Should President George W. Bush be given any credit for the recent move of the North Koreans to start dismantling their nuclear facilities?
To me, the answer is clearly "yes," although I don't foresee that happening, at least not until the waning days of his Presidency after the November election.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Guns and Logic
Was the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court logical in ignoring the prefatory language about "a well-regulated militia" in it's recently released opinion about the 2nd amendment?
Probably not. Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has blundered before ( Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson come to mind). Nevertheless, it's probably better to err on the side of individual freedom when it's a question of government power vs. individual freedom. Now we'll await what "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership will be permitted, and whether those restrictions may vary from community to community.
Probably not. Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has blundered before ( Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson come to mind). Nevertheless, it's probably better to err on the side of individual freedom when it's a question of government power vs. individual freedom. Now we'll await what "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership will be permitted, and whether those restrictions may vary from community to community.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Education Reform in Massachusetts - building new schools
The City of Newton Massachusetts is taking ample flak over the $197.5 million price tag for the new high school it's in the process of building. Given that seemingly exorbitant amount, Newton is an easy target. But is Newton being unfairly attacked?
Consider the story in the Boston Globe's ''Globe West" section this past Sunday June 22nd by Rachana Rathi. The new Newton North High School will house nearly 20% more students than Wellesley's $159 million new high school and nearly 72% more than Norwood's $100 million one. The new Newton North also includes features that are not part of the Wellesley or Norwood project such as a pool, theater and vocational education facilities. THESE ARE NOT LUXURY AMENITIES HOWEVER, BUT INSTEAD ARE SIMPLY REPLACING FACILITIES ALREADY PART OF THE EXISTING, DILAPIDATED HIGH SCHOOL IN NEWTON! And looking at the cost per square foot of the three projects, they seem to be fairly close.
Nonetheless, the media and even some public officials like Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill have been calling the Newton North project "extravagant" with a "deluxe design" and comparable to a "Taj Mahal." Cahill has even gone so far to imply that municipalities building new high schools school should focus solely on "core academic" space and not include space for the arts, physical education and community events .
Indeed, Cahill's quotes in this past Sunday's Globe article make him sound like a dictatorial socialist. Cahill rejects the notion of the state giving each community a certain capped amount and then letting that community decide for itself if it wants to spend its own additional money on other features. As he puts it: "just because you have the money doesn't mean you should be allowed to do it. One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money."
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has set aside $2.5 billion in a school building fund, but Tim Cahill as state treasurer has substantial control over disbursements from that fund. This gives rise to a few questions. Mr. Cahill, is it your intent not to provide any state funds for projects unless they meet some bare bones, cookie cutter design approved by you? How does that reflect educational innovation and the different needs and goals of the diverse communities in the Commonwealth? How is that democratic? Have you no sense of the "town meeting" heritage of Massachusetts?
Consider the story in the Boston Globe's ''Globe West" section this past Sunday June 22nd by Rachana Rathi. The new Newton North High School will house nearly 20% more students than Wellesley's $159 million new high school and nearly 72% more than Norwood's $100 million one. The new Newton North also includes features that are not part of the Wellesley or Norwood project such as a pool, theater and vocational education facilities. THESE ARE NOT LUXURY AMENITIES HOWEVER, BUT INSTEAD ARE SIMPLY REPLACING FACILITIES ALREADY PART OF THE EXISTING, DILAPIDATED HIGH SCHOOL IN NEWTON! And looking at the cost per square foot of the three projects, they seem to be fairly close.
Nonetheless, the media and even some public officials like Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill have been calling the Newton North project "extravagant" with a "deluxe design" and comparable to a "Taj Mahal." Cahill has even gone so far to imply that municipalities building new high schools school should focus solely on "core academic" space and not include space for the arts, physical education and community events .
Indeed, Cahill's quotes in this past Sunday's Globe article make him sound like a dictatorial socialist. Cahill rejects the notion of the state giving each community a certain capped amount and then letting that community decide for itself if it wants to spend its own additional money on other features. As he puts it: "just because you have the money doesn't mean you should be allowed to do it. One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money."
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has set aside $2.5 billion in a school building fund, but Tim Cahill as state treasurer has substantial control over disbursements from that fund. This gives rise to a few questions. Mr. Cahill, is it your intent not to provide any state funds for projects unless they meet some bare bones, cookie cutter design approved by you? How does that reflect educational innovation and the different needs and goals of the diverse communities in the Commonwealth? How is that democratic? Have you no sense of the "town meeting" heritage of Massachusetts?
