Richardson for Senator!
Defeat the evil St. Pete!
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Richardson for Senator!
posted on KNME-TV's Forum for The Line, the Special Edition, after the debate tonight on PBS:
Based on what you said tonight, I have two suggestions:
1) For you--as there are to be other programs like this, don't make the whole program about Bill Richardson. Maybe half?
2) For Bill--He should give some serious thought where he wants to be in January, 2009:
1) Santa Fe;
2) Washington, as VP; or
3) Washington, as Senator.
Although there is still an outside chance for him to "make first-tier", I think that, realistically, he's auditioning for VP. He'd be on any nominee's short list, maybe at the top. Frankly, though, this is a tough race for the Democratic nomination with no shortage of well-schooled, well-heeled, well-prepared candidates.
On the other hand, there is a real challenge out there that Bill could win. Someone needs to run against Pete Domenici (this week's debates on energy should have made that clear), and he would have the best chance of anyone. As it stands, the position of Democratic challenger is going begging.
I'm not sure of the legal technicalities regarding Bill running for Senator as Governor, but I doubt there's any problem. I'm pretty sure that money raised for the Presidential race can be used on another Federal race (such as senatorial).
Conclusion: My advice would be "Richardson for Senator"! Maybe wait a couple more months....
On KNME-TV's "The Line", they savaged him in their post-debate discussion, which focused exclusively on Richardson (except for a few comments about the clear front-runner, HRC). Still, their grade for him was in the C+ to D range, a solid "Gentleman's C". Very Presidential, if we use the incumbent as a point of reference. But still...
As I say, the competition is tough. I would put Bill's chances at about 50-1 to win the presidency. Richardson's candidacy has credibility in New Mexico, as a Favorite Son, and only a few other states: I find it hard to believe that Iowa and New Hampshire are among them, but California could be. Not necessarily to win in it, but even 5-10% of voters in the state, unevenly distributed, would mean some significant delegates. It would also deprive Clinton and Obama of that percentage in the statewide horserace, the outcome of which will be important psychologically in the public perception of the eventual nominee (the press--the Beltway Talking Heads, or BTH--will make it important).
So, it could still make sense for him to run all the way through California; if we're to have an interesting race after the Unofficial National Primary, it's indispensible. Realistically, I should grant him another eight months or so before he should bolt. Maybe he'll wait until after the discussions between the prospective nominee and leading VP candidates (over/under on that one starting, in a public way, is April 17). It just seems so far away!
Based on what you said tonight, I have two suggestions:
1) For you--as there are to be other programs like this, don't make the whole program about Bill Richardson. Maybe half?
2) For Bill--He should give some serious thought where he wants to be in January, 2009:
1) Santa Fe;
2) Washington, as VP; or
3) Washington, as Senator.
Although there is still an outside chance for him to "make first-tier", I think that, realistically, he's auditioning for VP. He'd be on any nominee's short list, maybe at the top. Frankly, though, this is a tough race for the Democratic nomination with no shortage of well-schooled, well-heeled, well-prepared candidates.
On the other hand, there is a real challenge out there that Bill could win. Someone needs to run against Pete Domenici (this week's debates on energy should have made that clear), and he would have the best chance of anyone. As it stands, the position of Democratic challenger is going begging.
I'm not sure of the legal technicalities regarding Bill running for Senator as Governor, but I doubt there's any problem. I'm pretty sure that money raised for the Presidential race can be used on another Federal race (such as senatorial).
Conclusion: My advice would be "Richardson for Senator"! Maybe wait a couple more months....
On KNME-TV's "The Line", they savaged him in their post-debate discussion, which focused exclusively on Richardson (except for a few comments about the clear front-runner, HRC). Still, their grade for him was in the C+ to D range, a solid "Gentleman's C". Very Presidential, if we use the incumbent as a point of reference. But still...
As I say, the competition is tough. I would put Bill's chances at about 50-1 to win the presidency. Richardson's candidacy has credibility in New Mexico, as a Favorite Son, and only a few other states: I find it hard to believe that Iowa and New Hampshire are among them, but California could be. Not necessarily to win in it, but even 5-10% of voters in the state, unevenly distributed, would mean some significant delegates. It would also deprive Clinton and Obama of that percentage in the statewide horserace, the outcome of which will be important psychologically in the public perception of the eventual nominee (the press--the Beltway Talking Heads, or BTH--will make it important).
So, it could still make sense for him to run all the way through California; if we're to have an interesting race after the Unofficial National Primary, it's indispensible. Realistically, I should grant him another eight months or so before he should bolt. Maybe he'll wait until after the discussions between the prospective nominee and leading VP candidates (over/under on that one starting, in a public way, is April 17). It just seems so far away!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Sharon: He brings bad things to life
Here's a blog from January, 2006, in which I give my opinion of the so-called "2-state solution"-- Sharon: He brings bad things to life
Monday, June 25, 2007
Scenario for Impasse (Dems)
Consider these potential percentages of delegates:
Clinton 40%
Obama 30%
Edwards 15%
Richardson 8%
Others (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel?, Uncommitted) 7%
If these were the percentages of delegates to emerge from the preliminaries and the Unofficial National Primary, we'd have an interesting situation. There would, of course, be more primaries yet to come, with the "Others" percentage dropping, and pressure on Edwards to make a deal with Obama (and Richardson with Clinton). The Beltway Talking Heads can't stand uncertainty and would try to force some movement, probably through trying to drive out all but the two leaders.
Still, though, if the combined percentage of Obama + Edwards were greater than Clinton's, yet less than 50%, we'd have a formula for a tense nomination finale. Could Al Gore come in with an endorsement for Obama and put him over? Would Everybody's First VP Choice, Stealth-Hispanic Bill Richardson, make a deal with Hillary (or with the other side, even!) and lock up the first spot for someone, taking No. 2 away from Edwards this time? What about Mike Bloomberg as VP?
What would be necessary for this dreaded outcome to happen, vs. today's status? Not much--a little improvement for Obama and Richardson, and the Others actually staying in through the UNP. Or someone running as a stalking-horse for Al Gore. A contested California primary. The press not conceding the crown to Clinton before she wins a primary.
The last point seems to be the tough one; the BTH (see above) seem to be relying on the point that any Republican will come out of the nomination process with as high a negative rating as she will have, and that some sort of argument along those lines will convince Democratic voters who are wary of her chances. Those BTH seem to be really impressed by the quality of her briefings (as opposed to, say, Bill Richardson's briefings). What seems most likely to me is that, despite inconclusive results in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, a big win in Florida will convince BTH (more than the chaotic Nevada caucus results) that Hillary will win in California, and thus, win the nomination. And that they may make that self-fulfilling by anointing her.
I think she will have to get past the awkwardness before the general public, before she can put this one away. She has yet to close the deal with the Democratic primary voters.
Certainly that's the case with me. I remain uncommitted. This fall, I will break my fast from political giving and begin to give to selected infrastructure units. I'm not worried about holding the Senate, or the House, though I may give some tactically late in the game. I've told all the candidates and organizations I'm not giving this year, because there are no elections (did I forget about Kentucky gubernatorial? Even that looks like a Democratic rout, which is pretty shocking in the land of Jack of Diamonds Bushite Mitch McConnell.)
Clinton 40%
Obama 30%
Edwards 15%
Richardson 8%
Others (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel?, Uncommitted) 7%
If these were the percentages of delegates to emerge from the preliminaries and the Unofficial National Primary, we'd have an interesting situation. There would, of course, be more primaries yet to come, with the "Others" percentage dropping, and pressure on Edwards to make a deal with Obama (and Richardson with Clinton). The Beltway Talking Heads can't stand uncertainty and would try to force some movement, probably through trying to drive out all but the two leaders.
Still, though, if the combined percentage of Obama + Edwards were greater than Clinton's, yet less than 50%, we'd have a formula for a tense nomination finale. Could Al Gore come in with an endorsement for Obama and put him over? Would Everybody's First VP Choice, Stealth-Hispanic Bill Richardson, make a deal with Hillary (or with the other side, even!) and lock up the first spot for someone, taking No. 2 away from Edwards this time? What about Mike Bloomberg as VP?
What would be necessary for this dreaded outcome to happen, vs. today's status? Not much--a little improvement for Obama and Richardson, and the Others actually staying in through the UNP. Or someone running as a stalking-horse for Al Gore. A contested California primary. The press not conceding the crown to Clinton before she wins a primary.
The last point seems to be the tough one; the BTH (see above) seem to be relying on the point that any Republican will come out of the nomination process with as high a negative rating as she will have, and that some sort of argument along those lines will convince Democratic voters who are wary of her chances. Those BTH seem to be really impressed by the quality of her briefings (as opposed to, say, Bill Richardson's briefings). What seems most likely to me is that, despite inconclusive results in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, a big win in Florida will convince BTH (more than the chaotic Nevada caucus results) that Hillary will win in California, and thus, win the nomination. And that they may make that self-fulfilling by anointing her.
I think she will have to get past the awkwardness before the general public, before she can put this one away. She has yet to close the deal with the Democratic primary voters.
Certainly that's the case with me. I remain uncommitted. This fall, I will break my fast from political giving and begin to give to selected infrastructure units. I'm not worried about holding the Senate, or the House, though I may give some tactically late in the game. I've told all the candidates and organizations I'm not giving this year, because there are no elections (did I forget about Kentucky gubernatorial? Even that looks like a Democratic rout, which is pretty shocking in the land of Jack of Diamonds Bushite Mitch McConnell.)
Friday, June 22, 2007
Energy Progress
Maria Cantwell expressed it with inarticulate brilliance on the Senate floor: they were "at the precipice" of something special. I think she meant "the verge", but, though it's the wrong word, it gets across the magnitude of the potential accomplishment.
The Big Crevasse she's referring to is the adoption of more aggressive CAFE standards than Detroit wanted. The target, a 35 mpg fleet average for passenger vehicles sold in the US by 2020, is hardly revolutionary, but still would represent real progress in the key objective: the simultaneous pursuit of reduced fossil fuel consumption and reduced emissions of pollution and greenhouse gases. The target will allow those manufacturers who can do better to trade off some of the excess improvement in MPG, and thus should ensure that there will be a way to make it (given that plenty of individual models can already exceed 35 MPG, and that there's plenty of identifiable improvements throughout the fleet).
The only thing better would have been a more substantial commitment to research and development of low-greenhouse-gas renewable fuels. For the most part, we can blame Pete Domenici for blocking that, though it might have passed if the Senate Democratic leaders had gone in for nuclear, too (for the most part, we can "blame" Harry Reid for that--I'm not sure if he deserves contumely or praise for that, though I'm pretty sure blocking more potential waste in his home state will work politically for him).
The bill as a whole had some nice subsidies for the ethanol/biofuels crowd, so it brought in some bipartisan support from the Midwest. The vote to invoke cloture was close, 62-32 (60 needed), but the vote on overall passage of the bill was more one-sided. It had next-to-nothing for Big Oil (so, for example, Democratic Senator Landrieu of Lousiana voted against). Big Wind, though, which needs a kickstart, didn't get one.
