SamSaid!

SUMMER

     The 2004 baseball World Series is now underway and the games offer a delighful respite from the constant campaigning for the Presidency. I was born in a family baseball environment at a time when the World series was the sporting highlight of the year. My Dad was a good player and also managed the local team for a few years in which I learned the game as a batboy and scorekeeper. Baseball was always known as a summer game  — as a matter of fact one of the best baseball books ever written was entitled, “The Boys of Summer”. Now the 154 game season has been extended, playoffs have ben added, and TV is in command of the post season scheduling. Baseball starts in the early spring with frost on the grass and ends just a few weeks short of Thanksgiving. It really isn't fun to sit all bundled up for 4+ hours to watch a baseball game at 40-45 degrees.

      Anyone who has played the game knows that baseball is a warm weather sport. Throwing and catching a baseball in cold weather is like tossing a rock back and forth. And it is easy to get pulled muscles or other injuries in colder weather. Somehow, it doesn't seem right that baseball draws to an end when the football season is 2 months underway. TV has its place, but it shouldn't dictate the playing of the World series. There are many things awry in baseball, but I won't start down that path. Let it suffice to say that a summer sport played in the summer is much better than stretching the season into 7 months. Snowballs, bone-chilling rain and ice patches just are not in tune with baseball.

     If the Redsox win, maybe they will be called the Boys of Autumn.

MISTAKES

     Much has been made over George Bush's refusal to admit to mistakes. Has he made mistakes?   Sure! Even as a Bush supporter I would say, “Yes, he has made mistakes”. Admitting that he has been wrong on occasion might be an act of courage or contrition. But imagine the feeding frenzy of the left-wing Bush haters of he were to do so. Can't you just imagine the juices flowing in Terry McAuliffe and the editorialists and commentators of the mass media —  “Bush admits to major blunders”. Or worse.

     I like to put matters in a proper perspective. Did FDR admit to a mistake in the failure to give advance warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Or did John Kennedy admit to a mistake in the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco?  Not hardly. Take Jimmy Carter  — a fundamentsally decent man. Did he admit to a mistake in sending an expedition to its death in the ill-designed rescue mission intended to free the hostages held in Iran? Not that I recall. And,  there was no media lynch mob looking for Carter.  

      For George Bush to publicly acknowledge a mistake woud be about like throwing a full grown salmon into a pool of piranhas. The feeding frenzy would make the water boil. Often times in a civil setting, errors in judgment are offered when gracious acceptances are given in response. Not with the salivating left wingers. If George Bush makes 10 decisions and nine are good ones, the results are swept aside by the tenth decision as long as there is a basis for any kind of criticism. Disagreement with a decision doesn't make it a mistake. Difference of opinion, yes. Mistake?  No.

     If I were in GW's position, I would concede nothing in the face of rabid, irrational opposition. Would you?? Oh yes, has Kerry admitted to a mistake in turning his back on his Vietnam war vets??

BIN LADEN

     The campaign rhetoric continues to amaze me. Kerry keeps up the George Bush criticism that Bin Laden was cornered by US Special Service troops and we let him get away. Kerry says that Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora and we turned over the hunt to Afghani war lords who let him escape. The insinuation is that the warlords were less than skilled or dedicated and that we couldn't be sure whose side they were on. Conclusion: George Bush's fault.

    Both Kerry and Edwards were members of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the years following 9/11. Dick Cheney chaired that Committee. During that period, any number of Intelligence Committee meetings included confidential agenda items about the whereabouts and search for Bin Laden. Both Kerry and Edwards were absent from 70% of the meetings of that Committee. Not 50%  –  70%. Does that strike you as being Presidential? Or as being a wartime leader? Or conscientiously representing your constituency? With that kind of track record, it is a bit sanctimonious for Kerry to pontificate about letting Bin Laden “get away”. But in a larger sense it is understandable that Kerry wouldn't know too much about the search from Bin Laden since he didn't even bother to show up at most of the Intel meetings.    Kerry has yet to comment on his own absentee record. Wonder why??

    The more I think about it, maybe the Senate Intelligence Committee functioned better with Kerry and Edwards being absent. Just a thought.

EVASIVE

     Last time, I chided Mr Kerry in Debate #3 for evading s direct question from Bob Schiefer about flu shots  — and Schiefer let him get away with it. But Geo Bush did the same thing. His direct question related to the minimum wage, and he spent all of his time talking about education. Schiefer was useless again. That's why the term “debate” is laughable. Wouldn't it be fun to allow the candidates to go at each other  — face to face  — and actually debate? Not a chance  — the handlers of both men prepared 5-6 scripts with the instuction to make those pitches regardless of the questions trhat were posed. And thus the farce unfolded..

