Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Running Mates
Ever since John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination, the media has been ripe with speculation about who would be his choice for a vice-presidential candidate. The most recent report has John McCain wooing potential veeps over the Memorial Day weekend.
My personal preference would be for Rudy Giuliani or Joe Lieberman as McCain's running mate. While both men have strong credentials on leadership, national defense, and crime, they could be a hindrance as John McCain tries to unify the party. While the media likes to make much of Republican anti-war mavericks like Ron Paul and Bob Barr, neither of them really threatens to steal traditional Republican voters. Instead, John McCain's biggest worry is that social & religious conservatives will not be energized to come out to the polls. While I think this is overstated in the media, it still does not bode well for a Republican who is being attacked from the right by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
The perfect running mate will buttress the candidate's weaknesses, unify the base, attract independents, and possibly deliver a battleground state. The only man I know who can do this, and a man I'm not particularly fond of, is Mitt Romney.
John McCain has admitted that he's no economic genius, and the Democrats have had a field day with this ill-timed comment. Barack Obama leads in opinion polls about who Americans trust on economic issues (which boggles the mind, seeing as how Obama wants to raise taxes, tariffs and government spending in the face of recession and inflation.) Mitt Romney's business acumen should help to offset this. With the economy foremost on the minds of voters, it should be the focus of the McCain campaign in building both a solid team of advisers and enunciating specific proposals and policies.
Romney's win in the Michigan primary points to his ability to pull out a win in his former home state. Michigan has been a key battleground in recent elections, and this year will be no different. While the state has recently leaned Democrat, Republicans will have a chance there, especially if that state's Democratic primary results are ignored. Nevada is a key battleground state too; it has leaned Republican, but current sentiment against the state's Republican leaders indicates a Democratic shift. It's thought that Romney's influence within that state's Mormon community could make a big difference come November.
Charlie Crist and Bobby Jindal are both good candidates, but I think that veep talk is premature for both of them. They're both rising stars within the Republican party who will be needed to rebuild the party after the disastrous defeats of 2008 (and a string of likely defeats during the 2008 congressional races.) Charlie Crist could be counted on to deliver Florida, but it's unlikely that Florida would vote Obama (again, the alienation of the Michigan-Florida debacle will have consequences for the Democrats.) Hillary might have a chance in Florida, but this is a state which has trended Republican between President Bush's healthy margins in the 2004 election and Charlie Crist's 2006 ascencion to the governor's mansion in an otherwise-disastrous season for Republicans. Bobby Jindal might likewise deliver the battleground of Louisiana, but he is still young and has much important work to do as Louisiana's new governor.
My personal preference would be for Rudy Giuliani or Joe Lieberman as McCain's running mate. While both men have strong credentials on leadership, national defense, and crime, they could be a hindrance as John McCain tries to unify the party. While the media likes to make much of Republican anti-war mavericks like Ron Paul and Bob Barr, neither of them really threatens to steal traditional Republican voters. Instead, John McCain's biggest worry is that social & religious conservatives will not be energized to come out to the polls. While I think this is overstated in the media, it still does not bode well for a Republican who is being attacked from the right by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
The perfect running mate will buttress the candidate's weaknesses, unify the base, attract independents, and possibly deliver a battleground state. The only man I know who can do this, and a man I'm not particularly fond of, is Mitt Romney.
John McCain has admitted that he's no economic genius, and the Democrats have had a field day with this ill-timed comment. Barack Obama leads in opinion polls about who Americans trust on economic issues (which boggles the mind, seeing as how Obama wants to raise taxes, tariffs and government spending in the face of recession and inflation.) Mitt Romney's business acumen should help to offset this. With the economy foremost on the minds of voters, it should be the focus of the McCain campaign in building both a solid team of advisers and enunciating specific proposals and policies.
Romney's win in the Michigan primary points to his ability to pull out a win in his former home state. Michigan has been a key battleground in recent elections, and this year will be no different. While the state has recently leaned Democrat, Republicans will have a chance there, especially if that state's Democratic primary results are ignored. Nevada is a key battleground state too; it has leaned Republican, but current sentiment against the state's Republican leaders indicates a Democratic shift. It's thought that Romney's influence within that state's Mormon community could make a big difference come November.
