If you were an independent voter who doesn’t pay that much attention to politics, who would you vote for?
A. Barack Obama
B. A team led by Obama that includes a Republican secretary of defense (Hagel?), a conservative southern Democratic national security adviser (Nunn?), someone with a long record as a foreign policy expert or diplomat as secretary of state (Biden? Richardson?), and a vice president with national security credentials (Clark? Webb? Gore?)
It is unfathomable that Obama has not sought to address the concerns of those who are, understandably, wary of a newcomer by informing people who his foreign policy leadership will be.
I know announcements of Cabinet officials are usually not made in advance, but to continue this stupid tradition shows an inability to think outside the box. The American people DESERVE to know who their leaders are. Besides, we WERE basically told in 2000 that Colin Powell would be Bush Jr.’s secretary of state, and it was of enormous benefit to the Incompetent One.
Obama’s inexplicable unwillingness to put together a team is one of two main reasons he DESERVES to lose. The second is that he has still not put together a simple-to-explain vision backed up by specific policy proposals.
People voting for Republicans think they are voting for a smaller government, lower taxes, a stronger defense, and better moral values. Of course, they are wrong, but it will take decades for millions of Americans to figure out that the Republicans’ incompetent governance shows that their simple, effective political campaigns are lies.
Why hasn’t Obama put together a list comparable to the above list for independents to vote for? Ex.–A fairer tax system, a better health care system, a balanced budget, and a tougher foreign policy in regards to real national security problems. Why isn’t Obama out there every day talking about the fact that two-thirds of corporations don’t pay taxes and the USA is something like No. 37 in quality of health care? Why aren’t there specific proposals to back up his rhetoric? Why isn’t he putting these plans within a framework that will allow him to claim that he is MORE patriotic than McCain?
Frankly, McCain DESERVES TO WIN. At least, he has a plan for our energy crisis that is easy to understand. It’s, no doubt, deeply flawed, but Americans don’t analyze plans. They know McCain was out in front of the issue and Obama has hemmed and hawed.
From my perspective, Obama thinks he is going to win because he has superior money, enthusiasm, and organization – an extraordinarily stupid viewpoint because he barely won the Democratic nomination with this plan with a far more liberal jury than the American public. And, I’ve concluded, he deliberately is being vague because he fears being painted as a liberal. This cowardice is inexcusable, particularly when Americans favor dramatic changes in taxes, health care, and lots of other issues.
And I’m infuriated by the vapid commentary I keep reading and hearing. It seems like everyone thinks the total answer is to be tough in campaign ads. Yes, McCain’s ads are despicable. And I’m all for calling out McCain on his lies.
Here’s a news flash though – the ads would NOT work nearly as well if Obama presented himself with a team and was far more substantive on the issues. These should be his priorities.
I predict, unfortunately, that Obama will lose a campaign he should win easily by replicating mistakes that Gore and Kerry also made.
Shalom,
Zwrite
Author tags:
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
WHO IS THE WORLD’S BEST ATHLETE EVER?
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON AUG. 19, 2008
WHO IS THE WORLD'S BEST ATHLETE EVER?
There are an alarming number of people who lack historical perspective in deciding who is the world’s best athlete and are close-minded in not considering athletes in individual sports (except for golfers for reasons that are mystifying to me).
The issue of who is a great athlete is a common topic this week because of the performance of Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals in swimming in the Beijing Olympics. Listening to talk radio and reading blogs, it seems that almost everyone agrees that Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time.
Phelps, 23, might deserve recognition someday as the greatest Olympian, but he doesn’t right now. Excelling in one more Olympics would put him near the top of my list. Currently, though, he has been great for four years. Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses, Al Oerter, and, I’m guessing, several athletes in sports that I don’t follow were great over a period of 12 years. Wasn’t there a Soviet gymnast who won several gold and other medals over several Olympics, but was ignored by the American media despite repeatedly crushing Olga Korbut because she wasn’t that cute?
I know Phelps holds the record for most gold medals, but why is that the sole criteria? If Pele scored 50 goals in six games in the 1968 Olympics and duplicated that feat in 1972 and 1976 he would have 150 goals and, at most, three gold medals. By the cumulative gold criteria, EVERY athlete in a team sport is excluded. So is every athlete in a weight-class sport (boxing, wrestling, weightlifting).
Swimming is one of the only sports that gives you an opportunity to win several gold medals in one competition. It’s no coincidence that the records Phelps broke (seven golds in one Olympics, nine overall) were also held by a swimmer – Mark Spitz.
Yet, I heard a radio talk show host proclaim Phelps the greatest Olympian of all time and not one caller disagreed with him in a three-hour show. The same broadcaster said Phelps should not be on anyone’s list of great athletes and then cited several quarterbacks and basketball shooting guards as people who should be on his list. Not one caller disagreed with him.
The fundamental argument of these sports fans was that only sports that us Americans paid attention to should be counted. Thus, they said, most of the best athletes were football and basketball players with a few baseball and hockey players also deserving consideration. There was no logic expressed in a three-hour show – no justification for ranking someone who throws a football or shoots a basketball as more athletic than someone who bicycles thousands of miles or is the world’s best runner or swimmer.
Incredibly, the broadcaster went out of his way to say that decathletes do NOT deserve to be ranked as among the world’s greatest athletes.
I believe Jackie Robinson is the best athlete ever. Most sports fans know he was courageous as Major League Baseball’s first African-American player. He was an excellent hitter, runner, and fielder who made the Baseball Hall of Fame. Fewer know he was an NCAA long jump champion who might have won Olympics track medals if World War II didn’t cancel the games, was a running back on a national college football all-star team, led the nation in scoring as a UCLA basketball player, won area tennis tourneys, and was a U.S. Army ping pong champion.
Jim Thorpe and Babe Didrikson Zaharias also deserve consideration. He won Olympics gold medals in the decathlon and heptathlon, starred at several positions in college and pro football, and played professional baseball and basketball. She won Olympic medals in hurdling, javelin throwing, and high jumping; won 41 golf tourneys, and was an all-American in basketball.
