Now to the Bull Crap Series, errr, umm, Bowl Championship Series. Although its advocates will again argue otherwise, the BCS has yet again proven ineffective in yielding a true No. 1 vs. No. 2 match for the NCAA Division I football title.
Florida and Oklahoma ? Really? Seriously? These two teams are among the best and proved their worth in their recent conference championship games. But is this really the best pairing the system could come up with? In a year that saw Texas beat OU on a neutral site and, despite losing to Texas Tech ever so slightly in at a game’s end, Texas be at the mercy of a computer’s ever-so-narrow ranking margin? And Florida fell to Mississippi.
I’m not sure who the real top two teams are. You don’t, either. I’m very sure neither does a computer. As the quote goes, that’s why they play the game. On the playing surface. Like virtually every other sporting organization on earth. Even the Kazahkistani kick-goathead league has a playoff.Well, we won’t waste further time going into the minds of those myopically opposed to a NCAA Division I tournament of some kind. Even the “bowl games are a tradition” and “schools will lose money” and “you can’t make the student-athletes play that long or late into January” philosophies. None of those arguments work. Never did, never will.
So, what if a playoff system did exist for college football? You start with automatic champions from 11 conferences (regular-season champs and/or championship game victors). In this year’s case, those bids go to: Boston College (ACC), Oklahoma (Big 12), Cincinnati (Big East), Penn State (Big 10), East Carolina (Conference USA), Buffalo (Mid-American), Utah (Mountain West), USC (Pac-10), Florida (SEC), Troy (Sun Belt) and Boise State (WAC).
You could averaging (the rankings of the AP Top 25 and USA Today polls, emphasizing which schools get the most place votes. Those are arguably the strongest, long-standing, most popular and credible of Division I polls. You add the top independent team ranked high enough (overall in polls) for an FBS bid and/or four (or five) other highest-ranked schools (overall in polls). So this year these get an at-large bid: Texas, Alabama , Texas Tech, Ohio State and TCU.
The ultimate FBS tournament seedings in a 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14, vs. 3, etc. format would be:
1. Florida
2. Oklahoma
3. Texas
4. Alabama
5. USC
6. Penn State
7. Utah
8. Texas Tech
9. Boise State
10. Ohio State
11. TCU
12. Cincinnati
13. Boston College
14. East Carolina
15. Troy
16. Buffalo
Take into account the oldest, popular, most lucrative, traditional bowls and mix in some regional flair and considerate schedules. You can keep some of the best bowls. (I mean, really. The glut of bowls is ludacrous. More and more are added each year, some from inauspicious sponsors. Does anyone care to see the EagleBank Bowl? The what? Or the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl? Oooh, barnburner. Oh, we could so perpetuate the Poulan Weedeater FreeCreditReport.com Pomegranite Bowl joke.)
Rotate the remaining bowls as quarterfinal, semifinal and final games, all of which could retain and maybe even increase the number of ticket-buyers and TV viewers. One reason? There’s even greater incentive to play in such a bowl. Not just one bowl. But a series of true head-to-head games where all the conference champions (not just the typical, known powerhouses) and other top-ranked squads have a genuine (and fair) shot at an undisputed national title. Imagine that!
The younger, Decemberish bowls host quarterfinals on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday:
December 18
Buffalo v. Florida - Independence Bowl, Shreveport
Cincinnati v. USC - Insight Bowl, Tempe
December 19
Troy v. Oklahoma – Chick-Fil-A (Peach) Bowl, Atlanta
East Carolina v. Texas - Sun Bowl, El Paso
Dec. 20
Boston College v. Alabama – Gator Bowl, Jacksonville
Boise State v. Texas Tech - Alamo Bowl, San Antonio
Dec. 22
TCU v. Penn State – Liberty Bowl, Memphis
Ohio State v. Utah – Holiday Bowl, San Diego
Potential winners? Florida , USC, Oklahoma , Texas , Alabama , Boise State (sorry, Tech), Penn State and Utah (yep, you read right).
More bowls in Friday and Saturday semifinals (lowest v. highest-seeded winners):
Dec. 26
Boise State v. Florida – Capital One Bowl, Orlando
Penn State v. Texas – Cotton Bowl, Dallas
Dec. 27
Utah v. Oklahoma – Rose Bowl, Pasadena
USC v. Alabama – Outback Bowl, Tampa
Potential winners? Florida , Texas , USC, Oklahoma
Final Four of sorts/Friday, Jan. 2
USC v. Florida - Orange Bowl, Miami
Texas v. Oklahoma - Sugar Bowl, New Orleans
Potential winners? Florida, Texas (yes, I said Texas)
Championship game, Friday, Jan. 9
Texas v. Florida, Fiesta Bowl, Tempe
Yeah, it'd probably be Florida. But I guess we'll never really know.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tribune Trouble
Ah, how the mighty fall. Even in this cynical age, it’s unusual and unsettling to see industry giants to fall victim to the new recession. In Monday’s case it was the Tribune Company, which filed for bankruptcy. It’s $12 billion in debt.
It was intriguing when last year Sam Zell, a former successful radio and real estate investor, bought the long-standing company with reckless Mark Cubanesque zeal and took it private. But many observers immediately noted flaws in Zell’s business plan for the newspaper-heavy firm, which in recent years had diversified itself in an attempt to remain competitive in the new yet more pitfall-filled economy (namely acquisition of the Chicago Cubs).
Zell says the bankruptcy won’t affect operations at the Cubs or the newspapers or the relatively new employee ownership stock plan. Uh-huh. Ultimately, indeed it’s true. Newspaper-heavy companies must seek ways to diversify its portfolio and remain relevant in the eyes of their readers and advertisers. If that means finding unique ways to compete with burgeoning news websites, so be it.
The web, for the most part, is the future that partially is already here. A venue for people to access a variety of constantly updated information at a moment’s notice. It’s more than valuable and, for most people, easily accessible.
But one can never really replace the unique feeling – especially for those who can’t afford mobile technology – of having a newspaper, feeling a tangible piece of information, entertainment and history, right in the palm of your hands. So in the meantime folks, let's save those newspapers -- especially the one I'm working for!
It was intriguing when last year Sam Zell, a former successful radio and real estate investor, bought the long-standing company with reckless Mark Cubanesque zeal and took it private. But many observers immediately noted flaws in Zell’s business plan for the newspaper-heavy firm, which in recent years had diversified itself in an attempt to remain competitive in the new yet more pitfall-filled economy (namely acquisition of the Chicago Cubs).
Zell says the bankruptcy won’t affect operations at the Cubs or the newspapers or the relatively new employee ownership stock plan. Uh-huh. Ultimately, indeed it’s true. Newspaper-heavy companies must seek ways to diversify its portfolio and remain relevant in the eyes of their readers and advertisers. If that means finding unique ways to compete with burgeoning news websites, so be it.
