Obama and the BCS

Well, guess what the Obama Administration is up to now. Why, its college football. Specifically it is the Bowl Championship Series that is in place to decide a national champion. We need not be surprised since President-elect Obama made reference to this issue in 2008. The phrase was “throw my weight around a little bit.” Now, we have a letter from Utah senator Orrin Hatch and ominous sounding words from Assistant Attorney General  for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Ronald Weich.

Mr Weich is apparently considering  an investigation into the possible violation of antitrust laws by the BCS.Mnay fans and critics are unhappy with the system now in place, but Senator Hatch may be the most vocal and influential. His ire was raised when the University of Utah was denied a spot in the  championship game last year, after going undefeated. This year, two other teams, Boise State and TCU fell into the same group.

Yes, there is a lot of money involved in the  BCS, primarily from television. Perhaps, the system could use some tweaking to make it more fair. I have often wondered, even before there was  a BCS, why  a playoff was not in place. My alma mater  Appalachian State plays in the  what is now known as the Football Championship Subdivision for schools a bit less high-powered. This division has had a playoff system in place for some time. It would seem that the big boys could make use of a similar system, incorporating a number of the existing bowl games.

What I do not want to see is the feds once again jumping into the middle of an issue and completely mucking things up, no mater their intentions. Shame on you Senator Hatch, a Republican no less, providing the administration an opening, which they seem to relish.

Besides, I think that Eric Holder and the Justice Department have much bigger things on their plate. Maybe a terrorist trial and whether to have it in New York City,hmm?

Sports and politics- not  a good combination.

Showdown in Baltimore

The President traveled all the way to Baltimore today to meet with a number of Republican lawmakers. What ostensibly was  an attempt for the two sides to listen to one another quickly became something else entirely. I heard some audio from the  meeting that seemed rather pointed and blunt, both in tone and word. For example, “I’m not  a pundit, I’m just the president.” The Associated Press used the phrase ” a sometimes barbed exchange.” So, one thinks that there was very little meeting of the minds at this session.

So, why have the get together at all? I will applaud  the president  for attending while at the same time wondering why he did so. I think that even though  the President was actually invited to what is an annual Republican event.  Given the nature of some of his public comments since the State of the Union address, perhaps it was an attempt to sway public opinion. See, he could tell Americans, I tried to work with the Republicans but  how can I work with the ” politics of no?”

Some of those attending liked it, some not so much. Representatives Tom Price  of Georgia and Jason Chaffetz of Utah being two of the most vocal. The President seemed to relish the give and take, sort of like a British House  of Commons. Reading some accounts of the meeting it struck as me  a lecture given by  a professor. At least one Republican, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin agreed. He likened it at times to being lectured by his high school principal, although not for the entire session.

Obama asserted that 95% of Americans had received tax cuts (not sure about that figure) and that his agenda was not at all radical but mainstream. Republicans , particularly Mike Pence of Indiana ,defended Republican health care proposals against claims that  they had offered no options. Obama shot back that theie proposals  were not practical anyway.

So, both Pence and Virginia’s Eric Cantor said that the event was a good idea and should happen again. But it sounds like to me that the president defined  bi-partisan more as you work with me than me work with you. Did that make sense? Probably as  much as the Baltimore bull session.

A One Term President?

Just a few days ago, the president did an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC. She happens to be one of the very few media people who I will tolerate for any length of time. Anyway,  the president said something very interesting. He said that he would rather be a very good one term president than a mediocre two term president. ( Paging Jimmy Carter, at least on the one term part.)

Let’s look at that statement for a moment. First though, a bit of history. Other than the pious Palestinian from Plains, the one term club includes George H W Bush, Herbert Hover and Martin van Buren.  Other than Carter, all were denied a second term by economic issues. The panic of 1837 domed Van Buren as he evidently lacked a Rahm( never waste  a good crisis) Emanuel to get him through the situation.

The point, which Sawyer did not seem to address, is that no president steps down voluntarily when doing a good job or even a mediocre one. We just do not see voluntary retirements from the Oval Office. Perhaps George Washington  I  guess, who could have served for life had he been willing. So, what did he mean by his comment? Maybe it was  just for effect, along with a later statement that he will continue ” full bore” to tackle the tough issues.

Perhaps it is time for the president to heed the words of an Elvis Presley song-a little less talk , a little more action.

A Question for Representative Watt

Mel Watt is a Democrat member of  Congress, representing North Carolina’s 12th District , to which he was first elected in 1992. He was in Charlotte yesterday ( his native city) speaking at a luncheon attended by party loyalists.

In the course of his remarks, Rep Watt found it necessary to defend the Obama administration’s economic strategy from recent criticism. Some of his comments struck me as very interesting. He used the word catastrophe in describing what would have happened to the economy without the President’s economic strategy.

