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.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, November 14, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
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?
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?
Friday, November 07, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
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...
Regardless of who wins, we have two choices -- worse or more worse.
It won't be pretty...
Saturday, November 01, 2008
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)