The Age Alternative

He's too old. He's forgetful. He doesn't know where he is. He's a doddering old fool with no business being in the race.

Sound familiar? Maybe not as familiar as you think.

These sentiments were uttered about Admiral James Stockdale in 1992 after a bad performance at the Vice Presidential debate. Compared to Dan Quayle and Al Gore, he certainly looked like it. Even though Stockdale had more gravitas than the two knuckleheads he was on stage with combined, he never got over the stigma of being "too old."

Now, Democrats are resurrecting these same arguments against John McCain. If the Democrats are successful, they won't need to "swift boat" McCain because they will have already "Stockdaled" him. And Republicans and conservatives have to figure out a way to counteract it or it will catch on.

The problem McCain faces is, well, he is older than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. With his medical issues, it's a second strike against him. And if nobody from the McCain side does or says anything to address these issues and calm voters' fears, it won't matter what McCain says. He will be framed by his opponents, and they will not give up ground to let him get back on his feet.

And, no, cries of "ageism" won't cut it.

The key to beating the Democrats on the age issue lies in the past and Ronald Reagan. Reagan managed to bounce back after a dismal first debate with Walter Mondale with a simple statement about him not making his opponents youth and inexperience against him. McCain needs a Reagan moment like this to put down the "he's too old" line once and for all. The sooner he does this, the better. Given the fact that Hillary and Obama are looking and sounding like immature brats, now is the time to strike.

The alternative? Looking like Bob Dole stumbling over his own website address during one of the debates in 1996.

With Friends Like These...

There's an update on the Obama delegate who got in legal trouble for saying African-American children in a tree shouldn't be climbing around like...dare I even say it...monkeys. After the Obama campaign threw her under the bus, they took her back, saying it was all a "misunderstanding." Oh, gee, thanks for coming to her defense when she needed it.

Is it just me, or are Democrats throwing a lot of people under the bus lately? Whether it's Hillary with Mark Penn or Obama with that delegate, I'm beginning to wonder if Harry Reid doesn't own an auto parts place that sells bus shocks.

What is really disturbing about this trend is not that Democrats are so willing to abandon their own, but that more Democrats don't see themselves as potential "casualties" in this political season. It's a reflection on how bitter the Democratic race has become. This truly is the politics of personal destruction, writ large. Both candidate's campaigns are digging up anything they can on any supporter, any delegate, any superdelegate, all to jockey for a little stronger position.

Kinda gives you a nice warm feeling in your chest, doesn't it?

And it's not just in the Presidential campaign. Air America suspended long-time host Randi Rhodes for speaking against Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro at a private event. Then, today, she decided to voluntarily terminate her contract with Air America. And for what? For being Randi Rhodes. Don Imus? Same situation.

The American Left may think its followers can be crumpled up like Kleenex and tossed aside when they're used up, but having been a member of that group in the past, I can tell you that there are good people on the left who deserve a much better fate than that. I may not agree with them on much, but that doesn't give me licence to treat them like trash.

It's been said before by me and others, but it bears repeating. Whomever gets the Democratic nod to be the candidate will inherit a bitterly divided party for whom unity is a pipe dream. I'm sure they'll point fingers at each other or the Republicans, but in truth, they brought this pain on themselves.

The End of Bush?

Lately, I've been seeing quite a few "01/20/09" bumper stickers on cars lately, signalling the last day George W. Bush will be President. I'm sure to the people who put those stickers on their cars, it's a way to celebrate his leaving the White House and what they perceive as the start of a new era where the next President (or the one they hope will be the next President) will "fix Bush's mistakes."

One problem. When Bush leaves office, he doesn't stop impacting the country.

A President's impact is often felt while he is President, but there are still ripples that cascade out from his last day in the office. Take Ronald Reagan, for example. His efforts to bring the former Soviet Union to their knees didn't come to full fruition until George H. W. Bush was President, but the impact was unmistakable. Had it not been for Reagan's actions, the fall of the Berlin Wall after he left office wouldn't have happened.

Bush has made some mistakes without question, and those will have to be dealt with by the next President and beyond. Likewise, some of the things Bush did right will either be continued or discarded, which will also impact the future. And if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton win and they're dead set on "fixing Bush's mistakes," they're letting Bush impact the future.

And while we're on the subject, I think it's the height of folly to "fix" the "problems" the previous President left because it's never-ending and an exercise in politics that simply doesn't accomplish anything except paying back political influence. Let's say Obama wins and he decides the best way to address the foreclosure "crisis" is to eliminate tax breaks for the upper class and give the middle and lower classes rebates and tax breaks. Sure, this gives the middle and lower class extra money they didn't have, but will it make them spend it wisely?

