A View From The Press Box

Sam, like you, for me nothing is more fun to discuss and debate than politics.

I was not surprised by the Iowa wins of Obama or Huckabee. If they are the eventual nominees, God help us all.

I would likely say the same thing if Giuliani and Clinton ended up at the top. Or Edwards. Or any of them.

You did hit it on the mark mentioning that the narrowing of the field could end the endless soundbites and maybe give us debates with substance.

As a young radio reporter, I used to have the pleasure of covering political campaigns and politics. I used to end all of my interviews with the question: Why should I believe you?

Politicians every election year point fingers and single out legislative sins that "will be corrected" when they are elected. And nothing changes when they are elected.

It's hard to get excited about any of these people because--in the immortal words of Pete Townsend in the classic rock song, "Won't Get Fooled Again," when it's all said and done: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

SAM RESPONDS:
While I don't share your lack of enthusiasm about the candidates--at least on the Democratic side--your take on this is shared by many, and might spur my current mayor, Michael Bloomberg, to enter the race as an independent.

I hope he does not take that step--not because I don't think he would make a bad president, but because I don't think an independent could do anything in this Electoral College system than throw the election into Congress eventually. I also fear he could cost the Democrats the election.

GARY RESPONDS:
I guess I have trouble trusting any of them. Though I have no statistics to back this up, my guess is if there were a box marked "none of the above" on any presidential ballot, "none of the above" would win.

We are all now totally jaded about the process. The political parties do not offer us the best and the brightest because the best and brightest are too bright to want to be president.

I will admit to being intrigued a little by Obama, and he is certainly easier to like than Clinton or Edwards. But I have yet to hear him--or any of them for that matter--say anything of substance.

I tried to watch the big Oprah push and tried to stay awake through her uninspired speech and then to focus on his rambling reply. I was half asleep last night when I heard Obama's victory speech so I promise to give it another listen.

SAM RESPONDS:
I would advise you read about the candidates more closely.

The Republican side essentially is saying, elect us or terrorists will kill you, if the Democrats don't tax you to death first.

But all three top candidates for the Dems are emphasizing comprehensive health care reform, tax cuts targeting the middle rather than upper classes, and a more multinational approach on global issues.

There is plenty of substance there amid the soundbites, and more will come out as the filed narrows.

GARY HAS THE LAST WORD:
Your comment on the Republicans wanting you to vote for them or terrorists will kill you and Democrats will tax you to death is exactly what I'm talking about in not trusting any of them.

Our political parties and the candidates they produce have very little understanding of the real world. Their response to anything is carefully measured to give them the best possible standing in the polls.

That goes for elected officials, too. Decisions are made on what makes someone look the best in the eyes of their party first, the news media second and their constituents last. To hell with what is best for the country.

The war on terrorism is an excellent place to start. Neither the Dems or the Republicans have a clue what is going on or if they do, other things like personal image are more important.

There is an excellent movie based on the 12 life lessons learned by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. It's called "The Fog of War." If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend a view.

One of his "lessons" is know your enemy. It is why we failed in Vietnam. And why we will fail in Iraq and against terrorism and Islamic extremists. We do not know or understand our enemy.

The Republicans want to bomb them senseless and the Democrats are determined to get us out of Iraq and let the Iraqi people determine their fate. Neither scenario works. Ten seconds after we leave, there are two Irans in the Middle East.

Short-sighted thinking is what got us into this mess and countless others. I don't see a candidate on the scene with any kind of long-term thinking on the mind. Quick fixes are the order of the day.

I do give George Bush some credit when 9/11 first happened for telling us that the war on terror would be long, bloody and costly. The Democrats happily jumped on that band wagon and now want to hop off because they want power, not truth and justice and what is best for this nation.

On health care--yes, it needs reform, but do you really want the entities that have mismanaged our government for eons, have given us a $9 trillion dollar federal debt, screwed up energy policies, the war in Iraq, and education, and God knows how many other areas, control of our health care?

Do you want them to have control of insurance?

Remember, Congress has the lowest possible rating you can get in poll after poll after poll. The American people don't trust the institution.

