Debate 1

SPINNING AWAY
The first debate, a rainy night in New England, a delay in a meaningless Red Sox-Yankees game in the middle of a fiscal crisis. After yet another inspiring Presidential speech on Thursday night, I'm on a true leadership bender.


8:46 PM Johnny Walker Red is kind of like the Old Thompson's, RC Cola or Mohawk Vodka of scotches, not your first choice but good to have around for occasions like this

8:52 PM Interesting but disturbing PBS NOW on the financial crisis, what a clusterf$ck. I wish some of our social security money was locked up in this well run free market. So what direction does this debate go in? Does it stay foreign policy? Or is it about the elephant in the room. But more importantly, who has the bigger flag pin, hug or handshake?

8:58 PM Where the hell have they been hiding Christiane Amenpour and Michael Ware? Are they starting to bring out actual journalists for this one? Campbell Brown is starting to impress me, all she has to do is throw Wolf Blitzer to the ground and pummel him and I'll be happy. Wolf just cleared up that the University of Mississippi is in Mississippi.

9:01 PM My US magazine report for Jodie. Jim Lehrer's shirt looks like a JC Penny's standard oxford. Barack wins the handshake with the extra grab. Barack has a little five o clock shadow, small flag, standard red tie in a four in hand not. Could get his eyebrows done.

9:05 PM Obama's first mention of Bush as McCain, also drops in trickle down economics. McCain drops a little thing about Teddy K. in, shows some humanity. Tie looks like windsor knot, more of a mavericks tie with a funky design. Flagless. More maverick like dress. Uses paraphrase of "end of the beginning" speech from Churchill post-Battle of El Alamein.

9:10 PM Eisenhower is the "new black" in American politics. Eisenhower would lead a military coup if he saw the American government like it looks like today. I really like both these guys, I wish both of them would stay in the Senate and lead. Time for the American worker love, I imagine it will soon be followed by the love of the American warrior, right before we try to screw both of them.
am
9:14 PM Score for McCain, earmarks as a gateway drug. Obama won't do it, but he should lead with "dude, there's like 18 people in your state, what the hell would you earmark, a cactus juice farm?"

9:16 PM First of Obama's favorite discourse marker "Let's be clear" Gets a paycheck everyday? Next McCain-Bush reference. Second "let's be clear" clocks in three minutes later.

9:20 PM If I were Jim Lehrer my next question would be "what's your favorite Barry White song, could you sing a line or verse?" Then I would ask why are either of your f#ckers talking about cutting taxes, aren't we giving away 700 billion dollars or about what the federal government spends on education in 14 years?

9:28 PM "What are you going to give up", Obama lists 100 things he'll want to spend on, uses the cut waste argument. McCain drops the "L" word on Obama. McCain goes anti-ethanol and starts talking about reform of defense contracts, well played.

9:31 PM I wondering if there is a way I could watch the Alaskan senate debate with Ted Stevens. Obama drops in the first internet reference Google for Gov't. McCain suggests a spending freeze on everything except where we spend all of our money, defense and entitlements. McCain quotes Pickens Plan commercial.

9:34 PM Nuclear power as an option. 35 new nuclear plants, interesting. Obama "orgy of spending". McCain mentions himself as a maverick, as well as his new partner. McCain seems calm, doing well, unsure why Obama isn't trying to push him off balance a little bit.

9:47 PM Obama hates the troops, he wants them to drive around in K Cars with slingshots in Baghdad. I think he hates America. There are only 4 countries in the world, the US, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Talleyban?

9:57 PM McCain's first I love Ronald Reagan mention but still disagreed with him. Both the candidates have bracelets with soldier's names on it.

10:03 PM Iran is a country as well, so is Israel. Can't allow a second holocaust. McCain steals "let's be clear" discourse marker. "League of Democracies", all I can envision is Thomas Paine with a cape on and a big D on his chest. Obama brings in China and Russia to the conversation, well done.

10:08 PM McCain ain't talking to anyone, he ain't even going to say his name right, I'll call him Teheran Ted if I want to, he and Caracas Carl get sit on their oil and eat crap. Obama will go talk to anyone and bring Michelle's shrimp dip with him. North Korea is also a country. So is it the League of Democracies v. the Axis of Evil?

