Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 03
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
“That’s not change we can believe in?”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I’m watching McCain’s speech, and have two reactions:
One, I have never seen or conceived of a major-party candidate divorcing himself so publicly from an incumbent of the same party. He’s running against Bush, it sounds like.
Two: This may be the worst-delivered major speech I think I have ever heard. Seriously.
UPDATE: Hillary’s speech:
Great message, well-delivered, and an enthusiastic audience even though they know this is the end. Obama could learn a lot from her ability to express both the pride that working people feel and the worries that nag them about the future.
She’s making no decisions tonight, or at least announcing none. That’s fine. And the stress she places on the importance of universal health insurance may be a signal to Obama, as the price of her acquiescence.
But in the end, she also does not acknowledge the reality of her situation. The decision has been made for her.
“There’s nothing we can’t do if we start acting like Americans again.”
Amen. But she can’t admit it’s over, and it is … over.
UPDATE II:
Obama’s turn. Accepting what he has earned, the nomination of the Democratic Party. Magnanimous toward Clinton in a way she was not, and she comes off worse by the comparison. It didn’t have to be that way, but it was her choice.
He honors McCain’s military service, as is right and proper. I was on the floor of the GOP convention in 2004 in NYC, when Republicans mocked the service of John Kerry in Vietnam with fake bandages and Purple Hearts. It was shameful.
He is shading back a bit on Iraq, talking about pulling out with a lot more care than we went in. He does need work on his appeal to working Americans, and needs to get more personal about it. Cerebral, not heartfelt.
But as he wraps it up, he calls on what is best about this country, about the ideals it has preached but not always reached. The comparison with McCain’s speech is … well, stark.
Permalink | Comments (46) | Post your comment |
So, Hillary as veep?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s now pretty clear that it’s over, and that Hillary Clinton will, in some form or fashion, acknowledge that reality tonight. A series of prominent Clinton backers have come out to pass that message along to her in public, just in case she was having second thoughts about stringing it out any longer.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, for example, said on CNN today that “a decision has to be made about whether keeping this nomination wide open is in the best interest of winning in November. I do not believe that it is, and I’m a very strong supporter of Hillary being placed on ticket as a vice presidential candidate.”
AP is also reporting that in a private conference call today among supporters, Clinton said she would be open to running as vice president if it would help the party’s prospects in November.
So that’s the next question. I have a lot of respect for Clinton’s intelligence and tenacity, and believe she would have been a very good candidate for president and a very good president as well. And certainly, putting her on the ticket would go a long way toward healing some wounds within the Democratic Party.
But if I’m Barack Obama, I want a vice president who is the second banana and knows it. If there are headlines to be made, I want to be the one making them. I want a veep who is content to serve quietly in my administration unless and until something tragic happens to force her to step forward.
It would take a lot of convincing to make me think Hillary Clinton could be and wants to be that person.
Permalink | Comments (111) | Post your comment |
Uh, Neal. Let me explain this simply:
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I’ve been getting a lot of emails today about yesterday’s FairTax column, almost all of them raising the identical question. Here’s one, just as an example:
“Jay, in the FairTax plan, companies don’t pay taxes so how and why would ‘Well-paid lobbyists beg Congress for special tax breaks on behalf of their clients and demand an exemption etc.’ when they don’t pay taxes?
Now, whenever my email is full of messages that make the very same point, I know what has happened. A radio host somewhere has handed out a talking point, and people are biting on it. As it turns out, that’s exactly what happened in this case. Neal Boortz — some of you may have heard of him — tried to refute my claim that under the FairTax, Washington lobbyists would still be demanding tax breaks from Congress, just as they do today. Here’s what Boortz wrote on his blog:
“The FairTax would completely eliminate the federal tax burden for businesses in this country. So Bookman wants us to believe that a business that pays no federal taxes is going to pay big bucks to a lobbyist to work some congressman to lower their federal tax burden? On what possible level does this make sense?”
On the level of reality, Neal.
Let’s say I’m Ford Motor Co., and I’m pushing new cars that under the FairTax are sold at $30,000. However, if I hire some lobbyists, make some campaign contributions and get new cars exempted from the FairTax, I can now sell those same new cars tax-free for $21,000.
I haven’t changed my manufacturing. I haven’t improved my efficiency. Through nothing more than politics, I have succeeded in cutting the cost of my product by almost a third. And at that much cheaper price, basic economics says I’m gonna sell a lot more cars and make a lot more money.
And of course, dairy farmers will want an exemption too — “Don’t you want children in your district to be able to afford milk, Congressman?” So will lawyers — “It’s wrong and unconstitutional to put a tax on a citizen’s right to counsel, don’t you agree Senator.” And on and on it goes.
That’s the answer, Neal. Pretty simple huh? (And yes, this is technically writing about the FairTax again. But consider it just a bit of tidying up…)
Permalink | Comments (61) | Post your comment |
Is $4 gas just temporary?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If so, it’s probably because $5 gasoline is coming next.
When you watch a baseball game and a ball is hit to the outfield, it’s hard to tell from the stands whether it’s going to be a home run or not. So you watch the outfielder, because he’s in a better position to judge it. His behavior tells you what’s gonna happen.
Now apply that same lesson to gasoline prices. Watch the people who have to invest billions of dollars on whether this runup in price is temporary or permanent. For example, what is General Motors, with all of its high-paid analysts, telling the rest of us with this announcement:
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — General Motors is closing four truck and SUV plants in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, affecting 10,000 workers, as surging fuel prices hasten a dramatic shift to smaller vehicles.
CEO Rick Wagoner said Tuesday before the automaker’s annual meeting in Delaware the plants to be idled are in Oshawa, Ontario; Moraine, Ohio; Janesville, Wis.; and Toluca, Mexico. He also said the iconic Hummer brand will be reviewed and potentially sold or revamped.
Wagoner said the GM board has approved production of a new small Chevrolet car at a plant in Lordstown, Ohio, in mid-2010 and production of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle in Detroit.
Wagoner announced the moves in response to slumping sales of pickups and SUVs brought on by high oil prices. He said a market shift to smaller vehicles is permanent.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the passing of an era.
Permalink | Comments (25) | Post your comment |
Because the truth has a liberal bias….
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
… the Bush administration won’t let the truth be heard
“Washington (AP) — NASA’s press office “marginalized or mischaracterized” studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency’s own internal watchdog has concluded.
In a report released Monday, NASA’s inspector general office called it “inappropriate political interference” by political appointees in the press office. It said the agency’s top management wasn’t part of the censorship, nor were career officials….
NASA public affairs officials criticized by the report called it wrong, saying they were always open and truthful.
Not so, according to the report. The report did not directly accuse them of lying, but used more nuanced terms such as “mendacity” and “dissembling.”
As “Big Daddy” Burl Ives said, “There ain’t nuthin’ more powerful than the smell of mendacity!”
Services »