The key political deal in the Senate passage was on the CAFE standards. From the statements on the floor, we can deduce that the agreement was that the more-challenging standards than Detroit wanted (as represented by both Democratic Senators from Michigan; Detroit pushed for ones that would not have required any change in their course toward glacial progress, hindered by persistent marketing of guzzlers) could be included, as long as it was done by voice vote. More than just the Michigan Senators, I think Senators from both parties saw danger in these long-term standards; who can be sure where this issue will go, electorally, particularly with the current vulnerability of the American auto manufacturers? Thus the desirability of no recorded vote--they can all fall back on the same, "bipartisan agreement in the national interest" line no matter what happens in the treacherous domains of vehicle manufacture, energy production, Mideast politics, etc.
This is only a "potential" breakthrough, because there are still many possible pitfalls--conference committee revisions, an uncertain response from the White House with little likelihood of overriding a veto (even though the bill passed by more than two-thirds, I think). The Energy Bill and the Immigration Bill have been running a race in the Senate in recent days. The final fortunes of both bills are uncertain. They are both complex issues on which the President has not taken unreasonable, dug-in positions, so they are potential successes. Of the two, the Energy Bill is far more important to me and my Ten-Point Program (see update in http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html).
The Big Crevasse she's referring to is the adoption of more aggressive CAFE standards than Detroit wanted. The target, a 35 mpg fleet average for passenger vehicles sold in the US by 2020, is hardly revolutionary, but still would represent real progress in the key objective: the simultaneous pursuit of reduced fossil fuel consumption and reduced emissions of pollution and greenhouse gases. The target will allow those manufacturers who can do better to trade off some of the excess improvement in MPG, and thus should ensure that there will be a way to make it (given that plenty of individual models can already exceed 35 MPG, and that there's plenty of identifiable improvements throughout the fleet).
The only thing better would have been a more substantial commitment to research and development of low-greenhouse-gas renewable fuels. For the most part, we can blame Pete Domenici for blocking that, though it might have passed if the Senate Democratic leaders had gone in for nuclear, too (for the most part, we can "blame" Harry Reid for that--I'm not sure if he deserves contumely or praise for that, though I'm pretty sure blocking more potential waste in his home state will work politically for him).
The bill as a whole had some nice subsidies for the ethanol/biofuels crowd, so it brought in some bipartisan support from the Midwest. The vote to invoke cloture was close, 62-32 (60 needed), but the vote on overall passage of the bill was more one-sided. It had next-to-nothing for Big Oil (so, for example, Democratic Senator Landrieu of Lousiana voted against). Big Wind, though, which needs a kickstart, didn't get one.
The key political deal in the Senate passage was on the CAFE standards. From the statements on the floor, we can deduce that the agreement was that the more-challenging standards than Detroit wanted (as represented by both Democratic Senators from Michigan; Detroit pushed for ones that would not have required any change in their course toward glacial progress, hindered by persistent marketing of guzzlers) could be included, as long as it was done by voice vote. More than just the Michigan Senators, I think Senators from both parties saw danger in these long-term standards; who can be sure where this issue will go, electorally, particularly with the current vulnerability of the American auto manufacturers? Thus the desirability of no recorded vote--they can all fall back on the same, "bipartisan agreement in the national interest" line no matter what happens in the treacherous domains of vehicle manufacture, energy production, Mideast politics, etc.
This is only a "potential" breakthrough, because there are still many possible pitfalls--conference committee revisions, an uncertain response from the White House with little likelihood of overriding a veto (even though the bill passed by more than two-thirds, I think). The Energy Bill and the Immigration Bill have been running a race in the Senate in recent days. The final fortunes of both bills are uncertain. They are both complex issues on which the President has not taken unreasonable, dug-in positions, so they are potential successes. Of the two, the Energy Bill is far more important to me and my Ten-Point Program (see update in http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html).
The Police concert--Phoenix, AZ 06/18/07
It was totally an extravagance: drive down to Albuquerque, plane over, two-night stay (the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass resort: PDG, I should elaborate sometime).
The tickets, in the biggest arena (where the Suns play), were purchased within minutes of the start of advance (not secret, in-group) sales, but still couldn't get four in a row. So we got two halfway up on the side, and two behind the stage, next-to-very-last row. That's where I saw it, with my 11-year-old son (wife and niece down below); we were supposed to change if there was a break between sets, but alas!
It was one set only, of about two hours, followed by four encore songs (a tip of the hat between two and three). The set list, as best I could scribble it in the darkness (comments only where I feel they're necessary):
1. Message in a Bottle
2. Synchronicity II--"many miles away, under a Spanish lake..."a good choice from their least anthologized final album. This was the song I left there humming; it's also one I don't own in any form! At the beginning of this tune, they brought up the lights they had (physically) lowered down to the band for the first song. What a relief--I could barely see! They didn't bring them back down again. I have the feeling the band may have intervened on the behalf of those benighted ones of us, vs. the usual lighting for amphitheater-style seating. It also introduced the idea of some slides, instead of varying shots of the performers, as part of the package.
3. Walkin' on the Moon (long)
4. Regatta-- ("things that you said")...into "When the World is Running Down; You make the best of what's still around". Good segway, but the original one on "Zenyatta Mondatta" of "Driven to Tears/When the World..." is even better. I mention also that it pretty much sums up Sting's political philosophy in 20 syllables. Not that I disagree in the slightest.
5. Don't Stand So Close to Me--Using the more recent opening instead of the original, overly prolonged one.
6. Driven to Tears--for my money, their best single tune, and their treatment at Phoenix was excellent. The uptempo coda was expanded and given a long, 12-tone guitar chord solo, along the lines of the first, familiar but disconcerting, 12-tone riff solo on the original track. I think it's the best The Police song because it utilizes so well the qualities of guitarist Summers and drummer Copeland. Sting's bass line is a simple counterpoint line any tuba player would recognize, and the lyrics, though brief, are stinging calls out into the "darkness and insanity", as Nick Lowe expressed it. Twenty-seven years old this song, and it would slay if it were released today. (see "Weltschmerz")
7. The Bed's Too Big Without You--My opinion here is, Stewart likes this song better than some of the other lesser ones on "Regatta en Blanc", and by that theory he lobbied for the inclusion of this one. It gives him plenty of chance to change rhythms and bang them out hard.
8. Truth Hits Everyone.
9. Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic.
10. Wrapped Around Your Finger. This might have been the one where Copeland had some tipani and other little percussion bits with various tones pop up to the stage so he could play on them. I forgot to note it, but it was around here and would seem to fit this particular song. This song's lyrics is Sting near his worst, with rhymes too cute in a song seeking profundity.
11. Doo Doo Doo Dah Dah Dah.
12. Invisible Sun--The slide show of poor people seemed almost obligatory. The kids were getting restless.
13. Walkin' in the Footsteps--This song was totally unfamiliar, but it was so accessible it went down real easy. Something about dinosaurs disappearing; no doubt ironic. Is there to be a release of new The Police music?
14. I Can't Stand Losing You into another Regatta ("ee-yo--ee-yay-o") --I think they overdid the "ee-yo" bit a little. And they didn't get such great audience reaction on it...I think their arrangements (and the drumming, of course) are reggae enough; they don't need to go all Ras Tafar I with their vocals. Did I mention that, after a song or two to warm them up, Sting's vocal cords were in great shape? And that, though his moptop is grey-turning-white, Stewart is in great shape, and showed himself totally committed to the performance?
15. Roxanne-- I suppose the surprise was that they didn't open with it, but ending the main set also makes perfect sense. No problem generating plenty of audience support for encores coming out of that.
Encores
16. King of Pain--does that make two from "Synchronicity"?
17. So Lonely--Or, as my son likes to sing, Southwest style: "Chi- Potle"
18. Every Breath You Take--probably their most popular single, after "Roxanne" (and, it is an honor worth contesting). Once they'd played that, I knew we were on short rations. They pretty much covered all the major The Police cuts, staying away from songs with piano for fill, with the possible exception of the catchy, but confused "Canary in a Coalmine". We're past that now; we all know the ambience is cascading.
19. All I Want Is To Be Next to You-- "But dig, I just can't DO that", as Jimi said. Just in case there's any scores to be taken, one might think uncharitably.
I don't actually know if Trudie is travelling with Sting and the Boys, but I'd guess "yes". Word in the stands was that it was Sting's own son who did the bass/lead vocals role for the warmup act, a band called "Fictionplane". They had a pretty neat logo, based around a Rorshach-looking pair of ballerinas holding pistols, with the words below it: "The Right Side of the Brain." Could it be the cover of their new album they were hawking? I don't know, didn't care much. Professional presentation, but I'll withhold comment on the substance.
The concert as a whole rates about a 95; a solid "A". I'll check in with the ratings in the fashion I proposed elsewhere. As I would an album. Directly (meaning "when I get around to it").
My feeling was, the personalities involved in the band are very volatile. I feel it's unlikely they will play together more than a tour or two (in this incarnation), so this was a must-see.
The tickets, in the biggest arena (where the Suns play), were purchased within minutes of the start of advance (not secret, in-group) sales, but still couldn't get four in a row. So we got two halfway up on the side, and two behind the stage, next-to-very-last row. That's where I saw it, with my 11-year-old son (wife and niece down below); we were supposed to change if there was a break between sets, but alas!
It was one set only, of about two hours, followed by four encore songs (a tip of the hat between two and three). The set list, as best I could scribble it in the darkness (comments only where I feel they're necessary):
1. Message in a Bottle
2. Synchronicity II--"many miles away, under a Spanish lake..."a good choice from their least anthologized final album. This was the song I left there humming; it's also one I don't own in any form! At the beginning of this tune, they brought up the lights they had (physically) lowered down to the band for the first song. What a relief--I could barely see! They didn't bring them back down again. I have the feeling the band may have intervened on the behalf of those benighted ones of us, vs. the usual lighting for amphitheater-style seating. It also introduced the idea of some slides, instead of varying shots of the performers, as part of the package.
3. Walkin' on the Moon (long)
4. Regatta-- ("things that you said")...into "When the World is Running Down; You make the best of what's still around". Good segway, but the original one on "Zenyatta Mondatta" of "Driven to Tears/When the World..." is even better. I mention also that it pretty much sums up Sting's political philosophy in 20 syllables. Not that I disagree in the slightest.
5. Don't Stand So Close to Me--Using the more recent opening instead of the original, overly prolonged one.
6. Driven to Tears--for my money, their best single tune, and their treatment at Phoenix was excellent. The uptempo coda was expanded and given a long, 12-tone guitar chord solo, along the lines of the first, familiar but disconcerting, 12-tone riff solo on the original track. I think it's the best The Police song because it utilizes so well the qualities of guitarist Summers and drummer Copeland. Sting's bass line is a simple counterpoint line any tuba player would recognize, and the lyrics, though brief, are stinging calls out into the "darkness and insanity", as Nick Lowe expressed it. Twenty-seven years old this song, and it would slay if it were released today. (see "Weltschmerz")
7. The Bed's Too Big Without You--My opinion here is, Stewart likes this song better than some of the other lesser ones on "Regatta en Blanc", and by that theory he lobbied for the inclusion of this one. It gives him plenty of chance to change rhythms and bang them out hard.
8. Truth Hits Everyone.
9. Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic.
