Jet Crash

A few thoughts about the Jets in the post-Mangini era.

• The normally sensible Gary Myers of the New York Daily News suggested that Woody Johnson, the owner of the Jets, should offer Bill Cowher (formerly of the Pittsburgh Steelers) "five years, $50 million" to be the team's new coach. Gary Myers can say this -- he goes to the games for free.
• Mike Tannenbaum, the GM, sounded clueless when queried by Mike Francesa of WFAN. Never trust a guy who makes a decision because he "felt" it was time to make a change. Six weeks ago they were talking about an extension. What gives? Any self-respecting coach that comes on board will limit his involvement to ensuring that the checks are mailed on time.
• Farve is shot. He may hang on for another year. Then he will be gone. Why come on board and develop a team and strategy around one type of quarterback only to rework both with another quarterback a year later?
• Also, the assistant coaches are still around? Would a new coach want to have these as opposed to his own guys on board?

Look for the Jets to get a second tier coach (a coordinator or a guy who has coached without distinction before) despite their efforts to get a "name" guy like Cowher.

The Jets need to transform. Getting rid of the coach should only be the first step -- not the end all, be all.

Going Down or Getting Low in History.

Years ago I participated in an oral history interview based on my experiences -- limited as they were -- about my time in Afghanistan.

The interviewer, a Ph.D., asked a host of open ended questions and I answered them as best as I could. This was a few years after my time downrange. My responses are filed and perhaps a future historian will give them a cursory glance. Who knows what will become of them. Perhaps they can be found here.

At the end of the interview, when the tape recorder was turned off, I told the interviewer that I purposefully did not talk about my commanding officer. I noted that he was, well, a jerk. Moreover, I didn't want posterity -- if I had anything to do about it -- not know that he existed. He's still in the service and should he continue to get promoted, my worries for the fate of the Republic will increase proportionally.

The point is that I talked about what my team did in Afghanistan. I kept it straight and to the point and kept any editorializing to a minimum. Let the historians of the future develop the nuance and determine what we did was right or wrong or stupid or brilliant.

That was obviously not the case with Lawrence Wilkerson. Here's a gent who will go down in history as Colin Powell's attack dog. A former Army colonel, he served as then-Secretary Powell's chief of staff at the State Department. Obviously he maintains a great affinity for his former boss and has decided to say the awful things about President Bush that Colin Powell cannot say. Even at this stage of Bush's presidency, it will still garner one a fair amount of publicity.

Most recently for an "oral history" project regarding the Bush Presidency, for Vanity Fair magazine, he said of the President:

"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like president - because, let's face it, that's what he was - was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire..."

Mr. Wilkerson does himself, Secretary Powell, and history a disservice. He was a cog in the machine and should have limited his testimony to the facts and his experiences. There are other forums for maintaining the sainted legacy of Mr. Powell. (Although you do have to admire Mr. Wilkerson's slash and burn approach to the GOP and to zing Ms. Palin in the process.)

Perhaps this is all driven by guilt -- by letting the big guy down in the clutch. The folks over at Wikipdedia noted:

Wilkerson was responsible for a review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. His failure to realize that the evidence was faulty has been attributed on the limited time (only one week) that he had to review the data.

Mr. Wilkerson seemingly forgot the first lesson every officer learns -- take one for the team. To blame a lack of time shows that Mr. Wilkerson wasn't much of a time manager -- or a chief of staff.

For this transgression, he walks the earth, belittling the current President and himself.

UPDATE: The whole VF endeavor seems to be a hit piece.

Eggnog Thoughts

Thoughts while sipping on some eggnog.

...The Yanks scored a coup in signing Mark Teixeira for $180 million. He'd better get that money up front. Casual fans won't be able to afford going to the game in the new stadium and given Wall Street's dire situation, the corporate fat cat is now an endangered species.

...So Tina Fey is AP's entertainer of the year. Who knew they were in the business of awarding that? Who was last year's winner? Is there a prize? If I were a cynic, I would think that she "won" the award for the same reason Jimmy Carter "won" his Nobel Prize a few years back. Namely to stick it to the GOP. BTW, if I were Ms Fey, I'd enjoy the attention. It's not likely to last long.

...I'm waiting for one of Mike Lupica's patented "ad hominem" attacks on the ethically-challenged Charles Rangel. I guess he has to clear it with the New York Daily News' editorial board first.

...Joe Biden is looking awfully insecure for a Veep. You get the feeling that he has served his purpose -- giving Obama & Co. some senior statesman cred. I see him going to a whole bunch of funerals.

...I can't be the only one who gets creeped out when Caroline Kennedy is referred to as political royalty can I?

...Is Keith Olberman like Charles Dickens? It seems that the former, like the latter, is getting paid by the word. Keith, take a breath or two. Savor the moment.

All In the Family

During a hitch in the Army when I was a butter bar, I served alongside another lieutenant. I thought he was average, perhaps a notch or two above average. Others were less charitable in their assessment.

Nonetheless he was fast tracking -- got the coveted duty assignments, locations, and schools.

Usually when someone is doing well in their career, most folks think he's got his act together. However, even his friends didn't think he was that good.

What made him stand out among his peers? Well, it didn't hurt that his old man was a two star general. Now, the son didn't advertise that fact but then you didn't have to beat it out of him either.

I can't speak for the other services but in my tour of duty, I looked at my fair share of command and promotion lists and scratch my head and say -- hey isn't his or her old man a general officer?

Now I'm not suggesting that these guys are all duds. I'm sure there's a good one or two in the bunch.

What's the point, Maguire?

