Thank You, God, For Tim Russert....

I first became familiar with Tim Russert via The Rush Limbaugh Show on talk radio. I had seen Russert on NBC-TV's "Meet The Press," but had never paid much attention to him, until I encountered his insight and perspective while being interviewed by Rush.

A few years later, I was impressed when he spoke to the American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists (A.F.T.R.A.), the union to which I belonged when I worked in broadcasting in Los Angeles.

I'll never forget his response, when asked if he had suggestions for up and coming journalists. "Learn spanish" he responded without hesitation. That was in the late 90's; now over a decade later, it's difficult to imagine that Russert's advice wasn't spot-on.

Most impressive to me is the outpouring of emotion that I've seen since the moment his death was announced Friday 06/13/08. CNN, Fox Newschannel, CNBC, CNN Headline News, and, of course, MSNBC, ALL interrupted their "regularly scheduled programming" to do 'wall-to-wall coverage" of Russert's news. And web portals as diverse as Huffington Post, Rush Limbaugh Dot Com, and The Drudge Report, all made the story "front and center."

Was that merely a matter of media industry professionals emoting, and using their platforms to publicy "go through the grieving process?"

Maybe, somewhat. And we might look back days from now, or months from now, and decide that the amount of coverage of Russert's death outpaced the audience demand for it.

But even if that is so, it says something about Russert. It says that this one man, Tim Russert, was such a big person and impacted his colleagues in such a profound and personal way, that they (his colleagues) are willing to sacrifice their better judgement on program content so as to convey an important story about a very important man.

As for me, I see parallel''s between Russert's life, and mine. He grew up lower middle class in New York state; I grew up a decade and a half behind him in a lower middleclass family in California. Tim's dad ("Big Russ") took him to see President John F. Kennedy when he came to their town for a visit. My dad took me to see President Gerald Ford when he visited our town. And Russert frequently expressed his amazement that a kid from his humble beginnings could grow up to do the things that he did. I am equally amazed at my station in life.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman put it all in perspective, when he spoke of Russert during MSNBC's coverage on Friday. "We've talked about Tim's love for journalism, and for politics" Fineman said. "Now let's talk about his love of his church. He loved his Catholic church. He loved the sense of order entailed in his church, he was a man of order....... Washington is full of many false gods, but Tim Russert had no time for false gods. He knew the one true God. He showed us that God..."

Thank You, God, for Tim Russert, and his example of a life lived large. Let us learn from him....

The Republican Party And The Big, Missed Opportunity...

...So, consensus is building that neither of our Presidential candidates have a clue what to do about economic policy.....

What a shame that Mr. McCain cannot break through to meaningful energy crisis relief, and propose that we begin harvesting our own energy resources domestically......an energy policy that would mostly address what "ails" our economy.....

As I was saying about our current "energy crisis"...

the G8 nations won't dare criticize the OPEC nations (see the story here).

But the pain persists at the fuel pump here at home. So what if the Republican Party did get serious about the matter, and proposed some bold, and, yes, even "politically incorrect" solutions to the matter (drilling our own domestic oil for starters)???

Stay tuned....

Finally, a distinguishing campaign issue...

The U.S. Senate voted against the so-called "global warming bill".

Now, maybe Republican congressional candidates can use this on the campaign trail; Democrats want to tax consumers even further on their energy expenditures, even in a time of pricing crisis. Republicans are trying to fight such nonsense.

The question remains - - can John McCain speak similarly on the matter, with credibility???

Barack Obama Plays Your "Favorites" From The 60's And 70's

“The heat is on.”

That’s not just a clever song hook from the old movie “Beverly Hills Cop” (thanks to recording artist Glen Frey for that one).
It’s now the reality of this year’s presidential race. It’s John McCain, the Republican Party nominee, squaring-off with who we now know to be the Democratic Party nominee, Senator Barack Obama - - and a hard-fought battle no doubt lies ahead.

Obama’s clinching of the sufficient number of delegates became “official” on yesterday, and last night he delivered his first speech as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting.

But wisely, McCain delivered his own speech last night, and in his remarks he both welcomed Obama to the battle, and contrasted their vastly different policy positions. And before you make up your mind as to which of these candidates represents “the old” and which represents “the new,” let’s take a look at some of the candidates’ positions, and not just at the candidates themselves.
McCain regularly makes jokes about his age (he describes himself as being “old as dirt”). But there is no joking about what is old and new when it comes to the ideas that are in play in this race, and McCain addressed that fact head-on:

“…I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn’t trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It’s the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency, and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that’s not change we can believe in…”


So what, exactly, is McCain getting at here? Let’s start with fiscal and taxation policy. Obama has proposed a near-doubling of the capital gains tax rate, which currently stands at 15% (Obama has at times suggested that it be raised as high as 28%). Why would he propose this? Presumably Senator Obama believes that governmental agencies can do better, more productive, more “fair” things with that money than you can (never mind the fact that it’s your money) - - and that is most certainly a pre-1980’s idea.

This idea seems to have played nicely for Obama on the campaign trail when speaking in front of college students and disgruntled blue-collar workers. It also fits nicely with his theme of juxtaposing “the wealthiest of Americans” and those so-called “fat-cat executives,” against all the rest of us “working Americans who are hurting.”

But here’s a little 21st century reality check: unlike the 1960’s and 70’s, “rich people” aren’t the only Americans who own stocks. Now, in the year 2008, over one hundred million of us are invested in the stock market, and Obama is proposing to essentially double the amount that the government would take away from anybody who earns money on their stock investments. That’s not just a hit on “the rich” (a vaguely defined group of Americans that Obama loves to malign). That’s a direct hit on any of us who are invested in the market, regardless of whether we’re rich, poor, or middleclass.

And let’s also consider for a moment Obama’s views on energy policy. It was less than three weeks ago when he delivered an important speech on this subject to a very environmentally conscious audience in Oregon, and the message was oh-so-1970’s sounding.

“We can’t continue to drive our SUV’s” Obama assured the audience, “…and keep our thermostats set at 72 degrees.” And why not? Well, because at our current rate we’re using a “disproportionate amount” of the world’s energy resources, and that makes other people around the world upset.



This message is antiquated, and troubling, on a variety of levels. For one, it ignores the reality that our nation’s greater rate of energy consumption is brought about in no small part because of our enormous economic productivity - - which is productivity that impacts the entire global economy - - and because we offer a much higher standard of living than most other nations. Those aren’t bad things. They are good things, and they are but two of the many reasons why people from around the globe want to live in the United States.

But Obama’s message on energy also implies a fatalistic vision of scarcity: we don’t “have enough;” we are inadequate as a nation; our resources are insufficient; we can’t solve our dilemmas. That was the message of President Jimmy Carter regarding energy problems, and in many ways, the messages of Presidents Nixon and Ford as well.
So what’s old and what’s new? What’s 21st century thinking, and what’s “retro?”

The answer to those questions are not apparent, merely by considering the candidates’ physical appearances.

We're from the government, and we know best....

Obama wants a governmental take-over of the healthcare industry....

Hillary has been proposing what is essentially a governmental take-over of the automobile industry....

Congress insists on "protecting" plant and animal life in ways that reduce supplies of oil on the open market and, thus, prices are driven upwards....

And now, Democratic members of Congress want a governmental take-over of the hurricane insurance industry.

The Nanny-State tendencies never stop....