The Centrist Dude

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:34:00 +0000

Every so often you come across something you wish you'd written.

Below is a reprint of a tongue-in-cheek article that appeared in Thursday's Chicago Tribune. Not that this is necessarily directed at a single party, but the Tribune was, of course, historically a conservative newspaper that now finds itself nowhere near the Republicans due to the shifting ground and polarization of the past decade.

To which I can completely relate.

The tome:

RIP: Facts (360 B.C.-A.D. 2012)

By Rex W. Huppke, Chicago Tribune reporter

April 19, 2012

A quick review of the long and illustrious career of Facts reveals some of the world's most cherished absolutes: Gravity makes things fall down; 2 + 2 = 4; the sky is blue.

But for many, Facts' most memorable moments came in simple day-to-day realities, from a child's certainty of its mother's love to the comforting knowledge that a favorite television show would start promptly at 8 p.m.

Over the centuries, Facts became such a prevalent part of most people's lives that Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once said: "Facts are to the mind what food is to the body."

To the shock of most sentient beings, Facts died Wednesday, April 18, after a long battle for relevancy with the 24-hour news cycle, blogs and the Internet. Though few expected Facts to pull out of its years-long downward spiral, the official cause of death was from injuries suffered last week when Florida Republican Rep. Allen West steadfastly declared that as many as 81 of his fellow members of theU.S. House of Representatives are communists.

Facts held on for several days after that assault — brought on without a scrap of evidence or reason — before expiring peacefully at its home in a high school physics book. Facts was 2,372.

"It's very depressing," said Mary Poovey, a professor of English at New York University and author of "A History of the Modern Fact." "I think the thing Americans ought to miss most about facts is the lack of agreement that there are facts. This means we will never reach consensus about anything. Tax policies, presidential candidates. We'll never agree on anything."

Facts was born in ancient Greece, the brainchild of famed philosopher Aristotle. Poovey said that in its youth, Facts was viewed as "universal principles that everybody agrees on" or "shared assumptions."

But in the late 16th century, English philosopher and scientist Sir Francis Bacon took Facts under his wing and began to develop a new way of thinking.

"There was a shift of the word 'fact' to refer to empirical observations," Poovey said.

Facts became concrete observations based on evidence. It was growing up.

Through the 19th and 20th centuries, Facts reached adulthood as the world underwent a shift toward proving things true through the principles of physics and mathematical modeling. There was respect for scientists as arbiters of the truth, and Facts itself reached the peak of its power.

But those halcyon days would not last.

People unable to understand how science works began to question Facts. And at the same time there was a rise in political partisanship and a growth in the number of media outlets that would disseminate information, rarely relying on feedback from Facts.

"There was an erosion of any kind of collective sense of what's true or how you would go about verifying any truth claims," Poovey said. "Opinion has become the new truth. And many people who already have opinions see in the 'news' an affirmation of the opinion they already had, and that confirms their opinion as fact."

Though weakened, Facts managed to persevere through the last two decades, despite historic setbacks that included President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the justification forPresidentGeorge W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq and the debate over President Barack Obama's American citizenship.

Facts was wounded repeatedly throughout the recent GOP primary campaign, near fatally when Michele Bachmann claimed a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease causes mental retardation. In December, Facts was briefly hospitalized after MSNBC's erroneous report that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign was using an expression once used by the Ku Klux Klan.

But friends and relatives of Facts said Rep. West's claim that dozens of Democratic politicians are communists was simply too much for the aging concept to overcome.

As the world mourned Wednesday, some were unwilling to believe Facts was actually gone.

Gary Alan Fine, the John Evans Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University, said: "Facts aren't dead. If anything, there are too many of them out there. There has been a population explosion."

Fine pointed to one of Facts' greatest battles, the debate over global warming.

"There are all kinds of studies out there," he said. "There is more than enough information to make any case you want to make. There may be a preponderance of evidence and there are communities that decide something is a fact, but there are enough facts that people who are opposed to that claim have their own facts to rely on."

To some, Fine's insistence on Facts' survival may seem reminiscent of the belief that rock stars like Jim Morrison are still alive.

"How do I know if Jim Morrison is dead?" Fine asked. "How do I know he's dead except that somebody told me that?"

Poovey, however, who knew Facts as well as anyone, said Facts' demise is undoubtedly factual.

"American society has lost confidence that there's a single alternative," she said. "Anybody can express an opinion on a blog or any other outlet and there's no system of verification or double-checking, you just say whatever you want to and it gets magnified. It's just kind of a bizarre world in which one person's opinion counts as much as anybody else's."

Facts is survived by two brothers, Rumor and Innuendo, and a sister, Emphatic Assertion.

Services are alleged to be private. In lieu of flowers, the family requests that mourners make a donation to their favorite super PAC.

Amen.

Work, Parenthood, and Faux Apologies

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:05:00 +0000

Lost in the Hillary Rosen-Ann Romney flap (with a side of Bill Maher thrown in for good measure) is what Mitt Romney's position has been when the subject of the debate wasn't his wife. A video has surfaced of Mitt Romney discussing his view of welfare earlier this year before the upcoming New Hamsphire primary. It's easy to locate on major media sites (and probably YouTube), so I suggest you should watch the entire exchange. The short version is that he believes that those who are going to accept aid from the government, federal or state, should in return be required to take a job so that they can share in "the dignity of work." And of course, intentionally or not he's suggesting requiring unemployed mothers to get a job since they comprise the vast majority of welfare recipients.

So, we have a more clear understanding of how Mitt feels, especially since his legislative record reflects what he says in this speech, leaving little doubt that this is his actual opinion. Perhaps there can now be a sane and measured conversation.

Let's go back to what actually started this chain of events: Mitt Romney commenting on more than one occasion that Ann is his go-to source when he wants to know about women's issues and how the economy affects families. And that says more about him than it does her.

See, this actually has little to do with Ann, who by all accounts is a wonderful mother and person and has come through some serious health crises. This is about Mitt, who appears to seek counsel about the economic toll befalling non-wealthy American women from a person who was also born into privilege, married into privilege, and chose not to enter what most of us consider the workplace. She is no more qualified to give advice on the subject of everyday economics than I, a childless man, am qualified to give advice on parenting.

Now, if the discussion moves to what Romney said in Manchester, then that's another conversation entirely, and one that probably should be fleshed out. There are undoubtedly some people who could be working who choose not to, but there also will be people who cannot land a job whether it's "required" or not. It's not a simple debate with easy answers, but that's precisely why the debate should occur. But let's not obfuscate the real problem here: a man who's never known hardship seeking advice from his long-time companion who's also never known hardship about "ordinary Americans." And the counsel-giver has never worked in the public or private sector. That is the real issue here, and it goes to the heart of Romney's judgements and critical thinking skills.

So sure: exact the pound of flesh from Hillary Rosen, who's an easy target precisely because she does speak in sound bites and talking points instead of providing thoughtful commentary or insightful information. But understand, now that the dust has settled and people have had time to digest the topic, many are going to conclude that it could be a real problem to have a President, already seen as out-of-touch, who turns to a person in his same circumstances for most of his advice instead of reaching out to experts in the various disciplines needed to run the country.

One Question

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 03:38:00 +0000

If all of you people who thought putting in Tea Party candidates was such a good idea, let me ask you one question:

If they weren't in Congress, would we be having this meaningless and destructive showdown over the debt ceiling?

"Anybody but..." is a stupid way to elect your representatives, especially when it's a bloc that combines ignorance with arrogance. Too late now, though, as you're reaping what you sowed. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with it as well.

Dumbing Ourselves Down

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:43:00 +0000

I’m going to start by saying that this new blogging journey that the CW and I are on is an interesting one. Any blogger, or even most national opinion writers, can sit at their computers and spout. To back up your positions with factual information requires a great deal of time and research. Despite the time-suck the CW and I are determined to stay the course. If every blogger in America did the same we’d probably have better discourse in this country. Alas…

Onwards.

For whatever reason, there seems to be strong empirical evidence that Americans have surprisingly little knowledge of current political issues even as they seemingly have incredibly black and white views on political positions. Proving or disproving this beyond the empirical is a difficult, if not impossible proposition, although one can easily find enough evidence to comfortably say that Americans are woefully ignorant of political realities and facts. Examples: Barack Obama is a Muslim, who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and who the top military commander is in Afghanistan. So we (“we” being me and the CW) chose to do some research on how people today are getting their political information.

To do this, we had to make some suppositions. We started with the way news is reported, and we looked at 1) political and news magazines, 2) local and national newspapers, and 3) cable and local television news.

-Our first supposition was that news magazines (e.g., Time, U.S. News, Christian Science Monitor Weekly, Business Week, Forbes) have the most in-depth coverage of stories based on their area of interest when compared to the newspapers and TV.
-The second supposition is that both national (e.g., USA Today, Wall Street Journal) and local newspapers cover topics that are more widely varying than magazines or TV, especially local newspapers since they also are attempting to cover stories of local interest.
-By nature, if these suppositions are true (which seem reasonable that they are based on empirical evidence and common sense), then TV news reports little more than an overview of a small number of stories. Even 24/7 cable news does not spend the in-depth time on most issues, outside of opinion and tabloid shows.

