If you have not heard about this race, it is worth noting. I wonder if it is a portent of the future that may be starting in the South, but could see a spread across the country if Republicans don't decide very soon that they are conservatives first and party people second.
The race to which I refer is the South Carolina Senate race between Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Bob Conley. And if I were a resident of the Palmetto State, I would be crossing the aisle for this vote.
What do you think?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Seeing Sarah in person!
Yesterday, Pam and I drove up to Fort Wayne and waited outside in the cold for 2 hours to get into a Sarah Palin rally. Both of us, along with our buddy Kirsten Metz who accompanied us, agreed that it was well worth the wait. Maddy went along, too, but she is not available for comment. :)
Several impressions linger some 24 hours later, most overwhelmingly the electric atmosphere! The Allen County War Memorial Coliseum probably seats 15-16,000 people, maybe more, and there were very few empty seats, even way up in the nosebleed section. The rally was supposed to have gotten underway at 6:30, but it was after 7:00 before Indiana Republican Chairman Murray Clark stepped to the podium. He spoke for a few minutes then brought on Congressman Mike Pence from our 6th District.
I LOVE MIKE PENCE!!! (Is that unambiguous enough?) I have been an admirer for years, but hearing this unabashed conservative Christian congressman in person was a genuine thrill. This is a man who has already made a lot of waves in Washington in 8 short years, and is destined for a very bright future. He recounted a very touching anecdote about traveling to Iraq in April 2007 with Lindsey Graham and John McCain and meeting the leading Sunni sheikh who spearheaded the Sunni Awakening that preceded the calming of hostilities in the region. This sheikh (who lost his life to an assassin's bullet 3 months later) warmly greeted both Pence and Graham and welcomed them to the country. When he saw John McCain, however, he took McCain's hand in both of his and said, "Senator McCain, I and my family highly respect you and your family as great American warriors who have fought for peace for generations." I can't do the story justice, but it was the most powerful I have heard in the whole campaign, aside from McCain's own POW memories.
Pence was then followed by Congressman Mark Souder of the 3rd District (of which Fort Wayne is a part). Souder spoke for a few minutes...a good guy, but not the orator or across-the-board conservative stalwart that Pence is (Pence voted twice against the bailout; Souder voted for it the second time around).
There was a brief lull and then a groundswell of applause as Hank Williams, Jr. walked out unannounced to the stage and picked up his guitar. He riffed right into "All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight", changing words here and there to fit the occasion. He did a few more songs, including a deadringer version of Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" and my favorite Bocephus tune, "A Country Boy Can Survive."
After rocking the house for 20 minutes, Hank took his bow and then, our own Lieutenant Governor Becky Skilman came out to introduce Sarah Palin. I had not seen Skilman before and was highly impressed. (A personal aside: Skilman was in the middle of a graduate program with Indiana Wesleyan University in 2004 when Mitch Daniels called and asked her to be his running mate. She dropped out, but plans to return when she leaves office.) She received enthusiastic cheers when she asserted that "Sarah Palin could have come out of any small town in Indiana!"
And then it was time for the lady herself. As she emerged from the wings, with Todd, Piper and Willow in tow, the crowd just went wild; there is no other way to put it. Everyone was on their feet, cheering, whistling, shouting, pumping fists...I have never seen anything like it. Even at the Barack Obama rally in May, where there certainly was tremendous energy and excitement, it did not appear that it was about him as much as what he seemed to represent. The reservoir of affection on the part of the Republican base for Sarah Palin is enormous.
Sarah spoke for 40 minutes, according to the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. Probably 10 minutes of that was consumed by cheers for her and jeers at Obama. The crowd was ready for red meat and she gave it to them with repeated jabs at Obama's socialist tendencies and persistent questions about his record. I did notice that there were no questions about his associations, though.
I have seen different news accounts over the last few days that paint a picture of Sarah Palin as having given up on McCain and already embarking on her own Presidential run in 2012. I can see where this is coming from, but it is manifestly unfair to characterize it along this premise. Palin did McCain every justice she possibly could do him; she did not tout her own record at his expense, and repeatedly boosted McCain's bona fides. But, looking back on the whole event, it is abundantly clear that Palin has greater star power than McCain. She talks the talk, she taps into the conservative spirit and in short, she is just a natural. McCain is a leader and a hero, and is likable, but does not have the charisma in spades that Sarah exudes.