Well in the Empire State, the son of Basil Patterson will chose (among others) the daughter of John F. Kennedy or the son of Mario Cuomo to fill the seat that is currently held by Bill Clinton's wife.

The sad fact is that none of the four aforementioned folks got where they are on their own. They had a big leg up on the competition -- and used it to the fullest advantage. That's not to suggest they are unqualified -- but none of them are self-made.

Maybe they should take a cue from my fast-tracking colleague.

He quit the Army (long before 9/11) and works in private business. He knows that any success he has in this endeavor will be a result of who is -- and not who is father is.

UPDATE: Similar thoughts from elsewhere here.

Let's Go to the Audio Tape!

I don't personally know Rahm Emanuel. I know people who do know him. In their eyes, he's a piece of work. I suspect that he doesn't get too many holiday cards this time of year.

Yet, his type serves a function. President-elect Obama needed someone on his staff wise to the workings of the Washington.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a centrist (I'm still waiting on that middle-class tax cut) but it wasn't long before he lost the initiative to his fellow Democrats in Congress -- Tom Foley the House Speaker and George Mitchell, the Senate majority leader. Obama doesn't want to be the tail of the dog -- even if it's wagging.

So you hire a guy like Emanuel to make sure that doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, a guy like him is like a launched nuclear missile. Once it's out of the silo, there's no stopping it.

So this is how I see his meeting with Rod Blagojevich went. He told the governor, that the President-elect endorsed the following candidates. That's all. There was no winking, nodding, or nudging. Blagojevich, as a good Democrat was going to follow orders. There was nothing to negotiate.

Unfortunately for Emanuel & Co., they underestimated Blagojevich. (Putin is probably taking notes now.) Caught on tape, hard boiled Chicago politics, doesn't look pretty.

But then again, it's not.

The Chump List - 2008

Here's a list of those who had to do 2008 all over again, they would:

10 Eddie Murphy. He's reportedly set to be The Riddler for the next Batman movie. Then riddle me this movie fan -- how can this once funny performer star in such dreadful movies? And we're not talking merely dreadful, we're talking legendarily dreadful. His most recent flick Meet Dave had bad reviews and even worse box office receipts.

9. Jeff Zucker. The solution when you cannot schedule 22 hours of compelling prime time programming? (Actually, 19 because Saturday is complete with reruns, er, make that "encore presentations.") Cut it down five hours by reliving the glory of the Merv Griffin era -- with five hours of Jay Leno a week. This may save the Peacock a buck or two but nobody wins by playing defense. It certainly does not help that that NBC's only Top Twenty show happens to be football.

8. Dick Fuld. It takes a special CEO to destroy a century old institution. It takes an exceptional CEO to look like a jerk defending his performance before a Congressional Committee. Add Dick Fuld to the lexicon of four letter words.

7. Isiah Thomas. It's one thing to be a poor coach. It doesn't help when you're an inept GM either -- you guarantee that even when you're gone -- the team will be awful. However, you're in a league of your own when you throw your daughter under the bus when you can't cope with your failures.

6. Chris Cox. I'm sure he's a nice guy but if there ever was a wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time, it's been Chris Cox as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2008.

5. Rosie O'Donnell. Her NBC variety show was a bigger bomb than an Air Force daisy cutter. First you have the talent. When the talent fades, you ramp up the shock value. When the shock value fades, you sadly become irrelevant. In medical circles this is known as Roseanne Barr Syndrome.

4. Elliot Spitzer. Some think that deep down inside, he never wanted to be governor. He ran for the job to please his demanding father and make something of himself. Therefore, he consorted with a prostitute to ensure his downfall. Me? I think he wanted to have sex with a hot (and totally vapid) chick.

3. Roger Clemens. There are few things more joyful than a bully getting his due. He got busted in the Mitchell Report big time. Of course, nobody his age, improves their game. You can certainly slow the deterioration but to get better? C'mon! So he goes to Congress to clear his name and only looks more foolish and then tosses Mrs. C. under the bus to save his own skin. He won't need caller ID to know that Cooperstown won't be calling. Somewhere, Mike Piazza is having a laugh.

2. John Edwards. If you're going to cheat on your wife, follow these rules. 1. Don't cheat with a hag. 2. Don't cheat when your wife is battling cancer (even if it's in remission). 3. Don't procreate in the process. 4. Don't run for the Presidency if you fail to comply with rules 1-3. 5. If all else fails and you're caught -- don't offer lame denials.

1. O.J. Simpson. Think about it -- you beat a double murder rap, what could happen in a bungled armed robbery? Another walk? Hardly. You just don't mess with karma. The downside is that the "real killer" can now play golf without looking over his shoulder.

Congratulations to all. Here's hoping that 2009 won't be as miserable.

Regarding the Matter of Mr. Madoff...

...what did Elliot Spitzer know and when did he know it?

It was jailing mobsters that enabled Rudolph Guiliani to get the media attention that spurred his mayoral campaign years later.

For Elliot Spitzer it was getting the less than honest Wall Streeters to clean up their act that enabled him to run for Governor. (BTW, you show me a state attorney general who doesn't want to be a governor, and I'll show you an an attorney general without a pulse.)

During Mr. Spitzer's tenure as AG -- he went on the attack. Check out this fawning piece from Slate -- it reads like a press release. Give him credit, he was persistent.

Yet, for some unknown reason, he missed the biggest Ponzi scheme that was run in his jurisdiction. In hindsight, all the red flags are a little more than obvious. But for someone who was spoiling for a fight and looking out for the "little guy" he certainly missed out. Big time. In fact, the British press are reporting that he was bilked by Madoff & Company.

Nonetheless, it provokes questions about the sincerity of his efforts while he was the Attorney General.

