Bragging Writes

Bill Keller's First Op-Ed: Fill[ing] In the Blanks

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:56:00 +0000

Bill Keller (long an unhinged liberal) was the Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2003 until just recently. As he gradually descended into complete liberal psychosis -- beyond even the Times’ fairly lenient stance towards such behavior -- the powers-that-be at The Gray Lady finally did what was right, and he was effectively fired as Executive Editor. (Note that this version of events is based on what I've heard and read, and is contrary to the official story that portrayed the move as Keller’s “stepping down”). Naturally, though – and in true Times’ fashion – he was then awarded for his delusions by being given one of the coveted slots on the paper’s op-ed page!

His inaugural effort in this new capacity was today, and he penned a column entitled Fill In the Blanks. I found it so wrong-headed and objectionable that I felt compelled to submit a comment. To my slight surprise, my comment was posted, and I thought I would share it with any readers who may still remain following my extended absence from the blogosphere! I'd advise reading Keller's piece first (you can find it here), and then if you're interested, here is my response, which can also be found here on the Times' website. (My comment is posted under the username tbv1977):

It boggles the mind, Mr. Keller, that you (and President Obama) would continue to blame George W. Bush for the problems Obama faces as president and we face as a country. Let's not forget that he sought this job, and did so with a full understanding of the so-called "mess" that Bush had left for him. What's the statute of limitations on blaming one's predecessor? If Obama is reelected will he blame his own first term failings if conditions fail to improve in a second Obama term?

I'm also amazed by your selective memory in blaming Republican resistance for Obama's ineffectiveness. It seems you conveniently forget that Obama had significant majorities in the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. A president's political capital is never higher than early in his term, and when that capital is coupled with the large congressional majorities he enjoyed for two years, there is literally no one else to blame but Obama and Democrats for not accomplishing more than they did. Sure, they passed healthcare reform and they passed the stimulus, but no one can blame Bush or Republicans for the fact that healthcare reform was (and is) unpopular with most Americans, or for the fact that the stimulus simply did not work (and arguably made matters worse). Republicans didn't "succeed" in "turning 'stimulus' into an expletive" -- the abject failure of the stimulus itself accomplished that. Likewise, the GOP didn't enjoy a victory in "portraying 'Obamacare' as socialized medicine" -- the view of many Americans that Obamacare effectively *is* socialized medicine can take that credit.

The reality is that apparently you, your wife and your daughters were -- like millions of other Americans -- seduced and duped by the rhetorical magic of Candidate Obama. What has become clear to most Americans by now is that when the teleprompter and grand backdrops are stripped away, the [president] has no clothes. Obama and those who elected him are the only ones to blame for that.

So, readers, what do you think?

Let's Kick Off the 2012 Campaign, Shall We?

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:04:00 +0000

Greetings to any "Bragging Writes" readers who are still out there (or who have continued to check here for new posts). I appreciate your loyalty!

A few things have been going on in my life over the last year or two, most notably that my wife and I welcomed our first baby this past summer. It's been an extraordinary, wonderful, and rewarding time in our lives. (It's been a challenging and exhausting one, too)! Long story short: there's been no time for me to blog, and further -- and quite frankly -- the issues and people dominating the political headlines since the election of President Obama haven't been compelling enough to inspire me to take to the keyboard! With my son now just over 6 months old (and finally sleeping consistently!), and with the political news again capturing my attention, I thought it might be time to try and resuscitate "Bragging Writes". Besides, with 2011's arrival comes the "officially unofficial" beginning of the 2012 presidential campaign. I know that's crazily premature, but it's the reality in today's political world. And premature or not, nothing gets my blood pumping (and thus my fingers typing) more than a presidential campaign!

So with all of that said, today I'm going to "borrow" from one of my former professors at the University of Virginia, the esteemed Dr. Larry Sabato, Professor of Politics at U.Va., director of The U.Va. Center for Politics, best-selling author, and eerily accurate prognosticator of elections. In this morning's "Crystal Ball" piece, Sabato gets the ball rolling by handicapping the potential contenders for the Republican Nomination in 2012.

You can read the entire piece here, and below is the graphic which gives you the short and sweet version:

So take a look, give it a read, and we'll circle back here in a week or so to discuss in a bit more detail. My thanks to Dr. Sabato for the analysis, the above graphic, and most of all, for serving as a catalyst for my return to blogging!

Hope & Change ???

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:14:00 +0000

Hey, look on the bright side, folks! It could be worse! Am I right, or am I right?

Meanwhile, Joe "It's a Big F#cking Deal" Biden was on a roll of his own... In a fundraising email, Biden warned recipients that the GOP will be unleashing a "blitzkrieg" of attacks against Democrats this Fall. Nice.

Hope and change...

Wake Me Up When There's An Election...Oh, Wait...

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:15:00 +0000

Hello to any "readers" of Bragging Writes who may still be out there. My sincere apologies for the complete and total lack of blogging for the last, well, let's not quantify it...let's just say it's been awhile!

So where have I been? Well...in a nutshell, it's really quite simple: when push comes to shove, this is a hobby and not a job, and so my job and any job-related activities must come first. But that's only part of the story. I must also admit that I seem to have misplaced my "muse". Or maybe I've realized that my muse only comes out during election years! Put differently, I find myself most inspired to write in the midst of the part of politics that I have always found most interesting -- the "horse race". Elections.

On that note, you may have heard there are a few elections today that have garnered some pretty significant national attention. In Virginia, the Gubernatorial Election has Republican Bob McDonnell facing off against Democrat Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is up against Republican Chris Christie. And last but not least, in (way) upstate New York, near the Canadian Border, there is a race for the House of Representatives (New York 23) that now pits Conservative Party candidate -- note: not Republican Party candidate -- Doug Hoffman against Democrat Bill Owens. (The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race this past weekend and subsequently endorsed the Democrat).

These three races, all quite different in many ways, also have several very interesting things in common:

All three are states (or districts, in the case of NY-23) carried by President Obama just a year ago;
All three are races in which President Obama and/or his White House have had significant involvement;
All three races -- as of this writing at 6:15pm Tuesday evening -- will, in my opinion, likely be won by the Republican (or, in NY-23, Conservative) candidate.

Last year, Obama won Virginia by a margin of 53% to 46% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RealClearPolitics Average (an average of all recent polling, a.k.a. "RCP Average") has Republican McDonnell ahead of Democrat Deeds 54% to 41%. Last year, Obama won New Jersey by a margin of 57% to 42% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RCP Average has Republican Christie ahead of Democrat (and incumbent) Corzine 43% to 42%. Last year, Obama carried New York's 23rd Congressional District by a margin of 52% to 47% of the vote over John McCain. The latest poll for this race (there is no RCP Average) has Conservative Hoffman ahead of Democrat Owens 41% to 36%. The race in Virginia is a foregone conclusion -- McDonnell will win that one handily. The polls in New Jersey have fluctuated wildly over the last few weeks, and most consider this race to be extremely tight. I happen to believe, however, that Christie will win by 3 to 5 points tonight. As for NY-23, this race is just a gigantic mess. The original Republican candidate, Scozzafava, never enjoyed the backing of all national Republicans, and ultimately some notable GOP figures including Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and yes, Sarah Palin, threw their support behind Hoffman over Scozzafava. Either way, though, it looks as though Hoffman will win tonight, and while he may not be an official Republican, his victory would be a loss for the Democrats.

It's very important to note the involvement of the President and the White House in each of these races as well. Rather than try to analyze that myself, I'll leave it to a professional. John Fund of The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely today when he wrote the following:

"It can't be said that President Obama hasn't gone all-out for Democratic candidates in the three marquee off-year elections that will be decided today.

