Centrist Pundits

Well, the media is all abuzz about Sarah Palin’s book.

I haven’t read it yet, so I’ll reserve judgement on it. But with all due respect to our friends over at Palintology, I think that she’s got a really big job ahead of her in terms of political rehabilitation.

Certainly her resignation as governor is the biggest thing for her to get around. I mean, I understand why she did; having to deal with one bogus ethics complaint after another week after week after week would make me want to quit too.

But it’ll take a lot more than a book to reverse her political fortunes. Yes, she’s the darling of the far right, and she can have a very lucrative career as a public speaker and fundraiser if that’s what she wants. But if she wants to be elected to national office, she’s going to have to appeal beyond that base — and that means to us, the centrists.

I remember watching her debate coverage when she ran for governor of Alaska and being impressed — and being shocked when she ran for Vice President and appeared to have lost at least 40 IQ points. That observation alone makes me tend to believe that at least some of what she says about being mishandled by McCain’s staff is true. But she’s gotta convince us that she’s more than a caricature, and she’ll do that by speaking things other than right-wing catchphrases.

It’ll take some time, and I don’t think it’ll happen in time for 2012. It took about 20 years for Joe Biden’s national political repuation to get repaired. Maybe it won’t take so long for Palin, but if she wants to get elected to something, she needs to have a realistic timeframe. The problem is that the GOP might actually nominate her in 2012, when she won’t be winnable. That’s a serious mistake on their part.

During the campaign, though, the time I was the most impressed with her was towards the end, when she says she stopped listening to the advisors (at a point where it was very clear that they couldn’t win anyway) and she gave a series of speeches on energy policy. It’s an area she knows, it’s an area she’s comfortable talking about and she makes a hell of a lot of sense. If she’s really lucky, she’ll get taken on as Energy Secretary in the next Republican administration.

Greg 2012 Election, Media, National Politics, Personalities Palin

When Representative Castle was asked about Obama’s birth certificate at a town hall, and rightly said Obama is a citizen, and was booed, it lifted the birth certificate controversy I’ve talked about before to the national media.  Now these “birthers” are making national news.  Once upon a time, we locked crazies up, but no more.

But you know, here’s what Castle should have done.  That lady was holding up a birth certificate in a bag.  He should have asked her if he could see it for a moment.  When she handed it over, he should then have put it in his briefcase and demanded she prove she’s a citizen.

It wouldn’t have been very effective, rhetorically, but it would have made for better TV.

JC Media, Personalities birthers, obama

One of the more amusing aspects of the 24 hour news networks and the fact that we essentially always have the news at our fingertips is that there is that polling gets a lot more play, while at the same time the reporting on it has become somewhat meaningless.

What I mean by that is simply this:  Obama’s poll numbers are dropping.  They are now in the mid to upper 50s, if I recall correctly.  And yet, this is reported in almost the exact same tone as Bush’s numbers being in the low 30s during parts of his Presidency.

I’m not saying polling numbers, and the movement of polling numbers, aren’t news.  In fact, in the poor signal-to-noise ratio of the 24 hour news cycle, polling numbers are actually signal.  But this is one of the places commentary needs to be more active.  The difference between a President dropping to the 50s – which is still amazingly high – and a President stagnating in the 30s – which is fairly low – are significant.

Often times, the complaint about the news is bias.  Fox is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, etc.  And that is a problem, when commentary runs amok and disguises itself as news.  But commentary in and of itself isn’t bad.  News can need context sometimes, especially on subjects where the average person isn’t an expert.  A company is selling off a division: is that good or bad?  You can’t know without context.  In its proper place, commentary is very useful.

All or nothing solutions are rarely the right solution.  The world is complex.  We need more commentary in some regards, and less in others.  Maybe someday a news network will get it right.  All evidence is to the contrary at the moment, however.

JC Media Media, obama, polling

To be honest, I didn’t think I’d be bringing up Senator Ensign again.

CNN has their political ticker, a website off their main page that does brief political news stories.  I find it a very useful website for scanning what the major political stories of the day are.

Tonight, one of the stories is:  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/08/report-senator-tried-to-stop-colleagues-affair/  which is about the efforts of Senator Coburn to get Ensign to break off his affair.  It is a news article about a more complete story located in the Las Vegas Sun, at http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/08/spouse-ensign-affair-says-senator-should-resign/

Now, in the article, it says that the husband of the woman having an affair with Ensign reached out to a conservative Christian senator, Coburn, for assistance in ending the affair.  That’s all well and good, a story about a good man trying to help another man behave well.  Right?

I want to call attention to one line in the middle of the Sun article:

“The group, including Coburn, a well-known conservative, confronted Ensign and suggested that the Hamptons needed to be given financial assistance — in the millions of dollars — to pay off their $1 million-plus mortgage and move them to a new life away from Ensign.”

