RUDY GIULIANI: FRIEND OF MONTECITO?

The Average Man didn't think too much about Rudy Giuliani's fund raising trip to Montecito. That quickly changed, however, when I read this article from the Montecito Journal. Specifically, it was the following teaser that caught my attention:

There is plenty of money in Montecito, and anyone who believes there is little Republican strength in what many see as a decidedly Democrat-leaning community, some serious rethinking may be in order.

That got me thinking ... Is this true? Is Montecito a Democrat-leaning community? As someone who Treks to the Left, I would like to hope it is, but this would certainly fly in the face of my perceptions regarding the wealthy. After all, it's no secret that the "haves" do quite well under Republican leadership. And the "have nots?" Well, not so much.

In his speech to the Montecito crowd, Rudy made the following noteworthy comment:

Who has the best health care in the world? Who has a better health care system? Is there one we should borrow from somewhere else? Do you want the health care system they have in England? Or Germany, or Canada, or anyplace else?

I always get a kick out of this argument, because it's stated so boldly you almost feel silly debating it. I mean, Canada, come on. Who would want to get sick there!? Of course, if you know the real story, you know that countries like Canada have excellent health care and pay way less than we do for the privilege. But my point here isn't to defend Canada. You'll get no argument from me that the US generally has the best health care system, but what Giuliani fails to mention is the fact that it's only great if you can afford it.

Here's another interesting quote from the good Mayor:

America is not heading in the wrong direction ... people may feel that way, but that they are responding more to the media and the lack of leadership, and not to the reality of what is happening in this country. It has never been this good, for anybody ...

Bold statement. I'm not sure what people he is referring to here, but it certainly isn't the average man. Apparently Mr. Giuliani doesn't think much of the shrinking middle class or the growing divide between the rich and the poor. It seems to me that the people who have it so good in Giuliani's America are the same people who can afford that great health care: like the people who live in Montecito.

Now, I'm certainly not taking shots at Montecito; it's a beautiful place. I eat there, I shop there, and I would love to live there some day. But I think Giuliani's comments bring light to the problem of perspective suffered by the Wendy McCaws of the world. It's easy to think things are better than they've ever been if you can raise $290,000 in a single fund raiser. So I say to Montecito, if you are a "Democrat-leaning" community, then good for you in voting against your economic interests. If you're not, then I ask you to take a moment and think about things from the average man's perspective.

By the way, I went to the Internets to try and find out how Montecito voted in the last presidential election. I came up with a big goose egg on that one, but I did discover that Avril Lavigne lives there. So, there you go.

ANALYZING THE ANALYSIS OF JOHN EDWARDS

The Average Man feels bad for John Edwards and his family. First, he loses his son in a car accident in 1996. Then, he and Kerry lose the presidency in 2004 (I felt bad for me, too). Then, his wife is diagnosed with breast cancer immediately after. And finally, Elizabeth's cancer returns and is "incurable." Much has been written about this latest revelation; mostly about the fact that Edwards has chosen to continue his presidential bid. If you watched their interview on 60 Minutes last night, you saw two courageous people who have chosen to live life to the fullest and not let this disease keep them down.

I'll leave the debate on whether he should or should not run to other people, but I would like to focus on one question that seems to keep popping up: towards the end the Katie Couric interview, she asked if Edwards could stay "focused" as president with his wife's health being what it is. I filed that question away in the back of my brain, but it was pushed to the front this morning when Meredith Viera asked John Kerry if Edwards would be "distracted" as president due to Elizabeth's condition.

Okay, so now I'm angry. Has everyone forgotten that bush holds the record for the most vacation days of any president in history? Oh, and let's not forget about bush playing guitar during Katrina. Heck, I'll even throw in 7 minutes reading My Pet Goat for good measure. I can't think of anyone on the freakin planet more distracted and unfocused than george w. bush!

The media and the conservatives lost their right to ask this question a long time ago. It's just not fair or just that they hold everyone up to a higher standard than our current two term president. Remember back in 2004 when everyone was harping on Edwards' "experience" for a possible VP candidate? Did we forget that bush had never even been to Europe and couldn't name the leader of any nation outside of the US? I wonder if he could even today.

Vote or don't vote for Edwards based on his policies, his beliefs, his honor, and all that stuff. But leave the talk of distractions for those that deserve it.

