The House passed the massive economic "stimulus" package by a party line vote. Congratulations to the President and Speaker for getting their package passed and congratulations to the Republicans for finding their spine again.
Not a single Republican voted for the package. Good. The only thing this package seems designed to stimulate is the printing presses at the national mint. Money for contraceptives, money for sod for the National Mall, money for the "arts". This bill became a giant liberal Christmas stocking. Credit the President for trying to knock a few things out of it, but condemn the Speaker of the House for allowing her caucus to turn this into good old fashioned pork barrel spending.
When the bill comes back from the Senate it will look a little better, but Republicans should still vote against it. This bill represents the philosophical divide between the parties: who is better positioned to improve people's lives and the economy, the people or the government? Speaker Pelosi and the President clearly feel it is the government. Republicans may have actually remembered that it is the people.
The national media is lamenting the lack of bipartisanship on the part of the Republicans. Yes, the President went to Capitol Hill and sat with House Republicans to discuss it. He gets credit for reaching out, but bipartisanship does not have to mean selling out.
Republicans risked being co opted by this bill. As we learned from Medicare prescription drugs, when Republicans support big government programs that are only a little less big than what the Democrats want, the distinction between the parties ceases to exist. In the public's mind, if both parties are promising the goodies, why not go with the party that promises more?
So on the stimulus the Republicans finally drew the line on spending. Where were they when $700 billion was appropriated for the banks and Wall Street? Fair question. The Republican Party still has a lot of work to do to get its mojo back as the anti big government, anti drunken sailor spending party, but yesterday's House vote was a first step.
Bipartisanship can exist without a compromise of principles. The President and House Republicans sat down together in a respectful way. Some have whined because the President said "I won" when confronted with Republican opposition. You know what? He did. At this point he does not have to compromise his principles for Republican votes and Republicans should not compromise theirs just to be on the side of a new President. The Democrats won. This stimulus is their baby.
In this debate however, we may have sown the seeds of the revival of the Republican Party. As people start to see where all of this spending is going and how little of it is going to make a difference in their lives, their is going to be a backlash. If the economy does not pick up and pick up fast, then the President is going to be held accountable. House Republicans were right to stay away.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The First Days
It does not mean I am voting for him in 2012, but I have been impressed. The new President appears decisive and determined. I do not necessarily agree with what he is doing (I have real concerns about his rolling back some of the anti terror policies), but he said what he would do and he is doing it.
I think the greatest threat to President Obama's success is not going to be from the opposition, but from his friends. He takes office leading a very angry party. The Democrats have been in a high state of agitation since the Supreme Court ended the Florida recount in 2000. In addition, the Clinton years were not exactly a boon for the far left.
Obama started this journey as the candidate of the far left of the Democratic Party. The left is invested in him. They are getting some of the things they want: closing Guantanamo Bay, reversal of don't ask, don't tell, repeal of the ban on federal funds for abortion.
But Obama, between Election Day and now has moved towards the middle. On terror, I think those intelligence briefings get a whole lot scarier when you become President elect and then President. On the economy, talking about tax increases "for the rich" makes the left's hearts pound with excitement, but who creates the jobs? Obama, to his credit, seems to have recognized that.
But Speaker Pelosi agitates for tax increases. John Conyers wants to conduct war crimes trials at the Judiciary Committee. The Patriot Act must be repealed, the troops must come home, No Child Left Behind must be left behind. Unions want you to declare openly (and no doubt in front of some really rough looking dudes) that you do not want to be a member. The left is a monster hungry to be fed.
With friends like these, he might schedule more dinners at George Will's house.
The President now must walk that delicate balance between the people that feel they put him there and the rest of America. I give him good marks so far, but the beast will roar again.
Yet, it was a small thing more than anything that impressed me here in the first few days. Yesterday Vice President Biden (oh are we going to have fun with him over the next few years) took a cheap shot at the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. While some in the room laughed, it was clear the President was not amused, did not crack a smile, and he seemed to give Biden that grab on the arm that we have all given or gotten from our spouses when it is time to shut up. The President showed real class.
I always felt George W. Bush wanted to be President to do something rather than just to be something and I liked that. In these first days I have come to feel that way about President Obama. I may not agree with everything he is going to do, but I respect that he is trying to do it.
