Arizona's First Political Blog

E-mail Anonymous Mike at zonitics4-at-yahoo.com

By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.

 
The Pastor Canary

I noticed yesterday that the entire Arizona delegation voted against the bailout package; after thinking about why, it does make some sense.

On the Republican side you have Flake who has pretty solid libertarian cred, he's not going in on this one. Sort of the same with Shaddeg plus he has a pesky race for his seat. Not too surprised by Renzi or Franks, but then again I hadn't followed their positions too closely.

Mitchell and Giffords are first-term reps up for re-election with the former in a majority Republican district and the latter in an area that was Republican for a long time. Grijalva wasn't surprising at all as he comes from the progressive wing... sort of like Flake, a safe seat but this thing wasn't going to go on ideological grounds.

So that leaves Pastor. Yeah, yeah he's a founding member of the Progressive caucus, but he's more of pork barrel-type of guy than a red-hot ideologue like Grijalva. He's also been in he House for 17 years and probably has the safest seat next to Flake's in Arizona.

He's also one of the 9 chief deputy whips for the Democrats.

So not only did the Democrats not whip the caucus for the bail-out vote, it appears they even didn't get their own chief deputy whips. While the rest of the national media goes on a beat-down on the House Republicans over the bill's failure, somebody should look into this one.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:17 AM

 
An Important Public Service Announcement

If you are like me, you are wondering how you are going to deal with the day's troubling news. You are probably anxious, tense, and just a little scared.

So here's what you should.

Go out and find a golden retriever.

I have never met a golden retriever that ever had a bad day. Bad moments, yes, but that's usually because they aren't the center of someone's universe at that given moment. However they never have a bad day.

So go find one, maybe at your neighbor's house, maybe find one being walked somewhere, it doesn't matter. Just go up and give it a pat and maybe the good cheer will rub off on you.

In return give them a tennis ball or maybe a sandwich. They like those sort of things.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:20 PM

 
Thoughts on the Bail-Out

When you are negotiating with someone, or even just interrogating someone, you are always aware that whatever they tell you may not be true. So you look for clues. You check their body language, you ask questions to which you already know the answers in order to judge their veracity, and you try to reconcile their words with their actions.

So I'm having some problems with the Democrats on the bail-out package.

First, the bail-out bill was larded with all of sorts of Democratic goodies. Okay I could see the compensation caps as a sop to their constituents, I don't like it, but then again the Republicans lost control of Congress. I could even see the logic behind some of the equity/warrant stuff, dangerous indeed but I could see it. However what's with things in the original proposal such as the diversion of profits to ACORN-like organizations and the union proxy?

The bail-out is being sold as pick metaphor of choice 1) bitter medicine that everyone hates but we have to do or 2) all hands on deck. Why in these circumstances would the Democratic leadership try this if only to try and use the crisis for their own policy ends?

Second, I can understand why the Democrats want bi-partisan support on the bill to provide political cover for the bitter medicine/all-hands-on-deck reason I mentioned above. Why then after support from the leadership of both parties, did Speaker Pelosi go on her partisan rant on the House floor? That's leadership?

I smell a trap. Pelosi is many things but I believe she is competent enough to count votes and she knew such a speech could upset the delicate balance and kill the bill. In fact if you wanted to pass the bill, her speech would be the last thing you would give. The Republicans came up with fewer yes-votes than expected and then turned around and blamed Pelosi for poisoning the well.

So Pelosi benefits politically thrice over. First she makes the Republicans look like fools for putting their hurt feelings above the fate of the country. Second it's possible she thought her own caucus wouldn't support the bill, so the Republicans provide cover for her. Third, Obama is going up in the polls and you have to believe it's because of the financial turmoil. The longer this keeps in the news, the better Obama will do.

Third, the Senate wasn't scheduled to take the bill up until Wednesday. The House won't reconvene until Thursday. You smell an emergency? I mean part of the definition of an emergency is that people actually act like there is one.

So here's my two cents... the Democrats are using the financial crisis for their own political advantage. Call it an October Surprise two days early.

I am not talking about ramming through policy that favors their viewpoint, that's a given after all they control Congress. If the Republicans don't like the bail-out aspect or the warrants/equity positions then they shouldn't have acted like Democrats and lost the election in 2006. I'm talking about using the crisis to milk maximum advantage in the polls come November by continuing to make the House Republicans look like idiots and keeping the issue in play to help win the White House.

Btw... when I say "issue in play" I mean watching market value burn. Today cost the Dow about 7%, how much is going to be gone by the time the House reconvenes by Thursday?

I have a very bad feeling we're watching an historical moment here.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:29 PM

 
We're Talking About Baseball

Yes it's playoff time. Unfortunately the D'backs won't be there, but you really cannot play like my company softball team and expect to win your division. There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth in my household and my kids are looking for someone to blame. Personally, I blame D'back hitting coach Rick Schu because first the D'backs hit like crap after April and second because Mr. Schu and his under-performing ways has been a thorn in my side for close to 25 years.

Okay, the home town team is out who to root for or better yet, who to bet on?

I'll give each team an average based on its liklihood of winning uit all and their karma. Confused, you'll see....

First let's get rid of the dregs- Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers. Oh sure, you say Cubs have the best record in the National League, the Red Sox are a budding dynasty, and the Dodgers have Joe Torre. Pish posh, each are fatally flawed.

Let's look at the Dodgers. Worst record of all playoff teams and that's with 6 players making more than $10 million and 4 others making $8 million or more, with that type of payroll you better have more than the 84 wins they received. For how many decades were the Dodgers a contender? La Sorda retired, Fox bought the team and fired the heir apparent (Bill Russell), and the team has been crap ever since. I'll give them a 1 of 5 for plausibility and a 1 for karma which gives them an average of .... 1.

Red Sox. I think once posted about the Sox, about how they were becoming Yankees North by being able to hoover up any ball player they needed to fill a hole, I mean who besides the Yankees would take a flier on a J.D. Drew $70 million. Plus after last season, they went from the magical miracle team of 2004 to a bunch of jerks, see Jonathan Papplebon. They are down a bit this year but they are a veteran team that you cannot even count out but here's the real reason, they'll flop... they are all a bunch of whiners, fans included. When I was growing up, all I knew about the Sox were their monster teams of the 70s and I feared them, then I learned all about the misery of the Sox fans and their "Curse." Well here's Curse 2.0, the ability to win games and a few Series but never to put them back-to-back (see 2005); the Yankees won 3 straight years and 4 of 5, that's a dynasty. Plausibility- 3, karma-0 which gives them 1.5.

