Arizona's First Political Blog

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

By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.

 
The Washington Cash Cow

There's been alot of inked spilled about the growing centralization of power and resources in Washington at the expense of the rest of the country, but it really didn't hit me until this morning when I was reading the sports pages (web pages mind you.)

The Redskins just signed DT Albert Haynesworth for a 7-year, $102 million contract. Yeah I know the length and total dollar amounts of football contracts are just play numbers given that such contracts are guaranteed but then key in on the important number... the guaranteed money. I have read the contract will pay a guaranteed $41 million overall with an estimated $33 million coming in the first year. On top of it Washington signed a cornerback for $22 million guaranteed.

That's alot of money and makes you think, with the financial tsunami about to wipe out a big chunk of professional sports, who all is paying for the luxury boxes and premium seats at Redskin games?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:28 PM

 
For a Few Clips More

After watching President Obama's speech last night and going back and reading the transcript, I've found it a rich deposit of YouTube clips to mine for later political gold. So which statement do you think Obama will regret the most?

1) "Now, let me be clear. Let me be absolutely clear,..... If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter-million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

Really not one single dime? I mean when the George H. W. Bush said the "Read my Lips" hyperbole he was in the middle of an election campaign, what's Obama's excuse for overpromising? He's after all and "I repeat", "absolutely clear"

2) And that's why I've asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort, because nobody messes with Joe.

You can come at this two ways. First I doubt anyone on this side of the Almighty and my Mother would be able to lead a "tough, unprecedented oversight" of that stimulus package let alone a gaffe-prone, 35-year Washington insider who hasn't run anything bigger than his campaign staff.

The second way is by having the President emphasize "nobody messes with Joe" it means just the opposite; it's like having your parents call out the neighborhood bullies. Mr. Biden may very well be the first Vice President to be found someday hanging from the flagpole by his underwear.

3) "In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry."

Okay this is probably the least likely thing to get clipped but as I have written before, the building of the transcontinental railroad really didn't being until after the Civil War had ended.

One final thing. At the gym this morning, they had CNBC on next to CNN on the bank of TVs. CNN showed the results of a poll that something like 90%+ of respondents were some degree of positive on the President's speech while at CNBC it showed the market dropping like a rock.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 10:36 AM

 
Steve Kerr and the Taking of Vienna

I know the NBA is dead to me but this is just too good pass up...

For most of the past 4 seasons, the Phoenix Suns had been playing an up-tempo form of basketball; "seven seconds or less" to get up a shot. It was fun to watch, the Suns tasted success, and all were happy.

However as any kid who ever played organized basketball on the East Coast could tell you, such an approach doesn't win championships. It seemed every kid I ran into heard the same lecture as I did from my coach, the Denver Nuggets of the late 70s and early 80s were fun to watch but they weren't going to win titles The Nuggets with Issel and English were an early forerunner of the approach the Suns took, fast-paced offense with little desire to go into the half-court, no defense, and most importantly no championships.

This time last year, that's where the Suns were going. Under Coach D'Antoni, the Suns were successful but there was no way they were getting past the conference championship, let alone taking the title. Suns GM Steve Kerr had one of three choices to make: ride the current approach and taste regular season success but another early playoff exit as the window on the team closed, get on with blowing-up the team and rebuild a possible NBA championship from scratch, or try to tinker with the current approach by adding some muscle and defense in order to stretch the current window another year or two.

As we know he went with option 3, trading Marion for Shaq in order to position the Suns with enough muscle and toughness to get the remaining nucleus posied for a championship run. It didn't work as the Suns went out of the playoffs early. It then seemed Kerr went to option 2 by letting D'Antoni and his run-and-gun approach go to New York and hiring a more deliberate, defensive-minded coach in Terry Porter.

The problem was the team's personnel was still built around D'Antoni's system. Steve Nash, while entertaining on the break, cannot defend a wet noodle at the other end. Amare's game is more focused on space and found it hard to operate in the new, more deliberate half-court game with Shaq taking up space in the paint. So with personnel mismatched to the coach's style, you figure something had to give and given that the coach was new, you figured it would be the personnel; the front office would show some patience with the team and let Porter have a chance to work through the growing pains.

So here's the feckless part...