One more story....I am wondering if I will wind up in a documentary about this campaign. I was on an aisle seat, which the ushers were kind enough to give us, since we had Maddy's stroller and oxygen tank with us. We were all standing waiting for Sarah to come out (I forget who was on stage at that moment) when suddenly there was a woman who had very unobtrusively emerged and was videoing Pam and me as I held the baby and cheered and Pam operated our videocam. The lady took several seconds worth of video, then put down her camera and walked a few steps closer to look at the baby. I was only halfway paying attention until she asked how old Maddy was. As I answered "3 months", I turned and looked her in the eye for the first time....Have you ever had the experience where you KNOW you should know someone and your brain starts doing the computer search move, frantically trying to come up with a name? She looked at Maddy for a few more seconds, then darted away. She hadn't been gone 10 seconds before I realized we had just been videoed by Alexandra Pelosi. Yes, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She did a documentary on the 2000 campaign called "Journeys with George" while covering candidate George W. Bush for NBC. She has since gone on to other work, most notably "Friend of God", where she examines religion in Red State America. (I have not seen it, but have heard that...surprise, surprise... it is not terribly friendly to its subjects.) So...that was, well, both a little unsettling and interesting!
A good time was certainly had by all!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
A few after-midnight election thoughts
I am appalled to see that prior to the previous post, I hadn't gotten on here for 11 days! You would think nothing was happening, wouldn't you? Not exactly a positive trajectory for someone trying to get some practice at this fine science of blogging.
It has seemed that news becomes old so quickly in recent political events that it is hard to stay on top of it and be current unless you're somebody like the intrepid Hugh Hewitt, who has a team of bloggers, including himself, that post a number of times throughout the day, at length.
I am heartened to see that the polls are starting to swing back in McCain's direction. I would not be at all surprised (and I know this is far from an original utterance) to see the race so tight on Election Day and the polls swinging so crazily the week before it, that we literally have no idea who wins until the networks start calling states that night.
I hear Colin Powell is going to go on Meet the Press tomorrow and announce that he isn't endorsing Obama, but he isn't supporting McCain. Ho hum. Powell is a fine man, but who really cares? Do endorsements mean that much? Does anybody even pay attention? I don't even think Lieberman's support of McCain has really pulled that many over; Lieberman isn't officially even a Democrat anymore, after all.
It has certainly been interesting to watch the spin after the last debate and to see McCain's standing improve, even though virtually everyone, including the Fox All Stars, agreed that Obama won the debate. (I didn't think McCain did that well myself, though I didn't think he was horrible, either.) And the dissing of Sarah Palin continues, even while she draws highly enthusiastic crowds. Witness Peggy Noonan for the most recent example...which pains me since I have been a fan of hers for a good number of years.
It has seemed that news becomes old so quickly in recent political events that it is hard to stay on top of it and be current unless you're somebody like the intrepid Hugh Hewitt, who has a team of bloggers, including himself, that post a number of times throughout the day, at length.
I am heartened to see that the polls are starting to swing back in McCain's direction. I would not be at all surprised (and I know this is far from an original utterance) to see the race so tight on Election Day and the polls swinging so crazily the week before it, that we literally have no idea who wins until the networks start calling states that night.
I hear Colin Powell is going to go on Meet the Press tomorrow and announce that he isn't endorsing Obama, but he isn't supporting McCain. Ho hum. Powell is a fine man, but who really cares? Do endorsements mean that much? Does anybody even pay attention? I don't even think Lieberman's support of McCain has really pulled that many over; Lieberman isn't officially even a Democrat anymore, after all.
It has certainly been interesting to watch the spin after the last debate and to see McCain's standing improve, even though virtually everyone, including the Fox All Stars, agreed that Obama won the debate. (I didn't think McCain did that well myself, though I didn't think he was horrible, either.) And the dissing of Sarah Palin continues, even while she draws highly enthusiastic crowds. Witness Peggy Noonan for the most recent example...which pains me since I have been a fan of hers for a good number of years.
Are we re-living 1976?
