I am not a political pundit. I do not profess to have the only answer, but I find I am right more often than most political pundits, because I don't get paid to push a political agenda.
In order of interest as a guest on a political talk show here is my take.
1. Reporters who work at a newspaper.
2. Columnists who work at a newspaper.
3. Other talk show hosts, and bloggers.
4. So-called pundits.
5. People who profess to be Republican and Democratic strategists. Fortunately for them the public makes them right some of the time, especially in mid-term elections. Most of the time when they are asked a question I can guess what they are going to say. They have a ready-made agenda and mental script they adhere to.
Today I heard the latest poll for the 2012 Presidential election. I couldn't care less. In today's technological age it is possible that in two years we may be talking about someone who we do not even know. Congress is on vacation now. I don't want to hear or read about polls until they start to work on the business of laws. Hopefully they might actually try to make things better for the middle class, and for the small business community that they promise to help, but rarely do.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Punditry: Right or Wrong?
Paul Begala and many of the pundits keep saying that the Democrats lost because they were too radical in seeking too many changes. I think the opposite is true. President Obama won because he promised to make changes. His party lost in the midterms because he did not make the changes his supporters sought. To go to the middle as Begala says he should have, means keeping the status quo. That is exactly what he tried to do and failed. People wanted changes to weed out the corruption that the large corporations and lobbyists have forced on our congressional representatives. Democrats were as guilty of accepting corporate money as the Republicans.
Our President did not change the Afghanistan and Iraq policy that he said he would. He did not fight hard to end Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, as you were led to believe he would. He did not go to bat for seniors on the COLA issue. He did not go to bat for real regulation of Wall Street. He did not even fight hard enough on his big issue, Health Reform. He caved in on single pay immediately. He tried too hard to go to the middle with Republican and Blue Dog support and failed. He even supported Blue Dogs in the primaries. His policy on Israel was ambiguous. He also kept on his economic team the Wall Streeters who were partly responsible for the Bush economic policy. In short he was elected to make sweeping changes and used a poor broom.
If you look for the middle ground as a bargaining position, the only place you can compromise is a losing position especially if your opponent's position is not to give in.
Unions have learned one lesson. If you are seeking a 10 cent wage , you do not ask for a 10 cent wage you ask for a 20 cent wage and settle on a 10 cent wage. He can change things in his favor if he really uses the power of the presidency to fight for meaningful changes. You cannot put a bandaid on a problem if it needs a tourniquet.
Our President did not change the Afghanistan and Iraq policy that he said he would. He did not fight hard to end Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, as you were led to believe he would. He did not go to bat for seniors on the COLA issue. He did not go to bat for real regulation of Wall Street. He did not even fight hard enough on his big issue, Health Reform. He caved in on single pay immediately. He tried too hard to go to the middle with Republican and Blue Dog support and failed. He even supported Blue Dogs in the primaries. His policy on Israel was ambiguous. He also kept on his economic team the Wall Streeters who were partly responsible for the Bush economic policy. In short he was elected to make sweeping changes and used a poor broom.
If you look for the middle ground as a bargaining position, the only place you can compromise is a losing position especially if your opponent's position is not to give in.
Unions have learned one lesson. If you are seeking a 10 cent wage , you do not ask for a 10 cent wage you ask for a 20 cent wage and settle on a 10 cent wage. He can change things in his favor if he really uses the power of the presidency to fight for meaningful changes. You cannot put a bandaid on a problem if it needs a tourniquet.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The pundits have it wrong
For quite some time now pundits have been predicting a Republican landslide in which they take over the Congress. While I, like many other Democrats have been disappointed in President Obama's performance up until now, when we think of the alternative we are appalled. Yes, Obama oversold what he could do because he believed that he could persuade Republicans. He couldn't even get them to say maybe. Obama's continuation of the Afghanistan war and his hiring of Wall Streeters for his economic group turned off many voters on the Left, but I think they should realize that the other party would and will do the same. And do all the things those on the Left still oppose.