10. Wrapped Around Your Finger. This might have been the one where Copeland had some tipani and other little percussion bits with various tones pop up to the stage so he could play on them. I forgot to note it, but it was around here and would seem to fit this particular song. This song's lyrics is Sting near his worst, with rhymes too cute in a song seeking profundity.
11. Doo Doo Doo Dah Dah Dah.
12. Invisible Sun--The slide show of poor people seemed almost obligatory. The kids were getting restless.
13. Walkin' in the Footsteps--This song was totally unfamiliar, but it was so accessible it went down real easy. Something about dinosaurs disappearing; no doubt ironic. Is there to be a release of new The Police music?
14. I Can't Stand Losing You into another Regatta ("ee-yo--ee-yay-o") --I think they overdid the "ee-yo" bit a little. And they didn't get such great audience reaction on it...I think their arrangements (and the drumming, of course) are reggae enough; they don't need to go all Ras Tafar I with their vocals. Did I mention that, after a song or two to warm them up, Sting's vocal cords were in great shape? And that, though his moptop is grey-turning-white, Stewart is in great shape, and showed himself totally committed to the performance?
15. Roxanne-- I suppose the surprise was that they didn't open with it, but ending the main set also makes perfect sense. No problem generating plenty of audience support for encores coming out of that.
Encores
16. King of Pain--does that make two from "Synchronicity"?
17. So Lonely--Or, as my son likes to sing, Southwest style: "Chi- Potle"
18. Every Breath You Take--probably their most popular single, after "Roxanne" (and, it is an honor worth contesting). Once they'd played that, I knew we were on short rations. They pretty much covered all the major The Police cuts, staying away from songs with piano for fill, with the possible exception of the catchy, but confused "Canary in a Coalmine". We're past that now; we all know the ambience is cascading.
19. All I Want Is To Be Next to You-- "But dig, I just can't DO that", as Jimi said. Just in case there's any scores to be taken, one might think uncharitably.
I don't actually know if Trudie is travelling with Sting and the Boys, but I'd guess "yes". Word in the stands was that it was Sting's own son who did the bass/lead vocals role for the warmup act, a band called "Fictionplane". They had a pretty neat logo, based around a Rorshach-looking pair of ballerinas holding pistols, with the words below it: "The Right Side of the Brain." Could it be the cover of their new album they were hawking? I don't know, didn't care much. Professional presentation, but I'll withhold comment on the substance.
The concert as a whole rates about a 95; a solid "A". I'll check in with the ratings in the fashion I proposed elsewhere. As I would an album. Directly (meaning "when I get around to it").
My feeling was, the personalities involved in the band are very volatile. I feel it's unlikely they will play together more than a tour or two (in this incarnation), so this was a must-see.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Fred Thompson: Ronnie Redux?
I find the unannounced candidate a remarkable example of wu-wei, and an actor capable of re-creating the role of one of the most authentic phonies of modern times in stoner: Yearning for Ronnie?
Re: Taos News Editorial
Re: “‘Frank’ discussions about Taos”, by Tom Collins, Taos News, June 19, 2007.
While driving back today after The Police concert, I had a chance to think along the same lines as Mr. Collins, about the future of Taos and comparisons with other places we know. Imagine my surprise when I came home and opened up the paper! The object of my aimless fantasy, though, had been another community, even closer.
Now, we’re not talking about “the town’s aesthetic and/or historical problems”. Those are the topic for another occasion. If you ask me, Taos’ “problems” in these areas are superior to each and all of the others. And I mean that in the best possible way. Ours above even Santa Fe’s, if you’re talking “historically”.
We’re talking business, here. The real thing: economic and political power. Military, if necessary.
Santa Fe is in another league from us here. Has been, for 300 years or so. There’s a reason it’s the state capital (and how does Albuquerque feel about that, exactly? Has anyone asked Martin Chavez?)
No, the real and operative comparison is with our friends down the Rio Grande in the Espanola Valley. I’m suggesting that Espanola is the right object of comparison for consideration of our potential future. We, too, can become a sizable traffic obstacle for all to endure, an educational nightmare, a political skeleton in a cavernous closet (for cavernous, think of the closed winery a few miles south of their town), and a two-bit highway town with a casino on the way to The Ski Valley.
We have all the resources we need—except more people to live in the houses. This is no problem: we can easily parcel up the land for them, market and construct homes, and there should be little doubt they’re coming. We can do it!
As far as transportation, I can’t help thinking there should be some sort of transportation route for transients that uses some of the ample table lands west of town and ends up somewhere closer than Tres Piedras but farther out than Millicent Rogers Road. Another story? No, very much the story. We’re not quite as big a snafu as the Espanola border area speed traps, the 85/285 forkoff and Ohkay Owingeh, but we do have some notable traffic obstacles, and we have cars (and all other manner of vehicle) cutting into traffic on the main drag from every conceivable angle. Maybe we can put something somewhere "just over the horizon"--my line-of-sight horizon, I'm thinking.
OK, later. Let’s talk about politics. The recent flap within the Democratic party about county chairman somehow managed to get under-reported in both The Taos News and The Horse Fly. No further airing of this movida seems forthcoming. Sorry I stepped in that!
Anyway, my provisional judgement is that ethically, we’re in a close race with Espanola. Electorally, the percentages are somewhat different, but the numbers show the same malleability (in Taos' case, due to turnout considerations) that make Rio Arriba County (county seat Tierra Amarilla, for Chrissakes!) such an important swing area in a statewide race given inherent tightness by the close contest for control of the Albuquerque area. Beyond the potential of a high no-show rate here, any Democrat could lose tens of percent of Taos County voters to a viable state-level third-party candidate. So, there’s a lot on the table—not that the local residents derive the benefits. Except jobs, of course.
Speaking of jobs, educationally—and I mean the prevalent form, public education—we should look toward the secondary schools of Espanola in a cooperative way rather than a competitive one, so I don’t want to engage in that particular invidious comparison. Medically, though, I’ll bet someone downstream has figured out the economics of how a private hospital can possibly pay an adequate salary to an Ob-Gyn (see the article on the fold above “‘Frank’ discussions about Taos”; “Increase pressure on state to attract doctors”).
The name of the game is jobs. Espanola has played its cards on being the guys who sell the stuff to us yokels upstream. We can play their game of “Megaboxes”, or we have the choice of hosing ourselves, too (care to fill ‘er up?). Or, perhaps, we can develop a source of 21st-century power worthy of this place and its unbelievably rich natural resources, and, as we would require, attitudinally and altitudinally, on a different plane than the current Bushite mess our general society is becoming.
I would start by challenging Kit Carson cooperative to make a commitment--a revocable one-- to bring to parity the prices of its wind-powered and its gas/coal/whatever-powered electricity on some fixed date (say, January 1, 2009). I give my personal guarantee that Bill Richardson, or Jeff Bingaman-and-Pete-Domenici, or George W Bush’s successor in his 2008 campaign will make good your bet through a policy which would bring grandfathering of your investment, your pioneering achievement. If none of those bastards come through with a sane policy, then you simply cancel the commitment after the election. You did your best.
But, I’m betting that, even if none of them do, the resulting flow of customers to renewables resulting from the commitment announcement will swamp such considerations as those Kit Carson faces today, and the eventual incremental revenue from RAISING the non-renewable rate will fund the second round of investments. And, they’re on their way.
Windmills on the mesa. Can you picture it? You might want to consider doing so.
While driving back today after The Police concert, I had a chance to think along the same lines as Mr. Collins, about the future of Taos and comparisons with other places we know. Imagine my surprise when I came home and opened up the paper! The object of my aimless fantasy, though, had been another community, even closer.
Now, we’re not talking about “the town’s aesthetic and/or historical problems”. Those are the topic for another occasion. If you ask me, Taos’ “problems” in these areas are superior to each and all of the others. And I mean that in the best possible way. Ours above even Santa Fe’s, if you’re talking “historically”.
We’re talking business, here. The real thing: economic and political power. Military, if necessary.
Santa Fe is in another league from us here. Has been, for 300 years or so. There’s a reason it’s the state capital (and how does Albuquerque feel about that, exactly? Has anyone asked Martin Chavez?)
No, the real and operative comparison is with our friends down the Rio Grande in the Espanola Valley. I’m suggesting that Espanola is the right object of comparison for consideration of our potential future. We, too, can become a sizable traffic obstacle for all to endure, an educational nightmare, a political skeleton in a cavernous closet (for cavernous, think of the closed winery a few miles south of their town), and a two-bit highway town with a casino on the way to The Ski Valley.
We have all the resources we need—except more people to live in the houses. This is no problem: we can easily parcel up the land for them, market and construct homes, and there should be little doubt they’re coming. We can do it!
As far as transportation, I can’t help thinking there should be some sort of transportation route for transients that uses some of the ample table lands west of town and ends up somewhere closer than Tres Piedras but farther out than Millicent Rogers Road. Another story? No, very much the story. We’re not quite as big a snafu as the Espanola border area speed traps, the 85/285 forkoff and Ohkay Owingeh, but we do have some notable traffic obstacles, and we have cars (and all other manner of vehicle) cutting into traffic on the main drag from every conceivable angle. Maybe we can put something somewhere "just over the horizon"--my line-of-sight horizon, I'm thinking.
OK, later. Let’s talk about politics. The recent flap within the Democratic party about county chairman somehow managed to get under-reported in both The Taos News and The Horse Fly. No further airing of this movida seems forthcoming. Sorry I stepped in that!
Anyway, my provisional judgement is that ethically, we’re in a close race with Espanola. Electorally, the percentages are somewhat different, but the numbers show the same malleability (in Taos' case, due to turnout considerations) that make Rio Arriba County (county seat Tierra Amarilla, for Chrissakes!) such an important swing area in a statewide race given inherent tightness by the close contest for control of the Albuquerque area. Beyond the potential of a high no-show rate here, any Democrat could lose tens of percent of Taos County voters to a viable state-level third-party candidate. So, there’s a lot on the table—not that the local residents derive the benefits. Except jobs, of course.
Speaking of jobs, educationally—and I mean the prevalent form, public education—we should look toward the secondary schools of Espanola in a cooperative way rather than a competitive one, so I don’t want to engage in that particular invidious comparison. Medically, though, I’ll bet someone downstream has figured out the economics of how a private hospital can possibly pay an adequate salary to an Ob-Gyn (see the article on the fold above “‘Frank’ discussions about Taos”; “Increase pressure on state to attract doctors”).
The name of the game is jobs. Espanola has played its cards on being the guys who sell the stuff to us yokels upstream. We can play their game of “Megaboxes”, or we have the choice of hosing ourselves, too (care to fill ‘er up?). Or, perhaps, we can develop a source of 21st-century power worthy of this place and its unbelievably rich natural resources, and, as we would require, attitudinally and altitudinally, on a different plane than the current Bushite mess our general society is becoming.
I would start by challenging Kit Carson cooperative to make a commitment--a revocable one-- to bring to parity the prices of its wind-powered and its gas/coal/whatever-powered electricity on some fixed date (say, January 1, 2009). I give my personal guarantee that Bill Richardson, or Jeff Bingaman-and-Pete-Domenici, or George W Bush’s successor in his 2008 campaign will make good your bet through a policy which would bring grandfathering of your investment, your pioneering achievement. If none of those bastards come through with a sane policy, then you simply cancel the commitment after the election. You did your best.
