Thursday, November 11, 2010
Been way too long since posting
... and I missed out on way too many opportunities to mock this year's crop of Republican wackjobs. Now that they're going to pretend to govern, I feel obliged to return.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Staten Island Republican troubles? Understatement
Not Albany. Not national. But priceless.
Seems the Republicans who already lost their incumbent Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella to a sex, two-families, drunk-driving story are still having trouble.
After a struggle, they found a replacement, Frank Powers.
Now Powers's son is running against him.
You couldn't make this story up.
Seems the Republicans who already lost their incumbent Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella to a sex, two-families, drunk-driving story are still having trouble.
After a struggle, they found a replacement, Frank Powers.
Now Powers's son is running against him.
You couldn't make this story up.
What went wrong with Hilary's campaign?
Yes, I grew tired, then bitter about Hilary and her campaign. But it's still worth thinking about how she went from the presumed dominant candidate with all the advantages of name recognition, favorable ratings, good will, lots of money, her husband's immense political skills, connections, and popularity the support of a great many party leaders to second place behind a comparative rookie, and a black man at that.
Some of it has been campaign strategy and management. And some of it has been that Obama's and his team played the game quite well. In the end though, it was the wrong time. The War in Iraq and Hilary's choice made regarding the decision to go to war revealed more than she intended. Obama is going to beat McCain, but Obama's beating Hilary marks the passing of an era.
Hilary ran a less than stellar campaign
Remember when Hilary's campaign mantra was "ready on day one"? Despite all the appearances, she wasn't.
She figured it would be over on Super Tuesday in early February. It wasn't. And when it wasn't over in February, she didn't change course.
Hilary ran a slice and dice campaign. Mark Penn was not only key to the operational aspects of Hilary's campaign, he represented the type of campaign that poll at the microscopic level and tailor policy positions and demographic and cultural symbols to appeal to enough microscopic groups to add up to more than half the voters. Of course, when the appeals to two different groups contradict one another, it's difficult, if not impossible to resolve.
And it wasn't just campaign staffing. Hilary couldn't change course because her campaign was like a supertanker. Hilary's campaign was emblematic of the past 30 years, big, strong, tough, domineering, extraordinarily arrogant, and failed much like the Bush Presidency. What it was not was smart, subtle, supple, and clear-headed.
Obama ran a very good campaign
It wasn't just that Hilary ran the wrong campaign. Obama ran a smart, flexible, clear-headed campaign. It was bottom-up rather than top-down. Despite the huge amounts of money they raised, they were lean; they controlled their spending. They not only used new technology. In taking advantage of the social networking tools on the web, they advanced its use way beyond what Howard Dean did a mere four years ago. They also built on Dean's 50-state strategy at the DNC, by looking for stray delegates wherever they could find them and by working effectively to expand the base.
What they needed was delegates. That's what they got. His unification message was quite contrary to the Mark Penn slice and dice messaging and tactics.
The War
Hilary's voting for the resolution that enabled George W. Bush to take us into the strategic blunder and moral failure and her inability or unwillingness to come to grips with her own decision was fatal. That decision may not always have been in the forefront of the public face of the contest. But it was always there. For many, the decision itself was enough to permanently alienate them from Hilary. The decision to go to war was bad enough in its own right. But the war vote by Democrats also symbolized something else. Many Congressional Democrats, and Hilary may have been one of them, voted for the war because they were fearful of the political consequences if they did not. Trying to appear tough, they revealed their inner weakness. It took time, but their own fearfulness revealed itself and turned back on them.
The passing of an era
Hilary's campaign was right for her. It was wrong for the time.
Hilary and her campaign misread the time, because they are from a different political era. Only the recent past, but the past nevertheless. One of the things I found both distressing and curious during the campaign was how careful some of the candidates were (and still some Democratic members of Congress are) way too careful about offending Republican sensibilities and fearful of the wingnut right. Why? Old habits die hard I guess, but the Republicans are going to be crushed this fall. Take it from the Smirking Chimp. Because damn little is going right and the American public is rightly fed up. The Republican brand is like one of those companies that sold poisonous pet food not too long ago.
