Charlie, Charlie, Charlie

Gov. Palin's first interview fails to impress...

While I really like her and what she has accomplished in her short time in politics I was less than "knocked out" after watching the Charlie Gibson interview on ABC.

For one, I don't like when people constantly invoke the name of the person they are talking to. He knows his name for God's sake. It comes off as slightly condescending. She did this constantly.

Speaking of condescending... Charlie Gibson was doing his best pompous ass routine. His body language and tone were unmistakable. Still, this is big time politics and Sarah Palin seemed out of her league with some of her responses.

What I do like is her confidence. It is a trait that is vital to a leader. Make decisions, don't blink. However, it is clear she is not ready to be the President of the United States on day one.

Do I think she can do the job of Vice-President? Yes, with both eyes closed and one hand tied behind her back. While it has been said (by Joe Biden of Barack Obama) the Presidency doesn't lend itself to on the job training - but it would seem to me that the Vice Presidency does.

I watched John McCain on the National Service forum last night and it is plain to see he is man with a command of the issues and the process of government and I say what better mentor could Sarah Palin have?

My own views and beliefs fall in line with McCain/Palin far more readily than Obama/Biden. Palin's international inexperience would not prevent me from supporting McCain provided he is not dying... But she has work to do.

Properly Vetted, My A$$

This is truly the pot calling the kettle black. The mainstream media has pulled out all the stops, stooping to any level to get the "dirt" on Sarah Palin. After having had 20 months to properly vet Barack Obama and doing everything they can to ignore gaping credibility holes in this mans past.

For that matter they have also given McCain a free pass. McCain has skeletons in the closet - can anyone say Keating 5. Some say that the embarrassment of the Keating 5 experience transformed McCain into a corruption fighter. OK. But more likely he's learned to be discreet and fly below the radar.




But for goodness sake, Barack Obama has Tony Rezko and William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. One is a convicted criminal and the other two avowed domestic terrorists and haters of America. He can claim to be a casual acquaintance of Ayers, but it just doesn't add up when you learn it was Ayers who literally launched Obama into politics.

Obama was also at one time heavily associated with A.C.O.R.N. which is well known for its illegal voter turnout activities amongst other shady dealings. His childhood mentors were known communists. Saul Alinsky was a hero to this man! Obama's 20 year relationship with a Black Liberation Theology Church and its outspoken pastor only became a "media" story because said pastor was a bombastic ego-head who was eager to capitalize on Barack's new found fame. For Obama to claim he never heard such inflammatory "talk" when he was in the pews is really disingenuous yet the media didn't call him out on that aspect of the story. Be that as it may, his associations with terrorists and communists have gone severely under reported.

Bring on Sarah Palin. The media has crawled down into the mud to dig up ANYTHING that might remotely bring embarrassment on Gov. Palin. Now, granted, this is big time politics - it doesn't get much bigger - and Mrs. Palin cannot cry about the treatment she is receiving. I have not heard her being accused of crying foul - but the army of Democratic operatives (read: the media) flying to Alaska is truly unprecedented.

Funny thing, I have yet to hear anyone from her "small town" trash her. In fact, she seems by all accounts to be extremely popular back home and actually quite an effective leader as well.

From outrageous accusations that her son, Trig is actually her grandson to a front page Washington Post article that said she abused per diem spending as the governor, the daily barrage is unrelenting. So far none of it has amounted to anything. She is being accused of being a neglectful mother for daring to have a career and a family. No man running for high office has ever been subject to criticism for choosing a career over family. This is absolutely a double standard. She is accused of attending her church and then talking about God. Oh my, I mean, how could she?

Most of the stories that made it into the "responsible" media could have been checked out in minutes but weren't - or even if they were the original claim was thrown against the wall anyway. For instance Mrs. Palin did not support Patrick Buchanan in 2000, she supported Steve Forbes, a well known fiscal conservative. She was never a member of any separatist political party in Alaska - she has been a registered Republican since the 80's. She has not called for Creationism to be taught in schools in any official capacity, she merely said that debate is healthy and that a discussion about Creationism and Evolution is a good thing. Yet these points are being used to paint her as a right-wing extremist. And her worst sin of all - she has said hypothetically she would not support her own daughters decision to abort a baby even in the event rape or incest. But she did not make a move on Roe v Wade in Alaska despite her personal antipathy toward abortion.