But, I’m betting that, even if none of them do, the resulting flow of customers to renewables resulting from the commitment announcement will swamp such considerations as those Kit Carson faces today, and the eventual incremental revenue from RAISING the non-renewable rate will fund the second round of investments. And, they’re on their way.
Windmills on the mesa. Can you picture it? You might want to consider doing so.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
After Bush
That's the title of the Newsweek issue of June 11, 2007. The table of contents ("Top of the Week") calls it "A Strategy for Life After Bush". The article itself, by their columnist on international affairs Fareed Zakaria, is called "Beyond Bush", and the subtitle for it, "What the world needs is an open, confident America, " pretty much says sums it up.
Now, if I'd written the subhead I'd have added the world "now" after "needs", to get that song reminder going in all our brains, that emotional stimulus that kick-starts us--
What the world--needs now
Is an open--Confident America
in response to the stimulus, my brain says the singer was "Jackie De Shannon", but of course whoever sang it, the song was Burt Bacharach's. And Dyan Cannon's, if I remember the key scene in "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" accurately.
Then it would go on:
Bush's the only thing
That there just can't be--too little of.
But we must take heed of Mr.Zakaria: "In any event, it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. We must begin to think about life after Bush--...."
After due consideration, I have to disagree with him on both counts.
Cordially, on the first: I've argued the same here on the blog (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2006/12/last-bushite-rant.html), but Fareed argues more from the point of restraining himself and not being distracted than that of actually Moving On "at this point in time" (as the Bushite forerunners used to stipulate in the Nixon era). Contrarily, I argued last December that it must be time to Move On because the company of some of the new anti-Bushites would disturb me.
Still, for most Americans with their gradual buildup of anti-Bushite virulence, activism necessarily takes the form of Bashing Dubyas (great name for a rock group that plays Smashing Pumpkins covers, ya think?) even if the guy's not actually running in '08 (just as he didn't run in 2006). There is no reason to stop bashing Bushite administration all the way through this upcoming election--no matter what face-saving move in Iraq, if any, the Bushites might give their successors to leadership in the party--and for many years to come.
As for the second point by Zakaria, that "we must begin to think about life after Bush", if Zakaria has only now begun to think about post-Bushite reality, he is behind the times (and I do not think that of my man, Fareed, come on now). In Dreamland, my thoughts have been there for years. In Reality, though, post-Bushite life began about 1 a.m. last November 8, give or take a few hours. The Evil Spell of Bushite political power had been broken. There was nothing left for them and their sycophants to do but resign, hide in a Saddamesque spider hole, and/or go to rehab. It's taking some of them a while to realize it, but they will.
Those elected in 2006 and the caretakers left over from before muddle through; that's how post-Bushite life starts. Condi pulls tactical switches in the right directions, and the remaining capital is spent on The Scourge, to provide some military cover for a partial withdrawal (residual bases in Anbar and one in Kurdistan, capacity 30,000-80,000 troops). Congress finds itself unable to legislate anything meaningful; the whole two years of this Congress Kabuki is preparation for the next round in 2008.
Zakaria provides a lot of good sense around a common-sense bipartisan foreign policy which could promote peace instead of permanent, pre-emptive war, and he even brings some sharp criticism of the the debate postures of the Presidential candidates of both parties (though more on the Republican side, and he cites Obama twice with quotes in positive contexts). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/
I'll bite: Fareed for Secretary of State!
Now, if I'd written the subhead I'd have added the world "now" after "needs", to get that song reminder going in all our brains, that emotional stimulus that kick-starts us--
What the world--needs now
Is an open--Confident America
in response to the stimulus, my brain says the singer was "Jackie De Shannon", but of course whoever sang it, the song was Burt Bacharach's. And Dyan Cannon's, if I remember the key scene in "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" accurately.
Then it would go on:
Bush's the only thing
That there just can't be--too little of.
But we must take heed of Mr.Zakaria: "In any event, it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. We must begin to think about life after Bush--...."
After due consideration, I have to disagree with him on both counts.
Cordially, on the first: I've argued the same here on the blog (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2006/12/last-bushite-rant.html), but Fareed argues more from the point of restraining himself and not being distracted than that of actually Moving On "at this point in time" (as the Bushite forerunners used to stipulate in the Nixon era). Contrarily, I argued last December that it must be time to Move On because the company of some of the new anti-Bushites would disturb me.
Still, for most Americans with their gradual buildup of anti-Bushite virulence, activism necessarily takes the form of Bashing Dubyas (great name for a rock group that plays Smashing Pumpkins covers, ya think?) even if the guy's not actually running in '08 (just as he didn't run in 2006). There is no reason to stop bashing Bushite administration all the way through this upcoming election--no matter what face-saving move in Iraq, if any, the Bushites might give their successors to leadership in the party--and for many years to come.
As for the second point by Zakaria, that "we must begin to think about life after Bush", if Zakaria has only now begun to think about post-Bushite reality, he is behind the times (and I do not think that of my man, Fareed, come on now). In Dreamland, my thoughts have been there for years. In Reality, though, post-Bushite life began about 1 a.m. last November 8, give or take a few hours. The Evil Spell of Bushite political power had been broken. There was nothing left for them and their sycophants to do but resign, hide in a Saddamesque spider hole, and/or go to rehab. It's taking some of them a while to realize it, but they will.
Those elected in 2006 and the caretakers left over from before muddle through; that's how post-Bushite life starts. Condi pulls tactical switches in the right directions, and the remaining capital is spent on The Scourge, to provide some military cover for a partial withdrawal (residual bases in Anbar and one in Kurdistan, capacity 30,000-80,000 troops). Congress finds itself unable to legislate anything meaningful; the whole two years of this Congress Kabuki is preparation for the next round in 2008.
Zakaria provides a lot of good sense around a common-sense bipartisan foreign policy which could promote peace instead of permanent, pre-emptive war, and he even brings some sharp criticism of the the debate postures of the Presidential candidates of both parties (though more on the Republican side, and he cites Obama twice with quotes in positive contexts). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/
I'll bite: Fareed for Secretary of State!
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Debate Top 5; Worst 10
Top 5
1. Hillary-- her chances are rising once again. If it gets any better, Al Gore's going to jump in, after all.
2. Joe Biden--Real good debate. Is anyone noticing?
3. Barack Obama--I like everything he says. Not quite aggressive enough for the group give-and-take session, though.
4. John Edwards--see first part of comments on Obama; as for the second, the reverse--he doesn't do "aggressive" that well.
5. Bill Richardson--getting a lot of respect from the other candidates. I think some of them want to help him stay afloat, to deny Hispanic votes to their rivals.
Middle ground--OK, but no chance:
Dennis Kucinich--Has the annoying habit of always being right. People can't stand that.
Chris Dodd--actually, I think he's too bland to stand, though he is very "articulate". For a white male.
Ron Paul--Like Kucinich with the Dems, Paul's philosophy is perfect Republican, which means those degraded ones can't stand him.
Mike Gravel--Forgot him; no need to include except completeness. Actually, though, it's good to have a gadfly on stage to keep the mainstream candidates a little more honest.
Bottom 10
(worst first)
1. Tom Tancredo--Even the Bushites reject him.
2. Jim Gilmore--Out of his league--I'll skip the easy Bush reference. Double A arm, at best.
3. Rudy Giuliani--Did he catch the lightning in the bottle? My take is: he's a Bushite at heart, and will take us to war in Iran.
4. Mike Huckabee--Defending Creationism. A-yuk, a-yuk.
5. Duncan Hunter--I liked the part where he said he doesn't need Democrats and Independents to govern! At least there's one bullet-headed Saxon mother's son in the race.
6. Mitt Romney--He's clouding over fairly successfully what being a Mormon actually involves believing. Phony baloney; I'm surprised when others don't see through him.
7. Sam Brownback--At least he's coherent.
8. Tommy Thompson--a New Deal Republican. Now that's modern-day Reagan for you! On second thought, that's 25 years ago Reagan.
9. Fred Thompson--Does well by not doing.
10. John McCain--Earned some credit with his speech on behalf of Hispanics, which will be rewarded if he can stay in there. A lot of passion behind his Iraq position; he's a slave to events he can't control.
1. Hillary-- her chances are rising once again. If it gets any better, Al Gore's going to jump in, after all.
2. Joe Biden--Real good debate. Is anyone noticing?
3. Barack Obama--I like everything he says. Not quite aggressive enough for the group give-and-take session, though.
4. John Edwards--see first part of comments on Obama; as for the second, the reverse--he doesn't do "aggressive" that well.
5. Bill Richardson--getting a lot of respect from the other candidates. I think some of them want to help him stay afloat, to deny Hispanic votes to their rivals.
Middle ground--OK, but no chance:
Dennis Kucinich--Has the annoying habit of always being right. People can't stand that.
Chris Dodd--actually, I think he's too bland to stand, though he is very "articulate". For a white male.
Ron Paul--Like Kucinich with the Dems, Paul's philosophy is perfect Republican, which means those degraded ones can't stand him.
Mike Gravel--Forgot him; no need to include except completeness. Actually, though, it's good to have a gadfly on stage to keep the mainstream candidates a little more honest.
Bottom 10
(worst first)
1. Tom Tancredo--Even the Bushites reject him.
2. Jim Gilmore--Out of his league--I'll skip the easy Bush reference. Double A arm, at best.
3. Rudy Giuliani--Did he catch the lightning in the bottle? My take is: he's a Bushite at heart, and will take us to war in Iran.
4. Mike Huckabee--Defending Creationism. A-yuk, a-yuk.
5. Duncan Hunter--I liked the part where he said he doesn't need Democrats and Independents to govern! At least there's one bullet-headed Saxon mother's son in the race.
6. Mitt Romney--He's clouding over fairly successfully what being a Mormon actually involves believing. Phony baloney; I'm surprised when others don't see through him.
7. Sam Brownback--At least he's coherent.
8. Tommy Thompson--a New Deal Republican. Now that's modern-day Reagan for you! On second thought, that's 25 years ago Reagan.
9. Fred Thompson--Does well by not doing.
10. John McCain--Earned some credit with his speech on behalf of Hispanics, which will be rewarded if he can stay in there. A lot of passion behind his Iraq position; he's a slave to events he can't control.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
The Rack: Top-Shelf Rock
"Having an interesting record collection" was the forerunner to today's Playlist Worship. This is an intermediate stage, the selection of favorite CD's. I admit it's an outdated concept; I'm a Late Twentieth Century Man.
I've taken the Divide to Conquer approach to storing, and displaying, the home CD collection. For example, I have one rather small CD rack, with carved wood surfaces, made in Africa and resembling a stretched-out townhouse: that one houses my jazz, blues, and soul (rather modest collections of each). I've got a rack for Recent Acquisitions (not currently in our cars or in the Active Play rack); I've got a revolving one that houses Greatest Hits and Soundtrack CD's; a pile for those who don't want anything but European or Classical. My largest rack has second-level choices, still loved, arranged by artist's name in a peculiar alphbetical sequence (more on that, perhaps, some other time). My second-largest rack is the Salvage pile, ones available for barter, sale, or spontaneous donation.