Cubs. Loveable losers. When did we tolerate such crap in America? Was there no better image of the Cubs then in 2003 when Steve Bartman caught the ball and Moises Alou threw that hissy fit? Yeah losing and hissy fits are un-American. We need some symbols in this country and the Cubs should be held up as what happens when embrace mediocrity. Plausibility- 3, karma-0, so that's a 1.5.

Moving on...

Brewers: Love'em, nice to see them back as they haven't bveen here since the days of "Harvey's Wall Bangers." They went for broke early by trading for a rental on Sabbithia and axed the manager this month so you got to like the karma, also like the 2 arms in the rotation. However with that uneven line-up this is as close as they come. Plausibility- 2, karma- 4, which gives them a 3.

White Sox/Twins: Do you realize this division may not be decided until tomorrow? If the ChiSox win today, thery force a 1 game playoff with the Twins. I like the Sox's heart-of-the-order and their power, but their rotation is a little shaky. I also hate the fact that Carlos Quentin finally got his head together after the D'backs traded him to the Sox for a bag of beans. I like the Twins as well... you got to love a team that is in position to go to the postseason after losing both their best starting pitcher and one of their top position players, but just like the Sox they aren't going anywhere in the playoffs. For both, plausibility- 2, karma- 4 which is of course a 3.

Phillies: Love the hitting, love Ryan Howard. However they play in a bandbox of a park, Brad Lidge is returning to the postseason, and they feel it's appropriate to dress Charlie Manuel in a baseball uniform. Plus Rick Schu started his career in Philly. Plausibility- 4, karma-2, average- 3.

Rays: best story of the year, the D'backs's expansion twin; while Arizona has won 4 division titles in their ten years the Rays have never won more than 70 games. My kid's Little League team this year was the Devil Rays because as the coach put it, "Every team is the Cubs, Sox, or Diamondbacks. Nobody ever picks Tampa Bay." Well they got good starting pitching and defense up the middle and that hitting isn't half-bad. They also play in a mausoleum of a stadium, never seem to play in front of more than 20,000 of their own fans, and are now named after sunshine; so we'll see how they hold up in October. Plausibility- 3, karma- 5, which is a 4.

Btw... what is it with Florida teams and their nicknames. Take aside the NFL teams and the Marlins. In basketball you have the Magic and Heat, you also have the Lightning in the NHL. How in the hell do you have a mascot for such a name? Did you know that the Rays mascot is some sort of monster-like thing named Raymond? Of course the Suns have a gorilla for a mascot and the D'backs have a mascot named for a previous corporate sponsor of the ballpark.

Angels- good pitching, good hitting, and the best owner in baseball- Phoenix resident Arte Moreno. Has there been a better run team in baseball under his leadership? Plausibility- 4, karma -5.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:43 PM

 
Making a Decision

Ever since I was a wee lad I've been reading that one of the problems with American presidential elections is that what it takes for a candidate to succeed in them has nothing in common with what it takes to succeed as president. Giving a good speech, knowing what attack ads to launch, and looking good when talking with Katie Couric doesn't a good president (or VP) make.

What does a good chief executive do? I mean besides lead? It boils down to 3 qualities:

1) Ability to make good decisions

2) Ability to communicate why those decisions were made (to either the public or subordinates)

3) Ability to select good people to work for you and knowing when to delegate to them

I guess I could add things like negotiating skills but I think those 3 cover it pretty well. Now tell me which of the 3 is vetted by the campaign? Communication skills? Maybe, but how well do stump speeches, debates, and Katie Couric interviews help when you need to convince the nation on an important issue like going to war? Even if I grant you the communication one, please don't tell me that running a campaign equates to running a country.

I'm not sure how you can really vet decision-making ability during a campaign except to look at a candidate's past and the media has chosen to trash the one candidate who actually had to make executive decisions so much for that. So I'll turn to the last one, selecting good people and here's where I think changing some of our norms can really make a difference. My suggestion is simple...

At their respective convention, each nominee will name the people they will appoint to their cabinet. Okay maybe you don't need to know who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs will be, so how about the 4 big posts? Defense, State, Treasury, and the AG. Maybe if circumstance warrant it Homeland Security as well?

The pros:

Alot of executive branch policy ends up in the ditch because the people selected prove to be incompetent (Paul O'Neill) or a political hack (Reno) Not only that but selecting people now will provide some precision to what Obama or McCain would actually do once elected; think it makes a difference if AG spot goes to a Jamie Gorelick or Eric Holder as opposed to a Janet Napolitano? Or Sam Nunn for Defense? Does the candidate talk a good game about raising or cutting spending, but won't back it up at the top levels of government?

I know things are busy for a candidate but they don't get less busy once elected. Tell me what McCain was doing between February and August that was so gosh darn important.

Cons:

Precision is the enemy of a candidacy. Keeping things vague and at the level of the abstract to appeal to the widest number of voters is the best electoral strategy. Naming appointments now will lower the motivation for your surrogates (though I'm sure Napolitano will take any job just to get out of Arizona) right when you need them; better to keep everyone on edge thinking they will be the one right until you don't need them. Plus once selected, the nominees will be treated as campaign fodder by the press and open to gaffes on a Biden-like scale.

The cons matter to the candidates, but not to the country. The media makes a big deal of vetting the tickets and that notion is based on the assumption that politicians do not have absolute control of how they will portray their candidacies but instead provide information and make themselves vulnerable.

However the biggest con has nothing to do with candidate wants. By its very definition a pre-announced cabinet appointment will have an impact on the outcome of an election. That impact could easily translate to leverage after the election. An important principle of cabinet-president relations is that the latter, by virtue of electoral mandate, holds the final authority. Pre-selecting a cabinet opens the possibility of a British-style cabinet.

Is this a deal-killer? Maybe, but in a time when then the financial system is in melt-down and there will be a president-elect in a little over 5 weeks, wouldn't you like some more precision?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:32 AM

 
Just What I Was Thinking

A wise man once said "Just Read Krauthammer":

If a really good catharsis will allow a return of rationality to Capitol Hill -- yielding a clean rescue package that will actually save the economy -- go for it.

Capping executive pay is piffle. What we need are a few exemplary hangings. Public hangings. On television. Pick a few failed investment firms, lead their CEOs in chains through the canyons of Manhattan and give the mob satisfaction. Better still, precede the auto-da-fe -- fire is highly telegenic -- with 24-hour reality-TV coverage of their recantations, lamentations and final visits with the soon-to-be widowed. The ratings would dwarf "American Idol," and the ad revenue alone would make the perfect down payment on the $700 billion.

Whatever it takes to clear our heads.

I would imagine this would also assuage those who worry that the bailout would remove "moral hazzard " from the system.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 9:17 PM

 
Flying Cover

First credit where credit is due... kudos to both Governor Napolitano and the Arizona Republic for acknowledging the depths of the State of Arizona's fiscal crisis and for both realizing that something needs to get worked out now, even if only passed after the November election.

