Broken Thumb Blog

Very Funny, John...Now, Seriously, Who's It Gonna Be?

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-08-31T00:34:39Z

I gotta blog this. I gotta blog this. I gotta seriously, seriously blog this.

John McCain, in his first act of dementia, has chosen a former beauty queen to be his running mate.

Now, lest I seem completely indifferent to this woman's executive experience, let me say that I feel she is eminently qualified to govern one of the few places in the U.S. less populous than her own state, including ND (pop. 640K), VT (pop. 621K), DC (pop. 590K) or WY. (pop. 522K) Likewise, she would be a capable mayor of one of the following U.S. Cities: Baltimore (637K) ranks 20th, Charlotte (pop. 672K) ranks 19th, Memphis (pop. 674K) ranks 18th, or Fort Worth (pop. 681K) ranks 17th.

Hypothetically speaking, since a brisk 3 a.m. run to the toilet could render President McCain a rather stately corpse I wonder how much more or less comfortable I would be with the mayor of Indianapolis negotiating the removal of troops from Iraq. Since Governor Palin's resume also includes multiple terms as a mayor (Wasilla AK) prior to becoming governor I'm sure she will do as well as the mayor of Indianapolis. However, it is worth noting that being the mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,800) requires winning the support of as many people as it might take to get elected to the Student Assembly of Cornell University.

Admittedly, my Party's talking points have some validity. It is the quality, not necessarily the quantity, of her experience which matters. But it must be mentioned that for the fiscal year 2006-2007 the budget of the State of Alaska was $6.7 billion. By comparison, one would have to go all the way to Number 362 on the list of Fortune 1000 Companies to find an organization with the same level of revenue. So--hypothetically speaking--should President McCain have a brain aneurism while fulminating over legislation passed by Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, it's good to know that Sarah Palin will have experience with budgets larger than those of Bed, Bath & Beyond or Whole Foods.

I also concede that as governor she does make some life-and-death decisions as head of the Alaska Army National Guard. Wikipedia tells me there are 70 armories and 1850 guardsmen in the state. That means in the event of a call-up Gov. Palin would have authority over as many lives as the junior and senior classes of West Point. Certainly then she is at least half as qualified as the Commandant of the USMA.

So while I trust that John McCain fully believes Gov. Palin to be qualified to assume the Presidency should he be unable to complete his term of office, I think the decision proves his judgment to be suspect.

I am a lifelong Republican. I support my Party. I think Gov. Palin would make an interesting candidate to see in a primary battle someday. However, since she was obviously chosen to bring novelty to the ticket I think that John McCain no longer appears to take this election seriously. As more and more people contemplate this, they will recognize that he himself is not the better candidate for President and will elect Barck Obama.

Congratulations Senator McCain. As you so delight in doing, your maverick actions have once again betrayed the interests of your party. We will not only lose this election, but we may have to spend as many as eight years suffering the effects of your misguided choice.

Words Matter, Especially "Casuist"

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-03-18T02:21:39Z

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has caused a political problem for Barack Obama that is surprisingly not centered on race, radical religiosity, or strident anti-Americanism. Nor is the problem their 20-year relationship or the possibility that Senator Obama secretly harbors the same politics as his pastor.

A preacher's profession is defined by words. Through his sermons he argues a specific morality, advocating a better life for his congregants through the precepts he promotes . His words, being the only tools of his trade, truly matter.

Politicians, like preachers, are defined by what they say. They reach for the right language to make moral and civic precepts acceptable to their audiences. Using words, they reason, promise and persuade. Failing to win support for their positions by those means alone, they cajole, intimidate, and threaten. If they are really good they need only inspire and uplift.

Having made the point that words matter in politics, Senator Obama cannot now tell us that what he says is of consequence while what his preacher says is not. When the man is the message and the message is the man, there is no difference between the preacher and the politician.

That is the problem Reverend Wright poses for Senator Obama.

Comic Books and the Three Emails They Didn't Erase

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-02-27T17:31:20Z

The funniest thing came through my radio the other day. It shouldn't have been funny; every President since Truman has done it, and I should have expected it. Nonetheless I laughed indeed when I heard mention of the "George W. Bush Presidential Library."

Immediately I had a vision of Derek Zoolander and his Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good. Given all the materials that the GWB people will call "classified files which must be hidden to preserve the people of this good nation and to keep them safe from the evildoers," I wondered what small sample of memoribilia and documentation will researchers and guests find in the Bush Presidential Library.

Below are a scant few of the small number of items I expect to be on display or otherwise available to the public.

