Four Years And Out?

By Terry Cowgill • November 14, 2010 @ 8:51 pm • 2 Comments

Two longtime political strategists have penned an op-ed this morning in the Washington Post calling on President Obama to declare that he will not seek re-election.

Such pontificating could be easily dismissed if it were written by Republican operatives — say, Karl Rove and Haley Barbour. But this piece was put out by two Democrats, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, who worked for presidents Carter and Clinton, respectively. Their argument is really quite simple:

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

I think their case is plausible. Do I expect Obama to take their advice? No. However, to the case against an Obama second-term, I would add that he doesn’t appear to enjoy being president very much.
If Obama were to go on his merry way in 2012 and hand the reins over to Hillary, he could be one of the greatest ex-presidents in history — one whom the passing of time would treat kindly, given the historic nature of his presidency and the impressive list of legislative accomplishments in his term in office. That list, by the way, might very well grow longer if he could throw off the partisan shackles by freeing himself from having to run again.
And I’m sure there are Democrats in Congress who would love to run for re-election themselves without having to say, “Barack who?” when asked about the depth of their support for the faltering president.
On the other hand, there would also be lots of Democrats who would resist such a move — either because they think Obama could accomplish more if he weren’t a lame duck or because they simply don’t want to give Republicans the satisfaction of having driven him from office.
And there is also the argument that Obama would be pulling a Sarah Palin. Yuk …

Sometimes It Takes a Closing …

By Terry Cowgill • November 11, 2010 @ 3:42 pm • 3 Comments

Salisbury’s White Hart Inn, which closed on Nov. 2, has been deemed important enough by The New York Times to merit an article. It is, of course, an upscale, us-vs-them, Salisbury-is-dying take on the situation, although I must say that is precisely the approach that is called for here.

I mention this development not to critique Peter Applebome’s piece, which I think is fair enough, but to examine local reaction to the closing, some of which is mentioned in the NYT article. Many of the media accounts of the closing have mentioned a snarky food review last May by The Lakeville Journal’s Marsden Epworth, as if that piece contributed to what the White Hart’s wealthy owners, Scott and Roxanne Bok, considered a hostile environment. On his fine website, Rural Intelligence, Dan Shaw even called the review “vicious.”

I appreciate Marsden’s honesty in assessing the food, which she obviously found lacking. After all, even in a community weekly newspaper, no restaurant or entertainment review is worth the paper it’s written on if it isn’t honest. But she went beyond that and quoted anonymous diners or customers she overheard. The result was an almost uniformly negative piece that gave the appearance of score-settling.

Ironically, the Boks reaction was to take out a large ad in the LJ responding to the review and to continue with a bold $5 million renovation of the 200-year-old inn once owned by Edsel Ford when he was sending his kids to Hotchkiss.

There are those in the community, such as my friend and colleague Mike Flint, who reject the notion that the locals caused the demise of a venerable local institution. Flint also takes issue with the way the closing was handled — abruptly and with the sudden loss of jobs for locals themselves.

Let me say this: The only way the inn can continue is if a well-heeled buyer is found. In a interview I conducted with him four years ago, Bok told me the White Hart did little more than break even and the old building was a constant headache requiring endless capital investments.

Is there such a buyer out there in this economic environment? Don’t hold your breath, folks.

Gender Discrepancy?

By Terry Cowgill • November 9, 2010 @ 2:22 am • 9 Comments
Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky

By now, everyone in Connecticut — and just about everyone in the country — has heard about the Petit home-invasion murders in Cheshire and the subsequent conviction and sentencing to death today of killer Steven Hayes of Winsted.

Debates are raging everywhere on the wisdom of applying the death penalty. Some folks, yours truly among them, are appalled at the level of depravity but remain extremely uncomfortable at giving the state the power take away life.

But here’s what I’m struck by: In my wanderings online and among friends and colleagues I talk to face-to-face, I’ve noticed a much stronger feeling that the death penalty is called for among women than men — even in the company of people who normally denounce capital punishment.

What explains this? Could it be that all of Hayes’ victims were female? A friend acknowledges the possible gender gap but wonders if the explanation lies less in the sex of the victims than the fact that they were mostly children. Ergo, when women assess this case, the maternal instinct takes over and it’s “Off with their heads!”