It's a good thing he's no longer the Governor of New York. This would have been embarrassing.

White Out

At the onset of the Bush Administration, Thomas White, a retired general, was nominated to serve as the Secretary of the Army. (It should be noted that this is not a ceremonial gig. Unfortunately, the success or failure of an Army Secretary is apparent only after they have moved on. Don't think so? Well, the unsung hero of Operation Desert Storm was the Secretary of the Army in the 1980s, John O. Marsh, Jr. )

White, however, had big time business experience -- he was the chief of an Enron (remember those guys?) subsidiary.

The combination of a military background and corporate success made him ideal in the eyes of the administration. After all, the idea was to operate the military as a business entity and ensure that efficiency ruled the day.

I won't get into the virtue of treating the military as a business -- there are good and bad aspects to that worldview.

Alas, with the failure of Enron, White became a target. You know, the what did he know and when did he know it stuff. One of the charges was that his company jacked up the price of electricity in California which prompted the state to institute rolling blackouts. Mr. White, alas, claimed that he wasn't aware that his company engaged in such practices. Regrettably for White, it appeared that he didn't have a clue as to what his company was engaged in.

White was a show horse and not a work horse.

Moreover, if you're OK with the idea of having authority without responsibility then it's only a matter of time before you rationalize other odd behaviors such as using government transport for personal jaunts, holding (and managing) stock long after you're required to divest, and backstabbing your boss.

The big mystery about White was why it took so long to fire him.

Anyway, White comes to mind when I hear about all these folks who lost their fortunes to Bernie Madoff.

People with a great deal of money and attendant responsibility just handed over their fortunes without the slightest due diligence. Like White, he seemed like a good guy especially as the profits rolled in. (Hey, its always about the money.)

However, if they just scratched the surface just a wee bit, they could have seen the train wreck coming.

Seldom are things the way they seem.

Not So Stupid

Everyone is piling on soon to be former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich. Admittedly, this has not been a good week for him.

However, friends and fortune, while helpful, can only get one so far. You need to have some smarts in order to graduate from law school and repeatedly get elected to greater positions of authority. You don't have to be lovable, just smart.

Michael Barone, however, argues that Blagojevich is the "stupidest" (maybe that should read "most stupid" but I digress) governor in the nation. Maybe.

One would think that with a predecessor in jail and being subject to an on going investigation by a U.S. attorney, that Blagojevich would be careful in his dealings. That's what being smart is all about. However, when it comes to venal versus smart, venal wins.

Why? Because Blagojevich isn't a novice to the ways of Chicago politics. Sure, he's seen plenty of guys going down -- but obviously he has seen as many politicos getting away with it as well. He probably thought he had a better than 50% chance of making a big score. (I won't repeat what he said about his once in a lifetime opportunity to select the next Senator of Illinois.) He's been around long enough -- he knew what he could get away with. Moreover, he was confident that someone would take the bait and actually pay for the seat. (It takes two to tango after all.)

Further, and this is all guesswork on my part, he's learned enough over time to turn his hard landing into something incredible soft. I can see that Plan B involves copping a plea -- which is likely to mix some fact with fiction -- that will eliminate or lessen his time in the joint. (If he drops Obama's name -- rightly or wrongly -- that's going to be one ugly can of worms.)

Blagojevich isn't going to be winning any MacArthur Genius awards anytime soon -- after all he's a 52 year old who dyes his hair and thinks that nobody notices. But he probably knows what he can get away with.

He will not go quietly into the night.

UPDATE: Someone else is just as cynical as me.

The Return of Merv

With the news that Jay Leno is moving his program (will it still be called "Tonight"?) to prime time, I realized that old is new again in the TV business.

I'm old enough to recall when Merv Griffin had an hour long talk show on in primetime for the old Metromedia network when it aired in New York. (They later sold out to Fox.) Merv wasn't exactly must-see TV. In fact, he was the default in the event that there wasn't anything else good on. Then again in those days it was a seven (if you were lucky) channel universe. Moreover, Merv was on before 10 PM (as the local news aired at that time). Jay will be on at 10 PM.

Merv wasn't afraid to dedicate his show to an upcoming movie by having the whole cast come on. I remember when he had the entire cast for Star Trek II on his program. (Product placement anyone?)

Oddly, the change was prompted by the fact that fewer folks are staying up until 10 PM to catch a show -- when they can record it for viewing at a better time. Go figure. When I lived in the Midwest, TV was more accommodating when prime time ran from 7-10. It has to be pretty compelling TV to keep me up late nowadays.

No assessment would be complete without identifying the early winners (Kimmel and Letterman) and losers (O'Brien -- who never struck me as being funny) by this shift.

Jay, of course, should be a big winner. Hey, prime time is still prime time. However, the biggest winner will be the audience -- it seems like "Dateline" is dust.

Waiting for the Paint to Dry

While waiting for the paint to dry and to get on with today's business of living...

...I'm wondering what Chuck Hagel will be doing now that he's heading down the road to retirement. I'm sure he's upset that Team Obama hasn't come calling for a Cabinet gig. He certainly did his bit to lower W's stature as a media-friendly Republican. But then again, he was more of a hack than a visionary. Remember in late 2006 he called the Iraqi surge a "folly".

...I thought with the departure of Matt Millen as the GM of the Detroit Lions that accountability for success and failure in the world of football was restored. Then I note that Charlie Weis, the worst coach of the Fighting Irish since the early 1960s. He got by in his first two years due to the players recruited by his predecessor. Now it's all Charlie's team. Sadly, as mediocre as they are, they'll probably be in a pre-Christmas Bowl Game.

