With less than a week to go before the election, is there any reason to believe any smear ad at this point?

The answer to the question posed by my post topic (With less than a week to go before the election, is there any reason to believe any smear ad at this point?), the answer is no. Like the bottom of the ninth or the late fourth quarter of a football game, the advertisements for both campaigns at this point are really just a hail mary to try and get through the campaign noise. While they may have some surface effect, in substance they are lacking.

If you can't decide at this point, you should just flip a coin. Of course, if you are that indecisive, I would imagine you are probably leaning toward the Democrat party, since they are really based on the government helping you out anyway.

This Alaskan senator Stevens story, however, needs a quick comment. Here is Sen. Stevens, at 84 years old, now convicted of concealing a quarter million dollars in gifts, still is running for reelection. Are the citizens of Alaska crazy for allowing this guy to continue? Or would they be crazy only if he got reelected. In either case, what a debacle and smear on this guy's legacy.

I am with the majority on this one that he should just resign. So what if his opponent wins the race by default. That's the Alaskan Republican party's fault for not running a viable candidate against him or in place of him when this corruption scandal erupted. I'll save the age card for another day.

What I find disturbing, however, is the split in executive authority over what this guy should do "for the good of the country." On one hand, and in a perfect world, I suppose, he would lose the election because the Alaskan people are outraged. Somehow, I think it more probable than not that he would win. And if he wins, and then resigns, obviously the governor (presumably Sarah Palin or her replacement if need be) would appoint someone and then have a special election afterwards.

At what cost would this be to the Alaskan people? Whatever the cost, it seems excessive given that they can avoid all of this by having him resign up front. For a party of "mavericks" or generally of reduced government spending, it seems like an awful waste of money to have this charade continue. Cf. John McCain calls for Ted Stevens to quit; Sarah Palin doesn't go quite that far with McCain, Palin call for Stevens to step aside. But, as a non-Alaskan citizen, what should I care for?

Tags: don't buy into the hype the week before an election

Read more!

Concurring Opinions posts the Berg opinion

I haven't had time to read through it yet, and I will decide whether I need to chime in and post any thoughts that contribute to a more intelligent discourse later.

Rather than post the direct link to the PDF, I will simply post to the entry on the Concurring Opinions blog, which has the link to it: See Dave Hoffman, Berg v. Obama Opinion and Analysis. See also my earlier thoughts on this lawsuit (complete with comments ranging from the hilariously absurd to the otherwise well-reasoned).

I will note that in searching for this opinion, I came across at least one site (which I am not going to link) which appears to be generating money for the appeal to the Supreme Court. Now, I don't know whether or not this money is actually going anywhere or to anyone in particular (other than at least to the person soliciting the donations), so I'll simply reiterate what should be an obvious point.

Like anything else on the internet, I would be particularly leary about anybody or any site asking for money. For anyone who knows anything about law, I'll save you two cents: he can't appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court anyway before he spends a boatload on appealing to the 3rd Circuit. If you feel so inclined to give your hard earned money to something worthwhile, donate to the Library of Congress, the Peace Corp., or your local blood bank.

Read more!

Little known news blip, but interesting nonetheless

I saw that the Obama-Berg lawsuit got dismissed and commented on that on that entry. This was an interesting news story that is likely to be overlooked: Charles Fried, a well-known conservative lawyer and con law professor, announced that he endorsed Obama. It's not as national an endorsement as Gen. Powell's, but it certainly has me thinking of how many other Republicans are starting to (or have already decided to) jump ship.

Read more!

A point about red states & blue states

I was speaking with one of my friend's dad's over the weekend and he made a good point about this connotation about red states and blue states. His point was that not even 15 years ago, if you referred to something as "red" it was associated with Communism. His point was how quickly the world forgets. What is more disturbing, to me anyway, is that this concept of red v. blue has divided our country so much. I can only hope that whoever the next president is can start turning out economy around and bringing our country back together.