The web, for the most part, is the future that partially is already here. A venue for people to access a variety of constantly updated information at a moment’s notice. It’s more than valuable and, for most people, easily accessible.
But one can never really replace the unique feeling – especially for those who can’t afford mobile technology – of having a newspaper, feeling a tangible piece of information, entertainment and history, right in the palm of your hands. So in the meantime folks, let's save those newspapers -- especially the one I'm working for!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Hints, Allegations and Things Left Unsaid
So many things about which to blog, such little time in which your attention spans exist. First off, it's been a hectic month. No doubt some of you have heard that my fellow Prime Time Newspaper editorialists and I have moved from our comfy confines in northeast San Antonio to downtown. To the Express-News building. Yes. There.
It was the choice of the E-N/Hearst, which couldn't pay $75,000 to install a new advertising/data entry/pagination system at our (now former) office. So off to downtown we went, where we now cope with paid parking, longer commutes and the idea that downtown of a city where I've lived all my life suddenly no longer appeals to me.
Despite the rigors of the first week where we're still getting used to our new digs and said new computer system, there are other things to look forward to. There's a chance to delve into an array of happy-hour spots in the downtown area. We'll have a little Thanksgiving potluck deal Wednesday. We do occasionally bump into cool friends already working for the Express-News. In any event, I strive to persevere.
Onward to - THE TRANSITION. Team Obama and Biden are changing things for sure! When you consider Clinton retreads as change! Okay, so far there no sexy, daring, outside-the-box picks have been made thus far when it comes to the cabinet and other key positions. As for my pick'em forecast, it's a mixed bag at this point. The speculation about Hillary being secretary of state is throwing many for a loop, but it's definitely the Clintonistas pushing for her to get some top spot, and not some paean position.
Eric Holder is one of my picks for attorney general. Yeah, he'll get some grief from Senate Repubs during the confirmation process. Well, heck, which nominee won't? Another two throwing me for a loop -- Janet Napolitano for homeland security and Tom Daschle for health and human services. No doubt, both individuals would serve good roles in Obama's administration. But I'm definitely not envisioning either person for the cabinet positions for which they seem to be nominees.
Penny Pritzker is taking herself out of consideration for a job, particularly secretary of commerce (there goes my pick). Alas, this may prove beneficial to Obama as Pritzker has business links to the most dastardly of industries -- subprime mortgage lending. And there's stronger speculation that Robert Gates may remain at The Pentagon for a while. If Obama wants to prove himself an agent of change, a direction from appointing Washington insiders, including Clintonites and Bushites, would be wise. If only someone can tell him and his advisers this through his www.change.gov website. Speaking of which, I need to submit a resume through there. I wouldn't mind battling 200,000 other applicants for a gig in Obama's D.C.
Onward to -- the attempted auto industry bailout. Perhaps the funniest thing I heard all week were executives from the big three U.S. automakers, rationalizing to Congress as to why they deserve a bailout: Their current financial crisis is NOT their fault. The execs say the crisis isn't due to their lacking a quality product or slow progress toward fuel-efficient vehicles or the current business model.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Oh the crisis is most definitely the fault of the automakers. It's not the fault of union workers and all their supposed benefits and salary gains over the decades. It's because they refused to acknowledge foreign automakers manufacturing (for the most part!) better quality (and smaller) vehicles. It's because they have been so reluctant to gradually move away from hydrocarbons at the end of fossil fuel era and towards fuel-efficient vehicles, which more and more people want in an uncertain economy where oil and gasoline prices could skyrocket once more at any moment. And it's because automakers -- led by executives touting bloated salary and perk packages and a serious disconnect from middle-class reality -- adamantly oppose public-sector solutions for employee health care and pension plans.
So, should we bail out our car industry? To a certain extent. A short-term bail out may be required, much smaller than the one dedicated toward the corrupted finance industry. But in return (and right now), the automakers should design a long-term plan meant to accomplish a strong American auto manufacturing industry that features a strong unionized force, a public-private solution for worker health care and pensions, and a MAPPED OUT TIMEFRAME AND COMMITMENT toward a product line that emphasizes fuel-efficient vehicles of better quality. Not too much to ask, is it?
Onward -- to other things:
* 24 and Jack Bauer are back in a two-hour movie that sets up the new season. Yay!
* Have you seen the full trailer for J.J. Abram's new "Star Trek" flick? Whoa! Good lord, everyone's nuts in there!
* The thought of canceling Pushing Daisies is absurd but not unexpected. Even in an age where more people have more entertainment options than ever -- options other than watching TV -- networks remain finicky about what low ratings constitute cancelation. And meanwhile we get stuck with crap like "reality" TV and atrociously written, uninspired programs.
* Farewell, Moral Orel. We hardly knew ye. When it came to an animated, subversive satire about modern Christian prostelitizing, Moral Orel nailed it. And using the Davey and Goliath look was genius.
* I cannot wait for the return of Lost, Galactica, Boondocks, Doctor Who, Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Torchwood. I...just...cannot...wait.
* Superjail is astonishingly surreal and insane. (Sorry, my Adult Swim geekdom runneth over.)
* And Sarah Palin...umm, go away now.
OK, you may resume your regularly scheduled lives.
It was the choice of the E-N/Hearst, which couldn't pay $75,000 to install a new advertising/data entry/pagination system at our (now former) office. So off to downtown we went, where we now cope with paid parking, longer commutes and the idea that downtown of a city where I've lived all my life suddenly no longer appeals to me.
Despite the rigors of the first week where we're still getting used to our new digs and said new computer system, there are other things to look forward to. There's a chance to delve into an array of happy-hour spots in the downtown area. We'll have a little Thanksgiving potluck deal Wednesday. We do occasionally bump into cool friends already working for the Express-News. In any event, I strive to persevere.
Onward to - THE TRANSITION. Team Obama and Biden are changing things for sure! When you consider Clinton retreads as change! Okay, so far there no sexy, daring, outside-the-box picks have been made thus far when it comes to the cabinet and other key positions. As for my pick'em forecast, it's a mixed bag at this point. The speculation about Hillary being secretary of state is throwing many for a loop, but it's definitely the Clintonistas pushing for her to get some top spot, and not some paean position.
Eric Holder is one of my picks for attorney general. Yeah, he'll get some grief from Senate Repubs during the confirmation process. Well, heck, which nominee won't? Another two throwing me for a loop -- Janet Napolitano for homeland security and Tom Daschle for health and human services. No doubt, both individuals would serve good roles in Obama's administration. But I'm definitely not envisioning either person for the cabinet positions for which they seem to be nominees.