-According to this synopsis by the Pew Research Center of a survey concluded in February 2009, readership of newspapers in any form has fallen among all age groups. The WWII generation (the “Greatest Generation”) dropped to 53% from 65%, and Baby Boomers dropped from 48% to 38%. Gen X & Gen Y apparently never started reading newspapers in any form, as their numbers over the same time went from 31% & 22% respectively to 26% & 21% respectively.

-During this same time period news gathered from TV sources has remained stable.

-Even for those getting their news online, online cable TV news sites (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) are visited consistently higher than the entire aggregation of local newspaper sites, which also suggests that people’s understanding of local issues, arguably more important in people’s day-to-day lives than national issues, is declining rapidly.

Pew also breaks the country down by how they get their news into Integrators, Net-Newsers, Traditionalists and Disengaged, with Traditionalists being by far the largest segment (46%). This is the only segment that is almost solely reliant on TV for their news. However, the Integrators (23%) also use TV as their main news source. Integrators are defined as those who use traditional sources (TV, magazine, newspaper) and the internet. They tend to be middle-aged Americans who are “well-educated and affluent.” This means that, taken as an aggregate, 69% of all Americans rely on TV for all or most of their news.

This might be ok if TV were a reliable source for accuracy in a “headline news” sort of mode, or if the 24/7 news channels were to take the major stories of the day and give them a journalistic analysis. But that’s not the reality of what national news coverage has become; certainly not with the cable news stations, which have become more and more politicized over time. CNN, which was once thought of as both the bastion of TV journalism and ironically as the mouthpiece of the left is now foundering as not being politicized enough, and therefore 3rd in the cable news ratings.

So if TV news is a brief overview of issues, is overtly politicized instead of being journalistically sound, is rewarded (by ratings) for assuming a political stance, and people are picking and choosing what network to watch based on their political affiliation, then the viewership is being rewarded for continuing to believe what they want to believe. Along the same line, the network or station in question is rewarded for giving their viewership “red meat” along the political lines they hold. To the medium of television news, journalism is all but dead, true dissent is dead, and by nature, the truth is dead. Yet this is what 69% of all Americans choose as their primary news source.

Is it any wonder that we are becoming more polarized and more intractable? If this climate continues, will we ever be able to compromise for the good of the country? Ask yourself, whatever you believe: can you see any point in listening tothe other side? Or do you believe that the other side is so out of touch that there’s no sense in listening to them?

Regardless of the answers, it seems reasonably clear that to have some grasp of the truth you must turn off the TV.

Silent No More

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:41:00 +0000

My blogging absence has been purposeful. In trying to keep above the toxic rancor it seemed better to be silent than to add to the cacophony. However, there have been several occurrences that have convinced me that silence is the wrong option, and that now more than ever is the time to voice concerns and thoughts.

Because there are voluminous topics which need exploration, I’m going to consider this particular posting to be a preview of what will be written in detail over the next few weeks. So, somewhat Larry King-style and in no particular order, a smattering of topics and my POV that will be covered:

-How a segment of the population is rationalizing that the 1st Amendment, specifically the separation of church and state, can be summarily tossed out the window, and the long-term damage this does to our economy.

-The hypocrisy of newly-minted “constitutionalists” who claim to want a strict interpretation of a “dead document,” while at the same time express a desire to toss out that which they don’t like, such as the 14th Amendment.

-How a large swath of evangelical Christians are being led down a blind alley by disingenuous and dangerous “leaders” who prey on their worst fears, and what this likely means for them and for the country if they continue.

-The venom and negativity of conservatives and Republicans is matched only by the vacuum left from the lack of any positive direction or ideas they have.

-The failure of Democrats to have a unified message or to fully get behind Obama has been almost as detrimental as the negative spewing coming from the right.

-Why Obama needs to abandon his natural state of reasoned debate, as no one’s paying attention to sane dialog. Instead he must change his tactic to lay out his vision in overly simplistic terms while doggedly attacking Republicans. The question becomes whether or not he has the temperament to do so.

-The irony of the continued cry of “activist judge” as a slur against the left, while the current conservative Supreme Court has reached for decisions that are just as activist and also have the side effect of being damaging instead of merely polarizing.

-A definition of facism, since few people seem to understand exactly what that is, and why it is both more of a threat to U.S. style capitalism than socialism and also far more likely of an occurrence.

-The continued and arguably accelerating “dumbing down” of America. Everyone seems to think it’s happening, but few look in the mirror to see if they’re part of the problem or take personal responsibility to do anything about it.

-Why TV news is the single worst place to get information and, since the 24/7 news cycle is here to stay, how we must re-train ourselves in its wake.

-The rise of fringe candidates and how they disrupt or even derail governmental effectiveness.

-Racism is alive and well, only society and the right has gotten better at sending coded messages so that their followers can convince themselves that they’re not actually racist.

-Why it doesn’t matter whether you believe in climate change or not, since failure to change our energy policy will remove the United States from its perch as both the economic, military and political superpower, presuming the damage is not already irreversible.

-Why taking policies further that conservatives parrot (e.g., lower taxes, less regulations, relaxing of antitrust laws) will have a detrimental effect on the overall economy.

-An examination of how, as individuals, our personal habits have made us responsible for the mess we’re in, even though no one wants to admit or accept any blame for it; also, the way forward out it.

I will be trying to remain calm and factual. When opinion is necessary, I will strive to remove as much emotion as possible. I am not a journalist, nor an economist, nor a politician. I am just an interested observer who tries to do his homework. A good dialog would be nice, but it’s not really my aim. If I can serve in some small way to educate, inform and make someone think who otherwise is just aping buzzwords and re-hashing talking points, even if they retain their ideological position, then I will feel that this has accomplished something positive.

I've Had Enough

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:27:00 +0000

There comes a point when one has had enough with both sides of the aisle. Ok...there comes a point when THE CENTRIST DUDE has had enough with both sides of the aisle. And those not in an aisle as well.

Can we reintroduce some sanity?

Tea Partiers:

If you're really taking "fiscally conservative" as your mantra, then put our expenditures in Afghanistan and and Iraq on the table. If balancing the fiscal budget is truly your cause, and you cannot acknowledge the drain on our federal budget that comes from those conflicts and at least enter into a debate about how to better spend our defense dollars, then it's very difficult to believe that you're sincere. And therefore, the logical conlusion is that you only care about fiscal restraint for things you don't agree with, but are fine with pouring it down a sinkhole for things that you like. And by the way, that doesn't make you any different than most individuals, much less infer that you're special or justifying of a "movement." That is why there's so much hue and cry that all your bluster is covering for a bunch of anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, and/or anti-black white people who won't voice their true views in public.

Democrats/liberals:

Have you figured out yet that the country hasn't suddenly bought into your way of thinking? That maybe 2008 was more anti-Republican/anti-Bush than pro-anything-you believe? The country doesn't want the federal government to solve all of our woes.

You have missed a golden opportunity to be viewed as the adults in the national conversation. While Republicans did nothing but obstruct, which may I remind you was your tactic when you were the minority party, instead of rising above it and taking your case to the public you seemed to be more interested in pushing your agenda forward at all costs. Yes, we have problems in this country that need solutions, and some are so big that the federal government is the only plausible largesse available. But politics is the art of the possible, not the art of ram-it-down-their-throat, even if you are convinced that your beliefs are correct. By the way, that conviction doesn't separate you from anyone else.

If you can't bring the conversation back to the center, then you are as much of the problem as that which you rail against. Centrists and independents do matter. Quit shouting louder from your corner.

Republicans/conservatives:

Wow. How short your memory is. And how big of a pox you have left on this country. Do you realize that you got rightly butt-whipped in 2008? So don't confusing the current animosity towards Democrats as an acceptance of your agenda. Quite frankly, you're way more lost than the two entities above. You seem to have no road map out of the mess you have largely created, other than "Democrats suck." You rail against big government, but can't show how the lack of government is going to help people who you seem to be hell-bent on leaving in the lurch. Government won't solve all our ills, but get a grip: lack of government won't solve them either.

You won't or can't acknowledge how much damage has been done by your conservative Supreme Court (let's just start with the ruling that corporations have rights on par with individuals when it comes to political contributions), and the destruction of our political standing with respect to the rest of the world. In fact, you are so clueless that you demonize our President as being on an "apology tour," like we don't actually have issues to answer for. And now you suddenly think the country is coming around to your way of thinking? I would laugh if it weren't so sad how clueless you actually are.

Yes, there does need to be a "re-start" button, but I'm not referring to the health care debate. The best scenario would be to explode both parties, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So the next thing to do is to start eliminating incumbents until we have a plurality that understands a few things:

We have a fiscal deficit that badly needs to be addressed, but we also have investments that need to be made that can't just be put off. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that investing in our infrastructure, mass transportation, green energy and other industries of the future is a bad thing? If you own a company, would you stick your head in the sand and ignore new markets and improving your products? No, unless you're not very bright. You'd understand that is the key to being relevant and growing. This country is no different. If you don't get the concept of "spending money to make money", then you're truly stupid.

