Falling again into the Valentine’s Day trap

Posted on by

I struggle so much with these Hallmark holidays. 

The messages you get in the ads, the commercials and shows on TV, can set you up for one of two things … either depression, because your relationship is so unlike the Shmoopie couples (obscure Seinfeld reference) whose fairytale love bombards you from every commercial angle, or fraud, as you try to emulate the Shmoopies on this day of mandatory romance.

I fall for both.

There comes a time when you look around and realize you have been with the same person for so long, you can barely remember The Before.  It has been 25 years of marriage and – before that – 10 years of prolonged courtship.  (The courtship dance wasn’t a smooth, graceful waltz either.  It was more like a  mosh pit.)  And yes, it’s a bit daunting to acknowledge that 35 years of a 55-year life has been spent with one partner.        

Twenty-five years of marriage can include a lot of emotional blunt force trauma.  Some of it is bad luck.  Some of it is self-inflicted.  Much of it revolves around the uncertain art of parenting.  So much of it is being too busy, too tired, and sometimes too self-absorbed to tend to the regular gardening a relationship needs to keep growing.  (Yes, fans … We’re back to lawn care!)  You forget to fertilize.  The weeds get so high they block out the sun.  And on those rare occasions when you remember to water, it just flows over the hardened earth and right out to the gutter.          

I’m guilty in this.  I’ll admit that much.

But one thing is crystal-clear despite all the disappointments, the brown spots on our weathered relationship, and those annoying Shmoopies.  I would not have of THIS without HER.

She was the one who convinced me we could make it, when many who knew us in The Before probably thought otherwise.  She was the one who pushed me to be someone of whom I could be proud.  She was one who gave me the gifts of three sons I can not see myself without.  When I faltered, she forgave me (once the smoke cleared).  Whenever I needed her, she was there for me.

I can only hope she thinks the same of me.   

Thank you, Carol, for EVERYTHING!

And I hope you aren’t angry with me once you see this, because …

I still love you!

(And if you see a Shmoopie today, please give ’em a smack for me!)

A case of priest sexual abuse too close to home

Posted on by

I am sickened and disgusted … again.

News broke last night and was prominently reported in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer on a new sexual abuse case linked to children attending an Archdiocese of Philadelphia school.  In this case several individuals, including two priests and a sixth-grade lay teacher were indicted by a grand jury for the abuse of two male students – ages 10 and 14 at the time of the assaults – at St. Jerome Church and School in Northeast Philadelphia.

This is the same parish both my wife and I attended as a children during the late ’60s and early ’70s.  I graduated in 1970 … Carol in 1972, along with my brother and several other friends.  Almost everyone I grew up with was associated with St. Jerome.  And many of us have friends and family still living there.  Carol and I were married in the church.  And both my parents and Carol’s mother were buried after funeral Masses at St. Jerome. 

I think having so many personal connections to that parish – its neighborhoods and its people – makes this more personal.

I left St. Jerome in 1985, when Carol and I were married.  We then attended St. Martha’s, also in NE Philly.  Currently, we live in Horsham, PA and I have been an on-again, off-again member of St. Catherine of Siena.  More off-again – than on – for several years, mostly due to my failed faith.

But not my failed faith in God, or in the belief that His Son, Jesus Christ came to us as Savior.  No, it’s much more my failed faith in what the Church has become in its quest to minimize liability in cases of sexual abuse of children by members of its clergy. 

The Church’s reactions to these assaults is simply incomprehensible, unless it is placed in the context of a very wealthy plaintiff desperately scrambling to protect financial assets from victims’ need for closure and their righteous desire for justice.  In any other context offered by The Church, it makes absolutely no sense. 

I have failed long ago in trying to comprehend the need of some adults to prey on the trust, innocence, and vulnerability of children.  If this was the extent of the problem, I could live with my sense of disgust and the compelling urge to clamor for state-sponsored castration in these cases.

