joe Q. Citizen vulnerable if this controversial proposal fails. How did we get here?
"We", the middle class, have been taken advantage of by corporate thieves and desperate politicians, two forces who have created a weak economy, destined to grow weaker, if we reject this seven hundred BILLION dollar package. As I write I'm listening to President Bush "promise" the tax payer a guarantee of oversight and provisions designed to help families and small businesses alike, presenting this corporate welfare racket as the white horse dispatched to save the day. While I recognize the bailout, at this point, is a necessary evil, I resent being told this debacle is ultimately a populist victory. I fail to see where a bailout of corrupt corporations does much to promote my, or any average American's, well being.
It is reasonable that frozen credit markets, a lack of liquidity, will result in more economic downward spiral. We can't allow this to happen. However, we must realize Washington looked the other way as major corporations wrote toxic loans, in bulk, leading us to the brink of financial destruction. We are now being asked to suspend our disbelief,to trust the "leaders" and financiers who created this mess, to shepherd us out of this chaotic collapse. This predicament does not inspire a great deal of confidence for our immediate future; prosperity seems a long distance
from our current position.
In life, there are situations where two alternatives are both unattractive, but one choice is infinitely worse than the other. An imperiled economy, across the board, obviously carries more risk than supporting this irresponsible, completely despicable bill. Indeed we have been left with two unattractive choices, with no assurance the "better" choice will ultimately benefit the bearers of this burden. As we see our middle class eroded each day, an uneasy feeling accompanies this unprecedented legislation; who will the government draw from once the middle class, depleted to the point of extinction, no longer exists?
"We", the middle class, have been taken advantage of by corporate thieves and desperate politicians, two forces who have created a weak economy, destined to grow weaker, if we reject this seven hundred BILLION dollar package. As I write I'm listening to President Bush "promise" the tax payer a guarantee of oversight and provisions designed to help families and small businesses alike, presenting this corporate welfare racket as the white horse dispatched to save the day. While I recognize the bailout, at this point, is a necessary evil, I resent being told this debacle is ultimately a populist victory. I fail to see where a bailout of corrupt corporations does much to promote my, or any average American's, well being.
It is reasonable that frozen credit markets, a lack of liquidity, will result in more economic downward spiral. We can't allow this to happen. However, we must realize Washington looked the other way as major corporations wrote toxic loans, in bulk, leading us to the brink of financial destruction. We are now being asked to suspend our disbelief,to trust the "leaders" and financiers who created this mess, to shepherd us out of this chaotic collapse. This predicament does not inspire a great deal of confidence for our immediate future; prosperity seems a long distance
from our current position.
In life, there are situations where two alternatives are both unattractive, but one choice is infinitely worse than the other. An imperiled economy, across the board, obviously carries more risk than supporting this irresponsible, completely despicable bill. Indeed we have been left with two unattractive choices, with no assurance the "better" choice will ultimately benefit the bearers of this burden. As we see our middle class eroded each day, an uneasy feeling accompanies this unprecedented legislation; who will the government draw from once the middle class, depleted to the point of extinction, no longer exists?
Was My Prediction Correct?
Wow! I was right! The debate was uneventful, to say the least.
Joe Biden was composed and thoughtful...treading carefully not to 'pick on that poor hockey mom' (as what some pundits were concerned about). He didn't misspeak, he didn't gaffe, he sounded......fine, for lack of a better term.
Sarah Palin? She actually did ok.
"Really, Michael?"
Yes, readers, she did alright.
Sarah Palin, as it is pointed out in other posts on the Rovito Review, helped herself and sparked her base...again. She clarified some doubts on whether or not she is ready to lead this nation if Sen. McCain would not be able to fulfill his duties. However, these doubts were probably only clarified with the most conservative of voters, who were already casting their votes for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.
This debate didn't sway any undecided voters to either campaign. If any were wooed by the Vice Presidential candidates' performance, I would predict that Biden's offered some hope to those undecideds that there is a plan out there somewhere that could possibly help our nation crawl from the immoral and unethical depths defined by the last 8 years of the Bush Administration. There were hints of policy peppered in his responses. However, for the most part, he needed to clarify his position on the most surface-level topics as Sarah Palin repeated herself like a 'polly-wants-a-cracker' parrot. If McCain and Palin want to win, they need to state their policies and repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, ad inifinitum. I haven't heard anything related to policy from the McCain camp besides how they want us to shop for our own health insurance. So far, it's all talking points, and no substance.