In modern times, Bo Jackson’s ability to hit a baseball 450 feet and run through and around the NFL’s best players made him one of the best athletes ever. He also won the Heisman Trophy, had world-class track speed, won two Alabama high school decathlon titles, and hit 29 home runs after having hip replacement surgery. I’m also impressed by other multisport stars like Deion Sanders, a future NFL Hall of Famer who was good enough in baseball to win a league triple title and finish second in steals, and also was a college track star.
And yes I am more impressed by decathletes like two-time Olympic champions Bob Mathias and Daley Thompson and heptathletes like three-time Olympic champion Jackie Joyner-Kersee who can in two days run fast, jump high and far, throw objects a long way, and run a distance race after nine prior events (six for women) than someone who excels in one team sport.
I don’t expect people to agree with all my conclusions, but I am flummoxed when there is unanimity that publicized achievements in popular team sports equals being a great athlete.
Who is your nominee for world’s greatest athlete?
Shalom,
ZWrite
WHO IS THE WORLD'S BEST ATHLETE EVER?
There are an alarming number of people who lack historical perspective in deciding who is the world’s best athlete and are close-minded in not considering athletes in individual sports (except for golfers for reasons that are mystifying to me).
The issue of who is a great athlete is a common topic this week because of the performance of Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals in swimming in the Beijing Olympics. Listening to talk radio and reading blogs, it seems that almost everyone agrees that Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time.
Phelps, 23, might deserve recognition someday as the greatest Olympian, but he doesn’t right now. Excelling in one more Olympics would put him near the top of my list. Currently, though, he has been great for four years. Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses, Al Oerter, and, I’m guessing, several athletes in sports that I don’t follow were great over a period of 12 years. Wasn’t there a Soviet gymnast who won several gold and other medals over several Olympics, but was ignored by the American media despite repeatedly crushing Olga Korbut because she wasn’t that cute?
I know Phelps holds the record for most gold medals, but why is that the sole criteria? If Pele scored 50 goals in six games in the 1968 Olympics and duplicated that feat in 1972 and 1976 he would have 150 goals and, at most, three gold medals. By the cumulative gold criteria, EVERY athlete in a team sport is excluded. So is every athlete in a weight-class sport (boxing, wrestling, weightlifting).
Swimming is one of the only sports that gives you an opportunity to win several gold medals in one competition. It’s no coincidence that the records Phelps broke (seven golds in one Olympics, nine overall) were also held by a swimmer – Mark Spitz.
Yet, I heard a radio talk show host proclaim Phelps the greatest Olympian of all time and not one caller disagreed with him in a three-hour show. The same broadcaster said Phelps should not be on anyone’s list of great athletes and then cited several quarterbacks and basketball shooting guards as people who should be on his list. Not one caller disagreed with him.
The fundamental argument of these sports fans was that only sports that us Americans paid attention to should be counted. Thus, they said, most of the best athletes were football and basketball players with a few baseball and hockey players also deserving consideration. There was no logic expressed in a three-hour show – no justification for ranking someone who throws a football or shoots a basketball as more athletic than someone who bicycles thousands of miles or is the world’s best runner or swimmer.
Incredibly, the broadcaster went out of his way to say that decathletes do NOT deserve to be ranked as among the world’s greatest athletes.
I believe Jackie Robinson is the best athlete ever. Most sports fans know he was courageous as Major League Baseball’s first African-American player. He was an excellent hitter, runner, and fielder who made the Baseball Hall of Fame. Fewer know he was an NCAA long jump champion who might have won Olympics track medals if World War II didn’t cancel the games, was a running back on a national college football all-star team, led the nation in scoring as a UCLA basketball player, won area tennis tourneys, and was a U.S. Army ping pong champion.
Jim Thorpe and Babe Didrikson Zaharias also deserve consideration. He won Olympics gold medals in the decathlon and heptathlon, starred at several positions in college and pro football, and played professional baseball and basketball. She won Olympic medals in hurdling, javelin throwing, and high jumping; won 41 golf tourneys, and was an all-American in basketball.
In modern times, Bo Jackson’s ability to hit a baseball 450 feet and run through and around the NFL’s best players made him one of the best athletes ever. He also won the Heisman Trophy, had world-class track speed, won two Alabama high school decathlon titles, and hit 29 home runs after having hip replacement surgery. I’m also impressed by other multisport stars like Deion Sanders, a future NFL Hall of Famer who was good enough in baseball to win a league triple title and finish second in steals, and also was a college track star.
And yes I am more impressed by decathletes like two-time Olympic champions Bob Mathias and Daley Thompson and heptathletes like three-time Olympic champion Jackie Joyner-Kersee who can in two days run fast, jump high and far, throw objects a long way, and run a distance race after nine prior events (six for women) than someone who excels in one team sport.
I don’t expect people to agree with all my conclusions, but I am flummoxed when there is unanimity that publicized achievements in popular team sports equals being a great athlete.
Who is your nominee for world’s greatest athlete?
Shalom,
ZWrite
I LOST MY JOB OFFER -- AND IT'S BUSH'S FAULT
WROTE BELOW COLUMN ON SEPT. 15, 2008
I LOST MY JOB OFFER – AND IT’S BUSH’S FAULT
Last week, I had my third interview for a job I really wanted. It was clear from the second the interview started that the manager had already decided to hire me, but wanted to give me a chance to ask questions about the company.
The interview went something like this:
Manager: "What questions do you have for us?"
Me: "Yeah, I’m curious, what college did your CEO, Mr. Johnson, go to?"
Manager: "He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard with a B.A. in Engineering and earned a master’s degree in Business from the University of Chicago."
Me: "Oh, that’s terrible. How can someone that smart understand someone like me? What are his hobbies?"
Manager: "I don’t know. He’s a workaholic. He spends lots of time reading books about business and innovation because he’s always looking for ideas that will improve this company."
Me: "Boy, what a drag. I haven’t read a book in years. I do read the sports pages. Does he at least like to talk about the Bears? I hope we have something in common because that’s important to me."
