... in spite of the fact that I haven't posted during this month until now. It's been a combination of three things for me: getting my mother's house ready to be sold, babysitting (with my wife) my granddaughter for a weekend, and getting our house ready for the High Holy Days (and a belated L'Shana Tova to all of you). Plus our law practice. But that's more than enough about me. With or without me, this has been a month to remember for all of us.
Where to begin? The conventions. Eastwood and the empty chair versus Bill Clinton's compelling case against the Republicans. The anti-American violence (and, sadly, American deaths) in the Middle East. The economy, which continues to stumble forward VERY slowly. And, finally, the nagging question of whether Paul (I Couldn't Tell The Truth If My Life Depended On It) Ryan and Mitt (I Couldn't Resist Shooting Myself In The Foot If My Life Depended On It) Romney might STILL somehow slip into the Oval Office.
Some random thoughts on all of the above, and then, some catching-up with a few items I've collected (I may not have written, but I've been watching).
First, Eastwood. The man's a movie star and, when you're a movie star, you're always playing to your audience. He was probably bothered by the perception that his Chrysler Super Bowl ad created that he was in the tank for Obama. He's smart enough to know that it didn't sit well with his fan base so, when the Romney campaign gave him a chance to do something about it, he took it. Frankly, the fact that he did it so ineptly is a sign that neither his heart nor his head was in it. He doesn't care about the Democrats or Republicans; he cares about Clint Eastwood. And surprise! He's got a movie coming out about now. I don't think it's a coincidence--especially since I'm not a big believer in coincidences.
Next, Clinton. His speech was a surprise. Forceful, factual, disciplined and complete. You'd think he was running for re-election. I'm glad he did it but, perhaps a bit cynically, I think this speech is the best evidence to date that Hillary's running in 2016, and Obama will be just as on-board in supporting her. Did I just hear the sound of one hand washing the other? I'm pretty sure I did.
The violence in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East was a surprise of the tragic variety. And yet, despite a concerted effort on the part of the conservative media to re-create the America-held-hostage atmosphere that worked so well for them in 1980, it hasn't turned the country against Obama. Why? I can only speculate, but I think it's principally because, in the intervening 32 years, we've come to terms with the limits of how secure we and the rest of the world can be: the September 11th attacks and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have a lot to do with that. And, too, it's clear that not all of the sentiment in the Middle East is anti-American. We appear to be supported in our efforts to avenge our dead not only by the local governments, but also by large segments of the local population.
And, speaking of turning the country against Obama, slow economic growth hasn't made that happen, either. Again, why? Is it because people have finally figured out that you can't tax-cut your way to prosperity? Or is it because they see through the way Republicans have attempted to stalemate the President into either submission or defeat. Could be either one. Could be both. My money's on the latter.
That might mean that even a more disciplined and less ideological team of Republicans might find Obama to be a tough target. But, for the team the Republicans have, he seems to be an impossible one, and getting worse, thanks to their joint and several ineptitude. Ryan running for Vice-President? He can't even run a marathon (or tell the truth about it). And then there's Mitt. I remember thinking back in the primaries, when he had a good streak going and promptly went on the air to announce his lack of concern for the "very poor," that this man seems to get careless and stupid every time he gets a break. The repeat of this pattern since then is not surprising. It's the mentality of the economically entitled. It allows you to dismiss whole segments of the population (say, 47%?) when running for office, because you think they're beneath you (yes, even when they support you).
And yet, it's a close race. One has to wonder whether race in a different sense is the reason for the closeness. Whatever else is true, this election may really give us a test of how unwilling a certain segment of the public is to vote for a black man.
We'll find out soon enough. But, putting race aside, if Romney does win, I will regard it as proof that God no longer wants to bless America.
And now, on to other pending matters ...
No comments:
Post a Comment