Captain America, published by Marvel Comics, issues 1-current (bet that Steve Rogers would've found Osama by now)
Flight Suit and Banner with "Mission Accomplished."
Handwritten Letter from GWB to Mike Brown, Dir. of FEMA, dated August 3, 2005. "My Dearest Brownie,..."
The Texas Chainsaw used to massacre Crawford brush.

While it is this man's personal prerogative to establish the library, I wonder how much about the Bush Presidency we will learn that we don't already know. Given that the administration has hidden and deleted as much as possible during his tenure in the Oval Office, we probably already know as much as we ever will. What we do know is probably not worth enshrining and re-visiting. I suspect the whole thing will amount to little more than a sanitized retrospective of a legacy unworthy of commemoration.

I recognize that as a Republican I am supposed to fawn over the man, this great "Compassionate Conservative." However, I am one of those pesky--but true--Conservatives who cannot stand the way GWB expanded the scope and size of the federal government, waged an unnecessary foreign war at great cost in blood and treasure, and willfully circumvented Constitutional limits meant to constrain the elected agents of a tyranny of the majority.

At least I can laugh at the irony.

Humpty Dumpty Housing

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-02-12T16:35:21Z

So, the federal government has strong-armed some banks into postponing foreclosures, all foreclosures for qualified borrowers, for 30 days.

It will always bother me that politicians can be elected with scarcely more than a modicum of education in macroeconomics. However, their ignorance is a reflection of our own; so I reiterate here that we deserve the representation we elect.

If people were smart enough to read their loan documents, explore their obligations, and inquire of disinterested parties (i.e. their own accountants) then we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, a wholesale belief in the financial stability of homeownership encouraged bad government policies and predatory lending practices. Add to this mix the loose money tendencies of the Fed and you have a recipe for disaster.

The government created the primary purchasers of mortgages in the secondary market --namely Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac-- and provided them the liquidity for tranching of mortgages. The government encouraged increased housing demand by offering mortgage interest tax deductions. The government failed in its banking oversight role. The government failed in its SEC oversight of the securitized mortgages.

The way the market should work is as follows: Banks foreclose. The available supply of properties increases, at lower average prices. More informed entrants enter the market for fixed-rate mortgages to buy properties at the lower prices. The demand rises to meet the available supply at the new market clearing price.

Rather than let the market clear itself out, the government is jumping back into the fray. It is indirectly creating a price floor which will eventually give way and prices will plummet further.

I understand the government's rationale. It feels the need to uphold the promise of homeownership it has made. It feels the need to rescue banks from their poor lending policies. It feels the need to support local tax rolls. It feels the need to shelter people from eviction.

However, I personally am offended that the government would rescue people (borrowers, banks, and local governments) from the consequences of their unfortunate decisions. Where will be my bailout? I have a car loan that needs to be paid off. I think someone took advantage of me. How about my student loans? I was promised by the government that education was a good thing, but boy I could eat out more often if I answered that letter in my mailbox promising lower student loan payments. Golly, if they snooker me, shouldn't the government help me out?

For anyone curious to know how this will end, review the economic history of Japan from 1990-2005.

Raucus Caucus

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-02-12T06:52:49Z

Bruce Chapman of Seattle's Discovery Institute has penned a nice overview of the primary process (both Democratic and Republican) in Washington State. I recommend it for all of you who may be interested in what's going on here.

As for the Potomac Primary tomorrow, I foresee a Huckabee win in Virginia (the sizeable military vote for McCain notwithstanding) and more than a few of the proportional delegates from Maryland going his way. DC belongs to Senator McCain't-Yet-Close-the-Deal.

You can retain me, Governor Huckabee

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-02-11T06:11:53Z

It seems that Gov. Huckabee, failing to major in math, also skipped pre-law. The Washington State caucus rules are located on the website for King County here.

Did the State GOP make a stupid mistake in calling the winner here? I don't know enough about what exactly happened. Perhaps Luke Esser got ahead of himself and announced McCain won (which was not appropriate given the close tally so far reported). I doubt that the Washington State GOP would have committed such a blatantly stupid "manipulation" of the results in plain view of the whole country during this highly energized election cycle. At least, I hope not.

Blah, Blah, Blah...Less Spending. Blah, Blah, Blah...Judges.

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-02-07T22:03:30Z

Seriously, I'm supposed to support John McCain? Really? What exactly do I owe him?

The Senator pays lip service to the areas where we agree. He promises to toe the line on judges and taxes, but he has consistently demonstrated an eagerness to stick it to the party's base whenever it suits him. The only promise I expect him to keep as President is staying in Iraq forever and ever. And I suppose that if he feels the need to raise taxes in support of unending war spending, he will do it.

The strength of the Republican Party is derived from its conservative base. Moderates represent many branches of the Party, but they all draw their sustenance from the roots. One can cut a branch from the tree and survive. But to cut out a root weakens the whole tree.

