I’m with Sully, and everybody else. What are we waiting for?
But I also wanted to post my promise that I will get back into writing more substantial and wide-ranging posts here. I’ve just been too busy to think straight, but you (my loyal readers) deserve more than quickie news blurbs here, and I intend to get this blog back on track starting, like, real soon.
So Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of my city, has ended his affiliation with the Republican Party and may run for President as an independent. This is an interesting proposition, and since I’ve been aware of Mike Bloomberg (as a businessman more than as a politician) for over a decade and a half, I’ve got some thoughts (and a bit of newsworthy gossip) to offer.
In 1992 I was the youthful Manager of Software Development for a start-up financial database company, Loan Pricing Corporation, based in New York. We specialized in information systems for the banking industry, and our role model was a vastly successful company called Bloomberg, which had managed to sell cute little television sets with dedicated live financial news and pricing feeds to every stockbroker on Wall Street. Mike Bloomberg’s name frequently came up in meetings, because we yearned to replicate his success, and occasionally these references would take on a reverential “What Would Bloomberg Do?” tone.
My company also did business with Bloomberg (we were one of their countless data sources) and I remember a curious story making the rounds about Mike Bloomberg’s surprising insensitivity towards women in the workplace. My friend Steve, an economist and journalist, attended a meeting with Mike at the Bloomberg offices and came back wide-eyed. In the middle of the meeting, an attractive secretary walked in with refreshments, and after she left Bloomberg held up the conversation to watch her walk away with a salacious grin on his face. He then made a remark that, Steve said, caused everybody in the room — both men and women — to feel extremely uncomfortable. Others at my company who had worked with Bloomberg concurred with Steve — apparently this was a routine he was famous for, and it made everybody uncomfortable, but that was Mike. Our role model was a sexist slob.
This certainly gave me a bad first impression of Mike Bloomberg, and years later when he ran for mayor of New York City I wondered if these stories would surface and cause him problems. He broke no law, of course, but he did offer a disappointing key to his personality that might cause voters and journalists to doubt his judgement. I was surprised that no such stories ever surfaced, and I have to assume that this brash entrepeneur has matured and is no longer behaving in public like Michael Scott in “The Office”. And that’s all I’m going to say about this story, because I’ve come to have a slightly better opinion of Bloomberg, who has been my major for the last six years.
It’s not his politics but, ironically, his plain-speaking and modest personality that I’ve come to feel better about. New York City mayors tend to be loud publicity-seekers — Rudy Giuliani, Ed Koch and John Lindsay come to mind — but Mike Bloomberg’s public appearances since becoming mayor have shown him to be mild, sensible and humane. He seems to seek the middle ground on most issues and never leaps towards the types of broad-stroke politics that define his predecessors. He also gets points for speaking at my daughter Liz’s Forest Hills High School graduation a few years ago — as a good Democrat, I sat on my hands when others clapped, but I have to admit his speech was refreshingly humble and appropriate to the occasion.
Clearly the man has grown up a lot — haven’t we all? — but the fact that I’ve come to not dislike his public persona doesn’t mean I agree with his politics. Until this week I’ve had no idea where he stands on the conduct of American foreign policy in the Middle East, for instance, and some Google searches have only shown that he is against a withdrawal timetable for Iraq (which doesn’t impress me much) and that he dislikes our administration’s “go-it-alone” approach to foreign policy (that brings him closer to my heart).
I’m a long, long way from supporting Mike Bloomberg for President — in fact, I’m quite sure I’d never support him for President– but my instincts and initial impressions tell me he’s more clued-in than most Republican candidates, and I like it that he avoids the stink of cloying “America Is So Great We Can Do No Wrong” chauvinism that seems to infect so many in his former party.
I don’t think Mike Bloomberg will be our next president and I don’t think I want him to be. But I’d take him over the frenetic Rudy Giuliani in a minute, and over the slick flip-flopper Mitt Romney in two minutes. I’m sticking with the Dems for 2008, but the opposition just added an interesting surprise player who may shake things up. I’m all for that.
I’m back, after an early summer avalanche of work commitments that forced me into the blogger’s equivalent of triage.
As always, when I don’t post about the daily developments in my country and in the world here, it’s not because I have nothing to say but because I have too much to say (and, sometimes, not enough time to think). Let’s see, what’s been happening in our favorite region, the Middle East, since my last post:
– Violent anarchy abounds in the Gaza Strip, and the descriptions seem to indicate a near collapse into civil war.
– For a few days it looked like another all-out summer war between Israel and its neighbors was breaking out. I’m glad these sparks have subsided, though it’s hard to feel glad about anything at all that’s going on in the Holy Lands.
– USA/coalition military leaders have informed the government of Iraq that they are failing to meet the designated “benchmarks” for legislative action that the American home front considers essential if we are to continue to provide troops. Every news report I’ve read about this meeting fails to clarify the obvious truth here, which is that the elected Maliki government’s failure to establish control represents not a failure of execution but a failure of will. A realistic appraisal of the future of Iraq seems to point to eventual Shiite domination, and Shiite/Sunni tensions clearly trump all other concerns for Iraqi government leaders. In other words, Iraq’s elected leaders do not seem to believe the center will hold, and everything else we are seeing is a manifestation of this fact. It’s pointless for American analysts and commentators to describe this situation as a failure when in fact the lack of concerted leadership in Baghdad appears to be a tactic.