Steve Kerr, less than a year after doing one U-turn with the team turned around and executed another U-turn instead. The players revolted against Porter and he was fired, to be replaced on an interim basis with Alvin Gentry who was to reimplement the more wide-open style Kerr had abandoned and try to salvage the season. In turn, there were strong rumors that the Suns were heavily involved in trade talks right before the deadline but not to get tougher and more defense-oriented in order to continue building for a championship. The strongest rumor was that the Suns were going to deal Shaq, who they got a year ago for his toughness and defense. In fact the word is the only reason the trade with Cleveland didn't go through was that the Suns wanted Szczerbiak whose contracted expired this year as opposed to Ben Wallace whose contract expire next year.

There's an old saying, attributed to Napoleon that went something like "If you are going to take Vienna, take Vienna." In other words the worst thing is to do is start do something and then change your mind midway through the process and try to race back to the status quo ante. If Kerr kept the team together for another year and let it flop in the first round in the playoffs again, he would have had the juice to blow up the team and rebuild in the mold he wanted. If Kerr wanted to rebuild the team around the toughness/defense angle, then he should have known that there would be teething problems and been willing to suffer through them.

No, instead he blew up the exciting "seven seconds or less" and then when that decision proved unpopular and the team struggled for half the season he chickened out.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:04 PM

 
For the Help of Peachy

Wretchard has an excellent post on some of the strategic dilemmas facing the Obama Administration with its decision to escalate the Afghanistan War. The post covers some of the main themes that Wretchard has been writing about for the past year

1) As Obama seeks to escalate the war, he is also escalating the difficulties in supplying the troop presence int hat country. As the old maxim goes"amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics."

The problem in Afgahnistan is that all routes into the country cross touble spots. To the west lies Iran, to the east lies Pakistan, and to the north lies countries who not only have a mixed record on human rights but also lies within Russia's historic sphere of influence. As the route across Pakistan becomes more problematic, Russia has put the squeeze on the northern route by bribing Kyrgzstan to close its main air base to Americans. This leaves Uzbekistan, with whom the Bush Administration cut ties with after its government killed hundreds of civilians. So to fight the "good war," Obama will have to start by cutting deals with some very bad people

2) Each of the three players mentioned above have other interests in regard to the United States that they can use their proxmity to Afghanistan to gain leverage. Russia and Pakistan have interests on its NATO border and with India respectively and Iran of course has its nuclear program and ties with terrorist groups. By escalating the war, Obama will give each of those powers an ability to levy a toll on the US for its good behavior.

3) After you add up the costs of the first two points along with the fact that the Taliban has the strategeic advantages of a local opium economy and an international border to shield them, you have to ask is this really worth it? To answer that depends on whether you think the center of gravity in the war against radical Islamic terrorists lies along the Pakitsan-Afgahnistan border or in the Arab heartland.

Well I'm sure Richard Holbrooke has it all figured out.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:52 PM

 
Playing the Mystic Chords of Memory….Like a Kazoo

Before I begin this rather lengthy piece, I would like to make one thing clear. Politicians have been wrapping themselves with the events and figures of the past for as long… well perhaps as long as there have been politicians. So when President Obama continues to wrap himself with the legacy of Abraham Lincoln well I usually just roll my eyes and let it go.

However in reading what the President said at Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield on the 200th birthday of the Great Emancipator, I must strenuously object. Obama has not just wrapped himself in the glory and aura of Lincoln which is in part his due given the day and his position, but he has distorted the man’s legacy in order to use it as a club to beat his current day enemies.

After some opening remarks about the significance of the day and the man who he has come to honor, Obama provides a statement that Lincoln was purported to have written in 1854.

"The legitimate object of government," he wrote, "is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.

Obama then asks where did Lincoln’s devotion to Union, to which he gave his last full devotion to, come from?

But he also understood something else. He recognized that while each of us must do our part, work as hard as we can, and be as responsible as we can – in the end, there are certain things we cannot do on our own. There are certain things we can only do together. There are certain things only a union can do.

Only a union could harness the courage of our pioneers to settle the American west, which is why he passed a Homestead Act giving a tract of land to anyone seeking a stake in our growing economy.

Only a union could foster the ingenuity of our farmers, which is why he set up land-grant colleges that taught them how to make the most of their land while giving their children an education that let them dream the American dream.

