The Icepick Cometh

Dear readers (both of you),

We're now more or less blogging exclusively over at our WordPress.com site at http://theicepickcometh.wordpress.com.

So c'mon and visit us over there and read The Icepick's new post on the Dark Knight and President Bush, a reaction from a movie nerd to a piece earlier this summer in the Wall Street Journal.

Thanks for reading and for following us over there.
That is all.

Hugs and hisses,
PublisherCat

Read More…

Raised in the shadow of a high-ranking Navy father and grandfather, serving and suffering honorably in a war most of the rest of the country would rather regret if not forget, John McCain is the pitch-perfect example of his generation — overshadowed by others older and younger than him (even his younger Veep candidate!), fighting the good fight, respected, productive, a leader backstage, yet measuring just shy of national leadership at center stage.

Like a famous senator from more than 150 years ago, more likely to serve America than lead it.

I'm not the first one to suggest the comparison between John McCain and Henry Clay. Indeed, one author believes McCain is actually Henry Clay reincarnated. We'll not touch the spiritual end of that, but the same author notes, quite appropriately, that Henry Clay was declared in 1957 by a JFK-led Senate committee to be the greatest U.S. Senator in history. Likewise, the author notes, McCain is a respected and influential Senator. He is popular, too, I would add — Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman called him a great friend — and despite his maverick status, McCain has long been one of the most powerful senators in a non-leadership post.

Henry Clay ran for, and lost, the Presidency three times.

McCain's Silent Generation, as described by Strauss & Howe, comprise Americans born from 1925 to 1942. They "grew up as the suffocated children of war and depression. They came of age just too late to be war heroes [McCain obviously bucks this point, but his war was Vietnam, not WWII of the 'Greatest Generation'] and just too early to be youthful free spirits. Instead, this early-marrying Lonely Crowd became the risk-averse technicians and professionals as well as the sensitive rock ‘n rollers and civil-rights advocates of a post-crisis era in which conformity seemed to be a sure ticket to success."

Likewise, here's an excerpt from Sam Tanenhaus' New York Times story earlier this year on McCain's generation, one largely born in the ’30s but who have never elected one of their own as President:

Young people born in the 1930s experienced no such tumult [as did the Baby Boomers]. They typically came of age in the 1950s, when consensus reigned, and with it conformism. Young Americans were collectively disengaged from politics and distrustful of ideology. They were the “silent generation,” content to be guided by their elders: Eisenhower, the avuncular white-haired president who had been the hero of World War II, and the Wise Men who formulated the strategies of the cold war.

In this climate the young were more likely to serve than to lead. The Korean War, which raged from 1950 to 1953, claimed nearly as many American casualties as Vietnam, and yet, despite the universal draft, there was scarcely a protest from those waiting to be called.

Strauss & Howe's groundbreaking 1991 book, Generations, defined American generations in roughly 20-year splits occurring in cycles of four. They later renamed the archetypes, but their theory did not change. McCain's Silent Generation lines up with the Compromise Generation of of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun, who were a collective "zero for twelve in runs for the Presidency" and whose generation "were fated to careers of secret turmoil and hidden frustration" who "at their best, their irrepressible instinct for openness and honesty ennobled even their failures."

Strauss & Howe quote a 73-year-old Henry Clay (at one year older than McCain):

"'Life itself is but a compromise,' observed the … 'Great Compromiser' himself, as he proposed the last of his famous balancing acts. 'All legislation, all government, all society is formed upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, and courtesy.'"

Or as McCain would surely say today, the ability to "reach across the aisle" to "reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again."
 

Read More…

Meh.

It was not a great and rousing speech — yes, his personal story is rich and worthy, and at another time, perhaps in place of either Bush, Sen. John McCain could have been (past tense) a fine president (or at least better than either Bush). But like his Silent Generation cohorts, he still seems more of a behind-the-scenes worker. Just like those of a prior generation (but of the same generational type, as Strauss & Howe defined it) — Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun — he is a Great Compromiser (not, of course, a compromiser of his own ideals but rather a person who can get two sides to talk ). And though his backstory inspires, he himself lacks that inspirational touch of a leader.

That's as much the reality of his generation as it is of John S. McCain.

You can see it in his speaking.

What could have been the most powerful part of his speech, where he at last made the very frequent drawing on his own POW history relevant (it's been powerful, yes, but relevant?), where he said he hoped no family should go through what his has in War, he topped the ball rather than drive it solidly.