Unfortunately, it goes way, way beyond my tolerance level to witness the continuing actions of The Church when confronted with priests (and now a teacher) who prey on kids.  How is that The Church can claim that its people ARE The Church when they consistently refuse to protect their flock from the wolves that abuse?!?  How many times can you transfer an individual, against whom credible accusations of abuse exist, from church to church, from and to positions of authority and trust, without performing the only decent actions required … turning the accusations over to law enforcement for investigation and getting the abusers out of The Church and away from children?!?           

The grand jury report, resulting from the Philadelphia D.A.’s investigation,  states that one of the accused, serving as Secretary for Clergy, “… was acutely interested in shielding abusive clergy from criminal detection … and … the Archdiocese from financial liability.”  

This is the crux of the problem, a church more interested in protecting assets than in protecting the true Church – the people who worship there. 

I have made two attempts since turning 40 to return to The Church.  In one attempt I even went beyond my usual apathetic attitude towards spiritual involvement in a way that made me feel good about myself and what The Lord meant – and could mean – in my life.  But in each attempt, renewed allegations of clergy abuse of children and the more infuriating revelations of inaction or outright cover-up by the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. has smothered whatever flickering flames my attempts rekindled.

It is no longer worth the effort.

Montgomery County (PA) Republican Committee endorsement night

Posted on by

Last night I attended the MCRC endorsement meeting for candidates running for county offices and for new and retained judges.  I serve as a Committee Member in Horsham Township (Area 11).  This was my first foray into the party endorsement process for endorsing nominees to run in a general election.  I was very interested in participating in the process and witnessing how a local party organization went about selecting endorsed candidates.

I was curious to see how open the process was; how objective the process would be; and to what extent back-room power politics might be involved.  I came away pleased in the way The Party went about this process, attempting to ensure a ticket that would win in November that would promote a management philosophy for Montgomery County reflective of Republican principles.  Endorsements do not preclude an unsuccessful party nominee from running as an independent, so the Party attempts to preserve unity behind the ticket by working to ensure a fair and impartial process.

Of course the big fight was for the head of the ticket, consisting of two Party candidates for the three seats on the county’s Board of Commissioners.  (Each party nominates two candidates.  But only the three top vote-getters are seated, ensuring one minority representative.  Please see another post on this blog for some well-publicized history on the soap opera-like relationship of the outgoing Board.)  The Montgomery County Democrats have nominated – unopposed – the up-and-coming State Representative Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, a Whitemarsh supervisor.  Given Shapiro’s pull with Democrats, this should prove to be a hotly contested race this year.  The county GOP has lost its long-held advantage in voter registration.

The candidates for the two commissioner endorsements were current Commissioner Bruce L. Castor, Jr., Lower Merion Commissioner Jenny Brown, and State Representative Kate Harper.  Candidates Marie N. Cavanaugh and Jill Govberg withdrew their nominations after poor showings in a poll of county GOP leaders.

The crowd was huge, as was witnessed by the almost impossible task of finding parking if you got there after 6:30 for the beginning of festivities at 8:00 PM at Westover Country Club in West Norriton.  Of roughly 850 committee people eligible to vote on endorsements, over 500 were present.  With 234 proxy votes (Each committee member can vote for one other signed-over committee member proxy.) the number of potential ballots exceeded 700.  A truly impressive number!

There are rules by which any candidate must receive a majority of ballots cast to obtain a party nomination.  If additional ballots are necessary, there are also rules by which candidates must receive a minimum percentage of ballots cast to move on to subsequent rounds.  There were at least two rounds of balloting last night. But only Register of Wills required the second ballot.  Voting was done by anonymous ballot, using the same voting machines we see at our local polling places every Election Day.

After the usual political pep talk, provided by recently renewed County GOP Chair, Bob Kerns, only the remaining candidates for Commissioner were permitted roughly 2 minutes to make their final case.  This was – quite frankly – wholly unnecessary, since committee members have been bombarded with mailings and phone calls seeking support.  And given the crucial nature of the endorsements being sought for Commissioner, it was unlikely that a significant number of voting members did not have their candidate homework finished or their minds made up before entering the venue. 