However even while the Republic gives a bit on realizing the dire situation it covers its tracks on how we got here. From today's editorial:

But the fact is that neither side even knows the extent of the deficit problem yet. As of Wednesday, the Governor's Office cited revenue data showing an estimated two-month shortfall of about $100 million. Weiers and Sen. Bob Burns, GOP chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, calculated the red ink at $180 million. It will take awhile to get some hard data.

Hard data? JLBC reported a nearly $90 million revenue shortfall for July, based on Senator Burns' press conference he must have reason to believe that we had a similar shortfall for August. In any case we'll probably know within a week. The JLBC reports are on-line, I haven't seen bleep from OSPB. Whose numbers are you going to trust?

Plus I love the sleight of hand by the Republic. The Governor's numbers come from her "Office" while Weiers and Burns' numbers are attributed directly to them, instead of to in part JLBC numbers. It makes Burns and Weiers look like they have axes to grind and numbers from thin air when Napolitano look like she is depending on expert analysis; in reality the situations are probably in reverse with the Governor pulling numbers from thin area and Burns and Weiers depending on expert analysis.

As if we needed further evidence, the local economy is sinking faster than state budget analysts had anticipated in early summer, when lawmakers and the governor were hashing out Arizona's $9.9 billion budget.

Perhaps the state's economy has slowed down even more, but I doubt there was a person down at the Capitol who honestly thought that the FY2009 budget would not have to be reworked during the fiscal year due to its overly-optimistic revenue forecasts. The only thing that has changed between now and the end of June is perhaps the time for that reworking has come sooner than expected, like less than 25% into the fiscal year.

Second, what's this implied we business with "lawmakers and the governor were hashing"? The only lawmakers the Governor hashed with were those of her own party and enough Republicans she could entice to come over. After long negotiations, talks between the Governor and the Republican majority in both houses broke down and the Governor got her budget passed on a nearly party-line vote.

In short no matter what the Republic there is no shared responsibility for how we got into the budget mess (though it will take shared effort to get out of it.) This is the Governor's budget, plain and simple, and it blew up before she could skip town. Since last fall when the size of the FY2008 deficit became clear, Governor Napolitano has continually used rosy economic forecasts to block attempts to cut the budget, believing that we could weather this temporary fiscal storm and maintain spending levels with gimmicks. She has been proven wrong as seen in the Republic's own business pages where economists are not forecasting an economic recovery until 2010, that's when we'll be working on the FY2011 budget.

According to the governor's letter Tuesday to legislative leaders, the "purpose of the (Nov. 6) meeting is to establish a framework for resolution of this deficit."

Senator Burns has been getting flack from Democrats and the media for his press coneference, with some calling it a media stunt. However do you think the Governor would have writtent hat letter if he didn't put her on the spot? That's hardly leadership on her part.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:52 PM

 
Guess Who's Coming....

Hollywood is into remakes so here's an idea for them....

Remake Guess Who's Coming to Dinner but change Sidney Poitier's to one resembling Sarah Palin.

Here's the setting, nice young man from a nice family on the Upper West Side is coming home for Christmas and he bringing his girlfriend to meet the family for the first time. He and his girlfriend have a secret, they are engaged.

We can set the guy's family is a liberal Manhattan family. Let's use all the stereotypes... a brother who is gay, sister who is into some sort of Eastern mystical religion, let's say the parents are divorced and have been remarried multiple times. Gleaning material from the lifestyle sections of the New Yorker and Wall Street Journal, let's say as a rite of passage all the kids on their 16th birthday get a plastic surgery procedure of their choice.

The girlfriend is from somewhere in flyover country, which puts her somewhere east of San Bernadino and west of Morristown, NJ. She seems nice enough to the family at first, well-spoken, knows a few languages, has a graduate degree. The fun begins as over the course of the weekend the family begins to ask the normal questions any family would regarding a newcomer.

Where did you go on your first date? Oh he took me to see a play/art house movie/gallery opening so the next date I got to pick and took him to a shooting range, one day I'm going to bring him with me when I go hunting.

Perhaps the father will check with the son about dangers of STD and the young man can offer Oh we haven't done anything yet, she doesn't believe in premarital sex.

Maybe the women of the family will get together in the kitchen and gossip about someone they know whose daughter just had an abortion. The young woman would hear the conversation and have a distressed look on her face. When the other women ask why she can relate the fact that a cousin of hers got pregnant at 21 and based on her pro-life beliefs decided to keep the baby and marry the father

Saturday night rolls around and the whole family is out for dinner. The young lady whispers something to her beau and when the family asks what is up, the young man tells the family that his girlfriend doesn't know where to go to church the next day.

I could go on.

I know that in the original, Poitier's character was set up to be perfect in everyway with the only grating feature that of his race while in my proposed remake the rough edges are supplied by the young woman's beliefs. However here we are extending the concept of the "other" a bit further. There are tens of millions of people like Sarah Palin in this country; God-fearing people who live out their faith in their everyday lives and not just on Sunday. People who own guns and think nothing of going out to shoot wildlife on the weekends (I used to work with a woman who fretted about missing an upcoming board meeting because she drew a tag for elk.) People who don't shuck where they come from when they get to the big city but rather wear their hometown as a badge of honor.

I have been deeply distressed about the reaction of many people to Palin's nomination. There are things not to like about her and there are many who have legitimate reasons not to like her, but because she's from a small-town in Alaska and graduated from the University of Idaho, is an evangelical, and lives out her faith as best she can people, especially those of so called coastal elites will believe the worst about her (book banning, charging for rape kits, regressive fundamentalists, Alaska Independence Party/proto-militiaist)

By the way of comparison, it took several years for me to hear such personal slander about Bill Clinton and then only mentioned within closed Republican circles and then only to the embarrassment of those within earshot. Now it took only a few weeks with such filth being broadcast proudly from the pages and airwaves of our most prominent media outlets.

Palin Derangement Syndrome yes and it has restarted the cultural war.

Ask one of these people what the difference between an evangelical and fundamentalist and watch them sputter... talk about ignorance.

So yeah remake the movie and let's have fun with it
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:52 PM

 
Kid Problems

The teen next door has taken up smoking and hides the resulting butts and ashes by tossing them into my roses. A quick word with his parents and the problem was taken care of.

At least he wasn't doing this in my yard.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:21 PM

 
The Budget Blast

Back when the FY2009 budget passed, Senate Appropriations Bob Burns was quoted in the Capitol Times as saying the starting point for the FY2010 budget was a $1 billion+ deficit. That's counting in all the mandated spending increases. I think the figure is a pre-programmed 7% increase in spending every year without any legislative action. The problem for that budget, Burns mentioned, was that we would be left with a monster deficit after we used up all the cash reserves and accounting tricks.