...I'm curious as to how Hillary's aides are chronicling her service to the Empire State. Good luck to the guy or gal who has to spin how HRC -- through no fault of her own -- failed to get those promised 200,000 jobs. (Extra credit to the aide who can spin away the loss of 34K jobs in upstate in New York on her watch.)

...Twenty years ago, the age of cable TV was heralded as a wonderful opportunity. What do we have to show for it now? Commentary posing as news; network programs repeated ad nauseum; and guys trying to kill themselves. Hell, they don't even show music videos anymore. It's a full speed race to the bottom. What went wrong?

...Did Elliot Spitzer, Roger Clemens, O.J. Simpson or John Edwards really enjoy Thanksgiving this year?

...The old cliche is that when someone says, it's not about the money, it's really all about the money. I kind of get the same sense when CNN blurbs a show as no bias and no bull. You know, it's all bias and all bull but they just won't admit to it?

...Metallica and Guns 'n' Roses release new albums and a Democrat is headed for the White House is this 1992 all over again?

UPDATE: Someone also has misgivings about what went wrong with cable.

The Name in the Game

When you think of something positive of President John F. Kennedy -- the first thought that springs to mind is the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. When you think of Dr. Martin Luther King, one is reminded of his efforts to get Civil Rights legislation enacted. Both, alas, died long before their time.

When you think of Robert Kennedy --what's the first thing that springs to mind? Sure he was killed --before his time -- but what's his standout issue from his term as Attorney General or as the Senator from New York? (Well he was the inspiration for a federal anti-nepotism law that would prevent future Presidents from selecting their siblings for Cabinet posts.)

This quiz comes in light of the name change of the descriptive Triborough Bridge that connects the boroughs of Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx in New York to the less informative Robert Kennedy Bridge.

Then again, maybe he did great things, but nothing quickly springs to mind. Nothing other, unfortunately, than his assassination.

Covering for Chuck

Let's stipulate that the New York Daily News is a dreadful paper. It's news gathering ability is a sorry third -- behind the Times and the Post. There is nothing in that paper that you cannot get elsewhere on the Internet. And their columnists are all Jimmy Breslin - wannabes without any of the talent. (You'll recall that after Breslin won his Pulitzer, he got the heck out of Dodge.)

Their sports section, for a time, was the best. Now it's merely a shell of itself passing off conventional wisdom as incisive analysis.

(At the end of the day, you think that maybe Mort Zuckerman owns its so he can pass himself as a media titan rather than a real estate developer.) Note to MZ -- guess what -- nobody reads a two page editorial, so why do you insert them into USN&WR?

What's troubling are the editorials. The paper was totally in the tank for Obama (however, the gutless wonders over there opted to use the word "expect" when talking about The One.) Moreover, they covered up the bad stuff and had both guns blazing on McCain and Palin as if they were Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. OK, I don't agree but I understand.

But if they are going to push the change and hope mantra, you have to ask yourself -- why are they in the tank for Representative Chuck Rangel?

In today's editorial, they list the various ethical charges against the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (Most of them discovered by the Times or the Post.) If the NYDN was really into this hope and change business, they would be raking him over the coals. But no -- they say that Rangel's aides and the Manhattan DA offer a plausible explanation for one of Rangel's misdeeds. (Tell me what the explanation is and I'll determine if it's plausible, OK?)

The editorialist, however, focuses on one issue -- ignoring the others -- and claims that Rangel, "should have known better."

The Washington Post, however, offers a different view. In fact, they discuss the particulars of one of Rangel's ethically-challenged actions and it's anything other than plausible. Moreover, the WP strongly recommends that Rangel stand down as the chair of the committee.

So you have to ask yourself -- why is the Daily News covering for Charles Rangel? Incompetence can only be part of the explanation.

Happy VI Day

There's more about V-I Day here.

The Return of the Children

Is it just me, or does Team Obama's rolling out of the cabinet seem a bit amateurish?

Disregard the personalities for just a moment, but doesn't it seem a bit odd how they are going about the business of selecting cabinet officials for State, Justice, and Homeland Security? What's with all the trial balloons and leaked reports?

My guess is that Team Obama is learning -- the hard way -- that governing and campaigning are two different endeavors.

This isn't atom smashing. You select the best person for the job -- in secret -- and then announce it in a way that it gets optimal coverage.

However, I'm suspecting that you have various factions pushing their candidates and nobody seems to be in charge.

Could this be a harbinger?

UPDATE: Somebody else notices this too.

TheThird Loser

You have to feel for John Kerry.

Every six years he buys himself a nice piece of furniture -- a Senate seat -- and he has very little to show for it. Alas, the MassGOP is a shambles, which enables JFK to pay wholesale when others pay retail.

Moreover, when he tries for pricier furniture -- say a nice Oval Office set -- he comes up short.

In 2004, he managed to be the sole Democrat who could have lost to W. His name was among the mentioned when Obama sought a vice president and it went to a bigger political hack -- Joe Biden. (If you think Biden is to Obama as Cheney is to Bush, there's some real estate, I'd like to sell.)

There was a great deal of buzz -- obviously inspired by JFK's folks -- that Kerry would be a Secretary of State in an Obama Administration. Although it's not the presidency, there is a great deal of prestige as America's top diplomat. Unfortunately, BHO is following Machiavelli's strategy of keeping your enemies (Team Clinton) closer.

The result -- fourth place or third loser -- as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pretty heady stuff if circumstances were different.

With his nominee as the President, with a tightening budget, and with limited options overseas, there is little room for JKF to maneuver other than to take out his rubber stamp. His local newspaper, valiantly if somewhat foolishly, tries to paint this as a statesman having his rendezvous with destiny. Not likely.