We have systemic greed on Wall Street that is a major part of our landscape, and it needs to be checked. There are bad people who want to break rules. That's what antitrust is all about. That's what regulation is for. Yes, in the late 70s we had too much regulation and too much bureaucracy. The pendulum has swung. Recognize it.

Our health care system is in ruins, and only those who have their heads in the sand can't see that. On several levels: loss of work force, cost of medical treatment, cost of insurance, an aging populous, this current "system" stands to wreck our country faster than Social Security, taxes, terrorists, or any competing cause. If we don't address it, it's going to be horribly ironic that the America we think we know will be destroyed by a social issue that right-wingers refused to acknowledge. Get off your high horse and bring solutions to the table. (And by the way, the most plausible solution here is to make health care insurance the responsibility of individuals, not employers. But like so many things, we all know that's not going to happen, either.)

You might still be an environmental skeptic or believe that climate change is bogus. Fine. But at least acknowledge that there's a ridiculous amount of money to be made in being on the forefront of "green" energy. This is the next dotcom boom. So why would you rail against it? And while we're on the subject, can those of you on the right please drop the "China and India aren't playing nice" talk as justification for doing nothing? Using that logic, if m neighbor doesn't take care of his yard I'm supposed to let mine go as well. That's got to be in the running for the single stupidest argument ever made.

While there is plenty of blame to go around, it's the current crop Republicans who disappoint and disgust me the most. I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly right-wing politics have become the safe harbor for nutcases and lunatics. I don't hear the constant chatter of crazy talk from the left any more; it's all coming from the right. What happened? How, without my views significantly shifting, has the landscape changed to a place where in my world "Republican" equals Nut Job? Democrats circa 1979 = Republicans circa 2010. If you're a Republican or conservative, you might want to think about that. I haven't fundamentally changed. But you certainly have.

As for the voters, if we really want change and for Washington to be once more about public service, then quit thinking your current congressional rep or senators are doing you any favors. Vote 'em all out. Dick Lugar and Lloyd Doggett aren't helping the cause, either, so why keep them around? Vote against every incumbent, starting with the primaries this week. Time to put the fear of God into any currently elected office holder. That's the only way anyone's going to start working for the good of the country.

Our Selective Ideological Memories

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:02:00 +0000

I’m sure most people recognize this scenario:

New president, following an increasingly unpopular regime, is elected in a major electoral referendum as the populous wants a directional change for the country. Quickly, the new administration moves to reverse the course of the past several years and completely change the federal government’s focus. A massive stimulus package is passed within the first 100 days. The government steps in to dismantle and remake a sector of the transportation industry, to the hue and cry of a segment of the population, and it brings claims of government overreach. The President goes on the offensive to reclaim America’s prestige in the world and undoing the damage done by the previous administration, revamping relationships with both allies and enemies, and reclaiming the mantle of world leadership. The President has strong weapons: he is charismatic, a world-class orator with an easy smile and a disarming personality. Even his detractors can’t help but find him likeable, though they strongly disagree with his policies.

But…after a year and alarmingly mounting debts, the popular tide begins to turn. Congress, formerly seeming to be just a pawn doing the administration’s bidding, now has its eye on the midterm elections, and with the mood of the country casting doubt begins to buck the administration. Reforms that the President deems vital to finishing the job that he started are thwarted by Congress, usually with the excuse that the country’s deficits are already too big, and both the House and Senate routinely block further changes to any existing programs. Unemployment runs over 10% for 9 months, and that’s only among those who haven’t given up looking for work. Predictably, the midterm elections are a bloodbath for the President’s party, rolling back all of the gains made on his coattails in his election year.

Surprisingly to some, this scenario isn’t a hypothetical about Obama, but is a recounting of Reagan’s first two years in office.

If you’re like most Americans, and especially most Republicans, the details of the days from January 1981 to December 1982 are largely forgotten; only the ultimate result of the Reagan years are in most people’s memory banks.

What Reagan did isn’t really that different from what Obama is doing. Reagan’s version of the Recovery Act was to cut the crushing income taxes the country was under across the board (the top tax rate was initially cut from 70% to 50%, while the middle class also received huge tax relief), but the net result was the same: money went to the economic stimulus at the expense of the federal government’s coffers, meaning that the government had a huge budget shortfall. Reagan fired the PATCO workers in what was deemed an unprecedented federal intervention and abuse of power (and arguably putting the air transportation industry’s safety in jeopardy for a time period). Even with the decreased federal coffers, Reagan felt it essential to ratchet up the country’s spending on defense in an attempt to outspend the Soviet Union and ultimately end the Cold War, but at a price that was astronomical (and with no guarantee of success at the time).

The point is this: remember what actually transpired during the Reagan years, and if you don’t remember, do a little research. This isn’t just about the ideological debate of larger government vs. smaller government, but about economic reality and what is best for the needs of the country. What ailed the country in 1980 was overregulation of business and high federal taxes. That can hardly be argued to be the case now, yet we’re in just as severe of an economic crisis. What Obama proposes is essentially the same formula: deliver a huge injection of money into the economy, which drives up the nation’s debt; make a sweeping investment in parts of the economy seen as necessary for long-term survival, which drives the deficit up further still, all in the expectation that the changes will be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing and will ultimately bring new economic growth.

I’m not going to take up space belaboring the obvious differences; I find the similarities more striking. It’s simply ironic that many of the same people who loved Reagan’s solution decry Obama’s now, even though the consequences of Reagan’s policies are exactly what they claim to fear today. The only difference is a belief that what methodology worked then is the same methodology that should be applied now, even though the details and problems have changed.

A little ideological agnosticism and a bit more pragmatism might do a large part of the country a great deal of good.

Centrist Dude Manifesto

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:00:00 +0000

Because I’ve heard from both sides about how wacky I’ve been in the past few months (note my blurb that resides right above this posting) I think it’s time for me to state for everyone what I do and do not believe. I am neither a socialist nor a monarchist, neither a fascist or a communist, and certainly neither a Democrat or a Republican. So it’s time for a personal manifesto of my political beliefs --

One of my fiercest fights has always been for personal liberty, and the biggest concern being laws that destroy it, because once taken away personal liberty never returns. Gay marriage laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws…these might please special interests but they are bad laws. The government is supposed to protect me from others, not from myself.

The second soapbox I’ve been on all of my adult life and much of my teenage years is the use of energy and our ostrich-like approach. We saw that OPEC could bring us to our knees in the early 70s. What have we learned? Apparently zero. Driving a big-ass SUV that gets 12mpg in the city is wasteful, destructive, irresponsible, and quite frankly feeds the machine abroad. And don’t tell me “that’s all I can fit in comfortably” or “but I can haul so much.” Sit in my Matrix and tell my 6’3” frame that you don’t have room. Watch me bring home a tree. I get 30mpg. We had a station wagon that got 20-25mpg. We brought 3 trees home in it once.

The main point is that we have had ample time to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and we’ve neither had the will nor the foresight to do it. This doesn’t even mention the damage to the planet. Which leads me to:

Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it, it’s a reality. Most people that rail against the concept are invested in maintaing the status quo, or they simply don’t want to take any personal responsibility to change their habits. Note that all of the major scientific communities in the world are alarmed by climate change and are in general agreement with the causes and changes that are happening. Advocacy scientists don’t count, folks; if Exxon paid for the research and it contradicts an independent study who do you think is likely to be telling the truth? We're hearing from people who have invested their lives in the pursuit of scientific truth and have a hell of a lot of schooling. Think of the scientists you know; they're an odd bunch but motivated by the search for truth on an almost religious level. I think they know what they’re talking about, and we should listen to them.

I am all for fiscal responsibility. Way for it. And one of the things I always expected the Republicans to do would be to watch my nation’s pocketbook, maybe even too much. ("So you’ve been out of work and you can’t feed your family? Too bad, maggot!") Yet, the Neocons believed only in tax cuts; they never met a spending bill they didn’t like, domestic or foreign. Unless it was against their religious beliefs, of course. And you know what? The party faithful bought it. So long as “their guy” was spending the money, deficits didn’t matter (remember Dick Cheney saying that exact quote?) and it all went to things the faithful liked…like faith-based initiatives, a two-front war, and “No Child Left Behind.” Ok, NCLB became an unfunded mandate that bankrupted the education budget of several states, but you get the point.

Conversely, the typical 70s Democrat who stereotypically couldn’t accept personal responsibility for any group….not my people, either.

To further this, I believe in the Ayn Rand concept of “personal greed is good” but only to a point. There are unscrupulous people in the world who aren’t in it for their own gain by the rules, but rather will lie, cheat, steal and seriously damage others. Pure capitalism is fine if we all are on the same page, but to not recognize that oversight is required (like referees in sporting events) is just silly. Yes, we’ve had too much regulation in the past. Usually it’s regulation about the wrong things for the wrong reasons. But we’ve seen basic regulations removed to the point to where it’s almost every person for themselves and Caveat Emptor seems like a quaint little poem.

Regulation is not a dirty word. It is often the only protection between you and Bernard Madoff, the difference between your portfolio thriving and an abnormally large investment in Enron, between your insurance company deciding to operate as a hedge fund or arbitrarily denying your life-saving surgery. It doesn’t take a genius to know when regulation is silly (all fire extinguishers must be between 3’8” and 4’2” from the floor or you get fined) and when the regulations are common sense. Right now, common sense has been zoned out. We’re way past the pendulum point.