I think the greatest threat to President Obama's success is not going to be from the opposition, but from his friends. He takes office leading a very angry party. The Democrats have been in a high state of agitation since the Supreme Court ended the Florida recount in 2000. In addition, the Clinton years were not exactly a boon for the far left.
Obama started this journey as the candidate of the far left of the Democratic Party. The left is invested in him. They are getting some of the things they want: closing Guantanamo Bay, reversal of don't ask, don't tell, repeal of the ban on federal funds for abortion.
But Obama, between Election Day and now has moved towards the middle. On terror, I think those intelligence briefings get a whole lot scarier when you become President elect and then President. On the economy, talking about tax increases "for the rich" makes the left's hearts pound with excitement, but who creates the jobs? Obama, to his credit, seems to have recognized that.
But Speaker Pelosi agitates for tax increases. John Conyers wants to conduct war crimes trials at the Judiciary Committee. The Patriot Act must be repealed, the troops must come home, No Child Left Behind must be left behind. Unions want you to declare openly (and no doubt in front of some really rough looking dudes) that you do not want to be a member. The left is a monster hungry to be fed.
With friends like these, he might schedule more dinners at George Will's house.
The President now must walk that delicate balance between the people that feel they put him there and the rest of America. I give him good marks so far, but the beast will roar again.
Yet, it was a small thing more than anything that impressed me here in the first few days. Yesterday Vice President Biden (oh are we going to have fun with him over the next few years) took a cheap shot at the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. While some in the room laughed, it was clear the President was not amused, did not crack a smile, and he seemed to give Biden that grab on the arm that we have all given or gotten from our spouses when it is time to shut up. The President showed real class.
I always felt George W. Bush wanted to be President to do something rather than just to be something and I liked that. In these first days I have come to feel that way about President Obama. I may not agree with everything he is going to do, but I respect that he is trying to do it.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The American President
The American President is a unique feature in representative democracies. Elected by the people, yet endowed with incredible power. The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid a monarchy, yet built a home ("castle") for the President. We have a legislative and judicial branch, but the President is the face of the nation at home and abroad.
As citizens we expect Presidents to solve problems they did not cause and control events that they have no control over. Over the weekend I saw a comment that George W. Bush caused the drowning of an American city (New Orleans). I thought a hurricane did that, but maybe I underestimate the power of the presidency.
Presidents do possess the power to unleash the total destruction of mankind. A military aide follows him around with the nuclear weapons codes to do just that.
Presidents comfort us in times of tragedy. Who can forget Ronald Reagan's speech on the night of the Challenger disaster?
Presidents can make us laugh: John F. Kennedy was known for his wit as well as his eloquence.
Presidents can embarrass us (sorry Bill, but the Monica thing really was embarrassing).
We expect much of the President, often too much. Democrats are always seeking the next FDR or JFK. Republicans have entered into a perpetual search for the next Reagan. Many thought the plain speaking Governor of Texas had more in common with Reagan than his father, but that did not work out. Many thought Bill Clinton had the JFK youth and charisma, but he turned out to be more good ole boy and less statesman.
Some are already measuring the rock on Mount Rushmore for Barack Obama. Others keep hearing the words "Jimmy Carter" every time they see him. For some, expectations are clearly too high for this new President. For others, he is somehow already a failure. Only time and history will tell.
Presidents take office with an agenda, but events shape their administration. It is how they respond to these events that determines their place in history. Washington established a nation and the presidency as an institution. Lincoln refused to allow the nation to divide between right and wrong. Roosevelt would not allow the world to become divided between good and evil. Reagan moved beyond "mutually assured destruction" to winning the cold war. History treats all of them well.
Yet Buchanan could not stop the secession of southern states. Hoover appeared impotent in the face of the market crash. Nixon let his demons get the best of him and Carter was held hostage by a small group of Iranian radicals.
All of these Presidents had their opportunity when the events landed on their desk. It was not their agenda, but it was the fate of their presidency and the key to their place in history.
We will ultimately judge Barack Obama not by whether he the Dow Jones rises back up over 10,000 or more jobs are created. We will judge him by how he responds to unanticipated events. With an office so powerful, he will have little control over what happens. He will have all the control over how he responds.