The subject of this post is the current contents of my prime rock CD holder. Somewhat fortress-like in shape, it's the one I bring out first each time I move. It's got two rows of slots--the walls between two slots are missing to allow for double jewelboxes on one end in each of the rows, but all of the slots are deep enough to safely hold the CD completely within.
In The Top-Shelf Rock Rack, the rows divide into "Early Days" and "More Recent" (the current DMZ between the time zones looks to be approximately 1979).
The rules for this prestigious Rack are: no more than one release for an artist in a row; my choice; no plan on order within the row.
Row of the More Recent Rock Selections
Big End Slot: U2 - "Achtung Baby" and Los Lobos - "Colossal Head"-- these two fit nicely together, and collectively fill up, a unique set of 4-slots-within-a-slot for CD's without jewelboxes. I don't store them in that way, though--the sleeves get lost and the disc is unprotected. I find an empty, nameless one to put it in, if I don't have the original jacket, or I slot those singles/giveaways in out-of-the-way crevices if I do.
The Edge- "Captive"- something else entirely from U2. This one's a soundtrack to a movie that I don't believe was ever released in the US in any form. Among other things, it's got a great vocal performance from Sinead O'Connor on a song called "Heroine" (sc--spelling correct!)
Alanis Morissette--"Jagged Little Pill"--I will vehemently defend this album, though I admit I don't listen to it these days. In a few more years it will ripen, and I will open it.
Pet Shop Boys--"Disco-The Remix Album"--catchy versions of their best early songs.
Pixies--"Doolittle"--I still like it when I check it again every couple of years, and it's not overly familiar. Still, it could be just holding a spot for that final, best Sonic Youth album.
Coldplay--"A Rush of Blood to the Head"--I certainly have no qualms about its selection among Coldplay albums (though I think it's the only one I've actually bought in CD). See also comment for Alanis Morissette: I expect to start listening to this one again in 18 months.
Soul Asylum--"Grave Dancers Union"
Indigo Girls--(eponymous)--Both Soul Asylum and Indigo Girls have been churning them out since these exemplars, but really haven't ever come close to matching them.
Green Day--"American Idiot"--has only been removed from active car/living room CD rotation in the past few weeks after a couple years' rule.
Gomez--"In Our Gun"--most of the critics would gainsay our choice, but let them. The only other possibility for me would've been "Abandoned Shopping Trolley Hotline", on the strength of its unusual (X-Ray?) version of their classic hit, "We Haven't Turned Around". But this one's more consistent, for once with a dollop of (antiwar) message.
Elvis Costello and the Attractions-- "The Very Best Of" --This selection was made by Declan himself; it's got good ones all the way through "Imperial Bedroom". Any original acquisitions of Elvis were in vinyl.
Prince and the New Power Generation--"Diamonds and Pearls" --This was the first Prince album I bought on CD. I'd gladly yield this slot to something new and better from Prince, but I'm despairing of that ever happening. I am a "Purple Rain" fan, but that one's vinyl for me.
Bjork--"The Times (London) Sunday free insert"--I happen to like this short set of selections; 'twould've come with the paper sometime around the end of 2001, I think. Playlist on demand only.
Modest Mouse--"Good News for People Who Love Bad News"--the first time I heard it, I thought it was unlistenable. I was more than wrong. Still, there's some possibility their (his) new album could eventually take its spot in The Rack.
Pete Townshend--"Scoop"--This is not really a cheat (unlike the ones I made for the Beatles and Dylan); this was released safely in the "More Recent" years, though the original recording dates are all over the 70's and 80's.
Nirvana--"MTV Unplugged in New York"-- I think I've mentioned that I like some musicality in my rock, and this is the best example of what Cobain could do. Don't get me wrong, I like Foo Fighters, too, but not for top-shelf. Pearl Jam "10" would make it if my CD weren't unplayably scratched up.
Bush--"Sixteen Stone"--Every male rock critic--and are there any female ones?--won't cut Gavin a break because they're jealous of him (and his success with Gwen Stefani, among other things). This album is a jewel.
PM Dawn--"Jesus Wept"--What happened to this guy? I thought we had a LA cross between Stevie Wonder and Prince here. The arrangements are too good to be hip-hop.
Olive--"Extra Virgin"--An obscure one, here. This one was actually purchased in the U.K. because my wife liked the album cover art (about an olive oil bottle). It's smooth, crystalline, trance, funky. I did find one more album from this org. before it infused itself in the scenery. I'm not sure whether it was inspired by Moorcheba, the reverse, or whether they developed independently.
Bob Dylan--"Blood on the Tracks"--we've got a problem here. This one dates from 1974, and it can't go back to the Oldies row: Dylan's already represented there (and I want representation in both rows). I also think Dylan deserves one from the current period, from "Oh Mercy" forward (I'd probably go for "Time Out of Mind"), but that's for a future edition. The only way to maintain the status quo is to state that "Blood..." is (at least 5-7 years) ahead of its time. But that's not correct: it's timeless.
Santana--"Supernatural"--I loved this comeback album. Either of the first two Santana albums deserve a spot in the Oldies; maybe I even have II on CD.
Don Henley--"Inside Job"--I have to admit that I like almost all his songwriting that sees the light of day. This album has a mix of styles.
Tears for Fears--"The Hurting"--I settled on this choice about ten years ago; there may be better individual cuts on other albums, but the overall level of this one is the highest.
Beck--"Mutations"--I have more of a feel for what I think Beck was trying to do on this album. I even have an unpublished (as far as I know) theory about what that was--for another time.
Simple Minds--"Sons and Fascination"-- I choose this album from the period before their big sellers. Pre-trance polyphonics, great vocal stylings--just don't ask me what the lyrics are about; I can barely understand any of them.
Beatles --"Anthology Part 2" --OK, it was released in 1986. That's the cheat. This one has some great bits from the middle times, and it covers several releases. The thing that was great about the Anthology was to hear that there are different ways for the Beatles themselves to have recorded these incredible songs. It shuffled up our "phonographic memory". This one takes up the double jewelbox slot at the right side.
OLDIES ROW
Sex Pistols--"Never Mind the Bollocks"--It is supposed to close out the old row, from a previous round of organizing. A little too obvious, maybe: we'll have to look closer now to see whether it can hold down the position of Latest Legitimate Oldie in The Rack.
The Clash--"Combat Rock"--Wait, isn't this one AFTER Sex Pistols, chronologically? Problems here....I take this one narrowly over "Sandinista".
Bruce Springsteen--"The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle"--Good early Boss.
Steely Dan--"Pretzel Logic"--Consistent high quality. Slight edge over "Katy Lied" and "Aja".
Steve Winwood--"Arc of a Diver"--This one is moving to More Recent right now. We've got Traffic later in the row, anyway. Always liked Stevie--even now.
(2 Open Slots)
Jimi Hendrix--"Woodstock"--My choice for the best, and definitive, Hendrix release for all times. Just the Woodstock concert, straight through, with all the talking, too.
Aretha Franklin--"Chain of Fools"--It's crossover, and thus escapes the African rack; one of my few later acquisitions of old Motown (and therefore on CD) .
Robbie Robertson-- (eponymous)--Little-known first solo album from The Band frontman; I recommend it. Some good collaborations. Proves definitively that Robbie can't sing.
(2 open slots)
Simon and Garfunkel--"Bookends"--A dozen good songs. This is the place to get "Mrs. Robinson", if you're looking for that: stay away from the "Graduate" soundtrack album.
Cream--"Disraeli Gears"--This won the title in our dorm rooms 30 years ago for most tasteful Clapton album (in all incarnations); I don't think it could be challenged any more. "From the Cradle" was great (actually bought that one on prerecorded cassette, not CD), but it belongs on the blues shelf, not rock. Creme de la creme de Cream.
Yes--"Close to the Edge"--Not the most chic choice, I know. I find it a fascinating musical performance.
Allman Brothers Band--"Eat a Peach"--They were the best band in the world for a few months, then the rest of their career has been the transition to AWB Playing Without Duane. This double album captures that.
Police--"Regatta de Blanc"--Released 1978. Again, I find it maintains the highest consistent level of the Police albums.
Patti Smith--"Horses"--I do love a good rock 'n roll rant, and this one has a couple great ones.
Al Stewart--"Past, Present and Future"--Talk about timeless! What could be moreso than "Nostradamus"? and the song itself reflects that with its trance-inducing instrumentals. "Roads to Moscow" is the best, and probably the only, rock take on perhaps the most important event in modern history, the Nazi-Soviet war.
King Crimson--"Starless and Bible Black"--This one definitely would qualify for More Recent in every way but its release date (and it probably will remain avant garde for another 20 years). I could've chosen other Frippery (The Rack used to have a Fripp/Eno, for example), but I'm happy with this one.
Elton John--(eponymous)--When it comes to Elton, I'm a fan of this one album.
Hot Tuna--(eponymous)--We always called this one "Acoustic Live", though the CD box doesn't say that on the spine. When the record wore out, I bought the CD.
Bob Dylan--"Highway 61 Revisited"--From the Old Ones, it would be this, "Bringing It All Back Home", or "Greatest Hits Vol. 1". As I've mentioned, I've got a Dylan problem that could lead to a rethinking of the whole concept here.
Rolling Stones--"Sticky Fingers"--Actually, I'm more of a Brian Jones-era Stones fan. The Octagonal album was my choice for my very first 8-Track! I'll take "Sticky" for tops in anything they've done since 1970.
Frank Zappa --"Apostrophe/Overnight Sensation"--This release combined two great albums for the price of one. With this one selection, one has a pretty firm hold on the Zappa oeuvre.
The Who--"Tommy"--At one time, when I operated under different rules, we had "Quadrophenia" in The Rack, too. The release I have of this one is on a single disc, which probably means it's dicey to maintain quality of the CD's play over the long run.
The Beatles--"White Album"--Takes up the two-jewelbox slot at the end. "Abbey Road" might take the Oldies slot from time to time, but we've got room for The White right now. It fits with the "eponymous" theme, actually.
Pink Floyd--"Wish You Were Here"--To be honest, I can't find the CD--yet again. I believe my sister-in-law has pilfered it twice from me (she loves it), and my ex-brother-in-law might have one to his discredit. There's no question about it being the masterpiece of the Floyd oeuvre. So, consider it's ghost (or Syd's?) to be occupying one of the open slots.
The above review raised some critical questions about composition of The Rack. The open slots should be filled by The Shins (album TBD), Bright Eyes ("I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning"--in the car now), a David Bowie album from the early '80's, and Fatboy Slim ("You've Come a Long Way, Baby")--except that the open slots are all in the Oldies, now. This means a realignment is due.
P.S. 6/19/07--On re-reading this, I realize I omitted "John Barleycorn Must Die," Traffic. It suggests to me that I may have omitted others. We will review and post through comments or other links.
