This blog will not be focused just on fantasy football; that would cover ground already well-covered by many other writers much more talented than I. Plus, I have many more passions and interests than pro and college football, and I fully intend to write about whatever strikes my fancy on a given day.
Which brings me to the DNC currently happening in Denver, CO. My first reaction when I learned that the Democrats were holding their convention this week was pure fatigue. My wife and I just finished watching days of Beijing Olympics coverage on NBC for whatever reason (normally, I couldn't be bothered by running, swimming, or gymnastics, but for some reason, this Summer Olympics found its way into our TV viewing schedule. And we were not alone; the ratings numbers even surprised NBC, I think!), and I really didn't want to jump into another week of every night extended TV coverage of a "big event." Couldn't they have given us a week off before starting the national conventions? Oh, and the Republicans REALLY should give us a week off before starting theirs in Minneapolis next week! Talk about viewer fatigue! I know the networks have dead time during the summer they need to fill with programming before starting their fall schedules, but this is rediculous.
Having said that, I was interested in watching the Michelle Obama video and speech. I read someone else say yesterday that they wanted to vote for Michelle's dad for President. Her back story certainly is interesting and compelling, and she delivered a very solid speech in support of her man. She would make a heck of a first lady, if they win the general election.
And then Hillary took the stage yesterday, and I couldn't help but think she's in full image recovery mode. Her speech enabled her to save face within the Democratic Party. I don't doubt that she was sincere in pushing for her supporters to back Obama, but it must have been tough to get so close to the nomination only to come away empty-handed (not even the VP!). She was also able to deliver the quippy one-liners that were sure to be clipped into sound bites by the MSM: "No way, no how... no McCain!" Plus the one about Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities. It almost looked like Bill had given her that one to use during her speech. He certainly seemed to be bursting with pride as she delivered; the Clintons will not go quietly into the night!
I do take exception to some of the comments she made, however. If nothing else, she is setting up Obama to fail if he does ascend to the Presidency. Many of the evils she mentioned (the Halliburtons and Exxons, the companies offshoring their jobs, etc.) are simply easy targets to scapegoat during the current economic downturn. These have been the Democratic drum beat for the past eight years. But NO President has control over rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs, the move to cheaper manufacturing locations, or even the move by many companies to incorporate offshore in Bermuda, where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. None of these things would change under any new administration without significant new laws being passed, and oh by the way, that has to be done by Congress.
Let's review what the President does have control over: some elements of Fiscal Policy, although let's be honest, the annual President's budget generally is DOA when it arrives at Congress every fall. Some amount of Monetary Policy, only insofar as the Pres can appoint a new Chairman of the Fed Reserve, whose policies he then has to live with. Everything else revolves around running the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, which only very indirectly impacts the economy as a whole. Sure, FCC and FTC policies have an impact on specific elements of the telecommunications sector, but it's not like the President has a whole lot of levers he can pull to effect change. The next Pres won't even appoint a new Fed Reserve Chairman (confirmed by the Senate, natch) until 2010, when Ben Bernanke's term expires. So for the first half of the next President's term, either McCain or Obama will be stuck with the guy appointed by Bush.
So, for Hillary and Obama to make calls for ending the war in Iraq (seems like the Iraqi PM Maliki is giving them less fodder there, since he is calling for a definitive timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal--independent of actions proposed by the POTUS), universal healthcare (how do you propose to pay for that?!), more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. (I guess that could be a possibility, if Honda and Toyota build more plants for small, fuel efficient cars here; again, not something the Pres has any contol over), and whatever else makes up the Democratic Party platform this year seems to me to be nothing more than empty campaign promises. As always.
Not that the Republicans will do any better next week. Are you sure we can't get a week off in between the two conventions?! Talk about viewer fatigue. I just wonder who McCain will tap to be his running mate?