The people you're talking about on your blog aren't going to change a thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, stands as the perfect word picture of what will happen no matter who gets into office. They will fix nothing.

Jaded? Yes. I'm sorry. But from Obama to McCain they all look the same.

Is there a solution? I think so. I keep hoping a leader with vision will come forward with the ability to focus this nation and focus our Congress and move us back toward common sense. That person, however, isn't in the cards this time around.

And all of us in the insurance industry should hope and pray that universal health care is NOT ENACTED. Many of us will lose our jobs, careers, homes, etc. and Americans will be far worse off than ever.

Like most other Main Street media, you omitted mentioning Ron Paul, who is running for the Republican nomination even though he clearly beat Rudy in Iowa.

His message of peace and prosperity is spreading rapidly, no thanks to the talking heads on corporate TV who want to present us with choices that fit their agenda. I urge everyone to check out www.ronpaul2008.com and educate yourselves.

The media reporting is no longer about the issues, rather it's what will happen to candidate X if candidate Y gets more support and the fallout for candidate Z.

Meanwhile the declining dollar, imperialism, and government interference in our lives threatens to destroy our nation.

Ron Paul is hope for America.

The Real Message From Iowa & New Hampshire for R’s & D’sfrom Jim Schwartz: Main Street NOT Wall Street

Huckabee, McCain and Obama are surging while Romney & Hillary are deflating.

Relative to the conventional political punditry, the D’s are sending a message of change rather than experience while the R’s are telegraphing consistency (McCain) and identity (nice guy and religion- Huckabee).

I think these pundits and spin masters are confusing symptom with underlying message: Main Street NOT Wall Street or the Experienced ‘Elites.’

Romney--regardless of those who excuse his serial flip-flopping with the old hobgoblins of consistency (though these often are the same individuals who criticized Kerry for his flip-flopping)--is Wall Street.

His superior management and entrepreneurial experience aside, he is Wall Street, perfect hair (though not at $1,200 per cut like Edwards). And on Wall Street, while they say they create value and save jobs, more often than not they are a chop shop--just selling off parts for more than the whole in a flip.

Romney looks Presidential but he is Wall Street--400-times the salary of the average worker tinged by the sins of back-dating options (though not 17 straight cattle trades at 120 million to 1 odds like Hillary).

Romney also is tinged by the anti-dynastic feeling of Main Street (i.e. George Romney’s son – though a vague memory for many).

Huckabee represents, like Obama, Main Street--the Middle-America Hood. He’s playing the populism card, but is is the Wall Street Republicans (and Insurance Industry allies) that have created this opening which Huckabee is exploiting via his roots. His father was a working stiff.

McCain’s resurgence, even in light of his amnesty stance on immigration and anti-free speech legislation, is based to Main Street’s belief in consistency--‘core values’ (the same core values concept the Republican’s decried of the Clinton’s not having but allow Romney to have in the name of pragmatism and or ‘evolving’ positions).

McCain’s war record and stance on Iraq represents authenticity, which neither Hillary nor Romney have the perception of.

Obama represents Main Street’s outrage with outreach to minority communities and the young as well evoking a 2000's 'New Frontier.'

Hillary’s lack of core values obfuscated by the false assertion of experience (which is really mere witnessing) cries out ‘phoniness’ and the slickness of the Elites (the D’s Wall Street). Slick Willie by osmosis??

The ‘fiscal flatliners’ represent Main Street from the factory worker to the 55 year old boomer facing the fear of outliving their monies, swallowed by health care costs.

These 88 million boomers are converging on a walk & rally down Main Street, and thus, the neo-gosh-golly Norman Rockwell populism of Huckabee and soothing mellifluous tones of Obama are playing well.

It is up to Giuliani to show authenticity, competency, and Main Street (not Wall Street--reiterating his taking out the Boeskys, pledge to bring to their knees Insurance Industry execs and revolving door Irregulators and other top management that plays option backdating, while throwing overboard the Keriks) to avoid this tidal wave, get in front of it, and lead it.

Typically, the only people that like change are wet babies. But the evolving majority-- 'The I've Had Its'--The Fiscal Flatliners are about to change Wall Street and the insurance industry's diapers (including McCarran).