Penny Pritzker is taking herself out of consideration for a job, particularly secretary of commerce (there goes my pick). Alas, this may prove beneficial to Obama as Pritzker has business links to the most dastardly of industries -- subprime mortgage lending. And there's stronger speculation that Robert Gates may remain at The Pentagon for a while. If Obama wants to prove himself an agent of change, a direction from appointing Washington insiders, including Clintonites and Bushites, would be wise. If only someone can tell him and his advisers this through his www.change.gov website. Speaking of which, I need to submit a resume through there. I wouldn't mind battling 200,000 other applicants for a gig in Obama's D.C.
Onward to -- the attempted auto industry bailout. Perhaps the funniest thing I heard all week were executives from the big three U.S. automakers, rationalizing to Congress as to why they deserve a bailout: Their current financial crisis is NOT their fault. The execs say the crisis isn't due to their lacking a quality product or slow progress toward fuel-efficient vehicles or the current business model.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Oh the crisis is most definitely the fault of the automakers. It's not the fault of union workers and all their supposed benefits and salary gains over the decades. It's because they refused to acknowledge foreign automakers manufacturing (for the most part!) better quality (and smaller) vehicles. It's because they have been so reluctant to gradually move away from hydrocarbons at the end of fossil fuel era and towards fuel-efficient vehicles, which more and more people want in an uncertain economy where oil and gasoline prices could skyrocket once more at any moment. And it's because automakers -- led by executives touting bloated salary and perk packages and a serious disconnect from middle-class reality -- adamantly oppose public-sector solutions for employee health care and pension plans.
So, should we bail out our car industry? To a certain extent. A short-term bail out may be required, much smaller than the one dedicated toward the corrupted finance industry. But in return (and right now), the automakers should design a long-term plan meant to accomplish a strong American auto manufacturing industry that features a strong unionized force, a public-private solution for worker health care and pensions, and a MAPPED OUT TIMEFRAME AND COMMITMENT toward a product line that emphasizes fuel-efficient vehicles of better quality. Not too much to ask, is it?
Onward -- to other things:
* 24 and Jack Bauer are back in a two-hour movie that sets up the new season. Yay!
* Have you seen the full trailer for J.J. Abram's new "Star Trek" flick? Whoa! Good lord, everyone's nuts in there!
* The thought of canceling Pushing Daisies is absurd but not unexpected. Even in an age where more people have more entertainment options than ever -- options other than watching TV -- networks remain finicky about what low ratings constitute cancelation. And meanwhile we get stuck with crap like "reality" TV and atrociously written, uninspired programs.
* Farewell, Moral Orel. We hardly knew ye. When it came to an animated, subversive satire about modern Christian prostelitizing, Moral Orel nailed it. And using the Davey and Goliath look was genius.
* I cannot wait for the return of Lost, Galactica, Boondocks, Doctor Who, Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Torchwood. I...just...cannot...wait.
* Superjail is astonishingly surreal and insane. (Sorry, my Adult Swim geekdom runneth over.)
* And Sarah Palin...umm, go away now.
OK, you may resume your regularly scheduled lives.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Barack Obama Cabinet, or a Cavalcade of Political Stars
I love lists. I love picking them. I love reading them. It’s all about the fondness for prognostication. So I give you my expected and/or ideal picks for Obama’s cabinet and other key positions, starting from the current presidential line of succession (state department through homeland security). Embrace my political geekdom!
Secretary of State – This is a bit tricky. While there’s talk of John Kerry being offered the position, I think Bill Richardson is much more suited for the task. He has great diplomatic credentials, has served previously under Bill Clinton and helps to bring a bit more diversity to the top of the administration (Latino). Sure, yes, he has a questionable management style and can rub some people the wrong way. But I believe the pros outweigh the cons here. A suitable deputy secretary of state: Greg Craig, who served in the Clinton administration as both presidential counsel and as a senior adviser to Madeleine Albright.
Secretary of the Treasury – An even trickier position considering (a) the shambles of the current economy and (b) severely waning popularity for any Wall Street insiders to be involved in leading the treasury. There’s no real clear, odds-on favorite everyone could embrace. Really, it’s the lesser of several evils here. Having said that, perhaps the best bet – for the next year or two to lend an expert, immediate relief to the markets – is Paul Volcker, former chair of the Federal Reserve. He served under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and advised Obama on the economy. He is getting up there in age, however. Which leads me to believe a suitable deputy treasury secretary could be Michael Froman, president/CEO of CitiInsurance and a campaign adviser to Obama.
Ultimately, the treasury needs new blood in leadership. Maybe a venture capitalist to spice things up. The department and nation needs to move away from finance capitalism to creativity capitalism. Let’s develop a cabinet of innovation. And frankly, if Obama wishes to prove he’s an agent of change, he shouldn’t merely stock the top of his cabinet with a bunch of former Clintonites or leftover Bushites.
Secretary of Defense – Ah, a conversation that inevitably leads to the assumption that Republicans are tougher on defense than Democrats. Hogwash. Progressives can show just as well they have the skills and mindset to administer such a department efficiently, counsel the president judiciously on pressing military matters and equip the troops appropriately without calling for more military spending.
It’s times like these in which one wishes Wes Clark or Anthony Zinni wouldn’t be – for now – subject to constitutional laws of eligibility regarding leading the defense department. Clark would be a no-brainer. Alas, I could temporarily settle for Richard Danzig, who served as Naval secretary under Clinton and advised Obama during the campaign. A suitable deputy defense secretary could be Larry Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who now works at the Center for American Progress. However, this all could be moot if current secretary Robert Gates is left in the position, which unfortunately is the speculative rage for the moment.
Attorney General – While speculation is centering on Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, I think it would serve the country better if she were to remain a blue governor of a red state. My pick goes to Eric Holder, a former Justice Department official under Clinton. Republican Patrick Fitzgerald, who as special prosecutor was great going after the Bushites the last few years, could do well as deputy AG.
Secretary of the Interior – Speculation is that Brian Schweitzer, the popular Montana Democratic governor who just got re-elected, is up for this job. But like with Napolitano, I think it’d be wise to leave a blue governor of a red state. Want another bi-partisan pick? How about Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican former Rhode Island senator, who endorsed Obama and is seen as moderate on ecological and land management issues.
Secretary of Agriculture – Former Iowa Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack is getting the biggest mentions here and is probably a safe pick. I could be happy with rewarding Scott Kleeb with the deputy secretary position. He challenged for the Nebraska Senate seat this week. He’s a rancher with moderate views, a professor with a degree in international relations and can appeal to younger voters. Dude is like 33.