     For all voters, it would have been much more instructive to allow Kerry and Bush to really debate  what to do about Social Security. Most Americans (regrettably) think that they really DO have a Social Security account, while the truth is that their current contributions come in the front door at the Treasury Department and immediately go out the back door to pay current recipients. They have zero  — nada  — nothing, except a promise. Demographics say that within several years, the outflow of dollars will greatly exceed the inflow  – meaning that balancing the cash flow will be a serious crisis. Bush says he would privatize a portion of Social Security taxes  — on a voluntary basis. Kerry says he will NOT privatize any part of Social Security. So what does he propose  – if anything?

     This is not just an academic exercise. The status quo is admittedly unacceptable. So the very real question continues  — what should we do? I think that a frank exchange of ideas and proposals would have been very revealing about the two candidates. But Schiefer didn't ask the question or pursue the issue.

     When I think about my 401K and IRA, I am very impressed with the idea of personal savings  — as contrasted to a government program based on questionable premises and promises that ignore the harsh realities of economics. What do we do  — cut the benefits, extend the age of retirement further, or raise taxes  — or maybe all three?? I'd love to hear the 2004 candidates debate the matter when their feet are held to the fire and they can't run and hide. . Fat chance  – Kerry won't come within 20 years of touching  Social Security.

     This isn't Boston's Bunker Hill. It's more like Mt. McKinley. And Kerry just pretends it isn't there. The issue isn't simple  — but ignoring it and doing nothing about it won't solve anything. Don't hold your breath if Kerry wins.

THE ECONOMY

     As a former debater, I enjoyed the enchanges between Kerry and Bush. Actually, they weren't debates, they were just two guys delivering well rehearsed speeches in response to unrelated questions. You know, “ask any question you like, and I'll give you my prepared answer on my subject”  Bob Schiefer asked a question about flu shots, which Geo Bush answered. In his turn, Kerry went on and on for his 90 seconds and never came within a country mile of flu shots. Never even mentioned them. Debate?? Not quite.

     I wonder who is giving advice to Bush and Kerry on these weighty questions. .On the state of the Economy, especially Prez Bush. Is it so tough to outline the health of the Economy?

     .  The rate of inflation is low.  Good news

     .  Interest rates are very low.  Good news

     .  Unemployment at 5.4% is low– lower than in the Clinton years.  Good News

     .  Mortgage rates are low.  Good news

     . Home ownership is at an all time high.  Good news

     . More American are actively at work than ever before. Good news

     .  The economy igrowing at 4.5 – 5% per year.  Good news

     Kerry rides one number  — the claim of the loss of jobs over the past 3 years  –  using payroll data that omit 1.5  – 2 million Americans who work out of their homes and do not appear in payroll statistics. I think the state of the economy is a “good news” message for Geo Bush, and a few simple uncomplicated numbers tell the story very well.

DEBATE

     John Kerry is a good pitch man. To his supporters, he is articulate; to his non-supporters, he is glib. Either way, he is a word merchant who is comfortable in the environment of debate. He did well last week.

     Debate is an interesting forum and I speak from first hand experience. I remember when the Debate Profs asked us to argue BOTH sides of an issue, and graded us on both sides. That's why John Kerry is a natural. And by the way, our issues were not softball pitches  –  like capital punishment, abortion, age limit on drinking,  compulsory military training, and movie ratings.

     There is a huge difference between debating and decision making. That's where I have a problem with Kerry. Not just a problem, several problems.

     First of all, Kerry is in love with the vertical pronoun. I  –  I  –  I–, on and on. Not a good sign. I think he has a tough time getting from I to we. I guess he figures that if he is elected, Congress will just go away.

    Second, Kerry has a very soft record on defense. Over the past 10-15 years he has consistently voted against major bills that would have upgraded our military programs. If he now has become a hawk, it must be a chicken hawk. I am not comforted by his obvious vacillations about Iraq  — where he has both supported and opposed the war, and has both voted for and against war measures. His track record on defense is highly suspect. Or, maybe that is just an indication of debating skills. He can have it both ways. He's never wrong, just misunderstood. Sure!

     Third, and possibly the most important, he is far too “internationalzed” for my tastes. Presumably he thinks that he can flip a switch, call his friend Jacque Chirac, bring in those big UN tigers, hold a big meeting, invite the terrorists, and make a deal to end the fanatical bombings and attacks.  Oh, and also delay making decisions pending the satisfactory “solution” to these global terrorist problems. He thinks that the terroists are a misguided bunch of ragheads that can easily be controlled if not converted to civilized behavior. He just refuses to see a world wide war for what it is.

     What better a forum for Kerry than the UN? There he can display his debating skills while seeking still another empty resolution. As Rome learned, Nero “fiddled while Rome burned”.

     Debating enables you to have it both ways. That's where debating and decision making part company. When push comes to shove, Kerry is a debater. That's not good enough for me.