And I write this as a conservative Republican observing this Silver Tsunami wave.

I must agree with Gary. Cynicism is the order of the day.

On the big-ticket item, none of the Dem candicates have provided me with follow through as to what happens after withdrawal from Iraq is accomplished. Withdrawal is easy. What is the plan afterward? Surely no one is naive enough to believe Islamic extremists will leave us in peace after their victory in Iraq?

And what I heard from these candidates during Saturday night's debate stresses current foreign policy will remain the same: Obama and fellow candidates indicated they would invade Pakistan if they had intelligence pointing toward terrorist activity in the country. This is the pre-emptive strike policy currently in place. How is this different?

FYI, the federal deficit is $167 billion; not $9 trillion.

SAM RESPONDS:
Yes, the deficit figure is $167 billion, but I believe the total national debt (the cumulative of all past and present budget deficits--the amount of money this country owes via T-bills), is $9 trillion.

That figures big-time in the Social Security mess, since the government has been recklessly spending the SS surplus over the decades, rather than putting it in Al Gore's lockbox or lowering SS taxes so that only enough was being collected to pay current benefits.

As a result of such a huge national debt, as the total benefits begins to exceed SS tax income, the pyramid scheme collapses, and Uncle Sam must pay SS benefits deficits out of our accumulated SS surplus account, which is technically filled with Treasury IOUs, meaning most likely we'll have to cut benefits and/or raise taxes to keep the pyramid going, or borrow more to pay back what the country owes SS beneficiaries.

Really nice exchange with your first respondent. I particularly like his question of candidates: "Why should I believe you?" Journalists should ask it during debates.

But his point that you don't want government to run health care because they screw everything up is a Reaganite canard that people have to get over.

There are some very good neo-liberal economic arguments against this by people like Paul Krugman and Nicholas Lemann.

If you look at the numbers, you'll find that government has done a very efficient job on Medicare, for instance. It's fallacious in many cases to say you want the private sector to run stuff because it's more efficient--on just the simple grounds that it you add an intermediary like an insurance agent, you add costs and red tape.

The only reason Hillary has cooled off on her ambitious plans, as Michael Moore (no less!) points out, is that the health insurance industry brought her to her knees with attack ads and now has bought her off.

Cynicism can be the order of the day if we allow it. I refuse to fall into that trap. When you look around, do you not see reason for hope in our younger generation? I am a fifty-five year old conservative Republican, but I can change.

Study the candidates carefully through their backgrounds, their family and their actions. Hillary touts her experience. Did Nancy Reagan tout hers? Did Barbara Bush tout her experience? What experience did Hillary have besides a failed effort to change health care? If that qualifies as experience, Larry Craig should chair the family values conference.

Rudy Giuliani is an interesting character. Forgive me, Sam, but the country cannot be managed in the same manner that one would manage New York. Rudy has done a good job in New York, but he tends to be a bully. He is used to getting his way. How in the world would Mr. Giuliani deal with Mr. Putin? We will have to deal with him, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Kim Jong Il, and Beijing.

Our lifestyle, quality of life, and freedom are the envy of the world. If we continue to make it attractive, it will win the day. Take a look at China and notice how the people are clamoring for cars, resorts, the Internet, and political freedom. We did not start a war to get that. The beauty of democracy is it sells itself. We need to keep it attractive.

No one has ever fully embraced an idea because they were beaten in to submission.

Is Obama the answer? I believe so, as I have read about his work ethic, his ambitions, and I have seen how he treats Michelle and his girls.

Experience is another word for the status quo. With all of the debts and favors owed by the Clintons, how will we ever change anything? She is today and always has been hopelessly attached to the trial lawyers. We need more of that experience like we need a nuclear release.

We have real issues in this country. Terrorism is a threat that must be handled firmly, but delicately. We had an opportunity after 9/11 to turn the world against the terrorists. We failed to capitalize on that mission. This strengthened our enemies, so our efforts have been counter-productive.

Our environmental issues are massive. We should be the world leader in "greening" the planet. We cannot even boast that we have made our own country green. We have lost credibility (and respect) here.