Further Education Reform in Massachusetts
Although its already being criticized for its failure to promote charter schools, its lack of a funding plan and its inclusion of in-state benefits for undocumented immigrant students, I like the Education Action Agenda announced by Governor Deval Patrick this week.
Moving toward a system of free access to community college or equivalent trade training makes sense in this age of information and technology. To me, it's a logical extension of the free education through high school that Massachusetts has been providing to its residents for over 100 years.
The funding of this move will be challenging, but I believe could be worked out through a restructuring of local aid and consolidation of school districts, as well as contributions from the myriad private institutions in the Commonwealth (who would arguably benefit because of the expanding pool of possible students it would create for them).
On the issue of undocumented immigrant students, if such students have demonstrated a commitment to their education and have been productive in their studies in Massachusetts high schools, then it seems to me they would be more of a resource than a burden to our taxpayers. According to yesterday's press release, this is also the thinking of the Patrick administration which said the plan is to:
"allow children of undocumented immigrants to attend a public college or university in the Commonwealth at the in-state tuition rate (ONLY) if they have attended Massachusetts’ schools, passed the MCAS, received a high school diploma and are on a path toward citizenship"
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3pressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Agov3&b=pressrelease&f=080625_education_reform3&csid=Agov3
See also:
"Patrick's Plan for Education," by Scott Lehigh in the 6/25/08 Boston Globe and
"The education reform gamble" by Joan Vennochi in the 6/26/08 Boston Glove
Moving toward a system of free access to community college or equivalent trade training makes sense in this age of information and technology. To me, it's a logical extension of the free education through high school that Massachusetts has been providing to its residents for over 100 years.
The funding of this move will be challenging, but I believe could be worked out through a restructuring of local aid and consolidation of school districts, as well as contributions from the myriad private institutions in the Commonwealth (who would arguably benefit because of the expanding pool of possible students it would create for them).
On the issue of undocumented immigrant students, if such students have demonstrated a commitment to their education and have been productive in their studies in Massachusetts high schools, then it seems to me they would be more of a resource than a burden to our taxpayers. According to yesterday's press release, this is also the thinking of the Patrick administration which said the plan is to:
"allow children of undocumented immigrants to attend a public college or university in the Commonwealth at the in-state tuition rate (ONLY) if they have attended Massachusetts’ schools, passed the MCAS, received a high school diploma and are on a path toward citizenship"
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3pressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Agov3&b=pressrelease&f=080625_education_reform3&csid=Agov3
See also:
"Patrick's Plan for Education," by Scott Lehigh in the 6/25/08 Boston Globe and
"The education reform gamble" by Joan Vennochi in the 6/26/08 Boston Glove
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Propensity of the Press to Pounce
First off today, check out the following pieces in today's Boston papers on our recurring theme of how the two major party Presidential candidates continue to move mainstream and away from their earlier "maverick" styles and positions:
1. "Obama's virtues aside, it's politics as usual" by Peter S. Canellos (Globe bureau chief)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/24/obamas_virtues_aside_its_politics_as_usual/
2. "Ryan's hope may wane - McCain slow in seizing economic opportunity" by Robert D. Novak (syndicated columnist in Herald)
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/06/23/a_chance_for_mccain
Now, let's get to our new issue, the propensity for the press to pounce. The latest example involves Charlie Black, a top strategist for McCain. Black was interviewed in Fortune Magazine as part of a profile of McCain. See
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/
Here's an excerpt from Fortune's profile of McCain, containing Black's controversial remark:
"On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."
Black was attacked mercilessly for this last comment, even being rebuked by his boss. But why? Wasn't he just pointed out the obvious, that one of McCain's strengths compared to Obama is his military experience and leadership? Yet, somehow this comment was construed as suggesting that Black was somehow encouraging or condoning such a terrorist attack. That seems rather preposterous to me.
It also reminded me of the firestorm surrounding Hillary Clinton's remarks responding to media criticism of her continuing to fight for her party's nomination until the last primary election in earlier this month. In those remarks, Ms. Clinton mentioned a couple of historic examples of extended Democratic battles, including the 1968 primaries where "'we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." It seems patently obvious that all she was trying to do was make a point about how sometimes the process of earning sufficient delegates can take the full primary season. Nonetheless, some in the media deemed it to somehow be insensitive to the Kennedy family and/or a subtle suggestion that Obama might be assassinated. Huh?