After all, there was a saying that used to be pretty popular, but seems to have lost a lot of its luster as of late: "United we stand, divided we fall." Read more!

This concept of billing time

Billing time reminds me of this quote from William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury (book available here), which I last read in high school:

Time is dead as long as it is being clicked off by little wheels; only when the clock stops does time come to life.

So, there's a trade-off to everything. Read more!

National polling data sites analyzed

Because I am a news junkee in some respects, but one who tries to find the middle ground in reporting through a series of balancing acts, I am always on the lookout for what could be correct or indicative polling data. For the past few weeks, I have focused much of my attention on the Real Clear Politics poll and Rasmussen's data. Apparently, my reliance on Real Clear Politics is a little misplaced.

Granted, this site has its own biases also, but I thought the post was worth reading. See FiveThirtyEight: Real Credibility Problems (discussing the inclusion and exclusion of certain polling data from the RCP poll) and his follow-up post, RCP Follow-Up. He also pointed me to this Pollster.com polling site, which seems to say what every other poll is saying: the Republican ship is sinking, and this election is not going to turn on one state.

Whether or not any of these polls have any prescient accuracy remains to be seen, but the point, as always, is to look at these things with a grain of salt and a skeptic eye. My prediction remains rather general: Voter turnout will be through the roof, and none of these polls are going to get it exactly right.

This election is going to be over with in a couple of weeks. Whether poll A or B or C puts Obama ahead or behind, or McCain ahead or behind in other states is irrelevant. All of this voter fraud nonsense is the same swan song that is played during every election. See also An Analysis of Voter Fraud in the United States. The system is not perfect. But it's the system we've got and that's the way it is.

The bottom line is that all of these polls have significant margins of error and none purport to give what is required to be scientifically statistically accurate. This has more to do with cost efficiencies more than anything else, and in the end it's just a conversation piece that adds fuel to the fire of 24/7 media, a recurring problem I have discussed many times over the past few months.

I will be curious to see whether my own prediction is going to come true - so far it seems on track, although I certainly miscalculated the breadth and success of Obama's 50-state strategy. We'll see how exactly it plays out in two weeks, and obviously it is going to impact future elections regardless of who wins.

No real point to this entry, just thought the article regarding the RCP polling information was interesting. Why can't all of these polling sites simply disclose their information? I'm more interested in how much money these sort of businesses actually make, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.

Tags: election polls, accuracy of election polling data, rcp poll, real clear politics poll only semi-accurate

Read more!

Why is it so unamerican to have negotiated a good contract for yourself?

What I would really like to write about is Gen. Powell's endorsement of Sen. Obama and why his comments lay out, quite intelligently, at least three specific reasons why his support, despite being a Republican, is behind the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. I would suggest that if you did not see the interview, the transcript speaks for itself.

I do want to mention, briefly, that despite my best intentions, I am still watching, even as I speak, some of cable news. The problem with these talk shows, which purport themselves as news shows, is that they are not: they are opinion commentary shows; there is a significant difference. Whether the general watcher realizes this or not is irrelevant. So long as everyone watching understands that each guest is carefully selected to endorse or rebut the point the show is trying to make, the perception should not be influenced beyond what it would be from one's own decision-making process. What disturbs me is that I doubt this sort of thought-process takes place. I have no solution to this problem at this time. Regardless...

But what prompts this quick reaction and the title of this entry stems from seeing the recent (and continuous) negative news reaction about CEO compensation. From a legal perspective, what rights does a non-stockholder have over what a private entity and its stockholders decides to pay its CEO? Not very much. See, e.g., Bailout's Bid to Limit Executive Pay will be Tough to Realize. Regardless of how far their golden parachute opens, these CEO's are going to come out on top one way or another. See, e.g., BoA Gives Top Job to Merrill Lynch CEO in the Merged Entity.

My limited point is why does it matter that these CEOs are making a lot of money? For the headache they have to go through in running a company, I'm sure a lot of that money is incentive to serve in the first place. Nobody seems to be complaining about how much money these news outlet CEOs and other industry CEOs are making in comparison.

People seem to be mad whenever they hear about how someone else is doing really well. It's rather absurd, actually. Didn't the Yankees pay A-rod about a quarter of a billion dollars to come in and turn the team around? I haven't seen them win a world series since he's been on the team. Should we renegotiate his contract and take away what has already been promised to him? Absolutely not. Should it impact how future contracts are negotiated? Perhaps. But notwithstanding this example, can't people be happy for someone when they are successful? Of course, all of this is facetious.

This is sort of getting circular and I haven't given it any significant amount of thought, but it just infuriates me when I see someone (particularly on cable news) bitch and complain about some ex-or current bank CEO or whoever who has been paid their contract. There are certainly ways, legally, to curb excessive pay, and if the stockholders want to do something about it, they certainly can. Why make this a news issue? It's not news. It's business.

And what exactly is a pro-America area of this country? And where are the anti-American areas? I can't wait until this election is over so the media will finally have something better to report about.

Tags: excessive ceo pay

Read more!

Two funny internet videos

I rarely post links to videos, but these two were particularly funny. I'm not sure how long either of them will be available, but I'm sure they will make their way onto YouTube or something like that. The first is one of a wedding where the best man trips and knocks the bride into a pool. See Worst Best Man Ever. The other, assuming you are a fan of Triumph the Insult Dog, is Triumph's coverage of the third presidential debate. See Triumph in the Presidential Debate Spin Room (10/16/08 "Decision 2008" if that link redirects).

The best line is "Even Joe the Plumber couldn't unclog the crap coming out of their mouths." And "Phillies 2, Dodgers nothing, Joe the Plumber 13."

Tags: triumph the insult dog, triumph at presidential debate

Read more!

Is Joe the Plumber going to become the catalyst symbol of the average joe? I don't think so

Just a quick thought on this Joe the Plumber story and I will be more consistent in tying legal thoughts to some of these rather juicy legal news bits as of late.

When I heard the Joe the Plumber story break, I thought Obama's choice of phrasing was a little off. People love throwing around "socialism" and "communism" and "robin hood" without really understanding the concepts, so I am giving him a pass on this one.

The concept of fairness and this so-called wealth distribution, in some respects, is quite misleading with those terms. It isn't so much the question of why the richest should pay more taxes, it's a question of why should the richest only pay the social security tax only up to a certain point. Isn't it everyone's burden? I appreciate the idea of social security being more of a flat tax than some sort of regressive tax, and I also appreciate, from a financially greedy perspective, having it cut-off at some point. But if Obama wants to move up the cut-off point for the social security tax to double what it is now as an effort to balance the social security budget, so be it. Now, moving that number up will obviously affect all businesses, so maybe there needs to be some further tweaking, but that can be given in the form of other tax breaks and incentives. I don't know enough about it to speak more about it than this at this point. Now with regular income taxes, that's another story for another time. Flat tax = semi bad.

But not with social security did this phraseology capture the media's attention, but only in the limited respect with a presumed small business owner's concern with why should his taxes be raised because his business is doing better than someone else's. Certainly it's a fair question, and the answer, I agree, was worded quite poorly. Had Obama said, it's to help pay in part programs like this $700 billion+ bailout plan, that may have been more realistic. He just needs a stock response that doesn't sound too distant or political. Regardless...

The fact that it came up in the debate, multiple times, in the way that it came up, was surprising. I can understand McCain attempting to turn "Joe the Plumber" into some sort of icon to turn the larger conversation to tax policy and perspective. The problem with doing this is that you have to make sure your icon actually stands for what you are purporting him to be. I remember thinking as the debate was going on that it would be funny if Joe the Plumber wasn't even a plumber. And, as it turns out, I was semi-right. At least the 24/7 media had something new to report about.

