Oh the things you learn. I never knew, for example, that Mike Bloomberg settled a sexual harrassment suit back in 2000. And I never knew that Bloomberg was such an allegedly bad sexual harrasser. I mean, c’mon.
Comments attributed in the suit to Bloomberg include: “I’d f___ that in a second,” “I’d like to do that,” and “That’s a great piece of a–.”
Once, according to the suit, Bloomberg pointed out a young female employee and told Garrison, “If you looked like that, I would do you in a second.”
Maybe it’s just me, but don’t those alleged statements sound kind of like what the Steve Carrell character in “The 40 Year Old Virgin” would say?
Jim: What’s truly disturing is that Bloomberg followed up that last comment with, “eh, you know what? You don’t, but I’ll do you anyway.”
Kidding.
I hope.
I couldn’t agree more with Patrick Ruffini’s reaction to the news that one or more of the leading Republican candidates for Presidents are planning to skip the September 17 CNN / YouTube debate.
What the heck are they afraid of? Interacting with real Americans?
The questions offered for Democrats at their YouTube forum were generally excellent. Many were clever and creative. But importantly, they got at issues that are central to our country. Compare that with Chris Matthews or another big media moderator, and the YouTube crowd comes off looking great.
Governor Romney doesn’t think taking questions from a snowman is befitting of the President? Has he been outside of his bubble lately?
Communications and, indeed, our whole society are becoming more conversational — more side-to-side and less top down. Romney and the rest of the Republican field need to learn this lesson and act accordingly. The age of communicating through the Beltway elite — Mark Halperin’s Gang of 500 — is over. Gone for good.
Among the Republican field, only Senator Fred Thompson seems to have grasped the opportunities that the online world offers and the way it has altered how we all communicate with one another. Ron Paul, through no discernible strategy of his own, seems to be benefitting from it.
And if Republican candidates aren’t prepared to learn this lesson on their own, voters will be glad to educate them at the polls next year.
So, to the candidates: stop complaining and show up. If you’re afraid to have a conversation with the American people, you’re not the candidate that the American people want on the job.
Jim: Yeah, I’m underwhelmed by the arguments that the Republicans shouldn’t do it. Because the questions might be stupid, unfair, biased, partisan, or suckerpunches? Folks, not only did we have Chris Matthews moderate a debate, Keith Olbermann anchored it. The Politico offered questions from readers including, “what do you hate about America?” Hello? Barn door open, horse gone.
What, the questions are “beneath the office of the presidency”? What, are you running for Queen or something? Cowboy the @#&$ up, you pansies.
If it’s a stupid question, say so. Follow the Gingrich model: Asked by a snotty teen at an MTV forum whether he wears “Boxers or briefs?” responds, “That is a very stupid question, and it’s stupid for you to ask that question.” The only way it could have been better is if he made the little punk cry.
For Pete’s sake, wouldn’t we love to see a Republican candidate respond to a 9/11 “Truth”er? (I suspect if Anderson Cooper tried the usual “your questioner was in the audience here tonight” schtick with that question on Rudy Giuliani, Rudy would jump into the audience and kick his ass himself. “Give me a minute, Anderson, I need a minute to stick a broomstick where the sun don’t shine.”)
Good example - Entry 2,944 asks, “Since you are a Mormon, a certain percentage of your salary goes to the Mormon Church. Now, there’s a conflict of interest there, if you are elected president, that means taxpayer dollars will go to the Mormon church by people who didn’t vote for you. What do you think about that?”
I think this man is a moron. Once a president, or any other government employee is paid their salary, they’re entitled to spend or donate it anyplace they like. The suggestion that Romney or any other presidential candidate tithing a portion of their income to his or her church is somehow a “conflict of interest” suggests that the questioner is supremely misinformed, and/or just has a beef with Mormons.
If you own, train, or ride thoroughbred horses, that’s the first rule. Horses are wonderful animals. They have personalities. They have heart. They are born to run. But sometimes they get hurt or sick, and sometimes they die.
Unfortunately, America didn’t know the rule, and last spring, we fell in love with a horse called Barbaro. But we weren’t the first to fall. This extraordinary article in Vanity Fair recounts Barbaro’s story from the inside — through the eyes of the owners, trainers, doctors and jockeys who helped hone him into a Kentucky Derby champion, and then tried to save his life after his devastating injury at the Preakness.
The problem for Gretchen Jackson was she did fall in love with a horse. She fell in love with him because when he was in his element on the racecourse there were moments he ran with such joy and abandon that he actually flew, all four feet off the ground. She fell in love with him because of the way he soldiered on after he was tragically hurt in the Preakness Stakes in May 2006, his sense of self so intact that he bit one veterinarian smack on the butt and ran a masseuse out of the stall. She fell in love with him because of the gleam in his eyes, still bright, during those dark days in July 2006 when both his rear lower limbs became a medical nightmare, and she wrote in the private journal she kept:
It’s not good. Oh my God I am so concerned. Dear Lord we cannot let the bright light fade, flicker, die. We must conquer. Where are you God in my suffering? Are you holding my hands showing me full moons and breezy nights? Yes Lord, they are magnificent but my heart is looking at Barbaro. That is not the horse that won the derby.