Palin had about 30 minutes of an organized, clear message...albeit severely rehearsed. After those 30 minutes expired, the talking points began to fall flat and turn stale. Biden was Biden...albeit severely restrained.
So I leave you with this thought? Did this debate leave you with clarity on how these campaigns will run this nation? Did they give you any insight on how our nation will be defined, or redefined, in the international community? I understand this wasn't a lecture that would provide all the answers to all of our questions, but did we gain anything from last night's exchange? My answer, NO.
By the way, what was with all of Gov. Palin's winking?
Joe Biden was composed and thoughtful...treading carefully not to 'pick on that poor hockey mom' (as what some pundits were concerned about). He didn't misspeak, he didn't gaffe, he sounded......fine, for lack of a better term.
Sarah Palin? She actually did ok.
"Really, Michael?"
Yes, readers, she did alright.
Sarah Palin, as it is pointed out in other posts on the Rovito Review, helped herself and sparked her base...again. She clarified some doubts on whether or not she is ready to lead this nation if Sen. McCain would not be able to fulfill his duties. However, these doubts were probably only clarified with the most conservative of voters, who were already casting their votes for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.
This debate didn't sway any undecided voters to either campaign. If any were wooed by the Vice Presidential candidates' performance, I would predict that Biden's offered some hope to those undecideds that there is a plan out there somewhere that could possibly help our nation crawl from the immoral and unethical depths defined by the last 8 years of the Bush Administration. There were hints of policy peppered in his responses. However, for the most part, he needed to clarify his position on the most surface-level topics as Sarah Palin repeated herself like a 'polly-wants-a-cracker' parrot. If McCain and Palin want to win, they need to state their policies and repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, ad inifinitum. I haven't heard anything related to policy from the McCain camp besides how they want us to shop for our own health insurance. So far, it's all talking points, and no substance.
Palin had about 30 minutes of an organized, clear message...albeit severely rehearsed. After those 30 minutes expired, the talking points began to fall flat and turn stale. Biden was Biden...albeit severely restrained.
So I leave you with this thought? Did this debate leave you with clarity on how these campaigns will run this nation? Did they give you any insight on how our nation will be defined, or redefined, in the international community? I understand this wasn't a lecture that would provide all the answers to all of our questions, but did we gain anything from last night's exchange? My answer, NO.
By the way, what was with all of Gov. Palin's winking?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Folksy Two-Step Provides for Questionable Placement of the "Bar."
For those who watched tonight's debate, perhaps the most anticipated exchange of recent times, one may be left questioning exactly where the "bar" landed, respectively, for the two vice presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The energy between the two candidates was electric, with an over-all tone of gracious respect. However, while style does matter, as witnessed in last week's inaugural presidential debate, substance should serve as the foundation for deciding who has the capacity to lead, especially in these challenging times.
Sarah Palin brought with her an " aw schucks" sensibility, a folksy charm that surely connected with some voters. Regarding substance, she did re-establish a modicum of credibility, removing one's doubts about her literal aptitude. However, these positives were not sufficient to inspire confidence in her ability to lead. The American people are still left with more questions than answers concerning Palin's "bar." She effectively danced around vital topics, side-stepping key issues with a wink of her eye and a wag of her finger, offering vague criticism of her opponents' positions, yet failing to provide concrete examples of policy directions one could expect in a McCain - Palin administration. Expectations had been set at a "low bar" for Palin, based on extemporaneous responses in recent days (most notably the embarrassing dialogue between our own Michael Rovito and Governor Palin last Saturday), as well as scripted interviews where Palin got flustered, throwing herself off the tracks. It appears Sedona reinvigorated Palin; her team of "preparers" can feel gratified their "student" absorbed her lessons rather nicely. She stayed on message, one of the strengths (or weaknesses, depending on one's perspective) inherent in the Republican platform. Still, shifting from a position of dangerously unaware to neutral, at best, does not take Palin into leadership territory. Initial poll results indicate the American people are not moved; Palin walked away with a one point gain concerning people's belief in her ability to be president of the United States.
Joe Biden garnered less attention going into this debate, but insiders recognized the potential landmines for Obama's running mate. Biden has been known, on occasion, to eat both of his shoes. Senator Biden is notoriously candid ( refreshing, in my humble opinion), a quality that doesn't always lend itself to congenial debates. Tonight, however, Biden was able to modify his delivery in a way that conveyed experience, diplomacy, and a working knowledge of all the pressing issues this country is facing. Biden was able to seal the deal with respect to appearing presidential. Senator Biden delivered on the central point of this debate; which candidate would one trust the most to assume the role of president, should, God forbid, the elected candidate meet his demise? The salient question, which candidate made the best case for serving as this country's chief co-pilot, seems to be roundly answered with Senator Biden's name.
