I have been listening to a lot of Jethro Tull lately, thus the tribute in the title to the wonderful tune "Skating Away (On the Thin Ice of a New Day)" - if you want to see some terrific showmanship, you have to watch Ian Anderson performing Thick as a Brick on YouTube...masterful! But you really have to appreciate a group that chose their name in honor of a 17th century agronomist and farming pioneer. Tull was pretty revolutionary in the '70's with the introduction of the flute as a rock and roll instrument, but I always liked their music for the lyrics. They were a sort of "thinking man's" rock and roll when everyone else was exploring the acid rock or drifting to big hair and eventually disco - yuck! Their music was refreshing, irreverent and fun...something that is desperately needed in today's popular music AND political class. (You didn't really think I was going to only write about music today did you?) I actually got onto the whole Tull thing after watching a Democrat debate a few weeks ago...watching Edwards/Obama/Dodd attack the Arkansas Archangel was too much...suddenly, the words for "Only Solitaire" popped into my head - I share them here:
Brain-storming habit-forming battle-warning weary
winsome actor spewing spineless chilling lines ---
the critics falling over to tell themselves he's boring
and really not an awful lot of fun.
Well who the hell can he be when he's never had V.D.,
and he doesn't even sit on toilet seats?
Court-jesting, never-resting --- he must be very cunning
to assume an air of dignity
and bless us all with his oratory prowess,
his lame-brained antics and his jumping in the air.
And every night his act's the same
and so it must be all a game of chess he's playing ---
``But you're wrong, Steve: you see, it's only solitaire.''
There really is a dreary sameness to all of the candidates on the left despite the obvious physical differences. And frankly, on the right, the selection isn't much better although the differences in philosophy are pretty glaring between the two sides. I still think it would be a hoot though to have Dennis Kucinick and Ron Paul mud wrestle to settle the whole damned thing! On the left, they are so busy pandering to their whacked-out base, that they trip over each other to promise more largess and ponder who can orchestrate the fastest retreat from Iraq. On the right, they plump about who is the most like Ronald Reagan. Short answer: none of you are. Reagan had a sunny optimism and belief in this country and her people that none of the elephant herd display. What is missing from this group is a coherent plan that addresses the major trouble we face coupled with a strong, hopeful message that reassures us that we, as Americans, CAN do it. I have perused all the websites of both sides and submit that Fred Thompson, so far, at least has spelled out a plan for each of the major problems that lie ahead including Social UnSecurity.
In total, the right is at least more realistic about the dangers we face abroad...the Paulistas excepted. That will, I believe ultimately get them elected back to the White House. In my humble opinion, security will trump all other issues in 2008. The world is on fire and will most likely get worse before we have to go to the polls. Pakistan is falling apart, the northern section of the country is already controlled by the Taliban and the tribes and is probably a pretty safe haven for Osama Bin Laden. Iran is a powder keg. Iraq is getting a lot better, but without a commitment by the US and the international community, it could easily crumple. Syria and Lebanon are basket cases. Russia is degenerating into a Soviet style bully all over again, buoyed by high oil prices. Africa is...well, Africa. The missing element in all of these locations is freedom, which, I firmly believe will one day come. As Ronald Reagan once observed: "Coercion merely captures the man, freedom captivates him." But in the meantime, we'd better be reloading our clips.
But let's go ahead an put an early handicap on the lead horses that might show up in this great political Circus Maximus:
Hillary!
1. I am not convinced she will get the nomination - the ghosts may be catching up to her and, I suspect there are a number of Dems that are starting to get creeped out at the return of cattle futures, blue dresses and missing files.
2. If Hillary IS nominated, she will be defeated. Her negatives are already so high and she is so divisive that the Pachyderms could probably run Rebo the Clown and win.
3. Finally, Americans usually don't elect people they can't get to like. Hillary is just not very likable...the cackle, the frozen stare, the fake accents...not going to happen.
Rudy!
1. He seems to have the inside track to the nomination, but Dixie and what's left of the Religious Right could stand in the way and at least force him to choose a running mate that is closer to their values.
2. He's clearly strong on national security which, as I have said, is the BIG issue.
3. Character is a big "IF" with him...there may still be some other shoes to drop.
Obama!
1. He's a persuasive, suave speaker..."slicker than Essolube," to quote Penn Warren. But his adoption of positions even further to the left of Hillary in the hopes of securing the nomination will burn him in a general election.
2. His inexperience has not caught up to him yet. Watch for the Clinton attack machine to rip his lungs out if he really starts to threaten the Madam.