Secretary of Commerce – Speculation here is on Penny Pritzker, who’s part of a wealthy family based in Chicago. She can give Obama a shot in the arm in terms of small business acumen, but in the confirmation process Rethugs could try to tie her indirectly to the sub-prime mortgage industry meltdown.
Secretary of Labor – There’s some talk this one could go to Linda Chavez-Thompson, who’s a proven union leader. She was elected the executive vice-president of the AFL-CIO in 1995 and served until September 21, 2007. She’s also a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. I could accept, though, Democratic Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt here.
Secretary of Health and Human Services – Actually quite a few potentials here. If you wanna see Hillary somewhere, this is the most likely place (other than possibly a Supreme Court nominee. Oh my, just imagine THAT confirmation process.) If not her, possibly Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children's Defense Fund, or former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, a doctor who expanded the Oregon Health Plan and currently directs the Center for Evidence Based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University.
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – A favorite here could be Valerie Jarrett, a longtime Obama adviser who is familiar in the Chicago political machine and is currently CEO of The Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company.
Secretary of Transportation – This isn’t really a sexy pick. There’s only a couple of names being floated here. It’ll probably be Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Congressman who serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Secretary of Energy -- Steve Westly is a good bet here. California’s current state controller, he was an early proponent of alternative energy who worked Department of Energy's Office of Solar and Conservation under Jimmy Carter.
Secretary of Education – Wanna see Colin Powell somewhere that may not be so controversial, this may be the post. He is a founder of America's Promise Alliance, a coalition of businesses, educators, and others working to improve the health and well-being of children.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Either Max Cleland or Tammy Duckworth would be tremendous. Maybe they should go in as secretary and deputy secretary. Veterans who know all too well the horrors of not only battle itself but the challenges that vets face upon the return home.
Secretary of Homeland Security – This is intriguing. It could be, as some liberals and conservatives have surmised, that Obama abolishes this department. If he retains it, the department should be bolstered and even take in some duplicate outstanding federal related agencies to avoid the image of an even-bigger bureaucracy. It could even add onto its name of Public and Border Security. Who could best manage this department? No question it’s Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert who was among the first moderate pariahs of Dubya’s regime that could not tolerate experts who knew what they were talking about.
There’s talk Obama could create a few more cabinet-level agencies and even upgrade some positions to cabinet-level, such as Ambassador to the United Nations and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator. So let’s have fun pretending:
Secretary of Communications Technology -- Barbara Simons is one name. She worked for IBM and is now on the board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Public Interest Registry’s .ORG Advisory Council. If not here, it could be Paul Romer or Vint Cerf, both of whom are in Google’s leadership sphere.
Secretary of First Americans Affairs -- Winona LaDuke, a former Green Party vice-presidential candidate, is one name. Another is a Democrat-turned-Republican/former Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Director of Urban Policy – A name touted here is Amanda Burden, the director of New York City's Department of City Planning. Again, the latter three departments are being proposed by Obama, but really could be rolled into their appropriate existing departments: commerce, interior and HUD, respectively.
Other key roles:
National Security Advisor -- Wes Clark. Maybe something will happen down the line after 2010 for him to take the SecDef position. Until then… And if not this, it could be Chuck Hagel’s for the taking.
Director of National Intelligence -- Susan Rice, who served on the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton. She works at the Brookings Institution and was an adviser to Obama. There’s much talk that there could be another “Rice” as a secretary of state, however.
U.N. Permanent Representative – A good name here is Harold Hongju Koh, a lawyer, legal scholar, former State Department official, and current dean of the Yale Law School, His name has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor under Clinton. Yes, if you wanna throw a bone to John Kerry here, that’s fine with me, too. And there’s talk that Caroline Kennedy could get a nod.
FEMA Director – There’s talk that after Katrina (among other dubious episodes), FEMA should be abolished. If it is retained (even rolled into a department such as homeland security), it’s a no-brainer – return a professional like James Lee Witt to the office.
EPA Administrator – Another no-brainer. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The superlawyer has been a tireless advocate of eco-friendly law and action over the years. And this fills the Kennedy quota.
Ambassador At-Large on Climate Change – There’s talk of creating this office, especially for Al Gore. Can’t argue with that.
Health Care Czar in White House – A sort of redo of Hillary’s role in the early ‘90s. If she’s not to resurface for this position, it’s possible Tom Daschle, the former House minority leader, could arise here. And that’s fine. For the most part.
Trade Representative -- Joseph Wilson is not just Mr. Valerie Plame. He is the CEO of his own firm JC Wilson International Ventures and has good diplomatic credentials. And this just rubs more salt into the Rethugs’ wounds.
White House Chief of Staff – well, you’re seeing now that Rahm Emanuel is pretty much taking the job. He does have experience from the Clinton administration, an Illinois Congressional leader and known as a fighter. On some issues. And that’s the problem. He appeased the Rethugs on other issues over the years to the chagrin of many progressives. That and his DLC ties. But anyway…
Deputy Chief of Staff -- Jim Messina was Obama’s campaign chief of staff. He could do well here.
Senior Advisers – I could go with either David Plouffe or David Axelrod, the architects of Obama’s overall campaign.
Budget Director – Hard to say. I could go for one of Obama’s economic advisers. Perhaps Laura Tyson, who worked for Clinton. If you need someone with a bit more of a fiery temperament and executive experience, Florida Congressman Robert Wexler is a possibility. A “fire-breathing liberal” to be sure.
Council of Economic Advisers – If I can pick three, it’d be Warren Buffett, Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman. They’re pretty much already advising Obama on the economy. Goolsbee would do better to chair the council.
White House Counsel -- Mark Alexander is a good name here, a senior adviser to Obama's campaign, having served as issues director for Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential drive.
CIA Director – Need a new one? There’s talk that Richard Clarke could be good here, meaning the Homeland Security leadership can be left to Wes Clark or Anthony Zinni. I’m good with that scenario.
Office of National Drug Control Policy Director -- Ron Paul. Really. Imagine a quasi-libertarian look at how he enforce illegal drug laws.
Director, Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Obama's renamed faith-based office) -- Josh DuBois is a good name here. He was the campaign's director of religious affairs. If not him, Jim Wallis would make an excellent candidate.
Council on Environmental Quality – Washington Congressman Jay Inslee could be chair. He sits on the U.S. House Resources Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
White House Communications Director: Robert Gibbs, who advised Obama on media affairs, would be cool here.
Press Secretary: Hmm, can I dream of Rachel Maddow taking Faux News to task every day during press briefings? Love it.
Domestic Policy Adviser – A name mentioned here is Heather Higginbottom, who has worked for John Kerry, had a role in his presidential campaign, and worked on Clinton’s President’s Summit for America’s Future.