I've taken the Divide to Conquer approach to storing, and displaying, the home CD collection. For example, I have one rather small CD rack, with carved wood surfaces, made in Africa and resembling a stretched-out townhouse: that one houses my jazz, blues, and soul (rather modest collections of each). I've got a rack for Recent Acquisitions (not currently in our cars or in the Active Play rack); I've got a revolving one that houses Greatest Hits and Soundtrack CD's; a pile for those who don't want anything but European or Classical. My largest rack has second-level choices, still loved, arranged by artist's name in a peculiar alphbetical sequence (more on that, perhaps, some other time). My second-largest rack is the Salvage pile, ones available for barter, sale, or spontaneous donation.
The subject of this post is the current contents of my prime rock CD holder. Somewhat fortress-like in shape, it's the one I bring out first each time I move. It's got two rows of slots--the walls between two slots are missing to allow for double jewelboxes on one end in each of the rows, but all of the slots are deep enough to safely hold the CD completely within.
In The Top-Shelf Rock Rack, the rows divide into "Early Days" and "More Recent" (the current DMZ between the time zones looks to be approximately 1979).
The rules for this prestigious Rack are: no more than one release for an artist in a row; my choice; no plan on order within the row.
Row of the More Recent Rock Selections
Big End Slot: U2 - "Achtung Baby" and Los Lobos - "Colossal Head"-- these two fit nicely together, and collectively fill up, a unique set of 4-slots-within-a-slot for CD's without jewelboxes. I don't store them in that way, though--the sleeves get lost and the disc is unprotected. I find an empty, nameless one to put it in, if I don't have the original jacket, or I slot those singles/giveaways in out-of-the-way crevices if I do.
The Edge- "Captive"- something else entirely from U2. This one's a soundtrack to a movie that I don't believe was ever released in the US in any form. Among other things, it's got a great vocal performance from Sinead O'Connor on a song called "Heroine" (sc--spelling correct!)
Alanis Morissette--"Jagged Little Pill"--I will vehemently defend this album, though I admit I don't listen to it these days. In a few more years it will ripen, and I will open it.
Pet Shop Boys--"Disco-The Remix Album"--catchy versions of their best early songs.
Pixies--"Doolittle"--I still like it when I check it again every couple of years, and it's not overly familiar. Still, it could be just holding a spot for that final, best Sonic Youth album.
Coldplay--"A Rush of Blood to the Head"--I certainly have no qualms about its selection among Coldplay albums (though I think it's the only one I've actually bought in CD). See also comment for Alanis Morissette: I expect to start listening to this one again in 18 months.
Soul Asylum--"Grave Dancers Union"
Indigo Girls--(eponymous)--Both Soul Asylum and Indigo Girls have been churning them out since these exemplars, but really haven't ever come close to matching them.
Green Day--"American Idiot"--has only been removed from active car/living room CD rotation in the past few weeks after a couple years' rule.
Gomez--"In Our Gun"--most of the critics would gainsay our choice, but let them. The only other possibility for me would've been "Abandoned Shopping Trolley Hotline", on the strength of its unusual (X-Ray?) version of their classic hit, "We Haven't Turned Around". But this one's more consistent, for once with a dollop of (antiwar) message.
Elvis Costello and the Attractions-- "The Very Best Of" --This selection was made by Declan himself; it's got good ones all the way through "Imperial Bedroom". Any original acquisitions of Elvis were in vinyl.
Prince and the New Power Generation--"Diamonds and Pearls" --This was the first Prince album I bought on CD. I'd gladly yield this slot to something new and better from Prince, but I'm despairing of that ever happening. I am a "Purple Rain" fan, but that one's vinyl for me.
Bjork--"The Times (London) Sunday free insert"--I happen to like this short set of selections; 'twould've come with the paper sometime around the end of 2001, I think. Playlist on demand only.
Modest Mouse--"Good News for People Who Love Bad News"--the first time I heard it, I thought it was unlistenable. I was more than wrong. Still, there's some possibility their (his) new album could eventually take its spot in The Rack.
Pete Townshend--"Scoop"--This is not really a cheat (unlike the ones I made for the Beatles and Dylan); this was released safely in the "More Recent" years, though the original recording dates are all over the 70's and 80's.
Nirvana--"MTV Unplugged in New York"-- I think I've mentioned that I like some musicality in my rock, and this is the best example of what Cobain could do. Don't get me wrong, I like Foo Fighters, too, but not for top-shelf. Pearl Jam "10" would make it if my CD weren't unplayably scratched up.
Bush--"Sixteen Stone"--Every male rock critic--and are there any female ones?--won't cut Gavin a break because they're jealous of him (and his success with Gwen Stefani, among other things). This album is a jewel.
PM Dawn--"Jesus Wept"--What happened to this guy? I thought we had a LA cross between Stevie Wonder and Prince here. The arrangements are too good to be hip-hop.
Olive--"Extra Virgin"--An obscure one, here. This one was actually purchased in the U.K. because my wife liked the album cover art (about an olive oil bottle). It's smooth, crystalline, trance, funky. I did find one more album from this org. before it infused itself in the scenery. I'm not sure whether it was inspired by Moorcheba, the reverse, or whether they developed independently.
Bob Dylan--"Blood on the Tracks"--we've got a problem here. This one dates from 1974, and it can't go back to the Oldies row: Dylan's already represented there (and I want representation in both rows). I also think Dylan deserves one from the current period, from "Oh Mercy" forward (I'd probably go for "Time Out of Mind"), but that's for a future edition. The only way to maintain the status quo is to state that "Blood..." is (at least 5-7 years) ahead of its time. But that's not correct: it's timeless.
Santana--"Supernatural"--I loved this comeback album. Either of the first two Santana albums deserve a spot in the Oldies; maybe I even have II on CD.
Don Henley--"Inside Job"--I have to admit that I like almost all his songwriting that sees the light of day. This album has a mix of styles.
Tears for Fears--"The Hurting"--I settled on this choice about ten years ago; there may be better individual cuts on other albums, but the overall level of this one is the highest.
Beck--"Mutations"--I have more of a feel for what I think Beck was trying to do on this album. I even have an unpublished (as far as I know) theory about what that was--for another time.
Simple Minds--"Sons and Fascination"-- I choose this album from the period before their big sellers. Pre-trance polyphonics, great vocal stylings--just don't ask me what the lyrics are about; I can barely understand any of them.
Beatles --"Anthology Part 2" --OK, it was released in 1986. That's the cheat. This one has some great bits from the middle times, and it covers several releases. The thing that was great about the Anthology was to hear that there are different ways for the Beatles themselves to have recorded these incredible songs. It shuffled up our "phonographic memory". This one takes up the double jewelbox slot at the right side.
OLDIES ROW
Sex Pistols--"Never Mind the Bollocks"--It is supposed to close out the old row, from a previous round of organizing. A little too obvious, maybe: we'll have to look closer now to see whether it can hold down the position of Latest Legitimate Oldie in The Rack.
The Clash--"Combat Rock"--Wait, isn't this one AFTER Sex Pistols, chronologically? Problems here....I take this one narrowly over "Sandinista".
Bruce Springsteen--"The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle"--Good early Boss.
Steely Dan--"Pretzel Logic"--Consistent high quality. Slight edge over "Katy Lied" and "Aja".
Steve Winwood--"Arc of a Diver"--This one is moving to More Recent right now. We've got Traffic later in the row, anyway. Always liked Stevie--even now.
(2 Open Slots)
Jimi Hendrix--"Woodstock"--My choice for the best, and definitive, Hendrix release for all times. Just the Woodstock concert, straight through, with all the talking, too.
Aretha Franklin--"Chain of Fools"--It's crossover, and thus escapes the African rack; one of my few later acquisitions of old Motown (and therefore on CD) .
Robbie Robertson-- (eponymous)--Little-known first solo album from The Band frontman; I recommend it. Some good collaborations. Proves definitively that Robbie can't sing.
(2 open slots)
Simon and Garfunkel--"Bookends"--A dozen good songs. This is the place to get "Mrs. Robinson", if you're looking for that: stay away from the "Graduate" soundtrack album.
Cream--"Disraeli Gears"--This won the title in our dorm rooms 30 years ago for most tasteful Clapton album (in all incarnations); I don't think it could be challenged any more. "From the Cradle" was great (actually bought that one on prerecorded cassette, not CD), but it belongs on the blues shelf, not rock. Creme de la creme de Cream.
Yes--"Close to the Edge"--Not the most chic choice, I know. I find it a fascinating musical performance.
Allman Brothers Band--"Eat a Peach"--They were the best band in the world for a few months, then the rest of their career has been the transition to AWB Playing Without Duane. This double album captures that.
Police--"Regatta de Blanc"--Released 1978. Again, I find it maintains the highest consistent level of the Police albums.
Patti Smith--"Horses"--I do love a good rock 'n roll rant, and this one has a couple great ones.
Al Stewart--"Past, Present and Future"--Talk about timeless! What could be moreso than "Nostradamus"? and the song itself reflects that with its trance-inducing instrumentals. "Roads to Moscow" is the best, and probably the only, rock take on perhaps the most important event in modern history, the Nazi-Soviet war.
King Crimson--"Starless and Bible Black"--This one definitely would qualify for More Recent in every way but its release date (and it probably will remain avant garde for another 20 years). I could've chosen other Frippery (The Rack used to have a Fripp/Eno, for example), but I'm happy with this one.
Elton John--(eponymous)--When it comes to Elton, I'm a fan of this one album.
Hot Tuna--(eponymous)--We always called this one "Acoustic Live", though the CD box doesn't say that on the spine. When the record wore out, I bought the CD.
Bob Dylan--"Highway 61 Revisited"--From the Old Ones, it would be this, "Bringing It All Back Home", or "Greatest Hits Vol. 1". As I've mentioned, I've got a Dylan problem that could lead to a rethinking of the whole concept here.
Rolling Stones--"Sticky Fingers"--Actually, I'm more of a Brian Jones-era Stones fan. The Octagonal album was my choice for my very first 8-Track! I'll take "Sticky" for tops in anything they've done since 1970.
Frank Zappa --"Apostrophe/Overnight Sensation"--This release combined two great albums for the price of one. With this one selection, one has a pretty firm hold on the Zappa oeuvre.
The Who--"Tommy"--At one time, when I operated under different rules, we had "Quadrophenia" in The Rack, too. The release I have of this one is on a single disc, which probably means it's dicey to maintain quality of the CD's play over the long run.
The Beatles--"White Album"--Takes up the two-jewelbox slot at the end. "Abbey Road" might take the Oldies slot from time to time, but we've got room for The White right now. It fits with the "eponymous" theme, actually.
Pink Floyd--"Wish You Were Here"--To be honest, I can't find the CD--yet again. I believe my sister-in-law has pilfered it twice from me (she loves it), and my ex-brother-in-law might have one to his discredit. There's no question about it being the masterpiece of the Floyd oeuvre. So, consider it's ghost (or Syd's?) to be occupying one of the open slots.
The above review raised some critical questions about composition of The Rack. The open slots should be filled by The Shins (album TBD), Bright Eyes ("I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning"--in the car now), a David Bowie album from the early '80's, and Fatboy Slim ("You've Come a Long Way, Baby")--except that the open slots are all in the Oldies, now. This means a realignment is due.
P.S. 6/19/07--On re-reading this, I realize I omitted "John Barleycorn Must Die," Traffic. It suggests to me that I may have omitted others. We will review and post through comments or other links.
Yearning for Ronnie?