I guess I could be misreading this, it doesn’t explicitly say it, but is that saying what I think it is saying?  That a group of people including Senator Coburn, in their attempt to get Ensign to break off the affair, suggested that he pay off his mistress to just go away?  Isn’t that just called “hush money” most of the time?

I think CNN really buried the lead on this one.

JC Media, Personalities John Ensign, Media, senators

So here it is, Monday, and the Palin resignation fallout is still the news story of the day.

I still think those who say she’s done in politics are underestimating her chances; more specifically, they are over-estimating the American people.  I’m a strong believer in democracy but unfortunately the electorate rarely gives me reasons for confidence.  And while all the people who talk about “knowing politics” think she’s done for – one even compared her to Kathleen Harris, which I thought was fairly cruel – I’m still not sure her base will see it that way.  Of course, one needs more than a base to run for office with, and Palin has always had some issues with going beyond the base, at least outside of Alaska.

I find it interesting how many major news stories seem to happen the Friday before the Daily Show and Colbert are off for a week.  I’m beginning to think it is planned.

While I don’t know that this is a death blow to Palin the way some think it is, it certainly was… weird.  Her news conference was bizarre.  You hold a news conference to make announcements and answer questions, not raise new ones.  And I’m curious as to who she was referring to in a followup when she said that there are plenty of people who’ve resigned with honor, but since it is her, she gets mistreated by the press.  I’m not going to say the press hasn’t been harsh on her in the past (though not as harsh as she makes them out to be) but I can’t think of anyone who’s resigned from office halfway though their first term that we now think of as a major American influence.  And she still needs to improve her speaking skills.

The current Lt. Governor, the next Governor of Alaska, says that Palin is Alaska’s greatest gift to America.  I don’t know.  Natural splendor, hockey players, and oil reserves are good gifts too.

But lastly, I’d like to take a moment and blast the DNC spokesperson, Brad Woodhouse, for coming on a bit overly strong and partisan.  He said of Palin: “Her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today.”  And I believe that Woodhouse truly thinks that.  And I know that the DNC is diametrically opposed to Republicans and will do what they feel necessary to tear down Republicans.  But, everyone else was saying pretty much the same thing.  The DNC could have made the official response of the party feel a bit classier than that, a bit more reflective and a bit more positive for the future.  “We wish Palin luck in her future endeavors, and we’ll be ready to run against her and win if she chooses to rejoin politics” type thing.

Oh, and to those who are counting her out: hey… we’re still talking about her, aren’t we?

JC 2012 Election, Media, State Politics 2012, Palin

There a small but disturbing trend on the admittedly extreme right of American Political Thought that goes as follows:  “Obama’s policies are making America less safe.  Obama’s policies are popular.  The only way to convince people that Obama’s policies are making America less safe is with a demonstrable loss of human life.  Therefore, the best thing for America might be to suffer an attack, so that Americans will shake off their complacency and demand Obama do better on security, or replace Obama with someone who will.”

This type of fetishization of the need for an attack is rarely quite so succinctly put, of course.  Dick Cheney has been using longer, more guarded variations of it in his preservation-of-legacy tour.  But it was boiled down to its essentials on Glenn Beck the other night, when the guest, Michael Scheuer, said “the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”

Now, let’s be as fair as possible here, and offer up as much context as we can.  Scheuer is the former head of the Osama Bin Laden unit of the CIA, so he probably knows as much as is possible about what kind of security it would take to stop Bin Laden if he were determined to make a strike against us.  He’s also not quite expressing a desire to be attacked here, as some are theorizing he is, as much as saying that it will take a big event to wake people up.  Still, the phrasing he uses… “the only chance we have”… does, linguistically, give on pause; if it is our only hope, then what hope does America have?

It isn’t treason, as some have said it is.  But it is hateful.  It might also be wrong, but I’m willing to give Scheuer the benefit of the doubt and say that he may know more than I do and this might be a fair conclusion given the facts and his frame of reference.  But it is still hateful, and still morally wrong.  To make this perfectly clear, you can’t say America’s only hope is a major attack, and also stake a legitimate claim to love this country.

Its okay to hate America.  Lots of people around the world do and are no worse the wear for it.  We live in a country founded on the principles of freedom of speech, and there are people in America who hate our country, or hate what our country does, which is different.  That’s cool, because freedom of speech includes speech you don’t like.  But you can’t wrap yourself in the flag at the same time you are saying it needs to be torn asunder.  Like it or not, whether he “wishes” for an attack or not, stating that our only hope is for an attack is tantamount to saying we need to be attacked.  It is, after all, our ONLY HOPE.  And attacking America is the ultimate sign of not loving America.