Only a union could speed our expansion and connect our coasts with a transcontinental railroad, and so, even in the midst of civil war, he built one. He fueled new enterprises with a national currency, spurred innovation, and ignited America’s imagination with a national academy of sciences, believing we must, as he put it, add "the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery…of new and useful things."

I will come back to this in a moment because the money graph is coming:

But in recent years, we’ve seen the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction. It’s a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government – this constant rejection of any common endeavor – cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges. It cannot refurbish our schools or modernize our health care system; lead to the next medical discovery or yield the research and technology that will spark a clean energy economy.

Only a nation can do these things. Only by coming together, all of us, and expressing that sense of shared sacrifice and responsibility – for ourselves and one another – can we do the work that must be done in this country. That is the very definition of being American.

It is here that the recent re-incarnation of President Obama is on full display; where we no longer see the promised bi-partisan healer but rather a warrior on the attack against the unnamed other who would put the nation at risk in order to line their pockets.

Neither Obama nor anyone else has been able to pick one Republican of any stature who has displayed “this constant rejection of any common endeavor,” such commonality would presumably include national defense and that massive pork-laden transportation bill a few years ago. Americans of different partisan stripes may disagree on the type and extent of common endeavor but only the most isolated libertarian has claimed that there is no need for “any common endeavor.”

There is much to parse here. Note his depiction that that the “next medical discovery” and “research and technology” can only come from the effort of government; despite the fact that my local pharmacy is lined with medications that were all produced by the private sector. Note his contrasting of those who would reject government and would rather it be “divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us” with “only by coming together, all of us, and expressing that sense of shared sacrifice and responsibility…. That is the very definition of being American.”

So where does Obama get off by constructing a strawman and then exhorting us to burn it like a Salem witch? Where does he get the idea that government is needed to create all things good and common?

By using and distorting Lincoln’s historical legacy.

Let’s start with his citing of Lincoln at the beginning… “"The legitimate object of government," he wrote, "is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves” The rest of the quote is this:

There are many such things---some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances.

But a far larger class of objects springs from the injustice of men. If one people will make war upon another, it is a necessity with that other to unite and cooperate for defense. Hence the military department. If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or noncompliance

So while Obama was using Lincoln's quote to justify all sorts of national programs and to involve itself in the minutiae of its citizens daily life, what Lincoln was mostly after was to defend the population from enemies and criminals. If you subscribe to the view that the $800 billion “stimulus” package, funded by debt, amounts to intergenerational theft then you will be amused by the “despoil them of property” part.

However the misuse of Lincoln does not end there Keep in mind that Lincoln often wrote and spoke about “union” but did so in the context of American nationhood, citizenship, and the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. He didn’t speak or write of “union” as a means of collective action through government bureaucracies or the involvement of the national government in the details of its citizens' lives. Keeping mind that through the early part of the 20th Century the primary contact most people had with the federal government was the post office, I think Lincoln would have found the notion of “union” that Obama puts in his mouth rather strange.

Let’s go back to the section I cited above and look more closely at what President Obama said:

Only a union could foster the ingenuity of our farmers

Sort of Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.” I never knew it took a country to foster to ingenuity of 19th Century farmers

Only a union could speed our expansion and connect our coasts with a transcontinental railroad, and so, even in the midst of civil war, he built one.

Uhhhh no, the railroad wasn’t “built” until 4 years after Lincoln’s death. In fact except for some road work in the Sierra Nevada, major work didn’t even begin until 3 months after his death.

He fueled new enterprises with a national currency, spurred innovation,

The national currency and spurring innovation bits didn’t just emerge because Lincoln thought they were good ideas to stimulate the economy; they came about because of the needs of the Civil War economy.

...and ignited America’s imagination with a national academy of sciences, believing we must, as he put it, add "the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery…of new and useful things."

I missed the part of how the NAS “ignited” 19th Century America’s imagination, probably right up there with the feds fostering ingenuity. Perhaps I need to re-read Edison’s biography. The key part here is “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius…” which had nothing to do with the creation of NAS in 1863 but referred to remarks Lincoln made 4 years earlier regarding the need for intellectual property law so that innovators could make money from their invention. The "fuel of interest" wasn't lighting up little schoolchildren's eyes with the magic of science (see Arizona Science Center) but rather making moolah for inventors.