From the beginning I've thought all we had to do was choose somebody reasonably competent and we'd win. And we started with a large group of very competent candidates. The field narrowed rather quickly, but pretty much all of them were plainly preferable to pretty much any of the Republicans.
One of the funny things about Democratic politics the past couple decades is how fearful it has been. National Democrats have been fearful of being perceived as "weak," especially on issues of national defense, but also in terms of campaign tactics. Part of Hilary's argument was that the "Republican attack machine" had already gone after her, she had withstood it, and Obama wasn't ready for it. But the psychology of that message is one of being defensive, undermining its own premise. Obama essentially ignored it. In doing so, he not only showed he was tough enough, he showed the self-confidence and temperament that changed the terms of engagement.
Negotiate with our enemies? Those fearful that they will be perceived as weak, make tough statements that they won't. Those who support a war out of fear of appearing weak are weak. It just take some time to be revealed.
Those confident of themselves are not afraid to be on the same field with the bad guys because they have inner strength. They set their own terms of engagement.
The conventional wisdom was not only wrong. It was delusional. Yet, it persisted even as its victims began falling by the wayside. Remember Fred Thompson, a Reagan wannabe? The best part of his campaign ended the day he announced. Remember when the chattering classes were hyped on a Rudy-Hilary race? All 9/11, all the time. When Rudy vanished, did any of the analysts, or did any of Hilary's strategists stop and wonder what the hell was going on? Apparently not.
Let's not forget Bill Clinton role here. Despite his prodigious talents, he cost Hilary in four ways. First, his comments about race during the South Carolina primary campaign were a turn off. They were bad enough by themselves, but because he and Hilary had always had strong support in the Black community, they were interpreted as Clintonian willingness to say anything for advantage. From that point on, Black voters went from being split to overwhelming support of Obama. But they caused movement by White voters as well, who were disgusted by the comments themselves and by what they revealed. Second, Bill's constant presence was a reminder that the era we are leaving has been Bush/Clinton all the time. We link these two families and we're tired of them. Lastly, Bill's a wild card. We love him, but we're tired of worrying what he's going to do next. Enough of that. Lastly, his presence undermined the message of Hilary's being the ground breaking woman candidate and more experienced than Obama. It was too easy to think that had she not spent eight years as first lady she would not be a candidate and that her "experience" was not really hers.
It's useful to think about John Edwards here. Edwards was the leading candidate who presented an aggressive agenda and demeanor. He apologized for being wrong on the war, but he did not apologize for being a Democrat and believing that we have obligations to one another, especially those less advantaged. Democrats, including myself who were tired of seeing National Democrats in a defensive crouch, fearful of what the Republicans might do and Democrats, like myself who believed that it was our time, moved toward Edwards and Obama. When Edwards dropped out, it was an easy move for many who wanted a more aggressive stance, to move to Obama.
Hilary came close. But she came in second.
Obama ran a better campaign. He had a better message. And he's much more representative of the time we're hoping for and of our desire to leave the past three decades behind.
_____________________
Some other opinions:
Washington Post
The Carpetbagger Report
The Wall Street Journal
Larry Beinhart
Time Magazine (on how Obama won)
Some of it has been campaign strategy and management. And some of it has been that Obama's and his team played the game quite well. In the end though, it was the wrong time. The War in Iraq and Hilary's choice made regarding the decision to go to war revealed more than she intended. Obama is going to beat McCain, but Obama's beating Hilary marks the passing of an era.
Hilary ran a less than stellar campaign
Remember when Hilary's campaign mantra was "ready on day one"? Despite all the appearances, she wasn't.
She figured it would be over on Super Tuesday in early February. It wasn't. And when it wasn't over in February, she didn't change course.