In Virginia, Mr. Obama appeared twice for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. The visits only stopped a few weeks ago after Mr. Deeds began dropping in the polls, when unnamed White House aides then contributed to a front-page Washington Post story that effectively had Team Obama washing its hands of any responsibility for his likely loss.
In the wild upstate New York special election for a House seat, the White House has been deeply involved from the start. It effectively created the vacancy by enticing GOP incumbent John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army. It also helped recruit Democrat Bill Owens, a wealthy trial lawyer, and President Obama held a fundraiser in New York for him. Just yesterday the White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to the district to drive up turnout and lambaste Republicans as intolerant. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also played an instrumental role over the weekend in convincing Dede Scozzafava, the now-withdrawn GOP nominee in the race, to endorse Mr. Owens rather than Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
But it's in New Jersey's governor's race that the White House footprint has been most visible and heavy. Last August, Team Obama was so worried that incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was trailing in the polls that it effectively ordered him to install top Obama political pollster Joel Benenson to mange strategy for the campaign. White House officials David Axelrod and Patrick Gaspard traveled to New Jersey to deliver the message in person to Mr. Corzine. Politico.com, citing three Corzine aides, reports that at one point the New Jersey governor even 'began to suspect that the White House was considering pushing him to step aside for another candidate -- a tactic the White House unsuccessfully tried against another northeastern Democrat in similar trouble -- New York Gov. David Paterson.'
That didn't happen, but with Mr. Benenson installed in the campaign, the White House jumped into the race with both feet. President Obama has been to New Jersey three times to rally Democrats. Sunday's visit lasted an entire day, a sharp contrast to the in-and-out stump campaigning most presidents do on behalf of candidates.
The fact is, President Obama has poured a lot more time and energy into these races than incumbent presidents usually do. At least some of his prestige and clout are on the line tonight along with the fate of his party's nominees."

And so the narrative is apparently written, right? Any Republican win tonight is a sign of trouble for Obama and the Democrats, and a Republican sweep would be a (politically) seismic event signaling a direct repudiation of Obama and the Democrats and the potential beginning of a Republican comeback, right? Well, maybe. You see, this is where I differ with many other Republicans and even with the way the headlines have already begun to be crafted by the media. Because again, as I write, I think we are looking at a Republican sweep tonight -- (assuming Hoffman is a de facto Republican in NY-23). And while I think this is certainly significant and while it would have been thought improbable six months ago and impossible twelve months ago, I don't believe the GOP should pop the champagne just yet.

In short, I think this is likely more of a rejection of Obama and Congressional Democrats than it is a sign of renewed confidence in or newfound affection for Republicans. Should my prediction hold true, I do think Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ought to be concerned. I do not, however, think that Republicans should begin licking their chops and dreaming of regaining majorities in the House and Senate next year on the way to taking back the White House in 2012.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid should be worried because of the real concerns that many of the same independent voters who put Obama in the White House now have about him and his Capital Hill cohorts -- the same independents who will likely tip these three elections away from Democrats tonight. Obama needs them to pass healthcare, and he needs them for electoral purposes both in the midterm elections next year and his own reelection in 2012. So while this should be something that raises the stress level in the West Wing, let's not go overboard. Three elections in an off-year do not signify a catastrophe for Obama and his party by any means, but they do likely signify the need to recalibrate a bit in order to prevent further political erosion.

As for the GOP, the Republican "brand" is so very damaged -- rightfully so, some might argue, (this writer being one of them, at least on certain issues) -- that three elections in an off-year will be only the first step in a long process of recovery and rebuilding. Would a "sweep" tonight be a feather in the GOP's cap? Sure. Would it energize a Republican base still licking their (largely self-inflicted) wounds from 2008? You bet. But if Republicans try to make too much out of what happens tonight, they risk returning immediately to the cocky and tone-deaf politics that brought the party to its knees a year ago. So as a Republican, my advice to the GOP tonight is the same advice a good football coach gives his players about how to behave after scoring a touchdown. Do you spike the ball and start dancing around like a maniac? Absolutely not. You calmly hand the referee the ball, return to the field, and get back to work. "Act like you've been there before", the coach says. Bingo. Republicans tonight should "act like [they've] been there before". If they do, perhaps it will indeed be the first of many steps required to actually get them back there again.

A 'Healthy' Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:30:00 +0000

Tonight, President Obama will hold his fourth primetime press conference since taking office in January. Obama's primary topic for tonight will be the hotly debated issue of health care reform. With polls showing the public's approval of Obama's handling of the health care issue slipping, he undoubtedly realizes that his chances of signing meaningful reform into law are diminishing daily.

The House revealed its version of a health care reform bill last week, and the bill's unveiling was met with almost instantaneous controversy. Obama did not seem worried, though, and forcefully reiterated his intention of passing a health care reform bill before Congress' August recess, telling reporters:

"We are going to get this done...Don't bet against us...We are going to make this happen."

I don't know anyone who would argue that the country's current health care system is good. Indeed, there are unquestionably problems with the status quo, not the least of which being the number of uninsured Americans. So the debate, it seems to me, does not hinge on the issue of whether or not improvement is needed, but rather on how that improvement should be made.

The sweeping changes proposed by the House (and supported by Obama) would, according to the A ssociated Press:

"...require everyone to have health insurance and make employers provide it or pay a penalty; subsidize the poor to help them buy care; and create a new public insurance plan modeled after Medicare to compete with private insurance companies."

While the merits of these proposed changes are debatable, what is not debatable is that health care comprises one-sixth of our entire economy, and that changes like those in the current House bill will literally affect every single American. Making any fundamental change to a system that holds such economic significance and that will be felt by every person is no small task. Making the sorts of changes that Obama is asking for will be an extraordinarily complex task. The logistics of implementing such a change are not only maddeningly complicated, they are also very expensive.

The president was dealt a blow last week when the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, testified before the Senate Budget Committee. From The Washington Post:

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

By no means do I pretend to be an expert on health care or health care reform. Further, I would in no way classify myself as one who is diametrically opposed to making necessary changes to a system that is not working properly. That said, there are a few areas where I differ with the President and with the Democrats in Congress. The following is a sample of some of the questions and areas of concern I have:

Why is President Obama in such a hurry to "get this done" before Congress' August recess? It seems to me that if such significant changes are going to be made to such a vital aspect of our country and her people, they should be done with extreme caution and only after careful deliberation. Rarely (if ever) is there an effective "quick fix" to a big problem, and I see no reason why this is an exception. Obama's arbitrary deadline seems based more on politics than on ensuring that whatever reform he signs into law has been thoroughly evaluated and considered -- not only by the members of Congress who will vote on it, but by the American people who will be affected by it.
When has the government ever really "fixed" anything? Does the government truly "run" anything well? Many opponents of the current proposal use the DMV as an example of what we can expect out of government-run health care, and while I think that's an extreme comparison, the underlying point has some validity. Do we want to entrust our health care to the federal government? Think about that for a bit, and I suspect you might have some concerns.
Is raising taxes and spending -- undeniably required for this to be enacted -- the wisest course of action given the fact that we are already in a recession and already facing the largest deficits in U.S. history? It's not just Republicans who express concerns about the fiscal implications of the current proposal, but also the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats", a group of roughly 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives who pride themselves on their fiscal conservatism. Even some Democratic Governors have expressed concerns, with Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen referring to the House bill as "the mother of all unfunded mandates".

Yesterday, President Obama accused those who oppose his health care reform proposal of playing politics. While that may be true, it seems to me that it is Obama himself who is playing politics, and he is doing so with an issue that is too serious and far-reaching for the "same old Washington politics" that Candidate Obama promised to end. The president realizes that his political capital is diminishing, and with it, the political "window" for pushing the kind of reform he wants through Congress is slowly closing. And while I agree reform of some kind is needed, I do not necessarily agree that the current proposal is the right answer, and I vehemently disagree with the politically-calculated rush that President Obama has placed on the reform process.

I think it would be beneficial for every American to tune in to the president's press conference tonight (8:00pm Eastern). If the press are appropriately inquisitive -- not always the case when they question Obama -- we could all learn a lot about what may be in store for us in the near future, and how, precisely, it will all be paid for.

Robert Gibbs (and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week)

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:59:00 +0000

It hasn't been the best week for Robert Gibbs, President Obama's Press Secretary.

On Monday, he told NBC News' Chuck Todd that we should "begin to judge [Obama's stimulus package] now". Take a look:

Fair enough, Mr. Gibbs. With this morning's news that 467,000 jobs were lost in June and that the unemployment rate has climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5%, I don't think many people will judge the Obama stimulus plan to have been successful thus far.

Yesterday wasn't a very good day for Gibbs, either. When the White House Press Corps realized that Obama's "online town hall" about health care yesterday didn't represent as much "change" as Candidate Obama promised to deliver, things got a little testy during Gibbs' daily briefing. You see, the questioners at yesterday's town hall were hand-picked (and their questions were pre-screened) by the White House -- something that sometimes occurred for President Bush's town hall meetings, but for which Bush was routinely excoriated by the Democrats and the media alike. To my great shock, CBS News' Chip Reid called Obama and his team out on their hypocrisy, eventually aided by the always cantankerous Helen Thomas. I give a lot of credit to Reid and Thomas for doing something that the mainstream media have largely failed to do thus far: actually challenging the Obama Administration on what is now a series of hedges, broken promises, and examples of the "same old Washington politics" against which Obama so frequently railed on the campaign trail last year. Here's yesterday's exchange between Gibbs, Reid and Thomas:

So again, it's been a hard week for Robert Gibbs, and amid increasing signs that President Obama's proverbial honeymoon -- with the American people and with the mainstream media -- might be nearing its end, perhaps Gibbs should prepare for more tough weeks to come.

