Obama admonishes the faithless

Perhaps the diagnosis is wrong.  What President Obama sees as "Democratic voter apathy" may actually be buyer's remorse.  And as all American's don't fall neatly into Democrat or Republic boxes, assigning apathy to "Democrats" misses the point--it wasn't just Democrats that voted for him in 2008.

It's also wrong to assume his presidential legacy is the responsibility of "Democrats" to rescue and they're being apathetic on the up-take.

When Obamacrats voted for change they put "The Best of Obama" on their iPods and listened to them over and over, memorized the lyrics, and hummed the melodies in local government, facebook, and the pages of the NYTimes.

In many ways, they're feeling a lot like Republicans did after Bush passed NCLB and the huge prescription bill, and their malaise is for THE SAME reason.  Republican melancholy was due to Bush's breaking a promise and Democratic lethargy is because Obama kept his promise.

But ultimately, both Republicans and Democrats were disappointed for the same reason.  In essence, Bush acted liberal and Obama, well, is liberal.

The good news is, I still see a lot of Obama bumper stickers.  The bad news I still see Mondale/Ferraro stickers.  Maybe Obama's diagnosis isn't so far off the mark.

It pays to be bland

From "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"

Captain Nemo: I am Captain Nemo, putting myself humbly at your service. I have heard of Mr. Quartermain.

Quartermain: And I've heard of you, Captain. Rumor has it you're a pirate.

Captain Nemo: I would prefer a less provocative title.

Quartermain: I'm sure you would.

Believe it or not, there are only three self-described Democrats on Ferndale's Financial Planning Committee.  There are also five self-described independents, two that didn't identify any affiliation, and two that weren't on the list at all (and were yet still appointed).

There are no self-identified Republicans.  I find that fascinating.  During the Bush administration, Republicans pretty much lost their "quals" as fiscal conservatives, so in that regard Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats.

Another possibility is both are ashamed of their parties, and not without reason.

Quatermain: I may have been overly rude earlier... when I called you a pirate.

Captain Nemo: And I may have been overly charitable... when I said I wasn't.  But I try to live in the now... where the ghosts of old wrongs do not abide.

Nemo, at least, eventually admitted he was being "overly charitable."

Council appointees to Ferndale Financial Planning Committee

A list of people nominated to the planning committee, for a term ending December 31, 2010.

Nominator  Nominee              Motion

Baker      Kathryn Hershberger  carried

Galloway   Scott Helmer         carried

Lennon     Steve Kuzmanovich    FAILED

Piana      Mark Van Dyke        carried

Baker      Robert Porter        carried

Galloway   Dennis Whittie       carried

Baker      Joel Petrie          carried

Piana      Jacqueline Smith     carried

Galloway   Greg Pawlica         carried

Baker      Ben Updyke           carried

Lennon     John McQuiggin       carried

Lennon     Thomas Gagne         FAILED

Baker      Sharon Chess         carried

Baker      Daniel Harteau       carried

A couple quick notes (longer ones may follow).

There must be something poisonous about Kuzmanovich and Gagne.  What do those guys have in common (besides Lennon's nominating them) that none of the other council members would second the motion?

Baker, Galloway, and Piana all batted 1000, going 6-6, 3-3, and 2-2 on their nominations.

How is it Baker was allowed six nominations?

Why did Mayor Covey allow Baker six nominations?

You read it here first!

Whether it's my comments that Johnson's touchdown-receiption-that-wasn't was only the last in many missed opportunities in Sunday's game against the bears being repeated by Coach Swartz to the media, or Greenspan agreeing with me about why we were fighting a war in Iraq, I enjoy it when a national or local figure repeats something I might have said earlier.  It boosts my ego, and we all know how fragile male egos can be...

Most recently I was reminded of an article I wrote in 2007, Accrediting Your Adversary, while reading Kathleen Parker's column this weekend.


In my column I warned about the dangers of focusing so tightly on a political target that you give them more attention, and political weight, than they deserve.  By singling them out you give them a power similar to how Voldemort marked Harry Potter--and we know how that one ended.


So Kathleen Parker writes:

No one is enjoying Obama's attempt to demonize Boehner more than Boehner. The White House seems to relish playing target practice with an enemy du jour and, in the process, elevating its prey. When the administration singled out Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party, no one was more delighted than Limbaugh.

Even though his critics say he's prematurely measuring for new drapes in the speaker's quarters, Boehner is hardly a household name beyond Washington and political parlors where the chattering class feasts on the latest polls.

Effective immediately, Boehner is the un-Obama, and that is not a bad thing for Republicans. If the president were confident in his programs, some of which Republicans also support (research and development tax credits, for example), he wouldn't need to challenge Boehner on his own turf. Successful leaders ignore the hecklers and noisemakers. 

So now we all know (or are learning) who Boehner is, even though we didn't know him until Obama started arguing with him.

Of course, had then-senator Obama been reading my blog he would have known that.  But as a regular reader of this blog, you won't make that mistake.

(pat self on back)