The federal government is too large, too bloated, and too bureaucratic, but that doesn’t mean that it has no role. It’s the sledgehammer in the tool arsenal. You pull it out sparingly, but when you do pull it out don’t be afraid to whack away, and understand that there’s a lot of residual damage and the edges aren’t nice and neat. That’s because it’s a sledgehammer, not a chisel. And I do believe that now is the time to use the sledgehammer, because the time it will take to recover and the damage that will happen if we don’t re-open the faucet is greater than the damage we’ll wreak by banging open the wall to unstop the leak & get the water flowing again.

The Supreme Court is there for a reason, and it’s not to passively sit by. They are to render judgements when there is no clear direction by the law. That’s why the issue has come through the appellate courts in the first place. This does mean that sometimes they will, in effect, create law by creating precedent rulings. This whole “activist judges argument” quite frankly is pushed by people who do not apparently understand what the role of the judiciary is at its most basic level.

Both parties find a messiah every so often, then don’t really understand his (and someday her) message in the context of the time. So Democrats worship FDR and take his emergency save-the-country programs and turn them into public policy for 30 years. Republicans worship Reagan and take his lower taxes and keep-government-out-of-your-lives message past the point of relevancy. This is wrong, but this will happen again. That doesn’t mean that FDR or Reagan were wrong. They were right for their time, and it's not their fault that they eventually begat LBJ and GWB. (Maybe the problem is Texas presidents. But that’s not my point.)

Our system is flawed, like all systems and people. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong system nor that the world is coming to an end. However, blind following of ideologies is cute but childish. No ideology covers every contingency, and sometimes you have to take drastic measures to re-right the train. We all agree that murder is wrong, but we can all come up with a scenario that justifies killing someone. So why can’t we do the same with our governmental system? Why can neither side see that there really are evil people in the world across the spectrum? To the left I say: that person might not be a misunderstood pauper, they might just be a terrorist. To the right I say: that investment banker was actually exploiting and circumventing the system with no regard for anyone else and that makes him a criminal. It’s all the same in that they’re still evil. Neither Ayn Rand nor Ghandi have THE answer. Nor does anyone else. Ideology as a guide with a strong dose of pragmatism as a rudder is a much more effective way to enter into any situation.

I’ve held roughly these same beliefs for the last 30 years or so. If I'm guilty of anything it's not having a singular ideology and someone else to preach it to me. Maybe you can understand how I have come to the same conclusions as President Obama. We need to infuse capital into the system, but not in handouts. Rather, they should be investments in our future. This means investing in our educational system like we did in the 50s, rebuilding our infrastructure to give the country a competitive advantage (like that wacky liberal Eisenhower), overhauling our energy economy to give us independence over our own lives again AND to build a brand-new economy….just like that ideologue FDR electrifying the rural Midwest and crazy Kennedy with his silly space program. Last time I looked, all of those paid major dividends.

And for the record, much of this crisis was caused by arrogant white-collar executives who, now that they’ve seriously screwed up, STILL don’t want to give up power.

Other things that have nothing to do with “manifesto”, but are instructive as to where I lie on the political spectrum:

Best President in my lifetime? Ronald Reagan. He was the right man for the time. No, his administration didn’t cut spending, which was a cornerstone of his entire smaller government argument, and would have solidified him as maybe the 2nd best President behind Lincoln or 3rd behind FDR. Unfortunately, that gave Democrats fodder for years to poke holes in his administration, and on the other side led Dick Cheney to famously and regrettably utter the phrase “Deficits don’t really matter.”

Worst President in my lifetime? Well, GWB has come remarkably close, but it’s probably still Jimmy Carter. He neither inspired confidence nor had good policy. He was simply a reaction to Nixon, which turned out to be horrific. Reflection over the next few years may make me change that, because Bush has sent us on a path that might prove to be more disastrous than we know. For the record, both are admirable human beings. That doesn’t make them good Presidents. And no, regardless of how quickly we pull out of the economic crisis, history will not be kind to W.

2nd best? Eek. My choices are LBJ, Nixon, Ford, GHB, Clinton. Sadly, I have to say that it’s a toss-up between Clinton & Nixon, with both having serious flaws. You might see a glimpse of why I have a bit more faith in Obama.

If you are only listening to pundits and news sources that believe as you do, and you’re only soliciting opinions from people in your socioeconomic strata, regardless of where that strata lies, then you’re part of the problem of divisiveness in this country. You’re not educating yourself, and you’re not helping make things better. All you’ve done is join a club.

Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner deserve each other. Sadly, we deserve neither of them. West Chester OH and San Francisco should both be ashamed and vote these two divisive, petty, vindictive losers out. But given the polarized and ideologically blind demographics of both communities, that probably won’t happen. And that, too, is sad.

My summation is this: I believe in capitalism and democracy. I also recognize that there are times that both have failings. That doesn’t mean that we abandon either, but we do need to recognize that both need tweaking from time to time, and maybe more importantly, sometimes things get so out of control that you need to temporarily throw the book out.

We must make America stronger by being more independent (e.g., controlling our own energy resources) but by also understanding that we cannot be an island. The world is looking to us for leadership, and if we create a void someone WILL come to fill it, and it might not be a someone we want to see. With leadership comes great responsibility, so any actions we take had best be considered carefully, and not just shot from the hip. Unless, of course, the situation dictates that we don’t have time to deliberate.

In other words, give me the smartest guy in the room who’s got a definite direction. I don’t give a flying you-know-what which side of the aisle he comes from.

Stop the Crazy Talk

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:14:00 +0000

The rhetoric coming from both sides is unbelievable. I’ve got an incredulous friend on one side who can’t believe that I could even suggest that Obama will be anything other than the most glorious thing to ever grace the Oval Office. I’ve got another alarmist friend on the other side who seems to think that Democratic rule will turn us into 1917 Russia, or at least 2002 France. And everyone else seems to be generally lining up in some varying degree in one camp or the other.

People, please. Obama is neither the second coming of Jesus nor the Antichrist. He does not possess the keys to the land of Utopia, nor does he have an inside track into the 7th circle of hell. We will not be forced into a One World Order, and he probably won’t re-establish the U.S. as the Most Powerful Country In the World. He is not going to fall under Nancy Pelosi’s power, nor will he be eaten for dinner by Putin and Medvedev.

Here’s the reality: the Obama administration is being left something of a scorched earth. You know this already, but it might be good to see it all laid out again –

-a recession that could spiral into a depression
-banks unwilling or unable to lend money as they try to save themselves
-manufacturing industries screaming for help lest they go belly up and take large segments of the economy with them
-state and city governments that have been trying to ‘make do’ for years seeing visions of bankruptcy
-unemployment threatening to hit levels last seen in the late 70s
-a health care system that can charitably be called inadequate and dysfunctional
-an unpopular war in Iraq that he’s pledged to end, but that we can’t just run away from
-a possibly unwinnable war in Afghanistan that is seen as something we can’t turn our backs on
-an international reputation where allies no longer trust America as a financial symbol or as a beacon of goodness
-a national debt that is threatening to top $13 trillion, much of which is borrowed from a country that is looking to unseat us as the pre-eminent world power
-an economy that relies heavily on a natural resource that largely comes from countries that are either hostile politically or in danger of a power shift to more unfriendly regimes, and we have no backup plan
-mortgage defaults that do not seem to be slowing down
-a national infrastructure that has been neglected for years and is now starting to crumble

And this doesn’t even take into account the extra monies already committed by the Bush administration in the form of “stimulus packages,” the increased size of the federal government, the oncoming retirement of the baby boomers and the strain on the Social Security system, Israel, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad, immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, potential Supreme Court nominees, the airline industry….need I go on?

Anyone that can look at that list and predict a rousingly successful presidency is so optimistic that Pollyana is calling you a nutcase to your face.

But make no mistake: Obama has shown himself to have the temperament, the vision, the organizational ability, a great ability to spot and attract talent, and the leadership skills to be someone who can make sense out of the mess we’re in and at least point the country in the direction out of the morass. It’s not about what he’s “accomplished” with respect to governmental legislation. All you have to do is look at what he accomplished and the way that he did so with his assault on the presidency, with all the odds stacked against him, to know that he has more than a fighting chance to see his way through.

Malcolm Forbes wrote a commentary about Ronald Reagan after he was elected but before he took office that struck me in 1980 and still resonates now. “He will neither be the savior that his followers believe him to be, nor the demon that his detractors expect him to be. In a way, he will disappoint them both.” That seems to be sage advice when one views the Obama presidency from this vantage point.

Election Night Projections

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:26:00 +0000

At the risk of either being overconfident, arrogant, impudent, or some other word ending in ‘nt’, I’ll make a prediction about tomorrow’s results.

The closest it gets is Obama 274, McCain 264, but that really seems unlikely. That would mean McCain picks off every realistic swing state, plus holds on to Virginia. Likewise, it is conceivable but improbable that Obama gets as many as 394 electoral votes. I predict Obama 349, McCain 189, which is enough of a spanking to force the GOP to re-examine itself and start becoming relevant again.