I still don't know if it was a problem of delivery — he was getting there, his voice rising in power. But he didn't finish the note with a flourish, with inspiration in his voice. I originally thought this was a failing of the speechwriting, rather than the delivery.

I'm running for President to keep the country I love safe, and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has. I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military and the power of our ideals — to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace.

See? Re-reading it, it reads so much better than when he spoke it. This is where a great speaker can inspire the masses, something as true and as old as the ancient Greek democrats themselves, something the GOP has been deriding lately, but overlooking (oddly, they the Party of the Great Communicator).

What did turn out to be the most powerful part of his speech, the "a cause greater than yourself" line, resonated with me. It echoed in some ways the JFK and Obama calls to service.

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

Some of these, ironically, harken to Obama's derided days as a Community Organizer ("Defend the rights of the oppressed") and one of them recalls a famous calling of the newspaper business: "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." (Of course, I once drank the Kool-Aid and felt that way about journalism (and still do in many ways). My skills were in writing, in curiosity, in seeking truth and telling people about it. I felt like I could use my skills to make the country a better place in many ways, I really did (sniff). But his Party hates the media, so what I have to offer the country is useless, according to them. Cheers. And I digress.) That's McCain, though: unpredictable as ever.

Still, there were not enough specifics for my taste in tonight's speech (with the notable exception of the "doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000" and a few others), and too much of the GOP's old party lines.

Otherwise, I cannot dislike McCain. He is honorable. He has served and suffered. Yes, he is a hero. If it had to be a Republican the last eight years, why couldn't it have been him? In many ways I like him better than the bitter Pelosi and Reid in Congress. Not so much the very ambitious-sounding Palin (the third song played playing after McCain concluded his speech was Heart's "Barracuda," and McCain better what his back from someone who, gifted speaker as she is, clearly seems to like the spotlight — fine for the person at the top of the ticket, maybe not so much for the Veep, eh?).

(Minor point: I can't make that much of this, since I thought it was bullshit when it was called on Obama, but where was McCain's flag pin on his lapel? Granted, you can in no way question McCain's patriotism, but this only serves to point out the ridiculousness of questioning Obama's.)

(On the other hand, McCain needs to watch out for the ambitious Veep selection he's selected — talk about a pragmatic Gen X'er, grabbing the brass ring and not letting go!)

All that said, and like I said with Hillary, Obama is simply a better choice this time around. That's no dis on McCain (or Hillary, for that matter). Don't blame him. It's just his generation.
 

Read More…

Sorry about my progressive brethren bashing her speech tonight, and I agree with absolutely nothing she said (in fact, was enraged throughout with what she was saying, especially in mocking community organizers — has Sarah Palin ever been in a big city, ever shook the hands and cared for someone in an inner city setting?), but Obama-Biden have a real fight on their hands.

The Republicans do nothing better than fire up their base and encourage them to come out in overwhelming, angry numbers from those small towns I know so well. They do this much better than the Dems do in pulling in their own base (in a battle between bringing in college students vs. small-town residents on Election Day, never bet on the college students). Palin may get an "F" for content — frankly, she misrepresented Obama's position on taxes and there's a lot of talk about her late-coming opposition to the Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere — but I think Gov. Sarah Palin hit it out of the park as far as delivery. Sorry, but it's true.

You can hate everything she said, you can make fun of her accent or her sneers all you want, but she was probably the best speaker with the best delivery among the Republicans since the primaries began. I'd be worried about meeting her again on the national campaign trail in four or eight years.

I'm wondering how many voters from my own Generation X will swing toward McCain with a running mate from the 28- to 47-year-old set that was Raised on Reagan. Oh sure, all the people I know would never consider voting for him, no matter who he was running with. But that's a small, mostly urban-leaning segment of the population. My own generation, I still believe, is largely conservative.

And don't underestimate the Hockey Mom appeal — as Campbell Brown was saying a little while ago on CNN, that femininity, that "mom-ness" (for lack of a better word, and I'm paraphrasing here) carriers a lot of weight for many voters. (Brown later questioned Harry Reid's use of the word "shrill" to describe Palin's speech, noting that word is almost always used to describe a woman, not a man. That kind of response from Reid is not what Obama needs.)

And to take Brown's analysis a step further, there will be women, moms especially but feminists too, who will vote for McCain-with-Palin, even as Palin stands against everything they themselves stand for and have fought for, simply because they can connect with her. And, no, I am not talking about Hillary's former and still supporters. I'm talking about the fence-sitters.