Note: Commenter "craig" indicated that he was waiting for me to weigh in on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his utterly disgraceful and increasingly bizarre behavior. I intend to do so in the near future, but quite frankly, I don't think we've seen the end of this story yet. Whether there will be additional revelations from Mr. Sanford (let's all hope not) or whether he ends up resigning in the coming days (I hope so), we haven't reached the conclusion yet. Once we do, I'll happily share my thoughts. Thanks for the comment, craig, and thanks to all for reading.

The Bragging Writes "Skinny"

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:34:00 +0000

Welcome to those who are visiting for the first time after reading "The Political Skinny" in this morning's Mobile Press-Register. I am flattered by the mention (though I was completely unaware it was coming)!

Had I known there might be a spike in "traffic", I would probably have put up a new post since, as it stands now, my most recent post was on May 12th! The recent dearth of updates is certainly not for a lack of compelling subject matter, and in fact, there is much to discuss, particularly as President Obama and the Democratic Congress continue to enact and propose significant changes. Quite frankly, work has kept me unusually busy over the last few months and, at the end of the day, my job comes first and this, my hobby, often suffers as a result. As we enter the summer months, though, work tends to quiet down a bit and so hopefully I'll be able to start writing more frequently, and I do hope you'll check back here from time to time.

Ironically, I had already planned to weigh in on a few Alabama-related topics in the coming weeks and months, including the fascinating position in which Senator Jeff Sessions now finds himself as the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is notable not only because of the upcoming confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but also because of the uniquely personal perspective that Senator Sessions has after his own experience in front of this same committee in 1986. On another note, I am very intrigued by Alabama's upcoming gubernatorial election, likely pitting Bradley Byrne against Artur Davis. I'm not sure I can recall an election in my lifetime in which Alabama has had two candidates for governor as intelligent and qualified as Byrne and Davis. Lastly, the recent economic and business developments in Mobile (as well as in Baldwin County) are very exciting, and the prospects for continued growth in the future seem very strong. I hope to take a closer look at that in the near future.

Below you'll find some previous posts, and while they may not be as timely today as when I initially wrote them, I hope you might find them interesting or thought-provoking nonetheless. Thanks for visiting the blog, and I do hope you'll come back again for more current (and hopefully more frequently updated) posts.

The Republican Party: An "Endangered Species"?

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:59:00 +0000

There’s no question that it’s a tough time to be a Republican. Look no further than the cover of this week’s Time Magazine (left), which features the trademark Republican elephant below the ominous descriptor: “Endangered Species”. So let's take stock of where things stand. Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate, and if recent polls are accurate, the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans too. Arlen Specter’s defection and Al Franken’s inevitable “victory” in Minnesota will give Senate Democrats a coveted, filibuster-proof 60 seat-majority in the Senate. House Republicans are led ineffectively and are in no position to mount a credible challenge to any legislation that President Obama or the Democratic majority wish to see passed. New RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been a colossal disappointment, and now borders on earning “national joke” status. Any fair-minded person would admit that the media are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, only furthering the inability of Republicans to mount any sort of quasi-effective counteroffensive. But “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln”, how do things look for the GOP?

It’s indeed hard to deny that the Republican Party is facing something of a nadir right now – certainly for my generation. We grew up during the “Reagan Revolution”, saw the Democrats briefly resurge when Bill Clinton was elected, but then witnessed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 in which the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate – the former for the first time in four decades. And there were heady times initially in the George W. Bush years, too, particularly when, very briefly, it was the Republican Party who controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. But shortly after Bush was reelected in 2004, things began to go very badly very quickly for the GOP. President Bush squandered considerable goodwill from the electorate and enormous political capital, most notably in the mishandling of the first years of the Iraq War, as well as with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The severity of the GOP’s dire straits began to be confirmed in the 2006 midterm elections, and the situation only worsened for the party as it stumbled into the 2008 elections. John McCain never had a chance in November (and really, no Republican candidate would have), and the Democrats built upon the legislative majorities they already held. So what now for the Republican Party? Are Republicans, in fact, an “endangered species”?

The irony for the GOP is that this daunting low point could, in fact, be a great opportunity. Americans have not seen a government this liberal in recent history. Between Obama – who as president is belying his “most liberal Senator” rating – Harry Reid and his soon-to-be unchecked Senate, and last but not least, Nancy Pelosi, we as a country are dealing with individuals in the key positions of power who are arguably further to the political left than any in history. With no legislative or popular leverage for Republicans, Obama’s agenda will sail through the House and the Senate, and in a matter of months, there could be some very significant changes in our country that will affect Americans in their day-to-day lives. As a Republican, I obviously believe that the majority of people will not be happy with everything that Obama has done, not to mention the more worrisome things he has yet to do. And it is here where opportunity may knock for the GOP. A popular backlash to Obama’s policies would give Republicans the chance to remind the voters who they are, what they stand for, and to present a stark contrast from what we are sure to see from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.

This is an opportunity that the GOP has not had since Ronald Reagan assumed office following President Carter’s disastrous single term. Unlike today, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for the majority of his two terms, and perhaps more importantly, Clinton often led from the center of the political spectrum. Clinton’s poll-driven and fickle “centrism” offered no true chance for a Republican contrast. The situation is different now. There is no such moderation in President Obama, and he’s too ambitious not to take advantage of having such decisive control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. But with great power comes great responsibility, and should the various items on the Obama agenda fail, there will be no one else for the Democratic Party to blame.

It’s not that simple, though. While perhaps optimistic Republicans would argue that Obama and his party now have “just enough rope to hang themselves”, the president is too smart to walk into such an obvious trap. No, Obama and the Democrats won’t implode on their own -- certainly not if the media can help it -- and to the extent they do fail and suffer for it politically, Republicans still have to present a cohesive and coherent alternative for those who may become disaffected with the Democrats. The Republican Party of May, 2009 is not a party capable of rising to this challenge. Ideological fault lines have created deep divisions within the GOP, a party that used to pride itself on its “big tent” philosophy, and on its ability to accept and embrace people of varying views – particularly with regard to social policy. Certain wings of the party still practice this, but others have become far more stringent about the litmus tests applied to those who seek to identify themselves as Republicans. This constricted and narrow-minded approach to party ideology is an impediment that must be dealt with before the GOP can rise again.

But who will take them there? As of now, there is no clear leader who can both begin the GOP’s recovery and serve as its face and voice. The person or persons who exhibit the ability to unite the currently divided party will likely earn Reagan-esque levels of admiration for achieving such a feat. I don’t know who this person is. I’m not sure any Republican really does. Perhaps it is someone who is young and only now beginning a political career. Or, perhaps it’s a more unlikely figure, maybe even someone who has been around for awhile. Either way, I tend to doubt the Republican Party will find this person in time to mount a credible challenge in 2012, but eventually, they will find him (or her). Because from adversity comes strength, and the ideals that Republicans of every ilk still commonly hold dear remain powerful, identifiable and appealing to many Americans – even if those who fail to lead The Grand Old Party now have temporarily lost sight of them.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com)

First Things First, Mr. President

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:02:00 +0000

Suppose I had my eye on a new house, a real “fixer-upper”. It’s a bigger house than I have now, and it’s more money than I want to spend, but I want it nonetheless. And maybe “fixer-upper” is too generous. There are leaks in the roof, the appliances are old and some are even broken, and the yard is overgrown. But I want this house, and I decide to pull out all the stops to make it mine, exhausting my savings and borrowing heavily. Then imagine that during the time between the acceptance of my offer and the closing, the leaks worsen until finally, right after we close, a full-fledged hole develops in the roof, allowing rain, cold air, debris and other undesirable things to enter the house through the hole, rendering it nearly uninhabitable. At this point, however, we are committed, this is our home, and so we proceed as planned and move in.