Manager: "He regularly walks around the office soliciting ideas for the company. In fact, he will call every employee into his office at least once a month for a one-on-one talk. He likes to make everyone feel part of this great company and regularly accepts great ideas. Those who provide him great ideas receive huge performance bonuses."
Me: "I can’t deny money is important to me, but I have trouble fitting in a workplace if my colleagues don’t share my values. Which church does Mr. Johnson belong to?"
Manager: "Mr. Johnson is very private about his religion. I do know that we have a very diverse workforce with people from all different backgrounds. You’ll find that this is a very tolerant company, and employee morale and retention is extremely high."
Me: "I hate working with people who have strong opinions that are different than mine. In the company I work for now, almost everyone agrees with the CEO’s politics. Those stupid whiners who claim they think for themselves don’t last long. What’s the biggest mistake Mr. Johnson has ever made in hiring."
Manager: "Our company is set up in such a way that Mr. Johnson and his assistants give our employees feedback regularly and are able to give them the knowledge and skills they need to become very productive and happy. Now, Mr. Johnson has made some policy mistakes in terms of introducing products and services that our customers didn’t want. However, he is very, very flexible, admits his mistakes, and has always been able to cut our losses."
Me: "Are you telling me he’s not decisive? I hate that. People with conviction should stick to their plan even if it’s wrong. Doing otherwise shows weakness."
Manager: "I understand what you’re saying, but the bottom line is that this company is amazingly profitable. Since Mr. Johnson arrived here eight years ago, our profits have doubled every year."
Me: "Profits, shmofits. Mr. Johnson just doesn’t sound like my kind of guy. I think I’d rather work with someone I can hunt and drink with than someone who does a good job."
I LOST MY JOB OFFER – AND IT’S BUSH’S FAULT
Last week, I had my third interview for a job I really wanted. It was clear from the second the interview started that the manager had already decided to hire me, but wanted to give me a chance to ask questions about the company.
The interview went something like this:
Manager: "What questions do you have for us?"
Me: "Yeah, I’m curious, what college did your CEO, Mr. Johnson, go to?"
Manager: "He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard with a B.A. in Engineering and earned a master’s degree in Business from the University of Chicago."
Me: "Oh, that’s terrible. How can someone that smart understand someone like me? What are his hobbies?"
Manager: "I don’t know. He’s a workaholic. He spends lots of time reading books about business and innovation because he’s always looking for ideas that will improve this company."
Me: "Boy, what a drag. I haven’t read a book in years. I do read the sports pages. Does he at least like to talk about the Bears? I hope we have something in common because that’s important to me."
Manager: "He regularly walks around the office soliciting ideas for the company. In fact, he will call every employee into his office at least once a month for a one-on-one talk. He likes to make everyone feel part of this great company and regularly accepts great ideas. Those who provide him great ideas receive huge performance bonuses."
Me: "I can’t deny money is important to me, but I have trouble fitting in a workplace if my colleagues don’t share my values. Which church does Mr. Johnson belong to?"
Manager: "Mr. Johnson is very private about his religion. I do know that we have a very diverse workforce with people from all different backgrounds. You’ll find that this is a very tolerant company, and employee morale and retention is extremely high."
Me: "I hate working with people who have strong opinions that are different than mine. In the company I work for now, almost everyone agrees with the CEO’s politics. Those stupid whiners who claim they think for themselves don’t last long. What’s the biggest mistake Mr. Johnson has ever made in hiring."
Manager: "Our company is set up in such a way that Mr. Johnson and his assistants give our employees feedback regularly and are able to give them the knowledge and skills they need to become very productive and happy. Now, Mr. Johnson has made some policy mistakes in terms of introducing products and services that our customers didn’t want. However, he is very, very flexible, admits his mistakes, and has always been able to cut our losses."
Me: "Are you telling me he’s not decisive? I hate that. People with conviction should stick to their plan even if it’s wrong. Doing otherwise shows weakness."
Manager: "I understand what you’re saying, but the bottom line is that this company is amazingly profitable. Since Mr. Johnson arrived here eight years ago, our profits have doubled every year."
Me: "Profits, shmofits. Mr. Johnson just doesn’t sound like my kind of guy. I think I’d rather work with someone I can hunt and drink with than someone who does a good job."
TOP 10 REASONS OBAMA LOST 2008 PREZ ELECTION
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 17, 2008
TOP TEN REASONS OBAMA LOST THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
According to presidential scholars, Illinois Senator Barack Obama should win the 2008 presidential election by about 10 percentage points. The scholars base these projections on all sorts of data that have proven to be historically accurate – the economic condition of the nation, the mood of people as expressed in polls, the popularity of the incumbent president, etc.
Of course, the scholars made roughly the same projection about Al Gore in 2000, but he made a confounding number of mistakes on the campaign trail. When thinking about Obama’s campaign yesterday, I was flabbergasted by the number of mistakes he has made. This compelled me to put together a list, which I later culled to 10.
Because of the factors cited by presidential scholars, Obama probably still has a roughly 40 percent chance of winning, but I decided to get a jump on the inevitable lists by putting out mine before the election. They are basically listed chronologically.
10. CONTEMPT FOR AMERICANS – The first thing that angered me about his campaign was his decision to block a revote by Michigan Democrats – a vote he probably would have won. This came back to haunt him when Michigan supported Senator John McCain. Later in his barely triumphal primary campaign, he barely set foot in West Virginia and Kentucky while focusing on collecting endorsements. And, of course, he insulted rural voters in a highly publicized comment that I personally feel was unfairly taken out of context, but I’m not a rural American.
9. AVOIDING PUBLIC FORUMS – Turning down McCain’s invitation for weekly Town Hall meetings was inexplicable. The "logic," I suppose, was that Obama was the frontrunner and McCain is really good at these forums. This logic failed to consider that millions of Americans were uncomfortable electing an unknown and talking to voters would have made them more comfortable with him. Besides that, Obama could have used the forums to improve his debating skills. Instead, he didn’t, and McCain took him apart in the three presidential debates.