According to the USA Today article, and about every other valid article written on the subject, Joe the Plumber turns out to not be the sad story he purports to be. In many respects, it is totally irrelevant that he isn't really a plumber, but aspires to be one, has not completed his Ohio apprenticeship to be licensed, and has a lien on his house for failing to pay state income taxes. It's no wonder Joe the Plumber doesn't want the government to get involved with the average Joe (or him), he owes them money!

So maybe Joe isn't the best representative of the average Joe or small business owner. Maybe, in some respects, his thoughts are indicative of a greater concern with paying higher taxes. But it's conjecture and speculation. Further, it doesn't even effect him since his taxes will remain the same under either candidate. I appreciate the concern, but the fact he was trying to speak on behalf of a constituency he was not part of merely demonstrates that the media (and this time, the RNC) picked the wrong horse to hang their hat on. Had they done a minimum amount of research before giving their candidate a green light to use him to attempt to martyr the other side's tax plan, the debaters certainly would not have spent as much time as they did glorifying this guy, who turns out to be a tax evader.

So, was Joe the plumber the real winner? If by the fact you mean that the government of the State of Ohio will get their money, then yes. He's certainly getting his 15 minutes of fame, whether he likes it or not. But he shouldn't blame anyone on this unwanted spotlight other than the media (in part) and McCain, for bringing it up in the debate the way he did.

Tags: joe the plumber not a plumber, joe the plumber

Read more!

Some thoughts on big government

For a quick jump at humor, I note that I still am getting humorous comments to my thoughts on this Obama citizenship lawsuit. Today's thoughts, however, turn back to the economy for a moment.

Last week the Congress passed, and the President signed into law a massive "bailout" (or "rescue", depending on how you spin it) plan to save the planet, or economy, if you will. At this point, the problem has become self-perpetuating, and the governments of the world, all of them really, are being forced to react. Whether this is good or bad is beside the question; it's going to happen and the free market is going to have to respond. So far, it doesn't seem to like it very much, or, at the very least, the housing bubble burst a little bigger than anyone thought it was going to. But hey, I'm not an economist, so what do I know.

What I do know is that McCain's suggestion that the government should now buy up people's bad mortgages and allow people to keep their homes is fiscally irresponsible, for several reasons, of which I will explain only one. The question at the town hall meeting was: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?

First, Obama's answer was not very good. So what? It was good enough to show that he has at least given some thought on the issue, and more importantly, McCain's answer was far worse. And if that's McCain's stance on this issue, he deserves to lose. I'll be curious as to whether the exit polls next month have people voting for Obama, not so much for him, but simply against McCain.

The bottom line is that the economy has no realistic chance of recovering over the next 30 days, which essentially means that Obama will win this election. Personally, I think this may be a good thing for the country overall, but I will have to wait to see how good or bad the economy is four years from now before making a final decision on the merits. I rarely use this type of language, but McCain's answer is SCARY. Meaning, it is scary for everybody who makes or wants to make money (that is, everyone). At this point, my time to sit on the fence of this issue is over. Obama will get my vote. (Not that mine will make a difference in the electoral scheme of things).

Here is McCain's scary response, in full:

"Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful. It's our job to fix the problem.

Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very -- like us very much. We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today.

We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?

We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.

I know how the do that, my friends. And it's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you."

What scares me about this response is the level of government involvement it implies. Government can renegotiate private contracts? What is this, communist China? And where was this idea last week when the Senate was forcing their rescue bill into the House's tied hands? What is scary is that McCain seems to have abandoned all principle and reason to score a political point. This is not good judgment. And I have convinced myself, after living through Clinton's sexual revolution debacles and this Iraq war that still seems to be me based on the premise that the end justifies the means, that we need a leader with good judgment.

What scares me more is the fiscal price tag to such a proposal. Now, this wouldn't be scary too much, except for McCain's other comments that he doesn't want to raise taxes. On that issue, in addition to the italicized portion above, McCain added this insight into his economic prowess:

"So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000.

To giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for. And let's create jobs and let's get our economy going again. And let's not raise anybody's taxes."

These positions are irreconcilable. He says to freeze government spending, save defense, Veterans' Affairs, and "some other vital programs", which is Washington wishy washy nonsense for "everything else." At least Obama tells you that taxes are going up for some people, and in reality, for everyone. The government, and the country, cannot function without everyone sacrificing a little bit. Because of the nature of this particular crisis, that sacrifice will have to come from the wallet.

Now, I agree that there are probably a lot of wasteful programs that could be cut and eliminated completely and that may save the deficit a bit. Similarly, if the IRS went after everyone who didn't pay their legal share of taxes, we probably wouldn't be in debt at all. The problem with both candidates is that they are in favor of big government and government rescuing the ordinary people. The last I checked, most everyone is capable of handling these problems with only minimal assistance, be it from their parents or whoever.

The next four years is going to be bad for us all economically. I would hate to throw another terrorist attack or war into the mix and see how that would drag us down further. The leadership our country needs, however, isn't with a bunch of pipe dreams and mud slinging over who voted for what when and why. It's all about the economy and how we can start fixing it. McCain's plan is economically unworkable, even from a liberal Democratic standard. In fact, it's so liberal, I'm surprised the core of his party aren't rolling over in their graves.

When both candidates propose massive government spending and support the type of government interference that is, admittedly, probably necessary at this point, I am unable to distinguish which one is the Republican candidate and which is the Democrat. The fact that the Republican is advocating for the same principles that his party is rooted against only continues to reiterate my belief that we are not a two party system. And if both candidates are really just spinning the same side of one coin to try and get it to land closer to them, I think this really comes down to whose economic plan and persona will better lead our country out of these financial doldrums and back into some sort of good graces. Unfortunately for us Republicans out there, or at least those who somewhat identify more with the principles of that party, this isn't going to be our year.

But, I am more than willing to read or discuss the reasons why or why I am not right or wrong. Next time, if I remember (or when I get back from this next upcoming trip across the country), I will write a commentary regarding why students who are borrowing money better hit the books if they want to get a good loan rate. I know that if I were a lender right now, I would be renegotiating my future interest rates to be dependent on the average graduate income from that school. Business-wise, it makes great sense. Of course, if you're a slacker, you better change those habits quick.

Tags: mccain's economic plan, taxes are going to be raised under mccain's plan, taxes are going to be raised under obama's plan, this election is over

Read more!

Things for a clerk to negotiate when weighing their post-clerkship options

Obviously there are a lot of things to consider after you have your post-clerkship job lined up, but here are two to give serious thought to: start date and payment of the clerkship bonus (if any).

Most of the clerks I know were able to get a start date sometime 4-6-8 weeks after the end of the clerkship and probably 3/4 were able to get their clerkship bonus either in full or in part upon completion of their clerkship. The latter is good if you are planning to take some time off (highly recommended by the way) in between the clerkship and the new job. Obviously these are outliers; we all know some firms don't pay a clerkship bonus, or pay their bonus after the first year of working; other firms want you to start right away, and you may want to start right away. In general, however, these two things seemed pretty easy to negotiate, and I would be willing to bet that most firms are more than willing to work with you to ensure you are rested and ready to go by the time you start.

Also, don't forget to factor in the time it takes to move - it's a much bigger pain in the ass then you may initially think. Add another week after you plan on moving in case you aren't sure.

And for those starting off clerking (or have already started), now is the time to start looking for that post-clerkship job (assuming you aren't looking for a second (or third) clerkship. In a lot of ways, you are on the same schedule as a third year law student, and competing against them just the same (with obvious benefits - bar passage (when it comes), clerkship, general coolness, etc.).

Tags: clerkship bonus, start date after clerkship

Read more!

The VP Debate, or why the cable media is continuing to distort common perceptions

I watched the debate with some moderate interest last night, not because it was a debate between the vice presidential candidates, but because it was the first and only live uninterrupted and unedited coverage of the choices the candidates had made. After the first twenty minutes of the debate, it became clear (to me anyway) that the Democrats have the stronger ticket by far.

It's not that Sarah Palin did a bad job, I would agree with the general perception that she exceeded expectations. But the fact that the McCain campaign (or more likely, the left and right media) had driven the public's perception of her to the point that expectations were low continues to baffle me. Setting strategy aside, I looked at it from a legal perspective, as if both were testifying and the moderator was the examiner.

At least in the beginning and for the most part, Biden answered each question pointedly and with specific examples, as one would expect a lawyer to do. Palin, on the other hand, either did not answer the question, would answer a totally different question on what seemed to be a rehearsed topic, and could not refute any of the points (right or wrong, I don't know), that Biden was making. Certainly when it came to foreign policy and the governments in the middle east (and admittedly, I know very little on this area), it seemed that Biden had a firm understanding of what was going on and Palin seemed to ramble.

But more than that, Palin's responses were substantively empty or nonresponsive. Even my non-lawyer friends would agree with that. Without at least a firm understanding of her candidate's policies (or the party's), I was left with the distinct feeling that confirmed my initial suspicions that Palin was picked not for her political prowess, but for mere political reasons. And if that is indeed why she was picked, then the Republican party deserves to lose. But with both McCain and Obama in favor of big government and bailing out private businesses from the mistakes of their executives and clients, I'm not sure whether there really is a republican party even still in existence. Whatever emerges from this mess and unification of the two party system, if anything, would only be in its conceptual stages at this point, and I need not speculate on it further at this time.

This race has never been about Republicans or Democrats; it's about the direction of this country and whether we should continue down the same path for another four or eight years. Because the Republicans are in power, this is an incredible hill to climb. I remain convinced that Obama will win the election, in part because of his charisma, but more so because he is drawing different numbers and demographics (the college-age, mostly) than any previous Democratic contender. See generally my March thoughts on the electoral map. His choice of Biden semi-cuts against this message, but less so than any other candidate, and it was clear after watching the debate that Biden was the superior choice in the matter. I'm sure at some point McCain wondered about his choice regarding a McCain-Kerry ticket, as did many others in fact, but that bridge certainly went nowhere fast.

Anyway, as a "juror" on the vp debate jury, I think Biden made his case for his guy and Palin did not make hers for hers. That's all it was about. But in watching some of the cable shows yesterday, I have to make one additional comment on this process before I begin to think about how I am going to continue to follow this political process.

I have decided that, notwithstanding my previous six months or so of following cable news, it's time to stop watching it. For example, I have liked the O'Reilly Factor and have tried to watch the first segment when I can. For the most part, I believe that O'Reilly is probably the least biased of all the nightly cable news people, although he certainly is to the right of the neutral mid-line. Is he a good reporter though? I don't think so, especially after watching last night's rant against Rep. Frank. See video and discussion here, or here. Assuming reporters are supposed to get to their point quickly and efficiently, as soon as I heard O'Reilly tell the interviewee "that is bs, blah blah blah" my ears turned off. I know that I was taught that if I was cross-examining someone and lost my cool, I would lose the case. Certainly that happened for my opinion of O'Reilly and my constant defending of his show after that interview.

So that there is no dispute over my position on the cable news media, I have developed a continuum for the left to right bias: Far right (Hannity of Hannity and Colmes) - Mid right (O'Reilly) - Mid (David Gergen, CNN political commentator) - Left (Chris Matthews, Hardball), Far left (Keith Olbermann of Countdown). Sometimes I will watch Hannity to offset Keith Olbermann, but I really can't watch either for very long. I balance O'Reilly with Anderson Cooper. I heard morning Joe is good, but haven't seen it; I rarely watch Lou Dobbs but he's sort of between O'Reilly and the middle; the new Rachel Maddow show I haven't watched nor plan to, and Glenn Beck, after reading his book, may be further right than all of them.