Well forget that, we don't even need to wait for that budget for the $1 billion red ink.

At today's press conference, Burns and House Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce said that with the estimated revenue shortfall of $180 million for the first 2 months of FY2009 that we are looking at a $1 billion deficit for this fiscal year.

Wow that budget sure stood the test of time.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:59 PM

 
Budget Goes Boom

Espresso Pundit reports that the Senate and House Appropriations Chairmen have called a press conference tomorrow in order to ask the Governor to address the State's growing budget crisis.

Ho Boy

I'll be curious as to what Messers Burns and Pearce have to report on the budget. Back in late June when the FY2009 budget passed, a Democratic budget by the way, there were some good blurbs on how poorly the the whole thing was going to to hold together with several predictions that the Legislature was going to revisit it during the fiscal year.

The enacted budget reflected a base growth in revenue of 1.9% compared to the revised FY2008 budget; if that revenue estimate looks to be conservative keep in mind that the FY2009 budget was balanced with alot of borrowing and accounting gimmckery. However cracks in even that moderate revenue estimate started showing in late July when JLBC reported that the preliminary ending balance for FY2008 was projected to be less than zero.

Now the State of Arizona can pay off its FY2008 bills, in part because the projected deficit for FY2008 was a maximum of $99 million and the State still has cash reserves in its Rainy Day Fund. However any deficit is worrisome for 2 reasons:

1) Any cash used to close the FY2008 hole would have to be taken from the cash pile used to close the FY2009 hole; it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

2) The revenue projection for FY2009 is based on the revised projection for FY2008. The Legislature had to revisit the FY2008 budget in April, with little more than 2 months left in the fiscal year, and in that short time the budget already sprang a leak. The FY2009 which was already considered a paper-over was based on those revised FY2008 estimates.

Think of the FY2009 budget hole as an approaching hurricane, one that's going to cause lots of damage. Just like the other week in Galveston when the streets were being flooded by a storm surge and Ike was still hundreds of miles out to sea, we're already suffering damage and patching leaks and the big one has yet to hit.

I posted last month about the hole in the FY2008 closing balance and the fact that JLBC was to have reported the final numbers last week. I assume that report is already in, though not yet posted; I have a sneaky suspicion that it will be discussed tomorrow but that it will be a mere harbinger of things to come. I think the Finance Advisory Committee hearing scheduled for next month will be very interesting.

For the past year, Governor Napolitano has been betting that the current fiscal storm is temporary, that rather than battening down the budgetary hatches with sharp cuts that the holes could be patched with borrowing and gimmickery. Well the storm is not abating and given the problems in the national financial markets and how tied our economy is to housing and construction, it may be getting worse.

Stay tuned.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:16 PM

 
Whither Munich?

Two pieces of personal information....

First, as a guilty pleasure, I enjoy reading alternate history especially that written by Henry Turtledove. Ranks right up there with Basha's cream-filled donuts, in fact both pleasures can be enjoyed together.

Second, I share my birthday with the Munich Agreement

Of such straws a post is born.

The Munich Agreement offers a certain symbolism within American political debate. Everytime this country deals with a tyrant or foreign aggressor, the ghost of Munich is invoked to illustrate the folly of appeasement and the necessity of a foreceful stance. The cry "If only Chamberlain stood fast at Munich, Hitler could have been stopped, and WW II averted" is often uttered in one of many forms. To offer anything but the strongest of stances against the like of Saddam, the Ayatollahs, or Milosevic is to betray the victims of Hitler and those who fought him.

We believe that if Chamberlain stood fast 70 years ago WW II would have been averted, but if he did stand fast what would have happened and how would he be remembered?

First, I believe there would have been war. It might have been brief, but I think Hitler would have had to pull the string or face removal from power. With Britain and France now supporting the Czechs, the Germans would have had to dilute their attack by keeping some of their forces in the West. As is, I think the Germans would have faced tough going; when the Germans toured the Czech border fortifications after the Munich Agreement ceded them without a shot, they were shocked at their strength.

That difficulty would not have stopped the war but it would have kept it short or at least inconclusive. However even a short, inconclusive war can be devastating with thousands of military casualties and more than likely Czech population centers bombed.

Second, Hitler would not have remained in power. While there was a plot by certain German generals to overthrow Hitler in case of the outbreak of war, I doubt that the coup would have been initiated given the docile state of the German high command. However if the Czech war was inconclusive and British and French action would have raised the specter of a two-front war, a war that the Germans would lose, then the generals might be prompted to strike. Keep in mind that the German military of 1938 was far weaker than the one that invaded Poland in 1939.

So the if Chamberlain somehow stood fast at Munich, the result most likely would have been a war that caused tens of thousands of casualties, the removal of Hitler, and the resulting descent of Germany into chaos. Chamberlain would then be remembered as a.... butcher.

Why? Why would Chamberlain be remembered as blood-thirsty instead of a hero? As someone who drove Europe into, rather than saved from, catastrophe?

Because the costs of a pre-emptive war in 1938 were known, but the benefits were unknown. Hitler did not yet suffer the universal reputation as the world's greatest mass murderer, Kristallnacht was still two months into the future. Furthermore much of Hitler's foreign policy was still viewed as legitimate by many in the West, as the man who would break Germany from the unjust chains of Versailles and therefore create the basis for a lasting peace in Europe. On the domestic front, Hitler had seemingly created an economic miracle, rescuing Germany from the evils of unemployment and hyper-inflation.

At the time of Munich, Hitler's demands contained an element of legitimacy, the annexation of ethnic Germans left on the wrong side of a political boundary by the evils of the Versailles Treaty. After all if Wilson's 14 Points and all of that was to support the wishes of the former subjects of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, on what basis did the Allies have in denying the Sudeten Germans the right to join Germany proper?

So Chamberlain would have fought a war that would have killed thousands, denied the right of self-determination of an ethnic group, denied the seemingly legitimate claims of Germany, and thrust that country and probably all of Europe into a chaos all on the principle of an arbitrary boundary that was not yet 20 years old.

Oh yes, the war would have been unpopular in France and Britain the moment it was declared with all the resultant domestic turmoil.

Chamberlain the villain, Hitler the victim. Where all the costs are known, but few of the benefits. That's what pre-emptive warfare looks like. Do you think Chamberlain could have made a case 70 years ago that if Hitler wasn't stopped at the Czech border Europe would soon be in flames from the Channel to Moscow, that large swaths of London would lay in ruins, that most of Europe's Jews would be turned into smoke and ash, and that American and Soviet troops would face each other over the ruins of the inter-German frontier?

Yeah right.

Keep that in mind when you read stories like this when everyone would be totaling up the costs of war.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:59 PM

 
Conscience of the Media

Couple of straws in the wind...

