Ok, I've shared my notes from the book, it's time to wrap it all up. First, thanks to all of those who stuck it through. I've shared emails with a few people about the book and have been promised a deep discussion with the person who loaned me the book. I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not sure the book changed my mind on anything. I think it clarified a lot of things and has influenced my thinking a great deal. But no major changes. I'll also have to say that the book wasn't a great work of art. It was informational and interesting, but I had to slug my way through it. I will say, it was worth it.
About the candidates - McCain really seemed like his heart wasn't in it. He would have accepted if someone appointed him president, and he would have made a good commander-in-chief. But he bent with the wind too much on other subjects. Without the right people around him, he wouldn't have helped us through the financial crisis. And I'm not sure he knew who the right people were.
Palin has always impressed me as a bright lady, who wasn't ready for the job of VP. But then I'm not sure any person is ready for that job (or the job of president). Her selection seemed so haphazard that she never had time to prepare. Like a student cramming for an exam, she failed to grasp everything. It wasn't her fault, but she certainly could have said no. Everyone is pushing her to 2012 and she'll certainly be more ready. I have serious concerns however, about her lack of persistence with her job as governor. To me, it seems she left that job to make money. That's ok, but it has consequences.
Edwards - I can't see how anyone can trust him. He repeatedly lied and his main goal was to get into the White House (as President or VP). He could care less how he did it. I will restate something I've said many times, anyone who donated money to his campaign should ask for a refund (Warren Buffett said it first).
H. Clinton - she really seemed like she thought deserved the nomination. However, once the decision was made, she tucked it in and worked for her party. I have respect for her attitude and her methods.
B. Clinton - the book did nothing to make me trust him anymore. I've always felt he would lie, cheat and steal at any chance. In fairness, the book didn't make me trust him any less.
M. Obama - The book didn't say a lot about her. She seems a stand-up-for-your-man kind of lady. The only thing I think I learned about her was that she still doesn't see how her "proud of my country" comment hurt a lot of people.
B. Obama - Overall, my opinion didn't change much. There were a couple of mentions of him playing the race card and I've always felt he was beyond that - that he wants to move beyond the distractions. I'll tuck away this new information and use it in my future thoughts about him.
I've always felt that President Obama was a very bright man, who found some strong people to put in place around him. He's a fast learner and knows where he wants to go. He either knows, or finds out how to get there.
The election in general. I'm more convinced that no Republican could have won the race and that no Democrat could have lost. It seemed like the perfect storm. First, McCain was the strongest Rep and he was very weak. Second, Obama was very strong and the country was ready for change. Change away from Bush. It seemed like he had been in office for 20 years, with a short recess for Clinton. Call it malaise, call it anything you like, the country was ready for something different, anything. His primary battle with Clinton seemed to bolster his style, and his chances.
More than that, I'll go to a Hillary Clinton quote - "God wants him to win." Many on both sides will have problems with that statement, but I'll stand by it. The question is, why did He want it? Sometimes, God gives us what we need, sometimes gives us what we want in order to show us what we really need. I'm firmly convinced that President Clinton was put in office to give Americans an idea what would happen when we traded our morals for good economic times. I'm convinced that Bush was put into office to have a strong person there for 9/11. Why is Obama in office? Only time will tell.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 21-Epilogue
FINAL set of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers the last part of the book - after the primaries. After this post, I will make one or two final posts to wrap up my ideas
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 21 - Obama's reaction to the September financial meltdown. He was calling the Fed Chief and Treasury Secretary. McCain's reaction changed with the wind. It appears to me that Obama was already in transition.
A view of TARP pages 381 & 382 - very necessary. How much TARP was needed - not clear.
Pg 385. McCain cancels Letterman. It was Letterman's reaction and the actions of some of his guests that has convinced me that Letterman is not an entertainer, he's a politician. As such, I'll watch him when I agree with him, turn him off when I don't.
Obama's "above my paygrade" comment about a fetus' human rights was ridiculed (p390) This is the one time (well not the only time) I agreed with him. However, he received a pay increase a few months later and changed his tune (or never meant it in the first place).
Hillary's comment (pg 393) "God wants (Obama) to win." - A very telling point.
Chapter 22 - Pg 396 Palin was concerned about her image in Alaska., even though it was solidly Republican.
Katie Couric interview with Palin - she didn't see it to go that badly, but when it came out she blamed oters, said she shouldn't have done the interview. Palin said "if I'd known everything I know now, I would not have done this." (pg 401)
Lieberman (Jewish) prays with Palin (Christian) "providing (her) with Talmudic wisdom" (pg 403) Interesting combination.
Debate prep and the election campaign was hard n Palin. She was away from her family. All this impacted her. When her campaign staff focused on what she did well, she excelled. When they took her down the usual campaign roads, she did miserably.
Palin goes on attack (pg 408). "She was emerging as a big-time control freak." (Pg 409).
Page 413 - Biden said "mark my words, it will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." I was always amazed that this fot flack from the left and the right.The book implies that it hurt Obama because it reminded people of his inexperience. I thought it showed Biden's confidence.
Pg 415 - "The truth is, the McCain people did fail Palin."
Chapter 23 - (Page 421) The McCain battler gets ugly. Very ugly. McCain tried to rein it in.
Colin Powell saw "McCain's selection of Palin... as polarizing." How? If she was as ineffective as the book says, how could she be effective at polarizing?
"How fully Obama understood the alchemy or tides of history, the tides of history, the collision of man and moment.. was impossible to know." (Pg 426 - IMPORTANT POINT!)