On the first ballot, Bruce Castor and Jenny Brown won the party endorsements for Commissioner, with Brown leading the way as top vote-getter.  The race between Castor and Kate Harper was close, but not close enough to force a second round of balloting for endorsement.

There were a number of unopposed nominations for county row offices, including District Attorney (Risa Ventri Fermin), Coroner (Dr. Gordon Clement), Prothonotary (Bill Donnelly), Recorder of Deeds (Nancy Becker), Controller (Stewart J. Greenleaf Jr.), and Clerk of Courts (Moon Ahn). In addition to the candidates for Commissioner, the positions of Sheriff (Winner – Eileen Behr), Register of Wills (Patricia Mosesso) and Treasurer (H. Charles Wilson III) were contested endorsements.  Several sitting judges, Thomas Branca and Arthur Tilson, were nominated for 10-year retentions.  And two candidates for open judgeships (Maureen Coggins and Daniel Clifford) were endorsed, with several candidates withdrawing their nominations at the meeting.  Three candidates vying for the two judicial endorsements.  (Maureen Coggins really wowed me when she addressed Area 11 committee members in January!)

As for my own preferences, I was pleased with how closely my votes reflected the will of the collective committee.  I backed winners for all but Register of Wills (I voted for Valerie Harris.) and one of the judge positions (Backing Mr Sheierson – whose name I indubitably just butchered – in lieu of Dan Clifford).  I even had the winner in the mild upset victory of Chuck Wilson for Treasurer over party leadership-backed Martin Dyas.  I was much more impressed with Mr. Wilson’s background than that of Mr. Dyas when both addressed the Area 11 committee members during a January candidates meet ‘n greet.  

In the end, I was quite impressed, not only with the superb group of candidates the committee endorsed but also with the openness of the process.  At no time was there any attempts to pressure the committee members into rubber-stamping any pre-selected slate of favorites.  (A suggestion from my local committee chairman, sure.  But I went off the reservation for several positions.  And voted for the candidates I had decided on prior to last night.)

Certainly there must have been some horse-trading in the pre-meeting nuptials between Castor and Brown; but given the critical importance of this year’s election, one can accept the candidates’ efforts to develop the pairing most likely to succeed in November.

Belated Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan!

Posted on by
To commemorate Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday this past Sunday, it seems appropriate to devote a blog entry to his significance for me, given the effect his two-term presidency had on my political views. 

An American Hero

For much of my post-college years I proved to be much more liberal in my political and social views than many of my life-long friends.  I can recall – with general fondness – the abuse I used to take at the hand of life-long friends during discussions that tended to spring up when young working-class guys get together over beers or maybe a card game.  Looking back at it now, it seems odd that so many of them held such conservative views, when all of us grew up in a blue-collar, urban environment that would normally be viewed as traditionally more liberal than conservative.    

But I learned to live with it. 

Then Jimmy Carter was elected President.  When Carter made his “crises of confidence” speech, which later morphed in the country’s “malaise”, I had enough of his weak – bordering on whiny – presidential leadership.  There had been an intolerable lack of presidential leadership in this country, as was clearly the case with Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam), Richard Nixon (Watergate) and Gerald Ford (being Gerald Ford).  Carter seemed like the latest in an undistinguished line of presidents.

Ronald Reagan was not what I was looking for in 1980.  I can remember watching Reagan in a televised debate, and quickly turning it off because my impression of him was one of a guy clearly in over his head.  I must have missed a helluva comeback performance, because Reagan went on to beat the stuffing out of Carter in November.  I’ve always wondered what chances Reagan would have had if there had been a stronger incumbent than Carter in The Oval Office.

In the end, I think I actually sat out the 1980 presidential election.