Every similar attack on Obama from the FAR-RIGHT is met with derision from the media's punditry. Several best sellers (New York Times Bestsellers) critical of Barack Obama are not getting reviewed or the authors are not invited to be interviewed in the major media. But any book critical of Bush is reviewed and analyzed endlessly. Just wait for the first book on Palin - soon to be hot off the presses, I'm sure - and you won't be able to avoid the author.

Sarah Palin so far has shown she is not a cry baby. I hope she just knocks the socks off them in all her upcoming interviews, speeches and debates.

I will wait patiently for all the hard journalism on Barack Obama... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


CW

Game On

My friends, my fellow Americans, ladies and gentleman, red staters and blue staters, the stage is set for a pretty historic election. The first black (half black anyway) candidate versus a senior citizen war hero. Also, the first time in a long time their is neither a Bush nor a Clinton on the ticket. In fact the first time in a very long time their is neither an incumbent nor his vice president heir apparent on the ticket. Historic indeed.

I watched just a little of the RNC convention - after all it was in my home town. I watched even less of the DNC convention. The DNC acted like we are in the 8th year of the Great, Great Depression. It was just so depressing to watch. Not even the Messiah himself inspired me with litany after litany of how awful everything is. On the the other side it was attack, attack, attack. Not much to hang your hat on. Honestly John McCain got it about right when he told the nation that the Republicans went to Washington to change it but were instead changed by it. The Republicans wasted any good faith the people entrusted in them in 1994 and a again in 2000. The Democratic congress now in power is living up to expectations I may have had for them - which was nothing.

The next major events will be the debates. The great thing about the debates is the uncivil rhetoric is absent and we can get a sense of the person in an unscripted setting. I know McCain is comfortable in this setting, Biden will have to keep his answers from running on and spilling over but he should be OK too - the other 2 will show us their true colors. It should be good.

Now, you do realize that the 2012 campaign will fire up six seconds after the loser concedes. What fun it will be!



CW

Palin

I was pretty impressed.

For one, considering the unbelievable amount of pressure she must have been under she really performed well. She had some really memorable lines... "by the way, you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? The lipstick!" C'mon that was good and you know it.

She was the pit bull last night. The VP's job during the campaign is to go on the attack so that the candidate can be more statesmen-like. Well, she certainly did her job. Personally I do hope that McCain can focus more on the positive and less on the attacks and negative swipes at the Dems.

In Denver Mr. Obama was certainly critical of McCain and by proxy Bush. He did then offer his solution: Change. Change to what? Well, higher taxes and creeping socialism. But no change in their stance on drilling for oil or their stance on pie in the sky reliance on "alternatives". Their idea of change is really a return to progressive ideas of the 60's that have been tried and found lacking.

McCain and Palin do represent change. Change to the Republican party. The party is a mess and is just as corrupt as the Dems. Gov. Palin actually has a lot to add to her credit on reform within the Alaskan republican machine which held the state in its grips the way the Dems hold Chicago under their thumb. Specifically she blew the whistle on corruption with the state government (in her own party). She took on the entrenched network of good 'ol boys and won.

Doing a little research on Gov. Palin actually leaves one more impressed than just hearing her deliver a rousing speech. She has done things that have been good for Alaska. She is tough and accomplished - and is quite popular in her home state.

Natives of Alaska have dreamed of a pipeline stretching for 1,715 miles from the Prudhoe Bay treatment plant to Alberta Canada for more than 30 years. Sarah Palin in less than two years got the bill passed and the framework is now laid for them to move forward with the project.

She signed Order 242 which puts together a co-op of the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Revenue to work with organizations who wish to commercialize Alaska's North Slope natural gas.