10:12 PM McCain takes a shot at Obama's seal. Mentions Dr. Kissinger again, who's next Talleyrand, Otto von Bismarck? South Koreans are taller than North Koreans, saw it at the Pyongyang basketball championships. He's known Dr. Kissinger for 35 years. McCain likes Israel. And Dr. Kissinger.

10:16 PM Finally Russia! Nice line from McCain, looked in Putin's eyes and saw a K, a G, and a B. Well played. If Leonid Brezhnev rises from the grave, we got the guy to oppose him, Dr. K and Big Mac. McCain has been everywhere. There has actually been some nice pronunciation going on here. GW would be drooling and rolling around on the floor talking about Texas at this point.

10:26 PM Another disagreement with the administration, bringing on the 9/11 Commission. Safer. Obama intimates that America is the greatest country on earth. Likes veterans. McCain is trying to remember some of the Yiddish that Dr. Kissinger taught him, trying to encourage Boca Raton to have a foreign policy. McCain strikes back, calling Barry stubborn and comparing him to the current administration, touche Senator McCain.

10:35 PM Obama quotes himself from DNC 2004 speech. McCain likes veterans more than Obama.

Debate over. Unsure how Barack managed to not mention that he was at Ole Miss some 4osome years after it was integrated. Let the spin begin. Don't think this debate made much of a huge difference amongst the undecideds.

How to Win

WINNING THE RACE
I know people read the Angry Middle but I rarely get comments, mostly because my very clear points need very little clarification and my readers are quick to fall in line and spread my musings across the free world. I am the left center Rush Limbaugh.

My buddy Jon posted an interesting comment and a really nice description albeit written from his political point of view (although I do agree with him) and it made me think, what would the Democrats have to do to actually pull this election out. And I mean a strategy that wouldn't make me want to register for the Prohibitionist party. So I try to answer the question, what can the Democratic Party do to show that they are the party of moderates?

Most of my answers entail not playing defense all the time. Democrats always seem to be waiting for the next move and look like they have never seen or anticipated what is now a tired Republican playbook. Come up with some new ideas, don't be afraid to piss a few people off, particularly in your base, your base, except for the crazies are not leaving. You need to find the soccer moms, the security moms, the Reagan Democrats to lean your way to win the election. Here are a few issues I would hit, I know they're issues, not something the media really wants to cover or talk about because that would require reading and research but let's roll with in anyway.

It is amazing to think that such a disaster of an administration would leave even a potential for that party to retain the White House, of course part of this that I've been hammering away at for months is the Democratic selection of one of the only two candidates who could possibly lose this election despite their personal intelligence, skill or charisma, while the Republicans managed to nominate the only Republican who could possibly win. Obama needs to explain a simple ugly fact, before one bridge is built, Title I funding sent to a school, national park cleaned up or energy/agricultural subsidy is put out, 70% of the budget is already spent on defense/medicaid/medicare/social security and the national debt and all these are eating up bigger percentages every day, an ugly fact but people need to know, as abhorrent as senseless earmarks may be, they don't touch the big money.

So here's a couple to start with.

National Defense
Always a tough row to hoe, especially with a war hero candidate. The Republican argument will be that (as of Sept 23, 2008) there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I would also argue that no one in my hometown has been attacked by a polar bear either. The anti-war crowd is yours already, no need to knock on Code Pink's door hoping for an Obama endorsement. You need to work on those who may have supported the war initially by hammering away at the lack of intelligence (both military/political and cerebral) on the part of the administration when the decisions were made and then quickly run to solutions while at the same time dousing soldiers, sailors, marines and airman alike with well earned praise.

