Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
September 2, 2008
POLITICS: DNC Late Entries

I'm overdue to catch up on baseball blogging and still working on a piece on Sarah Palin...meanwhile, over the weekend we finished watching some of the Democratic Convention speeches I hadn't seen live. Quick thoughts:

*I really thought people had been eggagerating the malice in Michelle Obama's eyes when the Clintons were speaking, but they were not. Man, does she hate them, and she would not be a good poker player.

*Brian Schweitzer really is very good on the stump, and you could see that Bill Clinton, who knows political talent, was visibly impressed. Of course, the substance of Schweitzer's speech was nonsense, but that's beside the point. Frank Caliendo would not even need makeup to do a Schweitzer imitation. They could be twins.

*Bob Casey would have endorsed a grilled cheese sandwich if it was written on the TelePrompter. Talk about an empty suit.

*I suspect the Palin pick has the Democrats regretting all the "girl power" stuff surrounding Hillary's appearance.

*Chelsea really sounds just like her mother (well, you can tell she's younger, but that's it).

*Both Bill and Hillary had great closings to their speeches....and just kept on going.

*That interview a few months back where McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy were solid but a lot of people were hurting? The Democrats just could not get enough of the first half, and only the first half, of that sentence. They wanted to take it home and marry it.

*I really could not watch Mark Warner. His speech wasn't any livelier on paper. This line was priceless:

I spent 20 years in business. If you ran a company whose only strategy was to tear down the competition, it wouldn’t last long.

Yeah, and in the private sector if you collaborate with your competition, you go to jail.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 1:26 AM | Politics 2008 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Crank,

I have to defend Mark Warner's line. I don't believe he was necessarily suggesting collaborating with his competition, but rather suggesting that a company needs to focus on themselves and improving their product.

Posted by: largebill at September 2, 2008 8:05 AM

Be careful about the Warner comment Crank. I recall when the Democrats gave a major speech to a governor from Arkansas, and all he did was run on and on, boring everybody. Nobody calls Clinton boring now. When you are good, you learn.

Also, he didn't say "collaborate" with your competition, but not have a strategy of tearing them down. What Microsoft did with Apple for instance, in the between Jobs years. If your primary strategy was to cut down your competition, instead of building up your own, you get something like SweetNLow, which spent far too much time and money trying to keep saccharine from being banned, and not enough time coming up with the next generation, and Splenda and Equal have killed them. Like trying to keep us on an oil economy instead of using a local resource like Natural Gas as a bridge to wind, solar, maybe fusion, whatever the next generation has to be. If we keep doing what you republicans want, which is to maintain and not innovate, then we will inevitably fade.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at September 2, 2008 9:21 AM

I really wanted Schweitzer to start sweating. And I was hoping he'd say, "and if we continue these policies we'll all be living in a van down by the river."


Posted by: Zufall at September 2, 2008 9:45 AM

Darryl-its always amazing listening to people like yourself go into your little trance about who has been sabotaging non-oil based energy or all energy sources in general for the last 30 plus years.

Lefty environmentalists are the ones that have prevented nuclear plants being built for the last 30 years. Yes or No?

Lefties (like your boyees the kennedys) are the ones that object to wind farms because they ruin views or they kill birds. Yes or No? Last summer, I went through the Catskills and was greeted by mile after mile of signs from the various lefty environmental groups opposing wind farms owned by "Big Wind"-the same little socialist nonsense and buzz words that lefties use for a place holder in lieu of any real thinking.

Lefties are the ones that file lawsuits to prevent solar power sites going up on land that is toxic. Yes or No?

In NYS, where I live, it was lefties that obstructed a natural gas pipeline from upstate.

I won't even go into how lefties do everything in their power to stop coal plants ( the US has the biggest deposits of coal inthe world if I remember right) or us touching our own massive amounts of available oil (ANWR, off shore, oil shale deposits). Yes or No?

So please just stop-your side has no credibilty on this issue. The Left's answer to every source of energy is saying no to it or finding ways to obstructing its use. Maybe it will dawn on you some day that there is a certain percentage of lefty environmentalists who don't want any energy solution. When that day comes everything will make sense to you.

Posted by: dch at September 2, 2008 10:33 AM

dch,
Not to mention the Hollywood-values liberal, Ronald Reagan's, first at as President was to rip-out the solar panels which his predecessor had put in the White House.