Despite whatever your favorite news coverage implies to keep you glued to your TV, the outcome will likely be telegraphed early. If Obama wins Virginia, the rout is on; the only discussion will be ‘how big.’ If McCain holds Virginia and Ohio, then it will be a close Obama victory. The only way McCain wins is if he takes those two states and Pennsylvania, in which case you can say that an upset is about to occur.

That being said, I’ll probably still be irrationally glued to my TV until way past my bedtime.

Fear vs. Inspiration

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:35:00 +0000

I’ve finally figured it out: after months of trying to get any McCain supporters to tell me why they are voting for them without simply telling me everything wrong with Obama, it is time to state the obvious. We have a large segment of people who are so afraid of a change, no matter how dire the economic and political realities appear, that they will desperately believe all the fear-mongering and hate-spewing being thrown out. They are not the only ones voting for McCain, but they make up the largest bloc along with the Christian Conservatives.

As Joe Biden might say, Ladies and Gentlemen, is this what we have become? Are we really a nation of people who so swallow fear as a motivator that we’ll believe anything, even outright lies and slanderous accusations, if only we can believe that the other person will make our fear go away?

It is on this premise that John McCain and the GOP are emptying the ammunition clips. Obama is a Marxist. He’s for reparations. He’s going to take your guns. Don’t let the Democrats control everything. They’ll change the Supreme Court so that activist judges will destroy your independence. In short, we’re all doomed.

If you actually believe all of this, you might wish to re-read the accusations above and ask yourself if there is any realistic shred or historical precedent that would suggest that this has any inkling of occurring. The answer is emphatically no. So if that’s not going to happen one has to ask what’s really going on here?

McCain and the GOP are bereft of ideas. Having sold their souls to the Christian Conservatives (pun noted) and their only true guiding economic philosophy being “the market will take care of everything, so take the shackles off and watch it go” we have arrived here. And make no mistake: it is the GOP who is to blame. They controlled the House from 1994 until 2006; they controlled the Senate from 1998 to 2006, and the Presidency from 2000 until the present. Read that again if you have not digested it.

Now tell me why we are supposed to fear the Democrats again? Tell me what they are going to do to exacerbate our difficulties? Because the other solution we have as a choice is to continue down that same path. And anyone who believes that McCain is not going to be beholden to the Christian Right and the same financial wizards that got us into this mess don’t understand politics.

So if you’re going to vote for John McCain and you really believe that he is the decisive, insightful leader to lead us through a time when the U.S.’s position as the world’s economic and political leader is at a crossroads, then by all means that’s how you should vote. But if you are voting for McCain out of fear of Obama, maybe you should reconsider why.

Now go vote.

The Destruction of Sarah Palin

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:10:00 +0000

There is increasing evidence that the United States has absolutely had it with the social conservatives in this country, but none more compelling than the fervent, almost mob-like mentality that is passionately committed to destroying Sarah Palin. And, they are succeeding.

There is plenty of ammunition to work with. Palin is clearly not intellectually curious. She has no in-depth knowledge of global issues, or even a clear sense of why she believes many of the ideological things she does. She is inarticulate in a way that makes GWB look like a grand orator. But her biggest sin is her far-right social leanings; the Republican right calls her “one of us.” And for that, she is going to be made an example.

To some degree, critics are correct when they say that she is under scrutiny like no candidate in a long, long time. But they are incorrect when they suggest sexism. If this was a good-looking and rugged candidate named Sam Palin acting and saying the exact same things, the scrutiny would be also be the same. (To that end, if she was plain-looking, male or female, nothing would change.) It has nothing to do with her gender or appearance, although those become convenient excuses. This country has become collectively tired and even angry at the social conservatives driving every agenda in this country. Even many Republicans are finally understanding that part of the reason that the party has left its fiscally responsible roots is because fiscal policy no longer drives the GOP: it’s repealing Roe v. Wade; it’s electing “conservative” judges (also strictly a Roe v. Wade issue); it’s “good Christian values”; it’s cleaning up the airwaves; it’s protecting marriage from gays.

Reality check: the Christian Conservatives have worn out their welcome just as labor unions did back in the 70s. You could almost hear millions of people cheer as one when Reagan disbanded the PATCO workers in 1981. That single act arguably solidified his hold on the presidency from that point forward and doomed unions to the also-ran status from which they are just now emerging. In that same way, you can hear millions holding their breath and getting ready to cheer Palin’s hoped-for debacle in the VP debates tonight.

Whether that comes to fruition or not remains to be seen. But even if it doesn’t, social conservatives everywhere should be taking note of the country’s reaction to their poster child. Like the labor unions in the 80s, if they don’t use it to constructively criticize and reinvent themselves, it’s going to be a long time before they have any influence again.

For that matter, it may already be too late. You can bet the Republican Party is already taking notes on what's happening and will take a hard look at who's influence they'll listen to if they get routed in November.

The problem with Hail Marys

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:58:00 +0000

Woody Hayes, legendary and fiery coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, once said about passing plays: "If you pass the ball, three things can happen and two of them aren't good." Since McCain's personality somewhat resembles Woody's, but his "playbook" is anything but 3 yards and a cloud of dust, it's ironic that tonight's debate has the same spectre. There are reasonably three things that can happen:

1) McCain out-debates Obama and keeps the entire conversation alive. That's probably the best he can hope for, because with the events of the past two weeks it is unlikely he locks up the undecideds.

2) Obama out-debates McCain, causing a majority of "undecideds" to make their decision and McCain effectively losing the election (barring some game-changing mistake by Obama or his campaign). This seems like the most likely outcome.

3) McCain does lose his temper or directly confront Obama or Jim Lehrer in a somewhat out-of-control manner. This is not out of the realm of possibilities. If this happens, you will see a mad rush away from him like you've not seen since all the people supporting Ross Perot fleed after his "space aliens and dirty Republican tricks" comments followed by James Stockdale's deer-in-the-headlights performance.

Unfortunately for McCain, Sarah Palin's already provided half of the 3rd scenario.

By now, anyone that honestly thinks that Palin isn't scarily out of her league hasn't been paying attention. She can't deal with softballers like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. She couldn't even deal with a totally friendly audience when she was "interviewed" by Sean Hannity. She can't answer reporter's questions. For the love of God: this woman is a complete incompetent. This isn't the media being unfair, and this isn’t sexism. This is a person who has no grasp of national issues.

So the pressure is almost entirely on McCain, and there isn't enough time to hand the ball off any longer. He is now forced to open the game up. Oh wait....that's already what he's been doing.

It isn’t often you have the opportunity to watch something implode before your eyes. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen. After all, Door #2 above seems the most likely. But America should tune in tonight, because there is at least the possibility of a “where-were-you-when” moment.

Blocs of Non-Critical Thinkers

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:14:00 +0000

If people think that John McCain:

-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,

then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.

The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:

-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.

Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?

Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:

Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.

Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”

Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.

Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.

Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.

What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.

I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.

Tired But Dangerous Ideology

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:24:00 +0000

Peggy Noonan, thinking she’s off-microphone, laments the “bullshit” selection and stunt of choosing Sarah Palin. Charles Krauthammer, a week after Palin is chosen, writes quite candidly of how Palin undermines McCain’s argument against Obama. David Gergen continues to be stunned at why McCain would choose someone who ignites the base but doesn’t seem to reach a significant number of people in the middle.

What these 3 people have in common is that they are all Reagan Republicans, people who either worked for the Reagan presidency or who’s views were forged and sculpted in the early 80s. They are not of the current era of the bitter political landscape and the rhetoric of social conservative dogma, which is why they see this for what it is: a dumb move.

McCain has completely pulled out the underpinnings of an argument that not only had a great deal of resonance, but one that he's spent lots of time and money pursuing: that Obama is too young, too idealistic, and too inexperienced to lead. Now, one can argue that Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not, or which one actually has more experience. From the point-of-view of political strategy, it's still mystifying. McCain may have charged up the base, but they were going to vote for him (or against Obama) anyway. Whether they're voting for him with a 51% conviction or a 100% conviction, it still just counts as one vote per person.

Additionally, McCain runs a grave risk and high probability of energizing some large centrist voter swaths…to vote AGAINST him. Does anyone really think that, if they know what Palin’s stance is on abortion, women’s rights and sex education that Hillary voters will vote for Palin just because she’s female? She’ll get the 27% that are die-hard social conservatives, plus around 10% who will actually vote for any woman, leaving just under 65% who will be energized to make sure she doesn’t come within sniffing distance of any influence on the next Supreme Court justices. Anyone who has felt a little uncomfortable about the fervent organization of family-values-or-die Republicans over the past several years is likely to get very nervous when those same types are foaming at the mouth in droves. People who were hoping for a civil election can now blame Palin as the person who is driving the negative rhetoric.

Let’s presume she doesn’t mobilize women and the middle against her, that she just energizes the Republican base. (And when did the “base” actually become so one-issue, that of social conservativism?) Other than perhaps raising more money, which, by the way, can no longer be spent since McCain is taking public funds, then her net effect is close to zero. So McCain has to figure that she energizes the base, and he plays for the center. Risky at best, dumb at worst, since it’s awfully tough to separate yourself from your running mate. And if he does, this again bespeaks to his judgment.