Was this debate a "game changer", as the media is fond if saying? It is doubtful. The conservative constituency was, most likely, reassured that Sarah Palin has the charisma to rally the base, a factor which was lost in the wake of her poor performances over the past two weeks. Conversely, Democrats likely feel comfortably satisfied with Senator Biden's strong performance, noting that he, undoubtedly, resonated with the public as someone who is imminently qualified, ready on day one to serve in whatever capacity he is called to, including President of the United States. Each side of the aisle can breath a sigh of relief regarding major mistakes.
In the final analysis, a fair statement would be Senator Biden helped Senator Obama, while Governor Palin helped herself, redeeming, to an extent, her reputation. She did not, however, help Senator McCain. The bar had been set too low for Palin to jump any rungs above self redemption; achieving this feat was, for Palin, the greatest possible outcome.
Sarah Palin brought with her an " aw schucks" sensibility, a folksy charm that surely connected with some voters. Regarding substance, she did re-establish a modicum of credibility, removing one's doubts about her literal aptitude. However, these positives were not sufficient to inspire confidence in her ability to lead. The American people are still left with more questions than answers concerning Palin's "bar." She effectively danced around vital topics, side-stepping key issues with a wink of her eye and a wag of her finger, offering vague criticism of her opponents' positions, yet failing to provide concrete examples of policy directions one could expect in a McCain - Palin administration. Expectations had been set at a "low bar" for Palin, based on extemporaneous responses in recent days (most notably the embarrassing dialogue between our own Michael Rovito and Governor Palin last Saturday), as well as scripted interviews where Palin got flustered, throwing herself off the tracks. It appears Sedona reinvigorated Palin; her team of "preparers" can feel gratified their "student" absorbed her lessons rather nicely. She stayed on message, one of the strengths (or weaknesses, depending on one's perspective) inherent in the Republican platform. Still, shifting from a position of dangerously unaware to neutral, at best, does not take Palin into leadership territory. Initial poll results indicate the American people are not moved; Palin walked away with a one point gain concerning people's belief in her ability to be president of the United States.
Joe Biden garnered less attention going into this debate, but insiders recognized the potential landmines for Obama's running mate. Biden has been known, on occasion, to eat both of his shoes. Senator Biden is notoriously candid ( refreshing, in my humble opinion), a quality that doesn't always lend itself to congenial debates. Tonight, however, Biden was able to modify his delivery in a way that conveyed experience, diplomacy, and a working knowledge of all the pressing issues this country is facing. Biden was able to seal the deal with respect to appearing presidential. Senator Biden delivered on the central point of this debate; which candidate would one trust the most to assume the role of president, should, God forbid, the elected candidate meet his demise? The salient question, which candidate made the best case for serving as this country's chief co-pilot, seems to be roundly answered with Senator Biden's name.
Was this debate a "game changer", as the media is fond if saying? It is doubtful. The conservative constituency was, most likely, reassured that Sarah Palin has the charisma to rally the base, a factor which was lost in the wake of her poor performances over the past two weeks. Conversely, Democrats likely feel comfortably satisfied with Senator Biden's strong performance, noting that he, undoubtedly, resonated with the public as someone who is imminently qualified, ready on day one to serve in whatever capacity he is called to, including President of the United States. Each side of the aisle can breath a sigh of relief regarding major mistakes.
In the final analysis, a fair statement would be Senator Biden helped Senator Obama, while Governor Palin helped herself, redeeming, to an extent, her reputation. She did not, however, help Senator McCain. The bar had been set too low for Palin to jump any rungs above self redemption; achieving this feat was, for Palin, the greatest possible outcome.
Modern Times
This country was founded on some basic principles and values, including, but not limited to, free speech, self-governance, taxation with representation, and governmental transparency. Our ancestors, having lived under a system which had little tolerance for diversity, were eager to ensure the formation of a new nation where people who embraced these ideals could feel welcomed and secure.
So, what happened?
When did it become suspect and distasteful to be an informed citizen? Isn't the bedrock of democracy a knowledgeable electorate? Who decided we could be taxed in an arbitrary fashion, with no regard for representation that successfully addresses the concerns of the people? Why are we now expected to willingly accept corporate welfare measures, designed, primarily, to benefit private sector entities? Our tax dollars will fund such efforts, just as they've funded a war many in this country do not support. In modern times these practices have become business as usual in Washington.