Supreme Court nominees – If I could pick three, it’d be legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who had interesting things to say about Dubya’s war on terror; Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School and Thurgood Marshall Jr., a lawyer and son of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. And yes, Hillary’s name most certainly will be in play sometime next decade.
Again, these all are good guesses. Each appointment, however, is crucial and carries with it many factors that must be thoroughly considered. Which means while the campaign to elect Obama and other Democrats to the land may be over this cycle (for the most part), the campaign to ensure a solid, efficient administration of which we can be proud has only started.
Secretary of State – This is a bit tricky. While there’s talk of John Kerry being offered the position, I think Bill Richardson is much more suited for the task. He has great diplomatic credentials, has served previously under Bill Clinton and helps to bring a bit more diversity to the top of the administration (Latino). Sure, yes, he has a questionable management style and can rub some people the wrong way. But I believe the pros outweigh the cons here. A suitable deputy secretary of state: Greg Craig, who served in the Clinton administration as both presidential counsel and as a senior adviser to Madeleine Albright.
Secretary of the Treasury – An even trickier position considering (a) the shambles of the current economy and (b) severely waning popularity for any Wall Street insiders to be involved in leading the treasury. There’s no real clear, odds-on favorite everyone could embrace. Really, it’s the lesser of several evils here. Having said that, perhaps the best bet – for the next year or two to lend an expert, immediate relief to the markets – is Paul Volcker, former chair of the Federal Reserve. He served under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and advised Obama on the economy. He is getting up there in age, however. Which leads me to believe a suitable deputy treasury secretary could be Michael Froman, president/CEO of CitiInsurance and a campaign adviser to Obama.
Ultimately, the treasury needs new blood in leadership. Maybe a venture capitalist to spice things up. The department and nation needs to move away from finance capitalism to creativity capitalism. Let’s develop a cabinet of innovation. And frankly, if Obama wishes to prove he’s an agent of change, he shouldn’t merely stock the top of his cabinet with a bunch of former Clintonites or leftover Bushites.
Secretary of Defense – Ah, a conversation that inevitably leads to the assumption that Republicans are tougher on defense than Democrats. Hogwash. Progressives can show just as well they have the skills and mindset to administer such a department efficiently, counsel the president judiciously on pressing military matters and equip the troops appropriately without calling for more military spending.
It’s times like these in which one wishes Wes Clark or Anthony Zinni wouldn’t be – for now – subject to constitutional laws of eligibility regarding leading the defense department. Clark would be a no-brainer. Alas, I could temporarily settle for Richard Danzig, who served as Naval secretary under Clinton and advised Obama during the campaign. A suitable deputy defense secretary could be Larry Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who now works at the Center for American Progress. However, this all could be moot if current secretary Robert Gates is left in the position, which unfortunately is the speculative rage for the moment.
Attorney General – While speculation is centering on Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, I think it would serve the country better if she were to remain a blue governor of a red state. My pick goes to Eric Holder, a former Justice Department official under Clinton. Republican Patrick Fitzgerald, who as special prosecutor was great going after the Bushites the last few years, could do well as deputy AG.
Secretary of the Interior – Speculation is that Brian Schweitzer, the popular Montana Democratic governor who just got re-elected, is up for this job. But like with Napolitano, I think it’d be wise to leave a blue governor of a red state. Want another bi-partisan pick? How about Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican former Rhode Island senator, who endorsed Obama and is seen as moderate on ecological and land management issues.
Secretary of Agriculture – Former Iowa Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack is getting the biggest mentions here and is probably a safe pick. I could be happy with rewarding Scott Kleeb with the deputy secretary position. He challenged for the Nebraska Senate seat this week. He’s a rancher with moderate views, a professor with a degree in international relations and can appeal to younger voters. Dude is like 33.
Secretary of Commerce – Speculation here is on Penny Pritzker, who’s part of a wealthy family based in Chicago. She can give Obama a shot in the arm in terms of small business acumen, but in the confirmation process Rethugs could try to tie her indirectly to the sub-prime mortgage industry meltdown.
Secretary of Labor – There’s some talk this one could go to Linda Chavez-Thompson, who’s a proven union leader. She was elected the executive vice-president of the AFL-CIO in 1995 and served until September 21, 2007. She’s also a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. I could accept, though, Democratic Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt here.
Secretary of Health and Human Services – Actually quite a few potentials here. If you wanna see Hillary somewhere, this is the most likely place (other than possibly a Supreme Court nominee. Oh my, just imagine THAT confirmation process.) If not her, possibly Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children's Defense Fund, or former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, a doctor who expanded the Oregon Health Plan and currently directs the Center for Evidence Based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University.
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – A favorite here could be Valerie Jarrett, a longtime Obama adviser who is familiar in the Chicago political machine and is currently CEO of The Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company.
Secretary of Transportation – This isn’t really a sexy pick. There’s only a couple of names being floated here. It’ll probably be Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Congressman who serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Secretary of Energy -- Steve Westly is a good bet here. California’s current state controller, he was an early proponent of alternative energy who worked Department of Energy's Office of Solar and Conservation under Jimmy Carter.
Secretary of Education – Wanna see Colin Powell somewhere that may not be so controversial, this may be the post. He is a founder of America's Promise Alliance, a coalition of businesses, educators, and others working to improve the health and well-being of children.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Either Max Cleland or Tammy Duckworth would be tremendous. Maybe they should go in as secretary and deputy secretary. Veterans who know all too well the horrors of not only battle itself but the challenges that vets face upon the return home.
Secretary of Homeland Security – This is intriguing. It could be, as some liberals and conservatives have surmised, that Obama abolishes this department. If he retains it, the department should be bolstered and even take in some duplicate outstanding federal related agencies to avoid the image of an even-bigger bureaucracy. It could even add onto its name of Public and Border Security. Who could best manage this department? No question it’s Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert who was among the first moderate pariahs of Dubya’s regime that could not tolerate experts who knew what they were talking about.
There’s talk Obama could create a few more cabinet-level agencies and even upgrade some positions to cabinet-level, such as Ambassador to the United Nations and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator. So let’s have fun pretending:
Secretary of Communications Technology -- Barbara Simons is one name. She worked for IBM and is now on the board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Public Interest Registry’s .ORG Advisory Council. If not here, it could be Paul Romer or Vint Cerf, both of whom are in Google’s leadership sphere.
Secretary of First Americans Affairs -- Winona LaDuke, a former Green Party vice-presidential candidate, is one name. Another is a Democrat-turned-Republican/former Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Director of Urban Policy – A name touted here is Amanda Burden, the director of New York City's Department of City Planning. Again, the latter three departments are being proposed by Obama, but really could be rolled into their appropriate existing departments: commerce, interior and HUD, respectively.