The American President is so powerful, yet in many ways powerless. We know the 44th takes office on Tuesday, what we don't know is what will determine his place in history.
As citizens we expect Presidents to solve problems they did not cause and control events that they have no control over. Over the weekend I saw a comment that George W. Bush caused the drowning of an American city (New Orleans). I thought a hurricane did that, but maybe I underestimate the power of the presidency.
Presidents do possess the power to unleash the total destruction of mankind. A military aide follows him around with the nuclear weapons codes to do just that.
Presidents comfort us in times of tragedy. Who can forget Ronald Reagan's speech on the night of the Challenger disaster?
Presidents can make us laugh: John F. Kennedy was known for his wit as well as his eloquence.
Presidents can embarrass us (sorry Bill, but the Monica thing really was embarrassing).
We expect much of the President, often too much. Democrats are always seeking the next FDR or JFK. Republicans have entered into a perpetual search for the next Reagan. Many thought the plain speaking Governor of Texas had more in common with Reagan than his father, but that did not work out. Many thought Bill Clinton had the JFK youth and charisma, but he turned out to be more good ole boy and less statesman.
Some are already measuring the rock on Mount Rushmore for Barack Obama. Others keep hearing the words "Jimmy Carter" every time they see him. For some, expectations are clearly too high for this new President. For others, he is somehow already a failure. Only time and history will tell.
Presidents take office with an agenda, but events shape their administration. It is how they respond to these events that determines their place in history. Washington established a nation and the presidency as an institution. Lincoln refused to allow the nation to divide between right and wrong. Roosevelt would not allow the world to become divided between good and evil. Reagan moved beyond "mutually assured destruction" to winning the cold war. History treats all of them well.
Yet Buchanan could not stop the secession of southern states. Hoover appeared impotent in the face of the market crash. Nixon let his demons get the best of him and Carter was held hostage by a small group of Iranian radicals.
All of these Presidents had their opportunity when the events landed on their desk. It was not their agenda, but it was the fate of their presidency and the key to their place in history.
We will ultimately judge Barack Obama not by whether he the Dow Jones rises back up over 10,000 or more jobs are created. We will judge him by how he responds to unanticipated events. With an office so powerful, he will have little control over what happens. He will have all the control over how he responds.
The American President is so powerful, yet in many ways powerless. We know the 44th takes office on Tuesday, what we don't know is what will determine his place in history.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Transition
The 44th President takes office in 3 days. That's roughly 72 hours for those suffering from Bush derangement syndrome.
I have to say I have been impressed with the President elect's transition. There have been a couple of stumbles along the way. First, I was shocked (shocked!) to see that Democrats also avoid paying their taxes. When the Secretary of the Treasury (remember the Steve Martin comedy bit "I forgot"?) and the Vice President ("time to get patriotic" and pay more taxes) sit down for a chat it should be interesting.
Second, another Cabinet member to be fell prey to those pesky little federal investigations of his gubernatorial administration. He may ultimately be cleared, but generally that is the type of thing you mention to your potential boss before accepting the position.
Now the good. While I realize the name "Hilary Clinton" causes a derangement syndrome amongst some on the right, I think she was a brilliant choice for Secretary of State. She brings a stature to the office. All to often in recent years Presidents have tried to appoint lesser lights to this job in order to make the President the focal point on the world stage. They were capable people, but clearly designed to play a secondary role.
Hillary will not play a secondary role. What Bill will spend the next four years doing is the subject of another post, but Hillary will be a forceful voice for the United States. She is the type of Democrat who understands that occasionally we have to use force to protect our interests and she will not waive the use of force in any of her diplomatic negotiations. In the primaries she impressed me by stating in no uncertain terms that the U.S. would respond strongly and militarily to an Iranian attack on Israel. The President elect had a little more difficulty with that question. I give the President elect credit for appointing someone with as much stature, if not more in some circles, than him.
The economic team appears to be a responsible group. While they have jumped on board the massive spending train, I cannot fault them too much for that as the Bush Administration started us down the track. The Treasury Secretary designate may not have paid a few taxes, but most of us can sympathize with trying to reduce their tax burden. The incoming team seems to have moved away from this "spread the wealth" idea they advocated in the campaign to a "create some wealth" model of governing.