It's like Obama created some sort of Zombie Lincoln, making Old Abe say things and do things he really didn't. No doubt during next year's Lincoln Birthday celebration, Obama will drag up some quotes claiming that the 16th President was really in favor of nationalized health care and carbon credits.

A few closing remarks here.

A politician should always be careful about using a ceremonial function to make partisan political attacks especially when such attacks involve untruths and gross distortions.

A politician should be careful when making such partisan political attacks to avoid using icons of the party he is attacking

A politician should avoid distorting the record of one of the country’s greatest heroes (Lincoln would have been in favor of the stimulus bill?) in order to push a current piece of legislation.

The staff member who thought giving a speech like was a good idea should be found out and banished to the deepest basement of the Fargo Federal Building.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:01 PM

 
Criticizing Michelle Obama

When I have the radio on in the car, I'll often listen to NPR. Mind you there is always something in the programming that gets my blood pressure up a few notches but I find it useful and somewhat informative (though for not always the obvious reasons.)

I have always felt that NPR's programming is geared toward the bien pensant for the left; yeah they may haul on a Kristol every now and then but their idea of a normal conservative point of view is to bring in David Brooks. Well that's okay, I know it's "public radio" and has taxpayer support but I think conservatives have managed to build competing media institutions like talk radio so you sort of factor all of that in and just shrug the shoulders with it.

So what to think of the recent Juan Williams-Michelle Obama problem?

Juan Williams has been a fixtures on NPR for a number of years and under contract with Fox News for even longer. Say what you want about Fox but it is at worst of the same ideology-driven formula as NPR, appealing to a certain sector of the spectrum while still claiming objectivity in its news reporting. Apparently Mr. Williams said on Fox:

"Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going," said Williams. "If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine [Ham, a conservative blogger] is suggesting, her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross."

To which Bill O'Reilly replied.... "She's not going to do that."

Well apparently that caused alot of hubbub with the NPR listenership which generated a shocking 56 e-mails to the NPR ombudsman, Alicia Shepard. Ms. Shepard goes on to inform us that this isn't the first time that Mr. Williams has offended the NPR faithful as she received 378 e-mails last year from listeners who thought he "dishonors NPR" and is an "embarassment to NPR" for his comments on Fox. Ms. Shepard tells us that by comparison she received only 6 complaints so far this year regarding Cokie Roberts, though I wonder how many she received last year ... probably based on the prose of Ms. Roberts "Founding Mothers" I would hazard to say the howls of complaints reached into the thousands.

Now I know this what ombudsmen do, respond to reader complaints, but NPR has an estimated 20 million listeners over the course of a week so getting 376 e-mails over the course of a year shouldn't be a trigger for alarm; sort of like tracking the national mood based on letters to the Arizona Republic.

To Ms. Shepard's credit, she states that she feels much of the criticism comes from the fact that Mr. Williams appears on Fox. She allows Mr. Williams to state his case which is what he said about the First Lady has been reported elsewhere in outlets such as The Atlantic and Politco, hardly mouthpieces of the right-wing conspiracy. Good for her and I think she is doing her job in an admirable way. However she then mentions the action that NPR management took in response to what Williams said:

As a result of this latest flap, NPR's Vice President of News, Ellen Weiss, has asked Williams to ask that Fox remove his NPR identification whenever he is on O'Reilly.

Why? Because of 56 e-mails or because of something else? Is it because Fox and O'Reilly are icky? Is it because who he criticized or where he did his criticism? If either is the case then what does that say about NPR?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:10 PM

 
Blacklisting Myself (From Sports)

Let's see what's going on in the world of sports...

Brett Favre retired, again. I cannot talk about that because I banished him to the outer regions when he was unreitiring last year. So I cannot talk about that.

The NBA All-Star game is coming to town this weekend. Good for Phoenix but I've already declared the NBA dead to me for holding cities hostage for new publicaly-supported venues, so I cannot talk about that either. I see that the Grizzlies may on the move again after leaving Vancouver for Memphis. Given the ongoing search for new arenas by moving to smaller and smaller markets, I'm taking bets on when the NBA will return to Sheboygan and Waterloo

So it's true that steroids were taken by A-Rod? Thank g*d. Cannot stand him so I won't talk about the story.

And that was the week in sports
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:49 PM

 
The Indispensable Man

I know this is being said right now in more high falutin' places than this but allow me the honors to chime in.