Hilary ran a slice and dice campaign. Mark Penn was not only key to the operational aspects of Hilary's campaign, he represented the type of campaign that poll at the microscopic level and tailor policy positions and demographic and cultural symbols to appeal to enough microscopic groups to add up to more than half the voters. Of course, when the appeals to two different groups contradict one another, it's difficult, if not impossible to resolve.
And it wasn't just campaign staffing. Hilary couldn't change course because her campaign was like a supertanker. Hilary's campaign was emblematic of the past 30 years, big, strong, tough, domineering, extraordinarily arrogant, and failed much like the Bush Presidency. What it was not was smart, subtle, supple, and clear-headed.
Obama ran a very good campaign
It wasn't just that Hilary ran the wrong campaign. Obama ran a smart, flexible, clear-headed campaign. It was bottom-up rather than top-down. Despite the huge amounts of money they raised, they were lean; they controlled their spending. They not only used new technology. In taking advantage of the social networking tools on the web, they advanced its use way beyond what Howard Dean did a mere four years ago. They also built on Dean's 50-state strategy at the DNC, by looking for stray delegates wherever they could find them and by working effectively to expand the base.
What they needed was delegates. That's what they got. His unification message was quite contrary to the Mark Penn slice and dice messaging and tactics.
The War
Hilary's voting for the resolution that enabled George W. Bush to take us into the strategic blunder and moral failure and her inability or unwillingness to come to grips with her own decision was fatal. That decision may not always have been in the forefront of the public face of the contest. But it was always there. For many, the decision itself was enough to permanently alienate them from Hilary. The decision to go to war was bad enough in its own right. But the war vote by Democrats also symbolized something else. Many Congressional Democrats, and Hilary may have been one of them, voted for the war because they were fearful of the political consequences if they did not. Trying to appear tough, they revealed their inner weakness. It took time, but their own fearfulness revealed itself and turned back on them.
The passing of an era
Hilary's campaign was right for her. It was wrong for the time.
Hilary and her campaign misread the time, because they are from a different political era. Only the recent past, but the past nevertheless. One of the things I found both distressing and curious during the campaign was how careful some of the candidates were (and still some Democratic members of Congress are) way too careful about offending Republican sensibilities and fearful of the wingnut right. Why? Old habits die hard I guess, but the Republicans are going to be crushed this fall. Take it from the Smirking Chimp. Because damn little is going right and the American public is rightly fed up. The Republican brand is like one of those companies that sold poisonous pet food not too long ago.
From the beginning I've thought all we had to do was choose somebody reasonably competent and we'd win. And we started with a large group of very competent candidates. The field narrowed rather quickly, but pretty much all of them were plainly preferable to pretty much any of the Republicans.
One of the funny things about Democratic politics the past couple decades is how fearful it has been. National Democrats have been fearful of being perceived as "weak," especially on issues of national defense, but also in terms of campaign tactics. Part of Hilary's argument was that the "Republican attack machine" had already gone after her, she had withstood it, and Obama wasn't ready for it. But the psychology of that message is one of being defensive, undermining its own premise. Obama essentially ignored it. In doing so, he not only showed he was tough enough, he showed the self-confidence and temperament that changed the terms of engagement.
Negotiate with our enemies? Those fearful that they will be perceived as weak, make tough statements that they won't. Those who support a war out of fear of appearing weak are weak. It just take some time to be revealed.
Those confident of themselves are not afraid to be on the same field with the bad guys because they have inner strength. They set their own terms of engagement.
The conventional wisdom was not only wrong. It was delusional. Yet, it persisted even as its victims began falling by the wayside. Remember Fred Thompson, a Reagan wannabe? The best part of his campaign ended the day he announced. Remember when the chattering classes were hyped on a Rudy-Hilary race? All 9/11, all the time. When Rudy vanished, did any of the analysts, or did any of Hilary's strategists stop and wonder what the hell was going on? Apparently not.