I do think that the Democrats have a better grass roots organization, and Election Day will come down to who does a better job of getting out the vote. I also think that the American citizenry can see behind the Tea Party candidates.
While President Bush and his Republican party was running our country into the ground where were these Tea Party patriots. In most midterm elections people who are disappointed with their elected officials sit on their hands and do not come out to vote. This election is different. The hatred that seems to be coming out demands that people come out to vote.
So go out and vote for Jim Hall in Westchester, Barbara Boxer In California, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Harry Reid in Nevada, and anyone who can help get through the Obama agenda we supported with such enthusiasm only two years ago.
I do think that the Democrats have a better grass roots organization, and Election Day will come down to who does a better job of getting out the vote. I also think that the American citizenry can see behind the Tea Party candidates.
While President Bush and his Republican party was running our country into the ground where were these Tea Party patriots. In most midterm elections people who are disappointed with their elected officials sit on their hands and do not come out to vote. This election is different. The hatred that seems to be coming out demands that people come out to vote.
So go out and vote for Jim Hall in Westchester, Barbara Boxer In California, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Harry Reid in Nevada, and anyone who can help get through the Obama agenda we supported with such enthusiasm only two years ago.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Mickey's Book Club
Over the past few years I have read a number of political books and have come to the following conclusions about what to expect from the authors.
Politicians are generally apologetic and write mostly about their accomplishments. They are rarely informative as to what goes on in Washington.
Pundits usually write with the slant that appeals to their existing readers. They spin. This is what they do for a living.
Talk show hosts write to their fan base and any one else they can convert. Their books tend not to be well written or informative.
Reporters fill in the fact gaps left out by all the other books.
Last year I told you to read a book by David Cay Johnston called "Free Lunch." It is still a good read. Johnston was a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.
I just got through reading Will Bunch's book, "The Backlash," which I also highly recommend. Bunch was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.
"Backlash" is the story of the Tea Party and how it developed, along with all the fringe parties, how these groups took the idea from the peaceniks of the seventies and turned their idea into a cause. The big difference is that the peaceniks believed in love and the new radicals believe in hate. Of course not all Tea Partiers and all fringe groups are hateful but they're certainly not spreading a message of love.
Politicians are generally apologetic and write mostly about their accomplishments. They are rarely informative as to what goes on in Washington.
Pundits usually write with the slant that appeals to their existing readers. They spin. This is what they do for a living.
Talk show hosts write to their fan base and any one else they can convert. Their books tend not to be well written or informative.
Reporters fill in the fact gaps left out by all the other books.
Last year I told you to read a book by David Cay Johnston called "Free Lunch." It is still a good read. Johnston was a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.
I just got through reading Will Bunch's book, "The Backlash," which I also highly recommend. Bunch was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.
"Backlash" is the story of the Tea Party and how it developed, along with all the fringe parties, how these groups took the idea from the peaceniks of the seventies and turned their idea into a cause. The big difference is that the peaceniks believed in love and the new radicals believe in hate. Of course not all Tea Partiers and all fringe groups are hateful but they're certainly not spreading a message of love.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Mayor Bloomberg's Report Card
Just in case he decides to run for higher office. . .
CONGESTION PRICING: F. This plan was predicated on an affordable, well run transit system that could handle more passengers. It is neither. Less trains, less clerks, higher fares.
FOOTBALL STADIUM: F. This plan would have brought congestion where it was not needed. See above for problems.
EDUCATION: D+. I think he meant well but does not have enough knowledge about the problem to fix it. The Charter school idea was and is too costly.
TOURISM: B+. He has made N.Y.C. a tourist mecca - but at the expense of its inhabitants.
TENANTS: D-. His relationship with the real estate industry led him to form a Rent Guideline Board that catered to the industry's wishes.
WALL STREET: D+. His knowledge of the business of Bloomberg News should have told him that fighting for deregulation would be hazardous, but he still fought for it. This helped fuel the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market.
The jury is still out on the Yankee Stadium deal and the Nets Basketball Stadium deal. The cost to taxpayers, however, was tremendous.