Geithner, with his tax cheating and all, was confirmed for his cabinet post while Daschle had to withdraw because we were told that El Tim was "indispensable" for correcting the financial woes that threaten to plunge the world into a cross of the Bronze Age and Age of Disco.

So after his first big policiy initiative not only does he get laughed at by a bi-partisan group of lawmakers but the Dow then proceeds to drop by 4.6%
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:52 PM

 
Seeing the Doctor for Ideological Blockage

I loved the term "ideological blockage" that President Obama used during his press conference last night. Like concerns about the spending and tax package that are grounded in differences in policies and outlook are problems to be cured through either a doctor or a plumber rather than normal aspects of a healthy democracy.

Given that there is more than way to skin the cat... er.... use the power of the federal government to "stimulate" the economy why is the President casting opponents of the specific plan in Congress as harmful to the interests of the country. People used to criticize George W. for "with us or against us" rhetoric in regard to international terrorists, but I don't hear many peeps from them on the current occupant of the White House saying that those like me who hate the current bill because it's Daviid Obey's Christmas list essentially want to flush the country down the toilet.

Here's the thing that's most troubling, all of the rhetoric. all of that painting the opposition as the "other" (I never seem to hear specific names of those of who are pushing only tax cuts instead of spending) is just so unecessary.

The spending and tax "stimulus" bill is, contrary to the perception the President gave last night, not being held up in Congress but roaring through. It just cleared the big hurdle in the Senate by meeting the cloture vote. The next big step for proponents is to make sure that the bill isn't loaded up in conference with all things the 3 pro-bill Republicans in the Senate hated. In other words nothing needs to change for the President to win.

Plus what was more bipartisan? The 3 Republicans in the Senate voting for the bill or the 11 Democrats in the House voting against? I guess the Senate by a narrow percentage but you could claim opposition to the bill was bipartisan almost as much as its support.

So why is the President in full campaign-attack mode on a bill that is already well on its way to passage? Is all of this about passing the bill or rather counting coup for developing political capital?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:47 AM

 
Howling from Pain

The wife and I went to a Coyote games the other night and we had a good time; hockey is the best sport to see in-person.

When the Yotes arrived in town back in 1996, we already had been told that the Diamondbacks were going to come in a few years so we were on our way to being one of those rare 4-sport towns. I hate to tell you but based on what I just saw at the arena we are probably close to being a 3-sport town.

Ever since they arrived in the desert 13 years ago, the team has lost money. It's been rumored the current ownership group will lose close to $45 million this year alone and more than $200 million total since 2001.

Did I mention this is the third set of owners since the team set up shop here? The first was the group involved in moving/stealing the team from Winnipeg, that squad came Stanley Cup-contention ready. However the team had to play in the Suns' arena which wasn't configured for hockey and in which crucial revenue streams went to the Suns instead of the ice dogs. To top it Colangelo not only controlled the Suns, he also controlled the city-owned arena and refused to make the critical improvements to allow for an effective hockey-watching experience. So the team was sold to developer Steve Ellman who tried to use the prospect of a new arena as an anchor tenant for a new publically-supported real estate development. After playing footsies with Scottsdale for years and turning the Los Arcos shopping mall into a gaping hole in the ground, Ellman was able to cut just such a deal with Glendale.

I should have added that had Ellman not bought the team, there were strong rumors that Paul Allen would have bought it instead and moved it to Portland.

The Coyotes got their new Glendale arena built and opened... right before the NHL went through a year-long lockout. Soon thereafter, Ellman sold the team to the trucking magnate Jerry Moyes.

So let's go through this. That's 3 ownership groups in Phoenix in 13 years, 4 if you include the Winnipeg owners that sold the team right before it was moved. The team's fan base was located in the East Valley of the Phoenix area so when the team moved 19 miles further west to its new arena in Glendale, it core fan base was looking at 75 to 80 mile round trip drives to watch the games with the first part of that trip (30 to 40 miles) in rush hour traffic. Third, not only has the team lost money since 2001, it probably lost money every year since it was here.

Well apparently Moyes is done with the financial red link, not least because his trucking business has fallen on hard times. The NHL has stepped in to keep the team afloat and headlines in the hockey press alternate between investors refusing to take the plunge after looking at the Coyotes' books and "NHL Commissioner dismisses talk of Coyotes' demise." Personally I would love to look at the books if only to learn how a team could lose upwards of $45 million when they play in a league that has a salary cap of $54 million.