We have big plans for this house. We plan to add a new master bedroom to the back of the house, we want to put a pool in the back yard, and we also want to take the necessary steps to make the house “green”. Our first few weeks in the house, however, things aren’t going too well. The constant cold air rushing through the hole in the roof forces us to use the heat at all times, driving up our power and gas bills. The washer and dryer, already old and unreliable, finally kick the bucket, joining the refrigerator on the list of now defunct appliances. About a month after we move in, the area of the roof where the hole had been completely collapses, and now we have no roof over the dining room at all. Our new house is basically a living hell, and I find myself constantly reminding my wife that we didn’t cause the problems in the house. Did the previous owners really allow the house to fall into such a state of disrepair?

I promise my wife that we are, first and foremost, going to address the roof. It has to be done. We are basically living outdoors. We ask for a number of estimates on the roof, and despite the fact that one of the roofers has had his license revoked for construction violations, he says he has the most experience dealing with roof problems like ours, and so we hire him anyway. He begins to show up every day, but it seems as though he only examines the roof over and over again, taking pictures and measuring, but not actually doing anything. One day as I watch him again examining the missing roof, I ask him just when he plans to get to work. He tells me that he is still formulating the best plan of action, and that as soon as he has a full plan in place, he’s going to get started. I’m slightly irritated – there’s no roof over our dining room, after all – but he’s supposedly the best, and I figure it’s probably better if I don’t interfere too much.

In the meantime, I have promised the kids for years that we would have a pool as soon as we moved, and I just don’t think I can make them wait. I contact the pool company, and they come out to give me an estimate. It’s staggeringly expensive, but a promise is a promise, and so I go back to my bank where, miraculously, I’m given additional loans. At dinner the next night, I tell my kids that we’ll break ground on the new pool in a few weeks, and of course, they are ecstatic. My wife is worried, though, because of the other problems that remain unaddressed, but I think I know how to pacify her. I’ve been promising her the new master bedroom, and deep down, she’s as excited about that as the kids are about the pool. The next day, a contractor shows up to give us an estimate on the addition. It’s almost as much as the pool, and while I feel a little sick to my stomach, I am able to borrow against my mortgage to get the cash to pay for it. When she hears that we’re going to begin building her dream bedroom, she nearly forgets about the missing roof.

The following week, we’ve broken ground on the pool, the plans are in place for the new bedroom, and the roofer still shows up every day to tinker with his plan, but he hasn’t yet made the repairs. At the same time, the missing roof has become such a constant that we’re almost immune to the inconvenience and discomfort, and we continue to wait for the roofer to work his magic. But then things change dramatically when I get some bad news: I’ve been laid off at work. While they offer me a decent severance package, with the job market as tough as it is, I know it’s going to be hard to find work. In an attempt to soften the blow that the news will be to my wife, after I leave work for the last time, I go right to Sears and buy the best washer, dryer and refrigerator they have with my Sears Card – the only credit card on which I’m not maxed out!

When I get home, all is not well, though, as our pipes have burst and the first floor is flooded. The pool company asks if I still want to move forward with the pool, and the contractor offers to halt construction of the new master bedroom, but I am terrified of disappointing my wife and kids, so I go full speed ahead on both. Even the environmental company is nice enough to offer to cancel our consultation, but my in-laws have made it clear that they won’t visit us unless our house is environmentally friendly, and I do not want to cross my mother-in-law! The environmental consultant is aware of my situation, and amazingly, he tells me that I can delay my payment by a year if necessary, and so I tell him to go ahead and get started on making our house green. My mother-in-law is thrilled! All in all, things seem pretty good.

Does all of this sound completely and utterly crazy? It certainly should. The scary thing is that this is nearly the equivalent of what Barack Obama has done in his 50 days in office. In this little allegory, I’m President Obama. The house is the country. The roof is our economy and financial system, and the roofer, obviously, represents Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. My wife and kids are the various far Left constituencies who helped elect Obama, and to whom he is politically indebted. The pool represents the Obama budget, the master bedroom is the stimulus package, and the plans to make the house green symbolize Obama’s recently unveiled healthcare initiative. My father-in-law is Harry Reid, and my terrifying mother-in-law is Nancy Pelosi.

In the last few months, our economic and financial problems have worsened dramatically, and as things have deteriorated, the administration has looked at the problems, talked about the problems, but really done nothing to fix the problems. Despite this glaring and fundamental issue, Obama continues his incredibly ambitious and expensive plans with almost no regard for the growing economic mayhem around him. Last week, on the same day the Dow again lost another 4%, Obama announced plans for healthcare reform with a $650 Billion price tag. He is prepared to sign a $3.6 Trillion budget which will not only double our national debt and add more to our deficit than all of his predecessors combined, he is prepared to sign this budget replete with its 8570 earmarks – earmarks Obama promised to do away with. All the while, our economic and financial predicaments become more and more severe, and Tim Geithner has yet to offer any sort of concrete plans to address it. The proverbial house is crumbling around him, but the president seems determined to make it bigger anyway.

Our new president didn’t cause the problems he now faces, but he has exacerbated them. What Obama and his administration should have done – and perhaps still can and should do – is set aside their other plans and focus almost myopically on the economy. The other initiatives can and must wait. Fix this, and the political capital Obama will have will be nearly limitless, and the American people will support almost anything he wants. But fix it, and fix it now. As one of the ubiquitous talking heads noted on television recently, Obama and his team are remarkably good at politics, but are they as skilled at governing? Let's hope so.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

No Thanks from an Ungrateful Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:43:00 +0000

Two weeks ago tomorrow, Barack Obama took the oath of office, becoming the 44^th President of the United States. Obama’s swearing-in also represented the end of the George W. Bush Administration, a fact greeted with vindictive glee by many across the country. Even though I did not vote for President Obama, I wish him well, and I appreciate seeing our democracy at work. There is something very powerful and very moving about the peaceful transfer of power we are privileged to witness every four or eight years. I also join so many others in celebrating our country’s first African-American president – a truly extraordinary and historic moment for our nation. I cannot, however, take part in the mean-spirited jubilation that accompanied the end of Bush’s tenure in the White House.

It is very fashionable to deride Bush, his administration, and his record. It is “cool” to hate President Bush, and to flippantly talk of how he “shredded the Constitution” after September 11^th, or “lied to the country” in the run-up to the Iraq War. It’s popular to fault Bush and Bush alone for the current financial crisis. So loud were the criticisms and so organized the accompanying media narrative that it is simply assumed Bush deserved all of the blame for the myriad missteps in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. East Coast elites ridicule Bush’s inarticulateness and sneer with certainty at his alleged stupidity. West Coast, Hollywood-types blanch at his lack of “sophistication” and even professed shame for their citizenship in a country led by the proudly un-hip Texan. The mainstream media not only share these sentiments, but have also perpetuated the same narratives through sometimes alarmingly blatant and slanted reporting. Through it all, Bush refused to alter his course, resisted what might have been a natural inclination to change for the sake of popularity or political expedience, and in doing so, only further enraged them all.

Of course President Bush made mistakes. All presidents do – all people do. 9/11 forced Bush into some difficult and sometimes controversial decisions, but to assign ulterior and sinister motives to his choices is simply unfounded. While I do not agree with those who believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, I absolutely believe that for far too long, the war was managed poorly, and as Commander-in-Chief, Bush is ultimately responsible. He indeed deserves some of the blame for the financial and economic predicaments in which we now find ourselves, but in fairness, many of the seeds of this systemic failure were planted over a long period of time, including during previous administrations and in years when oversight was the responsibility of a Democratic Congress. Without question, there were mistakes made during Hurricane Katrina and the botched handling of her aftermath – at every level of government – yet somehow then-Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin both seemed to avoid the finger-pointing directed at President Bush. Admittedly, Bush is a poor speaker, and in this era of modern media, the ability to skillfully communicate is a very important quality for an effective president. And while his poor diction often failed him in making his case to the American people, ineloquent oratory does not always equate to idiocy. As I recently argued to a friend, while Bush is surely no genius, it is simply impossible for anyone to run and win a national campaign – much less to function as the most powerful man in the world – without a degree of intelligence that surpasses that of the average person. Bush is no exception, and he is no idiot either.