Some major issues I would hit on is developing an exit plan for Iraq by talking to, wait for it, both allies and foes alike on how to solve the situation. Obama has got to sell the country on the idea the unilateralism is stupid, and expensive in blood, treasure, and international political capital. It is amazing to think that a country, more an idea really that has been put on a pedestal for so many years by billions of people around the world can now be seen as the biggest bully on the block. This makes some Americans happy, the idea of a whiskey soaked John Wayne walking into a bar and taking no guff and shooting everyone in sight is an attractive fantastic notion, but a little prodding and straight talk (yeah I said it) could make Americans see a different way, a President not afraid to use force when necessary, but sees it not as the first option. I still think there are people that think a Democratic president would have sent flowers to the Taliban asking them to tuck in Osama for them, folks have to be convinced when push comes to shove, the commander in chief will not hesitate to use the greatest armed force in the history of the planet.

A Democratic candidate also has to have a plan on Afghanistan complete with our NATO allies while at the same time looking forward to new threats, a growing China and an increasingly bizarre but petrodollar infused Soviet ehhr... Russia that seems expansionist while we're tying down our best brigades in Baghdad and beyond. These are realistic threats, realistic threats that become bigger as we start to lose junior officers and NCO's as they leave the service in frustration after multiple deployments that seem endless in nature. Obama needs to accentuate the fact that a military independent of political entanglements but strong civilian leadership is important. Officers must have the ability to speak truth to power without losing the prospect of promotion or career.

Good Government
OK, this is the boring one and probably the most self-centered as I am a public servant. The Republican argument is a great one, government sucks, ruins everything. It's a great argument because you can't lose, if the government does well, it's the Republican leadership, if it does poorly it's the entrenched bureaucracy. So how does government revolutionize itself, how can you get high quality empowered employees with great leadership. Government can be transformational, it is the only organization that can do the huge infrastructure projects and in fact can do government's biggest potential job, wage war. There are images both real and imagined of government bureaucrats as being useless, but sometimes it's because they are terrible and sometimes it's because they are hamstrung by political priorities that are not true policy priorities or by who can hire the best lobbyists or lawyers.

Obama needs to trumpet the need for an effective, honest and public service driven government and have ways on how it will be administered from Pentagon procurement to a ranger at Yellowstone to the clerk at the local social security office, government is a huge enterprise, how can it be taken from the power of lawyers and lobbyist to an organization that serves the people. Ensure that you will hire the best people and the best managers and leaders to get the job done.

Be prepared for the Republican response that Reagan "elegance" that government is the problem but lets say with elements like the current financial crisis that that ship has sailed.

OH YEAH, THE FISCAL CRISIS
OK, I own 110 shares of Freddie Mac, which has lost 99% of it's value. Yup, that's the point of investing, it's a calculated gamble, at one point last week I spent more money filling my gas tank than my entire Freddie Mac stock portfolio was worth. But investing is wins and losses. So now we bring ourselves to the current crisis, I broke my first rule, I have no idea how Freddie Mac makes money. The assumption was simple, back up some loans, take a cut, kind of like some cut rate Somerville bookie hanging around Virgie's. But no, that would actually be honest thievery. I can't explain this fiscal crisis and neither can anyone else. That's the problem, all these credit swaps, collateralizing, securitization and the mother of them all derivatives made everything so confusing and intertwined that Hank "the hammer" Paulson, new American overlord, requested one trillion dollars, no strings attached to try to clean up the mess. I have no idea what corner the President was hiding in at the time, but last I looked he won the election, and if I'm going to ask for hundreds of billions of dollars, it's probably a better idea that I ask for it myself.

The fiscal discussion is actually for my next post, I haven't really figured out what the hell they are doing and frankly it's Democrats and Republican fingerprints all over this, with the Republicans dusting off the old "it's Clinton's fault" thing. In fact some regulation is good, and this is a perfect example. Obama needs to hammer away on the need for adults to be in charge, the fact that it is not a good idea to have lobbyists making policy for the regulation of their own businesses but walk that narrow line of explaining that regulation will be able to temper an uncontrollable free market while at the same time saving the potential for the market to innovate and grow. Markets are good, when they are transparent and regulated and honest. I personally hate these bs derivatives and shorting and crap, to me they are all market manipulation. I may be old school, but if you like a stock, buy it, if you don't sell it, why does it have to be anymore complicated than that. If I want to buy a hotfudge sundae, do I have to sell the frozen hotdogs from the back of my freezer to hedge that purchase?