Epilogue - Hillary as Secretary of State. "Hillary felt the pull of patriotism and the call of duty. She believed that when the president asked a person to serve, there was an imperative to say yes." The first time I encountered this feeling was in the documentary "Fog of War" - a story about Robert McNamara (see here for my post on that story).
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 21 - Obama's reaction to the September financial meltdown. He was calling the Fed Chief and Treasury Secretary. McCain's reaction changed with the wind. It appears to me that Obama was already in transition.
A view of TARP pages 381 & 382 - very necessary. How much TARP was needed - not clear.
Pg 385. McCain cancels Letterman. It was Letterman's reaction and the actions of some of his guests that has convinced me that Letterman is not an entertainer, he's a politician. As such, I'll watch him when I agree with him, turn him off when I don't.
Obama's "above my paygrade" comment about a fetus' human rights was ridiculed (p390) This is the one time (well not the only time) I agreed with him. However, he received a pay increase a few months later and changed his tune (or never meant it in the first place).
Hillary's comment (pg 393) "God wants (Obama) to win." - A very telling point.
Chapter 22 - Pg 396 Palin was concerned about her image in Alaska., even though it was solidly Republican.
Katie Couric interview with Palin - she didn't see it to go that badly, but when it came out she blamed oters, said she shouldn't have done the interview. Palin said "if I'd known everything I know now, I would not have done this." (pg 401)
Lieberman (Jewish) prays with Palin (Christian) "providing (her) with Talmudic wisdom" (pg 403) Interesting combination.
Debate prep and the election campaign was hard n Palin. She was away from her family. All this impacted her. When her campaign staff focused on what she did well, she excelled. When they took her down the usual campaign roads, she did miserably.
Palin goes on attack (pg 408). "She was emerging as a big-time control freak." (Pg 409).
Page 413 - Biden said "mark my words, it will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." I was always amazed that this fot flack from the left and the right.The book implies that it hurt Obama because it reminded people of his inexperience. I thought it showed Biden's confidence.
Pg 415 - "The truth is, the McCain people did fail Palin."
Chapter 23 - (Page 421) The McCain battler gets ugly. Very ugly. McCain tried to rein it in.
Colin Powell saw "McCain's selection of Palin... as polarizing." How? If she was as ineffective as the book says, how could she be effective at polarizing?
"How fully Obama understood the alchemy or tides of history, the tides of history, the collision of man and moment.. was impossible to know." (Pg 426 - IMPORTANT POINT!)
Epilogue - Hillary as Secretary of State. "Hillary felt the pull of patriotism and the call of duty. She believed that when the president asked a person to serve, there was an imperative to say yes." The first time I encountered this feeling was in the documentary "Fog of War" - a story about Robert McNamara (see here for my post on that story).
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 18-20
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers part of part 3 of the book - after the primaries.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 18 - "McCain and Obama had much in common. Both ... argued that Washington was broken... and ascribed its (problems) to hyperpartisanship..." (pg 323 - seems even more broken and more partisanship now than it did in 2008)
"There was one minor hitch... McCain and Obama didn't like each other." I would go further and state that they don't understand each other Michele's "proud of my country" comment was a slap in the face of many veterans and patriots. But she never understood (and still doesn't understand) why.
Obama u-turns on campaign finance. No one should be surprised. He said "you can always change your mind" (see chapter 2 comments).
"The lengthy Democratic nomination fight meant that the Obama forces had operations in nearly every state." In contrast "in mid-June (McCain's campaign) was still a mess." (Pg 328 - a big bonus for Candidate Obama. Their response to the situation - McCain built a wall between him and the press, Obama tore down the wall. As a result, the press saw them differently).
Did Obama play the race card? Pg 332 says he did. Did McCain? pg 331 says he "warned his team to steer clear of anything that might open him up to that charge." Pg. 333 Obama sees McCain as playing the race card. Can black & white compete without one thinking the other has brought race into the challenge? This chapter is almost convincing me that Obama is not past the racial issues.
Chapter 19 " Process mattered to Obama." (Pg 338 - How did this play in his decision to go for the surge in Afghanistan? How about his handling of the Shirley Sherrod issue?)
Pg 339 Michelle Obama remembers Hillary's comments about RFK. To me, she seems very sensitive.
More of Edwards' lies. To his wife and to everyone. I agree with Warren Buffett. People who contributed to his campaign should ask for a refund.
The DNC - everything fell into place. H. Clinton, B. Clinton, the delegates. Then Obama delivered the speech he need to deliver. Nothing could go wrong.
Chater 20 - McCain, Lieberman and Graham "the trio was dubbed the Three Amigos." (pg354 - sounds more like old college buddies, always looking back and what used to be.)
"McCain's VP selection - pro-choice pick would cost him votes among Republicans and gain him few, if any independents." (pg 358)
I get general feeling of rushto vet Palin (pg 360) "They weren't searching for problems, they were looking for a last second solution." (pg 362) McCain's attitude? "High risk, high reward." (pg 363)
"The attacks on Palin were as frantic as the vetting process." (pg 367)
The clothes (pg 369)
Her tutoring process (pg 370). She seems a fast learner, with a lot to learn. Will we see more of her on 2012?
Pg 373 McCain picked up a lot of white female vote with Palin. Bill Clinton said "Good old boys, they can relate to her."