Seemingly lost in the frenzy of hatred and criticism surrounding Bush is the proverbial elephant in the room: there has not been a single subsequent terrorist attack in America in the seven years and four months since September 11^th, 2001. The apparent ease with which so many seemingly disregard this singular but seminal accomplishment reflects an unattractive and ignorant naivety on their part, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we now live. How quickly so many seem to forget the pain we collectively felt when, as a country, we were blindsided by that horrific day. How shortsighted so many appear to be in blocking out the intense fear that those heinous acts caused us. How ungrateful so many apparently are for the fact that Bush and his administration managed to do what even the most optimistic of us would have considered impossible that horrible day. And how ironic that New York, the city most affected by the horrors of 9/11, served as the effective epicenter of the anti-Bush movement.

There are increasing signs that Bush’s successor has begun to understand the difficult realities of the world and maybe even to gain some appreciation for the job that President Bush did under circumstances you and I cannot fully know. The most telling of these, obviously, was Obama’s decision to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was also striking that, even while he fulfilled his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay, he is not sure what precisely to do with its detainees and not finding many prisons (here or abroad) eager to welcome those currently held there – problems also cited by the Bush Administration as hindrances to closing GITMO. The story was similar with the issue of “torture”, a favorite charge of the anti-Bush crowd, and an issue on which their leader, Obama, is also now hedging. I imagine the fact that he now receives a daily intelligence briefing has something to do with the beginnings of this migration from Candidate Obama to President Obama. I predict we’ll see further moves on the part of our new president that, while probably done quietly or masked cleverly, will still serve to maintain many of the same practices and policies for which he and his party so roundly criticized Bush. In many ways, this would be the ultimate exoneration for President Bush.

I suspect – and frankly hope – that the same Americans who so cavalierly badmouth Bush today will eventually understand the good he did while president. While it may take years, as more facts come to light about Bush’s tenure, I hope that his steadfast judgment and pragmatic choices will eventually be vindicated as I believe they should be. We cannot know now and may never be able to fully know the information to which he was privy – the information on which so many of his most controversial decisions were likely based. But what we should know and appreciate now is that the last eight years have been among the most challenging ever faced by any president, and that in this time of unfamiliar and unprecedented difficulties, we as a nation were served well by President Bush’s consistency, by his commitment to principles, and by his constant goal of doing what he felt would best keep this country safe.

While I know that George W. Bush is not one to be caught up in concerns about his legacy, he deserves one far better than that which his critics are already trying to write for him now, he deserves more than the jeers and boos he received from the crowds on the National Mall at the Inauguration, and most immediately, he deserves the thanks of what is currently an ungrateful nation.

I Pledge...

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 03:25:00 +0000

Today we inaugurated Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. It was wonderful moment for our nation. I am sincerely proud of our country, and of our new president.

And while I hate to be negative on such an overwhelmingly positive day, something was brought to my attention today that I simply cannot ignore. This is not the fault of President Obama or of any Democrat or politician. I do not blame them in the least.

I do, however, blame the participants in the below video (as well as the like-minded people they are representing) for being so self-congratulatory, self-righteous, narcissistic and immature. (It even dwarfs "Our American Prayer", though they are part of the same disturbing trend of Hollywood celebrities vastly overstepping their boundaries, and because of their wealth and fame, reaching -- and, frighteningly, probably influencing -- millions).

Let me make one thing perfectly clear about what I pledge. Unlike the men and women in the below video, I pledge to always do everything I can to be a better person and yes, a better citizen. It does not matter whether the man or woman for whom I voted occupies the White House, or whether the political winds are blowing my way. I am first and always a proud American, and just as I was a proud American witnessing Obama's inauguration yesterday, I will remain a proud American throughout the four or even eight years he remains my president, regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies and decisions. That is my pledge.

Apparently the same cannot be said for Ashton, Demi and friends, now apparently awakened to their newfound patriotism and commitment to the greater good. Where was this altruism over the last eight years? Could Laura Linney really not stop using the plastic bags at the grocery store while Bush was president? Why is it that only when getting their [political] way are they willing to use their bully pulpit for an inarguably good cause?

I encourage and welcome your thoughts and reactions.

Without further ado...

MySpace Celebrity and Katalyst present The Presidential Pledge

Remember Henry?

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:31:00 +0000

Do you remember my dog, Henry, whom I told you about a few months ago here? Well, here he is, this morning, on Good Morning America!

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6635910

Hope you enjoy it as much as Henry did!

A New Kind of Politics?

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:04:00 +0000

Like many, I watched with interest yesterday as President-elect Obama visited President Bush at the White House. While watching the video and seeing the pictures of Bush and Obama, I was sincerely moved. Sometimes the beauty of our democracy is apparent when I would least expect it, and yesterday was a wonderful example of so much of what makes our country great. Last night, when I read that Bush and Obama had talked for over an hour -- but without any aides, note-takers, etc. -- literally alone -- I was again somewhat awed by the magnitude of the moment. Here were only the 43rd and soon-to-be 44th people to hold this office in the history of our country, talking in a refreshingly frank, open (and presumably off-the-record) manner.

Yesterday was another example of the grace with which President Bush has handled the transition so far. Bush's magnanimity here should not be surprising, though, because despite whatever faults he has, Bush should be credited for the deep, clearly genuine and emotional reverence he has always displayed for the office and institution of the presidency. It's a level of respect that I would hope all presidents would show for the office, and for the extraordinary responsibilities accompanying it.

In the wake of yesterday's meeting, however, I was disappointed in Obama when he and/or his aides leaked details of Obama's and Bush's conversation to the media. Making matters worse, the leak was done for crass political posturing, specifically about the question of whether the federal government should bail out GM or other struggling US automakers. I would think (or at least hope), that even "the One" would hold some things sacred, and that accordingly, he would maintain the confidentiality and trust that such a meeting deserves. Apparently I was wrong.

Barack Obama will soon be my president too, and while he wasn't my choice this election year, I wish him nothing but success. He won last week in part by promising a new kind of politics, and while I was never clear what precisely that meant, I hope this isn't the first example of it. If so, it's neither the path to success nor the way to win the support of the 57 million Americans who voted for another candidate.

President Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:48:00 +0000

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America.

He was a remarkable candidate, and the historic nature of his victory tonight is truly extraordinary.

While I supported John McCain in this election, I can certainly recognize why Obama appealed to so many Americans.

And I hope that every American can set aside differences in political party or ideology and appreciate the significance of our country's first African-American president.

There will be a time to look back and analyze how Obama won or why McCain lost, and without a doubt, this 2008 campaign has been one of the most interesting, exciting and complex races in modern politics.

For now, though, I hope America can collectively celebrate this incredible milestone in the history of our great country.

Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, to his campaign, and to his supporters.

The Case for John McCain

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:54:00 +0000

Last week, the free newspaper here in NYC, amNewYork, asked me to "make the case for John McCain in 400 words or less". Now, as frequent readers of BraggingWrites know, brevity is not my strong suit! Nevertheless, I managed to make my case (in 402 words!), and I think it nicely -- and yes, succinctly -- sums up why I will vote for John McCain on Tuesday.

For those of you in New York, look for this in your amNewYork tomorrow morning. And for everyone reading, below is my case for John McCain as submitted to the newspaper. If it manages to convince someone on the fence to vote for McCain, that's great, but if I were to ask one thing of anyone reading this regardless of which candidate you support, it would be that you just simply vote tomorrow. Period. I realize that voting can be inconvenient and it can be tempting to just "sit one out", but I think it is important that we never forget how envious so many people in so many places around the world are of our political system, and of our rights and our freedoms.

With that said, I give you the case for John McCain:

The events of today often makes it easy to forget what happened yesterday or what might happen tomorrow. Today, we have been kept safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for more than seven years. Today, the situation in Iraq is more stable – both militarily and politically – than at any point since the war began. Today, Americans are intensely focused and concerned about what is in their wallets and their 401(k) plans. Today, voters are wondering if the value of their homes will return to previous levels and if their jobs are secure. All of these facts obscure the harsh reality that we are living in a new and dangerous era – today and tomorrow.

In this time in which our national security remains under constant threat, John McCain is the right candidate to assume the weighty responsibilities of the presidency. His foreign policy knowledge and instincts are tested and proven. His support for the so-called “Surge” strategy in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular is testament to that. His opposition to “spreading the wealth around” through redistributionist tax policies is correct. Cutting taxes for all Americans and lowering the taxes on corporations and small businesses alike will keep more money in Americans’ pockets and create more jobs – exactly the right tonic for our ailing economy. A President McCain would represent a crucial check and balance against the ultra-liberal Pelosi House and Reid Senate, creating the scenario in which true bipartisan compromise can and must be achieved.