SCOTT STEEPLETON - BETTER THAN AVERAGE

The Average Man cancelled his Santa Barbara News-Press subscription some time ago (as should you). I'm also approaching 40, so I jog every morning in a futile attempt to ward off the aging process. This is relevant only because I run by several newspaper stands, and I can't help but take a glace at what I haven't been missing in the NP. Sometimes it's a challenge due to all of the graffiti -- which I'm sure is the union's doing -- but I can usually get the gist of the front page articles.

Anyway, there have been a number of things written (much of it by Craig Smith) about the lack of local content and the lack of news reporters, but I haven't noticed too much being said about the fact that Associate Editor Scott Steepleton is writing half of the minimal local stories we do see. This was especially apparent today when TWO of the front page articles at the top of the paper were written by him. Now, I won't actually buy the paper to do any further research, but it is my understanding that what he does write tends to be a measly couple of paragraphs. That in and of itself is an issue, but isn't it a bigger problem that the person in charge of the newsroom is acting as a daily reporter? I did a quick Google search for the job description of an Associate Editor, and I came up with this. I'm no journalist, but this seems like a great deal of reponsibilty and wouldn't leave much time for writing.

I'm sure his recent passion for reporting is the result of Wendy McCaw demanding more local content (in response to the blogger criticisms), but of course, there isn't anyone to do it. I guess you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, however, I thought I would provide other reasons why he might be so prolific lately:

10) Wants to prove he's more talented than Jerry Roberts
9) More opportunities not to quote Marty Blum
8) Hoping to accidentally write something biased so he can fire himself
7) Upset that editors don't get to leave the building (it's kind of depressing in there)
6) Trying desperately to get someone to talk about the tree controversy on State Street
5) Writing helps him tune out all those freakin protestors outside
4) Other reporters too scared to print the addresses for union sympathizers
3) Worried that his editor skills will be a minus for future employment
2) Still trying to find the perfect words to describe that horrible "Stormtrooper March" he had to endure
1) Wants to be the ghost writer for Dr. Laura's next book, The Care and Feeding of Physiologists

Well, I better go out to the mail and pickup my "Cease And Desist" letter.

HOUSE OF CARDS

I don't want to toot my own horn here, but all this bad news coming out of Wall Street about people defaulting on their home loans is something I've been predicting for years. Just to give you a little bit of background, remember back in 2004 when bush "would have been" the first president since Hoover to reside over a net loss of jobs during his time in office? Well, if you recall, the one positive thing bush was able to tout in the economy was record number of home purchases. Of course, he didn't mention that every year is a record breaking year in home purchases ... including every year under Clinton. That's because the population keeps growing, and people buy houses.

At any rate, the only thing that kept the US from going into the economic crapper during those years was the incredibly low interest rates. The entire economy was sustained by people buying homes, refinancing their homes, remodeling their homes, and the like. The problem with this -- as I pointed out to the few who would listen -- is that it was "fake" economic growth; banks were throwing all their tried-and-true loan rules out the window and doing whatever they could to put people in houses. And it certainly didn't matter that many of those people were stretched to the limit in order to get into a home that they couldn't afford. Sure, everything was great when the interest rate was at historic lows, but most of those loans were adjustable. Therefore, when the Fed started raising interested rates, those poor people could no longer pay their bills.

So, that's where we are today. Senator (and presidential candidate) Chris Dodd wants to provide a safety net for those people. Since the repuglican philosophy is all about not helping people, I wouldn't get my hopes up with bush in office.

THE CASE FOR LIBBY'S PARDON

This might sound strange coming from me, but I think the Left is overly stressed about whether or not Scooter Libby is going to be pardoned. Instead, we should just be overjoyed that some of the awfulness of this administration was exposed during the trial. And that someone (anyone!) has been held accountable. Because, you know, this isn't really about Scooter; it's about bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and lies. Those who know me know that nothing makes me angrier about this administration than the fact that they duped the entire nation into believing that the Iraq war was revenge for 9/11. I mean, 70 percent of the public thought Iraq was responsible. 70 percent! It's the most horrible political event I've ever seen in my life, and I will never forgive bush for that. What's worse, it didn't seem that anyone would have to pay for it ... until now.