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 18 - "McCain and Obama had much in common. Both ... argued that Washington was broken... and ascribed its (problems) to hyperpartisanship..." (pg 323 - seems even more broken and more partisanship now than it did in 2008)
"There was one minor hitch... McCain and Obama didn't like each other." I would go further and state that they don't understand each other Michele's "proud of my country" comment was a slap in the face of many veterans and patriots. But she never understood (and still doesn't understand) why.
Obama u-turns on campaign finance. No one should be surprised. He said "you can always change your mind" (see chapter 2 comments).
"The lengthy Democratic nomination fight meant that the Obama forces had operations in nearly every state." In contrast "in mid-June (McCain's campaign) was still a mess." (Pg 328 - a big bonus for Candidate Obama. Their response to the situation - McCain built a wall between him and the press, Obama tore down the wall. As a result, the press saw them differently).
Did Obama play the race card? Pg 332 says he did. Did McCain? pg 331 says he "warned his team to steer clear of anything that might open him up to that charge." Pg. 333 Obama sees McCain as playing the race card. Can black & white compete without one thinking the other has brought race into the challenge? This chapter is almost convincing me that Obama is not past the racial issues.
Chapter 19 " Process mattered to Obama." (Pg 338 - How did this play in his decision to go for the surge in Afghanistan? How about his handling of the Shirley Sherrod issue?)
Pg 339 Michelle Obama remembers Hillary's comments about RFK. To me, she seems very sensitive.
More of Edwards' lies. To his wife and to everyone. I agree with Warren Buffett. People who contributed to his campaign should ask for a refund.
The DNC - everything fell into place. H. Clinton, B. Clinton, the delegates. Then Obama delivered the speech he need to deliver. Nothing could go wrong.
Chater 20 - McCain, Lieberman and Graham "the trio was dubbed the Three Amigos." (pg354 - sounds more like old college buddies, always looking back and what used to be.)
"McCain's VP selection - pro-choice pick would cost him votes among Republicans and gain him few, if any independents." (pg 358)
I get general feeling of rushto vet Palin (pg 360) "They weren't searching for problems, they were looking for a last second solution." (pg 362) McCain's attitude? "High risk, high reward." (pg 363)
"The attacks on Palin were as frantic as the vetting process." (pg 367)
The clothes (pg 369)
Her tutoring process (pg 370). She seems a fast learner, with a lot to learn. Will we see more of her on 2012?
Pg 373 McCain picked up a lot of white female vote with Palin. Bill Clinton said "Good old boys, they can relate to her."
Friday, August 06, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 15-17
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers part 2 of the book - the Republican frontrunners. See previous posts for the Democratic story
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
I thought it was interesting that the authors took 14 chapters to discuss the Democratic primaries and only 3 to discuss the Republican primaries. Could it be bias on the authors' part? Or just that the Democratic primary was more interesting? In this case, I think it's the latter.
Chapter 15 - McCain "really just didn't give a ####. The details made his head hurt." (pg 274) "The McCain's were a military family and if John wanted to serve, Cindy wasn't going to stand in his way. Four uses defined her ethic: 'I support my husband.'" (pg 276)
John's relationship with his wife surprised, sometimes it was very bad: "McCain let out the stream of sharp epithets, both middle fingers raised and extended, barking in his wife's face." Why all the profanity? I noted this before (see here) with the Democrats. I know if I spoke to my wife the way McCain did, she would NOT appreciate it. Sometimes, he was very protective and loving with his wife.
Rumors of Cindy's McCain's affair. Sh denied it and no proof was offered. Rumors of an illegitimate child that McCain later adopted. Is this what we subject our politicians to? Unfounded rumors?
McCain was for the Iraq surge in 2006, when the surge wasn't cool. I guess I forgot how big a part the Iraq war played in the election. Also, there was a lot of discussion of McCain's war hero status. Did it really carry that much weight? The authors thought so and at least one liberal blogger I follow agreed.
McCain's speeches were frequently disjointed due to last minute changes and they were poorly attended (during primaries). Not only was McCain not excited, the crowds and his campaign workers weren't either.
The authors mentioned the Immigration Bill of 2007. With this subject being hot (again or still?) I should do some research on it.
Chapter 16 - Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, 3x married, had a public affair with wife#3 while still married to wife#2 (see here for my comments on that subject). He was about as liberal as he could be. Why was he running as a Republican?
Charlie Crist (Florida) was view as being in Rudy's pocket and John's pocket depending on the day of the week. Mitt Romney flip-flopped on abortion, gun control and gays.
"That two candidates as flawed as Giuliani and Romney were the best poised to step in and capitalize on McCain's implosion was start testament to the weakness of the rest of the Republican field" (pg 295) - Could any Republican win? Could any Democrat lose?
"McCain would listen to everyone, take their advice, then bounce that advice off the next person in the loop." (Pg 296) My recollection was that happened once during the debates on taxes. His lack of devotion to any cause cost him a lot of support. Iraq may have been the sole exception - he was devoted to winning in Iraq.
Chapter 17 - Vicki Iseman affair alleged with McCain. See earlier comments about unfounded allegations against politicians.
Even after winning the nomination, crowds were weak at McCain events.
"McCain had failed to drive a message." (pg 318) - This sentence speaks a lot.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
I thought it was interesting that the authors took 14 chapters to discuss the Democratic primaries and only 3 to discuss the Republican primaries. Could it be bias on the authors' part? Or just that the Democratic primary was more interesting? In this case, I think it's the latter.