She fell in love with him because of the way he was trying to communicate, Don’t give up on me yet. She fell in love with him because of the way he rallied after that. And then she fell in love with him because of the way he died.
Barbaro’s trainers fell in love too. And his doctors. And they gave Barbaro a level care far beyond what most horses could expect.
The Vanity Fair story includes a number of revelations, including the degree to which the media put a positive spin on Barbaro’s condition, even as he struggled.
But more amazing is the degree to which Barbaro made it clear that he wanted to live and how he demonstrated through his personality that he wanted his doctors to succeed. He reveled in the comforts of his owner and trainer. And he fought. Fought hard.
Some might say that this was all false perception. That Barbaro’s human companions were merely projecting, seeking out human behavior in an animal. But anyone who has been around animals knows better. You can see hope, illness and despair. You can see it in their eyes and in their demeanor.
Thoroughbred horses are the world’s greatest athletes. And just like human athletes, it’s often that intangible, “heart,” that makes the difference between winning and losing. There are dozens of accounts of horses running side by side, when one realizes it is beaten, and simply fades back. There are even accounts of horses, beaten in tight races, out dueled to the finish, who literally never recover.
Barbaro had heart. He was tough. And he was special. It’s a tragedy that his body couldn’t keep pace with that heart. He would have been a champion for the ages.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that “Political ad-makers Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, veterans of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, on Monday emailed the new campaign manager — lobbyist and longtime McCain adviser Rick Davis — to say that they were quitting.”
I had the pleasure of briefly sharing some office space with Schriefer and Stevens many years ago. I’m certain they don’t remember me, but I sure remember them. They were creative and smart, and they were outstanding campaign strategists. Since then, they have established themselves as leading ad men on the Republican side of the aisle. They were essential to President Bush’s victory in 2000 and his re-election in 2004. And they are constantly in demand to work on the biggest races for Congress, U.S. Senate and Governor.
Now, they are free agents and Senator McCain is without their creativity and insight.
It’s the final nail in the coffin for Senator McCain’s campaign. The constellation of stars that he assembled is now completely gone. His campaign is financially and politically bankrupt. Senator McCain has made himself an anathema in his own party.
Over at RedState, Krempasky wrote recently that he would love to support Senator McCain — for re-election to the U.S. Senate. That sounds about right to me. But whether he stays in the Senate or not, it’s time for Senator McCain to end his Presidential campaign and maintain at least a shred of grace and dignity.
I am sitting in an airport, which has installed a television in the waiting area, and permanently tuned it to CNN. A moment ago, I caught a promo for a feature on later tonight that puts the spotlight on the horrible practice of dogfighting.
Perhaps that’s the one good thing that will come from the Vick story. Maybe, thanks to the publicity, a few more people will be disgusted and a few more dog fighting rings broken up. And just maybe, a few of the dogs that died horrible deaths on Vick’s property, allegedly at the hands of Vick and his co-conspirators, will have given their lives to help put an end to this abhorrent undertaking.
Here’s hoping…
Jim’s note: If you haven’t already, you may want to read the original 9 with 90 proposal and Marshall’s response and analysis.
Wow. Fifty-six comments, as of this writing, by far the biggest feedback we’ve gotten on this sporadically-updated site. (I know, I know, Daily Kos gets fifty-six comments just by clearing his throat before wishing death to American contractors in Iraq.) Here’s a bit of further thoughts, reacting to people’s reactions.
By the way, it’s entirely possible that nothing will come of this list, but at least one close advisor to a Republican presidential candidate wrote me to say he liked the list. Then again, this guy may have been flattering me to try to get better coverage on the Campaign Spot…
1. A Prepared Citizenry of “Minutemen”: Some folks contend that CPR, first aid, and firearms safety courses are best done in the private sector. I’ll largely concur, but perhaps there is a governmental role in making sure that anyone who wants to participate in these courses can find one – even if it’s a national database or web site helping people find where these classes are available. If Yahoo can tell me the closest pizzeria, it’s technologically possible to do the same for teachers of these skills.
I’d also say that the government does have a role in encouraging this sort of training and preparation on the part of ordinary citizens. If the President says to the American people, “one of your duties in this war on terror is to be prepared to respond in a crisis,” I think the vast majority of the American people will say, “Finally, a way to help out! Where do I sign on?” Of course there are ways to take these courses and classes now, but the government can help figure out if there are places where demand for this instruction is outpacing the supply of teachers and if necessary, seed grant money. I’d like to make these classes and courses free, or at least minimal cost, to those who take it.
Even if you’re not comfortable with the idea of firing a gun to defend yourself and others, as one of our commenters noted, it would not hurt to take a safety course to how to safely handle, neutralize, and unload a gun.