Charlie Crist and Bobby Jindal are both good candidates, but I think that veep talk is premature for both of them. They're both rising stars within the Republican party who will be needed to rebuild the party after the disastrous defeats of 2008 (and a string of likely defeats during the 2008 congressional races.) Charlie Crist could be counted on to deliver Florida, but it's unlikely that Florida would vote Obama (again, the alienation of the Michigan-Florida debacle will have consequences for the Democrats.) Hillary might have a chance in Florida, but this is a state which has trended Republican between President Bush's healthy margins in the 2004 election and Charlie Crist's 2006 ascencion to the governor's mansion in an otherwise-disastrous season for Republicans. Bobby Jindal might likewise deliver the battleground of Louisiana, but he is still young and has much important work to do as Louisiana's new governor.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Kerry'd Away
Barack Obama has positioned himself as the candidate of the vaguely-defined notion of "change." But in looking down his overall campaign strategy, it looks like little has changed compared to John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 campaign.
The only lesson mankind has learned from history is that mankind never learns from history. With that being said, it's important to see how John Kerry could lose to a president whose popularity was beginning to wane. As much as Democrats like to complain about gay marriage bans and Swift Boats, the most important fact about the Kerry campaign is that John Kerry ran on an anti-Bush platform without enunciating ideas and proposals which would clearly distinguish him from the president.
As much as Barack Obama claims to be running a clean campaign, the truth is that he's no less venomous than any of his opponents. He realizes that he doesn't need to attack his opponents directly. All he needs to do is compare them to the most villified president in modern history. John McCain, the maverick who forced George Bush to change his Iraq policy (and who might have prevented the current mess if George Bush had listened to McCain in June 2003) is now being chided by Obama and his supporters as "McBush"; his potential presidency is being smeared as "George Bush's 3rd Term." Even Hillary Clinton gets compared to George Bush for taking a harder rhetorical stance on Iran.
As much as Barack Obama gives angry denouncements and old age jokes when John McCain brings up the endorsement of Barack Obama from Hamas, it's akin to John Kerry's comment from the last campaign that "people in other countries want me to be president." If there's one thing American voters will not stand for, it's being told who to vote for by people in other countries. And as much as Obama gives angry retorts, he's still not addressing the bigger issue of why Hamas would view him favorably.
Elections are games of hanging a label on your opponent and making it stick. If the "McBush" smear has legs, you can bet on a decisive Obama victory this November. But if John McCain emphasizes all the times he's broken with the administration and enunciates clear policy visions of his own, he will deny Barack Obama his strawman. Better yet, it forces Obama to run on his own policy positions. If the Illinois Senator has a weakness, it comes when calling him out on his extremely liberal positions during unscripted debates.
And if Barack Obama wants to play the game of comparing people to unpopular presidents, he had better watch out. His foreign policy is as schizoid as Jimmy Carter's, he has less experience in federal government than Jack Kennedy, and his policies on taxes and tariffs hearken back to Herbert Hoover.
The only lesson mankind has learned from history is that mankind never learns from history. With that being said, it's important to see how John Kerry could lose to a president whose popularity was beginning to wane. As much as Democrats like to complain about gay marriage bans and Swift Boats, the most important fact about the Kerry campaign is that John Kerry ran on an anti-Bush platform without enunciating ideas and proposals which would clearly distinguish him from the president.
As much as Barack Obama claims to be running a clean campaign, the truth is that he's no less venomous than any of his opponents. He realizes that he doesn't need to attack his opponents directly. All he needs to do is compare them to the most villified president in modern history. John McCain, the maverick who forced George Bush to change his Iraq policy (and who might have prevented the current mess if George Bush had listened to McCain in June 2003) is now being chided by Obama and his supporters as "McBush"; his potential presidency is being smeared as "George Bush's 3rd Term." Even Hillary Clinton gets compared to George Bush for taking a harder rhetorical stance on Iran.