One need only look at how the some of the poor in New Orleans spent their $500 gifts from the government after Katrina to know the answer to that question.

It's these types of "solutions" that put us in deeper trouble because they're not intended to address the problems. Instead, they're intended to make a stump speech point or some platform position fit into the problem, no matter how tortured the connection. And, really, should we expect the next President to be able to fix all of the problems, real or imagined, that Bush will leave? There's no way he (or she) can! So, instead of being intent on "fixing Bush's mistakes," allow me to humbly suggest that they figure out what problems we face, what the government can and should do to fix it, and keep the government out of as much as possible. We're not children. We CAN figure this stuff out for ourselves.

When George W. Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009, we will feel the impact of his Presidency for years to come. Only the overly delusional or woefully uninformed think otherwise. Even so, that impact can be lessened by recognizing what we can and should do for ourselves and then...now this is radical thinking...do it!

A Penn-y for Your Thoughts, Hillary

One of Hillary's chief strategists and pollsters Mark Penn made the headlines recently. Most of the coverage surrounded the political implications of Penn being demoted to an advisory role after it came out the PR firm he works for had dealings with Columbia on a trade deal that Hillary opposes. Granted, the Clinton campaign "didn't know" that Norman Hsu was a fugitive from the law when they accepted his donations, so it's possible they didn't know that Penn was working on this deal since early 2007, but I don't buy it.

Instead, I think there's another reason. Hillary is about to enter into a series of contests where every delegate and superdelegate will be crucial. After reckless spending hurt her in the early going, she needs a good showing in the upcoming contests to remain viable and possibly take the nomination to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. To do this, she needs money, or at the very least a better control of the money she has. With her fundraising lagging behind Barack Obama, she needed to cut a few expenses.

And guess who was raking in around a million dollars a month running Hillary's campaign?

If you said Mark Penn, you'd be right.

Granted, this idea only works if Penn's demotion is a non-paying gig, but it serves a few purposes. One, it gives Hillary the ability to refine her message with new strategists at the helm. Two, it deflects attention away from Penn's dealings, which would hurt Hillary's ability to attract the unions and the working people. Three, it punishes Penn for failing Hillary as often as he has without freezing him out completely. But fourth and most importantly, it saves campaign money at a time when it's needed. Even if the fourth option is way off base, the other three are certainly worth their weight in gold.

So, let the majority of the commentators focus on the politics. Follow the money and you might have found out the real reason Mark Penn was busted down to an advisory role.

The Population Bomb Is A Dud

Ted Turner came out recently and said there are too many people on the planet. Turner is the latest person to suggest that we're too crowded on the lovable hunka rock we call Earth. (On a side note, have you noticed that all the people who say there are too many people on the planet are living? It boggles the mind.)

Overpopulation is another facet to the same kind of leftist feel-good pseudo-science designed to make us feel bad about living in America. Speaking personally, I happen to like living in America, so I don't feel guilty. (Although I do feel a little peckish right now. Let me make a sandwich quick and I'll get back to you.)

Okay, where were we? Oh yes, the population problem. Are there some parts of the globe that are overpopulated? Yes there are. Is the planet a whole overpopulated? Not so much.

The logic, such that it is, that we've overpopulated the Earth is based in the notion that there is a finite amount of resources (money, natural resources, Wayans Brothers movies) to go around. These good-hearted, but thick-witted folks see poverty (i.e. a homeless person) and jump to the conclusion that if things were spread out a little more evenly then the poor (i.e. the people who majored in Women's Studies at UC Berkeley) wouldn't be poor (i.e. working in the stock room at the Gap).

The problem with their idea is the fact that, well, it's complete bunk. The economy isn't a big pie. (I chalk up this idea from the overcrowding criers to the fact that there are so many pie graphs connected to economics. Just a thought.) If it were a pie, it would constantly be adjusting itself to fit the current situations. That's the beautiful thing about it: it isn't static. The economy will ebb and flow over time.

I hate to break this to the leftists who read this, but life is not required to be fair to all. Some people are talented in certain fields and can make money pursuing those fields, and others aren't. That's not a fault of the capitalist system. It's based on choices that are made, both by the person affected and by others affecting that person. And, no, this doesn't mean I believe in "institutional racism", but that's a blog post for another time.

Now, what do the people concerned about overpopulation have for us as far as a solution? Well, they believe (but few actually act on it) in sterilization. Some even believe birth control and abortion should be worldwide and funded by us. With these last two, it may not be a coincidence. At least in America, the left loves birth control and abortion because they can make money off of them both. Why wouldn't they be put forth as a solution to overpopulation?