Alan Jackson has a song on his latest CD about 1976 since that was the year he met his wife. Other than that, I haven't heard that year memorialized much, if at all. Certainly, if any commentator, columnist or talking head has compared this election year to 1976, (and by this time, it is entirely possible that it has happened), I haven't been aware of it. But consider these comparisons:
The country had just come through a war that had torn it apart. The President prior to the Republican nominee had endured notoriously low approval ratings (of course, he ended up resigning, as well, but that's another story). Economic concerns such as foreign oil consumption and inflation were driving the country into a tailspin. Gerald Ford, the Republican nominee, was portrayed as being too closely tied to the man whom he succeeded, Richard Nixon. He championed causes that conservatives detested such as the giveaway of the Panama Canal, which led to the rise in the primaries of a formidable challenger, Ronald Reagan, who almost stole the nomination from him.
Ford did pull the contest out, in the end, only to face a new, clean challenger with very little political history, Jimmy Carter. Ford came out of the summer conventions way behind in the polls, but by Election Day had closed to a dead heat, in spite of, on Ford's side of the ledger, a lack of charisma, a terrible economy and the embarrassments of his predecessor.
The resemblances are not total, but I think they are striking. Mitt Romney did not do as well as Ronald Reagan, but Reagan had better name ID in '76, and Romney did better than most thought he would. Other than that minor detail, I think the side-by-side can stand, though I can't speak with firsthand authority since I turned 1 year old in '76.
The country had just come through a war that had torn it apart. The President prior to the Republican nominee had endured notoriously low approval ratings (of course, he ended up resigning, as well, but that's another story). Economic concerns such as foreign oil consumption and inflation were driving the country into a tailspin. Gerald Ford, the Republican nominee, was portrayed as being too closely tied to the man whom he succeeded, Richard Nixon. He championed causes that conservatives detested such as the giveaway of the Panama Canal, which led to the rise in the primaries of a formidable challenger, Ronald Reagan, who almost stole the nomination from him.
Ford did pull the contest out, in the end, only to face a new, clean challenger with very little political history, Jimmy Carter. Ford came out of the summer conventions way behind in the polls, but by Election Day had closed to a dead heat, in spite of, on Ford's side of the ledger, a lack of charisma, a terrible economy and the embarrassments of his predecessor.
The resemblances are not total, but I think they are striking. Mitt Romney did not do as well as Ronald Reagan, but Reagan had better name ID in '76, and Romney did better than most thought he would. Other than that minor detail, I think the side-by-side can stand, though I can't speak with firsthand authority since I turned 1 year old in '76.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Can McCain win?
The short answer is "Yes." His opponent is the most unqualified nominee in a century who has run a campaign as Rorschach test on which an uninformed populace can project its dearest hopes and dreams. That alone should enable a McCain win if people carefully considered the facts.
I am not sure whether or not the hard-hitting attacks against Obama as a compatriot of Bill Ayers are good strategy or not. For sure, though, forget McCain's promises to run a completely positive campaign. Not that I mind that necessarily; I think the Ayers issue is fair game. Character is always a legitimate issue. If someone's character is unimpeachable, the attacker's accusations won't stick. And this line of inquiry does seem to have the Obama people worried, if firing back is any indication. But will it work? Do people care?
John McCain failed to set himself apart from the pack by voting against the bailout package last week. In retrospect, that seems like a missed opportunity, especially when the Dow Jones dropped below 10,000 at one point yesterday for the first time in 4 years. (It had come back up by day's end.) He is in just about the most unfavorable political climate for Republicans that I have ever seen in my political lifetime. President Bush almost seems like a bystander anymore, I suppose due to his low poll ratings; Henry Paulson seemed like the major player in the whole bailout back-and-forth saga, with Bush weighing in with official pronouncements every few days.
Most are blaming Republicans for the problems in the economy; this is partly justified due to the excessive government spending and looming trade deficits of the Bush years, but the Democrats have fought every reform that the Republicans have tried to install in the banking and lending process.
It will be interesting to watch what McCain does tonight. It does, at least, feel good to see him taking the fight to Obama and not just letting everything slip away...and it may pay off.