It's perturbing in this age of the soundbite that little time and effort goes into understanding the context of remarks. Instead, the phenomenon of trying to titillate the audience with seeming controversy prevails. In both of the examples above - Charlie Black's comments on a terrorist attack and Hillary Clinton's on the RFK assassination in June of 1968 toward the end of the primary season- reporters and commentators simply seemed aghast without explaining why. Did they themselves not think through the comments and the context in which they were made, or were they simply trying to make more of the comments than they should have for the sake of attracting the attention of their audience? Obama has also not been immune to this type of "pouncing." How many of the reporters and commentators who lambasted him for his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright after the infamous "God Damn America" sermon actually listened to that entire sermon. Indeed, in listening to that sermon in its entirety on an NPR broadcast, I found it to be, taken as a whole, a rather compelling historical depiction of the abhorrent treatment African Americans have received in the U.S.
1. "Obama's virtues aside, it's politics as usual" by Peter S. Canellos (Globe bureau chief)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/24/obamas_virtues_aside_its_politics_as_usual/
2. "Ryan's hope may wane - McCain slow in seizing economic opportunity" by Robert D. Novak (syndicated columnist in Herald)
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/06/23/a_chance_for_mccain
Now, let's get to our new issue, the propensity for the press to pounce. The latest example involves Charlie Black, a top strategist for McCain. Black was interviewed in Fortune Magazine as part of a profile of McCain. See
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/
Here's an excerpt from Fortune's profile of McCain, containing Black's controversial remark:
"On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."
Black was attacked mercilessly for this last comment, even being rebuked by his boss. But why? Wasn't he just pointed out the obvious, that one of McCain's strengths compared to Obama is his military experience and leadership? Yet, somehow this comment was construed as suggesting that Black was somehow encouraging or condoning such a terrorist attack. That seems rather preposterous to me.
It also reminded me of the firestorm surrounding Hillary Clinton's remarks responding to media criticism of her continuing to fight for her party's nomination until the last primary election in earlier this month. In those remarks, Ms. Clinton mentioned a couple of historic examples of extended Democratic battles, including the 1968 primaries where "'we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." It seems patently obvious that all she was trying to do was make a point about how sometimes the process of earning sufficient delegates can take the full primary season. Nonetheless, some in the media deemed it to somehow be insensitive to the Kennedy family and/or a subtle suggestion that Obama might be assassinated. Huh?
It's perturbing in this age of the soundbite that little time and effort goes into understanding the context of remarks. Instead, the phenomenon of trying to titillate the audience with seeming controversy prevails. In both of the examples above - Charlie Black's comments on a terrorist attack and Hillary Clinton's on the RFK assassination in June of 1968 toward the end of the primary season- reporters and commentators simply seemed aghast without explaining why. Did they themselves not think through the comments and the context in which they were made, or were they simply trying to make more of the comments than they should have for the sake of attracting the attention of their audience? Obama has also not been immune to this type of "pouncing." How many of the reporters and commentators who lambasted him for his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright after the infamous "God Damn America" sermon actually listened to that entire sermon. Indeed, in listening to that sermon in its entirety on an NPR broadcast, I found it to be, taken as a whole, a rather compelling historical depiction of the abhorrent treatment African Americans have received in the U.S.
Monday, June 23, 2008
McCain and Obama's flip flops; can I flip flop my children?
Great op-ed piece by Joan Vennochi in yesterday's Boston Globe on the Obama and McCain flip flops. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/22/obama_and_mccain___flip_flop_flip_flop/
I concur with Ms. Vennochi that it's probably inevitable for both candidates to keep moving more mainstream and consequently lose their "maverick" elements.
I took my 17 year old son to the world premiere of the "According to Tip" play at the Watertown New Repertory Theater last night (written by Dick Flavin and starring Ken Howard). I enjoyed it, but alas, I suspect it has little chance to make it on Broadway (or even anywhere besides the local Boston area). It's a one man show consisting of anecdotes, songs and poems from the life of the late political legend Tip O'Neill. Most of the material seemed to be derived from Tip's autobiography, "Man of the House," which I've recently re-read. The appeal for such a production would seem to be extremely limited; last night's audience consisted of mostly blue hairs who had some direct or indirect contact with Tip and a few political junkies like myself. It was a great case study of a bygone political style and era.
"According to Tip" was also torture for my 17 year old son. Although eligible to vote in the upcoming general election (he turns 18 at the end of October), he admits he has not been following the election process in any way whatsoever. Before the play, I tried to engage him in conversation about the caricatures drawn on the backdrop (the 7 Presidents from Kennedy to GHW Bush) and the various knickknacks of the set, but he simply grunted back. He also expressed no curiosity whatsoever about anything he heard or say in the play. I guess he does deserve some credit for accompanying me -- it was out of a sense of duty/guilt since my wife and other son were away and it was my birthday. All in all, I think he's an honorable guy, but right now he has this obsession with hanging out every night with friends until 11:30-12:00 (a contentious situation with my wife and me).