Considering neither one has really worked as a population control mechanism so far, I'd say that was a pretty good reason.

Sorry, Teddy, but I'm just not going to go along with you on this flight of fancy you want to take us on for two reasons. One, the entire notion is based on flawed thinking. And two, I don't think someone who colorized black and white movies with colors that don't appear anywhere in nature should have a hand in trying to control a natural process. I'm just sayin'...

Boom Boom. Out Go the Rights.

Rarely will you see me defend any Air America host, but in this case, I think it's more than justified. At an event sponsored by a San Francisco affiliate for Air America, Randi Rhodes unleashed a string of insults and profanity aimed at Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferarro. And, thanks to modern technology, it was posted on YouTube.

And, thanks to modern technology, Rhodes has been suspended indefinitely by Air America.

I could speak to the irony of the situation (and, believe me, my irony meter is already stuck at 11 because it's, like, one higher), but in thinking about it, there's a deeper story. Some posters on the New York Times message board connected to this story blamed the "corporate-controlled media" for not putting Hillary under as much scrutiny as she deserves. The poster was on the right track, but didn't quite make it to the station. The media play a role, but not from the corporate end.

Think about who really makes the day-to-day decisions at a newspaper, even one owned by a major conglomerate. It's not the CEO; it's the Editor In Chief. Only in rare occasions have corporations put pressure on their media subsidiaries to kill a story or soften it up so the company didn't look bad. Most of the time, the suits and the reporters don't rub elbows in the break room.

Instead, the reason, I think, most media outlets aren't holding Hillary Clinton accountable is because the editors and even some of the reporters identify with her and her husband. The people in the editorial chairs or out on the "big ticket" political beats are around the same age as Bill and Hillary. They probably hold most of the same positions, travel in the same ideological circles, have similar educational backgrounds, and so on. These kinds of connections, especially in an era where politics is highly personal, cannot be overlooked.

Also, keep in mind that these folks are of a generation that is highly self-aware and egocentric. To be fair, we all are on some level, but the Baby Boomers are Zen masters at both. In some bizarre way, to the Boomers, Bill and Hillary represent them and everything they hope and wish for. As a result, there will always be a bit of a disconnect whenever Bill and Hillary do something that most people would find beyond the pale.

Along with this is the desire to be seen as hip and cool. Yes, gentle readers, even 50 and 60 year olds want to know they haven't lost touch with their youth. If they want to travel in the most elite circles, rub elbows with the rich and famous, and maybe become mini-celebrities themselves, they will do anything to get on and stay on the guest list. Considering Bill and Hillary still command quite a bit of attention, the Boomers will not do anything to torque off the hosts with the most.

What does this have to do with Randi Rhodes? Plenty. Air America execs want to be invited to the best parties, so they will do anything to squash negativity towards their golden ticket to the best parties. The saddest part of all of this is that what Rhodes said is the very essence of what makes America great every couple of years: a spirited, free-wheeling debate on the issues of the day and the candidates running for office.

And it all got tossed aside so some people could have access to the power players on the left. Sad, really.

The L Word

To the male readers of this blog, I'm not talking about lesbians here. I'm talking about a different L-word, that being Lewinsky. For the second time in about a week, Chelsea Clinton has been asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal while stumping for her mom. In both cases, her response has been "It's none of your business."

And in both cases, she's wrong.

At the heart of the question is how Hillary Clinton reacted to the Lewinsky scandal becoming public knowledge. Although there is an element of the personal involved, it also speaks to how well Hillary would react in a stressful situation. And let's face it, being President isn't a cakewalk. Chelsea can't go around extolling her mother's ability to lead while at the same time dodging a question that hits at the heart of that notion. It makes Hillary look weak and dishonest, and makes Chelsea look unprepared and, judging from the video footage of both times she's handled the question, more than a little elitist.

And, really, that's what's driving this denial. I have no doubt that Hillary and her campaign have schooled Chelsea on how to handle this situation by deflecting it as a personal question. Most people would accept that, given what they remember of the Lewinsky scandal. However, just because most people accept it as a personal question doesn't make it completely out of bounds. I haven't heard the exact question from the second time Chelsea was asked about the Lewinsky scandal, but I have heard the first question, and it asked point blank whether Hillary's credibility was hurt by her reaction to the Lewisnky scandal. Given what had come out just a week or so before outlining what Hillary was doing behind the scenes at that point in history, it's a legitimate question.

A legitimate question that, as of this writing, has not been answered, and probably won't because it would expose Hillary as what she is: unfit to lead.