I think she might be on to something. Or am I way off base?

A Different Kind of Empire

By Terry Cowgill • November 7, 2010 @ 6:24 pm • 6 Comments

I don’t keep up with popular culture to the extent that I should, so I only found out about this great series from my friend Chris.

Just saw episode 8 of the new HBO series, Boardwalk Empire. I’ve got a column to write today, so I’ll have to keep this sort of brief.

There are several reasons to like this series about a crime family that basically runs all of Atlantic City during Prohibition:

  1. Like the outstanding Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire is about mobsters. One of the things I liked about Sopranos was the writers always made sure the thugs had some redeeming qualities. The very crooked Thompson family — and even their enemies — feature at least a few characters you can connect with on some level (e.g Jimmy Darmody)
  2. The production is highly stylized without being pretentious. Most of the characters are sharply drawn without being reduced to caricatures. That is no mean feat in a series about the mob.
  3. I love how the lead character, Atlantic City treasurer and mob boss Enoch “Nucky” Thompson, doesn’t look like a mobster. He looks like an impeccably dressed nerd. That bit of ironic casting actually makes Nucky a little more frightening than, say Tony Soprano or Vito Corleone.

Here’s something not to like about it:

  • There is so much gratuitous, profanity, nudity and sex that you’ll want to make sure you are well out of range of children. If I were watching a scene in the cat house that Jimmy frequents, I would be absolutely horrified if my 12-year-old daughter walked in.

Of course, other than that, the series is perfect. If you haven’t already, take a look and let me know what you think.

Foley vs. Malloy and other thoughts

By Terry Cowgill • November 4, 2010 @ 7:55 pm • 6 Comments

After a period of uncertainty — or perhaps even chaos — it looks like we might have a winner in the Connecticut governor’s race. But this thing is so complicated that, judging from state GOP boss Chris Healy’s appearance on yesterday’s Colin McEnroe show, it might very well end up in court — just like Bush vs. Gore in 2000. Stay tuned for the finale.

I have been inundated with emails and Facebook comments from people on opposite sides of the aisle who are convinced the state or the country will go to hell because the wrong party won. I know conservatives who are depressed that Connecticut re-elected all five of its Democratic congressmen and sent Dick “Sue-’em-all” Blumenthal” to Washington as U.S. senator.

I know liberals who actually described Connecticut as “the sane state” for bucking the national trend in electing all Dems. Say what?

If we’re so sane, then why did we elect Johnny Rowland governor three times? And elect an empty vessel like Jodi Rell? And the corruption is endless: Ganim, Perez, Rowland? At one point, we actually had three former mayors of Waterbury all serving time. And we ‘re staring at a $3 billion deficit, while jobs are fleeing the state. No, Connecticut is far from sane, I’m afraid.

I also know liberals who are also profoundly disgusted at the results of the midterm Congressional elections. I am not one of them. As I have written in this space before, recent history suggests that divided government often works better than having one party running the show.

The question for me is how Barack Obama saves his presidency. As the sage Dick Morris said, triangulation, of the sort that Morris himself prodded Bill Clinton into after the 1994 midterms, is not really possible.

Quite simply, Obama has unmasked himself as a political amateur who was either unwilling or unable to control the narrative as Republicans hijacked his agenda and convinced a great number of Americans that it was deeply flawed.

Unless he learns from his mistakes, Obama will have a terrible time governing. And unless the economy improves significantly over the next year, he will surely be a one-termer.

A House Divided

By Terry Cowgill • November 1, 2010 @ 10:56 am • 0 Comments

Divided government works. Or at least in the U.S. it works better than having one party in charge.

I think that will be the message voters will have sent come Wednesday morning. We live in a peculiar form of democracy known as a constitutional republic. In most other western democracies, they practice a parliamentary form of governance.

In the latter system, which I watched closely while I lived in Canada, when one party takes over, it assumes total control of both the legislative and executive branches (except in the case of a coalition government, but that’s another matter). There’s more accountability in a parliamentary system, but if the party in power goes too far, a vote of non-confidence can be called, which in most parliamentary systems mandates new elections within 30-60 days.

We have no such mechanism in the U.S., so the next best thing is for different parties to control Congress and the White House. One prevents the other from overreaching.