After watching some of the quick political spin immediately after the debate, I have concluded that the cable news media is the core reason behind the perpetuation of a nationwide desire for 24/7 news. See generally my earlier thoughts on the media's distain for economic success. I did flip over to ABC, CBS, and NBC briefly after the debate and they seemed much calm about speculating on who won and who lost, so maybe I should just stick to the evening news and be done with it. Whatever I decide, I am going to make a conscious effort, and like television (save the Office and Lost, and a couple of other shows), I am simply going to turn it off. After spending three years in law school and another year clerking, the last thing I need is for some doofy television personality to tell me how I should interpret something I just saw. And since I suspect most of the general public has the same dislike of patronage, I am willing to bet that once the discussion over the vice presidential debate calms down (likely today), the rest of the country will shift its focus back on the major issues, particularly the pending recession.

The more interesting point, and I suppose this will have to wait for four years, is how the next president will be able to deliver on the promise for change without stalling out the economy. I predict a massive overhauling of the tax code to start. The current tax code became outdated about ten years ago.

Tags: o'reilly barney frank debacle, o'reilly interview with barney frank, vice presidential debate, biden wins debate, the dumbing of america with 24-7 media

Read more!

Is the media being too hard on Palin? Or being less hard on McCain?

Certainly, this debate is going to be heavily scrutinized and spun in ten different directions for the next few days, if not the next month. Setting aside any worthless speculation on that issue, I think I have figured out at least one underlying reason why Gov. Palin has been such a draw to the media (other than the sheer novelty of her selection). Notwithstanding who may have started the phrase, the idea that Gov. Palin is "one heartbeat away" from being president distinguishes her from every other vice presidential candidate. But is it that her selection draws unnecessary emphasis on McCain's age or does it take attention away from McCain himself? I suggest that it's the latter. Whether this strategy is good or bad remains to be seen.

On the one hand, there is all this nonsense talk about the need for experience to be vice president and everybody (that is, everybody except those who have actually been president or v.p.) thinks they know what it takes to be president (or vice president). I say forget about this actual experience question all together. Experience is important, for sure, but as I've said all along, success lies in the decision making process. We need to stop being so results-oriented, particularly since economic change takes at least a decade, if not two. I'm not sure how to begin to tackle that nationwide mentality, though, and it is being exacerbated by the media, so what can any one person really do?

My point to all of this is that it seems that Gov. Palin has shifted everyone's focus from the actual presidential race, or she has minimally changed it to be a referendum on Palin's experience v. Obama's experience. This change is silly: the race isn't Palin v. Obama; however, it's McCain v. Obama. I have stopped being amazed at how everyone on the news seems to have forgotten that. Maybe another thousand point drop on the market will do so. Of course, with both McCain and Obama in favor of big government, maybe the focus should be on the vice presidents, just not to the snippy degree at which they are currently.

A good example of the unfocused attention Gov. Palin is getting is with the Supreme Court case question that Katie Couric threw out at her the other day. While a lawyer is probably aware of any of a dozen or more headliner United States Supreme Court cases in the last century or two (including the most recent second amendment case), the lack of being able to answer this jeopardy question should not be held against Gov. Palin.

To the best of my knowledge, she has had no legal education. If you were to ask someone running for some state office the same question, I'm sure Roe v. Wade would be in the top 3 or 5 cases that would be answered. McCain, who is actually running for president, certainly would have been able to rattle off a couple of cases and nobody would have stirred at the question. Which brings me back to my point.

Is the media being less critical of McCain as a result of Palin? And more importantly, is this shift in focus good or bad for the country? I'll have to give this some thought as the two vice presidential candidates spar it out. Maybe the candidates will be asked something important, such as how their candidate plans on preventing the next banking collapse, or why exactly this affects "joe six pack," who probably has no idea about how those mavericks on Wall Street are impacting their retirement lifestyle.

Tags: palin v. biden

Read more!