I wish my other son had been there. He's almost 15 and was enthralled by the primary process, and by Obama's ultimate victory for the Democrats. He watched several of the debates with me, as well as CNN coverage on most primary days, including several hours worth on Tuesday June 3rd, the night Obama "clinched" because of the declarations of the super delegates. My second son is an avid supporter of Obama, or as he puts it in the parlance of his age group "Barack is my boy!" (note how that might be considered a racist statement from someone from an older generation). He also, however, has respect and admiration for John McCain, with his courageous background and "straight-talking" style.
Son #2 recently saw my copy of "Man of the House" sitting on a side table, picked it up, started reading it, and commented about how he found Tip to be a fascinating guy and was now going to read the whole book. Why couldn't he have come with me last night to the play? And why couldn't he be the one eligible to vote in this November's election?
I concur with Ms. Vennochi that it's probably inevitable for both candidates to keep moving more mainstream and consequently lose their "maverick" elements.
I took my 17 year old son to the world premiere of the "According to Tip" play at the Watertown New Repertory Theater last night (written by Dick Flavin and starring Ken Howard). I enjoyed it, but alas, I suspect it has little chance to make it on Broadway (or even anywhere besides the local Boston area). It's a one man show consisting of anecdotes, songs and poems from the life of the late political legend Tip O'Neill. Most of the material seemed to be derived from Tip's autobiography, "Man of the House," which I've recently re-read. The appeal for such a production would seem to be extremely limited; last night's audience consisted of mostly blue hairs who had some direct or indirect contact with Tip and a few political junkies like myself. It was a great case study of a bygone political style and era.
"According to Tip" was also torture for my 17 year old son. Although eligible to vote in the upcoming general election (he turns 18 at the end of October), he admits he has not been following the election process in any way whatsoever. Before the play, I tried to engage him in conversation about the caricatures drawn on the backdrop (the 7 Presidents from Kennedy to GHW Bush) and the various knickknacks of the set, but he simply grunted back. He also expressed no curiosity whatsoever about anything he heard or say in the play. I guess he does deserve some credit for accompanying me -- it was out of a sense of duty/guilt since my wife and other son were away and it was my birthday. All in all, I think he's an honorable guy, but right now he has this obsession with hanging out every night with friends until 11:30-12:00 (a contentious situation with my wife and me).
I wish my other son had been there. He's almost 15 and was enthralled by the primary process, and by Obama's ultimate victory for the Democrats. He watched several of the debates with me, as well as CNN coverage on most primary days, including several hours worth on Tuesday June 3rd, the night Obama "clinched" because of the declarations of the super delegates. My second son is an avid supporter of Obama, or as he puts it in the parlance of his age group "Barack is my boy!" (note how that might be considered a racist statement from someone from an older generation). He also, however, has respect and admiration for John McCain, with his courageous background and "straight-talking" style.
Son #2 recently saw my copy of "Man of the House" sitting on a side table, picked it up, started reading it, and commented about how he found Tip to be a fascinating guy and was now going to read the whole book. Why couldn't he have come with me last night to the play? And why couldn't he be the one eligible to vote in this November's election?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Let's start off with the U.S. Presidential Contest
Some people make New Year's resolutions; I'm trying something new (this blog) on my birthday.
On the surface I appear to be conservative, but I've always felt a connection with the mavericks and gadflies in the political world. In past Presidential elections, candidates like Shirley Chisholm, Mo Udall, John Anderson and Ross Perot were intriguing to me. In my home state of Massachusetts, I've been drawn to gubernatorial candidates like John Silber and Chris Iannella. What makes these ostensibly rational and intelligent people run for office when it's so patently obvious that they have no chance of winning? Indeed, in some cases just as they begin to gain support and become viable, they make statements and take actions that sabotage their candidacies. It seems as if their main point is to bring greater attention to, and stimulate discussion of, certain issues about which they are passionate.
That's also the point of this blog - to engender discussion about national, state and local political issues that I believe warrant greater attention.
Let's start with the current Presidential election. It's come down, of course, to Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and John McCain in the same position for the Republican Party. Both have from time to time exhibited certain "maverick" style elements that seem to be lurking within their personalities: Obama with his early stance against the U.S. military involvement in Iraq and with his initial support of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; McCain earlier in his career with his crusade for campaign finance reform and more recently with his call for the surge in Iraq at a time when many other politicians were calling for withdrawal.