I am not going to fall in line and cast a vote for John McCain. I am not going to move to the middle in support of his positions simply because the Democratic candidate presents a "worse" alternative.

The Senator from Arizona tells me he's going to unify the party and win the Presidency. He says it as though it's the natural order of things. He seems to think that the political realities of the day favor his ultimate ascendancy. He is wrong because he mistakes my firm political loyalties for his malleable ones.

Here's some straight talk for the Senator. My vote does not belong to him simply because he is the default candidate. It does not belong to him any more than it belonged to Bob Dole in 1996 or to George H. W. Bush in 1992. He has never earned my vote. And his speech at CPAC did not earn it today.

Regarding Romney

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-01-30T06:32:00Z

The following is the letter I sent to friends and family after McCain's win in Florida.

Dearfriendsandfamily.doc

Please Senator may we (not) have some more?

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-01-28T21:30:23Z

When facing the prospect of war, I prefer that the President of the United States and the Senate choose such a course only after much consideration, deliberation, and soul-searching. I would prefer the cost in national blood and treasure be weighed against the dire consequences of all possible outcomes. I would likewise prefer that all alternatives be subjected to equal degrees of due diligence.

George W. Bush was obviously not capable of these things. He decided on war, groped about for a justification, and ignored any possible outcome which did not involve laurel wreaths and rose petals.

Now Senator McCain has declared that there will be other wars. It was a guarantee he euphemistically passed on as more of his signature "straight talk."

Until now, I have only viewed McCain as simply a nuisance within the GOP--buzzing about, interjecting his self-righteous opposition on issue after issue, and pursuing a self-serving "bi-partishanship." But now, I recognize that he is a dangerous little war-monger. So eager is he to avenge the hurts of Vietnam--to the nation and its veterans--that he is incapable of evaluating the future course in Iraq (and the our future course in the world) with a judicious eye. He is inclined to pursue national security threats, no matter how remote, with a vigor that will make W look Fonda-esque.

Add to that his self-professed ignorance on the economy and you end up with a much WORSE version of Bush. How exactly does he intend to balance the budget, provide tax cuts, and wage wars without end? There will be guns, but no butter.

I very much intend to vote for anyone but McCain, and that includes Hillary Clinton, in November should this bellicose little man become the Republican nominee.

Updated Webpage

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-01-27T02:59:01Z

For those who have an RSS to this blog...I've updated my webpage. www briangaither dot-com. You can follow the link below. Check it out and let me know what you think!

Keep it up, Bill. Keep it up.

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2008-01-27T02:26:26Z

I never thought I'd find myself so happy to hear Bill Clinton prattle on. However, during this last week his big mouth has obviously begun to hurt the Democratic Party. He's quickly undoing all the goodwill he built during his eight years in the White House and in the eight years since he left. It's ironic that by turning the "identity politics" of his party against itself in support of his wife Bill is very likely ruining the party they'll need to mobilize against the GOP. One could almost say he's burning the village it takes to raise the candidate.

By employing a Southern Strategy all his own he's undermining his wife's ability to rely on the magic of the Clinton legacy. Any successes Hillary could otherwise claim as the hallmark of the Clinton Administration will be forced into stark contrast with the blatant way she and Bill waged their dirty fight to win the nomination.

Interestingly, the same sort of thing was happening in the Democratic Party about the time that Bill and Hillary became politically aware and active. In 1968, the candidacy of George Wallace destroyed the hopes of Hubert Humphrey and led to the Nixon presidency. Those who are interested in that bit of history should start with the Wikipedia article on Wallace.

I'm fairly certain Hillary sill is more favored for the nomination than is Barack, but she will be the standard-bearer of a ragtag bunch of demoralized Democrats. Her nomination itself will highlight that the party of the left is just as rife with establishmentarian overhang as is the Republican Party, and it will show that the all-consuming lust for power is the most bi-partisan force in American politics.

This is just fine with me. A hamstrung Hillary will have even more difficulty trouncing any Republican nominee in the Fall. A hamstrung Democratic Party will have difficulty claiming a grand mandate in Congressional races and may not gain the super majority it hopes for.

On a final note, my last post (lo those many months ago) was off the mark. I'm a little surprised that the Obama candidacy continues to have legs. I do however stand by my even earlier post on the nature of his candidacy. I still think it's sound and fury.

Why Obama's Well Will Run Dry

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2007-04-08T18:59:55Z

Much has been said about the sums of money Barack Obama has raised for his presidential contest. Even more has been said about the vast numbers of people who contributed (100,000). Conventional wisdom sees this as a broad-based support for his candidacy among mainstream Democrats. Professional pundits are calling it "netroots enthusiasm." I, however, see it differently.

