Charlie Crist did not come across well in the interview that I saw. It looks like he's trying to position himself as a man "of the people", not tied to the special interests of either party. He was evasive over whether he would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans. I fully expect him to caucus with the Republicans, but the fact that all the Republicans who endorsed him are publicly disavowing their support after Crist went independent is not helping--their case is simply: if you want a GOP vote for Senate Majority Leader McConnell, why not pick the GOP nominee, Marco Rubio? He did call for a do-over on health care. I don't like him citing support by teachers, grateful over his veto of teaching reform, or finger-in-the-wind voting. On the other hand, I did not find hostile reaction to Crist from Senator Lamar Alexander and others helpful.
I am not a Crist political advisor, but here are a few thoughts: First, he could rationalize a run as an independent on the closed nature of primaries locking out independent voters. Second, he could argue that he wanted to distance himself from special interests and the Republican campaign contribution kerfuffle in Florida. Third, he wants to stress the value of experience and pragmatism in bridging the partisan gap in DC. Fourth, he needs to articulate what GHW Bush once famously called the "vision thing". Start talking about goals--fixing social security, Medicare, trillion-dollar deficits, etc., and the virtue of being flexible versus ideological and a good listener versus analysis paralysis and punting the ball down to future generations to fix. Now personally I like the problem solver metaphor; but I don't like a "political finger-in-the-wind" politics. Finally, he needs to address the implicit allegation that he's all about political survival by going independent. It might help if he admitted some mistakes, e.g., the stimulus bill.
White House Scores One on Fox News
Nobody from Fox News is asking me for my opinion on how they operate; I do think it's an improvement over the groupthink mainstream media, but the channel doesn't really vary from its formula of pop conservatism.
If you ask my opinion, thumbs up for Charles Krauthammer, Wall Street Journal commentators (John Fund, James Taranto, etc.), Fox Business personalities like Neil Cavuto and John Stossel, the business weekend shows (including Steve Forbes), and retired Judge Andrew Napolitano. There are a number of things which bother me, including heavy rotation of the same stories, quirky contrived debates (e.g., Megyn Kelly's courts), and an alumni association of former or active Republican legislators and administration staff. I make an exception for Karl Rove, whom is highly-articulate and perceptive, and former Governor Huckabee comes across as personable and articulate. But, for instance, I saw an appearance by John Ashcroft and former FEMA director Mike Brown has been on. I don't think I've heard anything from Dana Perino or Sarah Palin that I hadn't read already (and better stated) on a number of conventional conservative blogs.
I am impressed by Chris Wallace, whom easily is the best Sunday morning talk soup anchor and gives the most balanced interviews. From my standpoint, however, Fox News picks and chooses the nature of its much-publicized balanced reporting. I don't recall hearing anyone on Fox News contradicting Sarah Palin or challenging her (e.g., over her campaign support for the Bridge to Nowhere). The coverages on the Marco Rubio candidacy in Florida, Arizona immigration bill and constitutional challenges to ObamaCare were overwhelmingly sympathetic. There are different point of views within the conservative camp; for example, I am open to a consumption tax, I am skeptical of nation-building and military/foreign intervention, a critic of the current defense budget, and pro-immigration.
It isn't so much that the media conservatives express opinions on Fox News, but Fox News needs to do a better job of distinguishing what is news and what is opinion (e.g., "commentary" or "opinion" on the bottom of the screen). But when former FEMA director Mike Brown on Cavuto's show attempted to argue that Obama Administration was looking for an excuse to get out of minor offshore drilling concessions, which were strongly opposed by environmentalist allies, and deliberately let the Deepwater Horizon oil spill worsen, that was a patently absurd conspiracy theory, and Robert Gibbs was correct in rebuking it.
I have a nuanced view of the Katrina/Deepwater Horizon comparison. In fact, we know offshore companies are regulated; the fact that the Congress dropped a moratorium on offshore drilling in 2008 makes that obvious. In fact, Obama's plans only opened up a small percentage of what was enabled by the 2008 law. Companies must file paperwork with the government before they ever put up a rig, and spills are explicitly addressed in any contract with the government. The Coast Guard has a number of responsibilities, including protection of our fragile coastal ecosystems. They were on hand for search and rescue after the rig was destroyed. Various satellites can track things like the oil spill. Obama could and should have addressed the federal government's role in dealing with oil spills, what it could and was doing to mitigate oil spill damage, etc., explicitly and frequently as evidence of a gushing oil spill became evident. There was an inexcusable bungling of communication with the American people, a rare misstep for the Obama Administration. When a spill means a likely ecological disaster and many coastal businesses adversely affected (e.g., shrimp boats), the government has a responsibility to communicate clearly and set expectations.
But this isn't a case like Katrina, where the federal government had constructed a levee system which was not built sturdy enough for high-powered hurricanes. On the other hand, BP was responsible for its drilling infrastructure, and its equipment should have plugged the well after the accident but didn't. It looks like they are trying to fabricate a containment dome; the real question is why a preexisting dome wasn't already available. Whatever combination of human and mechanical failures occurred, it is clear that the responsibility goes to the owner and operator of the rig, not to the government. You can fault the government for failing to anticipate a spill, for not having or requiring fire booms, etc. But for Mr. Brown to imply that somehow the government is letting it get worse--how? Maybe the government could request other nations to let it borrow fire booms. The argument is quite thin--and in fact, I would argue for the government to accept responsibility for the oil spill is moral hazard, no better than banks making bad investments and expecting the government to bail them out.
I strongly disagree with the Obama Administration on a number of issues, but I don't know what Fox News was thinking. I mean, who would ever think that Fox News, in covering a disaster, would solicit expert commentary from "heck of a job, Brownie"? Advantage--Gibbs.
Political Cartoon
Bob Gorrell is spoofing how the White House has deployed oil booms--around the President, hoping nothing from his "leadership" during oil spill tragedy sticks to him in the eyes of the public.
Quote of the Day
As we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Nelson Mandela
Musical Interlude: "Angel" Songs
Sarah McLachlan, "Angel"
R Kelly and Celine Dion, "I'm Your Angel"
The Heights, "How Do You Talk to an Angel?"
Juice Newton, "Angel of the Morning"