And don’t think it is only Scheuer who is at fault here.  Glenn Beck is many unpleasant things, but the fact that he didn’t immediately dismiss this guy as a crackpot once that statement was made, or at least try to bring the conversation back to some semblance of sanity, but instead nodded and agreed, saying “Which is why Bin Laden won’t do it” lowers him further in my estimation, much lower, which is shocking to me, personally, because my opinion of Beck was already pretty low.

I am a big believer that most of the time, the world is all shades of gray.  The cases in which there is a right and a wrong that are so obvious that even the most oblivious person can see it are miniscule in amount.  But stating that an attack on America is the best thing for America is “right” to only two kinds of people:  kooks who think that 9/11 was perpetrated by Americans to cause us to go to war, and people who hate America.  Scheuer and Beck probably aren’t in the 9/11 kook category, so what conclusion am I left to draw here?

JC Media, Terrorism Media, security, Terrorism

There are people who have been wanting South Carolina governor Mark Sanford to run for President in 2012. However, many people told him that he needed more experience in foreign affairs.

I am afraid he completely misunderstood what we meant.

Greg Media, National Politics, Political Parties

We all know why talking points exist.  It is a twofold, reason, really – one is that when someone hears a good argument, they like to use it themselves.  I’ve been known to do that myself.  For example, when I say that I don’t understand why America can’t provide health care to all the people of America when other countries can do it, that isn’t original to me.  The other reason is because, well, sometimes, repetition makes things true, or at least, makes things seem true.  If enough people say “Eggs are bad for you” then people are going to start thinking eggs are bad for you, whether or not eggs are good or bad.  The real reason why talking points exist is because, well, they work.

Still, it seems to me you’d want to evaluate if your talking points really make any sense at all.  I know “The Daily Show” did a routine on this last night, but I thought it deserved some further consideration.  The talking points for the opposition on how the President wants to change health care seem to be “Do you really want health care to be as efficient as the DMV (or other government office)?” and “Why would you want to insert a bureaucrat between you and your doctor?”

That second one is nonsense.  There’s already a bureaucrat between me and my doctor, and he works for an insurance company.  Actually, my insurance is pretty good now, but back in the day, I had to fight for things like chiropractic visits.  And if I wasn’t fighting, I was constantly getting re-evaluated to see if they were still needed.  Because some guy who’s never met me or talked to my doctor has a computer formula that says I might be scamming the insurance company out of money with unnecessary visits… as if going to a doctor is a fun way to spend my time.  I wasn’t going to an amusement park; I was going to an office, waiting for 15 minutes to half an hour, for a 5-10 minute appointment that helped me continue to be able to use my arm.  So you know what?  I’ll gladly take the government bureaucrat instead, and I’ll tell you why.  Because that government worker at least in theory works for the people while the insurance company one works only for stockholders who have the sole interest in saving money, not my health.

As to that first one, we all have our stories of government waste.  We know they exist.  But on the whole, how bad a job do they do?  The two common examples are the DMV and the Post Office.  I know the story goes the DMV is inefficient, but for the most part, my experiences there have been quick and painless.  One license renewal was a pain, because they had had a number of people quit recently so there were long lines.  But that can happen anywhere.  And I barely go to the DMV any more, I can do all of that online.  Further, there’s millions of cars on the road in America, and most of them are registered, inspected, and insured (at least in those states where its required).  Heck, you want an example of government efficiency; the DMV knew the very moment I lost my auto insurance at one point due to a late payment, back when I was having money trouble, and they were on my backside instantly.

The post office gets a bad rap because they raise rates frequently, and every now and again someone snaps, and there are lines around the holidays.  But seriously.  Every day but Sunday, they come to your house and drop off your mail.  They pick up mail from your house at the same time.  They move things across the nation in 1 to 5-6 days, depending on how much you pay, or maybe a few weeks if it’s a larger package and you pay the lowest rate.  There are private corporations that do this, but the service is about the same (except they don’t always pick up) and the price is about the same – for packages.  Or letters can be sent via the internet, which is all on computers.  For moving physical stuff around, it is actually hard to really beat the post office.  Obviously, there are some things that Fedex and UPS do better, and some they do worse, but overall, the vaunted “private sector” doesn’t kick the government’s ass.

Social Security has never had a failure to process their payroll (individuals have no doubt fallen through the cracks- I’m merely saying as a whole, they’ve never messed up on a massive scale).  The military defends this nation and does their level best even when a President sends them in with no clear mission and lacking sufficient equipment – and trust me, I’d much rather have the military doing it than the private sector equivalents, who do nothing but scare the pants off me.  The fire department saves homes and the police save people.  Our national parks are generally awesome.