However more than the headlines and the past history, you can tell a team is nearing the end when....

1) The announced attendance was 15,229 with a capacity for hockey 17,799; I would say maybe half of those people showed up. Up shot was the lines at the bathroom were short and the ratio of areana staff to fans was extremely high. We were amazed by the skill of the arena cameramen because everytime they showed shots of the crowd up on the scoreboard you could hardly see an empty seat.

2) The only sections that came close to being filled were the two sections located below the concession stands that were part of "free food night."

3) You look at the schedule of upcoming games and wonder if you should buy tickets in advance for games toward the end of the season. Yeah it's that bad... given that there seems to be a massive penalty clause in respect to the City of Glendale if the team actually moves my guess is the team is going to be disbanded sometime in 2009.

The stench of death.

Given the horrid play of the special teams (gave up 4 power play and 1 short-handed goal), I would say the highlight of the evening was a tie between the play of the pee-wee hockey teams during the first intermission and the work of the girls who came out during the television timeouts to clean up the ice - I mean if the Yotes played with half of their efficiency they would be tops in the division.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 10:37 AM

 
No Country for (Those Who Say No) Men

Saw this link from Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion that goes on to equate passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (with "card check" and all) as consistent with the "... big theme within the Hebrew and Christian scriptures."

So the secret ballot is the tool of Satan? Who would have thunk it.

Turning to the New York Times, I see this article entitled "Senators Reach Deal on Stimulus as Jobs Vanish" where the sense of urgency and fear just ooze through every sentence and paragraph. Substitute "stimulus" with "Patriot Act" and "jobs vanish" with "fears of terrorism mount" and you can start to see the gist.

Oh you think I'm tossing around the fear angle in a haphazard way? Look at one of the more responsible Democrats had to say:

“Our country can’t wait another day for another approach,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who is a leader of the bipartisan coalition that worked out the agreement.

So those elected representatives who actually want to read the bill, have serious concerns about it, and want to discuss its merits- you know what we elect representatives to do in a great democracy- are putting the country at risk by not hurriedly passing a bill that wouldn't put most of the money on the street before the next World Series.

The country cannot wait... another day.... for another approach. Or maybe it's President Obama.

So let's add the patriotism angle to pushing a partisan agenda, oh you think I'm going overboard?

Mr. Obama called Ms. Collins and Mr. Specter, as well as Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, another Republican expected to support the deal, to acknowledge they were acting against pressure from their party and, one official said, to thank them for their patriotism in helping advance the bill at a critical time.

Notice the explicit use of the word "patriotism." If you are patriotic for supporting the bill then everyone understands that the the speaker in question implies that those who oppose the bill are not patriotic.

Calls to religion, calls to patriotism, calls to forego democratic debate and oversight in order to come to agreement on what basically amounts to a downpayment on the Democrats' next version of the Great Society (the down payment part was taken from the President himself.)

Now I find all of those calls foolish and somewhat laughable and will file them away as part of my ongoing political education under "political tactics, bare knuckled." However we just spent the past 8 years having the Republicans lambasted for supposedly issuing these types of calls- for God, for patriotism, shutting down the deliberative process in the name of national emergency- and whether you thought they did it or not in order to prosecute the War on Terror or national security. However it only took the Democrats less than 3 weeks to make the same calls in order to pass David Obey's pork-laden Christmas tree of a bill.

So tell me, if you were one of those people who thought that George W. Bush was going to usher in the dark fascist night for America by using God and the threat of national catstrophe to shut down debate, what do you have to say about this? Or does the end justify the means?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:21 PM

 
About What I Said Yesterday...

I was reminded by someone that when I wrote that post yesterday about how analogous the operational problems facing the Obama Administration were to those of Clinton, that I had forgotten the most important point. That Clinton started on the upswing not when he got the operational kinks out but when the economy started to do an up-tick and the Republicans gained control of Congress. Not only did Newt and the boys take some shine off the Republican brand during the governmental shutdown of 1995 but by having the other party in control of Congress, it seemed the Clinto Administration was restrained from following through on its worst instincts- like trying to reform health care.

Anyway the basic point holds true, there is alot of time between now and November 2012 so let's not go around with any "implosion" statements.

However...