Of course, he blamed the recession on George Bush. That is nothing new. But he used  an interesting word in amplifying his comments. See if you pick it  up in these two quotes. “We are taking the rap for something we didn’t create.” Here is the second quote.  “How can anybody make the case we haven”t  done anything for a problem we inherited?”

In the even you were having difficulty, I underlined the pronoun in question. I could not  but wonder who is the “we” to whom Rep Watt is referring? Gonna make a wild guess and say Democrats. I have just  a bit of a problem with that phraseology. By stating tat we didn’t cause the problem and that we are fixing it, he seems to remove the Democrat controlled Congress from those at fault. He also seems to imply that only Democrats have done anything to fix the recessionary problem.

One more statement that confused me. He said that job losses have slowed. If I understand that, it means the economy is still shedding jobs but at a lower rate. And remember, Rep Watt made his comments while in  Charlotte, located in Mecklenburg County. Said county had an unemployment rate of 11.00% in November, 2009 with neighboring counties having even higher rates. Not to worry, job losses have slowed.

No Beau

It appears that there  we will not  have another Biden in the U S Senate. At  the least, the Senate will be sans Biden  for a while.  The vice-president’s son has announced that he is going to stay as Delaware’s Attorney General . Not sure  why he made the announcement now since ole Joe was actually re-elected last November. That in itself is  a very strange concept for me. Biden was on the presidential ballot as the Democrat’s choice for  vice-president while simultaneously running for re-election. That was a classic hedge  your bets was it not?

Anyway, the election will be for the last 4 years of the term and with the younger Biden stepping aside, prospects  improve a lot  for Republican Representative Michael  Castle who has been in Congress for 17 years.

I’ve been thinking about this and I have a thought that might help the Democrats. The vice-president already has some Senate related duties. Just let him have the seat. He did win it in November, 2008. When he is noy doing veep stuff he could do senator stuff. Just a thought.

The Jobs President or the Jobs Governor?

This coming Wednesday night, the president will deliver his first State of the Union address. Two quick thoughts and then some depth. Once again, I will be thankful for cable television that will allow other viewing options. Secondly, it will not be televised  on Tuesday, so NCIS will not be preëmpted.( Gibbs would not  stand for it, I guess.)

I really thought that as many speeches and television appearances as he has made that the President must have delivered the State of the Union address already. Thought  it must been on Leno or Letterman, guess not.

According to David Axelrod, his political guru, we should expect a feisty, combative tone. The President will not scale back his  agenda, but rather expand it further. ( That is a scary thought.) Get this, he plans to call for   bi-partisan commission to tackle the budget deficit. THat take chutzpah, does it not?  Axelrod also noted that people have fallen behind economically for a decade now and they are growing increasingly frustrated. Stop the presses. If one goes back a decade, who was  president? Why, Bill Clinton, of course. throw in a couple of years of a Democrat controlled Congress and  you have what, a shared responsibility, it would seem.

The speech the President delivered in Ohio may have been a bit of a preview. His main focus seemed was  jobs and all he would do to create them. Guess he wants to a jobs president. That mirrors  a recent statement made by our governor here in North Carolina. Bev Perdue  says she intends to be known as the jobs governor. Hope that works out better this year than last, cause she is certainly has thrown a  pile of incentive money  out there and with less than stellar results. The December unemployment rate in NC was 11.2%. There are only 7 states with higher rates. Hard to be  known as the jobs governor with those numbers.

Gotta wonder whether Perdue or Obama will earn that jobs title. Right now, I think would bet ( if I were a betting fellow) on neither.

Has the 2012 Campaign Already Begun?

The President was in Elyria, Oh yesterday and doubtless they were thrilled and I guess that’s ok. But, as Rush hinted, are we seeing  the beginning of his re-election campaign? Seems like his first campaign just ended. Truth of the matter, I am not so sure that he has ever stopped  functioning  in campaign mode.Anyway, take a look at some of the things he said.

” I will not stop fighting for you. I will take my lumps…. I’m not going to stop fighting until we have jobs for everybody.” Now, that last sentence is  a mouthful. Based on the net job gain in his 1st year(hint, there wasn’t one)he  will be  fighting for a long, long time.

In his  speech he made a number of statements that it’s not about him. Sorry, Mr President, I will have to disagree with you there, unless you plan to change your approach.His Ohio speech was laden with first person singular pronouns with a few plural pronouns tossed in for effect.

Now, that the keep on  fighting phrase and mix with a little faux populism as in the same thing swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and frustrated over events of the last eight years, not the last two years. Little backhanded Bush-bashing there. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the party that won the Massachusetts election was not the party that had held that senate seat for the last 50 years. Not quite sure how that translates into an  eight year anger cycle. Just for the record, we have just begun year 3 of the Democrats hold over Congress. Or, you could call it the Pelosi-Reid cabal.

So, the campaign begins. Where is Joe, safely tucked away in Iraq.