First Vox posts an editorial cartoon that makes me chuckle.

Second the other week I heard Ted Koppel speak on the Diane Rehm Show.

The first straw deals with a pet peeve of mine; that in the days after Palin was announced as McCain's running mate the MSM along with a purported 30 lawyers and opposition researchers from the Obama campaign flooded Alaska looking to dig up dirt on the Alaska governor. Her political allies and enemies were found and interviewed and we found the former like her and the latter don't, who would have guessed that a politician had enemies? Her travel receipts were combed through, a story was ginned up for the front page of the Washington Post, and we learned that the paperwork was legit. The NY Times found out that her future son-in-law was a local amateur hockey star but now seems on his way to being the next Al Bundy.

Of such work Pulitzers are made.

Yet we still don't know much of Obama, especially during the formative years of his career when he was getting his start in Chicago. We know little of his association with William Ayers, his links to local rainmaker Tony Rezko, or how the avatar of "hope" and "change" could sit in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Why the difference in coverage?

That's where the second straw comes in. Mr. Koppel said that the reason for the flood of attention on Palin's Alaska connections was because she was a complete unknown to the press and most of the country while Obama had been previously vetted by the press through a long primary campaign. Back to this point a bit later.

When I argue the point of bias in the media, it begins with a simple concept. Space and resources are limited within media organizations; there's only so much space to print or time to run stories, only so many reporters on staff who can run down leads. Therefore media by necessity has to act like a search light, only able to illuminate certain stories while leaving others to languish in the darkness. The decision where to point the searchlight opens the potential for bias because the editor needs to have some basis on what constitutes a story worth pursuing and what doesn't. There's a lifetime of blog posts on the subject of that criteria, the ideological and institutional biases that come into play.

Koppel's point was that flooding the zone on Palin seemed a bit intense because the media had to make up for her newness and previous obscurity while Obama had already been explored and vented to the outside world. However when Obama was taking the political world by storm over the past 12 months, where were the reporters giving his history the same attention as they gave Palin? Much like the goal to get exercising and get fit can always be put off because there is always tomorrow as opposed to the goal of dropping 15 pounds to look good at your wedding next month, it seems like the thorough vetting of Obama never had the same degree of urgency that it did for Palin and so never got done.

I bet you can make the same argument for any of the candidates during the Republican and Democratic primaries. We knew more about who was ahead in New Hampshire on a given day than we ever did on where these people came from, what they did before they showed up on our TV screens, and if they were really the people they said they were (that goes for you as well Mike Huckabee.)
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:57 PM

 
More Thoughts on Sports Bigamy...

It happened again.

For the second week in a row after I did a post, I found a TV program that night covering the same material and I'm not talking election stuff. Last week after I posted on Rick Rescorla I found a program on the History Channel covering his life and 9/11. Last night after I posted on Joe Biden's sports bigamy (Giants-Eagles) I found that the movie "Invincible."

The movie is based on a true story of a Philadelphia bartender who made the Eagles team in the mid-1970s through an open try-out. Sort of a love fest for the old South Philly and the connection between that neighborhood and the city's sports teams. Loved every second of it, felt like I was a kid again. The climatic part of the movie is at the end when the main character is facing a make-or-break game against the Giants. One of the other characters wore Giants regalia to the game which sparked taunts, thrown objects, and fights in the stands. While the movie does play loose with some facts for cinematic effect, in real life the big breakout game was against the Giants which was perfect because as the movie makes clear there's nothing better in an Eagle fan's world than beating the Giants, except maybe the Cowboys

It just makes clear what a weasel Biden is... you really want a man of such low character a heartbeat away from the presidency?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:27 AM

 
That's No Way to Win Pennsylvania

Joe Biden was selected to be Obama's running mate, to help Obama connect with Pennsylvania because I guess he lived in Scranton through the 5th grade - why no reporters have flooded the zone in Lackawanna County like they did in Alaska is beyond me.

I doubt Biden is going to help in Pennsylvania; he might even be deserving of a wedgie.

From today's Political Punch:

Although Biden said he was a Steelers fan in a meeting with the team's coach Mike Tomlin on Aug. 29, he later said in a Sept. 8 visit to a Green Bay bar outside of Lambeau Field that he'd been a Packers fan since grade school.

Today, he added three more favorites to the list -- the Eagles, the Colts and the Giants.

First of all that's 5 teams, quite a few. Despite the cross-state thing I can understand the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia thing given what the Steelers did for him when Biden's family suffered a tragic car accident.

However the inclusion of both the Eagles and Giants? That's just plain nuts.

I grew up right on the fault line between New York and Philadelphia and one of the first teams I followed was the Yankees (3rd graders are the biggest bandwaggoners and I was reading the NY Times) As I got older my loyalities gravitated toward the southern and may I add proper side of the fault line. When I was a freshman in high school I made the mistake of mentioning within earshot of an upperclassman that I liked both the Yankess and Phillies; the older boy in question informed that such divided loyalities simply weren't done and that if I didn't make a choice right then and there I would be hanging from the flagpole by my underwear.

Same with the Giants and Eagles, bitter division rivals. You can like one, you can like the other, but you really cannot like both. You just cannot. Biden has lived within the shadow of the City of Brotherly Love for some 55 years, he knows that to be a dual fan of both the Giants and Eagles is impossible. If I was McCain I would flood the Philly TV market about Biden's Giant-love and watch that state go red in November. If Pennsylvania falls, so does Obama.

Senator Obama, it's time to take Biden to the closest flagpole and explain to him that he has a choice to make
posted by Anonymous Mike at 3:24 PM

 
Free Advice for Obama

I was talking with a good friend and frequent reader of the blog as I wanted to get his take on the election; we have different perspectives but share a sound judgment, well at least his is.

He thought that with the recent tanking of Wall Street and the economy, that things were starting to blow Obama's way. Hard to disagree with that, after all things are messy and grim and it would seem the electorate would turn any and all Republicans out on their ear. However the sound from Obama on the issue is a bit muted... or at least not as clear as you would think.

I'm going for a gander here and say it's because Senator Obama has a problem with the oodles of contributions from the likes of Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae. Maybe it's something else, but for whatever reason Obama is unable to lead the attack on this.

Here's my suggestion, delegate the job by announcing this very week your nomination for Treasury Secretary.

Yeah it looks a little presumptious to be making cabinet picks before you are even elected but just go out and admit that up front and counteract it by saying that beyond the short-term bail-out of the week, Americans need to know what the plan is here on out. So much of bad news is the uncertainity of when the bad news is going to stop, the first thing to boost morale and provide hope is to let people know how you are going to fix things.