Kerry may be a liberal but he knows which way the political winds are blowing and sets his sails accordingly. Kerry will fight Obama only if he can get away with it. ("I was for Obama before I was against Obama?") Moreover, Kerry has -- and will to his grave -- remain a show horse. He has no great strategic vision -- anyone can throw dollars at Pakistan and hope that they will hate us less. He'll be nibbling around the margins but will, for the most part, remain safely inconsequential. (Akin to his head honcho gig at the Small Business Committee.)

Remember, in the big scheme of things: JKF has finished fourth -- they don't even give a medal for that.

Troublesome Signs

Do you know what's a troublesome economic sign -- how about "Building for Lease"? There were plenty of those signs to be seen along the I-95 corridor between New York and Washington, DC this week. Sadly, there were a few more to be seen along the lesser travelled roads of Pennsylvania and Maryland.

Those buildings aren't going anywhere. It doesn't take long for the economy to destroy an enterprise and clear out a building. Entrepreneurship, however, takes a while and it may be quite some time before those buildings are occupied.

That's the headache with a sour economy -- there's more than just one problem to solve and one size does not fit all.

Wanted: Secretary of State (please no baggage)

Imagine, for a moment that you are an employee of the State Department.

For starters, you probably have an insufferable opinion about yourself. (Well the New Testament notes that "blessed are the peacemakers" after all.)

However, right about now, you're probably a bit hacked off about how your new boss will be hired.

Given his inexperience in foreign affairs -- actually inexperience marks everything about Obama except for getting elected -- one would think that he would select an Éminence grise (akin to a Warren Christopher or a George Shultz) to guide the State Department. Somebody who gives you the feeling that he knows how to find his office on the 7th floor at Foggy Bottom and can discern between our friends and our enemies and those who are neither.

In fact, the next Secretary need not worry about having his (or her) worldview comport with the next President's. After all, if political expediency is the foreign policy then indecision will be the key to flexibility. The new boss need not have a stand on departing or staying in Iraq, meeting or not meeting with world tyrants sans preconditions, or if Iran should be seen as a big or a small problem.

This scenario makes the parlor game -- Name your Secretary of State -- so dispiriting. Hillary Clinton, who tagged along with her husband on his world jaunts and dodged "sniper" fire in the fields of Bosnia is the leading candidate. If selected, one will have a hard time thinking that this is anything less than a paid political IOU. Hillary, one would hope, has come to the realization that she will never occupy the Oval Office; and being party leader in the Senate seems to be such a poor second place. Alas, two women have already served as Secretary of State, so she wouldn't even have the honor of being the first. But would she take the gig as a thank you for making Obama's road to the presidency a little less difficult?

Bill Richardson would be a horrible pick. He got on the Obama bandwagon a little late in the game (was he threatened to hold back his endorsement?) but he delivered New Mexico. Unfortunately for Richardson, his singular achievement while the Ambassador to the United Nations was to find Monica Lewinsky a job. You want to revisit that era? Sadly, he has a beard and he wears suits that wore better on him twenty pounds ago -- you want him to be the face of the United States?

John Kerry's desire for the job borders on desperate and that just doesn't go with the "cool" Obama Administration. Richard Holbrooke would need a separate office to hold his ego (or so I have it from those who met him.) More tellingly, these guys may have their own foreign policy agenda. Obama is looking for stenographers, not statesmen.

On foreign affairs, the only masterstroke by Obama & Co. has been to remove Joe Biden from the machinery. He'll do a fine job attending funerals, provided that he doesn't get to offer a eulogy.

Hope Over Experience

It came as no surprise yesterday that NBC cancelled "My Own Worst Enemy." I never saw it; the reviews scared me off. Further, I knew this progam wasn't going to be any good. I was downtown in a major metropolitan city -- and one couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting an advertisement for the show -- on buses, telephone booths, any stationary object. Didn't someone say, lipstick on a pig?

What's scary is the fact that it drew about 5.8 million viewers. Imagine everyone in Chicago and Houston watching the show -- and no one else.

Here's a program that was aimed at men (who were watching Monday Night Football on ESPN, duh!). You think the auto industry was going to advertise for this meek audience? They may be broke, but they're not stupid.

Programs about spies seldom work. (OK, this may have been an exception.) Moreover, there is a program on the air that deals with a spy who gets himself in all sorts of hot water and has to deal with a problematic family -- without some silly bi-polar depression or whatever the ailment that Christian Slater's character suffers from. It's called "Burn Notice."

Yet it wouldn't be TV unless someone came up a knock-off with a big name to ruin the genre.

Too bad they're not hiring; I could have saved them a ton of dough. Then again, that's why the TV biz isn't hiring.

High Expectations

General George Marshall was probably the most highly regarded general officer during World War II. In fact, it was considered likely that he, rather than Dwight Eisenhower, be given command of the Allied Forces in Europe.

However, he was not given this command. Rather, he remained in Washington, D.C. running the Department of War.

Why?

It wasn't because he was considered inferior to Eisenhower. (No disrespect here -- Eisenhower turned out to be a great leader; but he was no Marshall.)

No. Marshall was not given the ground command because there was a fear that he would fail.

Again, Marshall was the best thing we had going; but if he were to fail, then who would the Allies turn to? Eisenhower, in this respect, was expendable.

(Read this for the details.)

Well, the high -- and probably way overoptimistic -- expectation is that Obama & Co. can fix this economic mess.

As one Chinese dictator is reported to have said it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse. So if Obama -- whom I have my doubts about -- improves the economy then more power to him.