Let's not forget Bill Clinton role here. Despite his prodigious talents, he cost Hilary in four ways. First, his comments about race during the South Carolina primary campaign were a turn off. They were bad enough by themselves, but because he and Hilary had always had strong support in the Black community, they were interpreted as Clintonian willingness to say anything for advantage. From that point on, Black voters went from being split to overwhelming support of Obama. But they caused movement by White voters as well, who were disgusted by the comments themselves and by what they revealed. Second, Bill's constant presence was a reminder that the era we are leaving has been Bush/Clinton all the time. We link these two families and we're tired of them. Lastly, Bill's a wild card. We love him, but we're tired of worrying what he's going to do next. Enough of that. Lastly, his presence undermined the message of Hilary's being the ground breaking woman candidate and more experienced than Obama. It was too easy to think that had she not spent eight years as first lady she would not be a candidate and that her "experience" was not really hers.
It's useful to think about John Edwards here. Edwards was the leading candidate who presented an aggressive agenda and demeanor. He apologized for being wrong on the war, but he did not apologize for being a Democrat and believing that we have obligations to one another, especially those less advantaged. Democrats, including myself who were tired of seeing National Democrats in a defensive crouch, fearful of what the Republicans might do and Democrats, like myself who believed that it was our time, moved toward Edwards and Obama. When Edwards dropped out, it was an easy move for many who wanted a more aggressive stance, to move to Obama.
Hilary came close. But she came in second.
Obama ran a better campaign. He had a better message. And he's much more representative of the time we're hoping for and of our desire to leave the past three decades behind.
_____________________
Some other opinions:
Washington Post
The Carpetbagger Report
The Wall Street Journal
Larry Beinhart
Time Magazine (on how Obama won)
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Well, maybe not
So a day after I picked Tom Daschle as the sleeper VP selection, National Journal reports he's not interested, but would be much interested in heading HHS.
Back to the drawing board?
Back to the drawing board?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
God, I love Charlie Rangel
Loyal to the end, but when was that?
Rangel is the guy who first got Hilary to run for the Senate. And he's supported her for President all the way through.
And BTW I've loved this guy for a long time.
We pledged to support her to the end,” Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.
Rangel is the guy who first got Hilary to run for the Senate. And he's supported her for President all the way through.
And BTW I've loved this guy for a long time.
Contrarian Veep predictions
In countdown order, here are my predictions regarding who Obama will pick as a running mate.
Right weird, huh? As you go through the list, they are increasingly less likely and less talked about. My bet? Obama will be a contrarian and pick a surprise. Real doubts about what they bring in terms of the campaign. But none of them a lightweight. All capable of putting a coherent sentence together. And all are capable of being President.
- #4 Jim Webb. Longshot. I like the guy's attitude and just a few weeks ago would have bet more on him. But perhaps a bit too aggressive for Obama's taste and would cost us a Senate seat.
#3 Chris Dodd. Hmmm. Now that I've written this, I'm questioning it, primarily because of the insurance industry ties. But I'll leave him here.
#2 John Edwards. Two runs for Veep? Whoa! Don't count him out. And of course, he'd say yes.
#1 Tom Daschle. When this happens, you can come and beg for an explanation.
Right weird, huh? As you go through the list, they are increasingly less likely and less talked about. My bet? Obama will be a contrarian and pick a surprise. Real doubts about what they bring in terms of the campaign. But none of them a lightweight. All capable of putting a coherent sentence together. And all are capable of being President.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Enough of the Clintons. Just go away.
It was bad enough when Mike Huckabee made a joke about Obama's being assassinated. But at least he had the moral courage to apologize in a straightforward way, resisting the passive, conditional, "if someone was offended" construction.
After Hilary Clinton offered the possibility of Obama's assassination as a reason to stay in the race (listen to Rachel Maddow and Gene Robinson), she apologized to the Kennedy's. No, she did not directly say that her opponent might be assassinated as her explanation. She instead referred to Bobby Kennedy's murder as toward the end of the 1968 campaign, literally minutes after he won the California primary and thus seemed to have broken through to capture the nomination.
