Barack's Speech

Normally, I can hardly stand to listen to politicians speak, even the ones I support. The pandering, posturing, insincerity, and superficiality that politics requires make me ill.

Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday had a genuniness and a thoughtfulness that it's hard to remember seeing in any politician's speech. It's certainly the best political speech I've heard in at least ten years.

Of course, the pundits, particularly the conservative ones, are sniping away at the speech on grounds ranging from utterly ridiculous ("he read it on the teleprompter") to merely catty (he didn't sufficiently distance himself from Reverend Wright and he wrongly equated Wright's comments with his white grandmother's fear of black men).

I suppose if you assume that the only purpose of the speech was to deal with the "Reverend Wright problem," then you might fail to appreciate its appeal. Maybe you need to understand that the topic of the speech was problems of race in America. When was the last time you heard a political candidate make an intelligent, thoughtful, honest appraisal of those problems?

Yes, Obama needed to address the issues raised by his pastor's unfortunate remarks. But someone also needs to address issues of race in America. I can't remember other politicians doing that in any useful way. It's a risky topic. Barack showed courage.

And he didn't equate any remark with any other remark. He put many different feelings that people have into a larger context that called attention to the urgent need for racial healing. It was a speech that needed to be made. Obama made it.

Hello to Arms

According to published accounts of the Supreme Court's gun control argument, a majority of the Justices appear ready to strike down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. And which majority? Why, the Chief Justice, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito.

You know, it would be nice if, just for a change, a major issue like this didn't break down along ideological lines. I haven't done the research on the Second Amendment and I honestly don't know which side I find more convincing. I am open to the argument that the amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership. I am also open to the argument that the amendment's unique preamble limits its reach to militia-related matters. I'd want to know a lot more about the amendment and its terms before making up my mind.

But were I a judge, I hope I'd be able to make up my mind based on the law and not on my ideological preconceptions. Of course it's easy to make this boast knowing that it won't get put to the test, but really, why should the conservatives all conclude that the amendment protects an individual right and the liberals not? Don't liberals normally like individual rights? Don't conservatives normally favor the government? It's somehwat dreary to think that judges are so ideological that they can't even stick to their general ideological stances but have to follow even the sub-points of ideology rather than just trying to figure out what the Constitution means.

Farewell to Bear

My father worked at Bear, Stearns for ten years, so I took more than a casual interest in the news that J.P. Morgan will buy the 85-year-old Wall Street firm for $2 a share -- that's about 7% of the firm's market value as of the close of business on Friday, and about 3% of the firms' value as of a week ago today.

In case anyone was still wondering whether the economy is in trouble, I think the answer is now officially yes. When an investment banking firm previously worth billions, that withstood the Great Depression and a dozen recessions since, dissolves in a puff of smoke, something is wrong.

How many other titanic firms are just waiting to lose 97% of their value in a week? Has anyone else bet the farm on some allegedly safe but astoundingly complicated twenty-first century investment vehicle?

Thank goodness we have a President and an administration that understand these matters and are acting prudently to avert further disasters.

Ten Days

Speculation over whether New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will resign remains intense. Can he survive? The key is the next eight days.

It's been two days since the scandal broke. Eight more days will make ten. Ten days after a scandal breaks, it's old news. Everybody shrugs their shoulders and moves on.

On the day Bill Clinton admitted his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, one of my colleagues started an office pool to guess his last day in office. I tried to get January 20, 2001, but it was already taken. Ten days, I said, just wait ten days. If he can survive that long, he'll make it through.

Of course it's true that the Spitzer scandal has many twists and turns to come, if he stays in office. Criminal indictment and legislative impeachment are both real possibilities. But both were in the picture for Clinton too.

Look at Larry Craig. Look at David Vitter. They toughed it out and they're still both in the Senate. Clinton toughed it out and survived impeachment.

Things look grim for Spitzer, but see how they look eight days from now.

Must He Go?

I'm still reeling from the news about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. I gave my main thoughts yesterday, but the question of the hour is, should Spitzer stay or should he resign? Not surprisingly, the Republican Governors Association recommends the latter. The Democratic Governors Association recommends "caution and restraint."

Spitzer's future doesn't look good. I think he can rule out running for President. But here's a question for those Republican Governors: Did they call for David Vitter to resign? I don't think so. Did they call for Larry Craig to resign? OK, they probably did, but we all know Republicans regard that as a special case.

The point is, Vitter is still a Senator. Craig is still a Senator. Bill Clinton survived his sex scandal. These things are not invariably fatal.

The Governor has a tough road ahead and it's hard to see how he can ever regain the mass support that swept him into office. But it's not clear that he'll be forced to go.

Sauce for the Gander

Oh, my goodness.

Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York, has apparently been caught arranging to patronize a prostitute. He hasn't exactly confessed, but he gave a news conference at which he said, "I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family and violates my or any sense of right or wrong." That's roughly the equivalent of admitting it.

Now, I have a confession of my own to make. I have previously, publicly, on this very blog, had some fun at the expense of Republicans caught in the same postion (so much so, I am slightly embarrassed to admit, that it takes quite a few links to cover it all). I said at the time that I'm not that into schadenfreude, and I'm not, but there's no question that I engaged in it. So what do I do now?

Bloggers have, or should have, a loyalty to the truth that goes beyond party. If it was appropriate to poke fun at the Republicans who couldn't keep their pants zipped, the same has to apply to the Democrats.

Of course, as I observed, it was particularly, juicily ironic when the Republicans got caught, because most of them were piously moralistic types who roundly condemned the very behavior that tripped them up. But so was Spitzer! As Attorney General, he prosecuted prostitution rings!

So I'm sorry, but even though I can't quite bring myself to poke fun at Governor Spitzer, I'm going to have to be understanding while others do so. It's just too tough to resist, and I'm in no position to criticize.

But really, I mean, . . . Eliot Spitzer! Mr. Integrity! How could he do this!

What is up with these politicians? Don't they know that they live under a microscope? How can they imagine that they'll get away with crap like this?

And sadly, it's not as though mere prostitution is the only thing Spitzer may be on the hook for. First of all, he apparently arranged for a prostitute to cross state lines to meet him, which makes it a federal crime under the ancient Mann Act. Moreover, the prices charged by the prostitution ring he apparently patronized are said to range from $1000 up to $5500 per hour. Where does a public servant get that kind of money? I suppose it's possible that he only did this the one time, but that doesn't seem likely. I foresee an investigation into where the money came from. (And by the way, what could you possibly get that would be worth that price? Maybe I lack sufficient imagination, but I'm baffled.) And of course, most serious of all would be if Spitzer somehow exercised his powers as attorney general to keep this ring from being prosecuted (again assuming he was patronizing it back then).

Wow, it doesn't look good. Of course, as was true when the Republicans got caught, some will ask why what they're doing is a crime at all. But the fact is, it is. And it's crime Spitzer himself denounced. He shouldn't have done it. And here come the jokes.

Back Soon

Sorry for the lack of content this week, faithful readers. I'm actually working pretty hard. Blogging will resume next week.