As much as Barack Obama gives angry denouncements and old age jokes when John McCain brings up the endorsement of Barack Obama from Hamas, it's akin to John Kerry's comment from the last campaign that "people in other countries want me to be president." If there's one thing American voters will not stand for, it's being told who to vote for by people in other countries. And as much as Obama gives angry retorts, he's still not addressing the bigger issue of why Hamas would view him favorably.
Elections are games of hanging a label on your opponent and making it stick. If the "McBush" smear has legs, you can bet on a decisive Obama victory this November. But if John McCain emphasizes all the times he's broken with the administration and enunciates clear policy visions of his own, he will deny Barack Obama his strawman. Better yet, it forces Obama to run on his own policy positions. If the Illinois Senator has a weakness, it comes when calling him out on his extremely liberal positions during unscripted debates.
And if Barack Obama wants to play the game of comparing people to unpopular presidents, he had better watch out. His foreign policy is as schizoid as Jimmy Carter's, he has less experience in federal government than Jack Kennedy, and his policies on taxes and tariffs hearken back to Herbert Hoover.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Isaac & Ishmael
Today the Israeli nation celebrates its 60th birthday, while reactions around the rest of the world are mixed. The Land of Judaea remains divided, bitterly contested, and violent. Perhaps this is the inevitable fate of a land considered to be holy by so many people, for so many different reasons.
All parties involved are quick to point the finger of blame for centuries of innocent blood spilled. And no party remains blameless.
--Do we continue to blame the Israelis for the atrocities of 1948 which drove Arabs from their homelands?
--Do we continue to blame Palestinians for sponsoring Intifada and suicide bombings against Israelis?
--Do we blame Israel's Muslim neighbors for persecuting their own Jewish populations and forcing them to immigrate to Israel?
--Do we blame the British for withdrawing prematurely from the Palestine mandate, and rejecting the UN's sensible partition plan?
--Do we blame the Knights Templar, for establishing an ill-fated Christian kingdom in the holy land?
--Do we blame the Romans, for crushing the Essene Revolt and creating the Jewish diaspora?
--Do we blame the ancient Hebrews for waging war against the Canaanites?
This short history lesson ad nauseum should demonstrate the futility of the current conflict. As long as current generations hold the present accountable for the sins of the past, there will never be peace in the holy land.
Once we move beyond the indoctrinated hated, the feelings of victimization, and the belief that we are owed reparations, we can join Walid Shoebat and transition from hate to love. The goal should be to foster coexistence, not domination, and to improve life for all people, rather than our own people.
All parties involved are quick to point the finger of blame for centuries of innocent blood spilled. And no party remains blameless.
--Do we continue to blame the Israelis for the atrocities of 1948 which drove Arabs from their homelands?
--Do we continue to blame Palestinians for sponsoring Intifada and suicide bombings against Israelis?
--Do we blame Israel's Muslim neighbors for persecuting their own Jewish populations and forcing them to immigrate to Israel?
--Do we blame the British for withdrawing prematurely from the Palestine mandate, and rejecting the UN's sensible partition plan?
--Do we blame the Knights Templar, for establishing an ill-fated Christian kingdom in the holy land?
--Do we blame the Romans, for crushing the Essene Revolt and creating the Jewish diaspora?
--Do we blame the ancient Hebrews for waging war against the Canaanites?
This short history lesson ad nauseum should demonstrate the futility of the current conflict. As long as current generations hold the present accountable for the sins of the past, there will never be peace in the holy land.
Once we move beyond the indoctrinated hated, the feelings of victimization, and the belief that we are owed reparations, we can join Walid Shoebat and transition from hate to love. The goal should be to foster coexistence, not domination, and to improve life for all people, rather than our own people.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Missing the Mark of "W"
Oliver Stone, never a man to shy away from controversy, is pushing ahead with his new Bush-biopic "W." Starring Josh Brolin as the current president and Elizabeth Banks as the First Lady, "W" may be rushed into theaters before the November election.
Oliver Stone claims that the movie is factual because everything in the script came from books. Unfortunately for the sake of history and for intellectual honesty, it appears that most of the books cited by Stone were written by such "credible" sources as Kitty Kelly & Molly Ivins, rather than Bob Woodward or Ron Suskind.