Certainly not me, but I see a major political party that has managed to forget that its most successful candidate to try to claim the mighty Reaganaut mantle since his Administration has been George W. Bush (rejecting the shingle his own father hung out there!)
Now comes Fred Thompson, who is daily "being convinced" that Republican establishment moneymen have been holding back, waiting for the Second Coming of Reagan and he is it.
All the others claiming to be such Reaganites in this go-round are pretenders (and that's probably all of the declared Republican candidates, though I haven't done the wordchecking from the debates); I can't deny it. That's why there's still need for Fred in certain quarters.
Is Fred the Real (Fake) Thing? I shudder to think it could be true. I find Thompson's positions on many issues to be close to what Reagan might espouse were he here today. He's still feeling his way into the role of Being Presidential, but he's got all the acting chops Ronnie had (i.e., not so many, but enough to gull audiences consistently). At this point, I'm not convinced Fred believes his own shit to the degree Reagan did; Thompson--simply because he's the Imitation Authentic Phony--might never slay in his performances quite the way one would never doubt Reagan's sincerity, no matter how ludicrous the things he was saying or who was paying him to say it.
Reaganism is nice nostalgia, but the more urgent task for Thompson in the real world of today is to avoid being seen as Bushite. Failure to do that would cancel any of the potential swing voter-drawing appeal successful Reaganist performance art could bring him. In that regard, Thompson has made an adroit move by separating himself from Bush's position on immigration. He may have to moderate that one in the general election if he gets the nomination, but there are many new facets of his policy he can bring out once he's convinced everyone he's against "that damned Bushite amnesty bill", as it may come to be called. (I'm against amnesty for Bushites, if that's any help, Fred.)
Thompson will also create distance from Bushite fiscal sloppiness, as do many of the Republican candidates. This one is legitimate, but they are almost all tied to the same anchor of the Iraq War, so that if Bush doesn't pull an "about face...rearward march" this fall they will be pulled down together.
I've heard a lot of discussion of the various candidates, and who will gain and lose from Thompson's imminent entry. The only one I can see gaining is Giuliani: his bid for Reaganism is based on similar governmental policies, rather than alleged philosophical alignment, so Thompson's not treading so much on Giuliani's space. (And, as for public administration, Thompson would appear to be a total cipher, whereas Reagan had at least a record as California governor before running.) The other candidates would all appear to have failed the audition, except John McCain, who is still on the short list for the role but isn't favored by the studio.
Fred Thompson's entry is a rebuke rudest to McCain, his formerly close friend. If McCain's efforts to woo former Bushite party stalwarts had been more successful, Thompson wouldn't have put his toe in. Chuck Todd says he is certain that Fred was making calls for $$ for McCain even into 2007.
I see Thompson as the intended VP candidate to McCain bucking his conditional subordinate position. Thompson would've been a great choice: telegenic, on message, likely to die soon, or split after a term (which provides a political opportunity, as FDR demonstrated), helps in Tennessee, etc. Unfortunately for McCain, many of the same traits apply to him as second fiddle to Thompson ("helps in Arizona"), and the other guy's got the advantages of high recognition, low negatives, and less entrenched positioning. Thus, a shared ticket between the two could go either way, depending on delegate counts from the Unofficial NP.
Thompson has to separate himself from McCain, and the smartest place to do it, somehow, would be on Iraq policy. Let's say Thompson waits to see which way McCain goes, post-September, as the Scurry for Cover begins, then plots a course veering slightly off McCain's. Knowing McCain so well, Fred should be able to rely on McCain to react quickly; he may even be able to anticipate McCain's escape vector and plot evasive action. (Is it possible Thompson never appeared in the Star Trek series? I can see him right now in one of those Roddenberry alien suits with some sort of antennae on top.)
I have to wrap this up by assessing the damage to Newt Gingrich, which looks pretty severe. A reasonably-successful Thompson candidacy launch closes out the ideological space on the right Newt was still looking to exploit. What about Newt making Fred a pitch for a role as a Cheney-esque evil professor-type VP?
Now comes Fred Thompson, who is daily "being convinced" that Republican establishment moneymen have been holding back, waiting for the Second Coming of Reagan and he is it.
All the others claiming to be such Reaganites in this go-round are pretenders (and that's probably all of the declared Republican candidates, though I haven't done the wordchecking from the debates); I can't deny it. That's why there's still need for Fred in certain quarters.
Is Fred the Real (Fake) Thing? I shudder to think it could be true. I find Thompson's positions on many issues to be close to what Reagan might espouse were he here today. He's still feeling his way into the role of Being Presidential, but he's got all the acting chops Ronnie had (i.e., not so many, but enough to gull audiences consistently). At this point, I'm not convinced Fred believes his own shit to the degree Reagan did; Thompson--simply because he's the Imitation Authentic Phony--might never slay in his performances quite the way one would never doubt Reagan's sincerity, no matter how ludicrous the things he was saying or who was paying him to say it.
Reaganism is nice nostalgia, but the more urgent task for Thompson in the real world of today is to avoid being seen as Bushite. Failure to do that would cancel any of the potential swing voter-drawing appeal successful Reaganist performance art could bring him. In that regard, Thompson has made an adroit move by separating himself from Bush's position on immigration. He may have to moderate that one in the general election if he gets the nomination, but there are many new facets of his policy he can bring out once he's convinced everyone he's against "that damned Bushite amnesty bill", as it may come to be called. (I'm against amnesty for Bushites, if that's any help, Fred.)
Thompson will also create distance from Bushite fiscal sloppiness, as do many of the Republican candidates. This one is legitimate, but they are almost all tied to the same anchor of the Iraq War, so that if Bush doesn't pull an "about face...rearward march" this fall they will be pulled down together.
I've heard a lot of discussion of the various candidates, and who will gain and lose from Thompson's imminent entry. The only one I can see gaining is Giuliani: his bid for Reaganism is based on similar governmental policies, rather than alleged philosophical alignment, so Thompson's not treading so much on Giuliani's space. (And, as for public administration, Thompson would appear to be a total cipher, whereas Reagan had at least a record as California governor before running.) The other candidates would all appear to have failed the audition, except John McCain, who is still on the short list for the role but isn't favored by the studio.
Fred Thompson's entry is a rebuke rudest to McCain, his formerly close friend. If McCain's efforts to woo former Bushite party stalwarts had been more successful, Thompson wouldn't have put his toe in. Chuck Todd says he is certain that Fred was making calls for $$ for McCain even into 2007.
I see Thompson as the intended VP candidate to McCain bucking his conditional subordinate position. Thompson would've been a great choice: telegenic, on message, likely to die soon, or split after a term (which provides a political opportunity, as FDR demonstrated), helps in Tennessee, etc. Unfortunately for McCain, many of the same traits apply to him as second fiddle to Thompson ("helps in Arizona"), and the other guy's got the advantages of high recognition, low negatives, and less entrenched positioning. Thus, a shared ticket between the two could go either way, depending on delegate counts from the Unofficial NP.
Thompson has to separate himself from McCain, and the smartest place to do it, somehow, would be on Iraq policy. Let's say Thompson waits to see which way McCain goes, post-September, as the Scurry for Cover begins, then plots a course veering slightly off McCain's. Knowing McCain so well, Fred should be able to rely on McCain to react quickly; he may even be able to anticipate McCain's escape vector and plot evasive action. (Is it possible Thompson never appeared in the Star Trek series? I can see him right now in one of those Roddenberry alien suits with some sort of antennae on top.)
I have to wrap this up by assessing the damage to Newt Gingrich, which looks pretty severe. A reasonably-successful Thompson candidacy launch closes out the ideological space on the right Newt was still looking to exploit. What about Newt making Fred a pitch for a role as a Cheney-esque evil professor-type VP?
Bad Talking Heads
Some of these guys are starting to get on my nerves with their faulty snap judgements and their certain poses while making misstatements of fact.
On the Case of Robert Novak
I regularly read Robert Novak's report because I want to know what the evil people are saying to each other (and I read Newt Gingrich to see what they're saying to themselves). Novak irritated me with the following:
"A dreadful performance by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on NBC's "Meet the Press" deflates speculation that he could rise from the "second tier" of Democratic presidential candidates. "
The judgement of the "performance" is Novak's (though no doubt corroborated by a couple of his like-thinking buddies); the deflation of speculation may be factual but is by its speculative nature of limited, short-term interest. In other words, it may reflate again, even to breathe in and out on a regular basis. I agree that Richardson is not in the top tier, but he did not suffer a knockout blow running the Tim Russert gauntlet (unlike, say, Wesley Clark in '04--see below).
Russert got in several jabs on weaknesses and inconsistencies in Richardson's record, but nothing that seemed to surprise Richardson at all. Instead, he deflated the overeager Russert by conceding the point each time--what else could he do?--and showed he'd learned lessons from the experiences. To pundits focused on the tug of war and scoring gotcha! points, this was "dreadful": Richardson didn't fight back. He didn't look "presidential" and tower above the sniping reporter. To viewers, Richardson showed a skill something very few of his fellow politicians have mastered: the ability to admit a mistake. It's called "humility", Novak.
Richardson plays a very critical functional role in the race, even if he has little chance (due to low recognition) to win the nomination. Until the middle of January, he should be able to hold down the role of principal centrist challenger to Hillary: he has a large potential constituency to which he can make a unique appeal (i.e., Hispanics and others in Western states), he has backers (though not the super-elite), and he has a resume that beats everyone else's currently in the race from either party.
Unless something new drops on him (and Russert seems to be the most likely source of aerial attack he'll face), I say he stays and has a significant effect. His delegates will be truly swing votes in the HRC vs. anti-Hillary showdown we can all expect after the Unofficial National Primary. Sen. Clinton would no doubt consider him a hole card in the showdown, but I don't consider him throwing her support to be automatic (without the offer of the major Cabinet job/VP slot).
Of course, his unique role in the race will have no significance if someone can get a majority blowout result. If he can stay in and stay competitive, that will become less likely.
On the Case of Chuck Todd
Unlike Novak, I have nothing against the NBC political director. I have to comment on his performance today on the Saturday MSNBC Tim Russert show (the one that tries to reach for entertainment through exploring ideas, whereas "Meet the Press" is the formal fulfillment of network TV's "role in the constitutional process").
Todd was on a "dream panel" (Russert's) with Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory (who recently found out he did have enough balls to take on the President in a press conference, after all). On Russert, Mitchell scored well, Gregory looked good and said some bright things. Todd seemed much too jaded as he spouted a couple of howlers:
1) He claimed the Fred Thompson story so far looked a lot like another one "that turned out badly--Wesley Clark". Late entry, tapping substantial reserves of hidden financial strength, "but then he couldn't answer the fundamental question on Iraq" and went down quickly. Clark did fall, but it had nothing to do with weakness of his Iraq policy--Wesley Clark has been able to dance around all others in terms of his knowledge of the country, the military scenario, alternatives that make sense and achieve more of our objectives.
I may not believe that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, though I would "hope" it's so. But I'm absolutely certain that Wesley Clark wouldn't have done as bad a job in strategizing the Iraq war over the 2005-2007 period than what we got. For one thing, he wouldn't have allowed the force capabilities of the Army and Reserve to be ground up the way they have been.