Small political contributions are easy to make. Unlike big-money donations, they represent a lesser emotional commitment by the donor to the candidate. A donation of $50 is the economic equivalent of a family of four going to the movies and buying a couple of sodas, or filling up the tank on the family SUV. Those opposed to the Iraq War or the presumptive candidacy of Hillary Clinton can make a $25-50 donation to Obama without feeling the pinch.

When all is said and done, the money raised by a candidate is only as good as his (or her) message. I don't think Obama's message is all that potent. It makes good rhetoric but lacks strong substance. We'll see how far that and his cash can take him.

To pander is a politician's first imperative

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2007-02-15T06:01:48Z

I know that Romney has some political qualities which are objectionable to my peers, though I’m not sure there is a better candidate in this election. McCain wants to send 100K more troops to the Middle East. Guiliani is nothing less than a Nero untroubled by constitutional “nuisances.�? Clinton will govern from a place to the right of Goldwater just to make her bona fides in foreign policy and to prevent the appearance of weakness as a woman in the Oval Office. Obama’s greatest competency is making nice speeches. John Edwards has the unfortunate problem of believing in two Americas but choosing to live in only one of them.

I fully expect that Romney’s candidacy will destroy the hold of the religious right on the Republican Party. Jesus-soaked fundies hate nothing more than Mormons. They will be chased from the party if it backs him, allowing his pro-business backers (who will overlook his religion in favor of his resume as governor of the nation’s most liberal state) to reform it.

As for his opposition to gay-marriage and the like, I fully believe the highest office will temper his personal preferences in favor of precedence confirmed by the practice of the wealthiest businesses in the county. Lyndon Johnson, when asked by Martin Luther King Jr. how he would be able to politically support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, responded “Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I am free at last.�? What he meant was that as President he no longer had to respond to the narrow bigotry of his Texas constituency.

I am not a single-issue voter. As important to me as universal marriage rights are, I think it would be irresponsible to cast a vote on that alone. Of more pressing concern is the Southern-based, oil-centric, Baptist cabal that has infiltrated the federal apparatus—the military, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary.

Ultimately, Mormons are too thin a slice of the population to sustain a religiously-motivated, socially conservative orthodoxy within the government. Such ideologies will be opposed by a (surprising) coalition of Ivy-educated citizens and their less-educated Christian fundamentalist compatriots. Born-agains will oppose any such measures because a Mormon President will be suspected of bowing to the will of Salt Lake City. Others will oppose them simply because the measures are wrong-headed. In all events a Romney administration will be hamstrung by political expediencies beyond his control. I think he knows this, but he will never concede as much during his campaign.

In re isto, multus venitus est.

Mitt for President

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2007-02-14T06:47:38Z

For years I've avoided getting too actively involved in Presidential politics. Frustration drove me from it; no candidate standing for election was a candidate I could stand behind. That's changed today. Mitt Romney formally announced his candidacy and I am going to join his campaign.

Over the next 20 months I'm going to wear a button, put a sticker on my bumper, and ask others to support Mitt. I know there will be reservations about whom and what he may represent, but I have none. Any deficiency he may have is dwarfed by the disingenuousness of the other frontrunning candidates.

I hope for the best from his campaign and am glad to be a part of it.

No regrets? Maybe once.

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — 2006-10-23T18:34:10Z

I have, so much as possible, tried to live a life without regrets. As a result, I have given the big decisions in my life all the attention they need so that I haven't had to regret them. And once a decision has been made, I have accepted all the ugly consequences I overlooked. I believe regret distracts us from the challenge of leading a happy life.

However, there is one bundle of regrets I can't overcome. Three times in my life I've made decisions to relocate (or not relocate) from one coast to another, and three time I think I've made a mistake.

Experience makes all things relative, and what I once considered to be the fault of bad timing now seems to have been more the fault of bad judgment. When I was younger, I was impetuous and a little short-sighted. I was closed-off emotionally, focused solely on how to make myself happy. I thought I had more control over things than I actually do, and I desperatley wanted to get someplace in life I thought would make me secure.

At 31, I feel I've mostly corrected these personality flaws. Though, I feel it may be too late to make much difference. I hope I'm wrong, but how does one seriously accept that his life is only just beginning in his early 30's? How does he prevent old regrets from spawning fresh doubts?

I know now that I made some bad tactical decisions in plotting the course for my life. But it's impossible to know how the arc of seven or eight years will play out. Ironically, only at the end does someone see the full impact of missed opportunities. I look back now and wonder where things would be if I had picked an alternative course on just one of those occasions.

If I'm lucky--truly lucky--maybe I can salvage some lost time. If I'm not, then I at least hope to make a final peace with my regrets.