It's a tough line to walk for Democrats, to suggest more regulation but I think there is a good way to tap taxpayer anger here. The taxpayers who are paying their boring, vanilla fixed rate mortgages on time, looking at the huge amounts of interest they are paying over a lifetime and being not able to understand, how the hell the mortgage market could get so screwed up when they are paying so much damn money. (I'm sliding in between the third and first person here in my own frustration) There are the homeowners and others who are living in communities filled with foreclosures in key states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania wondering why some Wall St. fatcats are getting a bailout while their communities and home values continue to suffer.

These are tough questions for Obama to approach, certainly the first and easiest approach is to attack the problem with more government largess, but the real way is to stop the bleeding and say it won't happen again. The markets are already crying that the inability to short stocks is hurting financial stock growth. Hold on sister, if your kid crashes your car while drinking, you'll probably wait a while until he can borrow one again, and even longer until he gets to drive it alone at night.

Obama has to be convincing that this bailout money and process will be well managed and feed and prime the economy and not just the hedgefunders with balloon payments in the Hamptons. There is a large populist movement just below the surface that is fed up with the concentration on Wall St. instead of Main St. Obama needs to focus on this populist surge with real, tough talk on economics and not let the uberrich kleptocracy dominate the field of play.

Here are three zones where the Democrats could make some hay, attacking on traditionally Republican issues, veering away from the voting blocs that will already vote for them and may be of interest to the "Reagan Democrats" it takes to win.

PreElection General Musings

MY FATHER, THE LIBERAL?

It's funny but I don't usually think of myself as a liberal. I used to be pretty leftist, but that was until I owned a house and stocks. (little joke there) I'm not hiring Pinkertons to knock the Red's heads in yet but I'm pretty conservative about some things. I wonder how if will look in my daughter's eyes, born in the fear stricken, angry America as opposed to the America of hopes and dreams that I grew up in. (the current stupidity makes Reagan's America look like the Paris Commune)

But then again, on somethings, I'm not conservative at all. I wonder if someday liberals will be almost extinct, I mean there will be some wacky Cambridge types protecting geese and stuff but not necessary liberal families that pass down their values to their children. Some day will my daughter just look at me like I'm crazy and wonder what the hell is going through my head as I talk about things like civil liberties and civil rights and progressive taxation and crazy things like that. It will be a nation that is conquered by the fearmongers and the selfish and self absorbed.

I'm a strong believer in civil liberties, all of them not just the second amendment and those portions of the first amendment that are convenient at the time. I may disagree with people, but generally the basic building principle of this country is free speech and free press. Which makes me wonder about what happened in St. Paul with journalists being arrested while covering demonstrations (sometimes violent stupid demonstrations).

I'm a strong believer in support of other people, a concept that while a ownership society is nice in theory and hard work and innovation should be rewarded but at the same time there are many that do not have the opportunities that others do, and as the richest country in the world, we should be able to provide some modicum of health care, a decent education and access to housing. I guess my concept is that their should be some floor in life, but no ceiling.

I wonder if in my daughter's world, there will be any concept of this. There is currently an income tax repeal in the Commonwealth, brought by small government Ayn Rand type idealists, but likely to be voted on by good meaning people, people fed up by the corruption of government, both real and perceived. Government does a terrible job of "selling" what they do, and certainly there is waste, corruption and laziness, probably like any business. As a government employee it disgusts me more than any one, but there are many, many people who have chosen a life a public service, true believers, who believe in the power of government to positively transform the country.

So I guess this makes me a liberal, a capitalist one who watches his stock holdings pretty closely, is anti-abortion, fiscally conservative, even pretty conservative on security issues, but there are things that government can do (collectively) that individuals cannot. I believe that governments are responsible for the infrastructure that can make all of it's citizens successful, certainly the physical infrastructure, roads and bridges, but also the other things that make this country tick, health care, education, public safety and perhaps equally as important the regulations and rules to keep both corporations and individuals alike and protect the long term interests of the nation from the short term greed and avarice.