It's not fashionable right now to suggest that exposing this strategy is a huge opening for Obama because everyone sees this as a razor-close election, and it could turn out to be just that. But I still stand by my thoughts that ran through my head as I was hearing the announcement at 11am Friday the 29th: this move by McCain has more than a decent chance of destroying his candidacy and being one of the biggest political gaffes in my lifetime. That's not meant to be an indictment of Palin as a person or as a politician, but as the choice of the running mate for this candidate at this time.

Palin is a gifted speaker, at least in front of a teleprompter with several days to rehearse. But for all of the glow and for all of the publicity you’re seeing now, she has to be near-perfect between now and November. She has to be at least able to stand up to Joe Biden politically. Because while she may be forgiven for any failings, any mistakes or questionable comments and remarks she makes will all stick to McCain and speak to his judgement, or lack of it.

Obama’s campaign has made very few missteps to this point, and I’m guessing that they won’t start screwing up now. They can't panic because McCain has gotten a bounce; it's likely to be very temporary. If they stay on message and don’t let McCain remake himself as some sort of maverick above the fray while his minions deal in innuendo and labels, Obama should have opened up a decent lead in key battleground states within the next 30 days.

Dem convention - Day 1

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:59:00 +0000

7:15 Will someone please teach Nancy Pelosi how to speak in public? No wait…don’t. Just tell her to go away. How ironic is it that she’s Speaker of the House? She’s the anti-Obama.

7:22 Pelosi actually made me utter “I wonder what Bill O’Reilly is talking about now.” Even worse, I turn it to Fox for comedic relief. And it is funny. Bill O’Reilly and some dough-faced boy are trying to prove that Barack Obama is the person who is more vulnerable on charges of personal corruption than John McCain. Fair and balanced.

7:27 The Jimmy Carter video about New Orleans. This is what he does well. But he has really hurt his image with his perceived criticism of Israel. Is that why they did the video but he wasn’t allowed to speak?

7:40 Jesse Jackson Jr. He looks nothing like his father, but he sure sounds like him without the mushmouth. But he strikes a slightly different tone. He’s a better speaker at this point in time. He doesn’t come off as what a lot of people identify as a stereotypical African-American; like Obama he strikes me simply as American.

7:55 Back to Jimmy Carter, Gloria Borger on CNN (I’m bouncing around a lot) is suggesting that Carter wasn’t allowed to speak because of the Jewish vote that is supporting Obama and that Carter runs the risk of alienating them. Interesting factoid: Joe Biden’s net worth is about $200K. Yep, $200K, not $200M. Guess that’s what happens from a lifetime of public service. If the Democrats don’t exploit that, they’re dumb asses. Now you’ve got someone that people can believe when he talks about real Americans and fiscal worries.

8pm They’re now announcing that Ted Kennedy will speak. I have had so many fundamental disagreements with him, but he has certainly become a statesman in the past 10 years, and it’s virtually impossible to question his patriotism, even when his policies have been at odds with much of the country.
David Gergen is making the very good point that things are going stupidly slowly and the Dems are missing a golden opportunity to grab the audience with a serious message instead of “letting the hours slip away.”

8:13 Ted Kennedy momentum is building. The man has been given a death sentence; it won’t shock me if he says something really profound and maybe something that no one else could get away with. Like: “Hillary supporters, get over your bad selves.”
Caroline Kennedy…Maria Shriver. I never realized they looked alike until they switched from one to the other.

8:21 I’m not sure how she’s keeping it together with what she’s saying about Ted. Maria’s not.

8:30 Ted does indeed take the stage. I get the feeling this will be the last time we see him speak publicly. Listening to his speech, I can hear the Rush Limbaughs tomorrow, who can’t see past the human element of a dying man making a stand and will make disparaging comments about him. If my supposition turns out to be correct, that speaks volumes about him as a human being, doesn’t it?

8:37 Teddy didn’t actually say anything profound. Too bad; he had carte blanche.

8:50 Chris Dodd is being interviewed on MSNBC about Ted Kennedy. I want to like him; for some reason I just don’t. Or maybe it’s more appropriate to say that I don’t trust him, and he struck me the same way in the Democratic debates last year. But I’ll also admit that I don’t know much about him.

9:00 Tom Harkin is introducing former Republican Jim Leach. Jim Leach’s problem is with our standing in the world and the lack of political ethics. Hence, he’s crossing party lines. That’s great and that needs to be the story, because Jim Leach could make a caffeinated insomniac on crack sleep for days.

9:08 Has anyone else noticed that Brit Hume is actually a basset hound? Fox News has Juan Williams from NPR, and then Bill Kristol, a reporter from Fortune, and a reporter from The Weekly Standard. So much for fair and balanced: 2 conservatives and a reporter for a publication targeted at the wealthy. Thanks for putting the black liberal NPR guy on the panel. Are you sure his name isn’t Token?

9:14 James Carville is speaking on CNN. I am suddenly ill. David Gergen is rightly criticizing the structure of the “show” as not understanding how to grab the audience. He’s rightfully critical about Jim Leach’s speech as being boring and losing the audience signing on at the top of the hour.

9:20 Chris Wallace & Brit Hume are debating about Ted Kennedy and both waxing poetic about him even with their disagreements with his policy. Thank you for being human instead of partisan.

9:24 The video of Michelle Obama begins. I switch to CNN to watch in HD.

9:35 I listen to Michelle’s brother Craig. This is not a “black” family, this is an American family. How much can Michelle Obama do, just by her mere presence in the White House? What a role model for the all-too-frequent African-American family with no father, just by default.

9:45 This is an amazing speech that Michelle is giving. If you’re not moved, you don’t have a heart. You don’t have to agree with her, but you have to believe that she’s sincere. And if you don’t, please leave.

9:55 Barack Obama speaks via video. He missed what city he was in initially (St. Louis instead of Kansas City), but they put his daughters on, and Sasha said “Daddy, what city are you in?” That was classic.

10:06 I am amazed at the analysis on Fox. They are trying to spin Michelle Obama’s speech as a wasted opportunity. Chris Wallace is proving to be just another partisan ass. He’s questioning the decision to have Michelle Obama leave her “stump speech” to give a background on their family, suggesting that people are more interested in the future. Chris, you dumb ass: these are people that are BLACK in case you haven’t noticed, who need to convince the WHITE people of this country that they’re like them and ok to vote for. I’m sure that his father would like to disown him, or at least disown his intellectual grasp. NOTE: All of you people who are watching/listening to Fox as a “news” source, just get over your bad selves.

I'm playing poker on Day 2, but I'll likely DVR at least Hillary's speech so I can watch/listen without the talking heads' spin.

Which Is It?

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:19:00 +0000

Barack Obama is The Most Liberal Member of the Senate.

Barack Obama is a Blank Slate. How do WE know what he is really thinking?

Surely the mutual exclusivity of these two statements is patently obvious....isn't it? Is the electorate stupid enough to not see that you can't be both of these things? Maybe if you're an outfielder who comes to the majors from Tripe A and goes 6-10 in his first two games of the new season. ("He's batting .600 & leading the majors in hitting, but do we really know what he's got?") Outside of something that ridiculous, both of these statements cannot be true.

No, what we have here is the Republicans using the same tactics they've been using for several cycles: give the people multiple negative soundbites about the opposing candidate and let people pick up on whichever one scares or disgusts them enough to vote against the object d'insult. This is less offensive and more effective if it's coupled with "and here's what our candidate will do for you."

Uh...are you seeing the second half of this? Because I'm not.

McCain has become a weak candidate in the blink of an eye. Not so long ago we all believed we knew where he stood: strong defense, fiscal responsibility, a free trader who supports NAFTA, and a man who makes his decisions based on a strong inner moral compass. While the first points haven't necessarily changed, the last couple certainly have. Add to the fact that he has courted the conservative Christian right, which was NOT part of his M.O., and you have disappointed centrists such as myself -- not because we disagree with his views, mind you. Centrists probably are as divided as the rest of the country on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, violence in video games, etc. Our disappointment stems from the obvious pandering to a segment of the base that it's fairly obvious McCain doesn't belong to.

This might be ok from a political point of view if it were effective. It is, in fact, ineffective for the same reasons: the Christian right sees McCain as disingenuous, perhaps because he is.

So now you have a candidate that isn't going to energize the base (a la, GWB) and isn't going to grab the centrists, which is what the winning candidate must have to win this election. The Republicans, sensing disaster, do what they do better than the Democrats: smear. Only this time, there's no "and here's what our candidate will do that's better" to follow the mudslinging.

So just remember: the next time you hear catch-phrase A or catch-phrase B and it gets you worked up, consider the simple little fact that it might not be wholly accurate.

Economic Myths Abound

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:09:00 +0000

So I bring up the housing crisis to Conservative Cali Dude, who then proceeds to climb up on a 2-story soapbox and pontificate on the unfairness of the presumed bailout that's coming. Fact is, though, he's right. 5 or 6 years ago, when we were both still in Indianapolis, we talked about how utterly ridiculous the housing market was becoming and that there would be a serious correction coming. It wasn't if, it was when. And we were both right.