8. NO CLEAR SOLUTION TO ENERGY CRISIS – I believe the campaign turned when McCain responded to soaring gas prices by changing his position on offshore oil drilling. "Drill now" is a slogan that millions of Americans understood. Since the price issue came up in the primaries, it is inexplicable that Obama was caught off guard and again opposed a rival’s position instead of proposing his own. He ripped McCain immediately, but eventually accepted drilling as part of the solution. He should have been quiet until he formulated an easy-to-explain solution.
7. NOT WELCOMING GOP – John Kerry knew Americans wanted bipartisanship in 2004. Yet, he expected McCain to accept being the only Republican in a Democratic administration rather than assemble a team with many Republicans. Obama also knew Americans want bipartisanship, but he made the same mistake. He should have announced his Cabinet and included conservatives like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar and people independents respect. Colin Powell helped George Bush Jr. immensely in 2000 because it was clear he would be Bush’s Secretary of State.
6. VP PICK TOO SAFE – Obama’s change message would have been far more convincing if he picked an outsider. Instead, his finalists were all conventional politicians. Joe Biden was the best by far. I thought ‘it would be idiotic to pick an inexperienced governor like Tim Kaine.’ Little did I know it could be much worse. Obama should have selected a military figure like Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, or Jim Webb to counter McCain’s national security argument and draw independents. Or he should have begged Al Gore, whose No. 1 accomplishment is not political.
5. REFUSED TO BUCK HIS PARTY – Millions of indies oppose a traditional Democratic or Republican president. McCain has kissed GOP butt recently, but he has bucked his party on numerous issues. Even The Incompetent One bucked his party on Education and Immigration in 2000. If Obama has challenged Democratic orthodoxy on a major issue, he is keeping it a secret.
(In Chicago, Obama has said nothing about the common practice of powerful Dems taking their names off the ballot months after primaries and choosing their incompetent children as a replacement without a primary; the USA’s largest county is a wreck thanks to this practice.)
4. ATTACKED THE WRONG LIES – Moronic Dems still think the only reason that Kerry lost is the Swift Boat slanders. Talk to independents. They’ll tell you that Kerry never enunciated reasons to vote FOR him. He endorsed a children’s health insurance plan the week AFTER the election. Learning the wrong lesson, Obama attacked numerous lies advanced by a very dirty campaign. He should have focused on the lie that he wants to raise taxes – a lie that half of Americans agreed with. Attacking this lie would have simultaneously advanced his own plan.
3. FOCUSED ON COMMUNITY ORGANIZING – Bush led in pre-election 2004 polls by 1.5 percent. He won by an extra percent thanks to a superior organization. Obama spent millions on offices and staff in about 20 states, including Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina while McCain spent close to ZERO. On Election Day, this effort cut McCain’s lead from 3 to 1 percent. Obama was oblivious to the fact that he was losing far more than this 2 percent by spending months deciding that ideas didn’t matter and counting on his organization.
2. THIN RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT – I’m not referring to a lack of experience per se. Rather, I’m talking about the fact that during his two years running for president he had plenty of opportunities to take the lead on major issues in the U.S. Senate, but he didn’t. He could have easily blended his plan for the nation on the campaign trail with a leadership effort in the Senate – an effort that dozens of Democratic senators probably would have been happy to rally behind.
1. A VACUOUS CAMPAIGN – "Drill now." "Cut taxes." "Conservative judges." "The surge worked." I’ll protect you." You already know the above is McCain’s plan. He gained millions of votes by constantly repeating these bromides. Obama’s plan? "I’m for change. McCain is not for change. He is like Bush." Repeating Gore and Kerry’s stupidity, he did not give independents a few easy-to-explain reasons to vote FOR him. It was so simple – "Better health care," "Lower taxes," "Balanced budget," "Get Bin Laden." He never specified change to voters’ satisfaction.
TOP TEN REASONS OBAMA LOST THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
According to presidential scholars, Illinois Senator Barack Obama should win the 2008 presidential election by about 10 percentage points. The scholars base these projections on all sorts of data that have proven to be historically accurate – the economic condition of the nation, the mood of people as expressed in polls, the popularity of the incumbent president, etc.
Of course, the scholars made roughly the same projection about Al Gore in 2000, but he made a confounding number of mistakes on the campaign trail. When thinking about Obama’s campaign yesterday, I was flabbergasted by the number of mistakes he has made. This compelled me to put together a list, which I later culled to 10.
Because of the factors cited by presidential scholars, Obama probably still has a roughly 40 percent chance of winning, but I decided to get a jump on the inevitable lists by putting out mine before the election. They are basically listed chronologically.
10. CONTEMPT FOR AMERICANS – The first thing that angered me about his campaign was his decision to block a revote by Michigan Democrats – a vote he probably would have won. This came back to haunt him when Michigan supported Senator John McCain. Later in his barely triumphal primary campaign, he barely set foot in West Virginia and Kentucky while focusing on collecting endorsements. And, of course, he insulted rural voters in a highly publicized comment that I personally feel was unfairly taken out of context, but I’m not a rural American.
9. AVOIDING PUBLIC FORUMS – Turning down McCain’s invitation for weekly Town Hall meetings was inexplicable. The "logic," I suppose, was that Obama was the frontrunner and McCain is really good at these forums. This logic failed to consider that millions of Americans were uncomfortable electing an unknown and talking to voters would have made them more comfortable with him. Besides that, Obama could have used the forums to improve his debating skills. Instead, he didn’t, and McCain took him apart in the three presidential debates.
8. NO CLEAR SOLUTION TO ENERGY CRISIS – I believe the campaign turned when McCain responded to soaring gas prices by changing his position on offshore oil drilling. "Drill now" is a slogan that millions of Americans understood. Since the price issue came up in the primaries, it is inexplicable that Obama was caught off guard and again opposed a rival’s position instead of proposing his own. He ripped McCain immediately, but eventually accepted drilling as part of the solution. He should have been quiet until he formulated an easy-to-explain solution.
