The Nuke-yoo-lar Topic of W's Legacy

I friend of mine recently e-mailed an op-ed piece from Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post titled "History Will Judge." The link provided should take you right to it, and it's well worth the read. I feel sheepish that I hadn't read it or linked to it before, but there are only so many hours in the day for keeping up on the news.

I was happy to see that what was sent in e-mail actually matched the online column, with no edits one way or another. Sadly, I never trust what gets sent via e-mail any more. I don't even subscribe to the age-old Cold War tenet of "Trust but Verify." Whose motto was that? Better than "In God we trust. All others we monitor," which is a motto many spooks might recognize.

The reason why I feel compelled to discuss Krauthammer's column is because I'd been thinking about W's post-Presidency plans myself recently. Seriously. I've been trying to get my head around what W will do in retirement, since I can't picture him being invited to the public speaker lecture circuit any time soon. Which group would have him? Even the die-hardiest of the die-hard GOP faithful have distanced themselves from anything to do with Bush's administration.

I'm sure Bush will continue to have many friends in high places, certainly. He still has his defenders, and he still should have plenty of influence. On what, though? As Krauthammer points out, history will most likely be kinder to W as peoples' memories fade a bit. If no less than Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter can all get image rehabs after leaving office, then certainly Bush can, too.

One question for which we really won't have an answer for years to come will be how this very recent Wall Street implosion will affect W's legacy. Nixon (almost impeached), Ford (stagflation), and Carter (malaise) successfully rehabbed their legacies after leaving office; Hoover (Great Depression) did not. I'm not ready to commit to calling these banking problems and economic hard times anything close to another Great Depression. In 1929, over 300 banks had closed their doors even before the stock market crashed. In 1930, over 1,000 additional banks closed forever and the phrase "bank run" struck fears all across the U.S. We're not there yet, and the structural laws and oversight bodies put in place after 1929 should keep us out of another Great Depression. That's the whole idea, at least.

There's no doubt that Wall Street has had its worst week ever (WSJ article, subscription req'd.). I'd like to think that agricultural policies have changed enough so that we won't hit another Dust Bowl again. Unemployment remains relatively low -- last I checked, I think it was around 6%, although as part of the recent rate cut by the Fed, they said they think it will edge up to 7-7.5% by late 2009. Certainly that is still nowhere near the 25% unemployment hit during the Great Depression. Durable goods orders are down and inventories are up, which spell Recession for the economy, and most economists are predicting we're already in a Recession now (more WSJ).

The reason all of the economics issues is important for Bush is that they will have a far more lasting impact on his Presidential legacy than anything else he's done. This is also the key difference from the Krauthammer column, which was published before the Wall Street meltdown. W could be forgiven for promoting a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy. He could be forgiven for domestic spying if it truly keeps us safe from another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. W could be forgiven for acting unilaterally when he felt compelled to do so, even though I think we all remember then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's briefing to the UN Security Council regarding the threat in Iraq. So what if Saddam's WMDs were a figment of his imagination and little more than a ruse to keep the Iranians from attacking? In 2003, everyone agreed they were a real problem. I even think W can be forgiven for his line about looking into Putin's soul back in 2001, as ridiculous as that seems now.

I think Bush will retire to his ranch in Crawford, TX (and everything is bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?), and perhaps have some measure of peace in the months following his departure from the White House. How long can he cut brush? How much mesquite is there in Texas? Would a following administration really put W on the road for sensitive diplomatic missions, as W's father and Bill Clinton have done together? Could you imagine W in France next year, cheering on THE GREAT COMEBACK by Lance Armstrong? It boggles the mind.

If nothing else, W in January becomes fair game for the SNL animation "The X Presidents" as part of their TV Funhouse lineup. So we at least have that to look forward to.

McCain Gets Younger

So, by now, I'm sure everyone has heard the news about John McCain selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the general election. Ah, but what to make of it?



I'm sure Democrats will be upset that he made the announcement on the same day that Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination in that functional, workmanlike speech in Denver. That, in and of itself, was interesting: gone were the uplifting, flowery words of hope ("Yes, We Can!"), replaced with actual step-by-step planks of what Obama hopes to do once he assumes the Presidency. I know the NY Times talking head didn't like it, but let's be honest. Obama has taken heat for his inexperience and lack of substance, and he really needed to show that he can be serious about running the country. I thought he did a great job, and for the first time, I heard some things from Obama that I really appreciated. I really liked it when he said we should be able to find middle ground on issues like gun control, gay rights, and abortion. Even if it is an agreement to disagree, I like the move to the middle. The far left and the far right have dominated their respective party politics for too long.

Of course, Obama's choice in his VP selection, Joe Biden*, showed that he was also serious about filling the holes in his own resume by picking a running mate with considerable foreign policy chops and a long legislative track record. I was surprised that Obama didn't pick Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sibelius, or some other Governor from a state that could really help him. By picking another Senator from a small population east coast state, I'm not entirely sure Obama helped himself as much as he could have. It will be interesting to see how the general election plays out.

* When I told my mom, who was vacationing in Colorado at the time and had no access to news, about the Joe Biden pick, she was devastated. A die-hard Democrat who has been on the Obama bandwagon for quite a while now, she had no excitement over the naming of Biden to the ticket.

But then McCain announced his VP choice in Sarah Palin. Which really means he is also serious about filling holes in his candidacy. McCain knows he can't really be challenged by Obama on foreign policy issues or on his experience in the Senate. (Yes, that's what Biden is for.) McCain has been taking heat on the age issue, though. If elected, McCain will be the oldest first-time President sworn in to office in the history of the U.S. He's been shown to be out of touch with the Internet and e-mail. His cultural references are older than the Baby Boomers. He really needed to connect with a younger generation, and Palin fits that bill.

By all accounts, Palin is considered a maverick on par with her new running mate. Appointed to a high position by the previous Republican Governor of Alaska, she exposed corruption within her own party. She brings a blue-collar mentality to the ticket, as her husband works on the oil pipelines in Alaska. She also is adamantly pro-life, which should help McCain with the right-wing evangelicals within the Republican party.

It's too early to say whether a McCain-Palin ticket will have the same effect as the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984. Already, Geraldine and Hillary have praised the decision to name another woman to a major party Presidential ticket. It would be not a little disingenuous to say that McCain is not deliberately reaching out to the Hillary supporters, all 18 million of them, with his choice in running mate. Politics can be a dirty business, and you gotta do what you gotta do to win. Bill Clinton said words to that effect back in the '90s.

They say that genius usually comes with a tincture of madness. It will be interesting to see if McCain's move is a stroke of genius or the desperation of a madman.

The Hill's Speech

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?