So, I guess I'm a liberal. Being American should be expensive. All blessings are expensive.

A NEW AMERICA
I choose not to write about education, because it is my field and it's the only way I could possibly get in trouble blogging about. But this is more about the idea of education as infrastructure. Which is one of my things. My access to public education gave me great things, social mobility among its greatest gifts but also curiosity. Things I will always appreciate. Access to a good education regardless of background whether it be of genetic or situational continues to be a major civil rights issue, and I think regardless of political background you would find agreement on this. Education is the silver bullet. But I digress, the point is not education as a civil rights issue in this section, but instead economic and workforce development.

America is in a weird place in its economic development. The old cradle to grave manufacturing jobs are gone for the most part and we are all puzzled about what the great next thing is. One thing we have figured out from the credit crisis is that we aren't going to all get rich by ripping each other off or just waiting for house prices to keep going up, up, up. An integral part of this is certainly going to be education and workforce development. Not the current structure of education that is preparing us for the industrial and agricultural jobs of the 19th century, but a system that allows us to innovate.

One might say that the greatest economic growth in the history of this country if not the world came after World War II. One argument may be it was the almost confiscatory nature of taxation during WWII and the ensuing Cold War that drove this development. Advocates for education will argue (and it may be hard to disagree) that such efforts such as the response to Sputnik and the National Defense Education Act, or even NASA efforts.

But, I really think the biggest effect was the people themselves. I have a theory on the post war effect of military service on economic growth, not only discipline through service and understanding a common goal but how military service even for enlisted men and NCO's provided them to ironically be independent thinkers, willing and able to take leadership roles within complex systems and an ability to lead when left or given the opportunity. These are some of the integral qualities of the so-called Greatest Generation, and in fact these qualities also were in the women who didn't serve in uniform, who had to work in defense plants etc, in non-traditional roles. Also you had "older youth/young men" who were able to access education on the GI bill, likely a much more serious student than the 18-19 year olds of today. A student who had served on foreign battlefields or even in rear echelon situations with a common cause has a great advantage over a student whose greatest challenge maybe finding a fake ID or not getting the dorm room they want.

So barring the challenges of another Great Depression or a third World War, how can the education system help to replicate the innovation in industry of the WWII and postwar economic boom (particularly the executive functions of innovative leaders) while utilizing the technological advances of the early 21st century? Here is the essential question for me. The vaunted 21st century skills to many appear to be access to technology, mostly because those are skills that 20th century folks are migrating too and having difficulty to understand, not completely wrong of course, but a great deal can be learned by having a common cause and understanding the interdependence of humanity that comes from striving towards this common cause.

So Thomas Friedman in his new book would argue (and I would tend to agree with him) that the greatest challenge of this generation is energy. It is not the Nazis marching on Natick or the Japanese attacking Pittsfield but it is an issue that can and will effect the American way of life in the next century. And not only the American way of life, but improvement of life across the earth as the struggle for energy continues while the rest of the world tries to move up to an American style of middle class with its requisite energy usage.

So the challenge is set. Can the education establishment step up and take to this challenge? Or will it become a self serving institution, much more concerned about the adults involved than the young people or the future of the nation. No, I can't compare this to the freedom of all peoples, there will be no liberation of evil but an evolutionary change in how we do business. Much of this challenge is on the students as well, can we engage them to see themselves as agents of change? With education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics being their weapons against certain environmental degradation and almost as certain warfare over dwindling fossil fuels? The die is cast. Drill, baby, drill may be a stupid if short lived concept, that may bring some short term relief to the adoring fossil fuel sycophants but it is a Pyrrhic victory.

The Day That No One Laughed

September 11th came and went, and becomes more distant in our memories. I always remember as most the exact place I was when I heard about it. I think about it as one of the few days I can remember that the sound of laughter was gone, a day without humor, probably the only day I can remember. Here's last year's entry if anyone is interested.

http://theangrymiddle.blogspot.com/2007/09/beautiful-day.html#links

Randomness

Welcome to the Palindrome
Didn't see this one coming. Who did. As my departed friend Tim Bartley would coyly say "interesting". There is a lot going on right now, a hurricane hitting the beleaguered city of New Orleans is distracting, the delay of the Republican convention and the pick of Sarah Palin being a little off the books for the GOP candidate.