3. Second only to Fred Thompson, he has the best voice of the campaign so far. Without listening to WHAT he's saying, and only HOW he's saying it, he sounds presidential.
Mitt!
1. Is he running because his Dad lost? I like Mitt's current positions overall, but daggum, he sure has changed them a lot. My sense is there is less of a philosophical core to the man than a systematic approach to issues and a pragmatic approach to addressing them.
2. I think Mitt is a great manager. He managed the Olympics, he managed Massachusetts...I am just not sure he's a leader. We want someone that will inspire us to rise to the challenges that face our country - not someone that is going to give us a quarterly sitrep.
3. The Mormon thing honestly doesn't bother me. If he wants to move the capitol to Salt Lake City, it would only be an improvement. So their theology is a little strange by nominal Judeo-Christian standards, it seems to me they take great care of each other and exhibit great family values. On the edges they've got major kook factions, but then so do all religions.
Edwards!
1. His hair is too perfect, his teeth are too white...hell, he's prettier than Hillary. But, he may find the nomination in his lap if the other two leaders falter.
2. The "two America's" stuff is going to get stuffed down his throat in a general election. $50,000 to give a speech to college kids on how the poor in America are down-trodden?
3. On the likable index, John Edwards is well below the norm. He's like the kid in school that always raised his hand to the point that even the teacher was annoyed. He's also like the kid on the football team that would drop the pass instead of taking the hit for the team...can we be candid? He's a sissy...Americans don't elect sissies to the Oval Office.
Fred!
1. Okay, I will admit that I am biased here...I live in Tennessee, I have met Fred a number of times...the guy even remembers my name when I see him at the Donut Den. But I will set that aside and be objective. Fred has his work cut out for him. His campaign got off to a late and tumultuous start with staffers coming and going. He lost precious time and fund-raising opportunities.
2. On the plus side, Fred sounds (best voice of the bunch!) and looks the part. I know - it's because he's an "actor." So what! News flash - being an actor takes some smarts. I do think he needs to add a little bit more optimism to his message...he's very realistic about what we face, but he needs to package that message with the reassurance that we are Americans...we put our hearts and minds to something, we are unstoppable. He needs to smile more.
3. If Rudy and Mitt falter, Fred could very well end up being the nominee. He needs to become more aggressive though and go out there and win it. If Rear Admiral Joshua Painter (Fred's role in "Hunt for the Red October") shows up and not Harry Sargent (the White House Chief of Staff in "In the Line of Fire"), Fred could well be our next President.
I will do my best in the coming months to provide you, dear reader, with the insights you need to make the right decision. For myself, I never cease to be amazed at the clownish pageantry of the whole affair. We will rumble on!
Brain-storming habit-forming battle-warning weary
winsome actor spewing spineless chilling lines ---
the critics falling over to tell themselves he's boring
and really not an awful lot of fun.
Well who the hell can he be when he's never had V.D.,
and he doesn't even sit on toilet seats?
Court-jesting, never-resting --- he must be very cunning
to assume an air of dignity
and bless us all with his oratory prowess,
his lame-brained antics and his jumping in the air.
And every night his act's the same
and so it must be all a game of chess he's playing ---
``But you're wrong, Steve: you see, it's only solitaire.''
There really is a dreary sameness to all of the candidates on the left despite the obvious physical differences. And frankly, on the right, the selection isn't much better although the differences in philosophy are pretty glaring between the two sides. I still think it would be a hoot though to have Dennis Kucinick and Ron Paul mud wrestle to settle the whole damned thing! On the left, they are so busy pandering to their whacked-out base, that they trip over each other to promise more largess and ponder who can orchestrate the fastest retreat from Iraq. On the right, they plump about who is the most like Ronald Reagan. Short answer: none of you are. Reagan had a sunny optimism and belief in this country and her people that none of the elephant herd display. What is missing from this group is a coherent plan that addresses the major trouble we face coupled with a strong, hopeful message that reassures us that we, as Americans, CAN do it. I have perused all the websites of both sides and submit that Fred Thompson, so far, at least has spelled out a plan for each of the major problems that lie ahead including Social UnSecurity.