Do some departments cost a lot?  Sure.  Defense costs a lot, but having a weapon that works the first time, every time, and won’t hurt you if it fails costs a lot.  Heck, even normal objects cost a lot if they have to be safe for battle zones – go and watch the episode of West Wing episode “Process Stories” if you want to see why.  NASA costs a lot too, but since no one but governments and *billionaire* Richard Branson is sending people in to space – and he isn’t doing it regularly yet – I guess it’s just an inherently expensive proposition.  Could costs go down?  Sure.  And we should be looking to do so.  But some things just cost money.  Even health care costs money.  A medication may be 5 cents a pill today, but it probably costs millions or billions to create and test it.  Making it Governmental won’t change that aspect of health care, but it may make things more available to the people.

Oh, and yes, your taxes may go up.  Which always sucks.  Unless, of course, its offset by your insurance or other health care costs going down.  Which would only make sense.

If done right, which is admittedly a tricky proposition, there is no reason government run healthcare is inherently going to be poorly run.  To say that it is does a disservice to all our government offices that, frankly, we take for granted.  Unless government health care is run as efficiently and effectively as the United State Congress (under either party).  Then we’ll all be dead in a week.

JC Economy, Health care, Media, National Politics drugs, finance, Health care, taxes

Okay, everyone, today’s post needs context.  I don’t always offer context for my posts, assuming that my readership is the kind that reads the news sites as well, but sometimes, if it is a minor story, people may not know what I’m talking about.  So go here:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/gop-senator-to-obama-you-got-nerve/

or, if you prefer, go to:

http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Now, one might think I’m about to attack Chuck Grassley on the issues.  I’m not.  Senator Grassley and I are on opposite sides of the aisle but that’s okay.  I can’t recall Grassley ever doing anything that truly offended me so I will assume he is one of the true believer conservatives who argues his points out of a feeling that his view is correct, and I can respect that.

But I cannot respect anyone who abuses the English language like that.  I know it is twitter and I know it is limited to 140 characters but come on.  I have a twitter account for my private life and I can probably count on one hand my uses of “leet” speak that weren’t ironic or mistakes.  I write complete sentences.  If I can’t make it in 140 characters, I use a shorter synonym or do 2 tweets.

Mr. Grassley, you are a senator.  Please, write like one.  No one thinks you are cool cause you use the 4 instead of for, or u for you, or “skedul” for schedule, which isn’t even really leet speak, but is instead nonsense.

This site is so bad, in fact, that even with CNN mentioning it on their political ticker, I have to suspect it is a fake.  And if it is a fake, then shame on you faker, for making a politician look stupid.  Most politicians are perfectly capable of doing that on their own.

I understand that languages evolve, and I even support it as a general rule.  But there are those who should make an endeavor to do it right according to our current linguistic guidelines, and I think a United States Senator is one of those who should serve as a role model.

JC Congress, Media culture, Grassley, language, twitter

I may be late on this one, as the controversy appears to have mostly died down, but apparently, it is a big deal to some that President Obama and his wife Michelle went out on the town last weekend, which costs the taxpayers money.  From what I can tell, the arguments seem to be that either the fact that taxpayers foot the bill for this kind of thing is inherently wasteful, or that in this time of economic hardship, this particular expenditure was wasteful.

If it is inherently wasteful, then I guess that’s a legitimate debate to take up, but if that’s the case, then one has to wonder why the debate is so partisan.  I’m a bigger Barack Obama fan than I was a George Bush fan, but it never even occurred to me to question why we paid so much for George Bush to go back and forth to Crawford, Texas so often.  Perhaps it occurred to others, but I always thought getting most of your life paid for in the name of security was just part of being the President, and something we, as Americans, through our representative democracy, had agreed was a good choice of how we spend taxpayer dollars.  We want the President safe as part one of our continuity of government plans – a phrase most people think means the line of succession but really begins with NOT NEEDING the line of succession – and so we pay a ridiculous amount of money to isolate the President in a practically undestroyable car, the most advanced plane in the world, one of the most secure buildings in the world, and with a security force that makes sure the entire area around the President is safe, at any given time.  The expense is inherent in that, whether the President is in DC, New York, or Saudi Arabia.

If it is because at this particular time, wasteful spending is frowned upon, I understand the sentiment, but let’s face it folks – this is the real world.  I liken it to why we have babysitters – because having a child doesn’t mean you don’t get to have any time to yourself for 18 years.  Becoming the President is a big thing and requires big changes, but seriously, you can’t be on 24/7 for 4 or 8 years.  You need to be able to relax now and again.  The elder Bush went to Kennebunkport, the younger to Crawford.  Clinton was a workaholic and didn’t go much farther than Camp David, but the point is the same.  And it doesn’t change just because the economy is in the toilet.  In fact, I think a fair case could be made that Obama has had more stressful situations to deal with this first half-year in office than many of his predecessors, and has had a greater need to relax.

It died out quickly and I hope it stays dead, because it was a non-issue.

Credit goes to Mark for helping me straighten out my thoughts as I wrote this article.

JC Economy, Media, Personalities finance, obama