Part of it is very interesting, actually all of it. The choice of a conservative woman from a non-consequential state with a huge history of corruption and graft. And a couple days later, we find out that her teenage daughter is pregnant. (so much for the ole abstinence education) And the left wing starts tripping over itself trying to make points off of it.

So what's the deal? This isn't a Mondale can't possibly win so I'll pick the crazy lady from Queens, this is a major candidate in a very close election. The idiot's (read media) analysis is that all the "18 million voters" will run to the female candidate, as if all these intelligent ladies who put money to Emily's List and pro-choice causes will suddenly fall to the moosemeat eating creationist, anti-choice governor of America's last frontier. But maybe it's smarter than we think. Maybe folks will like the youth to go along with McCain's experience. The comely Palin brings a certain life to a party that has been polluted by a very boring set of circumstances if not dynastic progression of Republican candidates both in the number one and number two spots. If it wasn't the conservative of the week, it was the next millionaire.

So along comes a woman that speaks to the American woman. A young, attractive and active woman with one older son, due to enter the nation's service, an infant with special needs, a couple of middle kids and coming to a nursery really far from you, a daughter that is due to give birth outside of wedlock. One might say, including myself for the 17 year old expectant mother, damn lady, were you taking care of business while trying to count the money coming out of the US treasury for the state? But no, every family in the country can identify with the miscreant nature of youth and certainly the GOP can spin this to their advantage. "What are supposed to kill your mistakes?", certainly a certain pride can be found in every issue of Parade magazine for a vice president as grandmother taking her infant grandchild into her own care in the United States naval observatory.

It's an interesting pick on McCain's part. The refrain across America from us liberals, was what an idiot, why would you choose a woman from a backwater state, having no real experience outside what is considered to be outside of Louisiana one of the most corrupt states in the nation to be part of a ticket? However this works right into McCain's former and beloved maverick roots. A standard Republican would take the next man in line, Romney, a young but stalwart conservative Republican governor, whoever was next in the receiving line, but McCain went off the map, making people wonder, maybe this is McCain 2000, not huggy McBush eating cake on Air Force One, but a real leader.

Some will fret at the thought of an anti-science, anti-choice, inexperienced governor being in the second seat of a former PoW, cancer surviving 72 year old candidate. But many are brought to action, to energy, by someone who "shares their values", a woman who lives a real life, a large life, outside the confines of many of us in the continental United States. It seems funny to me as a crazy, elitist, progressive egghead here on the Eastern seaboard, but maybe John McCain has cast his dice in a way that will re-energize "his base" and bring Reaganism yet another victory in the national election.

EL LOBO
Television journalism is an oxymoron. In fact, I'm not sure it even exists. With Russert gone, a certain

bottom dropped out. Glimpses of journalism can be found, of course Christiane Amenpour is a leader in the field that is frightfully underexposed and there are numerous other sideline reporters that seem to have a good head on their shoulders.

But mostly, it's a bunch of crap. Even with people I used to like. Lou Dobbs, of course, has gone off the deep end, supporting an odd nativist/independent/populist/anti-immigration/Luddite agenda, trying to somehow think he convince the world that globalization is a stoppable force. Lou has become a cartoon character, but you know what you are getting.

The "announcer" who makes me the most crazy is Wolf Blitzer. I seem to remember Wolf as a responsible journalist during Gulf War I, giving out what seemed like solid information and analysis. Suddenly he has morphed into a post-dementia version of an illiterate news reader. To say aloof insults those that are truly aloof. His perfect coiffed beard and hair seem to be his prominent characteristic along with his seeming disengagement with the topic at hand. The issue is that there seems to be some talent around him, such as Suzanne Malveaux, but it's the equivalent of having Butch Hobson managing the Red Sox.

I'm still waiting for journalists to ask the tough questions, to stop acting like they are working the Academy Awards for E or something.