So now what do we do? Well, since both Democrats are in favor of some sort of a bailout, the reality is that there will likely be one. John McCain can't afford to be seen as insensitive, even if that's not the case. So we are all going to share the brunt of propping up a fair share of people who made bad decisions.

Here's the problem: we are panicking as a nation. The sky is falling. This is the worst recession since The Great Depression. Someone please help us.

Here's the reality: we are experiencing a market correction with respect to housing prices in much of the country. It needed to happen. Perhaps it could have/should have happened sooner, but it didn't. But that's all that's happening. Yes, it's going to affect a large number of people, but before everyone goes off their rocker about the problems with Predatory Lenders and Bad People...don't you think that this was telegraphed a long time ago? Are the CCD and me so omniscient that we could see this coming before the rest of the 300 million people in the U.S.? Somehow, I doubt that.

Housing prices have been out of line in certain markets (L.A., Vegas, Phoenix, south Florida) for a long time. C'mon; if you're paying $1MM for a 1000 square foot home on a zero lot and think that you're making a good investment, you're an idiot. Add in that you entered into that mortgage with no money down and took an ARM loan that states pretty clearly that your interest rate could rise as much as 2% per year...you're now just gambling. It didn't matter when this correction happened, you were going to have a significant number of same said idiots that were going to get burned.

So the question becomes, how much do they actually burn the economy back, and how much obligation do we have to bail them out? Personally, I don't think we have much obligation to these people or the institutions that lent them the money. The only reason to jump in with taxpayer money is if the hole left by this segment of the population will destroy the economy.

The new argument goes that unscrupulous lenders are somehow to blame, that they took advantage of people by not disclosing the actual loan terms, which has now caused this crisis to careen out of control. Couple this with investment banks and other lending institutions who traded the paper these loans were written, under the assumption that mortgages were relatively safe gambles, and look at where we’re at. In other words, no one’s at fault except for these crooks that wrote the loans in the first place. The argument then gets taken further to say that if we don’t rescue these poor people, the economy is going to collapse on itself.

People, are you all still in first grade? Do you really believe this?

Why is it not patently obvious that this is just a salve? An easy excuse so that those that got themselves into this fix can feel that they bear little to or even no blame? And the sad fact of the matter is, we’re all buying it! To the point where we’re doing the economic equivalent of overreacting and buying all of the stores out of bread, batteries and water before a snowstorm hits, like that’s really going to make a difference.

Some people are going to say that the true problem is that credit is tightening up to the point where it’s going to destroy the economy. While there is some veracity to that argument, don’t you think that’s masking another problem, that perhaps credit has been a little too easy? If you want to look for predatory lenders, how about credit card companies? Why have they been allowed to get away with the interest rates and practices that they have been utilizing for over 20 years?

What needs to happen right now is for everyone to take a deep breath and examine this a little more thoroughly. Unfortunately, we have our government rushing in to throw money at the problem….your money, I might add…to what end? And once the government gets control of an economic sector it becomes permanent.

That might be ok if they had a history of good management.

LET'S BLOW OFF A TOE

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:26:00 +0000

What is it with this large faction of the Democratic Party that are at best blinded by ideology and at worst are complete morons? This is the 3rd election in the row that the Democrats not only can win, but will win...if only they put up a candidate who a) has vision, b) isn't tied to a previous administration, and c) can pull the independents and centrist voters in.

Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton is actually in a position where she gets enough votes to steal the nomination (yes, steal) away from Barack Obama. Looking at the list above, she fails on all three points.

Are you people really that stupid?

Oh, so you think I'm being harsh or perhaps I just simply don’t see the magic or the significance of HRC. Ok, try this on for size: let's forget for a moment that the Republican in this race is John McCain. Let's pretend for a moment that it's Jeb Bush.

Tell me, Democrats, how that very idea turns your stomach. Tell me how determined you are to make sure that he doesn't get within sniffing distance of the White House. Tell me how much money you are willing to contribute to make sure that he loses, even more determined than you are to make sure that whatever Democrat is running wins.

Do you get the idea? Jeb might actually be the best politician and the most centric of the 3 Bushes. It doesn't matter; his name alone is polarizing and renders him unelectable. And yet, there are a large number of you out there who don't seem to understand just how much the name "Clinton" produces venom-laced saliva in this country. And no, they're not all right-wing wacko Republicans. Those of us in the center have absolutely NO desire to see anyone named Bush or Clinton hit the White House again. Ever. Not now, not in four years, not in eight years.

If Hillary is the nominee, you will in effect be electing a Republican yet again. Oh, I know you don’t think so. “She’s a fighter. She’s tough. The Republicans really don’t like John McCain, and the country is ready for a change.”

Don’t kid yourself. Because if you do, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot yet again. The only control you might have is which foot and how many toes you can blow off.

And quit any comments about the idiocy of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. You need to look in the mirror.

Not So Random Musings

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:10:00 +0000

WHY IS HRC TOUTING EXPERIENCE?
It’s interesting noting that Hillary touts her “experience” and Obama’s lack thereof as reasons she is more prepared. In a speech on Monday excerpted in the Chicago Tribune: "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can't let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."
So how does that jibe with Bill Clinton in 1992? And why does this argument supposedly work against Bush? Clinton was wet behind the ears when it came to national governance. GWB had the advantage of a close family member having been in the White House 8 years earlier. So, who does Hillary’s resume most resemble of the two? Call me silly, but I fail to see Hillary’s argument in any positive light, and I’m betting most of America that has more than an 10th grade education does too.

SPEAKING OF WHICH
We have 3 Senators left in the race. No governors or big-city mayors; only McCain spent time as a congressional representative, serving two terms. None have run a business, though again McCain spent time as VP-Public Relations of an Anheuser-Busch distributorship (due to his current wife Cindy’s familial ownership). Both Obama and Clinton majored in Political Science. McCain attended the Naval Academy. There is a clear winner in the “experience” game, and it’s not Clinton.

TRULY LIBERAL?
Obama is now being touted as an extreme liberal. And I do see some policies that raise my eyebrows. (Raising the cap on FICA taxes, for instance, which could put a serious chill on small businesses.) But when compared to Clinton, the gap between them seems larger than the media is touting. Clinton has this idealistic and naïve zeal, a la Lyndon Johnson, towards a society where the government takes care of everything. Obama seems to recognize the reality of the issues. Hence, if you don’t want to pay in to the federal health care system, in Barack’s world you don’t have to (unless you have children). And don’t come crying when you’re sick and can’t afford to pay, either.

Obama asks for two years of service back to the country in exchange for college subsidies. Yes, he wants out of Iraq immediately (which I also question) but then wants to redouble efforts in Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda. This isn’t your typical tax-and-spend Democrat peacenik. After 8 years of a Republican who never met a spending bill he couldn’t get behind, I’m not sure we’re going to be committing more federal funds.

AN ELECTION OF ISSUES
McCain offers sharp differences in what he proposes. The problem with Clinton is that she seems to be operating without an apparent logic behind them other than a push towards a much larger welfare state. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have more of an agenda than to have the government taking care of everything. So if it’s Obama-McCain this election might actually be a referendum on the direction we wish to go as Americans. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Findings from Friends & Acquaintances

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:09:00 +0000

I’ve endeavored to join as many political discussions with as many different people as possible over the past month or so. My intent has not been to offer my opinion, but rather to ask just enough questions to get the other person or people to open up about what they see with the current landscape. Here are a few of my (admittedly unscientific) findings:

1) The depth of hatred for Hillary Clinton inside the Democratic Party. This one really surprises me. Even though I’ve long held (and still do) that she’s unelectable, I figured that Democrats would largely have a neutral or resigned position about her, if not a positive one. Wrong, at least among the people I’ve been able to engage. They’re using words like “evil,” “Satan,” “power-hungry” and other less pleasant and…ahem…descriptive terms. In fact, I have yet to find more than a single person who rallies around her. (And that person is a female in New England who has traditionally been a Republican.) Now that may say a great deal about the people I can and do rub elbows with, but wouldn’t you think I could find at least one supporter, especially in a place like Austin?

2) Republican support for Mitt Romney. This one’s also a bit of a surprise to me. I’ve heard a lot of this, too: “If (the candidate I support) doesn’t win, Romney would be ok.” Does this mean he’s the actual leader to get the nomination, as he’s the one guy the party can agree on across the board?

3) And the virtual winners are Obama and Giuliani. Centrist Democrats like Giuliani. Centrist Republicans like Obama. Since neither one’s actual history or views jibe with the opposite party’s, I have to believe there are other factors that lead to their current popularity with would-be enemies. In Giuliani’s case, my guess is that it’s his name recognition, plus his perceived legacies of turning around NYC and his handling of 9/11. Obama? Must be because he’s likeable as a person and not being Hillary, because his political stances really don’t align with Republicans one iota. Once the majority of the party faithful actually see where each one stands, their support will waiver. (To me, this is supported by the lack of support for Giuliani among northeastern Democrats, who know him a bit more than the rest of the country.) Nonetheless, will we see some people voting outside of their party’s primary to help nominate these two? And if so, will it be in significant enough numbers to help?