If we were energy independent, we would be the envy of the world and even better corporate partners with our allies. We would also have a chance to remove the trade deficit as we would have what the rest of the world would want.

We could be the new Middle East as we supply the world with energy independence. Without oil, who funds terrorism?

Health care for everyone is frightening to some, intimidating to others, and impossible to the rest. Universal anything is broad and probably unworkable.

Let's strive to get as much private coverage for the citizens of the U.S. as possible. The more citizens that have health care, the less expensive the problem can become. By empowering those who use it and having them share the cost, the better will be the restraint to use it judiciously.

For now, those of us who have coverage are paying too much to cover those who do not have coverage. Without coverage, preventative care is not utilized and more expensive care is used (such as emergency rooms).

Sam, obviously, politics are a lot of fun to discuss.

SAM RESPONDS:
I am an undecided voter at this point, but I agree that Rudy might be too inflexible to be a good president. His success in New York was based on the fact that the City Council is virtually useless, and the mayor pretty much runs the show. If Rudy were to have a Democratic Congress to deal with, it would be quite a battle, let alone with uncooperative world leaders!

As for Hillary and her experience, I would highly recommend a story in the last edition of Newsweek in 2007 (can't find the link) that showed she was pretty much a cabinet officer without portfolio in the Clinton Administration.

The problem, I think, is that experience is only one factor. There is also judgment, values, leadership and other factors where Hillary seems to be coming up short. Obama and Huckabee both benefited from the voters' hunger for genuineess and inspiration from their candidates.

There is nothing like a good political debate.

My problem is on both sides of the aisle there is nobody saying anything of substance.

With the Dem's it is the same old stuff; tax cuts for middle class, which is a complete joke because most of the middle and lower class do not pay federal income tax--they get a tax return check.

Check the facts--the top wealthliest pay the majority of the taxes. The top 50% pay over 93% of taxes.

The tax cuts which were put in place in the early part of this decade have actually put more money into the Treasury. The problem is spending has not been restricted. Earmarks, waste, and other things need to go, but the Supreme Court said a line-item veto is not allowed, go figure.

I don't think the Founding Fathers wanted the goverment to have items inserted into laws that had nothing to do with the law, but let the Congress spend money on pet projects.

The Dems want socialized health care, not federal health insurance. Plain and simple, they would love to have even more power over a great many people so the program can never go away and people would rely on them more. Sounds what happened with welfare.

As for the Republicans, it seems fighting the war on terrorism is still important as it should be. Sure there have been some mistakes made, but that happens in war. Watch the movie "A Bridge Too Far."

They seem to talk about immigration but it seems hard to find out what the meaning of "amnesty" is.

The Republicans' problem with health care is they want a tax cut or Health Savings Account increases, blah blah blah. The average working family that does not have health insurance does not have the money to put into the HSA account and still pay the insurance premium. They are great things if you have the money. A $3,000 tax break for an $8,000 policy is oh such a great deal.

My issues are these:

1. Win the war on terrorism.

2. Keep the tax cuts and even cut them even more just control spending and no more earmarks.

3. The cost of heath care and health insurance has to be dealt with at all levels.

4. Illegal Immigration has to be stopped and the borders secured.

5. Education is and always should a priority, but just to keep throwing money and getting less results is not a good idea.

But here are some comments that are really good.

Just because Hillary was First Lady does mean she is qualified to be President, otherwise a pro football coach's spouse would be qualified to take over the team because she was there and met players and other coaches. How about Brett Farve's wife taking over the quarterback position? Same logic.

And one from the other side:

Did we not learn a lesson from the last time we elected a former Arkansas governor?

SAM RESPONDS:
I couldn't agree more with you when it comes to earmarks and the generally bloated federal budget. It's a disgrace!

However, I am surprised to learn that as a member of the abused middle-class, I am not paying taxes. Where has all that money that's been deducted from my paychecks been going? I've been getting some refunds, but still pay a big chunk. I suppose it depends on how you define "middle class" these days.

We can with certainty assume that all politicians manipulate information to their purpose, but Barrack Obama's pandering of platitudes and false promises borders on blatant lying and deceit of the worst kind, taking advantage of "The Naivete of Hope" of the innocent for personal ambition.