“Nature Abhors a Vaccum”

Or,”who’s in charge here? Alas, this well could describe the situation in the earthquake ravaged Haiti. ( By the way, we know now what caused the earthquake. Hugo Chavez has announced that it was caused by a  new U S weapon. His statement would by ludicrous beyond belief if not for the fact that there are people who will believe it. And others who blame it on George Bush.) Now back  to our original subject.

My son and I were talking briefly about things in Haiti and one or both of us commented on Haiti’s state before the earthquake. They already  had a barely functioning government and crushing poverty and now this devastation caused by a  massive earthquake. Virtually anywhere else in the world would have better positioned to deal with the aftermath than Haiti.

So, what is happening there? The country’ s leadership is either dead or invisible. The United Nations has suffered grave losses in personnel and facilities so who takes charge, provided security, operates the airport etc.? It seems, almost by default, that the U S military has taken charge ( see title quote by Francois Rabelas) of the country in  a sense. And that brings a vast amount of criticism, from numerous sources.

People such as our friend Chavez, good ol Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua, the group Doctors Without Borders, Bolivian leader Evo Morales, various French groups and other humanitarian groups. Our troops are in a no-win position. Someone has to do what they are doing. And no , they are not there to occupy the country. Without some semblance of order the over one billion dollars  that has been pledged so far  will be squandered, stolen or  worse.Our own Time magazine is calling it a” compassionate invasion.” Thanks for nothing fellows.

82nd Airborne troops are already there, probably some Marines and Navy  as well as directed by Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen. So, just one question, maybe two for all these clowns who are protesting. Who do want to handle all this stuff ? Political commentator Janet Daley, writing in the  U K Telegraph called it a case  of ” America is always wrong, part 85.” Reckon the French are just jealous.  She made this telling point. If our interventions are kept to a minimum, they are “callous” and  ” selfish.” If  we accept full responsibility we are engaged in “imperialist occupation.”

For the troops that are there, I wish you God speed. We know you will do your country proud.

Did He Win or Did She Lose?

Of course, the he is Senator-elect Scott Brown, R, Ma and the she is Martha Coakley. The obvious answer is yes to both questions since Brown won the election. But in politics, the obvious answer is not always the correct answer. So, what might we discover when we look a bit further.

On the Democrat side of the equation, the game could well be  the Blame Game. But who does  one blame . The Coakley campaign blames the Obama administration’s health care bill and its perceived failures  regarding the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day. The administration on the other hand says Coakley ran a poor campaign. So, wherein lies the truth?

Hard to say that voter unhappiness over health care reform was not a factor. But, Coakley was ( rightly so, I think) perceived as being in favor of that effort and a guaranteed 60th vote. So which side was more accurate with their blame? Believe i shall go with the Obama folks on this one. With Massachusetts such a reliably Democratic state, her nomination was tantamount to election, right?( The last Republican senator in the Bay State was elected some 43 years ago and he was Edward Brooke. )My wife heard an interesting comment attributed to Coakley. You mean I have to stand outside shaking hands in this weather? Slight paraphrase. I think that she was in trouble before she realized it and then called the Axelrod cavalry  too late. ( He did actually pay Brown a compliment for running a smart campaign.)

As for Brown, he says the election was not a referendumon Obama. But don’t you know that both parties will study this campaign til the cows come home, from wherever it is that they go.

Brief summary- voter angst- and it spells trouble for incumbents or for  any candidate who is  perceived-rightly or wrongly- as not in tune with the voters. Should make for an interesting political season.

Welcome to the Senate, Mr Brown. The fun has just begun!

Footnote: This particular seat has been held by a Democrat for 57 years, was occupied by Henry Cabot Lodge before that.

Robert B Parker,R.I.P.

On Monday, my favorite author passed away. Crime novelist extraordinaire Robert B Parker died  of an apparent heart attack while working at home. Although he was 77, Mr Parker’s death was something of a surprise since he seemed in good health.

He was the author of more than 60 books; sales of which have exceeded 4 million. (Would have thought his sales were higher than that.) He did several series along with some western novels. But for my money  it was his literary creation of the wise-cracking private eye, Spenser, like the poet, that set apart from all the rest. Spenser seemed almost to be Parker’s alter ego. Both were gourmet cooks, quite literate and well read, fans of German short-haired pointer named Pearl and of course Bostonian to the core.

The Spenser series began with The Godwulf Manuscript and has at its latest installment The Professional. I can say latest since  his editor at G.P. Putnam’s Sons, Chris Pepe, says there are some Spenser books in the pipeline. That is good for those who are  his readers but will not lessen the sense of loss for his wife and 2 sons.

Condolences to his family who have suffered by far the greater loss.

I feel it somehow appropriate to close with one of my favorite Spenser quotes and they are many. At the beginning of one book, he is approached by a prospective client and asked if he is indeed Spenser the private detective. ” Yes, and proud of it.” Thank you Mr Parker for your literary gift   and you could justifiably be proud of it.