Obama is not the type of details/plans guy, he just isn't; he's all hope and change. Okay that's fine because a big part of being a chief executive is picking good people. So Obama should go get a big heavy that has cred on the Street, hey Robert Rubin is already on your council of economic advisors, get him on board and have that guy go out and sell Obama's plan to fix the crisis.

Of course that presumes Obama has a plan but if there's anytime to get a mandate that might have you look like a genius in 12 months, now's the time. Think of the positives:

1) Picking a Rubin or even a Larry Summers makes Obama look, dare I say it, presidential.

2) A bold move in a troubling time would help steal the Republican's thunder, maybe not as much as a game changer as the Palin selection, but it would eliminate her from the news cycle until the debates.

3) It cannot hurt

The downside?

Well my advice is free so you get what you pay for.

Also I doubt I'm voting for Obama anyway... but if any Democrat wants to take the idea and run with it go ahead.

All I ask in return is that the new Obama dog not be a poodle
posted by Anonymous Mike at 9:53 AM

 
Campaign Debris

Miscellaneous thoughts on campaign issues and tactics

When I heard last last week that Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called it "...the first day of the rest of the campaign" I had to laugh. The "first day of the rest...." is a great personal affirmation, it's also a great indication that you are in deep trouble so if the comment is going to be worth anything you better make sure you're showing some immediate movement in the right direction.

So what did the Obama campaign then proceed to do? First Obama attacked McCain's patriotism. Then the campaign give full vent to the Kos side of its personality with the ad mocking McCain for not using e-mail when in fact his war injuries make it painful for him to type. That sound you hear is Carville banging his head against his desk wondering why no one can play this game... perhaps the Obama will declare a do-over and make today the first day of the rest of the campaign.

Elsewhere...

Good post from Johnny Utah on how Palin can take on the "experience" of Biden

I expected the "October Surprises" to start dropping well... in October. Well I guess mid-September is close enough with the allegation from an Iraqi official that Obama asked the Iraqi government to delay a plan regarding US troop withdrawal until after the November election. Alot of smoke here and there may be very little fire, but as Instapundit says the Obama campaign's denial doesn't sound like much of a denial.

Ways for the Democrats to take on Sarah Palin? More of this and less of this.....

Finally my laugh of the week. Yesterday I was listening to the Diane Rehm show on NPR and the discussion was on the meltdown of the investment banks. One member of the panel, I forgot who, while admitting the campaigns had suggested medium and long-term solutions to the ongoing financial crisis, criticized them for not suggesting any short-term solutions. Of course the gentleman in question failed to acknoweldge that in the short-term, Bush is still in the guy in the White House and that the only thing McCain and Obama are running right now are their repective campaigns.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:25 AM

 
Blogger Get-Together

Quick update on last night's blogger get-together:

Great to have met John Moore last night, when I arrived he was on a roll about global warming and it just got better from there. Check out his site at Useful Fools

Even better to see Special Agent Johnny Utah again.

The most remarkable that John McJunkin drove to Sunnyslope all the way from south Chandler

(and thanks to Vox for putting it all together)

Quick aside before it comes out that I favor stopping runaway medical costs by doing a Logan's Run on everyone over 65....

One point of agreement last night was that health care is viewed by Americans as an entitlement. Once you look at that way, alot of the policy preferences surrounding the health debate in this country become clear. Not only with the exploding medicaid costs with the the rising income floor and things like S-Chip, but also that General Motors has evolved to the point where it seems it has become a nonprofit that makes cars in order provide its employees health care.

Something's got to give... and no that doesn't mean sending grandma to the Sleepshop
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:23 PM

 
A Forgotten Place

Maybe not too forgotten after the mention of Georgia during the Gibson-Palin interview last night but it does seem the world has moved on regarding the Russian assault on Georgia. To add some perspective, check out the following stories posted here and here by journalist Michael Totten

The first story provides additional evidence that the Russian attack on Georgia was long in planning and not just a rapid response to the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia.

The second is interesting from three perspectives:

The first is the sheer guts of Totten's companion who on the drop of a hat has them take a taxi into Russian-occupied Georgia and talking their way past Russian Army checkpoints.

Second, is the proximity of not only Russian Army units to the capital Tbilisi, but the nearness of South Ossetia (which presumably Russian units will remain after their withdrawal) to the main east-west highway in Georgia. As I have written before, Russia will keep Georgia in a hammer-lock for years to come.

Third, toward the end of the story when Totten and his companion head back return through the first Russian checkpoint, check out Totten's description of the militiamen co-manning the checkpoint. There were many stories of irregulars, of various pro-Russian ethnicities, committing ethnic cleansing and atrocities throughout Abkhazia, South ssetia, and Russian-occupied Georgia. Nice to get a first-hand description of what they look like.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 9:43 AM

 
Heart of a Soldier

Those who know my views on parenting know that I believe that kids lack in their lives are heroes. Somewhere we have drained heroism from our culture in favor of the mundane and routinized. At the same kids and especially young boys have a hard distinguishing between "tough" and "brave" or between their more immediate wants and how they should act; there becomes a screaming need for role models.

Yes I know parents are role models as well but believe me at my kids' age, neither my wife or I qualify as heroes in their eyes. You just got to go with it and one way is to steer their attention toward those outside of the home who embody values that you prize and that you hope one day they will too.

One such man is Rick Rescorla.

I have written about him before. He was one of the many who died on 9/11, in his case rushing back into the south tower to rescue more people. In addition to that he served int he colonial North Rhodesia Police and part of the 7th Calvary in the Battle of Ia Drang that was immortalized in the book When We were Soldiers. Last, but hardly least, he was man who in the final years of his life found true love.

The man's story is breathtaking... if it was submitted as a work of fiction, it would be rejected as
too fantastic.

My oldest boy is still a little young for it, but in about a year or two I'll leave a copy of Rescorla's story, Heart of a Soldier, some place where he'll be bound to pick it up and read it; perhaps by his seat in the car. Better yet since he always procrastinates doing his homework, I'll leave it on his desk.

In the meantime if you have some time, check out the New Yorker article on which the book was based, The Real Heroes are Dead: A Love Story.

You won't be sorry
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:19 PM

 
El Padrone Speaks

From Lileks:

...Of course she’s scared. People like her are always scared. It’s a lonely world when you’re just so damned right and everyone else is so stupid.

That’s why God made cats.

Amen brother.... I like cats, grew up with them. However cats do much better to have a large dog living in the same house with them.

Just an FYI, this blog will be a porcine lipstick, banning library books, firing state troopers who taser 10 year-old kids free zone for today.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:16 AM

 
Big Mac Attack

Some tempting to comment, so tempting, must resist temptation...

Nope, not gonna do it.