Other key roles:
National Security Advisor -- Wes Clark. Maybe something will happen down the line after 2010 for him to take the SecDef position. Until then… And if not this, it could be Chuck Hagel’s for the taking.
Director of National Intelligence -- Susan Rice, who served on the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton. She works at the Brookings Institution and was an adviser to Obama. There’s much talk that there could be another “Rice” as a secretary of state, however.
U.N. Permanent Representative – A good name here is Harold Hongju Koh, a lawyer, legal scholar, former State Department official, and current dean of the Yale Law School, His name has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor under Clinton. Yes, if you wanna throw a bone to John Kerry here, that’s fine with me, too. And there’s talk that Caroline Kennedy could get a nod.
FEMA Director – There’s talk that after Katrina (among other dubious episodes), FEMA should be abolished. If it is retained (even rolled into a department such as homeland security), it’s a no-brainer – return a professional like James Lee Witt to the office.
EPA Administrator – Another no-brainer. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The superlawyer has been a tireless advocate of eco-friendly law and action over the years. And this fills the Kennedy quota.
Ambassador At-Large on Climate Change – There’s talk of creating this office, especially for Al Gore. Can’t argue with that.
Health Care Czar in White House – A sort of redo of Hillary’s role in the early ‘90s. If she’s not to resurface for this position, it’s possible Tom Daschle, the former House minority leader, could arise here. And that’s fine. For the most part.
Trade Representative -- Joseph Wilson is not just Mr. Valerie Plame. He is the CEO of his own firm JC Wilson International Ventures and has good diplomatic credentials. And this just rubs more salt into the Rethugs’ wounds.
White House Chief of Staff – well, you’re seeing now that Rahm Emanuel is pretty much taking the job. He does have experience from the Clinton administration, an Illinois Congressional leader and known as a fighter. On some issues. And that’s the problem. He appeased the Rethugs on other issues over the years to the chagrin of many progressives. That and his DLC ties. But anyway…
Deputy Chief of Staff -- Jim Messina was Obama’s campaign chief of staff. He could do well here.
Senior Advisers – I could go with either David Plouffe or David Axelrod, the architects of Obama’s overall campaign.
Budget Director – Hard to say. I could go for one of Obama’s economic advisers. Perhaps Laura Tyson, who worked for Clinton. If you need someone with a bit more of a fiery temperament and executive experience, Florida Congressman Robert Wexler is a possibility. A “fire-breathing liberal” to be sure.
Council of Economic Advisers – If I can pick three, it’d be Warren Buffett, Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman. They’re pretty much already advising Obama on the economy. Goolsbee would do better to chair the council.
White House Counsel -- Mark Alexander is a good name here, a senior adviser to Obama's campaign, having served as issues director for Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential drive.
CIA Director – Need a new one? There’s talk that Richard Clarke could be good here, meaning the Homeland Security leadership can be left to Wes Clark or Anthony Zinni. I’m good with that scenario.
Office of National Drug Control Policy Director -- Ron Paul. Really. Imagine a quasi-libertarian look at how he enforce illegal drug laws.
Director, Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Obama's renamed faith-based office) -- Josh DuBois is a good name here. He was the campaign's director of religious affairs. If not him, Jim Wallis would make an excellent candidate.
Council on Environmental Quality – Washington Congressman Jay Inslee could be chair. He sits on the U.S. House Resources Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
White House Communications Director: Robert Gibbs, who advised Obama on media affairs, would be cool here.
Press Secretary: Hmm, can I dream of Rachel Maddow taking Faux News to task every day during press briefings? Love it.
Domestic Policy Adviser – A name mentioned here is Heather Higginbottom, who has worked for John Kerry, had a role in his presidential campaign, and worked on Clinton’s President’s Summit for America’s Future.
Supreme Court nominees – If I could pick three, it’d be legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who had interesting things to say about Dubya’s war on terror; Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School and Thurgood Marshall Jr., a lawyer and son of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. And yes, Hillary’s name most certainly will be in play sometime next decade.
Again, these all are good guesses. Each appointment, however, is crucial and carries with it many factors that must be thoroughly considered. Which means while the campaign to elect Obama and other Democrats to the land may be over this cycle (for the most part), the campaign to ensure a solid, efficient administration of which we can be proud has only started.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Maybe McFailin needs a bailout, not a time out
I ghost-wrote letters to the editor for the McCain campaign
By Margriet Oostveen, Salon magazine
I spent a morning in John McCain's Virginia campaign headquarters ghost-writing letters to the editor for McCain supporters to sign. I even pretended to have a son in Iraq.
"You can be whoever you want to be," says an inviting Phil Tuchman. "You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!"
I volunteer in political campaigns now and then. After a series of outings for Obama and a first mission as a phone banker for John McCain, I returned to McCain's headquarters in Arlington, Va. The offer was too alluring to delay -- they wanted to put me into action as a ghostwriter. Next to commercials and phone banking, writing letters to the editor is the most important method of the McCain campaign to attract voters. At least that is what's written in the guidelines that McCain campaign worker Phil Tuchman presents to me.
Today he is training six ghostwriters. What on earth is the appeal of McCain for the former Soviet bloc? Last time I was here, an exuberant Polish guy was phone banking next to me. Today, a Russian in yellow suspenders is shimmering at the same table, looking just like an actor who is famous in the Netherlands for star turns as a genius who suppresses his dark side with painstaking self-control.
The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want -- as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. "Your letters," says Phil Tuchman, "will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we'll place them in local newspapers."
Place them? I may be wrong, but I thought that in the USA only a newspaper's editors decided that.
"We will show your letters to our supporters in those states," explains Phil. "If they say: 'Yeah, he/she is right!' then we ask them to sign your letter. And then we send that letter to the local newspaper. That's how we send dozens of letters at once."
No newspaper can refuse a stream of articulate expressions of support, is the thought behind it. "This way, we will always get into some letters column."
It is the day after Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention. Today, she is our main subject. The others are already enthusiastically hammering their keyboards. I am struggling with a tiny writer's block. "Dear Editor ..."
Phil Tuchman has handed out model letters, and talking points and quotes from Sarah Palin's speech. But whom do I want to be?
Let's loosen up my fingers a little first -- and my principles, too. Am I actually allowed to make up letters? At the moment, it seems to be the only way to demonstrate how this is done in a campaign. So yes. I start practicing attractive sentences about Sarah Palin:
"Her biggest plus to me is that, besides being amazingly smart and qualified, she managed to remain a woman like us. She is the PTA hockey moms. She is the working mothers of special needs children. She is every caring mother of a challenging teenager."
Her pregnant daughter Bristol (17) is not a talking point. A talking point is her son Track (19), who will be deployed to Iraq.