On January 20th however, it all becomes real for the Obama Administration. The campaign is over, the transition done. While the appointments seem to have been sound, they have spent a lot of time "talking down" the economy. Instead of trying to increase confidence, they seem to be focused on lowering expectations. That's politics, but it is not what the country needs. I hope the new President, once the keys to the White House are turned over, will change the tone. We know things are not good, now convince us they are going to get better.
I have to say I have been impressed with the President elect's transition. There have been a couple of stumbles along the way. First, I was shocked (shocked!) to see that Democrats also avoid paying their taxes. When the Secretary of the Treasury (remember the Steve Martin comedy bit "I forgot"?) and the Vice President ("time to get patriotic" and pay more taxes) sit down for a chat it should be interesting.
Second, another Cabinet member to be fell prey to those pesky little federal investigations of his gubernatorial administration. He may ultimately be cleared, but generally that is the type of thing you mention to your potential boss before accepting the position.
Now the good. While I realize the name "Hilary Clinton" causes a derangement syndrome amongst some on the right, I think she was a brilliant choice for Secretary of State. She brings a stature to the office. All to often in recent years Presidents have tried to appoint lesser lights to this job in order to make the President the focal point on the world stage. They were capable people, but clearly designed to play a secondary role.
Hillary will not play a secondary role. What Bill will spend the next four years doing is the subject of another post, but Hillary will be a forceful voice for the United States. She is the type of Democrat who understands that occasionally we have to use force to protect our interests and she will not waive the use of force in any of her diplomatic negotiations. In the primaries she impressed me by stating in no uncertain terms that the U.S. would respond strongly and militarily to an Iranian attack on Israel. The President elect had a little more difficulty with that question. I give the President elect credit for appointing someone with as much stature, if not more in some circles, than him.
The economic team appears to be a responsible group. While they have jumped on board the massive spending train, I cannot fault them too much for that as the Bush Administration started us down the track. The Treasury Secretary designate may not have paid a few taxes, but most of us can sympathize with trying to reduce their tax burden. The incoming team seems to have moved away from this "spread the wealth" idea they advocated in the campaign to a "create some wealth" model of governing.
On January 20th however, it all becomes real for the Obama Administration. The campaign is over, the transition done. While the appointments seem to have been sound, they have spent a lot of time "talking down" the economy. Instead of trying to increase confidence, they seem to be focused on lowering expectations. That's politics, but it is not what the country needs. I hope the new President, once the keys to the White House are turned over, will change the tone. We know things are not good, now convince us they are going to get better.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Hall of Fame
Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were voted into the Hall of Fame this week. I have no problem with Rickey, but I do not think Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer.
Jice Rice was a nice player for the Boston Red Sox. He took over in left field for Carl Yaztremski who followed Ted Williams, so he was in the line of succession with two Hall of Famers. He had a good career. Lifetime average just under .300, 382 home runs. He was a nice player.
But a Hall of Famer? Good players do not get into the Hall of Fame, great ones do. What made Jim Rice great? Fred Lynn had several good years on those Boston teams and I don't see him anywhere near the Hall of Fame. When they both broke in, Lynn won the MVP and Rookie of the Year. Fred Lynn had a nice career.
I am not sure what it was in the voters minds that made Rice a Hall of Famer. From that era I think a stronger case can be made for a player such as Steve Garvey. Garvey was a multiple All Star, 1974 MVP, Gold Glove first baseman and set the National league record for consecutive games. He played in more Word Series than Jim Rice. All that said, I agree that Garvey is on the line, but to me he is much closer than Jim Rice.
Rice may have benefited from a campaign on his behalf and the recent emergence of the Red Sox as America's darlings.
As to Rickey Henderson, if only to hear the speech he will give, he deserves induction into Cooperstown. Will he hold up the plaque and declare himself "the greatest" as he did on breaking the stolen base record? Will he announce that he is not yet through playing and that the Oakland A's have signed him again? Will he reveal that he still has not deposited a paycheck from one of his teams as he is waiting for the interest rate to go up? I am almost certain he will speak of himself in the third person.