However, I think the problems we face are profound and it's going to take some time to fix. Granted, some in the news media, see their job primarily in terms of supporting his Presidency; others, will be likely to jump ship in a heartbeat. (The gutless New York Daily News endorsed BHO with a lot of qualifiers, e.g., "we expect..." Watch them run when it gets worse.) The steady drip of negative reporting will hurt. (Just ask John McCain.)

Thirty years ago Reagan stood firm despite the fact that the economy "dead in the water" before it improved. I'm not sure if Obama has the political stamina.

More importantly, I'm not sure the American people have any either.

What if he fails? Where is his Marshall?

Maybe I Missed Something

Joe (the politician) Biden blathered about how on the issue of abortion, well, he wasn't going to be legislating his morality on the American people. (He's personally against it, though.)

OK, it's the same dodge that Mario (my son will have my job one day) Cuomo and John (I can't wait to be the Secretary of State) Kerry have used. (They are mistaken though if they think that circumlocution keeps them in the good graces of the Catholic Church.)

But this is an old issue and I only bring it up because President-elect Barack Obama is opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds.

Whoa did I miss something?

Curiously, nobody is up in arms about this impending theocracy.

But then again, he is a Democrat, so that makes it OK.

I Hope I'm Wrong...

Despite the fact that we're fighting a two front war; we're muddling through a financial crisis of epic proportions; we're in the midst of a recesssion -- we may look on these times as the "good old days" -- in the not too distant future.

Regardless of who wins, we have two choices -- worse or more worse.

It won't be pretty...

He's Cheatin'

From the "it simply cannot be true" department: Brad Pitt is allegedly cheating on his partner (they never did get married, did they?) Angie Jolie. I mean, it has to be true, it's being reported in the upcoming edition of the Star.

Imagine poor Angie who went through out all the trouble of stealing the Bradster from his wife, Jennifer Anniston, (sp?) only to lose him now to some floozy. (Well, it's being alleged, but you get the drift.) I'm sure that Brad had said that he had love only for Angie and that they would grow old (but with t he benefit of cosmetic enhancements as required) together. (And she fell for it hook, line, and stinker!)

What makes this so much tragic is that each of them has just starred in, shudder, box office duds. Oh the travesty of it all.

Now, Angie is left alone wondering how it could happen to her.

It's almost like a poor voter who steps into the polling booth on Tuesday and votes for BHO and expects a tax cut in his mailbox six months later.

Instead of reveling in financial happiness, you'll be like Angie, wondering what went wrong? After all, he promised, didn't he?

Letterman's Humor, Maybe

I don't care much for golf -- to either play it or watch it. (What a phenomenal waste of time when you get down to it. Then again, I've only played it four times and didn't have much to show for it.)

However, I'll stop and watch it -- when it's being broadcast in high-definition. (Granted it will be only for 5 to 10 minutes.) Hi-def certainly makes the game that much more, well, watchable.

Sadly, what hi-def gives, it takes away.

So there I am watching the Dave Letterman program last night and time has not been kind to Dave. (I guess stage make up can take you only so far.) (A quick flick of the remote, though, shows that Jay Leno -- appearance-wise -- seems fine. I still don't know why he's "retiring" next year.)

The only thing more tired than Dave's looks was his routine -- running down the GOP. They were modestly funny efforts. But if you were looking for fair play -- you weren't going to find it. He made one joke about Barack's informercial but Elliot Spitzer ended up as the punch line. A video segment later on the program showed the start of Barack's infomercial -- an uninspired takeoff of the old Laverne & Shirley program. (Which was probably lost on the studio audience.)

Before I bailed out he was doing a Joe McCain bit which was somewhat funny. (Joe, the GOP candidate's brother, called 911 to complain about being stuck in traffic and said some impolite things in the process.) However, he went to the well one too many times on that gag. Lastly, he was trying to see how many Sarah Palins could fit in a Lenscrafter store. (As a skit, it probably did better as a concept, because the execution left me puzzled.)

If Dave expects to have me as part of his audience, he'll have to be playing at a pro-am tournament.

Newsweak

I was shopping at my local Giant. I'm old school as I like for someone else to ring up the charges and pack my bags rather than have myself do it. While waiting, I glanced at the magazine rack. I was shopping in an upscale neighborhood -- or so I thought -- as Newsweek was on display.

So while I wait, I picked it up just to look at the cover. Well what would you know? On the cover was an article on how Obama might just run a center-right government. (I know that Ann Coulter is pushing a get drunk and vote for McCain program but was it possible that I drank so much that I totally blacked out during the voting process?) After checking my watch, I realized that the election hasn't yet happened.

There was also a little bit about why Fareed Zakaria is voting for Obama. (Just out of curiosity, who died and made this guy important? Seriously, when he would be on This Week it was time to refill the coffee mug.)

So, being a supporter of the fairness doctrine that I am, I searched for the bone thrown to the McCain campaign. I had a dozen items that had to be scanned at the checkout. I could have a few hundred, and I'd still be looking for something neutral (much less positive) about McCain.

Now, I haven't read Newsweek in eons, which suggests that I'm way overdue for a physical. It wasn't out of any sense of bias but rather, they would print first and ask questions later -- way later. Check out out this and this to see why. Moreover, if you compare an edition of the magazine from, say, twenty years ago, you'll find way more (liberal) opinion and a whole lot less news.

Now I note that the magazine's circulation has plummeted. If I read this article correctly, it seems that the magazine has lost a half a million readers in the past year. (That's one one of every six for the magazine.) Yikes!

I guess I wasn't the only one who put the magazine back on the rack and walked away.