"This solidifies our commitment to facilitating an LNG project that is a product of market interest,” Governor Palin said. “By committing both project capital and natural gas resources to a pipeline that would transport North Slope natural gas to tidewater, an LNG project can remain an integral element of the state’s effort to deliver Alaska’s gas to market"

Obviously energy production is the lifeblood of the Alaskan economy. This is energy that America needs. Since all Alaskans are by law owners of the mineral rights under Alaskan soil it only makes sense that the governor work toward securing and enhancing the states interest in energy developments. She was involved in renegociating with the oil companies that hold the leases on oil and natural gas resources to aquire a better deal for the stae and its residents. Some can call it a windfall profits tax - but that would be a stretch. All government entities negociate with private corporations for mineral rights, some just do it better than others. Everyone in Alaska benefits not just the government and the oil companies.

Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program that provides support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to provide oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure. During her first legislative session, Governor Palin’s administration passed two major pieces of legislation - an overhaul of the state’s ethics laws and a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline.

So, yes I am impressed.

Whether this McCain/Palin team wins in Nov. or not, Sarah Palin is someone to watch out for.





CW

Capital vs Labor

The battle of capital vs labor has been raging since the beginning of time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the advantage has almost always been with capital. The struggle between the West and the communist revolution was a major front in this "war". The utopian concepts of Marx, Engels and Lenin were never going to exalt labor over capital because labor has no power without capital's gears to propel the movement forward. Before modern mechanization and transportation there was perhaps a fragile balance between the two. Time marches on and fragile doesn't hold up well over time.


In modern times - post WWII - labor began losing ground rapidly starting in the 70's and 80's. People can cite President Reagan's firing of the Air Traffic Controllers as the defining moment, but the mass exodus of labor intensive jobs began accelerating in the 70's.

Steel mills, mining operations, auto manufacturing and hundreds of other heavy industries began feeling the pressure of foreign competition in the 70's. Politically there was a deliberate shift in the Reagan years toward capital over labor with the concept of trickle-down and supply side economics. The adage "a rising tide lifts all boats" was the mantra for those on the side of capital.

Concurrently there was the rise of Japan and new management/labor relations techniques taking root in the U.S. that disfavored acrimonious union vs management attitudes. When Japanese manufacturers set up shop in America they almost always located in what were called right to work states where labor unions were not always welcome. As the manufacturing-based society gave way to the service/information-based society American workers saw less and less advantage in collective bargaining and union brotherhood.

This is the way it went for the next 20 years. In the 90's communism as a economic model died with a whimper and global capitalism was the clear victor. After any "battle" there is chaos on the ground - and so here we are...

Currently the number of American workers that are unionized is a tiny fraction of what it once was. Only government serving labor unions are growing. The question is one of balance. Where has the decline of labor union power led us? Does balance need to be restored?

There are those that argue that real wages and buying power for the average "worker" in the United States has stagnated or declined since the 80's. Personally I find it hard to make that case when one sees the wealth and material possessions of the average Joe in 2008. Real poverty rates have held steady in the U.S. since the 60's when President Johnson launched a massive wealth transfer scheme called the Great Society. Trillions spent on reducing poverty only succeeded in concentrating it in urban America. Who is to say it wouldn't have happened that way regardless, but the flight of wealth to the suburbs makes it hard to point to labor's decline a devastating factor.

If using poverty as a measuring stick for the impact of capital over labor is valid - and the United States is largely unchanged despite the massive upheaval of labor, then we need to turn to world poverty as a arbiter.

New estimates of the extent of the developing world's progress against poverty are interesting. Using the frugal $1 a day standard, we find that there were 1.1 billion poor in 2001 - almost 400 million fewer than 20 years earlier. Over the same time period, the number of poor declined by more than 400 million in China. The number of poor outside China rose slightly over the period primarily due to declining conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. A marked bunching up of people between $1 and $2 a day has also emerged. If these trends continue, then the aggregate $1 a day poverty rate for 1990 will be halved by 2015, though only East and South Asia will reach this goal.

Surely it is almost impossible for us to imagine living on $365 a year, but the point is that global poverty is declining. As the modern world accelerates into the third world (provided Africa stabilizes politically) poverty could be in permanent decline. Would this be due to the decline of labor's power in the West? Good question. Capital is flooding into countries with large labor pools and these are the very countries seeing the greatest reductions in such devastating poverty.

The exploited masses in this "new" labor force will have to battle it's way to the same place American labor did. As the labor force attains a certain affluence higher wages and better conditions will be demanded just like they did in the West. When labor becomes too expensive capital will move, just like it did in the West - and poverty will continue to decline, right?