What actually happened--I was paying very close attention to this one, as I was indeed a Clark backer--was that Clark got sandbagged by the Washington journalists for refusing to disavow the support of Michael Moore after Moore called Bush a "deserter". The crucial appearance was on "Meet the Press", his last chance to denounce Moore's something-or-other (let's call it "an exaggeration") and refuse his support.
This appearance "deflated speculation" that he would be accepted by the opinion-makers as the defender of establishment values. He also made a serious error by skipping Iowa entirely (he was too late to field a strong organization), which allowed tactical advantage to slip to Johns Kerry and Edwards. The rapidity of the sequence of events following--to New Hampshire the next week, then soon to Super Tuesday--didn't give him the chance to reverse Big Mo--besides, the pundits weren't having it. A la Howard Dean, for that matter.
2) Todd has apparently taken credit for coining "Tsunami Tuesday" for the Feb. 5, 2008 wave of primaries (too cute for me), but then one-upped himself (fighting the last war again) by suggesting the preliminaries will decide the main event in 2008, as they did in 2004. It could happen, but I'm still thinking that California will be the critical battleground, and that's squarely in the Unofficial National Primary. Oddly, I've heard little in the past few days about Florida--either too little polling data is available, or the party functionaries haven't yet let on how badly candidates may be penalized. I'm looking for that one to end up being a "beauty contest"; still significant--because Florida's so important in the general election--but not decisive. It will be more like a final, accurate indicator of what's going to happen a week later.
3) Todd's assessment of Fred Thompson's resume (the subject of my next post, I think; he's just becoming unavoidable, plus it's a major new development) is that the only thing he's known for is his acting career. I agree, his Senate career wasn't so great, but the original source of his fame was as Minority Counsel in the Watergate hearings. He had good training to play a lawyer on national TV, by being a real lawyer on national TV. Todd is no doubt too young to remember when that happened, but it is part of the shared consciousness of half the electorate or so.
4) Todd seemed to think that Al Gore was going to run for President on a 3rd-party ticket--must be this week's talking heads flavor (see below). This because Al told him there were still "500 days until the election". This meant to Todd that Gore would run if Hillary clinched the nomination in the primaries and then lost momentum. I've got a different thought: Gore is laying back in case Obama can't rally the anti-Hillary forces after Feb. 5 and there's still something to be done (i.e., HRC hasn't locked up a majority of delegates). He could then try to sweep in and get a draft movement behind him. Obama would gravitate naturally to the VP slot, and we'd have the true "dream team of 2008": Gore-Obama. Contrary to Todd, I see absolutely no way Al Gore would desert the Democratic party and run against it.
On the Case of John McLaughlin
McLaughlin devoted his whole show this week to building a case for his "dream team" 3rd-party candidacy of Bloomberg-Hagel. McLaughlin seems to have been seduced; he wanted to show that this crew could actually win the election! It's his show, so he kept coming back to this theme, even though every other panelist shot him down from every angle.
The panelists granted him two points: one is that this ticket is a real possibility under certain circumstances; second, that it could wreak a lot of havoc, particularly since the impact on the race of a man who could spend $1 billion of his own is hard to put boundaries around. Someone even ventured that Bloomberg could put the state of New York into play for the Republican candidate by splitting the votes of moderates and liberals with HRC.
I'm used to McLaughlin's craziness and his trying unsuccessfully to impose it on his colleagues, but this last suggestion was a bridge too far for me. First, I can't see any reason Bloomberg would still run if Hillary got the nomination: what, is one liberal New Yorker in the race not enough? To me, it's much more likely Bloomberg would enter if the Democrats selected someone more to the left, such as Obama or Edwards.
Second, in any significantly triangular race with Bloomberg at one vertex, the only possible winners of the state of New York would be Bloomberg and the Democrat. Conservative Republicans are no more than 20% of the statewide vote. Depending on the matchup, Bloomberg could indeed deny the state to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean he can fix it or somehow throw his electoral votes to the Republican.
On the Case of Robert Novak
I regularly read Robert Novak's report because I want to know what the evil people are saying to each other (and I read Newt Gingrich to see what they're saying to themselves). Novak irritated me with the following:
"A dreadful performance by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on NBC's "Meet the Press" deflates speculation that he could rise from the "second tier" of Democratic presidential candidates. "
The judgement of the "performance" is Novak's (though no doubt corroborated by a couple of his like-thinking buddies); the deflation of speculation may be factual but is by its speculative nature of limited, short-term interest. In other words, it may reflate again, even to breathe in and out on a regular basis. I agree that Richardson is not in the top tier, but he did not suffer a knockout blow running the Tim Russert gauntlet (unlike, say, Wesley Clark in '04--see below).
Russert got in several jabs on weaknesses and inconsistencies in Richardson's record, but nothing that seemed to surprise Richardson at all. Instead, he deflated the overeager Russert by conceding the point each time--what else could he do?--and showed he'd learned lessons from the experiences. To pundits focused on the tug of war and scoring gotcha! points, this was "dreadful": Richardson didn't fight back. He didn't look "presidential" and tower above the sniping reporter. To viewers, Richardson showed a skill something very few of his fellow politicians have mastered: the ability to admit a mistake. It's called "humility", Novak.
Richardson plays a very critical functional role in the race, even if he has little chance (due to low recognition) to win the nomination. Until the middle of January, he should be able to hold down the role of principal centrist challenger to Hillary: he has a large potential constituency to which he can make a unique appeal (i.e., Hispanics and others in Western states), he has backers (though not the super-elite), and he has a resume that beats everyone else's currently in the race from either party.
Unless something new drops on him (and Russert seems to be the most likely source of aerial attack he'll face), I say he stays and has a significant effect. His delegates will be truly swing votes in the HRC vs. anti-Hillary showdown we can all expect after the Unofficial National Primary. Sen. Clinton would no doubt consider him a hole card in the showdown, but I don't consider him throwing her support to be automatic (without the offer of the major Cabinet job/VP slot).
Of course, his unique role in the race will have no significance if someone can get a majority blowout result. If he can stay in and stay competitive, that will become less likely.
On the Case of Chuck Todd
Unlike Novak, I have nothing against the NBC political director. I have to comment on his performance today on the Saturday MSNBC Tim Russert show (the one that tries to reach for entertainment through exploring ideas, whereas "Meet the Press" is the formal fulfillment of network TV's "role in the constitutional process").
Todd was on a "dream panel" (Russert's) with Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory (who recently found out he did have enough balls to take on the President in a press conference, after all). On Russert, Mitchell scored well, Gregory looked good and said some bright things. Todd seemed much too jaded as he spouted a couple of howlers:
1) He claimed the Fred Thompson story so far looked a lot like another one "that turned out badly--Wesley Clark". Late entry, tapping substantial reserves of hidden financial strength, "but then he couldn't answer the fundamental question on Iraq" and went down quickly. Clark did fall, but it had nothing to do with weakness of his Iraq policy--Wesley Clark has been able to dance around all others in terms of his knowledge of the country, the military scenario, alternatives that make sense and achieve more of our objectives.
I may not believe that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, though I would "hope" it's so. But I'm absolutely certain that Wesley Clark wouldn't have done as bad a job in strategizing the Iraq war over the 2005-2007 period than what we got. For one thing, he wouldn't have allowed the force capabilities of the Army and Reserve to be ground up the way they have been.
What actually happened--I was paying very close attention to this one, as I was indeed a Clark backer--was that Clark got sandbagged by the Washington journalists for refusing to disavow the support of Michael Moore after Moore called Bush a "deserter". The crucial appearance was on "Meet the Press", his last chance to denounce Moore's something-or-other (let's call it "an exaggeration") and refuse his support.
This appearance "deflated speculation" that he would be accepted by the opinion-makers as the defender of establishment values. He also made a serious error by skipping Iowa entirely (he was too late to field a strong organization), which allowed tactical advantage to slip to Johns Kerry and Edwards. The rapidity of the sequence of events following--to New Hampshire the next week, then soon to Super Tuesday--didn't give him the chance to reverse Big Mo--besides, the pundits weren't having it. A la Howard Dean, for that matter.
2) Todd has apparently taken credit for coining "Tsunami Tuesday" for the Feb. 5, 2008 wave of primaries (too cute for me), but then one-upped himself (fighting the last war again) by suggesting the preliminaries will decide the main event in 2008, as they did in 2004. It could happen, but I'm still thinking that California will be the critical battleground, and that's squarely in the Unofficial National Primary. Oddly, I've heard little in the past few days about Florida--either too little polling data is available, or the party functionaries haven't yet let on how badly candidates may be penalized. I'm looking for that one to end up being a "beauty contest"; still significant--because Florida's so important in the general election--but not decisive. It will be more like a final, accurate indicator of what's going to happen a week later.
3) Todd's assessment of Fred Thompson's resume (the subject of my next post, I think; he's just becoming unavoidable, plus it's a major new development) is that the only thing he's known for is his acting career. I agree, his Senate career wasn't so great, but the original source of his fame was as Minority Counsel in the Watergate hearings. He had good training to play a lawyer on national TV, by being a real lawyer on national TV. Todd is no doubt too young to remember when that happened, but it is part of the shared consciousness of half the electorate or so.
4) Todd seemed to think that Al Gore was going to run for President on a 3rd-party ticket--must be this week's talking heads flavor (see below). This because Al told him there were still "500 days until the election". This meant to Todd that Gore would run if Hillary clinched the nomination in the primaries and then lost momentum. I've got a different thought: Gore is laying back in case Obama can't rally the anti-Hillary forces after Feb. 5 and there's still something to be done (i.e., HRC hasn't locked up a majority of delegates). He could then try to sweep in and get a draft movement behind him. Obama would gravitate naturally to the VP slot, and we'd have the true "dream team of 2008": Gore-Obama. Contrary to Todd, I see absolutely no way Al Gore would desert the Democratic party and run against it.
On the Case of John McLaughlin
McLaughlin devoted his whole show this week to building a case for his "dream team" 3rd-party candidacy of Bloomberg-Hagel. McLaughlin seems to have been seduced; he wanted to show that this crew could actually win the election! It's his show, so he kept coming back to this theme, even though every other panelist shot him down from every angle.
The panelists granted him two points: one is that this ticket is a real possibility under certain circumstances; second, that it could wreak a lot of havoc, particularly since the impact on the race of a man who could spend $1 billion of his own is hard to put boundaries around. Someone even ventured that Bloomberg could put the state of New York into play for the Republican candidate by splitting the votes of moderates and liberals with HRC.
I'm used to McLaughlin's craziness and his trying unsuccessfully to impose it on his colleagues, but this last suggestion was a bridge too far for me. First, I can't see any reason Bloomberg would still run if Hillary got the nomination: what, is one liberal New Yorker in the race not enough? To me, it's much more likely Bloomberg would enter if the Democrats selected someone more to the left, such as Obama or Edwards.
Second, in any significantly triangular race with Bloomberg at one vertex, the only possible winners of the state of New York would be Bloomberg and the Democrat. Conservative Republicans are no more than 20% of the statewide vote. Depending on the matchup, Bloomberg could indeed deny the state to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean he can fix it or somehow throw his electoral votes to the Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
