The Palin-Couric Interview (SNL version)

Here is Tina Fey's take on the Palin-Couric interview. Amazing....

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

George Packer

George Packer says it all. The hypocrisy has reached new heights in the wake of the failure of the so-called "bail-out bill." What an unfortunate label. Was it the MSM that gave it that moniker? Whoever did bears some of the blame for whatever follows Black Monday II.

I have never heard so much drivel from our nation's supposed leaders. It lends a new dimension to my friend Kit's observation that "politics is the least demanding of all the professions."

Embarrassing

Pretty bad, and another reason for shunning John McCain, is the incident involving his interview with Spanish language station Caracol. Embarrassing is the word.

Debating the Campaign (cont'd)

In case my readers haven't seen it, I commend David Brooks' column today, Why Experience Matters.

It really struck a chord with me, and I think actually goes some way toward explaining my support for Obama. He says,"Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement. "Conservatives stood against radical egalitarianism and the destruction of rigorous standards. They stood up for classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence. Wisdom was acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said." Well, that's what I stood and stand for (or against), although I might be a little soft on "radical egalitarianism." I don't think I'm radical anything, unfortunately.

What we have had for the last eight years is a kind of neo-Know-Nothingism, at least in the Oval Office, which has brought us to a crisis in governance -- a totally consumer-driven economy that is finally near collapse, a foreign policy that has morphed us into a global pariah -- and I could go on.

Against this, Barack Obama presents a thoughtful leadership that demonstrates to me his "immersion in the best that has been thought and said." At the same time, he has had a life experience that few of us WASPs would trade for (is this just white guilt on my part?), and has the kind of experience that the Founders would have saluted -- from community organization to State legislature to the Senate. I you're interested in his resume, you can find it at Barack Obama's Résumé.

Brooks goes on to say, "The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor instinct." OK, I'm an elitist. We live in a complex world, and we need leaders who understand that complexity, and can articulate it to the nation.

Anyway, I suspect Brooks shares many of the doubts my readers do about Obama. God knows, I have my doubts too. It is, however, impossible to deny that he has performed an extraordinary feat merely to have gotten this far. At the moment, it appears he's bucking some headwinds. How he gets though this patch will say a lot about his fitness. Maybe I'm bedazzled by the historic watershed his candidacy represents, but I do believe he's the best we have at this moment. I could get negative about John McCain, for whom I always had great respect, until he picked Sarah Palin in a grossly cynical moment and embarked on a dirty, Rovian campaign that makes me long for November 5.

Debating the Campaign

I've been having a very civil debate with my friend Charlie about the Presidential campaign. We are on opposite sides of the partisan and ideological fences, but I respect his opinions, and, most of all, his sense of fairness and his devotion to the truth.

Recently, Charlie sent me the following email. Actually, it was in response to my forwarding him a rather barbed YouTube compilation of John McCain's flip-flops:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&eurl=http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Here's Charlie's reaction:

Ouch. It's interesting that the Kerry goof (I voted for before I voted against) seems to have become an established political ploy. I've seen plenty from both sides, and I think that most people have become fatigued by the same old same old.

I have to admit that I am not a big McCain fan, but as I told you, I don't see any attributes from Obama that indicate he would be a good president. All I know about hiim is that "he is a rock star", "he's beautifully educated", and "he's a great politician". So I decided to vote my pocketbook (lower taxes) and against having all three branches controlled by one party. But basically I didn't like any of the options.

In an earlier email I told you that I thought that McCain's VP pick was an act of genius (not to infer that his pick is the best qualified, only that she is a game breaker). There is an editorial by Peggy Noonan in todays Wall Street Journal that sums up the Palin impact pretty well. There is also an article in last weeks "The Economist" that sums up Obama's problems pretty clearly. But here is my perception as to why the pick was brilliant (unless, of course, Governor Palin turns out to be Jennifer Flowers, which she might). So, if you will forebear it, I will outline what I think has just happened.

What the Democratic leadership did not realize (as evidenced by their disdain and belittling of Ms. Palin) is that for the first time in 40 years, a significant number of good ol' boys, people who went to school at the University of Oklahoma, Boise State or Jefferson State Junior College now have someone on a ticket who is like them. In fact, this probably saved the GOP, because even the Good Ol Boys in the red states have become just as fed up with Republicans in congress as you have. I believe that they have continued to vote Republican only because they don't care much for the perceived snobbishness ("we know what is best for the flyover states because they are just stupid hicks") of the left.