CW

Platitudes and Attitudes

NOTE to readers: I am going to repost a New York Times op-ed because 1.) it's priceless 2.) it may disappear when angry Obamakins complain(whine). What follows is a hoot. I didn't know David Brooks had it in him. Has he stolen Mark Steyn's mojo?

____________________________________

A Speech to the Delegates

By DAVID BROOKS

My fellow Americans, it is an honor to address the Democratic National Convention at this defining moment in history. We stand at a crossroads at a pivot point, near a fork in the road on the edge of a precipice in the midst of the most consequential election since last year’s “American Idol.”

One path before us leads to the past, and the extinction of the human race. The other path leads to the future, when we will all be dead. We must choose wisely.

We must close the book on the bleeding wounds of the old politics of division and sail our ship up a mountain of hope and plant our flag on the sunrise of a thousand tomorrows with an American promise that will never die! For this election isn’t about the past or the present, or even the pluperfect conditional. It’s about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.

We meet today to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans, a generation that came of age amidst iced chais and mocha strawberry Frappuccinos®, a generation with a historical memory that doesn’t extend back past Coke Zero.

We meet today to heal the divisions that have torn this country. For we are all one country and one American family, whether we are caring and thoughtful Democrats or hate-filled and war-crazed Republicans. We must bring together left and right, marinara and carbonara, John and Elizabeth Edwards. On United we stand, on US Airways, there’s a 25-minute delay.

Ladies and gentleman, I never expected to be speaking before you today. Like so many of our speakers at this convention, I come from a hard-working, middle-class family. I was leading a miserable little life, but, nevertheless, overcame great odds to live the American Dream. My great-grandfather fought in Patton’s Army, along with Barack Obama’s great-grand uncles’ fourth cousin once removed.

As a child, I was abandoned by my parents and lived with a colony of ants. We didn’t have much in the way of material possession, but we did have each other and the ability to carry far more than our own body weights. When I was young, I was temporarily paralyzed in a horrible anteater accident, but I never gave up my dream: the dream of speaking at a national political convention so my speech could be talked over by Wolf Blitzer and a gang of pundits.

And today we Democrats meet in Denver, a suburb of Boulder, a city whose motto is, “A Taxi? You Must be Dreaming.”

And in Denver, we Democrats showed America that we have cute daughters who will someday provide us with prestigious car-window stickers. We heard Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “the weak-looking thin guy who’s bound to lose.”

We heard from Joe Biden, whose 643 years in the Senate make him uniquely qualified to talk to the middle class, whose family has been riding the Acela and before that the Metroliner for generations, who has been given a lifetime ban from the quiet car and who is himself a verbal train wreck waiting to happen.

We got to know Barack and Michelle Obama, two tall, thin, rich, beautiful people who don’t perspire, but who nonetheless feel compassion for their squatter and smellier fellow citizens. We know that Barack could have gone to a prestigious law firm, like his big donors in the luxury boxes, but he chose to put his ego aside to become a professional politician, president of the United States and redeemer of the human race. We heard about his time as a community organizer, the three most fulfilling months of his life.

We were thrilled by his speech in front of the Greek columns, which were conscientiously recycled from the concert, “Yanni, Live at the Acropolis.” We were honored by his pledge, that if elected president, he will serve at least four months before running for higher office. We were moved by his campaign slogan, “Vote Obama: He’s better than you’ll ever be.” We were inspired by dozens of Democratic senators who declared their lifelong love of John McCain before denouncing him as a reactionary opportunist who would destroy the country.

No, this country cannot afford to elect John Bushmccain. Under Republican rule, locusts have stripped the land, adults wear crocs in public and M&M’s have lost their flavor. We must instead ride to the uplands of hope!

For as Barack Obama suggested Thursday night, wherever there is a president who needs to tap our natural-gas reserves, I’ll be there. Wherever there is a need for a capital-gains readjustment for targeted small businesses, I’ll be there. Wherever there is a president committed to direct diplomacy with nuclear proliferators, I’ll be there, too! God bless the Democrats, and God Bless America!