7. NOT WELCOMING GOP – John Kerry knew Americans wanted bipartisanship in 2004. Yet, he expected McCain to accept being the only Republican in a Democratic administration rather than assemble a team with many Republicans. Obama also knew Americans want bipartisanship, but he made the same mistake. He should have announced his Cabinet and included conservatives like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar and people independents respect. Colin Powell helped George Bush Jr. immensely in 2000 because it was clear he would be Bush’s Secretary of State.
6. VP PICK TOO SAFE – Obama’s change message would have been far more convincing if he picked an outsider. Instead, his finalists were all conventional politicians. Joe Biden was the best by far. I thought ‘it would be idiotic to pick an inexperienced governor like Tim Kaine.’ Little did I know it could be much worse. Obama should have selected a military figure like Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, or Jim Webb to counter McCain’s national security argument and draw independents. Or he should have begged Al Gore, whose No. 1 accomplishment is not political.
5. REFUSED TO BUCK HIS PARTY – Millions of indies oppose a traditional Democratic or Republican president. McCain has kissed GOP butt recently, but he has bucked his party on numerous issues. Even The Incompetent One bucked his party on Education and Immigration in 2000. If Obama has challenged Democratic orthodoxy on a major issue, he is keeping it a secret.
(In Chicago, Obama has said nothing about the common practice of powerful Dems taking their names off the ballot months after primaries and choosing their incompetent children as a replacement without a primary; the USA’s largest county is a wreck thanks to this practice.)
4. ATTACKED THE WRONG LIES – Moronic Dems still think the only reason that Kerry lost is the Swift Boat slanders. Talk to independents. They’ll tell you that Kerry never enunciated reasons to vote FOR him. He endorsed a children’s health insurance plan the week AFTER the election. Learning the wrong lesson, Obama attacked numerous lies advanced by a very dirty campaign. He should have focused on the lie that he wants to raise taxes – a lie that half of Americans agreed with. Attacking this lie would have simultaneously advanced his own plan.
3. FOCUSED ON COMMUNITY ORGANIZING – Bush led in pre-election 2004 polls by 1.5 percent. He won by an extra percent thanks to a superior organization. Obama spent millions on offices and staff in about 20 states, including Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina while McCain spent close to ZERO. On Election Day, this effort cut McCain’s lead from 3 to 1 percent. Obama was oblivious to the fact that he was losing far more than this 2 percent by spending months deciding that ideas didn’t matter and counting on his organization.
2. THIN RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT – I’m not referring to a lack of experience per se. Rather, I’m talking about the fact that during his two years running for president he had plenty of opportunities to take the lead on major issues in the U.S. Senate, but he didn’t. He could have easily blended his plan for the nation on the campaign trail with a leadership effort in the Senate – an effort that dozens of Democratic senators probably would have been happy to rally behind.
1. A VACUOUS CAMPAIGN – "Drill now." "Cut taxes." "Conservative judges." "The surge worked." I’ll protect you." You already know the above is McCain’s plan. He gained millions of votes by constantly repeating these bromides. Obama’s plan? "I’m for change. McCain is not for change. He is like Bush." Repeating Gore and Kerry’s stupidity, he did not give independents a few easy-to-explain reasons to vote FOR him. It was so simple – "Better health care," "Lower taxes," "Balanced budget," "Get Bin Laden." He never specified change to voters’ satisfaction.
RACISM DOESN'T EXIST -- AND DIDN'T IN 1960 EITHER
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 23, 2008
RACISM DOESN’T EXIST – AND DIDN’T IN 1960 EITHER
"You’re black!!!"
The man was practically screaming at me. I was startled. I am white, but this man was proclaiming that I was being discriminated against because I was African-American.
It was 1982. I had sought a management training job in New York City. Several of my college classmates had attained such jobs, essentially company-subsidized MBA’s with large salaries, from the same companies that told me there were no openings. Perplexed, I consulted Robert Jameson Associates, a job search consulting firm.
Within seconds, Jameson’s Chris Cunningham looked at my resume and pointed at the paragraph about my internship on Capitol Hill. The conversation went something like this:
Cunningham: "Get this off your resume. If you do, you’ll get job offers."
Me: "Are you saying that companies only want people focused on Business?"
Cunningham: "No." (He just kept glaring at me like I was an idiot)
Me: "Are you saying that companies don’t want to hire people interested in Politics?" (He was now angry and his face was turning red.)......."Are you trying to tell me that companies are conservative and they won’t hire people who have worked for liberals?"
Cunningham (very loudly): "You’re black!!!"
Me: "Excuse me."
Cunningham: "You’re black!!! You worked for a black. They think you’re black. Big companies don’t hire blacks!!!"
I "fixed" my resume and sent it to a few companies that had rejected me. One week later, I received letters from Chase Manhattan Bank and Manufacturers Hanover Bank that said "Call us immediately" and expressed an interest in hiring me ASAP. Angered, I did not pursue the opportunities, but I still have copies of the four letters from the two companies.
My experience as an African-American was jolted back into my memory this week as I heard and read about two contrasting portraits of America.
In one, an Associated Press report, "more than a third of all white Democrats and independents – voters (Barack) Obama can't win the White House without – agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views."
In the second, I learned that racism doesn’t exist – and didn’t in 1960 either (my deliberately provocative headline). How do I know? A conservative radio talk show host told me so.
I had just turned on the Chicago station that was a few minutes away from broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. The Chicago Limbaugh was ranting that basketball star Josh Howard had no right to complain about racism because he earned $9 million per year. He implied several times that the high salaries of many African-Americans proved racism did not exist.
The rant inspired Dittoheads to call in to agree with him. The reactions weren’t as ugly as the racist bilge that Howard’s boss, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, received and published, but it’s fair to conclude that the host has many listeners who are stupid or racially insensitive.
Back to my headline. In 1960, Wilt Chamberlain, Willie Mays, Jim Brown, and other sports stars were very successful and admired by far more Americans than Howard. Yet, Mays could not eat in "White Only" restaurants in his native Alabama and his childhood neighbors were not allowed to vote.