Lost in the midst of Barack Obama’s impressive domination of the “change” mantle is the fact that McCain represents change, too. He is not President Bush. In fact, he ran against Bush in 2000, and has been a frequent critic of Bush and his policies throughout the last eight years. Drowned out by Obama’s empty promises to usher in a new kind of politics is the reality that it is McCain who has the long and distinguished record of putting political party aside in order to reach across the aisle for results. As impressive a politician as Obama is, he lacks the record, the experience and the judgment that John McCain possesses in spades.

With his long and dedicated service to our country, John McCain is the right choice on Election Day – not because he deserves the presidency, but because he is the president that the American people deserve – today and tomorrow.

Football and Blogging Don't Mix

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:25:00 +0000

In case you've been wondering why I haven't updated the blog in awhile, let me explain...

The weekend before last, I met some buddies on Saturday morning for a good, old-fashioned game of football. Now that I am an ancient 31 years of age, I stretched thoroughly before the game in an attempt to avoid pulling something, and maybe even to head off some soreness the next day.

Naturally, on the third play of the game in an extraordinary display of grace, my right cleat caught in the turf, I rolled my ankle, consequently fell, and in doing so, I managed to land awkwardly on my right hand, breaking my wrist!

So, as you can probably imagine typing with this cast...

...is no easy task! Neither are many things, as it turns out, given how completely and totally right-handed I am! (In fact, it has taken me 37 minutes to type this...just kidding)!

In all seriousness though, typing is tough, and that's why you haven't heard much from me lately. I'm getting better at typing though, and will hope to pick things back up soon. Thanks!

Believe It or Not, We're In This Together

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:40:00 +0000

Like I did late last month, I again devoted my latest SpliceToday column to the financial crisis. As they were then, things are still extraordinarily busy, a primary reason for the lack of posts on the election. Since my "day job" is consuming so much of time, I thought I might as well write a little more about it, and about about my perspective on the current situation. This week things seem more "normal" than they have at any time since early September. It's my hope that this return to normalcy will continue and that, as a result, I'll be able to start writing more about the presidential race (which is now only two weeks away)!

So with that, here is this week's Splice column...

Lehman Brothers’ September 8 filing for bankruptcy proved to be a catalyst for market turmoil, as nearly anyone with a stock portfolio or a 401(k) can easily attest. The subsequent five weeks have been the busiest of my career. As I wrote in my previous column, my job is to convince my customers to trade stocks with me and with my firm. As a general rule, market volatility breeds market activity (and to some extent, vice versa), but the bottom line is that the more fluctuations the market experiences, the busier I am. These last five weeks have been no exception.

When customers trade with my firm, they pay us commission—typically on a cents-per-share basis. For example, if a customer trades 1,000,000 shares with us on a given day at a commission rate of two cents per share, the firm takes in $20,000. Some of that revenue might be allocated to pay for the customer’s use of the firm’s research, some is used to cover the costs the firm incurs in order to be able to trade for the customer, and the rest is disbursed in any number of other ways. In theory, a portion of that will be reflected in my year-end bonus, though there is no exact formula and some degree of subjectivity involved in if and how that happens.

My firm is not one of the companies that has found itself in the headlines over the last few weeks and months. In many ways, our structure, philosophy and business model insulate us from many of the problems that have plagued some other Wall Street firms—Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers foremost among them. Coupling that with how very busy we’ve been, one might think things are shaping up nicely for a big year for my company at year-end and, presumably, for me as well. But even as a bastion of financial responsibility amidst the irresponsible risk-takers that brought us here, we won’t be able to avoid sustaining some collateral damage.

Before assuming I am just another “greedy” Wall Streeter, there are probably a few things you ought to know. You might be surprised to hear that salaries on Wall Street are generally very low—so low that it might shock you given the tales of excessive wealth in the financial service industry. For most people working in finance, the bulk of their compensation is disproportionately represented by the year-end bonus, and this year bonuses are almost sure to take a major hit. (Indeed, it’s the bonuses that provide the eye-popping numbers for which Wall Street is infamous.) Keep in mind as well that quite often, a significant portion of the bonus consists of shares of the firm’s stock. And, like many other Americans, we have our own stock portfolios and our own 401(k) plans.

The end result is that as the market declines, we feel it and are impacted by it perhaps two, three or even four times more than someone working in another industry. I’m certainly not complaining; this is how it should be. After all, many of us working on Wall Street—most of my clients, in fact—are stewards of your investments. Some are making decisions about how to invest your retirement or pension funds, for example, and so it only makes sense that we should have an intensely vested interest in the market’s success. Being “doubled down” on the market’s rise or fall has the added benefit of ensuring that we do our work with fiduciary responsibility and with an adherence to an extremely high ethical standard. Most of us do.

Some don’t, though, and it is these very few who brought us Enron several years ago, who have brought us countless other financial scandals, and it is they who have brought the current financial crisis upon us. So as popular as it may be to blame “Wall Street” collectively, the reality is that many of us on “Wall Street” will be hurt as much and potentially more than most. The reckless risk-taking that proliferated our industry over the last decade in particular has likely come to a permanent end now. If new rules and regulations don’t bring an end to it, a new attitude from those in charge of financial firms certainly will. This, in the long run, is good news for all of us, and it is my hope that some faith in the financial markets and those who make a living working in it can be restored.

Any profession, whether on Wall Street or Main Street, rewards hard work, good performance, and results. My line of work is no different. I am now watching the expected reward for an entire year of hard work dramatically diminish (if not vanish) before my eyes in just over a month. The same, obviously, is true for my colleagues. The situation is worse for friends of mine in other areas of finance, particularly those who work for hedge funds whose income is completely and directly based on the performance of their investments. When the market plunges as it has in the last six weeks, there are few if any investments capable of avoiding decline, leaving many in the hedge fund community unsure of whether they’ll make a quarter of what they did last year.

My clients perhaps feel it the worst of all. As their year-to-date performance numbers melt down, they not only struggle with their own personal financial repercussions, but with the emotional and psychological drain of knowing that you’re going to be hurt as well. Several of my customers have lost their jobs, and others will likely face the same fate before the year is out. Even those clients who keep their jobs will undoubtedly be working with far less assets under management due not only to the declines in the market, but also because of fearful investors of theirs who have decided to pull the plug on their exposure to a frighteningly volatile market.

As I see others who do exactly what I do at less stable firms worrying about their job security—and even worse, others who did what I do at Bear or Lehman now looking for a new job—I am in many ways thankful simply to have a seat at the desk. I can’t tell you with certainty that we’ve seen our way through the current crisis in our financial system. Even if we have, attention is likely to now turn—as it arguably began to last week—to the more conventional problems that are weighing on the nation’s economy, creating yet another drag on the markets. Have faith, though, not only in the inherent fairness of the financial markets, but also in the knowledge that those of us on the front lines are working as hard as we can to get things moving in the right direction: higher—for you, and for ourselves.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

10:15pm

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:15:00 +0000

The media likely won't admit it, but McCain is dominating the debate tonight. He has been aggressive -- but has managed to do so without looking overly angry, or doing so in a way that can reasonably have him labeled "desperate". Obama knows it too, and clearly seems rattled.

It remains to be seen if this will make a difference in what remains Obama's election to lose, but as of this minute, McCain has done about as well as he is capable of doing.

Bottom of the Ninth...Two Outs, Two Strikes...

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:11:00 +0000

Apologies for the sports analogy, but that's a pretty apt description of where John McCain finds himself tonight heading into the third and final presidential debate. While the degree to which he trails varies, there is no denying that McCain is definitely running behind Barack Obama and that, had the election been held today, Obama would have won -- likely handily.

And so here we are with one last debate, one last chance for an extremely large audience of voters for both candidates. Obama's mission tonight is quite simple: don't screw up. Continuing the sports lingo, Obama is very close to being able to "take a knee" and "run the clock out", and should he dispatch with McCain in tonight's debate, he'll almost certainly be able to do just that.

McCain's task is extraordinarily more complex and difficult. Without question, he is going to have to be more aggressive tonight. He is going to have to challenge Obama in ways and about things he has thus far been unable or unwilling to do. The biggest quandary he faces is that he risks being labeled desperate by the mainstream media, (and indeed he is almost guaranteed as much). If McCain brings up William Ayers, he'll at best be accused by the media of trying to avoid the "real issues" or the "issues that matter" -- at worst accused of racism or inciting anger, two charges McCain has recently faced for virtually anything negative he says about Obama. The reality is, with the relatively little we know about Obama given his brief political career, his past associations are important and speak to his judgment. We as voters deserve to know what the man who will likely be our next president thinks about the person in whose living room his political career was launched -- the same person who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and feels he "didn't do enough".