Which brings me to the DNC currently happening in Denver, CO. My first reaction when I learned that the Democrats were holding their convention this week was pure fatigue. My wife and I just finished watching days of Beijing Olympics coverage on NBC for whatever reason (normally, I couldn't be bothered by running, swimming, or gymnastics, but for some reason, this Summer Olympics found its way into our TV viewing schedule. And we were not alone; the ratings numbers even surprised NBC, I think!), and I really didn't want to jump into another week of every night extended TV coverage of a "big event." Couldn't they have given us a week off before starting the national conventions? Oh, and the Republicans REALLY should give us a week off before starting theirs in Minneapolis next week! Talk about viewer fatigue! I know the networks have dead time during the summer they need to fill with programming before starting their fall schedules, but this is rediculous.
Having said that, I was interested in watching the Michelle Obama video and speech. I read someone else say yesterday that they wanted to vote for Michelle's dad for President. Her back story certainly is interesting and compelling, and she delivered a very solid speech in support of her man. She would make a heck of a first lady, if they win the general election.
And then Hillary took the stage yesterday, and I couldn't help but think she's in full image recovery mode. Her speech enabled her to save face within the Democratic Party. I don't doubt that she was sincere in pushing for her supporters to back Obama, but it must have been tough to get so close to the nomination only to come away empty-handed (not even the VP!). She was also able to deliver the quippy one-liners that were sure to be clipped into sound bites by the MSM: "No way, no how... no McCain!" Plus the one about Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities. It almost looked like Bill had given her that one to use during her speech. He certainly seemed to be bursting with pride as she delivered; the Clintons will not go quietly into the night!
I do take exception to some of the comments she made, however. If nothing else, she is setting up Obama to fail if he does ascend to the Presidency. Many of the evils she mentioned (the Halliburtons and Exxons, the companies offshoring their jobs, etc.) are simply easy targets to scapegoat during the current economic downturn. These have been the Democratic drum beat for the past eight years. But NO President has control over rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs, the move to cheaper manufacturing locations, or even the move by many companies to incorporate offshore in Bermuda, where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. None of these things would change under any new administration without significant new laws being passed, and oh by the way, that has to be done by Congress.
Let's review what the President does have control over: some elements of Fiscal Policy, although let's be honest, the annual President's budget generally is DOA when it arrives at Congress every fall. Some amount of Monetary Policy, only insofar as the Pres can appoint a new Chairman of the Fed Reserve, whose policies he then has to live with. Everything else revolves around running the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, which only very indirectly impacts the economy as a whole. Sure, FCC and FTC policies have an impact on specific elements of the telecommunications sector, but it's not like the President has a whole lot of levers he can pull to effect change. The next Pres won't even appoint a new Fed Reserve Chairman (confirmed by the Senate, natch) until 2010, when Ben Bernanke's term expires. So for the first half of the next President's term, either McCain or Obama will be stuck with the guy appointed by Bush.
So, for Hillary and Obama to make calls for ending the war in Iraq (seems like the Iraqi PM Maliki is giving them less fodder there, since he is calling for a definitive timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal--independent of actions proposed by the POTUS), universal healthcare (how do you propose to pay for that?!), more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. (I guess that could be a possibility, if Honda and Toyota build more plants for small, fuel efficient cars here; again, not something the Pres has any contol over), and whatever else makes up the Democratic Party platform this year seems to me to be nothing more than empty campaign promises. As always.
Not that the Republicans will do any better next week. Are you sure we can't get a week off in between the two conventions?! Talk about viewer fatigue. I just wonder who McCain will tap to be his running mate?
Posts
1 comment:
Hey JB!
Great to find your blog. Just one quick reaction...how does it make sense to question how we can care for universal health care when our nation already spends far more than any other industrialized nation on health care? The better question would be: how can we continue to spend what we're already spending on health care?
One estimate I've read is that 30% of health care costs in our country go to the processing of claims. 30%! Not for actually helping people, but simply because so many places are involved in processing health care claims. That is simply a ridiculous inefficiency in our current system.
The truth is, we're spending far more on health care than other nations, and yet have far less to show for it. We're lagging behind other industrialized countries on infant mortality, etc.
Anyway, just my proverbial two bits. Take care, man.
Post a Comment