Chapter 15 - McCain "really just didn't give a ####. The details made his head hurt." (pg 274) "The McCain's were a military family and if John wanted to serve, Cindy wasn't going to stand in his way. Four uses defined her ethic: 'I support my husband.'" (pg 276)
John's relationship with his wife surprised, sometimes it was very bad: "McCain let out the stream of sharp epithets, both middle fingers raised and extended, barking in his wife's face." Why all the profanity? I noted this before (see here) with the Democrats. I know if I spoke to my wife the way McCain did, she would NOT appreciate it. Sometimes, he was very protective and loving with his wife.
Rumors of Cindy's McCain's affair. Sh denied it and no proof was offered. Rumors of an illegitimate child that McCain later adopted. Is this what we subject our politicians to? Unfounded rumors?
McCain was for the Iraq surge in 2006, when the surge wasn't cool. I guess I forgot how big a part the Iraq war played in the election. Also, there was a lot of discussion of McCain's war hero status. Did it really carry that much weight? The authors thought so and at least one liberal blogger I follow agreed.
McCain's speeches were frequently disjointed due to last minute changes and they were poorly attended (during primaries). Not only was McCain not excited, the crowds and his campaign workers weren't either.
The authors mentioned the Immigration Bill of 2007. With this subject being hot (again or still?) I should do some research on it.
Chapter 16 - Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, 3x married, had a public affair with wife#3 while still married to wife#2 (see here for my comments on that subject). He was about as liberal as he could be. Why was he running as a Republican?
Charlie Crist (Florida) was view as being in Rudy's pocket and John's pocket depending on the day of the week. Mitt Romney flip-flopped on abortion, gun control and gays.
"That two candidates as flawed as Giuliani and Romney were the best poised to step in and capitalize on McCain's implosion was start testament to the weakness of the rest of the Republican field" (pg 295) - Could any Republican win? Could any Democrat lose?
"McCain would listen to everyone, take their advice, then bounce that advice off the next person in the loop." (Pg 296) My recollection was that happened once during the debates on taxes. His lack of devotion to any cause cost him a lot of support. Iraq may have been the sole exception - he was devoted to winning in Iraq.
Chapter 17 - Vicki Iseman affair alleged with McCain. See earlier comments about unfounded allegations against politicians.
Even after winning the nomination, crowds were weak at McCain events.
"McCain had failed to drive a message." (pg 318) - This sentence speaks a lot.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 12-14
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). This completes Part 1 of the book.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 12 - "The Gores (Al & Tipper) still looked askance at the Clinton marriage..." Comment what do they think of it now that their marriage has ended? There but for the grace of God, go I.
When women's groups didn't come to Hillary and Chelsea's defense, when MSNB's David Shuster said Chelsea was being "pimped out", Hillary said "where (are) the women's groups? ... If they get away with this... they deserve what they get." Comment - What about the women's groups vs. Bill's philandering and treating women as disposable? Seems they were quiet then. Hillary comes across in several chapters as bitter and vindictive.
"Bill (Clinton) received a call from George W. Bush. The current and former presidents spoke more often than almost anyone knew; from time to time, when 43 was bored he would call 42 to chew the fat." Comment - reminds me of stories about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. If 43 & 42 got along as well as this implies - why can't their followers?
Chapter 13 - Obama vs. Wright. This chapter interested me the most as I'd followed this encounter closely. I think it helps define Obama's character, his view on racial issues and his religion.
Obama's "initial attraction to (Wright) ... sprang from it's commitment to the social gospel." (pg236) Comment - is that what Christianity is about? A better way to serve people? What happened to the idea of a better way to serve Him?
"Obama liked the mixture of working class and buppie congreants in the church" (pg 236) yet "in 1998 and 2001 the Obamans had rarely attended services" (pg 235). Comment - Obama put a lot of faith in something he knew little about. As a Christian, I should study Christ, and make sure whoever I follow, follows Him.
Regarding Obama's speech on Racism, he said "This is tough. ... But I'm running for president, and this is what you do when you run for president. I want this to be a teaching moment." Comment - I think this defines why Obama wanted to be president and why he thought he should. He has something to teach us. In 20 years, if he looks back at today, what will he think of this attitude?
I remember when I was 22, I threatened to sue a lawyer. I look back and realize how immature I was. That's the way I see the current president, as an immature young man, who thinks he has something to teach us.
I took no notes on Chapter 14. It was more of the politics of the end of the primary process and continued to show Clinton as bitter and Obama as wanting it to be over. Now on to Part 2, about the Republicans.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 12 - "The Gores (Al & Tipper) still looked askance at the Clinton marriage..." Comment what do they think of it now that their marriage has ended? There but for the grace of God, go I.
When women's groups didn't come to Hillary and Chelsea's defense, when MSNB's David Shuster said Chelsea was being "pimped out", Hillary said "where (are) the women's groups? ... If they get away with this... they deserve what they get." Comment - What about the women's groups vs. Bill's philandering and treating women as disposable? Seems they were quiet then. Hillary comes across in several chapters as bitter and vindictive.
"Bill (Clinton) received a call from George W. Bush. The current and former presidents spoke more often than almost anyone knew; from time to time, when 43 was bored he would call 42 to chew the fat." Comment - reminds me of stories about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. If 43 & 42 got along as well as this implies - why can't their followers?
Chapter 13 - Obama vs. Wright. This chapter interested me the most as I'd followed this encounter closely. I think it helps define Obama's character, his view on racial issues and his religion.
Obama's "initial attraction to (Wright) ... sprang from it's commitment to the social gospel." (pg236) Comment - is that what Christianity is about? A better way to serve people? What happened to the idea of a better way to serve Him?