Instead let's look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the Feds took the two mortgage giants into conservatorship. it was only yet the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of the two quasi-government corporations. The problem with the two is that they had one foot in the private sector, companies working to make a buck by providing liquidity to the mortgage market and thereby having things stockholders and income statements, and another foot in the public sector operating with implicit federal guarantees.

This split personality ends up being a glass half-full, glass half-empty argument. Some argue that the companies were forced to answer to 2 masters and ended up flopping because of the cognitive dissonance. I'll argue that by having 2 masters, the companies ended up having none and was able to use its public standing and resultant political support to dominate the secondary market and in the case of Fannie Mae commit accounting fraud on an Enron-level scale that resulted in massive bonuses paid to executives. The Wall Street Journal has been all over this here and here.

I am not going to pick out individual members of management and their political affiliation or the members of Congress that provided covering fire for them; there seems to be enough bipartisan
blame to go around. I am going to state that with all the corruption and mismanagement, that there was a symbiotic relationship between the 2 companies and the political Washington that gave us the mess we had today. It's type of mess, that type of culture that needs to be cleaned up.

So who are you going to hire to do it? One ticket has at the top a man who went along in one of the most political machines in the country, had ties to fundraisers who were later convicted on political corruption charges, and cannot pick a single incident in his legislative career where he bucked his party. To top it, he selected as a running mate a senator who is almost the living embodiment of establishment Washington.

At the other, you have at the top a man who bucked his party to the point of being an outcast, who battled the tobacco companies, and maid his reputation as a maverick. To top it, he selected as his running mate a governor who made her bones bucking her state's political party and battling the political influence of the energy companies.

So does Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac become issues in this election? It doesn't seem to be getting traction and that's a shame because I cannot think of a better embodiment of how Washington doesn't work then those 2.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:51 PM

 
Feels Like 1988 All Over Again

Forget Palin, forget Obama, forget all of that... the real magic is in the Great White North where the writ just dropped and they'll be an election for a new government next month.

I know what you are asking dear readers, weil Zonitics reprise it's award-winning coverage from the last election? The answer is an emphatic yes and over the next 5 weeks, I'll be providing answers to these vital questions:

Will the NDP close up the left side of the electorate and squeeze the Grits against the Conservatives?

Will the Conservatives continue their surge in Quebec and make enough gains in Toronto gain their first majority win in 20 years?

Will the Bloc Quebecois be able to recapture the magic of the late Lucien Bouchard and take the La Belle Province one giant step closer to nationhood? What? Bouchard isn't dead? Oh.... well, good for him, better for Mrs. Bouchard.

Who will be the next Jean Chretian for the Liberals and lead the party into another golden age of corruption and machine politics?

At the end of the night, will the entire nation be focused on the hanging chads in the riding of Western Arctic? Who will win the all-important parliamentary seat in Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar? Moose Jaw- Tulipville- Smaller? Toronto- Petuniaburgh- Just Right?

I won't hand these pearls of wisdom for free, so if you want to know the answers you'll have to subscribe to our special "premium service" which involves showing up at the next Blogger Fest and buying me a beer. After the first 3 or 4 subscribers, I'll be letting the answers loose fast and furious.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:40 PM

 
The Quick Hit Gender Card

This theme of this post is not about the lower half of the Republican ticket, I swear. I said yesterday I'll give that a rest.

Nope instead this is about a certain Arizona Republic opinion writer and the Quick Hit format.

First the writer. Linda Valdez is a self-described feminist who is on the self-appointed mission to defend the world against conservatives and Republicans, who are not only wrong but evil. That Manichean view of the American political scene provides for some let-em-rip commentary but doesn't do a whole lot to inform and persuade.

Second. Some time ago the Republic started to run "Quick Hit" pieces; 75 word missives written by their various op-ed writers and stuck in what would otherwise be unused space at the top of the page. There's not alot in the way of useful thought or argument that can be developed in 75 words; pretty much all you can do is a drive-by slam of someone or some other red meat action. Sort of like of all the negatives of blogging with none of the positives, you would think though they could get 75 words right.

Let's look at Ms. Valdez's quick hit in today's paper:

The GOP screams "race card" any time Obama even hints about his racial background. Nor did Hillary get to play the woman as victim even when the media was dissecting her laugh. (Has anyone analyzed McCain's?) How things change when the woman is on the other side. Suddenly, any criticism of the breathtakingly unqualified "Sarah Barracuda" is decried as "sexism." Those GOP guys have a whole deck of "gender cards" and they are ready to play.

Wow, there's alot packaged in those 75 words- calling Governor Palin "breathtakingly unqualified," stating that the GOP is jumping on any criticism as her as "sexism," and wrapping it all up as the Republicans playing the "gender card(s)." A nice neat argument- the Republicans, who in Ms. Valdez's view are anti-woman, nominate an unqualified woman to the ballot in order to make a crass appeal to the woman vote and then attack any legitimate critism of her as "sexism." Politics as its worse and of course with only 75 words to play with, Valdez doesn't have to back any of it up.

So imagine my surprise when I stumbled across Joe Biden, who is running on the other ticket, making the exact same allegation as the Republicans. Don't believe me? Check the video that was posted two days ago, long before Valdez put her quick hit to bed.

Hate speech, sterotyping of people who are different, reckless attacks with no regard to the facts... why does Ms. Valdez have a job writing supposedly informed commentary?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:33 AM

 
The Palin Fireline

El Gringo's post reminds me of the dangers of falling into covering horse races so perhaps I should bow gracefully from the field and let others write about the ebb and flow of the campaign. However just like the bored staffer at a departmental meeting grabbing for just one more donut, I too will dive at least once more into the Pool of Palin in order to clean up some debris.

First... tonight I was channel surfing and came across a CNN interview with the police officer that is the center of the troopergate investigation into Sarah Palin. A little while later, I came back through CNN and saw an interview with Palin arch-nemesis Lyda Green. Wow, CNN must be flooding the zone with in-state reporting on Palin, I wonder what the breakpoint is on flying commercial versus charter because I'm sure it was a question with finance given all the people the networks are sending up there to investigate Palin.

I'm still waiting for the similar in-depth investigation into Jeremiah Wright's church where Obama was a parishoner for 20 years. I'm still waiting for a member of the MSM to walk the streets of Hyde Park and discover how an Agent of Change and Audacity of Hope somehow escaped the mean streets of the Chicago Machine. I'm still waiting for the in-depth reporting from Anderson Cooper on the connections between Obama and the unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers. I am still waiting for the Elisabeth Buhmiller piece on the links between Tony Rezko and Obama.

It seems the media has spent more time over the past 7 days digging into Governor Palin's past and accomlishments than it has spent over the last 20 months digging into Senator Obama's. I'm exagerating... but not by much.