And as Eugene Robinson pointed out, she apologized to the Kennedys, but to the Obamas. Well, at least she seems to know that it's over now. This is her at the time of her apology.
It's not as if many whites and damn near all blacks haven't been worried about the possibility. And it's not as if they don't have a reason to assume that somebody will take a shot at him. The talk may have been out of the media, but there's been plenty of it. Are Hilary and her campaign going to claim they haven't been aware of it? Or sensitive to it?
I'm not the only one reacting this way. Check here too (the volume of comments has been huge).
Despite her slogan, Hilary Clinton was not and is not "ready on day one." It's not about experience. It's about temperament, judgement, and discipline. And it's about a moral core that remains strong in the face of temptation. It's about a moral core that resists excessive compromise on the path to power. One can go only so far in seeking power to "do good" before whatever good that might be accomplished is not only diluted, it is drowned.
How ironic that Hilary Clinton made these remarks just as the rumor mill began chattering that she might be willing (read wanted) to be Obama's running mate. Her remarks disqualified her. Even more, they disqualified her to continue in Bobby Kennedy's Senate seat.
After Hilary Clinton offered the possibility of Obama's assassination as a reason to stay in the race (listen to Rachel Maddow and Gene Robinson), she apologized to the Kennedy's. No, she did not directly say that her opponent might be assassinated as her explanation. She instead referred to Bobby Kennedy's murder as toward the end of the 1968 campaign, literally minutes after he won the California primary and thus seemed to have broken through to capture the nomination.
And as Eugene Robinson pointed out, she apologized to the Kennedys, but to the Obamas. Well, at least she seems to know that it's over now. This is her at the time of her apology.
It's not as if many whites and damn near all blacks haven't been worried about the possibility. And it's not as if they don't have a reason to assume that somebody will take a shot at him. The talk may have been out of the media, but there's been plenty of it. Are Hilary and her campaign going to claim they haven't been aware of it? Or sensitive to it?
I'm not the only one reacting this way. Check here too (the volume of comments has been huge).
Despite her slogan, Hilary Clinton was not and is not "ready on day one." It's not about experience. It's about temperament, judgement, and discipline. And it's about a moral core that remains strong in the face of temptation. It's about a moral core that resists excessive compromise on the path to power. One can go only so far in seeking power to "do good" before whatever good that might be accomplished is not only diluted, it is drowned.
How ironic that Hilary Clinton made these remarks just as the rumor mill began chattering that she might be willing (read wanted) to be Obama's running mate. Her remarks disqualified her. Even more, they disqualified her to continue in Bobby Kennedy's Senate seat.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Mark Kleinman on breaking the power of lobbyist money
Mark Kleinman goes the next step and begins to speculate on policy changes that might be possible if Obama's changing the fundraising dynamic begins to take hold and breaks the stranglehold that lobbyists have due to their campaign fundraising the past few decades. Now that's hopeful. What else good might we be able to do? What else bad might we be able to undo?
McCain and lobbyists
John McCain's campaign is not only tied to lobbyists, it is lobbyists. Or at least it will be until all the lobbyists quit. Then he won't have a campaign.
For a while I thought that a McCain administration would be pretty much the same as the Bush administration. Now it seems it will be even more of the same.
This pattern of interchangeability of lobbyists, campaign staff, and administration officials is part of the problem in Washington. (The lobbyists raise the campaign funds.) It works OK for a while, but the narrow interests are ultimately too narrow and the lobbyist-driven campaign's and government's ability to understand the mood and reality of the country gets weaker and weaker. Polls help, but are really not a substitute. Hilary may have been the best of the lot among the the candidates who represented these practices the past 30 years or so. Thus the centrality of Mark Penn to her campaign and its failure. But ultimately her campaign didn't read the country's reality and mood well enough and respond fast enough because the old style was part of its DNA.
Obama's organizing and fund raising was different. Obama's fund raising from many - in small amounts - may be one of the foundations for an administration that really is different. More on that later.
For a while I thought that a McCain administration would be pretty much the same as the Bush administration. Now it seems it will be even more of the same.
This pattern of interchangeability of lobbyists, campaign staff, and administration officials is part of the problem in Washington. (The lobbyists raise the campaign funds.) It works OK for a while, but the narrow interests are ultimately too narrow and the lobbyist-driven campaign's and government's ability to understand the mood and reality of the country gets weaker and weaker. Polls help, but are really not a substitute. Hilary may have been the best of the lot among the the candidates who represented these practices the past 30 years or so. Thus the centrality of Mark Penn to her campaign and its failure. But ultimately her campaign didn't read the country's reality and mood well enough and respond fast enough because the old style was part of its DNA.
Obama's organizing and fund raising was different. Obama's fund raising from many - in small amounts - may be one of the foundations for an administration that really is different. More on that later.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Cutting off a potential challenge?
Helen DesFosses held a fundraiser for David Soares. Mike Breslin attends and offers praise. Now there's a suburban hint to Paul Clyne that a primary challenge won't be welcome.
21st Congressional District Debate
Eight candidates to replace Mike McNulty showed up for the debate sponsored by Democracy for the Mohawk-Hudson Region and the RFK Democratic Club:
- John Aretakis, Local lawyer representing kids who were victims of child abuse by priests. Scourge of the local diocese. Made a point that he'd committed $200,000 of his own money for the race and his family had committed another $100,000.
- Tracey Brooks. Kind of got swamped. No mistakes, but didn't stand out.
- Craig Burridge. Formerly with a pharmacist trade association. OK, but didn't stand out.
- Lester Freeman. Charming and funny. Young.
- Darius Shahinfar. Favorite of a number of DFMHR members, probably going back to the Kirsten Gillibrand race, when she beat John Sweeney. Gillibrand left an Albany County job to run Gillibrand's local office. Not a polished speaker yet, but rebounded with humor after suffering a brain cramp. Seemed like he memorized his speech, forgot a major point and then couldn't go on. But he handled the follow up well and with humor. It did highlight his relative youth and inexperience. This probably should not have been his first electoral race.
- Paul Tonko. Former Assemblyman and head of the State's Energy Research and Development Agency. Did well and probably the heavy-weight in the room, but did not overwhelm his opponents. The emphasis on energy issues played to his experience in the field.
- Phil Steck. Current Albany County Legislator. Emphasized his labor and civil rights oriented legal practice and his political skills in finally beating the Republicans in Colonie.
- Arthur Welser. Showed up in a t-shirt. His big idea is to have a separate draft for school drop-outs. The evening's comic relief.
Pretty good event with a big crowd. Folks in the audience that wouldn't typically show up in these meetings, McNulty the elder, McEneny.
Number of the candidates that are former Republicans of fairly recent vintage surprised me. Only two have held elective office (Tonko and Steck). Given that it's a Congressional seat we're talking about, most of the candidates here are pretty green.
Lots of discussion of energy policy, maybe even more than health care. Also energy discussion had more variety than that on health care which except for a couple seemed pretty pro forma support of HR 676, the single-payer proposal.
Lots of opposition to the war, but far from unanimous on how to get out. All opposed restoring the draft, but Freeman mentioned Cong. Charlie Rangel's proposal to start it up again. Tonko made a point about the racial and ethnic mix of the current army, suggesting that it's minorities that are bearing more than their share of the cost of the war. True and proper that he noticed. But opposing the draft and having raised the mix issue, he didn't propose any response.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
End of an era
Despite Drezner's generous analysis, Hilary Clinton is done. Yes, she ended the campaign stronger than she started. But she also ended it ugly. If I chose to dwell on her comments about "hard-working whites," I'd be really pissed.
And for all her talk about "ready on day one," she wasn't. She and her campaign took the nomination for granted and when challenged, did not respond near quickly enough. For her experience, Bill's experience, her team's experience, they weren't really very good technically. And they seriously mis-read the country's mood. She was still running a campaign of the 1980s and 90s because she was a candidate of the 80s and 90s.