Henderson was also a great player. He combined speed and power in a way rarely seen. Back when 25 home runs meant something, he could do it. He would also steal 70-80 bases and had the incredible 130 one season. When they talk about records that will not be broken, 130 steals in a single season is right up there. No doubt about it, Rickey belongs in the Hall for his performance on the field, the speech is just an added bonus.
My personal favorite, Bert Blyleven, missed again. He is the best pitcher not in the Hall. Take a look at baseball's records for pitchers and see how many times he shows up in the top ten or even top five. He won 280 plus games on bad teams. He belongs in the Hall.
Tommy John missed and drops off the ballot. I have mixed emotions. He certainly has numbers in terms of wins (288). Much of that was accumulated over a 20 plus year career without dominant seasons and Cy Young awards. His impact on baseball is really medical. The surgery, which bears his name, has prolonged the careers of countless pitchers. A torn tendon was once a death sentence to a career, but now Tommy John surgery allows the career to go on. For his impact on baseball, perhaps the Veteran's Committee should look at Tommy John in the future.
But for now, we get Rice and Rickey. I can't wait for Rickey's speech.
Jice Rice was a nice player for the Boston Red Sox. He took over in left field for Carl Yaztremski who followed Ted Williams, so he was in the line of succession with two Hall of Famers. He had a good career. Lifetime average just under .300, 382 home runs. He was a nice player.
But a Hall of Famer? Good players do not get into the Hall of Fame, great ones do. What made Jim Rice great? Fred Lynn had several good years on those Boston teams and I don't see him anywhere near the Hall of Fame. When they both broke in, Lynn won the MVP and Rookie of the Year. Fred Lynn had a nice career.
I am not sure what it was in the voters minds that made Rice a Hall of Famer. From that era I think a stronger case can be made for a player such as Steve Garvey. Garvey was a multiple All Star, 1974 MVP, Gold Glove first baseman and set the National league record for consecutive games. He played in more Word Series than Jim Rice. All that said, I agree that Garvey is on the line, but to me he is much closer than Jim Rice.
Rice may have benefited from a campaign on his behalf and the recent emergence of the Red Sox as America's darlings.
As to Rickey Henderson, if only to hear the speech he will give, he deserves induction into Cooperstown. Will he hold up the plaque and declare himself "the greatest" as he did on breaking the stolen base record? Will he announce that he is not yet through playing and that the Oakland A's have signed him again? Will he reveal that he still has not deposited a paycheck from one of his teams as he is waiting for the interest rate to go up? I am almost certain he will speak of himself in the third person.
Henderson was also a great player. He combined speed and power in a way rarely seen. Back when 25 home runs meant something, he could do it. He would also steal 70-80 bases and had the incredible 130 one season. When they talk about records that will not be broken, 130 steals in a single season is right up there. No doubt about it, Rickey belongs in the Hall for his performance on the field, the speech is just an added bonus.
My personal favorite, Bert Blyleven, missed again. He is the best pitcher not in the Hall. Take a look at baseball's records for pitchers and see how many times he shows up in the top ten or even top five. He won 280 plus games on bad teams. He belongs in the Hall.
Tommy John missed and drops off the ballot. I have mixed emotions. He certainly has numbers in terms of wins (288). Much of that was accumulated over a 20 plus year career without dominant seasons and Cy Young awards. His impact on baseball is really medical. The surgery, which bears his name, has prolonged the careers of countless pitchers. A torn tendon was once a death sentence to a career, but now Tommy John surgery allows the career to go on. For his impact on baseball, perhaps the Veteran's Committee should look at Tommy John in the future.
But for now, we get Rice and Rickey. I can't wait for Rickey's speech.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Speaking of people looking for a job...
Speaking of people trying to find jobs, Manny Ramirez is still looking. I consider it highly unlikely he will end up in the U.S. Senate, but it is not clear where he will work in 2009.
Manny seems to have gotten caught up in the implications of "Manny being Manny". We always tell our kids that your behavior has consequences and Manny seems to be learning that now. He had 2 years and $40 million left on his Red Sox contract and decided he was unhappy and forced a trade. The Red Sox agreed to pay the remainder of his salary to get him out of town. The Dodgers agreed to void the two years on the contract so Manny could become a free agent and pursue a $100 million plus contract. Manny energized the Dodgers, got them to the playoffs and it all seemed to be working perfectly.