I am not sure whether or not the hard-hitting attacks against Obama as a compatriot of Bill Ayers are good strategy or not. For sure, though, forget McCain's promises to run a completely positive campaign. Not that I mind that necessarily; I think the Ayers issue is fair game. Character is always a legitimate issue. If someone's character is unimpeachable, the attacker's accusations won't stick. And this line of inquiry does seem to have the Obama people worried, if firing back is any indication. But will it work? Do people care?
John McCain failed to set himself apart from the pack by voting against the bailout package last week. In retrospect, that seems like a missed opportunity, especially when the Dow Jones dropped below 10,000 at one point yesterday for the first time in 4 years. (It had come back up by day's end.) He is in just about the most unfavorable political climate for Republicans that I have ever seen in my political lifetime. President Bush almost seems like a bystander anymore, I suppose due to his low poll ratings; Henry Paulson seemed like the major player in the whole bailout back-and-forth saga, with Bush weighing in with official pronouncements every few days.
Most are blaming Republicans for the problems in the economy; this is partly justified due to the excessive government spending and looming trade deficits of the Bush years, but the Democrats have fought every reform that the Republicans have tried to install in the banking and lending process.
It will be interesting to watch what McCain does tonight. It does, at least, feel good to see him taking the fight to Obama and not just letting everything slip away...and it may pay off.
Palin/Biden debate
I have been insanely busy for about a week now. My Liberty University courses end within the next week. Both formally finish on Friday, 10/10, but I have until Tuesday, 10/14 to hand a final project in for the Spiritual Growth class. Anyway, I have been doing nothing but study, work, eat and sleep for a week, except for brief breaks to exercise. No movies, no books. And I am someone who believes that pleasure reading (at least a few pages) should be an ongoing part of my daily regimen. But it hasn't been for the last week.
All of that to say that this is the reason why I have not posted on the Palin/Biden debate of 5 days ago.
There is nothing new I can say at this point that hasn't already been said. I did post a brief blurb as a Facebook status update as soon as the debate was over, where I asserted that Palin did well enough and had probably rallied the partisans, but not won over very many new McCain voters. With the polling data now in and the commentators all having said or written their piece, it appears that I was not off by much, so I do take a little satisfaction in that. (LOL) Only insomuch as I was right, though; I wish I had been wrong and she had been a huge hit across the board.
I was so nervous during the debate that I could do nothing but sit and watch it. My habit of an evening is to sit with my laptop on the couch working in courses (that I'm teaching or am participating in as a student) while O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes or Larry King talk to their guests. I graded Discussion Board posts all through the first McCain/Obama debate. I couldn't do anything during the Palin/Biden show, except refrain from chewing my fingernails!
Palin held her own very well, though I wondered about the wisdom of a couple of things, namely asking Biden if she could call him "Joe" when they first walked out onto the stage. (The microphones were so low I couldn't pick up his answer; I doubt, though, that he said, "No, please call me Senator.") And I did wish she would lay off attacking "predatory lenders" exclusively, though she negated that with her phrase on the necessity of personal responsibility, which I believe Frank Luntz said really polled well with his independent focus group. (You can't tell which network I watch, can you? Fair and balanced...) I also wonder if the "maverick" term is doing McCain and Palin any favors anymore. Notice the media isn't using it anymore?
Sarah Palin came across as poised, charming and confident 90% of the time and probably pulled some doubters back from the brink. I think she also maintained her position as someone with a future in the Party whether McCain wins or loses. She is clearly a quick study, which some had unjustly questioned after her first exposure to mainstream media interviews (Gibson and Couric).
All of that to say that this is the reason why I have not posted on the Palin/Biden debate of 5 days ago.
There is nothing new I can say at this point that hasn't already been said. I did post a brief blurb as a Facebook status update as soon as the debate was over, where I asserted that Palin did well enough and had probably rallied the partisans, but not won over very many new McCain voters. With the polling data now in and the commentators all having said or written their piece, it appears that I was not off by much, so I do take a little satisfaction in that. (LOL) Only insomuch as I was right, though; I wish I had been wrong and she had been a huge hit across the board.