"Obama liked the mixture of working class and buppie congreants in the church" (pg 236) yet "in 1998 and 2001 the Obamans had rarely attended services" (pg 235). Comment - Obama put a lot of faith in something he knew little about. As a Christian, I should study Christ, and make sure whoever I follow, follows Him.
Regarding Obama's speech on Racism, he said "This is tough. ... But I'm running for president, and this is what you do when you run for president. I want this to be a teaching moment." Comment - I think this defines why Obama wanted to be president and why he thought he should. He has something to teach us. In 20 years, if he looks back at today, what will he think of this attitude?
I remember when I was 22, I threatened to sue a lawyer. I look back and realize how immature I was. That's the way I see the current president, as an immature young man, who thinks he has something to teach us.
I took no notes on Chapter 14. It was more of the politics of the end of the primary process and continued to show Clinton as bitter and Obama as wanting it to be over. Now on to Part 2, about the Republicans.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 9-11
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). My blogging is about to catch up with my reading, I need to read more!!
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 9 - Oprah "anointed" Obama (p159) Didn't she claim to be neutral and offer equal time to all candidates? Did she "anoint" McCain? I don't fault her for choosing a candidate. Everyone is entitled. But she shouldn't choose a candidate, then claim to be neutral.
Edwards kept fighting even after the Enquirer published the second article about his affair. I agree with what Warren Buffet said - people who gave him money should demand a refund.
Chapter 10 - This book explains several times what H. Clinton is wearing. But rarely (or never) what the men are wearing. Is there a double standard? It also uses words used by the conservatives - e.g. "anointed" and "coronation" - but frowned on by liberals. Could it be the conservatives were right? (sorry if I sound cynical)
Chapter 11 - Hillary's message - "The politics of common purpose" (pg194) Thought - Hillary was al about reaching across the aisle, Obama was about change. But he expected to unify?
"Nothing agitated the Clintons more than the prospect of being outspent in a campaign; the fear of it drove them to such extremes as the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom" (pg 194 - I knew there were allegations of this, but was it true? Is this legal?)
"Invocations of Obama's youthful cocaine use - to suggest that the Clintons were playing the race card." (pg 198 - Obama's aides claimed it was racist without his knowledge. He tried to defuse it. This matches my understanding of Obama's points on racism. See my previous comments, here, here, here and here.)
"The candidate (Obama) had presented an image - caustic, sarcastic and thin-skinned (pg 206 - his aides were afraid of what might happen if things got nasty)
Bill Clinton ate at Lizard's Thicket in Columbia. I've eaten there several times, good Southern food.
Page 209 brings back memories of Willie Horton and calls it racist. I remember the issue well and I remember the ads. I never saw them as racist - I saw them as anti-Dukakis.
As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 9 - Oprah "anointed" Obama (p159) Didn't she claim to be neutral and offer equal time to all candidates? Did she "anoint" McCain? I don't fault her for choosing a candidate. Everyone is entitled. But she shouldn't choose a candidate, then claim to be neutral.
Edwards kept fighting even after the Enquirer published the second article about his affair. I agree with what Warren Buffet said - people who gave him money should demand a refund.
Chapter 10 - This book explains several times what H. Clinton is wearing. But rarely (or never) what the men are wearing. Is there a double standard? It also uses words used by the conservatives - e.g. "anointed" and "coronation" - but frowned on by liberals. Could it be the conservatives were right? (sorry if I sound cynical)
Chapter 11 - Hillary's message - "The politics of common purpose" (pg194) Thought - Hillary was al about reaching across the aisle, Obama was about change. But he expected to unify?
"Nothing agitated the Clintons more than the prospect of being outspent in a campaign; the fear of it drove them to such extremes as the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom" (pg 194 - I knew there were allegations of this, but was it true? Is this legal?)
"Invocations of Obama's youthful cocaine use - to suggest that the Clintons were playing the race card." (pg 198 - Obama's aides claimed it was racist without his knowledge. He tried to defuse it. This matches my understanding of Obama's points on racism. See my previous comments, here, here, here and here.)
"The candidate (Obama) had presented an image - caustic, sarcastic and thin-skinned (pg 206 - his aides were afraid of what might happen if things got nasty)
Bill Clinton ate at Lizard's Thicket in Columbia. I've eaten there several times, good Southern food.
Page 209 brings back memories of Willie Horton and calls it racist. I remember the issue well and I remember the ads. I never saw them as racist - I saw them as anti-Dukakis.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Game Change - Chapters 3-5
More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards).
As mentioned yesterday, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 3 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet". Her is Hillary Clinton. I suppose the title chapter is a take-off on the wings beneath her wings. From what I've read in this chapter and others, the left leaning Dems had a lot of problems with Hillary's vote on Iraq. Leading into the primaries, she was trying to find a way to back-peddle on the vote. Explain her actions. Whatever words you want to call it. I've written before about flip-flopping, I don't see it as bad if it fits. I don't see this as a major change for her.
Lots of discussion in this chapter about her bi-partisanship -- but not really. Seems she was appearing bi-partisan and still trying to ram her Democratic agenda through. I get the feeling she can be pragmatic when it fits. The bi-partisanship and Iraq vote cost her a lot of liberal votes.
Chapter 4 - "Getting to Yes" - the title matches the name of a book on negotiations. Good book. My only note from this chapter is a quote from Obama when he saw some of the problems with Rev. Wright starting up. "I think the world would look at us differently the day I got elected, because it would be a confirmation of what America is about, the constant perfecting of who we are. I think I can help repair the damage that's been done."