4) Bill who? Fred who? John who? John who again? Again, I have to qualify: there is a limited number of people I’m able to come in contact with, no matter how many I perceive it to be. But since I do converse with people from all over the country and of virtually every political stripe, I find it interesting that everyone not named Romney, Obama, Clinton, or Giuliani has been virtually written off. Does this mean that someone’s campaign could be revived by an early win or two? Sure. But don’t hold your breath.

NOT SO FAST

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:57:00 +0000

Beware the easy prognostications of "here come the Democrats" because one can look to Kentucky, Virginia, and Indianapolis and see a trend. And it’s not necessarily the trend that the Dems think they see, nor the trend the GOPers think they see.

The trend in all probability is “throw the bums out, regardless of affiliation.”

See, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you hail from. If an incumbent's constituents are the least bit unsettled the signs are saying that the bar is much lower than normal to bounce them from office. What I don't see is a mandate for Democrats to re-take power, nor an “all-clear” signal for Republicans that a significant slice of the electorate is still in their camp. The electorate as a whole is very dissatisfied, and if you appear to be part of the problem, regardless of party, you are in deep doo-doo.

Indianapolis is a great case study. Marion County has been becoming increasingly Democratic for the past 15 years to the point where it was the only county in Indiana to vote for Kerry in 2004. But a relative unknown and underfunded Republican upset Bart Peterson, 2-term Democratic mayor, the City-County Council turned majority Republican, and the large suburb of Lawrence ousted its Democratic mayor.

I don’t mean to suggest that this possible groundswell doesn’t favor Democrats, but that's only in places where they don't currently hold office AND there is an incumbent. All bets are off in races where the incumbent isn't running. This feels like the same simmering disappointment that turned into voter anger in both 1976 and 1980. And its roots are not just Iraq or worries about the economy. The general sense is that the country is foundering and people are wanting a clear direction.

In other words, don’t be so sure that any one of us knows the outcome of any race, especially the presidency. And don’t rule out a third party candidate suddenly coming on full force after the Dem & GOP candidates are known.

WHY SPORTSMANSHIP IS STILL IMPORTANT

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:40:00 +0000

There has been a lot of talk about the New England Patriots this season, to say the least. I think they're providing a great metaphor. Let's start with just the football aspect:

Right now, there seem to be two camps on the Patriots running up the score: those that think they are and see it as a very bad thing, and those that either don't think they are (ahem) or that because it's pro football, there need be no mercy. No surprise, Group 2 is comprised almost entirely of Patriots fans.

We all want an excuse as to why our team or our own actions are justified. But when you do things like going for it on 4th down with a 5-touchdown lead and leaving your starters in when the other team has no chance is difficult to defend. The reason? They are on a mission to prove they're the best team despite the "Spygate" incident earlier in the season and they seem to think this is the way to remove all doubt. Hmmm...

All the Pats are doing is ensuring that the rest of the nation loathes them, and that other teams will stick it to them when they can. That probably won't be this season, but coaches, fans and players have very long memories when it comes to this sort of behavior. And so do GMs, owners, and front office personnel. Don't be surprised if next year or the year after that some team injures Tom Brady with a purposeful late hit. Or, GMs consistently refuse to make trades with the NE brass...or every road game in a down year (which will happen) turns into “how much can we embarrass the Patriots,” Essentially, Bellichick is threatening to create 20 years of paybacks with one season of a raised middle finger.

Now the non-football portion: how much does this translate to our lives, our politics, our interactions with others? Are we ever truly in a place where "it doesn't matter so long as you win"? Yet from our foreign policy to CEO compensation to presidential campaigns, sportsmanship seems to have taken a back seat. Unfortunately, it does come with consequences.

Also, it is very difficult to build up a great reputation, but extremely easy to destroy it. Witness political figures, celebrities, and others who fall from grace. But once a reputation is destroyed, it is an even longer process to remake it, if it can ever be done.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be done in the utmost manner of politeness, but there does deserve to be some simple respect, even when the stakes are high. Maybe especially when the stakes are high. But somewhere we seem to have forgotten that if you're going to tread on someone in any arena that they will make it their mission to take you down. And they, too, have long memories. Even armies who are bent on killing each other understand that once you've defeated your opponent, you have to give them some grace in defeat, or it will come back to haunt the victors.

So root for your team, Patriots fans. You may even go undefeated and win a championship. Just remember that when your team is being taken apart unmercifully in a few years. Unless your team's ownership starts thinking about their long-term future.

IF AL GORE IS SERIOUS

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:08:00 +0000

Let’s start with a reality check: Al Gore is not going to win the presidency in 2008. He will not be able to get organized, raise enough money, or campaign fast enough to make a dent in the front-loaded primaries, and he’s certainly not going to enter the fray as a 3rd party candidate. The question should be: does Gore ever run for public office again? His eventual answer to that will tell you whether he’s really in it for public service or for ego.

Forget personal prejudices about Gore’s ability (or lack thereof) to often walk the walk he talks, or what his real purpose was about agreeing to make “An Inconvenient Truth.” He has still been an important part of raising the consciousness in this country about climate change, and has caused the debate to intensify. If he is truly interested in serving the public and effecting a change, then he needs to continue to make his case as Al Gore, Private Concerned Citizen. But if this is just a ploy to re-make himself politically, then he’s not interested in public service at all, but power.

I don’t know the answer here. Gore has always championed environmental protection as his #1 cause, and that makes you want to believe that he’s really in it to educate the country and make a difference. But if you watch his movie with a critical eye, you don’t just gloss over all the references to the 2000 election. Instead, you wonder why it’s included. After all, if this is about raising consciousness on what we’re doing to the planet, who cares about how you lost the election?

That is the dichotomy with Al Gore, and why a lot of people struggle with or discount what he stands for, or what he purports to stand for. If you’re really in this for environmental change, why do you try to show how “unfair” the 2000 election was to you? And if the environment is that fragile, why do you live your extremely environmentally abusive lifestyle and think that by buying “carbon credits” you can excuse your behavior?

See, this is the problem with career politicians. They think they’re above the fray, and they think they’re entitled to positions of privilege. Hey…I’m an agoraphobic person who has partially been rewarded by a lifetime of being on stage instead of down with “the rabble.” So on some level I understand. The difference is that I’m not in a position to make policy. I’m just saying that whatever you see Al Gore do in the future with respect to seeking public office should tell you a great deal about his true motivations.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ADVERTISING (or lessons from working in gaming)

noreply@blogger.com (Centrist Dude) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:05:00 +0000

Some of you know that my company works with ad agencies in addition to video game companies. I was just forwarded an article where an agency owner who thinks very highly of himself was pontificating on what's wrong with the industry.

Yeah, this is beyond the normal scope of this blog, but since I haven't been posting anything lately, I thought I'd offer my own take on what seems utterly apparent, and it's considerably different than what Johnny Loveshimselfalot has to say.

For ad agencies to be socially relevant again they must --

1) Have independence. This means freedom from shareholders. One of the single dumbest ideas was to collect agencies in these big holding companies and go public. A creative company needs an environment that allows that it to sink or swim based on taking some chances with ideas, otherwise there will never be "big ideas' or because no one will be willing to allow the potential risk. Nothing sucks the life out of creativity like Wall Street.

2) Hire actual creative types. Virtually every ad agency is now populated by account executives who dress funky to show how creative they are. In reality, most of them are simply immature bad salespeople, more Herb Tarlick than J. Walter Thompson. Scratch that: Herb could at least sell. Agencies don't need more AEs who pretend to be creative: they need CDs and Producers and Copywriters who actually know what they're doing. Which means you might need to hire some weirdos who want to crawl into a corner and draw. Take the gaming approach -- throw a twinkie over the cubicle wall and leave him to his craft. Don't worry...he'll come out eventually.

3) Have a SMALL number of people over the creatives (like one or two) who have proven that they a) know what good creative is and b) have some business acumen. This is where the David Ogilvys and Lester Wundermans of the world really made their mark. They weren't writing all the ads or going on all the shoots -- they were letting the weirdos do their thing and acting as the filter, THEN bringing the best ideas to light. Or, in a gaming scenario, they were the publishers, the creatives were the developers. Somehow, that very simple idea has been lost.

4) When something is working, DON'T SCREW WITH IT. In the gaming world, how much money has Blizzard made on World of Warcraft? How much money has EA made on Madden, Need for Speed and The Sims? How much money has Midway made on Mortal Kombat? How much money has Activision made on Spiderman, World Series of Poker, and Guitar Hero? And it doesn't matter if the producer changes -- you don't mess with the formula until it stops working. This is even MORE imperative with advertising, yet every new AE-who-thinks-he's-a-producer has to stamp out the life of what was happening before and do something new. And it never, ever, ever works. Why? See 3) above.

Also note that this does not mean that new ideas aren't encouraged or allowed to surface. It simply means that change for the sake of change is misguided.

Until then, advertising will continue to decline. If they get to the point where they're irrelevant (and that's not very far away) then nothing will resurrect the trade. It will become the equivalent of used car sales.

You know, I always thought the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" was so ridiculously obvious that anyone who read it should have been saying, "Well, duh." The advertising industry is making me reconsider that opinion....but I'm scratching my head the entire time.