I was so nervous during the debate that I could do nothing but sit and watch it. My habit of an evening is to sit with my laptop on the couch working in courses (that I'm teaching or am participating in as a student) while O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes or Larry King talk to their guests. I graded Discussion Board posts all through the first McCain/Obama debate. I couldn't do anything during the Palin/Biden show, except refrain from chewing my fingernails!
Palin held her own very well, though I wondered about the wisdom of a couple of things, namely asking Biden if she could call him "Joe" when they first walked out onto the stage. (The microphones were so low I couldn't pick up his answer; I doubt, though, that he said, "No, please call me Senator.") And I did wish she would lay off attacking "predatory lenders" exclusively, though she negated that with her phrase on the necessity of personal responsibility, which I believe Frank Luntz said really polled well with his independent focus group. (You can't tell which network I watch, can you? Fair and balanced...) I also wonder if the "maverick" term is doing McCain and Palin any favors anymore. Notice the media isn't using it anymore?
Sarah Palin came across as poised, charming and confident 90% of the time and probably pulled some doubters back from the brink. I think she also maintained her position as someone with a future in the Party whether McCain wins or loses. She is clearly a quick study, which some had unjustly questioned after her first exposure to mainstream media interviews (Gibson and Couric).
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Bailout or rescue plan? (Who knows?)
I have been working for hours on a paper on "The Compassion of Christ as Shown in the Gospel of Luke." So, since I have 11 full pages of content and only need 12-20, I am going to take 10 minutes and blog, since this is something I do not HAVE to do, and I'm not on deadline, for sure!
We are living in momentous times. The way this economic crisis is handled will determine the well-being of at least the next generation in the United States of America. The effect may be even longer lasting than that.
Having said this, though, I confess that the fog of words and expressed sentiments has been overwhelming for the last 2 weeks. Probably the statement that made the most sense was one I heard last Wednesday on Glenn Beck's radio program. His guest was Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative stalwart from South Carolina. Glenn essentially asked DeMint to give him the lowdown on what all the hubbub was about. DeMint was breathtakingly honest when he allowed that his belief was that "no one really knows what they're doing!" I felt vindicated, having made virtually an identical comment to my lovely wife 2 days earlier, as I watched Secretary Paulson try to explain what the White House was trying to do.
It has not been impressive to watch government in action for the last few days. Michael Gerson has termed the whole ordeal an affair of "small men in a large crisis." I agree with Gerson's general description, but not with the particulars; he cites the House Republicans' failure to pass the Monday (9/29) bill as an example of smallness. From what I have seen, from Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Indiana's own Mike Pence and others, they never intended to support it! Even John Boehner, Minority Leader, who was championing the bill, only voted for it reluctantly, colorfully describing it as "a crap sandwich", but one that he would eat for the good of the country. He might as well have saved himself the unsavory "meal"! It failed anyway.
The whole idea of a bailout for corrupt and inept businesses is just a monstrosity. As clearly as I can ascertain, the chief danger to "Main Street" (which has become the moniker currently in vogue to describe us little people out here) is the unavailability of credit, as well as, ostensibly, more layoffs since businesses won't be able to borrow money. I will admit I did not know that large corporations, especially, borrow money on a regular basis just to survive and then pay it back within a few hours. This doesn't seem to me like a viable survival model, but as O'Reilly says, I could be wrong.
I do know that the unavailability of credit to individual consumers would not be a scourge. I am delighted to report that I can't remember the last time I used a credit card (though I always run my National City Bank Card transactions as credit buys, in order to accrue VISA points and get gifts! National City financed my one and only visit to Ruth's Chris Steak House, to date, in this fashion.) George Will, Steve Pearlstein from the Washington Post and others describe the typical American lifestyle as being vastly overleveraged due to credit card debt. If this is indeed the case, and it appears that it is, then a day of reckoning has to come eventually. Would it really be that traumatic for everyone to learn to live within their means once again? I can see financing a house or an education; indeed, I am currently doing both. But nothing else, though I could give some leeway for a car. And there I go...one thing leads to another, doesn't it? Because if you lease or make payments on a car, then surely you can excuse some Christmas credit card purchasing and then there are the kids' birthdays, and on and on it goes.