But what I learned in those early Reagan years was that he was the consummate manager.  He knew how to pull in the most qualified people to execute his strategies, then he got out-of-the-way and let them do their jobs.  Mr. Reagan eventually proved to demonstrate values, policies and initiatives that I came to appreciate. 

His administration’s efforts to build a 600 ship navy placed unmanageable pressure on the Soviet military and economy.  It was just one more factor adding cracks to the facade of the soon-to-fail Soviet bloc.  Reagan’s foreign policy initiatives included added emphasis on reducing the nuclear arsenals of both the USA and USSR in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty that laid the framework for the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) treaty.  In fact, Reagan became such a popular icon in the Soviet Union that Mikhail Gorbachev asked Reagan to give a speech on free-market philosophy at Moscow State University.

But what struck me most was the way Reagan restored a sense of strength and leadership in The Oval Office.  Reagan’s performance, whether one agrees with his pragmatic approach to governance and belief in American exceptionalism (the shining city on the hill),  turned the attitude of country around from the aimlessness of the Carter years. 

By the end of Reagan’s first term I was a convert, not only to the Reagan philosophy but to more conservative views on social and economic matters.  I voted for Reagan in his re-election campaign against Walter Mondale.  And by the end of his presidency in 1988, I viewed Ronald Reagan as an American hero.

The above is one of my favorite pictures of Reagan.  I had it taped on my desk at work for years; and on more than one occasion it was suggested that the picture was disrespectful.  When confronted with this observation, I would explain that the picture was a favorite because it portrayed a side of Reagan no other President in recent memory would allow to peek through.  (When asked why he allowed himself this lapse in presidential decorum, the President simply said he had always wanted to do that to the press.) 

Ronald Reagan was unafraid to appear human, even self-deprecating.  I loved the picture because it showed President Reagan as a human being who cared more for that “shining city on the hill” than he did for the pretense of invulnerability.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

We miss you!

Lactation Support

Posted on by

There it was one day this past week.  An announcement broadcast via e-mail throughout my federal government organization letting all employees know that one crucial issue – of which many were unaware – had been put to rest.

We now have a Lactation Support Room!

Of course, it wouldn’t be a true Government-run operation without an acronym in which all references could be cloaked. So it became for us the LSR. As in …

“Yo, Marty, we’re hitting Molly Maguires for a few pints after work!”

Marty replies, “Sorry, already got plans. The guys from NMCI are finishing up their ERP cutover prep before their RDO, then we’re going to hang around outside the LSR.”

See what the thought of lactating women can do to the male mind, juvenile playground that it is?

I have no doubt that new mothers can use the privacy and support provided by a quiet place to take care of that motherly call.  No one can criticize conscientious mothers doing what mothers do best.  And I have nothing but good memories of those times when my wife and I were young parents, trying to do what we thought best for the munchkins we brought into the world.  We dealt with the cold realities of the non-lactating world.

OK … I didn’t exactly have to deal with anything, other than manning the breastworks (if needed) and staying out-of-the-way of Lactating Mom. But still …

As I recall, she did alright. There were a lot of details in the process and difficulties of suckling that I’m sure brought a glazed-over look to my eyes.  Afterall, as males, we tend to have an overwhelming singular view of … uh … the ramparts.  And descriptions of this utilitarian dimension to one of our favorite aspects in women’s studies, although titillating on some guilt-ridden level, tends to nip a males’ post-baby-birth over-eagerness in the butt. 

One has to wonder though … How did we – as new parents – get through this new, exciting experience without an LSR?!?  Would we now be considered disadvantaged in our apprehensive, LSR-absent pursuit of healthy offspring?  Can we claim an LSR Deficiency Offset on some future income tax return?  What about mitigation services for our children should they exhibit the symptoms of LSDS (Lactation Support Deficiency Syndrome)?!?     

Then again, I’m just a boob with no hat on that rack.

The issue of gay marraige put to rest!