The Clintons are done. The Bushes are done.
Sigh of relief.
And for all her talk about "ready on day one," she wasn't. She and her campaign took the nomination for granted and when challenged, did not respond near quickly enough. For her experience, Bill's experience, her team's experience, they weren't really very good technically. And they seriously mis-read the country's mood. She was still running a campaign of the 1980s and 90s because she was a candidate of the 80s and 90s.
The Clintons are done. The Bushes are done.
Sigh of relief.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Goings on in the DAs office
So Soares fired some ADA. Wonder what that was about.
And what the hell the guy was doing buying a machine gun?
And what the hell the guy was doing buying a machine gun?
Yes, but we're not Republicans
I've deliberately avoided writing about the Democratic Presidential primaries the past couple months. Too busy and too troubled by much that happened.
But despite the loyalty of the local folks it's real close to the end now and maybe time to tone things down a bit.
This is not toning it down. It is annoying. Would Hilary prefer that we act like Republicans?
But despite the loyalty of the local folks it's real close to the end now and maybe time to tone things down a bit.
This is not toning it down. It is annoying. Would Hilary prefer that we act like Republicans?
Good enough for the old folks but ...
Bill Lambdin at News Channel 13 has a story about the Albany County Elections Commissioners complaining that the County has given them the now empty Ann Lee Home to store their new voting machines. Ann Lee is out near the airport and was closed sometime earlier this year after it was targeted by the State's Berger Commission.
I want to know whether Lampdin would still be complaining about Albany spending extra money on a new building while the old one sat empty if the County had made a different decision.
And if the building was good enough for a bunch of sick, elderly people why isn't it good enough for a bunch of machines?
Albany County Commissioners wish they had the Schenectady set-up.
So why is Albany County making its change-over so differently than Schenectady County? There's no clear answer. Cost is definitely an issue for Albany County. The Ann Lee Home is here and just sitting empty. There is a conscious disregard of the election commissioners. And there is a different political atmosphere. In theory, the Ann Lee Home is a temporary choice. We'll see.
I want to know whether Lampdin would still be complaining about Albany spending extra money on a new building while the old one sat empty if the County had made a different decision.
And if the building was good enough for a bunch of sick, elderly people why isn't it good enough for a bunch of machines?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Hilary Clinton, a regular gal
So maybe Hilary can trade shots with the guys, but coffee? Where regular folks buy it from a convenience store? Pure campaign fakery that backfires.
Reminds me of Bush I and the grocery store scanner. Out of touch.
Reminds me of Bush I and the grocery store scanner. Out of touch.
What mission? What's accomplished?
Five years since "Mission Accomplished" and "Major Combat Operations in Iraq have Ended."
And now Dana Perino at the White House tells us that "the banner should have been much more specific." Yeah, some of those specifics should have been 4,000 American dead, uncountable thousands of Iraqis dead, uncountable Americans and Iraqis suffering from PTSD, depletion of the American military, the squandering of the moral high ground in virtually every international debate, justifications of torture that Saddam himself would have enjoyed, creating a training and testing ground for terrorists (how much better have IEDs gotten), draining of the American economy, and no end in sight.
The worse foreign policy decision in at least a generation. Based on lies and self-deception. Repeatedly made worse by even more bad decisions (dismantling the Iraqi Army).
Shameful.
And now Dana Perino at the White House tells us that "the banner should have been much more specific." Yeah, some of those specifics should have been 4,000 American dead, uncountable thousands of Iraqis dead, uncountable Americans and Iraqis suffering from PTSD, depletion of the American military, the squandering of the moral high ground in virtually every international debate, justifications of torture that Saddam himself would have enjoyed, creating a training and testing ground for terrorists (how much better have IEDs gotten), draining of the American economy, and no end in sight.
The worse foreign policy decision in at least a generation. Based on lies and self-deception. Repeatedly made worse by even more bad decisions (dismantling the Iraqi Army).
Shameful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)