As a parting thought, I could only wish that this whole fiasco would cause Americans to become more economically curious, but I don't hold high hopes. Most are ready to blame everyone else's greed but their own for the problems in which we find ourselves and the media is all too prepared to jump on the bandwagon of damning the "corrupt CEOs" who received golden parachute buyouts. Thomas Sowell makes an interesting point on this in his column today, namely, that if a CEO is doing a bad job, you may very well SAVE the company money by paying him millions to leave rather than letting him stay and run the compan further down the tubes, losing hundreds of millions in the process.
At the end of the day, it seems this plan may be necessary for reasons I will confess I don't completely comprehend. So my own economic ignorance is shameful. But I do know that this bailout sends all the wrong messages, and I fear it sets a foul precedent. Might not Andrew Jackson call this the "corrupt bargain" of the 21st century were he alive today?
We are living in momentous times. The way this economic crisis is handled will determine the well-being of at least the next generation in the United States of America. The effect may be even longer lasting than that.
Having said this, though, I confess that the fog of words and expressed sentiments has been overwhelming for the last 2 weeks. Probably the statement that made the most sense was one I heard last Wednesday on Glenn Beck's radio program. His guest was Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative stalwart from South Carolina. Glenn essentially asked DeMint to give him the lowdown on what all the hubbub was about. DeMint was breathtakingly honest when he allowed that his belief was that "no one really knows what they're doing!" I felt vindicated, having made virtually an identical comment to my lovely wife 2 days earlier, as I watched Secretary Paulson try to explain what the White House was trying to do.
It has not been impressive to watch government in action for the last few days. Michael Gerson has termed the whole ordeal an affair of "small men in a large crisis." I agree with Gerson's general description, but not with the particulars; he cites the House Republicans' failure to pass the Monday (9/29) bill as an example of smallness. From what I have seen, from Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Indiana's own Mike Pence and others, they never intended to support it! Even John Boehner, Minority Leader, who was championing the bill, only voted for it reluctantly, colorfully describing it as "a crap sandwich", but one that he would eat for the good of the country. He might as well have saved himself the unsavory "meal"! It failed anyway.
The whole idea of a bailout for corrupt and inept businesses is just a monstrosity. As clearly as I can ascertain, the chief danger to "Main Street" (which has become the moniker currently in vogue to describe us little people out here) is the unavailability of credit, as well as, ostensibly, more layoffs since businesses won't be able to borrow money. I will admit I did not know that large corporations, especially, borrow money on a regular basis just to survive and then pay it back within a few hours. This doesn't seem to me like a viable survival model, but as O'Reilly says, I could be wrong.
I do know that the unavailability of credit to individual consumers would not be a scourge. I am delighted to report that I can't remember the last time I used a credit card (though I always run my National City Bank Card transactions as credit buys, in order to accrue VISA points and get gifts! National City financed my one and only visit to Ruth's Chris Steak House, to date, in this fashion.) George Will, Steve Pearlstein from the Washington Post and others describe the typical American lifestyle as being vastly overleveraged due to credit card debt. If this is indeed the case, and it appears that it is, then a day of reckoning has to come eventually. Would it really be that traumatic for everyone to learn to live within their means once again? I can see financing a house or an education; indeed, I am currently doing both. But nothing else, though I could give some leeway for a car. And there I go...one thing leads to another, doesn't it? Because if you lease or make payments on a car, then surely you can excuse some Christmas credit card purchasing and then there are the kids' birthdays, and on and on it goes.
As a parting thought, I could only wish that this whole fiasco would cause Americans to become more economically curious, but I don't hold high hopes. Most are ready to blame everyone else's greed but their own for the problems in which we find ourselves and the media is all too prepared to jump on the bandwagon of damning the "corrupt CEOs" who received golden parachute buyouts. Thomas Sowell makes an interesting point on this in his column today, namely, that if a CEO is doing a bad job, you may very well SAVE the company money by paying him millions to leave rather than letting him stay and run the compan further down the tubes, losing hundreds of millions in the process.
At the end of the day, it seems this plan may be necessary for reasons I will confess I don't completely comprehend. So my own economic ignorance is shameful. But I do know that this bailout sends all the wrong messages, and I fear it sets a foul precedent. Might not Andrew Jackson call this the "corrupt bargain" of the 21st century were he alive today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