That’s a way-too-quick summary, so mainly I want to say that “I’m back” and will try to write more clearly next time. The “Gonzales Watch” is certainly coming back as well.
First impressions of the Democratic party’s presidential candidates on parade: they’re all fine, and there is absolutely no reason to consider this a two-person or three-person race at this point.
John Edwards got the most votes in a well-attended Daily Kos poll, and I agree with this result. The blow-dried southerner appears serious, unflappable and appropriately angry about the current state of things. Another candidate who made a good impression on me is New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, more for his earnest body language and focused message than anything else.
Hillary Clinton did just fine, and I have no doubt that she’d be a hardworking, intensely practical President. I admire her very much for her courage and positive attitude. However, she has yet to prove that she can raise voters’ passions as well as she can raise funds, that she can appeal to outsiders as well as knowledgeable insiders, and it’s starting to seem clear that her stiff public persona remains a barrier to her electability.
As for Barack Obama, I’m sorry but I’m still not on this bandwagon at all. His performance last night was mechanical and safe, and I really, really, really don’t care that he has a Kennedy-esque mystique. In fact, I am more and more offended by the idea that anybody should consider this candidate a front-runner just based on his good looks and charisma. He did not particularly distinguish himself in last night’s debate, which adds to my impression that the buzz-to-substance ratio is too high here. Obama cerrtainly has a right to press his candidacy along with the rest of this pack, and there’s still plenty of time for him to win me over. But he’s not going to do it by standing there looking handsome, and I’m sorry to say that seemed to be his core strategy during the debate.
Of course I like Dennis Kucinich, and I’m glad to see him on this stage, just as I’m glad to see him working hard on various fronts in Congress. Kucinich would have been the evening’s designated oddball candidate if Alaska’s Mike Gravel were not there to play the angry clown. Gravel’s just fine, but he’s not going to be our next President.
Chris Dodd is running? I missed that press release. I don’t see him playing much of a role in this election, nor Joe Biden, but maybe I’ll turn out to be wrong.
One final thought: regardless of which of these politicians wins the nomination, they are all doing good work on behalf of significant causes. I’m glad they’re all around, from the staid Dodd to the blustering Gravel, and the only thing that would disappoint me now is if the party were to begin to converge on a front-runner too early. We’ve got a lot more debating to do.
Oh, finally: this stuff is pretty good.
The news keeps coming so fast, it’s hard to keep up. Some thoughts for a Friday afternoon:
1. I wonder if it’s possible to stake out a moderate position on abortion rights. I guess the conventional wisdom will offer a resounding “No”, but in the light of recent news I’m going to continue to try.
I am personally opposed to abortion, but I believe abortion must remain legal within the United States because the practical consequences of state or federal laws against it would be disastrous. Look at these statistics: about 1.3 million Americans get an abortion every year. In case anybody wants to pretend that these 1.3 million Americans are all godless liberals from bad families, note this item:
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.
I’m sad to learn that my own state has the highest percentages of abortions in the country, but this state-by-state breakdown shows us that every state has significant abortion numbers. A pro-life friend with whom I engaged in a long debate about the subject last year told me that 35% of Republican families have a family member who’s had an abortion. Maybe this is supposed to demonstrate that Republican families show lower numbers than non-Republican families, but all I can say is “that’s a lot of Republican families”.
My conclusion from all this is that any attempt to make abortion illegal will simply result in the immediate emergence of black markets, inter-state “abortion railroads” and (most dangerously) illegal amateur operations. Why can’t the pro-life movement focus on practical and results-oriented approaches to reducing the incidence of abortion in the United States? Why is legality the sole rallying cry, when there is no reason to believe that allowing certain states to outlaw abortion will significantly reduce the amount of abortions that occur?
I’d love to see a moderate front make its presence felt in this debate. Hasn’t happened yet.
2. I don’t do a whole lot of agreeing with the National Review, but an article called The Culture of Passivity by Mark Steyn says everything I was trying to say here.
3. There was once a time when I respected John McCain. Maybe there will come a time again when I respect John McCain. But right now, he just needs to shut up, because he’s embarrassing himself and everybody else.
Diplomacy, McCain, not bombs. Diplomacy. It’s been known to work.
So the Scooter Libby verdict is in. Like many Americans, I am happy to hear that Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff has been found guilty (and I’m happy to rub this in Fox News’ face by displaying their write-up of this news). But, of course, the wrong guy is going to jail.
Scooter Libby lied under oath about the justification for the Iraq War, and he’s now facing up to 25 years in jail. Libby’s boss also lied repeatedly to the American people about the justification for the Iraq War, but since he did not lie “under oath” he doesn’t face criminal charges for perjury.
It sure seems to me that anytime a United States Vice President speaks to the American people about a decision to go to war, his words are “under oath”. What oath? Gee, I don’t know … the oath of office, maybe? It’s sad to see a hapless bureaucrat like Scooter Libby face jail time for his boss’s crime, based on the technicality that he lied under oath whereas his boss simply lied.