Recent history bears this out. As noted by the Cato Institute, over the past 60 years, federal spending has risen least when one party occupied the White House and the other had control of at least one house of Congress.

Consider what transpired in 1994, when President Bill Clinton saw his party lose both houses of Congress to the Republicans. What happened? Clinton decided to focus on a balanced budget with Newt Gingrich rather than face united GOP opposition to any more big programs such as healthcare reform.

The result? Several years of peace and prosperity. The only other modern era with a similar stretch of fiscal restraint was during the divided Eisenhower era. The Reagan era, however, was mostly divided but not marked by fiscal restraint.

I suspect that’s because the Gipper had bipartisan support for two popular items: tax cuts and an expensive defense program that ultimately helped bring down the Soviet Union. Fortunately, those two initiatives did make for a roaring economy for most of Reagan’s tenure.

So if Republicans gain control of one or both houses of Congress, it might not be a bad thing for Democrats. Indeed, it might even save Barack Obama’s troubled presidency.

An Attack Of Civility

By Terry Cowgill • October 30, 2010 @ 5:45 pm • 3 Comments

Could this actually work?

Two candidates for a state senate seat at the other end of Connecticut have eschewed traditional campaigning — you know, the kind where you say nasty things about your opponent and then put them out over the airwaves and into people’s mailboxes, all the while claiming to be the victim of a smear campaign?

These two guys, Republican challenger Stuart Norman and incumbent Democrat Andrew Maynard, have embarked on what they call a “civility tour” in which they often campaign together. They recently made a joint appearance at a grange in Sterling described below by The Day newspaper of New London:

Throughout the evening, the two men were exceedingly polite to one another, displaying conduct rarely associated with politics and government. It’s an ongoing, open dialogue like theirs, both men said, that will be necessary for state officials working to solve Connecticut’s budget problems.

Imagine that! Talking about serious problems and what can be done by working together to solve them.
We’ll see if this type of campaigning catches on, but I have my doubts. The American people talk a good game about civility. But in the end, it’s the attacks that move people to change their minds — not displays of comity and pleasantness.
I’d love to be proved wrong, however.

My Picks For Senator and Governor

By Terry Cowgill • October 29, 2010 @ 12:14 am • 8 Comments

It’s pretty much a dismal choice and I don’t have time to write a lengthy post on my picks for governor and senator in the Nov. 2 elections, so I will instead refer you to two columns on the subject.

On the question of whom to send to Washington to replace the retiring Chris Dodd, George Will got it right today. Will, a Trinity graduate and no stranger to the Nutmeg State, quotes Michael Barone in explaining why professional wrestling magnate Linda McMahon would seem to be a bad fit for Connecticut:

“Connecticut,” says Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics, “was founded by Puritans who considered Massachusetts too lenient and backsliding.”

However, Will then goes on the explain how Congress is top-heavy with lawyers and short on people who understand fundamental economic principles. No, we don’t need people who believe in zero regulation, but nor do we need lawmakers who try to stymie business at every turn, as Dick Blumenthal did when he tried to stop AT&T from laying off workers who were no longer needed.

McMahon is content to have Connecticut vote on this proposition: There already is a surfeit of Blumenthals in Washington, and a scarcity of McMahons.

As for the governor’s race between Dan Malloy and Tom Foley, I was — with some reluctance — trending toward Foley until I read this Kevin Rennie column last Sunday. Gov. Jodi Rell has left what Rennie accurately describes as “a disreputable mess.” The lady never got out of lieutenant governor mode, preferring the cutting of ribbons to the hard work of negotiating with lawmakers and interest groups.

I remain nervous about handing over the reins of power to any candidate who received the support of virtually all the public-sector unions, as Malloy has. But the man has a pretty good record of fiscal restraint as mayor of Stamford and he may come to realize that no matter what he does to tame a $4 billion deficit, lots of people will hate him anyway:

The great hurdle for the next governor will be the free-spending legislature. Malloy, more than Foley, may be the one to tame it. The Democrats will retain majorities in both chambers, an overwhelming one in the House. It may take a Democratic governor to force them to keep an appointment with reality. With Foley, they would have a foil to insulate themselves.

Plus, Malloy is holding fast against the death penalty even though, in the wake of the Petit murder trials, it is politically unwise to take that position. So there is my take. Now go out and vote, you lazy bums!