Based on the talk show host’s logic, these stars had no right to complain about racism because their success proved it didn’t exist. Or maybe he was implying that they – and their 2008 equivalents – should be greedy bastards who should ignore racism even if they believe that millions of African-Americans are victims of discrimination because they are personally wealthy.
In either case, the talk show host’s outburst was emblematic of a "see no evil" approach in the USA. In this world, the nation need not worry about discrimination because Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan have mind-boggling wealth and Americans like them. I think that we do need to worry about racism although I hope that there is less of it than there was in 1982.
As for me, I learned two valuable lessons on that day in 1982. Half asleep for an early-morning appointment, I put on a suit and a tie, a dress shirt, dress pants, dress shoes – and the first pair of socks that I grabbed out of the drawer. On the train, I realized I was wearing white socks.
As I waited for Mr. Cunningham, the receptionist told colleagues while she giggled that I was wearing white socks. After Mr. Cunningham’s advice on my resume, our meeting ended. As I walked out the door, he said "one more thing. Don’t ever wear white socks with shoes."
RACISM DOESN’T EXIST – AND DIDN’T IN 1960 EITHER
"You’re black!!!"
The man was practically screaming at me. I was startled. I am white, but this man was proclaiming that I was being discriminated against because I was African-American.
It was 1982. I had sought a management training job in New York City. Several of my college classmates had attained such jobs, essentially company-subsidized MBA’s with large salaries, from the same companies that told me there were no openings. Perplexed, I consulted Robert Jameson Associates, a job search consulting firm.
Within seconds, Jameson’s Chris Cunningham looked at my resume and pointed at the paragraph about my internship on Capitol Hill. The conversation went something like this:
Cunningham: "Get this off your resume. If you do, you’ll get job offers."
Me: "Are you saying that companies only want people focused on Business?"
Cunningham: "No." (He just kept glaring at me like I was an idiot)
Me: "Are you saying that companies don’t want to hire people interested in Politics?" (He was now angry and his face was turning red.)......."Are you trying to tell me that companies are conservative and they won’t hire people who have worked for liberals?"
Cunningham (very loudly): "You’re black!!!"
Me: "Excuse me."
Cunningham: "You’re black!!! You worked for a black. They think you’re black. Big companies don’t hire blacks!!!"
I "fixed" my resume and sent it to a few companies that had rejected me. One week later, I received letters from Chase Manhattan Bank and Manufacturers Hanover Bank that said "Call us immediately" and expressed an interest in hiring me ASAP. Angered, I did not pursue the opportunities, but I still have copies of the four letters from the two companies.
My experience as an African-American was jolted back into my memory this week as I heard and read about two contrasting portraits of America.
In one, an Associated Press report, "more than a third of all white Democrats and independents – voters (Barack) Obama can't win the White House without – agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views."
In the second, I learned that racism doesn’t exist – and didn’t in 1960 either (my deliberately provocative headline). How do I know? A conservative radio talk show host told me so.
I had just turned on the Chicago station that was a few minutes away from broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. The Chicago Limbaugh was ranting that basketball star Josh Howard had no right to complain about racism because he earned $9 million per year. He implied several times that the high salaries of many African-Americans proved racism did not exist.
The rant inspired Dittoheads to call in to agree with him. The reactions weren’t as ugly as the racist bilge that Howard’s boss, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, received and published, but it’s fair to conclude that the host has many listeners who are stupid or racially insensitive.
Back to my headline. In 1960, Wilt Chamberlain, Willie Mays, Jim Brown, and other sports stars were very successful and admired by far more Americans than Howard. Yet, Mays could not eat in "White Only" restaurants in his native Alabama and his childhood neighbors were not allowed to vote.
Based on the talk show host’s logic, these stars had no right to complain about racism because their success proved it didn’t exist. Or maybe he was implying that they – and their 2008 equivalents – should be greedy bastards who should ignore racism even if they believe that millions of African-Americans are victims of discrimination because they are personally wealthy.
In either case, the talk show host’s outburst was emblematic of a "see no evil" approach in the USA. In this world, the nation need not worry about discrimination because Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan have mind-boggling wealth and Americans like them. I think that we do need to worry about racism although I hope that there is less of it than there was in 1982.
As for me, I learned two valuable lessons on that day in 1982. Half asleep for an early-morning appointment, I put on a suit and a tie, a dress shirt, dress pants, dress shoes – and the first pair of socks that I grabbed out of the drawer. On the train, I realized I was wearing white socks.
As I waited for Mr. Cunningham, the receptionist told colleagues while she giggled that I was wearing white socks. After Mr. Cunningham’s advice on my resume, our meeting ended. As I walked out the door, he said "one more thing. Don’t ever wear white socks with shoes."
Fake letters in newspapers are common
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 24, 2008
Kerry:
Many years ago, I was the editor of a newspaper. A local woman regularly wrote letters to the editors on the topic of Soviet Jewry. They were poorly written. I also knew her personally because of her activism. I did not think that she was bright.
One day, she walked into my office and presented me with a letter on her favorite topic. It was the most wonderfully-written letter I have ever read. In fact, it was one of the most wonderfully-written anything I have ever read.
I was shocked. I looked her in the face and asked if she had written it. She said "Yes." I didn't believe her, but I promised to publish it -- and did. I figured that a staffer from the local Soviet Jewry organization had ghost-written it. That was good enough reason to print it although I wished the woman had told me the truth.
Later, I ran into the two staffers for the local Soviet Jewry organization, one of whom was a writer. Both insisted that they didn't write it. Now, I was just perplexed.
About one week later, I was reading Jewish newspapers from around the nation. The Detroit Jewish newspaper had the SAME letter word for word, but with a different author. Then, I read the San Francisco Jewish paper. And the Cleveland paper. And on and on and on.
Yes, the SAME LETTER WAS IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS word for word with different authors. I made a quick phone call to the national headquarters of the Soviet Jewry organization and a staffer admitted to me in about one second that a colleague of his had written the letter. He had no shame about it. He said it was standard practice.
I was infuriated, but I found that I was the ONLY person who was. No one on the newspaper's Board of Directors could give a damn.