As for the "real issues" and the "issues that matter", McCain does absolutely need to do a better job of articulating his plan for getting us out of the current financial crisis and for repairing a badly damaged economy. He blundered with his "campaign suspension" during the congressional bailout negotiations, and he has never really regained his footing -- not on economic issues and not on the race in general.

This is do-or-die for McCain tonight, and based on Obama's past performances, he's unlikely to make a blunder that will give McCain a boost. So the onus is on McCain, he's come from behind before, and if he's going to do it again, he absolutely has to start tonight. Let's watch!

Are We Done Here?

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:55:00 +0000

I sort of think we are done here, by which I mean it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

This is my gut reaction after watching the second debate between Obama and John McCain.

I'll elaborate more when I have time (and on that note, apologies for the relative blog silence of late. Work, as one might imagine, has been absolutely nuts over the last few weeks).

The bottom line tonight is that McCain needed to either have Obama make a gargantuan blunder or McCain had to have some sort of breakthrough performance in which he was able to significantly outshine Obama. Neither happened.

Speaking of Embarrassing...

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:32:00 +0000

Last month, I pointed you in the direction of "Our American Prayer", a video in which a variety of movie stars and pop stars were, it seemed, praying to Obama. I still think it's creepy, but today I came across something else that out-creeps "Our American Prayer". Take a look:

This strikes me as wrong on a number of levels. First and foremost, though, if you view this on YouTube and click on the "more info" link, you'll find the following description of what you have just watched:

Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered to sing original songs in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these nonvoting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.

Sing for Change was a confluence of hard work, good will, and shared vision. Inspired by ideas raised at a grassroots Obama fundraiser, a music teacher, Kathy Sawada, and the children composed and rehearsed the songs in less than two weeks. Several musicians heard of the effort and volunteered to accompany the children. Parents and older siblings designed and provided the T-Shirts and the banner. There's a first for everything, but rarely do so many firsts come together at once: for the children and their parents, this is their first performance, first video, first banner, and first involvement with grassroots work on a presidential campaign.

As Sunday approached, a neighbor volunteered a home. Production wizards got wind of the project and offered their help in recording it. The likes of Jeff Zucker, Holly Schiffer, Peter Rosenfeld, Darin Moran, Jean Martin, Andy Blumenthal, and Nick Phoenix rearranged schedules to participate. When Jeff Zucker went to pick up the camera package, Ted Schilowitz happened to be there and offered a RED camera set up on a Steadi Cam.

What we accomplished in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon embodies the nature of the Obama campaign: its grassroots inspiration, its inclusiveness, its community building. People pitched in quickly for a cause that resonated with them. There were not many conditions: "Think this is a good idea? Want to help? Great. Sunday at 12:00." At the heart of the project were 22 children and their music. The willingness of all involved to come together for them was a testament to our hope, unity, courage, joy and belief in the future represented by these children.

So let me quickly indicate just a few of my issues with this:

Some of these children are as young as 5 years old. Is a 5 year old (much less the children here who are between the ages of 6 and 12) really able to make a conscious political choice for himself or herself? I would argue probably not, and if you grant me that, how are these children not being used as political pawns by their parents and others involved in producing and disseminating this?
Given that this can be found here on Barack Obama's official websit e , Obama and his campaign therefore shares the responsibility for promoting it.
Heavily involved in apparently every aspect of this was Jeff Zucker. Jeff Zucker also happens to be the President and CEO of NBC Universal, which encompasses not only NBC News, but also MSNBC. That strikes me as a blatant conflict-of-interest at worst -- a clear indication of the bias held by the man atop NBC News and MSNBC at best.
While I obviously cannot prove this point, I would be willing to bet an awful lot that if this video featured children singing for John McCain (or George W. Bush), the liberal community would be in an uproar about the exploitation of children, etc. And I would bet even more that the phenomenon would be featured prominently on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC primetime show. (Yes, Jeff Zucker's MSNBC).

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons why I find this offensive, hypocritical and (with apologies for the repetition) creepy, but I'll stop here. I'd be curious to hear via the comments function what you think. Let me know!

Embarrassed Republican

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:28:00 +0000

Today, I am horribly embarrassed to be a Republican. The stubborn refusal of House Republicans to pass the Rescue Bill was extraordinarily wrong-headed. I understand sticking to the "conservative principles", but there are times when the urgency of the situation requires action that may run counter to one's instincts and/or convictions. This was one of those times.

Do these GOP legislators -- most attorneys by trade, I suspect -- truly believe that they know more about the financial system than Hank Paulson or Ben Bernanke (to say nothing of Warren Buffet and the other "experts" consulted on this)??? If these financial minds are telling you that this must be done, one should put aside partisan concerns, constituent complaints and simply do what is right for the country -- reelection be damned. I can assure them that their constituents will be a hell of a lot more angry tomorrow when their 401(k) has been devastated or when they can't get a loan of any kind. This is such a huge mistake. Think of the Democrats who likely acted counter to their beliefs after 9/11 for the greater good. This is the closest thing we've had to a financial 9/11, and the GOP has failed the country.

Republicans can kiss whatever fleeting hopes remained of maintaining the White House goodbye, (not to mention both Houses of Congress), and I am sad to say that it's deserved.

Update (4:15pm): Republicans are pointing to the speech that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave on the House Floor prior to the vote as part of the reason the bill failed to pass. I will let you watch her speech for yourself below, but I do want to note that her remarks truly were mean-spirited, partisan and uncalled-for. There was absolutely no reason to make such a speech prior to what needed to be a bipartisan effort to pass the bill. Secondly, it was dishonest, blaming all of the problems in the financial industry on the Bush Administration. Any honest observer will acknowledge that, as I posted here last week, there is plenty of blame to go around. Certain portions at the root of the current crisis began during the Clinton Administration. (Take a look at this New York Times article from 1999 if you need corroboration). Speaker Pelosi knows this, and her choice to take the disingenuous cheap shots she took -- and to do so when she did -- was despicable.

With that said, her ugly rhetoric does not -- I repeat, does NOT -- serve as an excuse for the Republicans who abdicated responsible represenation in voting against this bill (or for the Democrats who did the same thing, for that matter). This was a moment in which those in the GOP voting "no" simply needed to swallow their pride and, as the saying goes, "man up".

Here is Pelosi for you to see and hear for yourself:

Slipping Away

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:59:00 +0000

This election is beginnig to slip away from John McCain. To be clear, I wouldn't necessariliy argue that the election was ever firmly in his grasp, however he has managed to keep things close and competitive so far. I had thought things would remain very tight heading into Election Day, and until yesterday, I would probably have predicted another long election night with no winner declared until early the following morning. But now my gut feeling is that it's getting ugly out there, and more worrisome for McCain, I don't think the prospects for a comeback are very good. A few primary contributors to McCain's current predicament:

McCain's campaign suspension and return to Washington last week were widely viewed as a political stunt, and one that now appears to have backfired.
Initial post-debate reaction seemed to hold that either McCain had been slightly better or that it had effectively been a draw. Either way, that's likely a net win for Obama. Why? Because as the one trailing in the polls, McCain has the burden of significant outperformance on him, and it would be difficult to argue that he significantly outperformed Obama Friday night. Secondly, the foreign policy area was perceived as Obama's possible weakness. By holding his own in the debate, he probably alleviated concerns some voters may have had about his commander-in-chief qualifications. Over the weekend, though, a quasi-consensus developed that Obama had, in fact, won the debate outright -- from a stylistic a perspective as well as a substantive perspective.
Sarah Palin has derailed. McCain's choice of Palin, initially a wildly successful political move, may come back to haunt him. In the immediate days following Palin's selection, the Republican base was both excited and relieved. The media buzz surrounding the selection effectively buried the positive reactions to Obama's convention acceptance speech, and questions about her experience (or lack thereof) had the (unintended?) effect of reflecting the experience question back onto Obama. The wheels began to fall off during Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News. Though he was condescending and arguably looking to trip her up, the result was nonetheless a perception that she had been a bit shaky in her performance. If the Gibson interview was shaky, her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News last week, however, was an unmitigated disaster. The impression likely left on those who watched the interview was that of someone who is in over her head -- not the impression the McCain wants to leave with a 72-year old nominee. The stakes were enormously high for her convention speech a few weeks ago, and she delivered a game-changing performance. If it is possible, the stakes are even higher now for the vice presidential debate on Thursday, but my confidence in Palin's ability to again deliver a game-changing performance is lacking, and the choice of Palin as a running mate is quickly beginning to look like a big mistake. Palin can turn this around, but she'll have to be nearly perfect on Thursday night.
The media continue to aid Obama. Ironically, he might not need their help, but nevertheless, the media bias in this election is rather striking. Talking heads on television, op-ed writers in newspapers -- these are people who have enormous power in terms of driving the national conversation, and they have consistently driven that conversation in a decidedly pro-Obama, anti-McCain fashion. (The New York Times has been particularly shameful). This shows no sign of abating any time soon, and it simply adds to the litany of factors now making a victory for McCain unlikely.