Early reports give the impression that Oliver Stone sees President Bush as a comical figure whose actions are best viewed in the light of a man trying to step out of his father's shadow. But I think Stone's view is wildly off the mark, and "W" will prove to be a weak caricature unless the current script is heavily revised.
How should history, and Hollywood, treat the character of George W. Bush? I think that tragedy, rather than comedy, should be the perspective for treating the subject. The President is a man whose defining characteristic is his almost dogmatic faith in his beliefs, and his conviction in the purpose he has chosen for himself. He is loyal to a fault, favoring his friends when it often goes against the needs of the nation. His cabinet is a mess, divided into open warfare between multiple factions. While he tries to play the part of the referee, President Bush too often sides with his Vice President. Unfortunately, the Dick Cheney of 2001 through today is far more paranoid than the level-headed Cheney of 1991.
There's a fascinating story to be told when the last chapter of the Bush presidency is written. Unfortunately, entertainers like Oliver Stone "misunderestimate" the man as a buffoon who attributes his success to luck and to sinister political actors. But for whose who are close enough to see the real George W. Bush, the story is much closer to Shakespearean tragedy.
Oliver Stone claims that the movie is factual because everything in the script came from books. Unfortunately for the sake of history and for intellectual honesty, it appears that most of the books cited by Stone were written by such "credible" sources as Kitty Kelly & Molly Ivins, rather than Bob Woodward or Ron Suskind.
Early reports give the impression that Oliver Stone sees President Bush as a comical figure whose actions are best viewed in the light of a man trying to step out of his father's shadow. But I think Stone's view is wildly off the mark, and "W" will prove to be a weak caricature unless the current script is heavily revised.
How should history, and Hollywood, treat the character of George W. Bush? I think that tragedy, rather than comedy, should be the perspective for treating the subject. The President is a man whose defining characteristic is his almost dogmatic faith in his beliefs, and his conviction in the purpose he has chosen for himself. He is loyal to a fault, favoring his friends when it often goes against the needs of the nation. His cabinet is a mess, divided into open warfare between multiple factions. While he tries to play the part of the referee, President Bush too often sides with his Vice President. Unfortunately, the Dick Cheney of 2001 through today is far more paranoid than the level-headed Cheney of 1991.
There's a fascinating story to be told when the last chapter of the Bush presidency is written. Unfortunately, entertainers like Oliver Stone "misunderestimate" the man as a buffoon who attributes his success to luck and to sinister political actors. But for whose who are close enough to see the real George W. Bush, the story is much closer to Shakespearean tragedy.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Quantum of Song
Producer Mark Ronson has confirmed that Amy Winehouse started work on the theme song for the next James Bond adventure, Quantum of Solace, but claims that it would take "a miracle of science" for her to finish it. The story meshes with the prediction of my co-worker who expected Ms. Winehouse to be "either dead or in jail" by the time the new Bond flick hits the silver screen.
If the rumor is true, it should be asked who else is appropriate to sing a James Bond theme song. I would posit that Sara Bareilles would be a perfect choice. While she's a relative newcomer to the world of pop music, her brand of moody, piano-driven jazz-pop is perfect for setting the tone to the next Bond movie. It doesn't hurt that her big-label debut album, Little Voice, was probably the best album of 2007.
Sara Bareilles's knack for writing lyrics that are sassy, defiant and still upbeat would pay off in spades for a Bond theme. Add to that the studio sense of veteran Bond producer David Arnold and we could have a real winner on our hands.
If the rumor is true, it should be asked who else is appropriate to sing a James Bond theme song. I would posit that Sara Bareilles would be a perfect choice. While she's a relative newcomer to the world of pop music, her brand of moody, piano-driven jazz-pop is perfect for setting the tone to the next Bond movie. It doesn't hurt that her big-label debut album, Little Voice, was probably the best album of 2007.
Sara Bareilles's knack for writing lyrics that are sassy, defiant and still upbeat would pay off in spades for a Bond theme. Add to that the studio sense of veteran Bond producer David Arnold and we could have a real winner on our hands.