Even Hillary connected with women as a Woman, but not necessarily as a Mom, not in the way that Palin I think just did, simply by dint of having more children to trot out onto a stage.

Finally, frankly, McCain is savvier than credit has been given him. By announcing the Veep pick as soon as the Democratic Convention was over, but not a minute sooner, he didn't let the Dems attack her during Prime Time Convention TV. But by also airing the family's pregnancy laundry publicly, he surely must have anticipated the media firestorm that would have resulted (there's unfortunately more focus on that than there has been over legitimate criticisms, such as her lack of experience, her back-and-forth on pork-barrel spending, and her husband's past connection to a secessionist movement; as always, sex sells in the public imagination; and there's also this.).

And, of course, a big enough media firestorm that they can (accurately or not) link to the Democrats against a defendable Republican (i.e., not Larry Craig) almost always produces a bitter, well-organized, how-dare-you, victimized backlash that brings out the loyal troops, picking up steam and on-the-fencers along the way. Well played, McCain.

This is a real fight, and if you don't believe me and underestimate this, then get ready for four years of McCain-Palin.

Read More…

Well, glad press freedom battles are limited to Vietnam, and would never happen in America, least of all in this 2008:

• Amy Goodman and Two Democracy Now! Producers Unlawfully Arrested At the RNC
• AP photog arrested while covering anti-war protest
• Update: Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar Released After Illegal Arrest at RNC
• Call for withdrawal of charges against three journalists manhandled and arrested outside Republican Party convention

So glad to see our freedoms are protected here in America, because, you know, the world hates us for our freedoms and all that.
 
 
And while we're at it, stifling Freedom of the Press is not limited to violent means. John McCain's campaign has taken-its-ball-and-gone-home by canceling an appearance on Larry King's show because Campbell Brown at CNN had the nerve to ask some tough questions of a McCain spokesman.

Remember, this too is America:
 

 
and this:
 

 

Read More…

McCain's VP choice and her very public position on the Abortion debate aside, I have been uncomfortable with some aspects of the discussion over her teen daughter's pregnancy. While very relevant in light of Palin's anti-Choice politics, and relevant to the so-called Family Values debates and the moral high ground claimed by the Republicans, that's exactly where the line should be drawn and end. Does it mean the VP is a bad mom more focused on her career than her children? There's a lot to criticize Sarah Palin over, and I'm not sure I'm ready to level that as a criticism.

Now, does it relate to her anti-Choice politics and the general Republican theme that strong morals and a Family Values-style upbringing is the sole cure to curbing teenage pregnancy (and evidently all the other ills perpetrated by those godless liberals)? You bet it relates. But I almost want to wear kid gloves with her over this whole issue.

Perhaps it's that I know enough wonderful non-traditional families in which the children were born to a young mom, or to unmarried couples, or to adoptive parents (married or united). So as much as the debate relates to Palin and McCain — and even the quick statements from their campaigns that the young couple will wed makes me wonder if, in trying to show that the couple is "doing the right thing," they're also leveling a subtle insult to non-traditional families — I must admit to some discomfort over some of the criticism.

Now, on the other hand, her prior (though very recent) courtship of the Alaskan secessionists and her husband's enrollment in that party is more than fair game — the gloves come off for that one, and come off with a quickness. Talking Points Memo closes their recent post on this issue with this:

It's worth pondering how big a deal it would be if Obama had ever courted the support of a group whose head had said this kind of thing about America and her flag. Oh, wait...

And while we're on it, questions about the State Trooper scandal and her lobbyist's connections are also open to close public examination.
 

Read More…

Perhaps it was a speech that was more policy-oriented and political than broad and overtly hopeful, but Mrs. Icepick said that's what she wanted to hear, so who am I to argue?

Let there be no doubt: This was a passionate address, and there were touches of inspiration in between the specifics and firey rhetoric that put to rest questions of whether Obama can go on the offensive when needed — a Jedi-like approach of using force when diplomacy and reason have failed.

In many ways, it was a cumulation and conclusion to the major speeches we've heard this week — Hillary's inspiration, Bill's reminder of our own potential, Kerry's preemptive attacks, and Biden's foreign policy focus.

There was the forward-looking call to serve the next generation and the Kennedy-like call to service, something I particularly liked:

And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

But in between the policy talk, and right before invoking the legendary speech delivered 45 years earlier, Obama did not forget to focus on the theme that brought him so far: Hope.