Neo-Cons love to invoke the Founding Fathers as figures who would surely agree with their world view. Upon further examination, this claim deserves greater analysis.
This past weekend offered a glaring demonstration of how far we, as a nation, have drifted from the ideals our country were truly built on. A young man who is pursuing advanced education, a citizen who is engaged in the events which shape our global community, had a chance to pose a thoughtful question to a political candidate. However, this was not just any candidate; Sarah Palin, the bottom of one of the major party tickets in this year's presidential election, happened to be said candidate. The fall-out from this incident illustrated for America, and the world, how little we expect of our leaders; it also, sadly, confirmed we no longer value dialogue between officials and those they represent. Apparently, we now exclusively value mute compliance.
Michael Rovito showed a respectful, genuine interest in Mrs. Palin's comments as he asked a relevant, intelligent question regarding Pakistan, a nation who is undoubtedly a component in America's War on Terror. Mr. Rovito did not harass Mrs. Palin; he did not belabor a point beyond give-and-take discourse. He simply posed a question which reflected a thorough knowledge of the world stage. Mrs. Palin was ill-equipped to answer his question. In today's political climate, as might be expected, Mr. Rovito, the sensible, informed, involved citizen, was portrayed by the McCain/ Palin campaign and the mainstream media, a heckler determined to "get" Sarah Palin. The media even chose to incorporate Mr. Rovito as one of their own, continually repeating the phrase "gotcha journalism" in connection with Rovito's benign, yet pertinent, question.
In modern times, might we ask, what's wrong with this picture? Transparency has been absent for quite a while... the current administration has apparently intimidated the media into abdicating their unofficial role as the oversight mechanism for government. Citizens are considered "unpatriotic" if they dare to ask questions; questions are no longer considered desirable, they are implications of distrust and disloyalty. Many tyrannical leaders rose to power with these tactics.... a chilling point to ponder.
Sarah Palin couldn't be "gotten" without just cause. In this instance, Mrs. Palin was not being pursued in a game of "gotcha"; rather, she was being asked to explain her position on a foreign policy issue of major proportions. Let's not forget, should John McCain be elected, Mrs. Palin would literally be a heartbeat away from the presidency. We are entitled to know a little about her thoughts on such matters. Sarah Palin felt "gotten" because she was, indeed, caught. She was caught without a stated position, which leads to the logical conclusion she hasn't given this subject much thought. In isolation, this might be a little less troubling. Yet, Mrs. Palin has been "gotten" several times lately, by various sources, on a wide range of topics that matter very much in the governance of this country.
Given all of these facts, one would think the media would provide the much needed oversight mentioned above. Yet, they are handling Mrs. Palin with kid gloves, much as they have President Bush and his administration. At this juncture, anyone who would think to label the media with a "liberal bias" is delusional.
Mr. Rovito did a great service for his country this past weekend. He asked a relevant question the media has refused to present. In doing this, he put the spotlight on several key issues, not the least of which is citizen awareness/participation. He also gave the country a unique opportunity to see a candidate off-script, giving us an honest, albeit limited, appraisal of one of the most pressing issues of our time.
So, what happened?
When did it become suspect and distasteful to be an informed citizen? Isn't the bedrock of democracy a knowledgeable electorate? Who decided we could be taxed in an arbitrary fashion, with no regard for representation that successfully addresses the concerns of the people? Why are we now expected to willingly accept corporate welfare measures, designed, primarily, to benefit private sector entities? Our tax dollars will fund such efforts, just as they've funded a war many in this country do not support. In modern times these practices have become business as usual in Washington.
Neo-Cons love to invoke the Founding Fathers as figures who would surely agree with their world view. Upon further examination, this claim deserves greater analysis.
This past weekend offered a glaring demonstration of how far we, as a nation, have drifted from the ideals our country were truly built on. A young man who is pursuing advanced education, a citizen who is engaged in the events which shape our global community, had a chance to pose a thoughtful question to a political candidate. However, this was not just any candidate; Sarah Palin, the bottom of one of the major party tickets in this year's presidential election, happened to be said candidate. The fall-out from this incident illustrated for America, and the world, how little we expect of our leaders; it also, sadly, confirmed we no longer value dialogue between officials and those they represent. Apparently, we now exclusively value mute compliance.