I watched President Obama's speech to the Dem House retreat and I was shocked by the tone. Yes it was a speech to the faithful but one that was picked up for a national (though limited) audience. He was angry and defensive, trying to paint the Republicans as the ones to blame for holding up the stimulus package and putting the economy at risk. So let's go through this and pick it apart:

1) The Democrats control both chambers of Congress, already won in the House, and are in the process of picking up the few Republicans they need to stop a filibuster (which McConnell has already said he will not do ); in fact a final vote will probably come by Monday. So who exactly is holding things up? Olympia Snowe for not caving even faster?

2) I guess when Obama talked about "bi-partisanship" he meant not reaching common ground with the other party, but rather the Republicans caving-in and accepting every Democratic proposal as is otherwise he would throw a presidential hissy fit.

3) As far as the emergency aspect of this.... most of the money won't be spent until next year. Alot of people gave in over TARP because they were told that the credit markets would seize up if we didn't start throwing money from helicopters by the end of the week. According to the schedule of the"stimulus" package, not only won't we be throwing the bulk of the money out the window by the end of the next week we wouldn't have cut the purchase orders on the money-showering copters until Thanksgiving.

4) Coyote Blog put it best... how on earth did a newly-elected president who ran on being a transformative figure in American history go to being Nancy Pelosi's chief whip in a matter of 17 days?

So given all of this, it may take more than I thought to make this work.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 10:17 AM

 
Let's Not Be Premature

For all of you who are waiting for the Obama Presidency to implode, let's think about this for a little.

First some historical perspective. Go back to the first several months of the Clinton Administration; the media was rife with stories of how the man was toast. How his people were just either newbie kids dragged in from the campaign team or kitchen cabinet hicks drawn from Arkansas. You know how this story ended, the man went from being toast to a popular two-termer.

Second, there are problems but problems that can be fixed. First you have campaign staff who have been promoted to the White House and aren't cutting it. That press guy Gibbs? Man he is awful, worse than George Stephanopoulus was in those early Clinton months. Next somebody on the senior staff level is giving Obama bad advice concerning the bailout. You just got elected to the most powerful job in the world on the mantle of hope and change and you get Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of probably the lowest-regarded Congress in history, to write your keystone legislation (the stimulus bill)? Whose bright idea was that? Was it Emmanuel or was it Jarrett or Axelrod? I would say the latter two as the Chief of Staff is more of a gatekeeper but Rahm was brought in for his congressional ties and a good deal of the problem right now is Congress. Well I don't see the three of them going but get rid of Gibbs as an example to encourage the others... as they say kill the chicken and make the monkey watch.

Oh and one final thing on the previous point. Get someone in who either doesn't have a Chicago ear for ethics problems or has enough clout to be able to put their foot down when they see one, but the vetting process by the Obama people is comical.

Finally I'm taking wagers on when David Gergen will be called in to take a senior staff position at the White House in order to "save the Obama Presidency." I'm saying May 1. Say what you want about George W., but at least he didn't let that man into the West Wing.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:17 PM

 
The Train to Nowhere

Coyote Blog picked up an article that I had missed...

The Mesa Link debuted the same week as light rail. For now, Link involves a fleet of 10 buses. Each $756,000 vehicle carries a transponder to coordinate traffic lights and keep the bus on schedule for a 12-mile run in 45 minutes.

It’s the start of a much more ambitious program.

Over the next few months, the Regional Public Transportation Authority, which coordinates Valley Metro bus service, will build stations and add technology to the Mesa line to give it more of the pace and feel of a train.

As Warren picks out, Mesa Link runs just as fast as the light rail system and at a capital cost of 1/30 the price.

If I remember correctly there is supposed to be some sort of study on the current rail system before more mileage is built. I wonder if this will come up. Even better, with both systems being lit up at the same time, I would like to get the local heavy hitters who backed light rail to answer why light rail was built instead of a more creative alternative (paging Richard Florida.) If the question was posed, I bet the answer falls into one of two categories:

1) "We sold light rail to the public as a transportation system when in fact we saw it as a development project and fancy bus-like contraptions like Mesa Link wouldn't get the development component done...."

or the more likely response...

2) "Light rail is what the feds were paying for at the time..." That's the answer I usually get from such people along with the additional excuse that the federal money had to be used to drum up local support. Leaving aside that hundreds of millions of local tax money was used to match the federal dollars.