"And most of all, she is just like any mother of a child who deploys to Iraq in the service of this country."
Now we are getting somewhere. I look around. I type:
"My son, too, is there."
Oh god, you liar. Now build up suspense. New paragraph.
"And my heart needs him back safe so much."
Yes, yes. Well done. Another paragraph -- why not? Now let's pump some iron in that mother, for after all, we are not with the Democrats here. Look up the right, patriotic phraseology in the model letters.
"But when I see him again, I also want to see his face glow with pride. Just like the day he told me he enlisted."
Yes, like that. And now full speed in the direction of McCain's plans to continue the war. Sell that war. With a mother's heart.
"That is why Senator John McCain could count on my vote from day one."
But whatever happened to Sarah Palin in this story? I gaze out of the window. This takes 10 minutes. Then:
"With Sarah Palin, I have even more reason to trust in victory. She represents my heart."
Hmm. Does that sound like total doublespeak? Or does it sound like logical reasoning to a McCain supporter? I cannot come up with anything better.
"Sincerely ..." I leave the dots for somebody else's signature.
Does Phil Tuchman want to read it?
Phil bends over my computer screen and reads. This takes a while. I am expecting roars of laughter or to be kicked out. Then he says drily: "I like that. It appeals to the hearts of people. Can you write more letters?"
CNN poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy; Obama gains
Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday
Majority of respondents view Obama as better on economic issues
By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests.
That may be contributing to better poll numbers for Sen. Barack Obama against Sen. John McCain in the race for the White House.
In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market; only 24 percent said Democrats are more responsible.
Twenty percent blame both parties equally and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.
The poll also indicates more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Watch Obama blast McCain on the economy »
Forty-nine percent of those questioned said Obama, D-Illinois, would display good judgment in an economic crisis, six points higher than McCain, R-Arizona.
And Obama has a 10-point lead over McCain when it comes to who respondents think would better handle the economy overall.
These numbers seem to be affecting the battle for the presidency. Fifty-one percent of registered voters now say they will back Obama, five points ahead of McCain, at 46 percent.
McCain and Obama were tied at 48 percent apiece in the previous CNN/Opinion Research survey conducted September 5-7.
Obama's advantage, while growing, is still within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Where did Obama make his gains?
"In two core McCain constituencies: men, who now narrowly favor Obama, and seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.
When including people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same. Among likely voters, Obama has a four-point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent. Watch McCain blast Obama for not having a plan »
A CNN Poll of Polls calculated Monday also shows Obama leading McCain -- 49 percent to 44 percent.
"The economy has always been considered John McCain's Achilles' heel, and the CNN Poll of Polls started to show an Obama edge in the middle of last week -- just as the financial crisis began to hit home for many Americans," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
The poll also expands to include third-party candidates. When included in the results, independent Ralph Nader has the support of 4 percent of those polled, with Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney each at 1 percent. Also, Obama has the backing of 48 percent of likely voters, three points ahead of McCain's 45 percent.
A couple of other factors in the survey appear to contribute to Obama's slight rise and McCain's slight drop in the polls. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out the policies of President Bush, who remains extremely unpopular with most Americans. Bush's disapproval rating is up three points from the previous CNN/Opinion Research poll. Watch Obama's ad tying McCain to Bush »
The survey also indicates Obama has recaptured the "change" factor. Just after the Republican convention, Obama's lead had shrunk to eight points when voters were asked which candidate would be more likely to bring change. His lead is up to 14 points in the new poll.
The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Another factor could be McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Thirty-five percent of those questioned have an unfavorable opinion of her, up 8 points from a previous survey. And two-thirds believe she and her husband should testify in the Alaska investigation into the firing of a state official.
"Change has always been Obama's strong suit, but McCain and Palin clearly made inroads into that issue during the GOP convention," Holland said. "Palin, in particular, was seen as an agent of change when she made her first appearance on the national stage. That may be changing now."
The poll also sheds more light on how Americans feel about the financial crisis. Twenty-two percent said they are "frightened" by the crisis, while two-thirds said they are "concerned." Eleven percent said they are "not worried." iReport.com: Is the financial crisis hurting your business?
Most Americans think the programs to deal with the financial crisis currently being worked on by Congress and the Bush administration will be unfair to U.S. taxpayers, but they think those programs will help the economy.
Six in 10 think the federal government should step in and address the financial crisis, and 37 percent say the government should stay out. But when it comes to last week's bailouts, support slips to 55 percent. Given concerns about how future programs will affect taxpayers, it's conceivable that public support for the new government plans could be even lower.
The survey comes out just four days before McCain and Obama face off in the first of three presidential debates. Will the debates make a difference? Probably, since the poll finds that 14 percent of Americans say they haven't made up their minds yet.
The first debate, scheduled for Friday in Oxford, Mississippi, will focus on foreign policy, a topic that may play into what some registered voters see as a strength for McCain. The poll finds 54 percent of them believe McCain would display better judgment in an international crisis; 42 percent believe Obama would.
The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Conducted Friday through Sunday, the CNN/Opinion Research poll questioned 1020 Americans including 909 registered voters and 697 likely voters.
All one needs do is remind people of McCain’s own links to the corrupt sectors of the American financial industry:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/03335/7784/864/608313
Ah, Palin – not surprisingly – may have her own Rev. Wright problem:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-muthee--1.html
Muhahahahaha…
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/letting_sarah_palin_answer_que.php
Muhahahahaha…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/25/35421/5227/451/609743
Also not a surprise…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/25/03943/4148/550/609652
By Margriet Oostveen, Salon magazine
I spent a morning in John McCain's Virginia campaign headquarters ghost-writing letters to the editor for McCain supporters to sign. I even pretended to have a son in Iraq.
"You can be whoever you want to be," says an inviting Phil Tuchman. "You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!"
I volunteer in political campaigns now and then. After a series of outings for Obama and a first mission as a phone banker for John McCain, I returned to McCain's headquarters in Arlington, Va. The offer was too alluring to delay -- they wanted to put me into action as a ghostwriter. Next to commercials and phone banking, writing letters to the editor is the most important method of the McCain campaign to attract voters. At least that is what's written in the guidelines that McCain campaign worker Phil Tuchman presents to me.
Today he is training six ghostwriters. What on earth is the appeal of McCain for the former Soviet bloc? Last time I was here, an exuberant Polish guy was phone banking next to me. Today, a Russian in yellow suspenders is shimmering at the same table, looking just like an actor who is famous in the Netherlands for star turns as a genius who suppresses his dark side with painstaking self-control.
The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want -- as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. "Your letters," says Phil Tuchman, "will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we'll place them in local newspapers."
Place them? I may be wrong, but I thought that in the USA only a newspaper's editors decided that.