Jim’s post last week articulating 11 ideas that, he hoped, could attract support from 90 percent or more of conservatives and / or Republicans, was amazing. It was well considered and well presented. It’s taken me a week to respond only because I aspired — fruitlessly I suspect — to offer a response of equal thoughtfulness.
In this post, I try to respond to Jim’s offering as well as the thoughts of some of our commenters. (By the way, I would remiss if I didn’t thank the raft of folks who graced us with their thoughts on insights. I very much hope that you’ll continue to visit On Tap and contribute to our dialogue.)
Responding to Jim
First, broadly, I really think Jim is onto something. It’s impossible to build or rebuild a movement without ideas, and in particular, a set of ideas that bring us together. The Democrats have illustrated this rather well over the last fifteen years. It was only when they united behind their hatred for President Bush that they ultimately prevailed.
It seems to me that the ideas must accomplish two objectives. First, they must genuinely further the conservative philosophy. Second, they must be winners at the polls. In other words, we’re looking for ideas that bring us together while equipping us with a message that will attract voters’ support.
Finally, a history lesson. Jim’s work was based on the idea of the Contract with America. It’s worth recalling that the Contract included a handful of big, bold core principles with a wealth of detailed policy proposals. But it’s significance in the 1994 elections is almost always overstated. We should use it for a model only insofar as it accomplished the goals that I’ve set forth.
WIth that in mind, let me address Jim’s ideas in order:
Padraig Harrington takes the Gold Medal and the designation “Champion Golfer of the Year” at the Open Championship in Carnoustie, Scotland. Rory McIlroy, the 17 year old Irish amateur, takes the Silver Medal for Low Amateur. It’s hard to imagine a better day, ever, for Irish golf. There’s only been one other Open Champion from Ireland, and that was generations ago in 1947. I suspect that tonight, there are more than a few pints of Guiness being raised in pubs across Ireland and around the world to the great champion, Harrington, and the young amateur who holds so much promise.
That no one is issuing bulletins to the Associated Press about my colon.
Jim: Hey, is nobody else grateful that we finally get to see President Cheney? Yup. For a few hours, it’s the Cheney Administration. Watch your back, Iran.
On Tuesday, a federal grand jury in Richmond, Virginia handed down an indictment against Michael Vick. The indictment alleges some of the most inhumane behavior imaginable, and if Vick is found guilty, I’m rooting for serious time.
If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that I’m a dog owner and dog lover. You may also have picked up that I am pretty big fan of animals generally.
On a philosophical level, I believe strongly that the way we treat animals reflects our humanity or lack thereof. It also reveals, I think, the central truths of our individual natures.
Vick and his cohorts allegedly conspired to create a criminal enterprise dedicated to and premised on animal cruelty. According to the indictment, Vick purchased the property in Surry County, Virginia with the explicit notion in mind of training and fighting dogs. He allegedly abused his own dogs, killing puppies by drowning, hanging and beating on more than one occasion. He and his co-conspirators allegedly went to great lengths to turn the most aggressive and energetic puppies from lovable balls of fur, intent only on their next meal and curling up with their litter mates, into hyper-aggressive, fighting machines bent on destruction and death.
What does this say about Michael Vick, assuming, with caution against committing libel in mind, that he committed the acts directed at him in the indictment?
To me, it suggests that he is a cruel and violent person who holds little value for life. The conspiracy which he allegedly led suggests that he is willing to go to extremes in premeditation and planning to carry out wanton acts of cruelty and violence. To me, this is precisely the kind of person who ought to be removed from society and set behind bars.
UPDATE: On this morning’s Mike & Mike show on ESPN radio, former University of Kentucky football coach Bill Curry summed it up succinctly. Assuming the allegations are true, he said, “This is about killing. Period.”
Jim: My thought on Vick after reading some articles is an incredulous bewhilderment at the ingratitude demonstrated in Vick’s actions.
You’re probably going, “Huh?” Let me explain. We all are given gifts in this life, some more obvious than others. Vick has been blessed with extraordinary athletic ability. He’s given a chance to play not just the most popular sport in the country, professional football, but a chance to be a leader of men, the face of a franchise, the opportunity to become a legend as a quarterback. He’s playing in a sports-crazy part of the country, with a fan base eager to see him succeed. He has achieved financial security in a way few of us can imagine with his contracts and numerous endorsement deals with some of the biggest companies in the country - Coca-Cola, EA Sports, Kraft Foods, Hasbro, AirTran. Nike puts together a commercial called “The Michael Vick Experience,” explicitly declaring to the world, he is not merely a player, but a phenomenon.
And how does he spend his free time? Allegedly training and watching dogs kill each other.
To invert Churchill’s grateful comment at the Battle of Britain, never has so much been so squandered on one ingrate.
If he’s guilty, I’ve got a simple sentence: Fight one of those abused dogs.