The History of W

Blinded by BDS we can't see straight... But one day we will

With the perpetual race for the White House building up to its crescendo as we speak it's nearly impossible to properly assess the current occupant's legacy. In fact it may take 30- 50 years before the book will be closed on George W. Bush.

Historian John Lewis takes the long view and wonders if we can be fair to the Bush presidency's historical significance without the filter of time. Read his article "Ending Tyranny" before you close the door on a consequential but flawed presidency- you may have a change of heart toward our 43rd president.

Without a doubt this Bush presidency was consequential. The same can't be said for all presidents. Looking back through the post WWII administrations few have been notably consequential in the long run.

Truman, without question had a profound and deeply misunderstood effect on the world. At the time he was very unpopular - with popularity numbers below GWB's. His was the administration that formed the doctrine that grew up to be known as the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine was the right thing to do and yet at the time hardly anyone was thrilled about it. Truman was held in much higher esteem in the subsequent 40 years, and rightly so.

Eisenhower presided over a period of general calm - the world was weary after a decade of war. The thought of Ike illicits little emotion one way or the other.

Kennedy, unfortunately, didn't reign long enough to have left much more than an emotional legacy. He recovered from mistakes his arrogance and inexperience led him into, but an assassins bullet preempted him from "changing" the world.

Johnson, well now, he had a profound and lasting effect alright... Vietnam and the Great Society. Johnson's administration was quite consequential, but in a very, very damaging way. The legacy of the Great Society still haunts us today. The decay and rot in our inner-cities is due in large part to Great Society policies. The stain of Vietnam has faded, but it is still an open sore in many quarters today.

Nixon: consequential in that he hurt the Republican party immensely. His policies and actions didn't change the country fundamentally. He will be a sorry figure in presidential history.

Ford.

Carter was a result of Nixon. He was a disaster. Even the things that he did that were positive - like beginning deregulation, nominating Volker for the Federal Reserve - didn't seem to make an impression. He has spent the years since leaving office soiling his country and its leaders in foreign lands - oh, and building little houses.

Reagan was a result of Carter. Even though his time in office ended 20 years ago his impact on the country and the world can be assessed. Many critics still see him as a bumbling fool, scripted but otherwise disengaged. This was not true. Years after his presidency ended and his office was being closed down many hundreds of pages of his personal hand written papers and (radio) essays came into the light. He was a deep thinker who formed his own policies without a round table of consultants. He, without question, helped bring a resolution to the Cold War in America's favor. To this day his vision and belief system is cited by the new leaders of the nation-states that had been under Soviet dominance. Domestically he set in motion policies that led to a prolonged economic expansion that still lingers today. Reagan, if he did nothing else, made Americans feel good about their country and that was no small feat after 4 years of Carter telling us our best years were behind us.

Bush 41. He was an able administrator, but if you look up the word inconsequential in the dictionary his picture would be there.

Clinton also presided during time of relative calm as the Cold War wound down. It is far too early to fully assess his administration. Was his a consequential presidency? Hard to say of man who had no real over arching vision or strongly held belief system. He was and is a narcissist. The economy benefited from a so-called peace dividend and a technology boom - particularly in the run up up to Y2K. On the foreign front he let Carter drum up a bad deal with North Korea - when Carter had no right. He didn't react anywhere near boldly enough to the rise of violent terrorism. He allowed technology and financial deals to flow into Communist Chinese hands that may in time become profoundly dangerous to American interests and the American economy. It's just too early to tell about Clinton...

Then there is Bush 43. If nothing else he is a brave man. He took action, decisive action after 9/11 and has paid dearly for daring to engage an enemy that had smacked around the West with impunity for 2 decades.

It would be pointless for me to go into a long contentious prattle about Bush. In many ways his presidency is a failure. His biggest failure was his inability to communicate. The bully pulpit is a president's most important tool. But only time will tell if his biggest, boldest and most controversial act - the elimination of Saddam Hussein's barbarous government in Iraq - will be a positive for the Middle East and the world. I think it will be.

al Qaeda is severely impaired, decimated really, and due to its actions in post-Saddam Iraq has lost favor in much of the Muslim world. Bush can take pride in the rightouness of that.



CW