Michael Rovito showed a respectful, genuine interest in Mrs. Palin's comments as he asked a relevant, intelligent question regarding Pakistan, a nation who is undoubtedly a component in America's War on Terror. Mr. Rovito did not harass Mrs. Palin; he did not belabor a point beyond give-and-take discourse. He simply posed a question which reflected a thorough knowledge of the world stage. Mrs. Palin was ill-equipped to answer his question. In today's political climate, as might be expected, Mr. Rovito, the sensible, informed, involved citizen, was portrayed by the McCain/ Palin campaign and the mainstream media, a heckler determined to "get" Sarah Palin. The media even chose to incorporate Mr. Rovito as one of their own, continually repeating the phrase "gotcha journalism" in connection with Rovito's benign, yet pertinent, question.
In modern times, might we ask, what's wrong with this picture? Transparency has been absent for quite a while... the current administration has apparently intimidated the media into abdicating their unofficial role as the oversight mechanism for government. Citizens are considered "unpatriotic" if they dare to ask questions; questions are no longer considered desirable, they are implications of distrust and disloyalty. Many tyrannical leaders rose to power with these tactics.... a chilling point to ponder.
Sarah Palin couldn't be "gotten" without just cause. In this instance, Mrs. Palin was not being pursued in a game of "gotcha"; rather, she was being asked to explain her position on a foreign policy issue of major proportions. Let's not forget, should John McCain be elected, Mrs. Palin would literally be a heartbeat away from the presidency. We are entitled to know a little about her thoughts on such matters. Sarah Palin felt "gotten" because she was, indeed, caught. She was caught without a stated position, which leads to the logical conclusion she hasn't given this subject much thought. In isolation, this might be a little less troubling. Yet, Mrs. Palin has been "gotten" several times lately, by various sources, on a wide range of topics that matter very much in the governance of this country.
Given all of these facts, one would think the media would provide the much needed oversight mentioned above. Yet, they are handling Mrs. Palin with kid gloves, much as they have President Bush and his administration. At this juncture, anyone who would think to label the media with a "liberal bias" is delusional.
Mr. Rovito did a great service for his country this past weekend. He asked a relevant question the media has refused to present. In doing this, he put the spotlight on several key issues, not the least of which is citizen awareness/participation. He also gave the country a unique opportunity to see a candidate off-script, giving us an honest, albeit limited, appraisal of one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Veep Debate.
My two cents? Unfortunately, I mostly agree with Michael, however, I'm feeling a bit more optimistic. I want to believe that Senator Biden truly fulfills his role as Obama's VP. I want to see him attack and defend every nuance that exit's Ms. Palin's mouth. This is not a popularity contest, there is no room for congeniality. Sarah Palin is not capable of running this country, so why should she be granted any slack?
I hope he buries her. Respectfully of course, because that's the best way.
-Mora
I hope he buries her. Respectfully of course, because that's the best way.
-Mora
The Vice Presidential Debate
It airs tonight @ 9pm Eastern. Any thoughts on how Biden and Palin will respond to each other and the top stories engulfing the news in the past week?
Michael's prediction: It will be a very boring debate. Why? Biden will lay low and not seem too aggressive. He can't come across as attacking her. Palin will have about 3 or 4 zinger responses that will please her base. It will essentially be a draw in terms of debating, but nothing will really come out of this exchange. Anyone disagree?
Michael's prediction: It will be a very boring debate. Why? Biden will lay low and not seem too aggressive. He can't come across as attacking her. Palin will have about 3 or 4 zinger responses that will please her base. It will essentially be a draw in terms of debating, but nothing will really come out of this exchange. Anyone disagree?
The springboard for social commentary.
Hello
I'm sure you've all seen that clip @ Tony Luke's. Quite an experience, actually. If not, here are two links to get you caught up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OUiBUUuqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLHohmFFgXY
I asked a question that any citizen should ask their elected officials.....and then it all blew up. Bizarre actually.
Anyway, this blog is currently under construction. I am compiling a great panel of columnists and social commentators to post their thoughts on American democracy and the state of our nation. We as citizens of these United State need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and words.
More soon.......
I'm sure you've all seen that clip @ Tony Luke's. Quite an experience, actually. If not, here are two links to get you caught up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OUiBUUuqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLHohmFFgXY
I asked a question that any citizen should ask their elected officials.....and then it all blew up. Bizarre actually.
Anyway, this blog is currently under construction. I am compiling a great panel of columnists and social commentators to post their thoughts on American democracy and the state of our nation. We as citizens of these United State need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and words.
More soon.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