"We will show your letters to our supporters in those states," explains Phil. "If they say: 'Yeah, he/she is right!' then we ask them to sign your letter. And then we send that letter to the local newspaper. That's how we send dozens of letters at once."
No newspaper can refuse a stream of articulate expressions of support, is the thought behind it. "This way, we will always get into some letters column."
It is the day after Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention. Today, she is our main subject. The others are already enthusiastically hammering their keyboards. I am struggling with a tiny writer's block. "Dear Editor ..."
Phil Tuchman has handed out model letters, and talking points and quotes from Sarah Palin's speech. But whom do I want to be?
Let's loosen up my fingers a little first -- and my principles, too. Am I actually allowed to make up letters? At the moment, it seems to be the only way to demonstrate how this is done in a campaign. So yes. I start practicing attractive sentences about Sarah Palin:
"Her biggest plus to me is that, besides being amazingly smart and qualified, she managed to remain a woman like us. She is the PTA hockey moms. She is the working mothers of special needs children. She is every caring mother of a challenging teenager."
Her pregnant daughter Bristol (17) is not a talking point. A talking point is her son Track (19), who will be deployed to Iraq.
"And most of all, she is just like any mother of a child who deploys to Iraq in the service of this country."
Now we are getting somewhere. I look around. I type:
"My son, too, is there."
Oh god, you liar. Now build up suspense. New paragraph.
"And my heart needs him back safe so much."
Yes, yes. Well done. Another paragraph -- why not? Now let's pump some iron in that mother, for after all, we are not with the Democrats here. Look up the right, patriotic phraseology in the model letters.
"But when I see him again, I also want to see his face glow with pride. Just like the day he told me he enlisted."
Yes, like that. And now full speed in the direction of McCain's plans to continue the war. Sell that war. With a mother's heart.
"That is why Senator John McCain could count on my vote from day one."
But whatever happened to Sarah Palin in this story? I gaze out of the window. This takes 10 minutes. Then:
"With Sarah Palin, I have even more reason to trust in victory. She represents my heart."
Hmm. Does that sound like total doublespeak? Or does it sound like logical reasoning to a McCain supporter? I cannot come up with anything better.
"Sincerely ..." I leave the dots for somebody else's signature.
Does Phil Tuchman want to read it?
Phil bends over my computer screen and reads. This takes a while. I am expecting roars of laughter or to be kicked out. Then he says drily: "I like that. It appeals to the hearts of people. Can you write more letters?"
CNN poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy; Obama gains
Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday
Majority of respondents view Obama as better on economic issues
By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests.
That may be contributing to better poll numbers for Sen. Barack Obama against Sen. John McCain in the race for the White House.
In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market; only 24 percent said Democrats are more responsible.
Twenty percent blame both parties equally and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.
The poll also indicates more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Watch Obama blast McCain on the economy »
Forty-nine percent of those questioned said Obama, D-Illinois, would display good judgment in an economic crisis, six points higher than McCain, R-Arizona.
And Obama has a 10-point lead over McCain when it comes to who respondents think would better handle the economy overall.
These numbers seem to be affecting the battle for the presidency. Fifty-one percent of registered voters now say they will back Obama, five points ahead of McCain, at 46 percent.
McCain and Obama were tied at 48 percent apiece in the previous CNN/Opinion Research survey conducted September 5-7.
Obama's advantage, while growing, is still within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Where did Obama make his gains?
"In two core McCain constituencies: men, who now narrowly favor Obama, and seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.
When including people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same. Among likely voters, Obama has a four-point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent. Watch McCain blast Obama for not having a plan »
A CNN Poll of Polls calculated Monday also shows Obama leading McCain -- 49 percent to 44 percent.
"The economy has always been considered John McCain's Achilles' heel, and the CNN Poll of Polls started to show an Obama edge in the middle of last week -- just as the financial crisis began to hit home for many Americans," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
The poll also expands to include third-party candidates. When included in the results, independent Ralph Nader has the support of 4 percent of those polled, with Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney each at 1 percent. Also, Obama has the backing of 48 percent of likely voters, three points ahead of McCain's 45 percent.
A couple of other factors in the survey appear to contribute to Obama's slight rise and McCain's slight drop in the polls. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out the policies of President Bush, who remains extremely unpopular with most Americans. Bush's disapproval rating is up three points from the previous CNN/Opinion Research poll. Watch Obama's ad tying McCain to Bush »
The survey also indicates Obama has recaptured the "change" factor. Just after the Republican convention, Obama's lead had shrunk to eight points when voters were asked which candidate would be more likely to bring change. His lead is up to 14 points in the new poll.
The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Another factor could be McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Thirty-five percent of those questioned have an unfavorable opinion of her, up 8 points from a previous survey. And two-thirds believe she and her husband should testify in the Alaska investigation into the firing of a state official.
"Change has always been Obama's strong suit, but McCain and Palin clearly made inroads into that issue during the GOP convention," Holland said. "Palin, in particular, was seen as an agent of change when she made her first appearance on the national stage. That may be changing now."
The poll also sheds more light on how Americans feel about the financial crisis. Twenty-two percent said they are "frightened" by the crisis, while two-thirds said they are "concerned." Eleven percent said they are "not worried." iReport.com: Is the financial crisis hurting your business?
Most Americans think the programs to deal with the financial crisis currently being worked on by Congress and the Bush administration will be unfair to U.S. taxpayers, but they think those programs will help the economy.
Six in 10 think the federal government should step in and address the financial crisis, and 37 percent say the government should stay out. But when it comes to last week's bailouts, support slips to 55 percent. Given concerns about how future programs will affect taxpayers, it's conceivable that public support for the new government plans could be even lower.
The survey comes out just four days before McCain and Obama face off in the first of three presidential debates. Will the debates make a difference? Probably, since the poll finds that 14 percent of Americans say they haven't made up their minds yet.
The first debate, scheduled for Friday in Oxford, Mississippi, will focus on foreign policy, a topic that may play into what some registered voters see as a strength for McCain. The poll finds 54 percent of them believe McCain would display better judgment in an international crisis; 42 percent believe Obama would.
The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Conducted Friday through Sunday, the CNN/Opinion Research poll questioned 1020 Americans including 909 registered voters and 697 likely voters.
All one needs do is remind people of McCain’s own links to the corrupt sectors of the American financial industry:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/03335/7784/864/608313
Ah, Palin – not surprisingly – may have her own Rev. Wright problem:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-muthee--1.html
Muhahahahaha…
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/letting_sarah_palin_answer_que.php
Muhahahahaha…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/25/35421/5227/451/609743
Also not a surprise…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/25/03943/4148/550/609652
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)