Will Libby be pardoned? Yes, he will. There are a number of reasons for this, but Lawrence O'Donnell -- who is pretty smart about this stuff -- has the best one. But again, that's irrelevant. What's important to me is that bush goes down in history as the worst president who ever lived. And I actually think that pardoning Libby will help that become a reality. You see, if Libby is not pardoned, then the Right can spin this as a DemocratIC witch hunt, or bush can just claim ignorance about what was going on around him. The focus, in other words, stays on Libby.

But if he is pardoned, then I believe this event will be considered "par for the course" in a generally corrupt administration. It will be yet another case where bad things were done but no one had to pay any consequences. It's one of many cases where loyaly trumps all and bush protects his rich friends. And most of all, it will show the hypocrisy of the repuglican party towards Clinton. Remember, he was impeached for perjury. You think anyone on the Right would have supported his pardon?

BAD TIMES FOR CAPTAIN AMERICA

It's a rare instance when two of my passions --comic books and politics -- interconnect, so it is with much enthusiasm that I point you to the latest Huffington Post entry by Ari Emanuel. In it, he argues that Captain America's death was caused by Bush and Cheney. None of us (who care) have much to be patriotic about these days, so I think Ari may be on to something.

For those of you who aren't on top of such things, Captain America was killed by a sniper in the most recent issue. As a rabid fan of the superhero genre, I should be excited by the bigness of this comic book event. But my undervalued "Death of Superman" issue from the 80's tells me otherwise.

THIS SHOULD KEEP WENDY AWAKE AT NIGHT

I don't feel the need to jump aggressively into the News-Press dialog as it is covered so well in other places (most notably by Craig Smith). However, I couldn't help but think about the heartburn Wendy McCaw must have endured when reading about the newest bill that just passed the House of Representatives. Specifically, this bill would strengthen the rights of employees to form unions. Now, I'm not in the habit of reading dry legislation, but there is a great New York Times Editorial today that outlines some of the provisions in the bill, and again, my mind went right to McCaw. The following are a couple of quotes that jumped out at me:

The bill would also increase the penalty for employers who fired or otherwise discriminated illegally against pro-union employees.

... And the bill would require binding arbitration if a newly formed union and company management were unable to agree on a first contract after 120 days. The refusal to bargain is among the most common allegations against employers in filings to the National Labor Relations Board.

The editorial also points out that, currently, employees are not allowed to have pro-union activities during work hours. But ...

... employers can require workers to attend anti-union presentations, and can discipline or fire those who refuse to attend.

Any of this sound familiar?

It seems like this bill would actually help people lead better lives, so of course, it is opposed by Bush. I don't imagine that the bill will go anywhere, but it will be fun to watch. And if you don't think Wendy pays attention to these things, remember how excited she was when the Supreme Court made that horrible anti-whistleblower decision. She sometimes points to this as proof that her employees aren't allowed to say bad things about her.

Anyway, in my head this is going to pass the Senate and be signed by Bush. In reality, I won't get my hopes up.

DID BOB SCHIEFFER REALLY SAY THAT?

So, I was reading my daily Studio Briefing this afternoon, and I came across the following little tidbit:

CRONKITE DAMNS ANOTHER WAR
Walter Cronkite, whose criticism of America's Vietnam War policies was said to be a turning point in the war ("If we've lost Walter, then we've lost the country," President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told an aide at the time) has called the war in Iraq "a mistake ... a terrible disaster." In an interview with the CBS television station in San Francisco, the 90-year-old Cronkite said that he doubted that his words would have much impact on the current administration. However he added, "Anybody who can put another match to that fire to get us out would be, I think, welcome." Meanwhile, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, speaking at a conference in Tokyo, criticized the news media for not investigating "on the ground" in Iraq U.S. claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, former CBS anchor Bob Schieffer maintained that the U.S. got into the war because "the intelligence was wrong, and they're paying a price for it. [Bush is] a decent and honest man."

Um, are you freakin kidding me! I thought Bob Schieffer was the trustworthy one? What kind of respectable journalist would make such an ignorant statement? And one other thing: we have to stop making this claim that "the intelligence was wrong" (even the DemocratIC Party does this). The intelligence was RIGHT; Rumsfeld and Cheney were WRONG. Bob Schieffer should watch The Dark Side!