In fact, before Governor Palin neither side liked McCain much. No one takes Biden seriously, with his hair plugs, face lift, diarrhea of the mouth and missteps as head of Defense. Obama comes across as a snob. And all of a sudden, here's this lady that hunts and fishes (professionially!), has 5 kids, loves the Lord and has occasionally kicked some ass. And she has a likable personality (unless her commonness scares the hell out of you). And then, when the bloggers, the media and even Sally Quinn (ultimate Washington insider) dismissed her, or insulted her, or implied that she was trailer trash - which made them look bad! In fact, she may be trailer trash, which will probably give the election to Obama, but the way the Dem machine went after her was so mean spirited that she probably has a pass whatever she has done. And it makes any type of mean spirited email or Soros attack ad just look like more of the same Democrat style. Mean.

to top it off, the Democratic candidate called this person, who 50% of America felt was just like them, "the most extreme candidate in 40 years", immediately branding himself extreme to that 50%.

I think that the extremely poor reaction to Sarah Palin, who is the most "common" (according to the dictionary this means that she is like most people) candidate we've seen in a long time branded the Democrat Party as elite (not common). The other impact from Governor Palin is that now the Republicans looks like the party of the common man, while the Dems look like the party of the professors and movie stars - not common at all. I never would have believed that it could be done. Sarah Palin has told the American population that the Democrats don't think they are smart enough to govern themselves, that only the illiterati knows what is best. The Republicans are sayings - we are you and respect you. That's going to be a tough way to win their votes.

I don't believe that Oprah, Baldwin and Streisand can save this one unless Governor Palin has some serious flaws.

And my response:

This is a very thoughtful analysis, and I can't say I disagree with some of the points you make. I do have to be on guard against my own elitism, and ask myself periodically whether I support Obama purely out of my own hyper-intellectual response to him (and a disdain for hoi polloi, who after all governed Athens in the Golden Age), or whether I truly believe he is what this poor beleaguered republic needs at this historical juncture. I waffle!

Nonetheless, while I will concede that Palin represents the Wal-Mart Nation, and affords a figure that many white Americans, men as well as women, can identify with, she represents to me a real outlier, from an outlier State, where "pork" is part of the political culture, and where the government is a big cash dispensing machine. I simply cannot bring myself to the cynical view that anyone, no matter how humble their experience in affairs of state, can be President. And to compare her with Harry Truman, as I have heard in some quarters, betrays an ignorance of history and of President #33. Unlike Harry, Sarah is totally unqualified.

By the way, we are only just beginning to look at her record on the job in Alaska, and the New Yawk Times just published a piece on their findings: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

Now, I'm not sure I am a big fan of the Great Bloviator, but a former Morgan colleague of mine, now sadly deceased, was his roommate at U. of Delaware, and attested to his good character. And for me, character carries a lot of weight. I believe Barack Obama, rock star though he may be, is a man of exceptional character. And I am willing to pay somewhat higher personal taxes to get this country back on track.

Let's keep the debate rolling!

On the subject of Harry Truman, Frank Rich, that "cosmopolitan urbanite" from the New Yawk Times, drew attention to the fact that Palin's comments on Harry Truman's "rise" to the the Vice Presidency came from Westbrook Pegler, a right-wing McCarthyite Hearst columnist. Actually, Rich got his lowdown on this from Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal.

But I think in the final analysis this is all distraction. Obama has to keep his focus, and in the last few weeks he has been in real danger of losing it. Let's see what the next few days brings.

Ecuador and Chevron

I just gleaned some interesting insights into the attitude some Americans – at least those associated with Big Oil (and probably Big Extractive Industries generally) – have about the so-called Third World and environmental concerns. This from a recent report of the Episcopal Church New Jersey Diocese "Companion Diocese Committee." It is really quite outrageous, but it reflects the Administration's attitudes toward the rest of the world for the last eight sad years.

Here is what they report:

There is currently a very significant trial going on in the Ecuadorian Amazon against Chevron by groups who have been affected by petroleum contamination. Vanity Fair has a lengthy article about it with excellent information (though not all will appreciate the way that the writer expresses it): http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/texaco200705

 

Regardless of how the trial ends, the fact remains that environmental contamination (such as babies with cancer and cesspools of oil runoff) and societal disintegration (especially within indigenous people groups) are true costs of our petroleum use, much greater than the price-per-gallon.

 

………………..

 

Pablo Fajardo, lawyer representing Ecuadorian Amazonian settlers and indigenous groups: "One of the problems with modern society is that it places more importance on things that have a price than on things that have a value. Breathing clean air, for instance, or having clean water in the rivers, or having legal rights—these are things that don't have a price but have a huge value. Oil does have a price, but its value is much less. And sometimes we make the mistake."