In total, the right is at least more realistic about the dangers we face abroad...the Paulistas excepted. That will, I believe ultimately get them elected back to the White House. In my humble opinion, security will trump all other issues in 2008. The world is on fire and will most likely get worse before we have to go to the polls. Pakistan is falling apart, the northern section of the country is already controlled by the Taliban and the tribes and is probably a pretty safe haven for Osama Bin Laden. Iran is a powder keg. Iraq is getting a lot better, but without a commitment by the US and the international community, it could easily crumple. Syria and Lebanon are basket cases. Russia is degenerating into a Soviet style bully all over again, buoyed by high oil prices. Africa is...well, Africa. The missing element in all of these locations is freedom, which, I firmly believe will one day come. As Ronald Reagan once observed: "Coercion merely captures the man, freedom captivates him." But in the meantime, we'd better be reloading our clips.
But let's go ahead an put an early handicap on the lead horses that might show up in this great political Circus Maximus:
Hillary!
1. I am not convinced she will get the nomination - the ghosts may be catching up to her and, I suspect there are a number of Dems that are starting to get creeped out at the return of cattle futures, blue dresses and missing files.
2. If Hillary IS nominated, she will be defeated. Her negatives are already so high and she is so divisive that the Pachyderms could probably run Rebo the Clown and win.
3. Finally, Americans usually don't elect people they can't get to like. Hillary is just not very likable...the cackle, the frozen stare, the fake accents...not going to happen.
Rudy!
1. He seems to have the inside track to the nomination, but Dixie and what's left of the Religious Right could stand in the way and at least force him to choose a running mate that is closer to their values.
2. He's clearly strong on national security which, as I have said, is the BIG issue.
3. Character is a big "IF" with him...there may still be some other shoes to drop.
Obama!
1. He's a persuasive, suave speaker..."slicker than Essolube," to quote Penn Warren. But his adoption of positions even further to the left of Hillary in the hopes of securing the nomination will burn him in a general election.
2. His inexperience has not caught up to him yet. Watch for the Clinton attack machine to rip his lungs out if he really starts to threaten the Madam.
3. Second only to Fred Thompson, he has the best voice of the campaign so far. Without listening to WHAT he's saying, and only HOW he's saying it, he sounds presidential.
Mitt!
1. Is he running because his Dad lost? I like Mitt's current positions overall, but daggum, he sure has changed them a lot. My sense is there is less of a philosophical core to the man than a systematic approach to issues and a pragmatic approach to addressing them.
2. I think Mitt is a great manager. He managed the Olympics, he managed Massachusetts...I am just not sure he's a leader. We want someone that will inspire us to rise to the challenges that face our country - not someone that is going to give us a quarterly sitrep.
3. The Mormon thing honestly doesn't bother me. If he wants to move the capitol to Salt Lake City, it would only be an improvement. So their theology is a little strange by nominal Judeo-Christian standards, it seems to me they take great care of each other and exhibit great family values. On the edges they've got major kook factions, but then so do all religions.
Edwards!
1. His hair is too perfect, his teeth are too white...hell, he's prettier than Hillary. But, he may find the nomination in his lap if the other two leaders falter.
2. The "two America's" stuff is going to get stuffed down his throat in a general election. $50,000 to give a speech to college kids on how the poor in America are down-trodden?
3. On the likable index, John Edwards is well below the norm. He's like the kid in school that always raised his hand to the point that even the teacher was annoyed. He's also like the kid on the football team that would drop the pass instead of taking the hit for the team...can we be candid? He's a sissy...Americans don't elect sissies to the Oval Office.
Fred!
1. Okay, I will admit that I am biased here...I live in Tennessee, I have met Fred a number of times...the guy even remembers my name when I see him at the Donut Den. But I will set that aside and be objective. Fred has his work cut out for him. His campaign got off to a late and tumultuous start with staffers coming and going. He lost precious time and fund-raising opportunities.
2. On the plus side, Fred sounds (best voice of the bunch!) and looks the part. I know - it's because he's an "actor." So what! News flash - being an actor takes some smarts. I do think he needs to add a little bit more optimism to his message...he's very realistic about what we face, but he needs to package that message with the reassurance that we are Americans...we put our hearts and minds to something, we are unstoppable. He needs to smile more.
3. If Rudy and Mitt falter, Fred could very well end up being the nominee. He needs to become more aggressive though and go out there and win it. If Rear Admiral Joshua Painter (Fred's role in "Hunt for the Red October") shows up and not Harry Sargent (the White House Chief of Staff in "In the Line of Fire"), Fred could well be our next President.
I will do my best in the coming months to provide you, dear reader, with the insights you need to make the right decision. For myself, I never cease to be amazed at the clownish pageantry of the whole affair. We will rumble on!