tfl: The Flatiron Life

Yesterday in reference to this post by Matthew Yglesias, Josh Claybourn said,

To further the thinking of Yglesias, I would (non-scientifically) estimate that 90% of election coverage in the media concerns political tactics and strategy, and not discussion of the underlying policy issues. Why do television producers consider it appropriate during a discussion of health care policies to have political strategists as guests instead of actual policy experts? The media’s obsession with politics and not policy is truly a scourge on America.

Both posts are worth your time, but below is this taken to what I would like to call its logical end, but I fear it can get much worse.

Gunman Kills 15 Potential Voters In Crucial Swing State

Take a deep breath, read about how the sky is not falling, and call and write your congressman reminding them it is an election year and you are not sheep.

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘look, here’s what happened.’

Joe Biden told Katie Couric this yesterday as part of a longer interview. In case the two big errors are not obvious for you let me quote Jesse (not the weather man BTW) Walker’s reaction:

And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, “Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?”

I don’t think a big deal should be made of this. It is an honest mistake and people make mistakes all the time. Unfortunately we have some to the point where we expect politicians to never make mistakes, especially Presidents. Also, Republican’s know how the liberal voices in the media would react if Pres Bush, VP Quayle, or any other Republican had made the same mistake.

In case you think I am exaggerating and surly this is being covered a lot. Here is a Google News search for the term “Franklin Roosevelt got on the television”. There are only 2 non-duplicate references. One is the CBS story linked to above, which does not call out the errors; all of the duplicates or of this. The other is the story Kristoffer, my brother-n-law, sent me.

First, it is not a qualification for elected office, but you have to admit, John McCain has had the damnedest life.

My natural inclination is to agree with the Republican message of smaller government, lower taxes, free markets, and you being the strongest force in America. However, this is no longer the real message of the Republican Party as a whole and has not been for at least a decade. The Republicans want to use the same powers that the Democrats what to use, just to different ends.

Like Obama’s, McCain’s speech offered nothing out of the ordinary. He started out hitting all the right notes. However after telling how he would cut tax and reduce government, he started talking about all the stuff government was going to do with our money when he is elected.

I reject McCain’s American Greatness doctrine. I do not agree America needs to demonstrate its greatness to the world. I also reject that America becomes greater through the works it does. America is great because of what her people believe and do and how it is differs from the rest of the world. Turning America into just another nation destroys it. American Greatness through works is something both major candidates agree on, though perhaps with different works.

Most of McCain’s tone throughout the address was much less motivational then Obama’s. I am curious to see how the two play against each other in the debates.

Finally, as McCain finished his call to arms all I could hear was, “Stehen Sie auf! Stehen Sie auf! Stehen Sie für das Vaterland auf! Stehen Sie auf! Stehen Sie auf! Stehen Sie für das Vaterland auf!”

I understand that it is a big deal for historically bigoted political parties to nominate someone who is not a Old White Guy for president. Unless you really bought into NPR’s labeling of Obama as the Presumptive Democrat Nominee, it was not a surprise that he was nominated and he accepted. However, last night will stand as the historical marker when a barrier was broken.

Ignoring that, was that an inspirational speech? I really expected more from the great O. To me that sounded like your typical liberal policy speech. “Republicans want you to wallow in your own filth in the land of weeping and gnashing of teach while giving money to the rich. We, Democrats, care and will use the force of government to fix everything. Nothing bad will ever happen once I am elected.”

It sounded like McCain’s attacks of Obama not having any specifics have really hit home and have neutralized what is best about Obama. Obama makes you feel good with broad ideas, but when he, like all pols, talks specifics you have to know he is lying because government does not rest on a single man. (Praise be to the Founders.)

I also wonder if someone proofed that speech. Did anyone other than the Tomaws catch that he first said how he will not leave you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and then told a set of stories about how he and his family had pulled themselves up by their bootstraps?

My favorite part was when Obama said we should not think that McCain is acting maliciously in the policies he supports. I thought that was classy. Too often when talking to others about politics (or anything really) every counter is taken personally. Obama pointed out that we should not take it personally, but understand we all want what is best for America. Where I differ with him is that I usually do think that pols are lying. I think he is lying most of the time and McCain is too. I am not attacking their character, that is just the nature and incentive of politics.

“Unless the state of Texas violates their own election laws, Congressman Barr will be the only presidential candidate on the ballot,” says Russell Verney, campaign manager for the Barr Campaign and the former campaign manager for Ross Perot. “Texas law makes no exceptions for missing deadlines.”

The Texas Secretary of State Web site shows only Bob Barr as the official candidate for president in Texas.

“We know all about deadlines,” says Verney. “We are up against them constantly in our fight to get on the ballot across the nation. When we miss deadlines, we get no second chances. This is a great example of how unreasonable deadlines chill democracy.”

“Republicans and Democrats make certain that third party candidates are held to ballot access laws, no matter how absurd or unreasonable,” says Verney. “Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should be held to the same standards.”

More here

I think we all know how this is going to turn out.

285 years ago today in Kirkcaldy, Scotland Adam Smith was baptized; his birth date is unknown. He was a masterful philosopher and political thinker of his time.

His works The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations continue to be read today. They are seen as masterworks continuing to yield insights into the modern world. With the Wealth of Nations Smith did nothing short of created the modern discipline of economics.

P.J. O’Roarke quips that he read the 500 page, 3 volume tome so you don’t have to and I commend his book On the Wealth of Nations to you. It is a fun read and makes you understand Smiths writing and why it is so long. (Spoiler: graphs could not be included in a book.)

In celebration of Smith, I recommend you go out and buy something, anything at all and marvel at how the shopkeep knew you would be there to buy it. Think about why he wanted you to buy it and the profound effect this free transaction had on your life, his life, and society as a whole.

Then remember Smith’s words:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”

At least give Bob Barr a listen.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible.

That is in the NYT, about when they asked why Sen. Clinton keep lying like a … Clinton.

I just want to point out that this story is less credible than the one about the Iraqi dictator who had a bunch of WMD and the President who wanted to stop him. At least in that story a bunch of generally respected people, other countries, and the dictator himself said they were there.

Do you want a President whose staff cannot call the Hospital she repeatedly bad mouths for political gain?

Sometimes I think we live in the era of least consensus.

Our condo board has been deliberating over a measure to limit the number of renters. We are opposed and in the minority. However a super majority of owner-share’s are required for it to pass. I am hopeful it will not. Today the association met with our lawyer to discuss it. At this meeting we also voted. Although I want this amendment to fail, I am an adult and can accept that I voluntarily chose to live in the confines of a condo association. That being said I was ready to go home a winner or a loser.

After heated discussion and learning much from our lawyer. Our votes and the votes of others via proxy were tallied. The nothing happened. The yeas need 5 more votes to win. There are 10 votes outstanding. Just like Article V, there is nothing specifying a date when this amendment must pass. Also, people can change their vote! I think I know how James Madison must have felt about Article the Second. Although, this taking 202 years will be the same a victory for me.

This got me thinking about the upcoming execution of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3 we have coming up on the date specified by Clause 4. We have not come cleanly to a solution in the last to attempts to fill the Federal Executive; I am not confident anything has changed to make it cleaner. Before we get to the first Tuesday after a Monday in November, we might see the destruction of the Democrat Party. There is a pretty even divide there too, and I don’t think the losers are going to play nice.

Generally I think deadlock is good for America. But I don’t think ambiguity is.

Do you think these times are any more ambiguous than previous? Is there less owning up to losing than there used to be? Or is this just another step down the path of aging and wishing for the good ol’ days?