I need to look back, but it was never clear to me what damage Obama saw. This seems to relate to what the right leaning people have called his "apology tour" after his election.
Chapter 5 - "The Invincibles" - Popular idea in this timeframe was that the Clintons were invincible. Hillary hired a "team of rivals" to run her campaign. I'd heard someone talk about Bush's team all being in sync (this was described as a bad thing). In this case, the team of rivals were so conflicted, they didn't help her.
Clinton saw Obama as jumping in line (pg 85). She saw it as a personal betrayal when her supporters went over to him. Obama saw Hillary as being unable to "bring the country together" (pg 87 - he hasn't done much better)
Clintons saw a "fawning press coverage of Obama" (pg 90). The Republicans saw this also.
More coverage to come
As mentioned yesterday, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
Chapter 3 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet". Her is Hillary Clinton. I suppose the title chapter is a take-off on the wings beneath her wings. From what I've read in this chapter and others, the left leaning Dems had a lot of problems with Hillary's vote on Iraq. Leading into the primaries, she was trying to find a way to back-peddle on the vote. Explain her actions. Whatever words you want to call it. I've written before about flip-flopping, I don't see it as bad if it fits. I don't see this as a major change for her.
Lots of discussion in this chapter about her bi-partisanship -- but not really. Seems she was appearing bi-partisan and still trying to ram her Democratic agenda through. I get the feeling she can be pragmatic when it fits. The bi-partisanship and Iraq vote cost her a lot of liberal votes.
Chapter 4 - "Getting to Yes" - the title matches the name of a book on negotiations. Good book. My only note from this chapter is a quote from Obama when he saw some of the problems with Rev. Wright starting up. "I think the world would look at us differently the day I got elected, because it would be a confirmation of what America is about, the constant perfecting of who we are. I think I can help repair the damage that's been done."
I need to look back, but it was never clear to me what damage Obama saw. This seems to relate to what the right leaning people have called his "apology tour" after his election.
Chapter 5 - "The Invincibles" - Popular idea in this timeframe was that the Clintons were invincible. Hillary hired a "team of rivals" to run her campaign. I'd heard someone talk about Bush's team all being in sync (this was described as a bad thing). In this case, the team of rivals were so conflicted, they didn't help her.
Clinton saw Obama as jumping in line (pg 85). She saw it as a personal betrayal when her supporters went over to him. Obama saw Hillary as being unable to "bring the country together" (pg 87 - he hasn't done much better)
Clintons saw a "fawning press coverage of Obama" (pg 90). The Republicans saw this also.
More coverage to come
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Game Change
A friend loaned me the book "Game Change" by John Heilmann and Mark Halperin. Thse two reporters had a lot of behind the scenes looks at the 2008 election and the book describes those scenes.
The book is NOT about the policies of the people involved in the election. I doubt seriously that it will change anyone's mind about the candidates. It may give you some insight into why they do things they way they do. And it may give some insight into their character.
I have not finished reading the book. The first 14 chapters are about the Obamas, the Clintons and the Edwardses. The next three are about McCain/Palin. It's not clear who the last six are about, but I'm thinking it's about President Obama. After all, he did win.
So starting today, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
One thing I've noticed about the book and the characters involved, is their language. There is a lot of profanity. I guess that shouldn't surprise me, given the language our VP has used on micro-phone, but it still disturbs me. I'm by no means perfect, but I hope my language has never been that bad.
Chapter 1 - Hillary Clinton thought about running for presidency in 2004, but decided to stay loyal to her promise to serve her Senate term. Chelsea did not want her to run and this had a big influence on her. She was not very respectful of a lot of other Democrats. She was also somewhat resentful of playing "second fiddle" to former President Bill Clinton.
Chapter 2 - Obama sees President Bush's "empathy deficit." On 1/22/06, he committed not to run for president. "You can always change your mind" (pg 30). (Compare this to Clinton's attitude). He had a low respect for senate life - seemed bored by the whole process.
More comments from the book later, now it's time for your comments
The book is NOT about the policies of the people involved in the election. I doubt seriously that it will change anyone's mind about the candidates. It may give you some insight into why they do things they way they do. And it may give some insight into their character.
I have not finished reading the book. The first 14 chapters are about the Obamas, the Clintons and the Edwardses. The next three are about McCain/Palin. It's not clear who the last six are about, but I'm thinking it's about President Obama. After all, he did win.
So starting today, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.
One thing I've noticed about the book and the characters involved, is their language. There is a lot of profanity. I guess that shouldn't surprise me, given the language our VP has used on micro-phone, but it still disturbs me. I'm by no means perfect, but I hope my language has never been that bad.
Chapter 1 - Hillary Clinton thought about running for presidency in 2004, but decided to stay loyal to her promise to serve her Senate term. Chelsea did not want her to run and this had a big influence on her. She was not very respectful of a lot of other Democrats. She was also somewhat resentful of playing "second fiddle" to former President Bill Clinton.
Chapter 2 - Obama sees President Bush's "empathy deficit." On 1/22/06, he committed not to run for president. "You can always change your mind" (pg 30). (Compare this to Clinton's attitude). He had a low respect for senate life - seemed bored by the whole process.
More comments from the book later, now it's time for your comments
Monday, February 23, 2009
Salary caps - good for the goose, good for the gander
"Good for the goose, good for the gander" is a saying I heard often from my mom & dad. I've been thinking a lot about the idea of salary caps and I have to say it bothers me.