A Cliche Moment

How many times have you seen a movie where the "bad guy" is aided by someone who thinks he (or she) is going to enjoy the riches when Mr. Evil takes over? Sure, every villain has an enabler. But what happens when the bad guy gets the run of the town? Well, if the script is true to form, he kills the enabler. Why have him hanging around when he's no longer useful?

Well, Barack Obama is not a bad guy. Well, perhaps bad for our future.

However, since grabbing the lead -- BO has effectively dismissed any need for the media.

Thanks for the help pal, but you're expendable.

Bang!

The Media in a Nutshell

Years ago, a mild mannered reporter for a large metropolitan paper spoke to me (and hundreds of others) about the press. He started his discussion by talking about how journalists are lazy, undisciplined, biased, sloppy and a few other choice adjectives. He then paused. Someone from the back said, "Keep going."

Let me keep going.

I swore off network news years ago. It wasn't due to any perception of bias. (It was there; it was less of an issue over the fact that a nightly broacast was 1/3 actual news and 2/3 features. After a while, one tires of hearing the same story about a miracle drug that is 5-10 years from being marketed.)

I hardly read the papers. Growing up, I read the New York Daily News religiously. The poor executives at the NYDN don't know what they are marketing -- a serious city paper or something to rival a Fleet Street rag. The editorials are written as if they are sermons from the mount while page 3 has the lastest fashion trends. Curiously, as the NYDN becomes silly, the New York Post has become, well, more serious. Worst yet, it's a better read. The NYDN may have several columnists but they all say the same thing.

Back in the day, I craved the Sunday talk shows. Granted it was a little more than recycled sound bites but it was interesting nonetheless.

However, I have come to the conclusion that the media no longer cares about the audience or more precisely -- me. (Plunging ratings and circulation numbers don't happen in a vacuum.) No, rather they are more concerned about keeping themselves amused. Harp on McCain and Palin's supposed gaffes; ignore the Iraq War, it's going too well; skimp on the coverage that blames the liberals for their role in the economic mess. You get the idea.

Moreover, everyone thinks I'm entitled to their opinion. I used to read Mike Lupica for sports -- not to bash Bush. I read Mens Health for fitness tips; not to read about how swell Obama is; and there's no end to Fox-bashing throughout the New York Times. Maybe there is an audience for this type of thing -- it's certainly not me.

Take MSNBC and Newsweek. Earlier today, the morning news host interviewed a junior reporter about the magazine's latest presidential poll. Obama is leading by 13 or so points. Both the host and the reporter were at pains to mention that this poll was consistent with a host of others. (Well, that was actual news to me.)

The narrative that they want to believe is that Obama will win (and more importantly signify a rejection of Bush -- whether that's important or not, I will defer to posterity).

If they wanted to do the audience a service -- then they would explain the volatility of the polls. Furthermore, they would have reminded the audience that the polls are a snapshot in time and are not stone cold locks regarding who is going to win. (Remember Obama's victory in New Hampshire? Neither do I but it was a stone cold lock.)

Like sports fans who are happy to see their football team with a big lead at the end of the third quarter, they just rejoiced about how Obama is coasting to victory.

Click.

Bias - What Bias? TV Version

Tuesday night I was downtown and the restaurants were packed. (Silly me, I thought that we were in the midst of a neo-depression.) I need to get out more often. However, I was stuck indoors last night.

I checked out the Thursday SNL episode. The opening sketch was the highlight of the show. (That's not saying much -- the remainder of the program consisted of snide comments passing for jokes and the old standby on video -- vomit humor.)

Now the opening bit, with Will Ferrell reprising his "W" impersonation was, well, OK. Of course, it wasn't what they didn't say that was interesting. Nary a joke said about "That One".

Later, Paul Krugman was on the Charlie Rose show on PBS. Since the Nobel Laureate was talking economics, rather than politics, it was utterly fascinating. More fascinating was Rose asking for Dr. Krugman's take on what Obama will (and should) do as President regarding the current economic mess.

(Obviously the show was taped in the future for broadcast last night as there were no questions asked regarding John McCain's reaction to the economic situation.)

Again, I need to get out more.

Bias, What Bias?

From today's New York Times:

1. Title: "$150,000 Wardrobe for Palin May Alter Tailor-Made Image "
Page: A1
Impact: RNC-donated wardrobe may impact Ms. Palin's "hockey-mom" image.
Staff: Two reporters and two contributors
Note: Article is prominently displayed on the website.

2. Title: "Acorn Report Raises Issues of Legality"
Page: A17
Impact: Discusses how ACORN disregarded laws and procedures to support its voter registration efforts.
Staff: One reporter, one contributor.
Note: Article not on the website's splash page. Type in "ACORN" in search box to get this story.

Again, we need to emphasize that The Times's editorial page does not impact its reporting. We all get that right?

Name The Party - DWI Edition.

Here's an Instapundit feature that can be found here.

From today's Daily Obama (formerly the New York Daily News):

Soon to be ex-Representative Vito Fossella is convicted of drunken driving. His political affiliation can be found in the first sentence. It's the front page headline story.

Slide over to page 10 and read about how Harlem Assemblyman Adam Powell IV is facing a DWI charge. He nixed a plea deal. What's his party? Good luck hunting for it. (The website article helpfully suggests you read abut Vito Fossella's woes.)

These Guys Know What They're Doing

"You have a commitment from the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve to do whatever is necessary to keep the financial system whole," says Richard Bove, banking analyst at Punk Ziegel. "That's extraordinarily important, and it's why the we've argued that the financial crisis is over."