Obviously a lot can happen in the next 36 days, but as I write, McCain has likely reached the lowest point of his General Election campaign to date. At this point, I simply don't see a way that McCain will be able to make enough of the uphill climb necessary to turn things around. I suspect this may begin to snowball, that we'll see continued movement towards Obama in the coming weeks, and that on November 4th, we might be going to bed early.

(If this morning's news is any indication, chances are I'm in for another crazy week at work. I will try to chime in when possible, but wanted to get these thoughts "out there" before the "fun" at work begins)...

The Great Unknown

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:54:00 +0000

I took the opportunity in my weekly SpliceToday column this week to discuss our country's current financial crisis. I cannot recall a period of time in nearly nine years on Wall Street when I'v been busier or more stretched to the limit. As I prepare to head into work today, there is still no agreement on a bailout (or rescue -- see below) plan, and my Blackberry was buzzing last night with news of Washington Mutual's failure and subsequent acquisition by JP Morgan. These are crazy times...and it ain't over yet. Hang in there!

Without further ado, here's my Splice column...

It’s been an extraordinary two weeks in what was already a rather exceptional year in the financial services industry. I work “on Wall Street.” In nearly nine years in this business, I have seen some significant ups and downs—September 11th, 2001 most notable among them. 9/11 was traumatic for this industry, but in reality the trauma was primarily psychological or emotional in nature. The last two weeks have also been psychologically and emotionally jarring, but in this case, the financial system of our country has been shaken on a fundamental and systematic level. As I write, both presidential candidates have returned to Washington to work with President Bush and their fellow members of Congress so that the federal government can provide some sort of solution to the current crisis.

It would be reasonable to assume that because I work on Wall Street, I’d be able to offer a unique perspective on what we now face. Yet in many ways, I know as much (or as little, as it were) as anyone else. The extent to which the specifics of the current situation surpass my understanding points to a crucial element of how it is we got here: we as a country, we as taxpayers, we as investors and even we fellow financial services industry workers have been betrayed by the reckless, irresponsible and, yes, greedy, actions of a very few individuals.

So, what exactly is it that I do? Put in the simplest terms, I am a salesman. My job is to convince institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc.) to buy and sell stocks with my firm. If I am successful in convincing such an entity to begin doing business, I then become something of a relationship manager, by which I mean that my job evolves into maintaining the customer’s business and, whenever possible, increasing the level of that business over time. To do my job effectively, I need a solid understanding of the financial markets—the stock market specifically. My customers do not need my advice on what to buy and sell. They are trained to do that themselves, or someone above them directs their transactions accordingly. What they do need and rely on, though, is my knowledge and feel of when to buy and sell their stocks, and what sort of result they can anticipate once their trade is complete. They count on me to alert them to important news not only about the specific stocks they are trading, but also about the markets in general. Information is vital to success in my job, and the ability to effectively communicate that information is the real key. These last two weeks have been as volatile, uncertain and unpredictable as any I’ve experienced, and without a doubt, everyone’s abilities have been put to the test.

The rollercoaster ride began in earnest earlier in the year, as Bear Stearns fell apart. We shook it off, though, only to watch in amazement again this summer as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of failure, saved by a bailout from the federal government. Smart analysts had months ago warned that Lehman Brothers was in danger, noting the similarities between Bear and Lehman, and the uncomfortable correlation between the types of investments and debts weighing on both firms. While most believed there was no way that Lehman could (or would be allowed) to be “the next Bear,” early this month the writing was on the wall. The reasons for Lehman’s eventual failure are still being sorted out, but the impact of that failure had immediate repercussions.

There was panic. There was panic from customers who watched, ashen, as their portfolios lost value and their year-to-date gains disappeared. I saw very conservative, well-respected and cerebral investment firms engage in what I can only believe was true “panic selling.” There was panic from those entrusted with overseeing the very system now facing a real crisis. As is often the case, here too the panic largely resulted from the many, great unknowns. I certainly don’t know how much more toxic debt lies buried in the books of financial firms across our country, but there is no reason why I should know. More alarmingly, however, the men and women in charge of the very firms nearing their demise didn’t truly know the extent of their remaining exposure either. The SEC, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department—none truly knew the extent of the catastrophic precipice on which we found ourselves. Emergency actions were implemented such as a ban on the short selling of stock—something I could never have imagined as I had chuckled in the past on hearing of various emerging markets’ complete and total bans on short sales—or sometimes on selling at all! I’m not laughing any more.

The Thursday after Lehman filed for bankruptcy—in the midst of the most tumultuous week of trading I had ever seen—I had my only moment of true panic. Bear was gone. Lehman was now gone. Merrill Lynch was effectively gone, having been acquired days earlier by Bank of America. That left only two of the handful of Wall Street giants we had for so long been accustomed to: Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. I remember vividly that Thursday as I watched the share price of Morgan Stanley plummet with a velocity and an intensity I’ve never witnessed. Tens of millions of shares of the stock were trading every hour, and early that afternoon, it appeared Morgan Stanley was headed for a Bear- or Lehman-like fate. In the space of only 30 minutes, Morgan Stanley’s stock had fallen more than 50 percent, at one point flirting with single digits. It was only the breaking news of the plan being hatched by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that rallied the markets, taking Morgan higher with it.

This small example points to the importance of what the media have taken to calling “the bailout plan.” I think a more appropriate moniker is “rescue.” We’re beyond bailing out. Bailing out is only a temporary stopgap. Bailing out invokes images of buckets fighting a losing battle against a vast amount of water. What we need is a rescue. Coast Guard helicopters, life boats, whatever it takes! Honestly, I can hardly believe I’m writing this. As a Republican (and a Republican primarily for fiscal reasons), the idea of increased government intervention or oversight on the nation’s economy is absolute anathema to me. With that said, it is my firm belief that Democrats and Republicans absolutely must come together to pass some version of the Paulson plan—and sooner rather than later. I hope it will be the most responsible plan possible with respect to the role the government will play in the financial industry in the future. I hope the Democrats won’t take advantage of the vulnerable situation we’re in to insert more government controls than are absolutely necessary. I hope the taxpayer will bear as little of the burden as possible, and that they will stand to reap the majority of the benefits of the plan’s potential upside. But I don’t feel as though now is a time to be picky, and I don’t think now is a time for partisanship.

Say what you will about President Bush, his speaking ability or anything else, but he was excellent when he addressed the nation on Wednesday night. In clear (if sobering) terms, he effectively laid out the facts of the present situation, and skillfully explained much of what led us here. As Bush said:

“The government’s top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, American could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail…The stock market would drop even more…The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically…More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs…it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.”

He’s right. This is unprecedented, and it’s dire. There is more bad news out there and more pain to come—the extent of which we just do not know. So the unknowns remain, and as unfortunate as it may be, a rescue from the federal government has become the best of a limited number of terrible choices. Those supposed to know don’t know. Those responsible for not letting this happen have let it happen. The actions of a very few have the very real possibility of dragging down all.

Remember, I’m no financial expert, but I do read the markets, and I do know my clients. The markets, my clients and my gut all agree that drastic action is necessary. Inaction is not an option. The sooner we swallow this pill, the sooner we can begin to heal. Take it from me—I’ve got a front row seat.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

There's Plenty of Blame to Go Around...

noreply@blogger.com (Bragg Van Antwerp) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:46:00 +0000

But most in the media (and certainly in the Democratic Party) seem to point the finger at George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Take a look at the clip below. (Yes, it is from Fox News, and while Fox News is seen as a conservative news network, the report consists primarily of video and audio footage, and direct quotes. Conservative or not, a fact is a fact, and the alleged political slant of the news network cannot be used as an excuse in this case)...