Or did it? First, Manny clearly is still capable of putting up 35-40 home runs and 120 r.b.i.s a season, but he is 36 years old. Can he be expected to do that for five more years? Also, to say he is a little challenged defensively is being kind. Even in the honeymoon with the Dodgers, there were a couple of moments where we grimaced at his play in left field.
That aside, it still seems someone would want to take a chance especially after Manny's big second half in 2008. It seems to me however, that that second half proved every one's concerns about "Manny being Manny".
When he is happy with his situation, he plays well and is a good teammate. He was happy to have big money free agency pending and be out of Boston, so his time with the Dodgers was a happy one. But, and this is a big one, what will Manny do when he reports to spring training without the contract he was hoping for and quite possibly the same deal as he already had under his voided Red Sox contract? What will Manny "be" then?
He is now in a cycle of his own doing. Nobody wants to give him a long term deal and nobody wants to take the chance with his attitude and try and bring him in on a short term deal.
The Dodgers made and withdrew a two year $45 million offer. There are not many teams out there looking to pay one player more than $20 million a season. The Dodgers can. The Yankees could, but it seems as though they may have ended the madness after spending a quarter of a billion on three players. The Red Sox...never mind. The Giants, having had a year off from the Barry Bonds circus, are rumored to be pitching the tents again, but signing Manny would mean three players (Manny, Aaron Rowland and Barry Zito) eat up about 40% of the payroll.
The Angels seemed like a possible fit, but they like to run an orderly operation and Manny's free spiritedness does not seem to fit there. The general manager has already said no.
The best bet seems to be that Manny ends up back with the Dodgers. Maybe the Dodgers go ahead and guarantee a third year bringing the contract to $70-75 million. If that happens, then two months of good behavior was worth $30 million, not bad.
Otherwise, for now everyone is content to let Manny be Manny somewhere else.
Manny seems to have gotten caught up in the implications of "Manny being Manny". We always tell our kids that your behavior has consequences and Manny seems to be learning that now. He had 2 years and $40 million left on his Red Sox contract and decided he was unhappy and forced a trade. The Red Sox agreed to pay the remainder of his salary to get him out of town. The Dodgers agreed to void the two years on the contract so Manny could become a free agent and pursue a $100 million plus contract. Manny energized the Dodgers, got them to the playoffs and it all seemed to be working perfectly.
Or did it? First, Manny clearly is still capable of putting up 35-40 home runs and 120 r.b.i.s a season, but he is 36 years old. Can he be expected to do that for five more years? Also, to say he is a little challenged defensively is being kind. Even in the honeymoon with the Dodgers, there were a couple of moments where we grimaced at his play in left field.
That aside, it still seems someone would want to take a chance especially after Manny's big second half in 2008. It seems to me however, that that second half proved every one's concerns about "Manny being Manny".
When he is happy with his situation, he plays well and is a good teammate. He was happy to have big money free agency pending and be out of Boston, so his time with the Dodgers was a happy one. But, and this is a big one, what will Manny do when he reports to spring training without the contract he was hoping for and quite possibly the same deal as he already had under his voided Red Sox contract? What will Manny "be" then?
He is now in a cycle of his own doing. Nobody wants to give him a long term deal and nobody wants to take the chance with his attitude and try and bring him in on a short term deal.
The Dodgers made and withdrew a two year $45 million offer. There are not many teams out there looking to pay one player more than $20 million a season. The Dodgers can. The Yankees could, but it seems as though they may have ended the madness after spending a quarter of a billion on three players. The Red Sox...never mind. The Giants, having had a year off from the Barry Bonds circus, are rumored to be pitching the tents again, but signing Manny would mean three players (Manny, Aaron Rowland and Barry Zito) eat up about 40% of the payroll.
The Angels seemed like a possible fit, but they like to run an orderly operation and Manny's free spiritedness does not seem to fit there. The general manager has already said no.
The best bet seems to be that Manny ends up back with the Dodgers. Maybe the Dodgers go ahead and guarantee a third year bringing the contract to $70-75 million. If that happens, then two months of good behavior was worth $30 million, not bad.