US News & World Report, 7-14 April 2008, page 80

A Stroll Through NYC

I know we haven't weathered this financial imbroglio yet -- there is a lot of bad things (and no doubt some good things) that will arise before it's all settled -- and that may take years.

Perhaps I've seen one too many episodes of "24" and this financial meltdown is only a distraction for God knows what else is on the way.

But for now, it isn't a panic. Last night in lower Manhattan people were going to restuarants -- many enjoying the Indian, er, Native American, summer nights and dined outside. I also saw folks commuting to and from the financial services sector. Granted they looked glum, but they did have their jobs.

I write this because the media -- such as the New York Daily News and Bill O'Reilly (whom I actually like) -- are making this financial meltdown to be the worst thing ever. (Spend a few months in Iraq or Afghanistan -- and get a sense of perspective.)

It may be but that's certainly not the case now.

Richard Cohen Knows All

Being a newspaper columnists seems like an easy gig -- write 750 words on what your thoughts regarding a current issue three times a week.

Then again, it could be a chore -- especially when you're not really thrilled with the topic on hand -- and would prefer to toss in a gratuitous partisan shot

Such was the case with a Richard Cohen column penned yesterday. He starts off by being grateful that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Then he recounts the similarities (they are somewhat strained) between the economic situation of the late 1920s and today.

OK, when you don't have anything to say, go with a history lesson.

Then out of left field, he starts comparing the outlooks of Obama-Biden with McCain-Palin. Here is where it gets, well, conventional:

"Barack Obama's people feel they have control over their lives. Sarah Palin's people do not have a similar confidence."

First of all, isn't McCain, the Presidential nominee? I thought the game plan was to make Palin the second coming of Dan Qualye. Who got the memo saying she's the next Dick Cheney? (And if elected, see her vilified as the next Spiro Agnew.)

Anyway, count me in as an SP person -- I certainly believe that I have control over my life. In fact, if Mr. Cohen opted to have actually thought about things -- he would have reviewed Obama's acceptance speech. (Remember the Greek columns at the Stadium?) In short, he addressed Americans as victims and that he was coming to their rescue.

Moreover, he foolishly notes: "This is why the Republican National Convention made war on the media." Well, having been in a couple of wars, I would disagree. In fact, the RNC is simply calling the media out for being in the tank for Obama. (And don't get me started on that.) Criticism isn't warfare but then again, did Mr. Cohen ever spend time in a foxhole?

Mr. Cohen is like his liberal columnist brethren -- whatever the issue -- hit McCain-Palin and don't let anything inconvenient like the facts -- get in the way.

What's most remarkable about Mr. Cohen's easy gig -- someone actually pays him to write such drivel.

The Big Vote

I'm no economist and I don't know the best way to get out of this huge mess we're in.

I'm a simple guy -- I pay my mortgage on time and I've diversified my investments. This used to be -- and for me, remains -- the only way to do business. It's not hard.

However, it was hard for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and a host of banks, Wall Street firms, and others. Now with cup in hand, they go begging.

This isn't new. Didn't anyone other than me read "Liar's Poker?"

I suspect that some legislation will pass that will amerliorate the problem; it won't necessary solve it. You want bold leadership? Join the military and head for Iraq. You won't see it coming out of Congress.

In any event, when the economy goes belly up, expect your Representative or Senator to say they were misled about the severity of the problem and voted yes or no accordingly. It's not as if they were at fault.

If only everyone else paid their bills on time and didn't put all their eggs in one basket...

Covering for Joe

I enjoy reading Mickey Kaus's "kausfiles" blog over at Slate. I don't necessarily agree with what he says -- but I do like to know what he's thinking. More importantly, he only writes when he has something to say.

The only downside is that one can't avoid those annoying teaser ads that appear to the right of Mr. Kaus's column. Invariably, they're opinion pieces posing as fact. Usually, I ignore them. However, I took the bait on the article entitled "Biden's Gaffe Immunity" by some guy with a keyboard named Christopher Beam.

I won't go into chapter and verse about Mr. Beam's article but in his worldly eyes, he sees three types of gaffes:

- Informational: When you get your facts wrong
- Message: When you get your policy wrong
- Political: When you offend a supporting interest group

But to Mr. Beam, Joe (like Parker Lewis) can't lose.

Because he's "generally seen as worldly and knowledgeable" the information gaffes don't hurt Biden. I don't know. A few more remarks akin to FDR appearing on TV in 1929 and you can put the worldly and knowledgeable description in the ashcan.

Message gaffes make Biden sound authentic to Mr. Beam. No they don't. It displays a lack of discipline and insubordination to the guy who picked him for Vice President. (Ironically, Biden was selected to add "gravitas" to the campaign.)

Mr. Beam struggles to defend the political gaffes because, Biden is so, well, "...so darned congenial". Says who?

I recall the pre-Internet era when Vice President Quayle was attacked -- at times justifiably -- for his miscues. I don't recall any "tsk, tsk" moments from Big Media on his behalf.

What's at play is that Joe Biden has been a dreadful pick for VP -- and it's Big Media's time to step up and make him more presentable.

When Barack Obama launches into an attack on John McCain for not getting anything done while he was in the Senate; one realizes that he could be describing Biden's longer and less distinguished time on Capitol Hill.

More telling in Mr. Beam's article, was Joe Biden's recent address in the battleground state of Virginia -- he was talking to an audience of 150! In fact, when flying with Joe Biden, bring a book -- it's a lonely flight. (In fairness to Mr. Beam, the New York Times published a similar puff piece on Biden two weeks ago.)

In about six weeks time, Joe will continue to be a gaffe machine. Fortunately, nobody will be listening.

I was busy...

...deal with it.