I have friends who deny that there is bias in media. That with all the professional jorunalism schools, progressive clean-up of the industry, they deny that in many ways the media of today is as much bent as it was 100 years ago.

Okay, perhaps they don't mangle the facts as much as they used to.. the 60 Minutes Texas Air National Guard story of 2004 nonwithstanding.

However, for as long as the attention of the media is like a spotlight, focused and bright on only selected topics, then it matters a great deal which topics are lit up and pored over and which topics escape attention. It also matters on how such decisions are made.

Earlier this year, the NY Times ran a story implying that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. The story was more than a little shoddy and did no credit to the paper. However to even take the story as far that took an alert reporter who picked up some hearsay and followed it through with some questioning among a number of people. To me the crime wasn't that the article was published, but that no one showed a similar interest in Obama given the far more skeletons in his closet.

Okay, I'm not going to relegate Palin stories to the same dustheap as Jon Talton but I'll give it a rest and go back to reading analysis of the Arizona FY2009 budget.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 11:50 AM

 
For a Few Smears More

Maybe I'm getting to be like Vox, all Palin all the time. However the stuff is just too compelling to turn away.

When Palin was announced last Friday, she was an unknown quality to most in the media; first-term governors of small states on the far edge of the country are like that. Goodness gracious, in Anchorage they get the early Sunday NFL game at 9:00 AM. So the rush was on for the media to vet her, sure McCain already said he did and the voters will get their chance later but as for the MSM, they had yet to pronounce on her.

The first cracks appeared on the far lefty blogs and Andrew Sullivan (but I repeat myself) with allegations that Palin's newborn son was actually her daughter's. The story seemed silly and easily refutable but that didn't stop it from beginning to top the retaining wall into the MSM, compare and contrast with the long silence on the Edwards affair. By Monday, Palin felt compelled to stop the flood tide and release an announcement stating that her daughter was 5 months pregnant and would marry the father.

The allegations and the actual story are familiar, too familiar. It is if Sullivan and bloggers at Daily Kos acted as stalking horses or even shock troops to pull the pregnancy story out with the MSM acting as willing participants. After all they just report the facts even if the facts are just allegations. Once the pregnancy story was out, once they could get Palin to reveal her daughter's pregnancy and ask the media to back off, then it was off to the races. Gotcha... the daughter as mother of Trig vector could be shelved, it did its job.

Even active reporting of the daughter 5 month pregnant story could be shelved; not just because the family asked for privacy but because it did its purpose of opening up a line of attack on Palin herself, her fitness, and on the judgment of McCain for picking her. The moose hunting woman governor from Wasilla was going to get vetted big time.

Take a look at an article from Monday's New York Times "Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting." Notice "disclosures" is in the plural, also notice that the supposed disclosures open a can of worms for both Palin and McCain. If she has these types of skeletons in the closet, what else do we know and who in the heck eats mooseburgers anyway? What kind of an idiot picks a person like this for the VP?

Let's look at the article:

3rd paragraph down we find out what other "disclosures" exist.

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

Start with Mr. Palin's drunk driving charge which technically gives us the necessary criteria for the plural of "disclosures." It happened in 1986 when the man was 22. before he got married, and in an era when driving under the influence was viewed much differently than today. Look at the next "disclosure," that Governor Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party. The person making that allegation is now backing off and there is no evidence that Governor Palin was ever a member of the party.

Finally the private lawyer issue... the article implies that Palin herself has retained the private lawyer instead of using a lawyer from the AG's office which would be normal practice. However an article from the Anchorage Daily News states that the lawyer in question was hired by the State of Alaska becuase of a potential conflict of interest by the Attorney General

In fairness to the NY Times reporter, Elisabeth Buhmiller, the backtracking on the AIP disclosure and the Daily News piece on the private lawyer came after her article was published but you can still call her piece pretty hasty right? After all her article implies a whole mess of "disclosures" and so far we are back to a 22 year old drunk driving charge.

Well I'm generous and I'll help Ms. Buhmiller increase her disclosure count; it appears Ms. Palin was once cited for fishing without a license. Btw... if you follow the link, you get a much more detailed account of how Governor Palin was vetted including the fact that she quickly revealed to McCain's chief investigator the pregnancy, the drunk driving arrest, and the whole trooper-gate scandal.

However I'm not done with Ms. Buhmiller's hack piece. Later in the article she follows up with some Alaska politicians and finds out that no one asked them or people they knew about Palin. We're talking about heavy hitters like the State Senate president and the former speaker of the State House. Of course if you go back and check on these 2 politicians, Lyda Green and Gail Phillips, you find that both are political foes of Palin, have feuded with the Governor over legislation, and Phillips herself is tied directly to two of Palin's biggest foes, Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens. It's like calling Harry Reid to get the straight scoop on President Bush. For more on the holes in Buhmiller's Alaska sources, check out this post in National Review's Media Blog.

So Buhmiller started off for big game. She wanted to take the Palin daughter pregnancy and blow it up to imply that Palin had many more skeletons in the closet and to accuse the McCain campaign to do its due diligence. Instead of scoring some trophies, we instead find her "disclosures" to be so old as to be hopelessly out-of-date, down right inaccurate, overblown, or reliant on the insinuations of Palin's Alaskan enemies.

That my friends is how the media vets our future leaders
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:30 PM

 
Commentarium

I try to avoid reading the comment sections to articles in The Arizona Republic because I find that the practice lowered my opinion of the citizenry. I found more genteel and satisfying discussion on sports talk radio or in the line to use the bathroom at the local bar.

You would think the comments to articles in the New York Times would be better. Paper of record and all, full of kind and caring readers. However after reading the comments to the article regarding the pregnancy of Governor Palin's daughter I find myself even more discouraged. There are 600+ comments to the article and after wading through the first few hundred of them most fall into 1 of 3 general categories:

1) That Palin is a bad mother because her daughter got pregnant, whether from supposedly not educating her about birth control or because not providing a nurturing enough environment. One commenter blamed it on the fact that the governor was too busy shooting moose to show her daughter the importance of condoms. I lost count of the number of comments that claimed Palin was against birth control and therefore had condemned her daughter to "abstinence only."

Out of curiosity, I Googled Palin and birth control and got 1,100,000 hits. I had a very hard time, as did the Kos kids, in trying to find any actual Palin quote about opposing birth control, so it seems an urban legend.

2) That Palin should withdraw from the race, both out of shame as to what happened to her daughter and to care for Baby Trig. I find their concern for Trig touching

3) That all the vitriol shown toward Palin in the comments, there were very few positive ones, was okay because if it was Obama who had the pregnant teenage daughter, the Republicans would be attacking him just like they were attacking Palin.

A close fourth were all the posts decrying the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the viciousness of their political attack machine.

Pinch must be so proud.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:14 PM