Otherwise, for now everyone is content to let Manny be Manny somewhere else.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Three Wise...whatever
We just finished the holiday season and the arrival of the three kings. To some the holiday officially ends on this day, when they arrived in Bethlehem.
Today the U.S. Senate awaited the arrival of three people, although they will be showing up under less exalted circumstances.
My favorite Governor, Illinois' Rod Blagoyovich, sent his man to the Senate today. Unfortunately for Mr. Burris, his hall pass wasn't quite filled out properly. The Illinois Secretary of State seems to have forgotten how to sign his name just when it was needed to complete the appointment, therefore the officers of the Senate sent Mr. Burris packing. I think we have not heard the last of Mr. Burrris, and better yet the good Governor.
Minnesota did not have a Senator there today. Al Franken has now been declared the winner by 225 votes and, ironically, that was the exact number of listeners he had for his nationwide talk radio show on Air America. His opponent has filed a lawsuit, so it will be awhile before Minnesota has its Senator.
Finally New York. The princess of Camelot's train to Washington seems to have hit a rough patch. It seems that Senator-to-be Kennedy has missed voting in a few elections over the years. Instead of apologizing for her voting record she ought to use it to her advantage: "yeah, I didn't vote for the guy who got caught with hookers". I think listing the group of characters who were running in elections that she did not vote in for might enhance her appeal. We all have some votes we would like back, except apparently for Caroline. Very shrewd.
So the Senate awaits the arrival of the three wise... people?
Today the U.S. Senate awaited the arrival of three people, although they will be showing up under less exalted circumstances.
My favorite Governor, Illinois' Rod Blagoyovich, sent his man to the Senate today. Unfortunately for Mr. Burris, his hall pass wasn't quite filled out properly. The Illinois Secretary of State seems to have forgotten how to sign his name just when it was needed to complete the appointment, therefore the officers of the Senate sent Mr. Burris packing. I think we have not heard the last of Mr. Burrris, and better yet the good Governor.
Minnesota did not have a Senator there today. Al Franken has now been declared the winner by 225 votes and, ironically, that was the exact number of listeners he had for his nationwide talk radio show on Air America. His opponent has filed a lawsuit, so it will be awhile before Minnesota has its Senator.
Finally New York. The princess of Camelot's train to Washington seems to have hit a rough patch. It seems that Senator-to-be Kennedy has missed voting in a few elections over the years. Instead of apologizing for her voting record she ought to use it to her advantage: "yeah, I didn't vote for the guy who got caught with hookers". I think listing the group of characters who were running in elections that she did not vote in for might enhance her appeal. We all have some votes we would like back, except apparently for Caroline. Very shrewd.
So the Senate awaits the arrival of the three wise... people?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
and here comes '09
The New Year has arrived. It seems like only yesterday we were getting used to saying "two thousand" and now the decade is nearly done.
We will have to get used to a few new things in 2009. First and foremost is saying "President Obama". Yes, I promise I am going to try and say it and get used to it! Getting used to the name of a new President takes some work and we really have not had to do it since 1993. When Inauguration Day 2001 came around, we already had past experience with the phrase "President Bush", so it was not that new.
There will be a "new" Yankee Stadium adorned with a quarter of a billion dollars in new players. From what I read about ticket prices however, it will take a small inheritance to buy a seat.
Hear are a few things I would like to see and hear in 2009:
Politicians talking to us like adults about the financial situation that government at all levels finds itself in. Please acknowledge that all of the services that people seem to want are costly and that government may not be able to provide all of them (the debate as to whether government even should is for another post).
An admission that not everybody can afford a half a million dollar home on a five figure paycheck even with low interest rates and adjustable mortgages. Home ownership is a noble goal and ambition, but not everyone gets 3500 square feet and a four car garage.
Speaking of cars, can we finally admit that the American auto industry is simply not producing cars that people want to buy and no bailout is going to change that? Although it does not seem like there is much left of free market capitalism, you still need some demand before you produce the supply.
As to demand, can we finally admit that just because you want it does not mean you need it and debt financing it is not wise. Sure a plasma TV is pretty cool, but putting it on the credit card at 18% interest has devastating long term financial consequences. People need to be told that.