My point is that this uproar over the "fake" McCain letters is NOT going to resonate with more than a few people. I would BET you that the Obama campaign is doing the same thing.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Author tags:
Kerry:
Many years ago, I was the editor of a newspaper. A local woman regularly wrote letters to the editors on the topic of Soviet Jewry. They were poorly written. I also knew her personally because of her activism. I did not think that she was bright.
One day, she walked into my office and presented me with a letter on her favorite topic. It was the most wonderfully-written letter I have ever read. In fact, it was one of the most wonderfully-written anything I have ever read.
I was shocked. I looked her in the face and asked if she had written it. She said "Yes." I didn't believe her, but I promised to publish it -- and did. I figured that a staffer from the local Soviet Jewry organization had ghost-written it. That was good enough reason to print it although I wished the woman had told me the truth.
Later, I ran into the two staffers for the local Soviet Jewry organization, one of whom was a writer. Both insisted that they didn't write it. Now, I was just perplexed.
About one week later, I was reading Jewish newspapers from around the nation. The Detroit Jewish newspaper had the SAME letter word for word, but with a different author. Then, I read the San Francisco Jewish paper. And the Cleveland paper. And on and on and on.
Yes, the SAME LETTER WAS IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS word for word with different authors. I made a quick phone call to the national headquarters of the Soviet Jewry organization and a staffer admitted to me in about one second that a colleague of his had written the letter. He had no shame about it. He said it was standard practice.
I was infuriated, but I found that I was the ONLY person who was. No one on the newspaper's Board of Directors could give a damn.
My point is that this uproar over the "fake" McCain letters is NOT going to resonate with more than a few people. I would BET you that the Obama campaign is doing the same thing.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Author tags:
JOHN McCAIN'S BEST HOPE -- "I AM DUMPING SARAH PALIN"
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 26, 2008
JOHN McCAIN'S BEST HOPE -- "I AM DUMPING SARAH PALIN"
If John McCain makes the following speech, I will vote for him for president.
I know that my fantasy of sleeping with Sarah Palin is more realistic than the below fantasy, but I’m a dreamer.
"My friends, for most of my career, I have been regarded by the overwhelming majority of people who know me as a straight talker – someone who will tell people the truth as I see it even if it angers my conservative and Republican friends. I can show you articles written by dozens of journalists of every ideological stripe praising me for my political courage.
"Unfortunately, I have also made some very serious mistakes. I’m a human being who has in the past been persuaded to do things I should not have done. I hope you judge me by how I’ve responded to those mistakes rather than the mistakes themselves.
"For example, I reacted to my involvement in the Keating S&L scandal by becoming a diehard proponent of campaign finance reform and I’ve become more interested in civil rights issues after conservatives persuaded me to take a neutral position on the Confederate flag - a position that I knew was immoral.
"I’ve also made mistakes in this presidential campaign. So has Barack Obama. He has not confessed his errors. I am about to admit a very big one.
"On Aug. 29, I selected Sarah Palin to be my vice presidential running mate. It was not my choice. I hope you will be patient as I explain to you what happened – and why I am asking you to support the McCain-Joe Lieberman ticket.
"The truth is that I have been in public service for 26 years. Unlike Senator Obama, I did not need attorneys and investigators to help me determine who will be an excellent vice president. When I announced I was running for president in 1999, I already had a short list of potential running mates. I had a similar list when I announced my candidacy for this election.
"I have worked with Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge for decades, and I knew then and know now that they will be outstanding vice presidents. There were others on my short list. People like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Joe Biden, and Chuck Hagel. Unfortunately, the latter group was not interested in being vice president or not interested in being my running mate.
"After I won the Republican nomination in March, I began finalizing my vice presidential selection. Like all other presidential nominees, I had my staff put together a list of people I knew I would not select, but would please other politicians and voters. Senator Obama did the same thing, but he won’t tell you that. I just did.
"Because so many conservatives were opposed to my candidacy, my vetters looked for politicians who would please conservatives. My final list included Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin. I don’t consider any of them suitable to be my vice president although they all have wonderful qualities and could be wonderful presidents someday.
"I think it is clear that I never considered Sarah Palin a serious candidate. I talked to her only once in my life prior to Aug. 22, the day that Senator Obama selected Joe Biden. On that day, I decided to choose Joe Lieberman over Tom Ridge as my running mate.
"I sincerely wish that I had announced my friend Joe on that day. Unfortunately, I told other high-level Republicans about my decision before telling voters. That was an unconscionable mistake. In turn, they informed other influential conservatives about my choice.
"What I did next was even worse – I listened to my critics. The straight talk is that several influential Republicans threatened me. They said they would make sure that I would lose the election if I selected Lieberman or Ridge. They threatened highly-organized campaigns against me at the Republican Convention and voter boycotts afterward.
"I was a POW in Vietnam for six years. I pride myself on my courage. On Aug. 22, though, I was a political coward. I hope to earn your respect by admitting my mistake and being forthright about what happened.
"The people who threatened me included Karl Rove, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They are all wildly popular in some circles, but they care far more about their narrow political ideology than this nation. They are not true patriots. Senator Obama is supported by liberals who have the same me-first principles, but he won’t denounce them. I just did.
"Because I never believed that I would be forced to withdraw my nomination of Joe Lieberman, I did not have a backup plan. With the Republican Convention only days away, my advisors did not have time to vet anyone who was not on the final list. I had four choices.
"On Aug. 28, I met Sarah Palin. I was astounded. She was dynamic, charismatic, and came across as someone with great courage. I was particularly impressed by her account of how she challenged the Republican establishment in Alaska and fought government waste. These characteristics blended with my past history better than Romney, Pawlenty, and Jindal.
"I know now that her account of how she opposed "The Bridge To Nowhere" and other big government projects is factually incorrect, and I owe Americans an apology for not checking out her claims. I owe you all an even bigger apology for concluding that she had the knowledge and judgment to be vice president. You will have to take my word that the principles she expressed to me on Aug. 28 made me comfortable that she had what it takes to serve as vice president.