The idea is that companies that take bail-out money (banks, auto companies, etc) would cap salaries of their CEO's etc at $500,000. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I would NOT be affected by this cap and probably won't be affected for at least the next 2-3 years.
But I got to wondering, if this is good for bank and auto CEO's, why not for other people? I saw this article that writes about two college presidents that make $900,000 and $1.4million. Seems like those colleges take scholarships handed out on the federal level, shouldn't they be capped also? (I'm ignoring the football coaches, as that will start a different argument).
More importantly, how about politicians? Well, the president is typically the highest-paid official, his salary is only $400,000. But if you tack on his expense account, travel account and entertainment account, he's over the cap at $569,000. Reckon President Obama can afford a $69,000 pay cut?
And how about past politicians? Remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. According to an April 2008 article, the Clintons made about $20million in 2007. Now since there's two of them, they would be capped at $500,00 each, so they get a cool $1million. Shouldn't they give $19million back to the government (in fairness, they did pay about $5.1million in taxes and typically gave around 10% to charity - that means they are only $12million away from this cap).
Let's not stop with education, business and politics. What about sports? Seems that Tiger Woods makes about $227million, LeBron James $40m and A-Rod $35m just to name a few. (thanks to Sports Illustrated for the reference). And if we look at the left coast (Hollywood), George Clooney rakes in $15m (paltry compared to Tom Cruise's $25m) according to bankrate.com.
Once we dictate what CEO's can make, why not stop there? Why not establish salaries up and down the line? We're already dictating the minimum wage. It's the middle class that's left out of the picture.
Ok, my opinion should be clear, but just to be sure: I'm against salary caps.
The idea is that companies that take bail-out money (banks, auto companies, etc) would cap salaries of their CEO's etc at $500,000. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I would NOT be affected by this cap and probably won't be affected for at least the next 2-3 years.
But I got to wondering, if this is good for bank and auto CEO's, why not for other people? I saw this article that writes about two college presidents that make $900,000 and $1.4million. Seems like those colleges take scholarships handed out on the federal level, shouldn't they be capped also? (I'm ignoring the football coaches, as that will start a different argument).
More importantly, how about politicians? Well, the president is typically the highest-paid official, his salary is only $400,000. But if you tack on his expense account, travel account and entertainment account, he's over the cap at $569,000. Reckon President Obama can afford a $69,000 pay cut?
And how about past politicians? Remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. According to an April 2008 article, the Clintons made about $20million in 2007. Now since there's two of them, they would be capped at $500,00 each, so they get a cool $1million. Shouldn't they give $19million back to the government (in fairness, they did pay about $5.1million in taxes and typically gave around 10% to charity - that means they are only $12million away from this cap).
Let's not stop with education, business and politics. What about sports? Seems that Tiger Woods makes about $227million, LeBron James $40m and A-Rod $35m just to name a few. (thanks to Sports Illustrated for the reference). And if we look at the left coast (Hollywood), George Clooney rakes in $15m (paltry compared to Tom Cruise's $25m) according to bankrate.com.
Once we dictate what CEO's can make, why not stop there? Why not establish salaries up and down the line? We're already dictating the minimum wage. It's the middle class that's left out of the picture.
Ok, my opinion should be clear, but just to be sure: I'm against salary caps.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Merle Haggard's new song about Hillary
This is honest truth and I offer it with NO political comments.
The "Okie from Muskogee" has voiced his opinion on politics again. In the 1970's he seemed conservative when he samg about "the 'hippies out in San Francisco' smoking marijuana and burning draft cards." (from Time magazine)
On the less conservative side, he also spoke out against the Iraq war "in 2003 with his song 'That’s the News,' which criticized coverage of the Iraq war and he later came to the aid of the Dixie Chicks when they came under fire for their comments about President George Bush at a concert." (more here)
Now Merle has a song supporting Hillary Clinton for president. Here are the lyrics from the one word titled song "Hillary":
If we don't elect Hillary, then we'll never know.
She is the right lady, and her husband's a pro.
Eight years in the White House with the know-how we need.
When you walk with a leader, you learn how to lead.
And who kept her head high when it could have been down?
And who ran the show when the scandal hit town?
This country needs to be honest. Our changes need to be large.
What we need is a big switch of gender. Let's put a woman in charge.
A woman in charge of the Army, put a woman in charge of the wheel.
The country owes it to Hillary, and Hillary owes it to Bill.
This country needs to be honest. Our changes need to be large.
What we need is a big switch of gender. Let's put a woman in charge.
He sang this at a recent concert, and the result was some grumbing. He then "moved right into a rousing rendition of, “I Think I’ll Just Stay Here and Drink,” and any grumbling about “Hillary” began to fade. (from Time Magazine).
All of this about a lady who swore she wasn't a "stand-by your man" kind of woman.
The "Okie from Muskogee" has voiced his opinion on politics again. In the 1970's he seemed conservative when he samg about "the 'hippies out in San Francisco' smoking marijuana and burning draft cards." (from Time magazine)
On the less conservative side, he also spoke out against the Iraq war "in 2003 with his song 'That’s the News,' which criticized coverage of the Iraq war and he later came to the aid of the Dixie Chicks when they came under fire for their comments about President George Bush at a concert." (more here)
Now Merle has a song supporting Hillary Clinton for president. Here are the lyrics from the one word titled song "Hillary":
If we don't elect Hillary, then we'll never know.
She is the right lady, and her husband's a pro.
Eight years in the White House with the know-how we need.
When you walk with a leader, you learn how to lead.
And who kept her head high when it could have been down?