So if light rail was the locally supported option, despite its high cost and inflexibility, because the feds were willing to spring the money what does that say about federally funded transportation projects let alone all the capital projects in the massive federal "stimulus" bill?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:51 PM

 
Thoughts of The Week That Was

I was asked for my comments concerning the past week while I was away...

First and most importantly, the Super Bowl. You have to do the right thing and congratulate the Steelers for making the plays when they had to; that final touchdown was just real pro and they deserved to win.

However going into the game I thought the Cards had a very good chance. I watched the Steelers play the Eagles earlier this year and Philly whipped them like a rented mule. People, both fans and media, had talked them into believing that Rooney/Tomlin/Big Ben were the second coming but I had a feeling that given the right circumstances, they could be had and they almost were. The difference in the game ended up being that freak interception run back at the end of the first half which was at least a 10 point swing. The Steelers did nothing for the first 27 minutes of the second half in terms of offense; they only scored 3 points during that time and the fact they even scored those 3 was due to a couple of ticky tack personal foul calls.

The other big point is how the Cards played. I hate the term "moral victory" which is usually used when they are about to lower your coffin into the ground. The Cards were 2 1/2 minutes from one of the great Super Bowl victories of all time and instead who has 95% of today's front page coverage? That's what happens when you get close but don't make it, no one cares and deservedly so. Having said that I was very pleased with the Cards, not so much for making the Super Bowl as for the toughness they displayed both in this game and during the NFC Championship. There were times during both games when they looked dead and buried and you just knew the writers in the booth were finishing the Cards' epitaph. Instead of folding and playing the foil to a great stories by the Eagles and Steelers, the Cards crawled out of the grave dug for them and fought back. In all the years I watched the Cards, I never expected to see that spirit and determination and I was surprised and very happy to see it this postseason

The FY2009 budget...

For all the people who are bellyaching about the fact that the budget process was rusghed and done behind closed doors, you have a point and I hope to see a better process for the FY2010 budget. I think everyone, not just lawmakers but also the public, need to understand the choices involved in what promises to be a very bloody and wrenching process.

Having said that, those bellyachers need to keep things in perspective. The FY2009 budget was unbalanced from the day it became effective 7 months ago and the previous governor and the Democrats in the Legislature who wrote it did nothing to correct the problem. I don't know when the point of no return would have been on the budget, the date after which if the budget hadn't been fixed that the state government would have to turn the lights off for part of the fiscal year, but such a date would have become a distinct possibility. The deficit had to be fixed and it got fixed and it took less than 3 weeks under the new legislative leadership (or if you like less than 2 weeks of the Brewer Administration) to get it done.

Finally...

No I'm not going to say anything about the siutation in Kentucky and elsewhere where people are suffering in freezing weather without power and heat and FEMA has yet to arrive except to say that a certain someone we all know here in Arizona now heads the Department of Homeland Security and has FEMA under her superivision. Those of us who remember her response to the gas pipeline break in 2003 that cut off 70% of Phoenix's gas supply or her lack of unflappability whenever things didn't go her away (see her response last month to Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin) shouldn't be surprised. You cannot bully an ice storm or scream at it to get it to do what you want.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:58 PM

 
You Thought I Was Exaggerating

The other week I wrote a post entitled "Killing Hope, Puppies, Children, and Kittens" that extended a thought that the Republicans will be pilloried as monsters for trying to close the state budget deficit through spending.

Well I got an earful on that... that perhaps I was exaggerating just a bit. I was told that yes, it will be a point of partisan controversy given that the Democrats proposed closing the gap through smoke and mirrors but I was being hysterical by claiming that the Republicans will be attacked as baby killers.

Oh really?

From one of the lead op-eds in today's East Valley Tribune, Budget Cuts Reminiscent of Ancient Sparta.

Just so we're clear about the Sparta connection, the writer is not talking about standing up to the barbarian hordes and dying a heroic death like int he movie "300" but rather the Spartan tradition of infanticide, leaving babies-to-die.

Republicans as baby killers, in one of the two main newspapers in town.

Leave aside the lack of analysis of whether state revenue, even with the tax cuts the writer pillories, has outpaced inflation and population growth. Leave aside the fact that the writer works at ASU, one of the targets of the proposed budget cuts.

Is this any way to enrich the public debate?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:59 AM