Posted by: Berto at September 2, 2008 11:00 AM

OK dch, let's always blame the left. And I'm not a left winger, but a centrist libertarian. However, as I've always said, both the right and left wings are filled with self-righteous indignation about how their cause is always just. We've needed a coherent energy policy since 1977--and it's basically been the right in the White House since then. The one Democrat as president ran afoul (by his own personal moral weakness, and no excuses for wrong and immature behavior) by the right wing's prurient view of sex that is not in their image.

Carter-where we saw the need for an energy policy
Reagan-more oil
Bush I-in the oil business
Clinton-did not develop an energy policy
Bush II-in the oil and God business

Fair enough? Credibility? This nation has no energy credibility issue, and for that, we are all to blame. It's easy to get Congress to act. Let them know what's important to you, and they will actually read them. They really do. And if they don't, vote them out.

Nuclear is as much an issue as oil, and not for environmental issues, we can learn to deal with them. No, I think it's terrible national policy to depend on Russia, the uranium supplier to the world, for our energy needs. We've seen the results.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at September 2, 2008 11:24 AM

The President(s) can (and has) set strategies for energy independence over the years. Bush alone has presented his plan(s) in various speeches. Remember his push for hydrogen cars?

The issue has been Congress and the environmentalists. The environmentalists have lobbied their friends in congress to enact legislation that has stopped both nuclear and fossil fuel growth. While wind and solar power has gotten development funding, these technologies have not turned out (as yet) to be able to supply a significant % of our energy needs. Until the efficiency of these can dramatically improve, they will play a minor factor in our energy plans. Remember these technologies require physical area to produce their energy. No one (not even Ted K.) wants the windmills or solar arrays in THEIR back yards.

Fusion has always be “almost there” for years. It is still beyond the near term horizon.

The environmentalists have also used the court systems to block use of oil reserves that congress did allow development. So if they “lose” in congress, they then attack in the courts. They also try tactics like pushing to get polar bears made an endangered species as a means to block oil drilling in Alaska.

Today we need to drill and refine our own oil to stop being depended on overseas. This is a near term solution.

We also need to pursue VIABLE alternative sources. Funding alternatives makes sense to continue, but we must realize when they are truly able to pickup their share of the load. Right now they are not.

The Democratic Congress needs stop being obstructionists on this issue and get their rear in gear!

Berto and Daryl,

Can you please stop counter punching and offer solutions? In your posts you seem to keep reacting to others posts and slamming people you disagree with. I have rarely seen either of you actually state many FACTS and suggest options for the future. I got to believe that you are both smarter than you have shown in your posts. Please provide more of your wisdom and less of your wit. ;-) Thanks!

Posted by: Lee at September 2, 2008 12:35 PM

Local opposition to wind farms, solar and nuclear isn't "left," it's NIMBY. Left wingers and right wingers alike don't want solar/nuclear/wind in their backyards - they want it in somebody else's. That's an entirely different problem and is separate from the debate over what should be our national energy priorities.

But apparently it's much easier to just label an idea as "left" or "right" and just dismiss it altogether or accept it without question. That way, we can spend more time debating really important issues, such as who gave a better convention speech and whether a sixteen-year-old's behavior has anything to do with a vice presidential candidate.

I don't mind looking at things from a political angle and I do it from time to time myself, but when you look at -everything- from a political angle, it's counterproductive.

Posted by: MVH at September 2, 2008 12:39 PM

"I think it's terrible national policy to depend on Russia, the uranium supplier to the world, for our energy needs. We've seen the results."

Russia and the surrounding former Soviet republics do have a lot of uranium, but so do Canada and Australia: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm
We can always get it from them.

I think nuclear has to be part of our energy mix. If it means burying the waste in Nevada or somewhere else where no one wants to live, so be it. We going to face trade-offs no matter what we do. Just don't build one near my house. :)

Posted by: MVH at September 2, 2008 1:00 PM

I could actually answer you Lee and tell you to read my old posts, but Mike is right. You're not listening.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at September 2, 2008 2:24 PM

Face it: McCain blew it. He wanted a telegenic right wing female, and he found himself one. He should have looked deeper. Right now the McCain campain is going into convulsions.

Posted by: steve at September 2, 2008 2:28 PM

MVH, I agree that nuclear is viable, but still short term. Longer than oil, better than coal. I am against it more because it's another resource that we have to import. Environmentally, it's better than almost anything else. However, the long long term has to be something probably off Earth, because our needs grow, and the Laws of Thermodynamics will basically make sure we get swallowed up in waste heat; not good then we are at the beginning of global warming. That's why the space program and knowledge of science and engineering is so important.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at September 2, 2008 5:19 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg