Who Says Politics and Football Don't Mix?

I just came across this news item from Mark Maske's NFL News Feed (previously known as the NFL Insider), an excellent blog courtesy of the Washington Post:

Obama, McCain on 'Monday Night Football'

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain will make election-eve appearances on the "Monday Night Football" telecast on ESPN, the network has announced.

According to ESPN's announcement, the candidates have agreed to tape interviews Monday that will air at halftime of the Pittsburgh Steelers-Washington Redskins game. The candidates are to be interviewed separately via satellite by Chris Berman, who will be at the network's studios in Bristol, Conn.

"We worked with our partners at the NFL to schedule a 'Monday Night Football' game in Washington on this special night, and this presents a unique opportunity for John McCain and Barack Obama to reflect upon the last few months and address a large primetime audience on the final day of the campaigns," Norby Williamson, ESPN's executive vice president of production, said in a written statement.

By Mark Maske | October 30, 2008; 11:02 AM ET

So for those of you who: 1) Love politics; 2) Love watching MNF; and 3) Have ESPN, you'll be all set! Unless you happen to be one of those people who dislike Chris "Ethel Merman" Berman. I wonder if he has his own pet nicknames for McCain and Obama?! I also wonder if Berman will take this opportunity to delve into hard-hitting questions about the economy, tax plans, and healthcare plans from the two campaigns?

Naaaahhh... I'm sure it will be fluff on how much each man loves to watch MNF on ESPN.

World Class Entertainment on the Prairie

When I first told my beautiful bride that I found a new job in Champaign, IL, the first word out of her mouth was, "Where?!" Neither one of us is from Illinois originally, and I'd applied to the open position in Champaign only because the decision makers for the position I really wanted at Scott AFB (also in IL, but much closer to St. Louis) were taking so long to make a hire decision. When we were driving down from Chicago on our house-hunting trip a few weeks later, passing nothing but miles and miles of corn fields, her reaction was, "Where are you taking me?!"

I am very happy to report that we absolutely LOVE living in Champaign-Urbana!! It's home to the University of Illinois' main campus, properly titled the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, or UIUC (the main administration buildings are actually located in Urbana, which is why the smaller of the two cities comes first in the name). We've been here for a little over three years now, and we have so many incredibly neat neighbors and friends, most of whom have some tie to the university. It's a great place to raise children, too.

The other reason why we love living here is that we do get exposure to truly world-class entertainment, thanks to UIUC. Last year, I helped my Rotary club put on a concert by Sherban Lupu on violin and Ian Hobson on piano; both men are professors at UIUC, and both are renowned musicians who travel the globe giving concerts.

Last night, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to see Nathan Gunn perform live. Gunn, I'm learning, is one of the absolute top Baritones in the world. He has his own Wikipedia page, and there's a one-on-one interview with him at this link. The performance last night was at a smaller venue, and he performed selections from various Broadway shows, Camelot, and The Magic Flute (in German!) with his wife and another world-class opera singer. There's another nice piece on him and his wife from the U of I alumni magazine here.

Left: Here's a beefcake photo for the ladies of Nathan Gunn.

We're just incredibly blessed to have these types of opportunities to experience and enjoy the high arts, living where we do. I remarked last night that we are actually very lucky to catch live performances from these artists here in Champaign simply because they do travel the world so much; many people living here had to watch The Met's opera simulcasts at local movie theaters to see Gunn perform live. My wife and I tend to skew the age demographic younger any time we attend events like this, but that's OK with us.

The only thing that makes us scratch our heads is why other couples from our generation don't also attend these performances. I know that Gunn is not Britney Spears, The Killers, Death Cab for Cutie, or any other music act that might be popular with our friends these days. Still, if you have the opportunity to see a world-class musician perform live without traveling to Chicago, NYC, or Washington, DC, wouldn't you take it?! I should add that I am no opera buff by any means. I don't like the Andrew Lloyd Webber style of music or musicals all the rage on Broadway. But I do appreciate talent in many different forms, and Gunn sings spectacularly well!

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.

Get the Popcorn Ready!

I mentioned this before: the one debate I'm eagerly anticipating is this Thursday's Vice Presidential candidate debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. If I can figure out how to include a countdown clock widget in this post, I'll put it here:



If you saw the first Presidential debate aired last Friday, 26 Sept, you'll know that neither candidate seemed to move the needle much. After the debate was over, Obama apparently picked up some additional support among independents, but by and large (a term I think most people forgot about before this summer's Pixar movie, Wall-E), the people who already support McCain still support McCain, and the people supporting Obama still support Obama. The debate itself was curious on several levels, though.

I thought it interesting that Obama and McCain actually mimicked each other's policy stances on a wide variety of questions, from the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO to failing to clearly state where they would cut back on future spending. Neither candidate wanted to play with the hot potato of the $700B bailout package, and yesterday's NO vote showed why. Both candidates want to shake up the cozy Washington Insider environment between lobbyists and lawmakers. Both candidates even tried sliming the other with comparisons to W, at which point Obama laughed out loud when McCain tried to make the case.

It could be that the crowd control rules in place there in Oxford, MS (the audience did a very good job of not rooting for their man, not clapping, applauding, or even laughing at the jokes) prevented the sound bites from delivering a bigger impact on the stage. Both candidates certainly tried hitting their notes, but without a laugh track to confirm a witty rejoinder, it must have seemed like a stand-up comedian in a morgue. Can you imagine Ronny Reagan delivering his "Well, there you go again..." line to Mondale in 1984 to complete silence? I didn't think so.

One of the biggest problems with that debate (and with any future debate between Obama and McCain, for that matter) is that each man can be tarred and feathered with his past votes in the Senate. This is the problem of having all your government service experience in a legislative body instead of in the executive branch. The way legislation is crafted these days, there are typically so many riders and amendments attached to any given bill, there are very strong reasons why a Congressperson would vote against it. In order to vote for any bill, I'm sure they have to hold their noses and accept the bad with the good. So, McCain can claim Obama voted down financial support for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama can claim McCain supported the Bush tax cuts. The bigger picture, that there are many good reasons why each man voted the way he did at the time, gets lost in the debate.

The reverse case in point: Ron Paul always used this quirk of the legislative process to his own advantage. He faithfully received earmark requests from his home district, made sure those earmarks were included in whatever omnibus spending bill was going to be voted on, and then always voted against the bill to keep from sullying his anti-earmark message. He literally had his cake and ate it, too. He could rightfully claim he always voted against wasteful government spending, knowing full well that enough other votes would still pass the bill, directly benefiting his own district.

At any rate, even those filling executive level positions have their own limitations. Ask W about that this week! Our system of checks and balances makes it impossible to pass legislation or to govern independently, which is as it should be. If Congress wants to play political football with the entire country's financial system, so be it. When Warren Buffett says he's worried about the future of our economy without some form of bank bailout package being passed, I think it's time we all sit up and take notice.

And it could be that no past or future debate affects how people plan to vote in November quite as much as the bank crisis last week and this week's failed bank bailout package. The NewsHour on PBS last night interviewed some swing voters in one key battleground state, Florida. Those voters expressed dismay over the economy (an Obama strength, for some reason) and flat-out said they didn't want four more years of the same failed policies (an indictment of W, to be sure, but which also includes McCain). So at this point, the die may be cast in favor of Obama to reach the White House, even if national polls don't confirm that yet.

I always thought that McCain's pick of Palin was the equivalent of a Republican Hail Mary play, on par with Doug Flutie's Boston College upset of Miami in 1984. (Wow, two references to 1984 in the same post! Who would have figured that?!) McCain needed something big, some huge WOW! factor to jazz up the right-wing base of the party, and Palin certainly did that. She grabbed the headlines, made everyone talk about McCain's campaign for weeks on end, and diverted the media attention (for good or bad) from Obama at a critical stage of the race.

However, she still needs to show she can hold her own against a Washington Insider like Biden. Some conservative pundits within the past week apparently are saying she should step down from the ticket and let McCain pick someone better. Obviously, they aren't going to do that. That would clearly be political suicide at this point, with about five weeks to go until the polls open. I partly wonder if, maybe, just maybe, the Republican political machinery isn't working to lower peoples' expectations for Palin in advance of this, her most important event of the campaign.

In politics as in sports, it's always easier to play to win when all the pressure is on the other guy, the front-runner. If Biden does well and "wins" the debate, he can't really win because he was supposed to do well. As the favorite, there's very little upside and a whole lot of downside. If he cracks or lets the pressure of the situation get to him even the tiniest little bit, it could be momentous. The underdog, on the other hand, can go in loose and without fear, since there's really nothing to lose. If Palin can merely come out even in the debate, she wins. No one expects her to out point Biden or show where he's weak on foreign policy. She has a lot more personality, though. If the crowd is not muted this time, watch out for fireworks!

I'm getting my popcorn ready, that's for sure!