Can we acknowledge that people who share opposing viewpoints are not necessarily bad people? If you oppose gay marriage you are not necessarily a homophobe. If you oppose the congressional black caucus' legislative agenda, you are not necessarily a racist. If you oppose massive government spending on so called anti-poverty programs, you do not necessarily hate the poor or favor only the rich. Our politics has broken down in large part because of the demonization of the opposing side which results in an inability to have a rational discussion.
Can we finally agree that the whole Britney Spears thing has just gotten old? Album, public meltdown, comeback, meltdown.
I would like to see a year go by without Brad and Angelina adopting or having a child.
I don't want to see Al Franken in the U.S. Senate. His political views are part of it, but watch some old Saturday Night Live shows (especially the skits after midnight) and ask yourself if anyone affiliated with that belongs in the Senate. I am all for a funny Senator, but I don't think he makes the grade.
I do want to see more of Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyovich. Please, keep making appointments, fighting indictments, holding press conferences and generally reminding us how comical and broken politics can be, but that impeccable hair and good lawyers can keep you in office.
Finally, speaking of Illinois, in 2009 I want to see the Chicago Cubs be within an out of winning the Word Series when a pop foul is hit towards the box seats and as the Cub player settles under it Governor Blagoyovich reaches out from his box seat and interferes, causing the ball to drop, neatly tying together the two themes of this blog and you can figure out how the rest goes.
Happy New Year.
We will have to get used to a few new things in 2009. First and foremost is saying "President Obama". Yes, I promise I am going to try and say it and get used to it! Getting used to the name of a new President takes some work and we really have not had to do it since 1993. When Inauguration Day 2001 came around, we already had past experience with the phrase "President Bush", so it was not that new.
There will be a "new" Yankee Stadium adorned with a quarter of a billion dollars in new players. From what I read about ticket prices however, it will take a small inheritance to buy a seat.
Hear are a few things I would like to see and hear in 2009:
Politicians talking to us like adults about the financial situation that government at all levels finds itself in. Please acknowledge that all of the services that people seem to want are costly and that government may not be able to provide all of them (the debate as to whether government even should is for another post).
An admission that not everybody can afford a half a million dollar home on a five figure paycheck even with low interest rates and adjustable mortgages. Home ownership is a noble goal and ambition, but not everyone gets 3500 square feet and a four car garage.
Speaking of cars, can we finally admit that the American auto industry is simply not producing cars that people want to buy and no bailout is going to change that? Although it does not seem like there is much left of free market capitalism, you still need some demand before you produce the supply.
As to demand, can we finally admit that just because you want it does not mean you need it and debt financing it is not wise. Sure a plasma TV is pretty cool, but putting it on the credit card at 18% interest has devastating long term financial consequences. People need to be told that.
Can we acknowledge that people who share opposing viewpoints are not necessarily bad people? If you oppose gay marriage you are not necessarily a homophobe. If you oppose the congressional black caucus' legislative agenda, you are not necessarily a racist. If you oppose massive government spending on so called anti-poverty programs, you do not necessarily hate the poor or favor only the rich. Our politics has broken down in large part because of the demonization of the opposing side which results in an inability to have a rational discussion.
Can we finally agree that the whole Britney Spears thing has just gotten old? Album, public meltdown, comeback, meltdown.
I would like to see a year go by without Brad and Angelina adopting or having a child.
I don't want to see Al Franken in the U.S. Senate. His political views are part of it, but watch some old Saturday Night Live shows (especially the skits after midnight) and ask yourself if anyone affiliated with that belongs in the Senate. I am all for a funny Senator, but I don't think he makes the grade.
I do want to see more of Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyovich. Please, keep making appointments, fighting indictments, holding press conferences and generally reminding us how comical and broken politics can be, but that impeccable hair and good lawyers can keep you in office.
Finally, speaking of Illinois, in 2009 I want to see the Chicago Cubs be within an out of winning the Word Series when a pop foul is hit towards the box seats and as the Cub player settles under it Governor Blagoyovich reaches out from his box seat and interferes, causing the ball to drop, neatly tying together the two themes of this blog and you can figure out how the rest goes.
Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)