Instead, it is that American spirit — that American promise — that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance.

He distanced himself from the old (and inaccurate) criticism of liberalism of the ’70s — that government owes you something, but you owe nothing. Instead, Obama focused on the hard work we all must do and offered a call for personal responsibility.

Yet, in many ways, in many of the approaches he offered, there was a welcome return to the progressive themes that he seemed to abandon since the end of the primary season. While acknowledging the country's differences on Choice, guns and same-sex marriage, he sounded very much like a progressive in calling for an ambitious end to our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years — though 2018 sounds like a long time away, it's not. He also endorsed progressive ideas like eliminating tax breaks to corporations that don't need them and ending crippling capital gains taxes for small businesses, ensuring a "world-class" education to every child, fulfilling the promise of affordable health care, and, especially as the father of two young daughters, addressing major concerns of Hillary's supporters, most notably equal pay for all women.

Far be it from this cynic to agree with a sentiment like "We are a better country than this," but let's see where we can take this.

Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

Strong and forceful, specific yet still broad, practical yet still full of Hope.
 

Read More…

Less than 24 hours after Hillary's memorable speech, her husband got into the act, as Bill Clinton followed up on Hillary's pledges to unequivocally support Barack Obama, while also going on the offensive against McCain. One of his memorable lines: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

Later, in response to the crowd's chants of "Yes he can," Clinton, ever alert and able to pivot, picked it up and said: "Yes he can; but we have to elect him, first," deftly showing in one on-his-feet sentence his support for Obama and his acknowledgment of the hard work ahead for the assembled Democrats, work that he sounded prepared to continue himself.

Like Hillary on Tuesday night, the former President sounded ready to lead the Clintons' supporters by the power of his example in supporting Obama.

As an aside, a figure frequently flashed on the CNN crawl noted that there have been 12 previous presidential candidates younger than the now 47-year-old Obama, including the 45-year-old Bill Clinton. In his speech, President Clinton noted that he, too, was targeted as being too inexperienced in 1992, something we was able to deflect and overcome.

And all that said, John Kerry gave a pretty good follow-up — they called it a very un-Kerry-like speech immediately afterward on PBS. Kerry completely went on the offensive about the differences between "Candidate McCain vs. Senator McCain" and was more firey than I remember him as a candidate four years ago. Like Bill Clinton, Kerry noted McCain's status as a Great American, and even as a fine Senator, but not as a good candidate for President: "Are you kidding me folks? Talk about being for it before you're against it. Before he ever debates Barack Obama John McCain should finish the debate with himself."

Read More…

Interesting piece by former Carter speechwriter James Fallows in The Atlantic reviewing the debates from the primaries, with a good analysis of the candidates' speaking and debating styles, which the author notes are not the same thing (prepared speaking vs. debating, that is). It is interesting to note the look into Obama's rhetorical skills in light of some of the more recent presidents. To wit:

Based on his rhetoric, Barack Obama would arrive not because of support for his list of programs, although he has offered them, but because of support for his cast of mind. His speeches and debate answers show us how he thinks, much more than they reveal exactly the policies he would advance for, say, improving the economy, dealing with the Chinese (where his proposals have often seemed surprisingly crude and ill-informed), or coping with crime or climate change. Every administration turns on the president’s cast of mind: Bill Clinton’s startling gifts of intelligence and even more startling lack of self-discipline; George W. Bush’s toxic combination of decisiveness and lack of curiosity; Ronald Reagan’s sunniness and lack of interest in detail. But for some presidents, cast of mind is a central feature — the person, much more than the plan, represents the promise of the presidency. Obama is one of these.

I'm not sure his China platform is as ill-informed as Fallows claims, but otherwise, Fallows seems right on the money.

Read More…

This is the Hillary that we once knew — a dynamic speaker, a leader, and ultimately, finally, a uniter: "Were you in this campaign for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him, that young mom with cancer, that young boy and his mom surviving on minimum wage? Were you in it for all those people who feel invisible?"

Talking Points Memo called Hillary's Tuesday night keynote speech "powerful" — and how can you argue that?

For me, my faith in Hillary has been restored, if not my faith in some of her supporters or her choice in friends from earlier this year (the execrable trio of Mark Penn, Harold Ickes and Howard Wolfson, and the incompetent Terry McAuliffe).

This is a person who has long had to make the best of situations that may not be the best for her personally, but may be the best for others, for the party, for the country — a classic Spock-like case of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few (or the one). That's a hero.

Read More…