Bloomberg ran on a platform of fixing the MTA and failed. His police, fire department and sanitation decisions deserve C+.
All in all I give him a C- and wish him luck.
CONGESTION PRICING: F. This plan was predicated on an affordable, well run transit system that could handle more passengers. It is neither. Less trains, less clerks, higher fares.
FOOTBALL STADIUM: F. This plan would have brought congestion where it was not needed. See above for problems.
EDUCATION: D+. I think he meant well but does not have enough knowledge about the problem to fix it. The Charter school idea was and is too costly.
TOURISM: B+. He has made N.Y.C. a tourist mecca - but at the expense of its inhabitants.
TENANTS: D-. His relationship with the real estate industry led him to form a Rent Guideline Board that catered to the industry's wishes.
WALL STREET: D+. His knowledge of the business of Bloomberg News should have told him that fighting for deregulation would be hazardous, but he still fought for it. This helped fuel the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market.
The jury is still out on the Yankee Stadium deal and the Nets Basketball Stadium deal. The cost to taxpayers, however, was tremendous.
Bloomberg ran on a platform of fixing the MTA and failed. His police, fire department and sanitation decisions deserve C+.
All in all I give him a C- and wish him luck.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Pedro Espada and what's wrong with politics
New York State has an unusual situation. Some of its citizens voted for a Democrat who thinks like a bad Republican and wanted to be a Republican. For stupid and selfish political reasons the Democrats thought they needed this scoundrel as a voting Democrat.
They bribed him by offering him a job he was not capable of doing. Now they realize their mistake and are doing all they can to get rid of him. He is being investigated for alleged wrongdoing.
Unfortunately these same Democrats - and Republicans - usually ignore their colleagues' malfeasance. The result: Poor representation.
Thanks to the laws they've passed, these poor representatives from both parties have given us monopolistic, unregulated cable television, a greedy Wall Street, a corrupt credit card industry, uncaring banks who stole from their customers, and, with the help of the real estate industry, stole homes from people who believed in the American Dream.
And some of these representatives are the people who voted themselves a raise while denying increases to people dependent on social security.
They bribed him by offering him a job he was not capable of doing. Now they realize their mistake and are doing all they can to get rid of him. He is being investigated for alleged wrongdoing.
Unfortunately these same Democrats - and Republicans - usually ignore their colleagues' malfeasance. The result: Poor representation.
Thanks to the laws they've passed, these poor representatives from both parties have given us monopolistic, unregulated cable television, a greedy Wall Street, a corrupt credit card industry, uncaring banks who stole from their customers, and, with the help of the real estate industry, stole homes from people who believed in the American Dream.
And some of these representatives are the people who voted themselves a raise while denying increases to people dependent on social security.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Bush's tax cuts
The Republicans, led by the Tea Partiers, and supported by the Blue Dog Democrats have been arguing for quite some time that continuing unemployment insurance will put a damper on those people looking for jobs.
But these same people are the ones saying that continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will stimulate the economy.
Where do they get that idea from? How do they justify that giving additional money to people who already have plenty of money to spend is better for the economy than giving money to people who will need to spend the money?
Besides, under President Bush and his tax cut, the economy - in which more people fell below the poverty line while the rich got richer - collapsed.
How much more proof do they need than what has already been shown to be wrong?
Only fools make the same mistake more than once.
As for the Tea Partiers, they have to watch what's going into their tea. The stuff they are putting in their tea seems to kill the thinking process.
But these same people are the ones saying that continuing the Bush Tax Cuts will stimulate the economy.
Where do they get that idea from? How do they justify that giving additional money to people who already have plenty of money to spend is better for the economy than giving money to people who will need to spend the money?
Besides, under President Bush and his tax cut, the economy - in which more people fell below the poverty line while the rich got richer - collapsed.
How much more proof do they need than what has already been shown to be wrong?
Only fools make the same mistake more than once.
As for the Tea Partiers, they have to watch what's going into their tea. The stuff they are putting in their tea seems to kill the thinking process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