And who ran the show when the scandal hit town?
This country needs to be honest. Our changes need to be large.
What we need is a big switch of gender. Let's put a woman in charge.
A woman in charge of the Army, put a woman in charge of the wheel.
The country owes it to Hillary, and Hillary owes it to Bill.
This country needs to be honest. Our changes need to be large.
What we need is a big switch of gender. Let's put a woman in charge.
He sang this at a recent concert, and the result was some grumbing. He then "moved right into a rousing rendition of, “I Think I’ll Just Stay Here and Drink,” and any grumbling about “Hillary” began to fade. (from Time Magazine).
All of this about a lady who swore she wasn't a "stand-by your man" kind of woman.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I approved this message - Final message
Ok, I've outlined the various parts of my platform (if I were truly running for president), now it's time for me to endorse one of the actual candidates. At this point, there are basically only three candidates left in the race (Clinton, McCain and Obama).
This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.
If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.
This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.
My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.
Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.
I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.
Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.
Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.
I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.
If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.
This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.
My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.
Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.
I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.
Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.
Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.
I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Universal HealtCare - I approved this message part 4.5
I've numbered this message part 4.5 because it comes somewhere between part 4 (the economy) and part 5 (education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits). My regular readers will remember that I'm outlining the policies I would follow if I were elected president. I should point out that not all presidential candidates do this. To my knowledge, only one of the current candidates has done this. Barack Obama has a book that describes his ideas. He also has extensive information on his website. He's accused of giving on lofty ideas in his campaign speeches. It's hard to tell from the sound bites if that's true, but I don't fault him for that. I think he's giving the public what they want, and doing a very good job of it.
Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.
But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.
I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.
For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.
Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.
To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.
Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).
Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.
Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.
We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.
Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.
But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.
I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.
For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.
Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.
To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.
Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).
Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.
Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.
We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.
Friday, February 08, 2008
It's the economy stupid (Platform building #4)
I couldn't resist that headline. For those with a weak memory, that was the mantra of those who swept Clinton-1 into office after Bush-1 led the nation in Iraq-1. When the troops all returned, the economy stumbled. Bush-1 seemed to ignore the issue and lo, the mantra.
Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.
As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.
So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.
First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.
There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.
The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.
How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.
As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.
I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.
There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.
Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.
Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.
Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.
Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.
That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.
As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.
So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.
First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.
There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.
The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.
How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.
As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.
I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.
There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.
Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.
Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.
Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.
Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.
That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
Friday, January 18, 2008
I approved this message - Foreign affairs
I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president
When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
When is a library not a library?
When you can't check anything out! See the article here.
Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.
The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.
Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...
P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.
Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.
The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.
Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...
P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Write in Jenna Bush for president
According to an MSNBC report, Jenna Bush won't be seeking the presidency. Uhh.. someone should check their constitution (with apologies to Al Haig). You have to be 35 to be president. Young Jenna is only 25 according to the same report. She'll have to wait out the next 3 elections.
MSNBC also says her fiancee doesn't aspire to the presidency. He's not much older, this site says he's 29. He'll have to wait out this election and the next.
Oh, as for changing their mind? Remember that in 1992, Hillary Clinton said she wasn't a "stand by your man" woman. Somewhere along the way, I guess she changed. Jenna and her husband-to-be are entitled to change their minds too
MSNBC also says her fiancee doesn't aspire to the presidency. He's not much older, this site says he's 29. He'll have to wait out this election and the next.
I think this qualifies as stupid journalism (with apologies to my son-in-law)
Oh, as for changing their mind? Remember that in 1992, Hillary Clinton said she wasn't a "stand by your man" woman. Somewhere along the way, I guess she changed. Jenna and her husband-to-be are entitled to change their minds too
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Should Chelsea's picture come down?
Chelsea Clinton had her picture taken with the owner of a restaurant and he put it in his window. He has photos of other famous people including Regis Philbin and even politician Rudy Giuliani. Apparently though, the Clintons aren't happy with the photo.
Bill Clinton's lawyer sent a letter to the restaurant owner, demanding the photo be taken down. The letter included threats of "any and all options" if the picture stayed.
The legality comes down to weather or not Chelsea is a private citizen (she is) and whether the owner has the right to publish the picture (he doesn't).
But wouldn't it have been a little nicer if Bill has sent a letter asking him to take it down? Maybe Hillary could have gone and had her picture taken to replace the Chelsea photo.
You can view the story here. Note that the restaurant seems like a nice place, the man claims that he looks at Chelsea as his daughter and he's a well dressed, nice looking man. In short, it's a good picture.
I agree the picture should come down, the request should have been more civil. I'm not sure this is as much an attack against our former president, as it is an attack on society in general. When we have to threaten through lawyers instead of just making a request, I think we've gone too far.
Bill Clinton's lawyer sent a letter to the restaurant owner, demanding the photo be taken down. The letter included threats of "any and all options" if the picture stayed.
The legality comes down to weather or not Chelsea is a private citizen (she is) and whether the owner has the right to publish the picture (he doesn't).
But wouldn't it have been a little nicer if Bill has sent a letter asking him to take it down? Maybe Hillary could have gone and had her picture taken to replace the Chelsea photo.
You can view the story here. Note that the restaurant seems like a nice place, the man claims that he looks at Chelsea as his daughter and he's a well dressed, nice looking man. In short, it's a good picture.
I agree the picture should come down, the request should have been more civil. I'm not sure this is as much an attack against our former president, as it is an attack on society in general. When we have to threaten through lawyers instead of just making a request, I think we've gone too far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)