 

Chevron lobbyist: "The ultimate issue here is Ecuador has mistreated a U.S. company. We can't let little countries screw around with big companies like this - companies that have made big investments around the world." http://www.newsweek.com/id/149090

 

 

…………….....

 

David Brooks on Leadership

I thought David Brooks was particularly perceptive today. I have felt strongly in recent years the lack of leadership in this country. As Brooks points out, leadership often requires an acknowledgment of one's shortcomings.

The Art of Growing Up

By DAVID BROOKS

In January 1841, Abraham Lincoln seems to have at least vaguely thought of suicide. His friend Joshua Speed found him one day thrashing about in his room. “Lincoln went Crazy,” Speed wrote. “I had to remove razors from his room — take away all Knives and other such dangerous things — it was terrible.”

Lincoln was taking three mercury pills a day, the remedy in those days for people who either suffered from syphilis or feared contracting it. “Lincoln could not eat or sleep,” Daniel Mark Epstein writes in his new book, “The Lincolns.” “He appeared at the statehouse irregularly, hollow-eyed, unshaven, emaciated — an object of pity to his friends and of derision to others.”

Later, Lincoln wrote of that period with shame, saying that he had lost the “gem of my character.” He would withdraw morosely from the world into a sort of catatonic state. Early in his marriage, Epstein writes, “Lincoln had night terrors. He woke in the middle of the night trembling, talking gibberish.”

He would, of course, climb out of it. He would come to terms with his weaknesses, control his passions and achieve what we now call maturity.

The concept of maturity has undergone several mutations over the course of American history. In Lincoln’s day, to achieve maturity was to succeed in the conquest of the self. Human beings were born with sin, infected with dark passions and satanic temptations. The transition to adulthood consisted of achieving mastery over them.

You can read commencement addresses from the 19th and early 20th centuries in which the speakers would talk about the beast within and the need for iron character to subdue it. Schoolhouse readers emphasized self-discipline. The whole character-building model was sin-centric. So the young Lincoln had been encouraged by the culture around him to identify his own flaws — and, in any case, he had no trouble finding them. He knew he was ferociously ambitious and blessed with superior talents — the sort of person who could easily turn into a dictator or monster.

Over the course of his young adulthood, Lincoln built structures around his inner nature. He joined a traditional bourgeois marriage. He called his wife “mother” and lived in a genteel middle-class home. He engaged in feverish bouts of self-improvement, studying Euclid and grammar at all hours. He distrusted passionate politics. In the Lyceum speech that he delivered as a young man, he attacked emotionalism in politics and talked about the need for law, order and cool reason.

This concept of maturity as self-conquest didn’t survive long into the 20th century. Progressive educators emphasized students’ inner goodness and curiosity, not inner depravity. More emphasis was put on individual freedom, authenticity and values clarification. Self-discovery replaced self-mastery as the primary path to maturity, and we got a thousand novels and memoirs about young peoples’ search for identity.

In the last few years, we may be shifting toward another vision of maturity, one that is impatient with boomer narcissism. Young people today put service at the center of young adulthood. A child is served, but maturity means serving others.

And yet, though we’re never going back to the 19th-century, sin-centric character-building model, for breeding leaders, it has its uses. Over the past decades, we’ve seen president after president confident of his own talents but then undone by underappreciated flaws. It’s as if they get elected for their virtues and then get defined in office by the vices — Clinton’s narcissism, Bush’s intellectual insecurity — they’ve never really faced.

It would be nice to have a president who had gone to school on his own failings. It would be comforting to see a president who’d looked into the abyss, or suffered some sort of ordeal that put him on a first-name basis with his own gravest weaknesses, and who had found ways to combat them.

Obviously, it’s not fair to compare anybody to Lincoln, but he does illustrate the repertoire of skills we look for in a leader. The central illusion of modern politics is that if only people as virtuous as “us” had power, then things would be better. Candidates get elected by telling people what they want to hear, leading them by using the sugar of their own fantasies.

Somehow a leader conversant with his own failings wouldn’t be as affected by the moral self-approval that afflicts most political movements. He’d be detached from his most fervid followers and merciful and understanding toward foes. He’d have a sense of his own smallness in the sweep of events. He or she would contravene Lord Acton’s dictum and grow sadder and wiser with more power.

All this suggests a maxim for us voters: Don’t only look to see which candidate has the most talent. Look for the one most emotionally gripped by his own failings.