Which one would make the better President? I haven't made up my mind yet. Obama is clearly the more dynamic and inspiring speaker. His rhetorical ability would give many Americans that intangible sense of hope needed to move the economy forward (or at least to create that perception -see FDR). Is it just me, though, or are his positions on issues thin. Isn't it a bit simplistic to say that he will have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election and no permanent bases there? See his official webwsite at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ Remember, there are nearly 60 years later, almost 30,000 U.S. troops in Korea. Those troops have certainly been a stabilizing influence there. The challenge is to come up with the right number and the right mission for U.S. troops in Iraq to help stablize the situation there.
Also, what about these statements from Obama's official campaing website on the economy: "Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. . . . Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers. " Again, those are examples of how simplistic and naive he seems to be.
McCain, on the other hand, has been showing his age more frequently of late. Even his aides acknowledged how horrendous his speech was several weeks ago on the night Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination (with super delegates not regular delegates, by the way). McCain has seemed tired and lacking in passion for most of this campaign (in contrast to his 2000 campaign when the GOP party honchos stepped in and derailed his "straight talk express" in South Carolina). He is also in the unenviable position of being associated with G.W. Bush and his unpopular military and economic policies.
The question for both Obama and McCain as we await this summer's party conventions is how to address their shortcomings -- Obama's in the areas of depth, experience and "gravitas"; McCain's in the areas of personal vigor and association with policies that are perceived as failures. Can it be done through their choices of running mates? Perhaps. For example, what about former Senator Sam Nunn as Obama's V.P. candidate and incumbent Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on the Republican ticket with McCain? Both would be somewhat "maverick" choices. Do Obama and McCain have enough of the maverick in them to make such choices?
On the surface I appear to be conservative, but I've always felt a connection with the mavericks and gadflies in the political world. In past Presidential elections, candidates like Shirley Chisholm, Mo Udall, John Anderson and Ross Perot were intriguing to me. In my home state of Massachusetts, I've been drawn to gubernatorial candidates like John Silber and Chris Iannella. What makes these ostensibly rational and intelligent people run for office when it's so patently obvious that they have no chance of winning? Indeed, in some cases just as they begin to gain support and become viable, they make statements and take actions that sabotage their candidacies. It seems as if their main point is to bring greater attention to, and stimulate discussion of, certain issues about which they are passionate.
That's also the point of this blog - to engender discussion about national, state and local political issues that I believe warrant greater attention.
Let's start with the current Presidential election. It's come down, of course, to Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and John McCain in the same position for the Republican Party. Both have from time to time exhibited certain "maverick" style elements that seem to be lurking within their personalities: Obama with his early stance against the U.S. military involvement in Iraq and with his initial support of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; McCain earlier in his career with his crusade for campaign finance reform and more recently with his call for the surge in Iraq at a time when many other politicians were calling for withdrawal.
Which one would make the better President? I haven't made up my mind yet. Obama is clearly the more dynamic and inspiring speaker. His rhetorical ability would give many Americans that intangible sense of hope needed to move the economy forward (or at least to create that perception -see FDR). Is it just me, though, or are his positions on issues thin. Isn't it a bit simplistic to say that he will have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election and no permanent bases there? See his official webwsite at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ Remember, there are nearly 60 years later, almost 30,000 U.S. troops in Korea. Those troops have certainly been a stabilizing influence there. The challenge is to come up with the right number and the right mission for U.S. troops in Iraq to help stablize the situation there.
Also, what about these statements from Obama's official campaing website on the economy: "Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. . . . Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers. " Again, those are examples of how simplistic and naive he seems to be.
McCain, on the other hand, has been showing his age more frequently of late. Even his aides acknowledged how horrendous his speech was several weeks ago on the night Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination (with super delegates not regular delegates, by the way). McCain has seemed tired and lacking in passion for most of this campaign (in contrast to his 2000 campaign when the GOP party honchos stepped in and derailed his "straight talk express" in South Carolina). He is also in the unenviable position of being associated with G.W. Bush and his unpopular military and economic policies.
The question for both Obama and McCain as we await this summer's party conventions is how to address their shortcomings -- Obama's in the areas of depth, experience and "gravitas"; McCain's in the areas of personal vigor and association with policies that are perceived as failures. Can it be done through their choices of running mates? Perhaps. For example, what about former Senator Sam Nunn as Obama's V.P. candidate and incumbent Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on the Republican ticket with McCain? Both would be somewhat "maverick" choices. Do Obama and McCain have enough of the maverick in them to make such choices?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