Come On, Gary!

By Terry Cowgill • October 26, 2010 @ 11:36 pm • 7 Comments

Trying to really get inside the minds of comedians and satirists is difficult, if not impossible. Sort of like cracking a tough-shelled egg without breaking the yolk. Interviewing one rarely amounts to anything more than a “why-are-you-so-funny?” bull session. Of course, P.J. O’Rourke is a notable exception …

Still, I found myself strangely drawn to this Gary Trudeau interview, conducted via email by Slate’s David Plotz, mainly because of the sub-headline that mentioned “the difficulty of satirizing Obama.” Here’s what the author of Doonesbury, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary, said about the subject:

Believe it or not, Obama’s very tough for business. The contradictory characterizations of him as fascist or socialist only serve to confirm the truth – he’s a raging moderate. And satirists don’t do well with moderates, especially thoughtful ones. In addition, Obama rarely makes gaffes and has no salient physical or temperamental features. And sinking popularity isn’t a critique. Even SNL’s main rap on him is his unflappability, hardly a vice in a world leader.

Hmmm … First of all, you could make a pretty good case that Obama isn’t terribly moderate — at least not in a center-right nation like the U.S. I suspect that’s why his party will take such a drubbing in the midterm congressional elections.

He “rarely makes gaffes?” Perhaps that’s because they’re seldom reported in the news media Trudeau consumes. Indeed, Obama’s list of gaffes is long and substantial — not quite on a level with his vice president, but formidable nonetheless.

No “salient physical” features? Are you kidding me? Cartoonist Pat Oliphant has said the same thing, complaining that “Obama’s physical features don’t naturally lend themselves to caricature.” Think about it, guys. The big ears, the white teeth, the cigarettes, the omnipresent TOTUS. Heck, George Bush was mercilessly caricatured to look like Curious George, a baboon, Alfred E. Newman or worse.

As I’ve already stated, I can’t pretend to get inside of Trudeau’s head. But I suspect his reluctance to caricature Obama stems from a genuine affection for the man and his policies, coupled with a fear of being labeled a racist for exaggerating Obama’s physical features.

Come on, Gary. Throw political correctness to the wind, After an initial reluctance, even Jon Stewart has dared to make fun of the man he once supported. You once went In Search of Reagan’s Brain. Can’t you go looking for Obama’s ‘prompter?

Brains, Not $Bucks$ and Brawn

By Terry Cowgill • October 23, 2010 @ 10:18 pm • 4 Comments
Wells Hill Road in Lakeville

This time of year, the landscape is always dotted with political lawn signs. Some are rather mundane (“Roraback: Proven Leadership You Can Trust”); others, such as the doozey pictured at left, are obvious attempts to paint the opponent in an unfavorable light by associating her with something people don’t like.

I am always amused when I see this kind of political message: “My candidate is smarter than yours.” Now, I would ask you: how important is it that a candidate for U.S. Senate have a law degree from Yale, as Dick Blumenthal does?

Whenever it’s employed, this kind of tactic is almost always the domain of liberals. Progressives have a proud intellectual tradition in this country. And, truth be told, there are probably a lot more Ph.Ds walking around who subscribe to that political philosophy than to, say, the Tea Party nostrum.

But how much brains does it actually take to be a U.S. senator? Obviously, you don’t want a know-nothing in that job (e.g. Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell). However, the list of congressmen, senators and presidents who succeeded in their jobs without appearing at a Mensa meeting is also long and proud.

To name a few recent ones (and, in the realm of legislators, I will limit myself to Democrats since candidates for those offices are making this charge in Connecticut): Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. The list of presidents is even more impressive: Abraham Lincoln, whose formal education consisted of approximately 18 months of classes from several itinerant teachers; Franklin Roosevelt, whom Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously characterized at the time of his inauguration in 1933, as having “a second-rate intellect, but a first-class temperament;” Ronald Reagan, who graduated in the bottom half of his class at some place called Eureka College.

Here’s what you need to be a successful senator: a compelling vision; good communication skills and the ability to bring people along with you. And then you need to manage a small office, sit on some committees and vote. You need many of the same qualities to be a good president. Oh yeah, and for presidents, it helps if you can make your opponents fear you. Why don’t liberals understand that it’s not rocket science? Or are they merely striking a pose?