Enough about that. I still hope — naively, perhaps — to see both Dick Cheney and George W. Bush eventually cooling their heels in minimum security prison for their dishonest and harmful leadership of our country’s foreign policy. But maybe I need to let go of my anger and think about where this country will head next. This is a subject I touched on in a brief piece I just wrote for the PBS blog, Remotely Connected.
The subject of this article is an engaging documentary about an earnest but underfinanced young politician named Jeff Smith trying to beat the odds and get nominated by his Missouri district’s Democratic party to run for U. S. Congress. Does money really count for everything in modern electoral politics? If not, why do we hear so much about certain candidates “locking up” their nominations by fund-raising? If not, why did Tom Vilsack give up? If not, why does the press coverage speak of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the only two viable Democratic Party presidential candidates?
I don’t want the race for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination to be “locked up” in fundraising bonanzas. I want at least ten candidates in this race. I want to hear debates — big, loud, angry, intellectually substantial debates. I want John Edwards to keep throwing curve balls. I want to get Al Gore back in the game (and if I could choose any favorite among them all at this point, Al’s my man). I even want to get Yellin’ Howard Dean and John “Investigate and Indict” Murtha into the mix.
It’s only March 2007, and our two front-runners for the Democratic nomination are already too bland, too careful, too poll-conscious for my tastes. Voters, let’s reject the idea of an early victor and demand a better race.
Of course, bringing this whole thing back to my earliest point of the article, I have to say that I don’t think the next American president will be a Democrat. I’m guessing the next President will be a Republican — John McCain, perhaps, or Tom Ridge, or Condoleeza Rice. That’s because I’m still guessing (and hoping) that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will be out of Washington D. C. and safely ensconced with Scooter Libby and a bunch of other felons in a minimum security prison sometime before the next Presidential election takes place. I’m still guessing Cheney will resign and go to jail first, and whoever Bush picks to replace Cheney will be our next President, because I think Bush will resign and go to jail soon after.
So our next President will be a Republican. But the winner of the 2008 Presidential election will be a Democrat. You heard it here first.
I’ve occasionally tossed around poker metaphors when discussing politics. Well, let’s be honest, I toss around poker metaphors when discussing anything (for example, I was recently trying to explain to a group of skeptical baseball fans why baseball is just like poker: pitching a fastball is a bet, a breaking ball is a bluff, a walk is a fold). I’ve also been known to pontificate about poker as literature.
But poker as politics is a metaphor you can go a long way with, and in fact somebody has recently created an entire blog about this subject, PokerAndPolitics.com, which rightfully points out that George W. Bush must be a terrible poker player, based on the way he’s misplayed so many hands in Iraq. Dummy, you don’t go all-in with a questionable hand when you’ve got a big stack! So true, so true.
However, I’m worried that the whole poker metaphor might become commonplace, so I’d like to talk about a different game, Risk, which I played several times this summer. What do poker and Risk have in common? Well, they both teach one very, very important life skill that is essential to success in any field: restraint.
This is important, so I would like to say the word again: restraint. Without restraint, you cannot win at poker, and you cannot win at Risk. Witness: this past summer I found myself in a perfect position to take the entire continent of Africa from Southern Europe, thus wiping out my opponent Matthew and taking Matthew’s cards, which put me in great position to wipe my other two opponents Andy and Daniel out of Asia and North America and conquer the world.
Never mind the fact that Matthew is my eleven year old nephew (familial bonds and mercy towards youth have nothing to do with game-winning strategy). I needed Matthew’s cards, and that meant I needed Africa, and since I had nineteen soldiers to his eleven I had no doubt I could make this work. The game was in my hands.
First roll: Matthew wins both dice. I now have seventeen soldiers.
Second roll: Matthew wins both dice. I now have fifteen soldiers.
This is where restraint kicks in. I stood staring at the board for about five minutes, caressing the dice slowly in my hands (as Matthew squirmed and Daniel and Andy yelled at me to hurry up). I caressed and thought, caressed and thought. Then I slapped the dice down on the table, decision made: my turn was over.
I could win with nineteen against eleven. I could probably win with fifteen against eleven but I didn’t like the odds. I backed away and began thinking up a new strategy, and needless to say two hours later I took Kamchatka from Irkutsk and won the entire game.
Restraint. Such an important lesson to learn, and this is one reason it’s so important for children to play games — not just dumb games but tough games, intense games, games that it kills you to lose. You learn what it really takes to win in life. And what it takes, more often than some people think, is not a whole lot of bluster and confidence. If you’re not capable of carefully evaluating your own position, your own strengths and weaknesses, than you will play like a fool and be recognized as such by all your opponents. If you tend to “go for it” because you believe you’re invincible, your game is as good as over, before it even begins.
Restraint. This is what George W. Bush did not demonstrate when he decided to invade Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if George Bush played a lot of games when he was a kid.
I believe I could kick Bush’s ass at Risk. In fact, I believe Matthew could kick Bush’s ass at Risk. And Matthew’s just eleven, but he plays a lot of games.