"Unfortunately, in the last month, it is has become very clear to me that Governor Palin just doesn’t have an understanding of many important issues. I wish that members of what I used to call my base were with me on Aug. 28.
"The truth is that journalists have asked her better questions than I did. More importantly, my own advisers have been very upset about her grasp of issues while trying to prepare her for the vice presidential debate and interviews.
"I attended a debate prep session for the first time yesterday. Watching Joe Lieberman try to explain sophisticated foreign policy ideas to Governor Palin was the final straw. I cannot in good conscience ask the American people to support me with Sarah Palin as my running mate.
"The problem with the current presidency is that George W. Bush has not been able to admit his mistakes. I’m convinced that Barack Obama might have the same flaw. I don’t.
"I ask you all to forgive me and support the McCain-Lieberman ticket. In office, we will fight for bipartisan solutions to America’s problems and act like we are the president and vice president of the USA, not the president and vice president of one political party."
JOHN McCAIN'S BEST HOPE -- "I AM DUMPING SARAH PALIN"
If John McCain makes the following speech, I will vote for him for president.
I know that my fantasy of sleeping with Sarah Palin is more realistic than the below fantasy, but I’m a dreamer.
"My friends, for most of my career, I have been regarded by the overwhelming majority of people who know me as a straight talker – someone who will tell people the truth as I see it even if it angers my conservative and Republican friends. I can show you articles written by dozens of journalists of every ideological stripe praising me for my political courage.
"Unfortunately, I have also made some very serious mistakes. I’m a human being who has in the past been persuaded to do things I should not have done. I hope you judge me by how I’ve responded to those mistakes rather than the mistakes themselves.
"For example, I reacted to my involvement in the Keating S&L scandal by becoming a diehard proponent of campaign finance reform and I’ve become more interested in civil rights issues after conservatives persuaded me to take a neutral position on the Confederate flag - a position that I knew was immoral.
"I’ve also made mistakes in this presidential campaign. So has Barack Obama. He has not confessed his errors. I am about to admit a very big one.
"On Aug. 29, I selected Sarah Palin to be my vice presidential running mate. It was not my choice. I hope you will be patient as I explain to you what happened – and why I am asking you to support the McCain-Joe Lieberman ticket.
"The truth is that I have been in public service for 26 years. Unlike Senator Obama, I did not need attorneys and investigators to help me determine who will be an excellent vice president. When I announced I was running for president in 1999, I already had a short list of potential running mates. I had a similar list when I announced my candidacy for this election.
"I have worked with Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge for decades, and I knew then and know now that they will be outstanding vice presidents. There were others on my short list. People like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Joe Biden, and Chuck Hagel. Unfortunately, the latter group was not interested in being vice president or not interested in being my running mate.
"After I won the Republican nomination in March, I began finalizing my vice presidential selection. Like all other presidential nominees, I had my staff put together a list of people I knew I would not select, but would please other politicians and voters. Senator Obama did the same thing, but he won’t tell you that. I just did.
"Because so many conservatives were opposed to my candidacy, my vetters looked for politicians who would please conservatives. My final list included Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin. I don’t consider any of them suitable to be my vice president although they all have wonderful qualities and could be wonderful presidents someday.
"I think it is clear that I never considered Sarah Palin a serious candidate. I talked to her only once in my life prior to Aug. 22, the day that Senator Obama selected Joe Biden. On that day, I decided to choose Joe Lieberman over Tom Ridge as my running mate.
"I sincerely wish that I had announced my friend Joe on that day. Unfortunately, I told other high-level Republicans about my decision before telling voters. That was an unconscionable mistake. In turn, they informed other influential conservatives about my choice.
"What I did next was even worse – I listened to my critics. The straight talk is that several influential Republicans threatened me. They said they would make sure that I would lose the election if I selected Lieberman or Ridge. They threatened highly-organized campaigns against me at the Republican Convention and voter boycotts afterward.
"I was a POW in Vietnam for six years. I pride myself on my courage. On Aug. 22, though, I was a political coward. I hope to earn your respect by admitting my mistake and being forthright about what happened.
"The people who threatened me included Karl Rove, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They are all wildly popular in some circles, but they care far more about their narrow political ideology than this nation. They are not true patriots. Senator Obama is supported by liberals who have the same me-first principles, but he won’t denounce them. I just did.
"Because I never believed that I would be forced to withdraw my nomination of Joe Lieberman, I did not have a backup plan. With the Republican Convention only days away, my advisors did not have time to vet anyone who was not on the final list. I had four choices.
"On Aug. 28, I met Sarah Palin. I was astounded. She was dynamic, charismatic, and came across as someone with great courage. I was particularly impressed by her account of how she challenged the Republican establishment in Alaska and fought government waste. These characteristics blended with my past history better than Romney, Pawlenty, and Jindal.
"I know now that her account of how she opposed "The Bridge To Nowhere" and other big government projects is factually incorrect, and I owe Americans an apology for not checking out her claims. I owe you all an even bigger apology for concluding that she had the knowledge and judgment to be vice president. You will have to take my word that the principles she expressed to me on Aug. 28 made me comfortable that she had what it takes to serve as vice president.
"Unfortunately, in the last month, it is has become very clear to me that Governor Palin just doesn’t have an understanding of many important issues. I wish that members of what I used to call my base were with me on Aug. 28.
"The truth is that journalists have asked her better questions than I did. More importantly, my own advisers have been very upset about her grasp of issues while trying to prepare her for the vice presidential debate and interviews.
"I attended a debate prep session for the first time yesterday. Watching Joe Lieberman try to explain sophisticated foreign policy ideas to Governor Palin was the final straw. I cannot in good conscience ask the American people to support me with Sarah Palin as my running mate.
"The problem with the current presidency is that George W. Bush has not been able to admit his mistakes. I’m convinced that Barack Obama might have the same flaw. I don’t.
"I ask you all to forgive me and support the McCain-Lieberman ticket. In office, we will fight for bipartisan solutions to America’s problems and act like we are the president and vice president of the USA, not the president and vice president of one political party."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