Posted on by

There always seems to be a sense of accomplishment whenever we can check an item off society’s bucket list.  And today we find that the subject of gay marriage has finally been resolved thanks to yesterday’s pronouncement that Barbara Bush, Bush43’s daughter, has come out in support of same-sex marriage!  Hooray!

OK … I jest.

You’ll find no dog here in that fight.  I do not have an opinion that leans either way.  I have no problem with civil gay marriage, so long as the states, which have always retained the responsibility of regulating and recording marriage applications, decide – preferably by legislation, perhaps via sustainable judicial review – to recognize the union.  Of course that guarantees several states, most likely those in southern and mid-western regions will never recognize gay marriage on their own.  But that’s fine with me.  The people in those states have every right to decide in that way.  (I won’t get into the ramifications of a potential national constitutional amendment on the issue. )

I also have no problem with gay marriage as a religious observance should particular churches determine that it fits their beliefs.  Again, you can start counting grains of sand at the beach while waiting for the Roman Catholic Church to recognize same-sex marriage, but again – it’s their right.

No, this has nothing to do with gay marriage or even Barbara Bush.  It has everything to do with the notion that anyone should give a crap one way or the other what Barbara Bush thinks, simply because she is Barbara Bush! 

I have had the same reaction to Hollywood types being touted for their views on global warming, the Iraq war, healthcare, etc.  And since MOST Hollywood types tend towards liberal views, let me just say the same applies to those celebrity types on the conservative side of debates.  I do not  – aside from random channel surfing – generally view or listen to talking head opinion shows on either side.

I just never understood the notion, put forth and periodically reinforced by the media, that somehow the opinions and pronouncements of people prominent in the popular culture should carry more weight simply because of their popularity.  It’s not the reporting of celebrity utterances that gets me annoyed.  It’s the weight that the opinion is given in the way it is conveyed.  Do I really have to see it reported as BREAKING NEWS?!?  How long will I have to glimpse it as a news crawl along the bottom edge of the TV screen?    

The opinion means nothing to me.  Why?  Because she has no weight in the fight.

Now had it been Bush43 himself or – better yet – Dick Cheney providing us this nugget of social commentary, more people in this country would – and probably should – sit up a bit straighter and take notice. Not because they know better, they claim no higher ground than anyone else.   But because of their weight with moderate and social conservatives, their roles as policy leaders.  More authoritative? Yes.  But the end of the discussion?  Well, not so fast!

Each of us should be able to make up our own minds; express those opinions as Barbara B did; and promote change if we feel it appropriate based on whatever level of education on the subject we pursue. 

That last part is the sticky wicket.  If enough people made it a point to truly educate themselves on the issues of the day, I imagine touting Barbara B’s opinion on anything important wouldn’t be much of a draw in the media.  But the fact that it does has to give one pause. 

It’s a scary thought.

Nothing personal, Barb.

Happy Fred Korematsu Day!

Posted on by

(In a shout out to Jon, a debate counterpart on another website, the following was posted in response to his request for comments on California’s observation of Fred Korematsu Day on January 30.)

It (internment) was a travesty perpetrated on Japanese-Americans during WWII.  And it reflects – to a point – the mindset from the 1940s that Orientals were a lesser race of people.  It’s especially appalling given the experience of German and Italian-Americans during the same period.  But it’s not that easy – in my opinon – to fully comprehend or to condemn.

On one hand, you can rationalize to an extent the treatment of the Japanese in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor.  Their race was viewed as being sneaky and ruthless, due to the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack contrasted with the false negotiations Tokyo held with Washington in the weeks leading up to the attack.

It’s also somewhat easier to comprehend when you read what the Japanese were doing in areas they had already conquered, like China.  If you get the chance, pick up the book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II.  The Japanese were doing some nasty, nasty stuff in their own belief that THEY were the race superior to all others.

So I don’t think it’s as easy to dismiss the fear, distrust, and ethnic animosity that was present especially after thousands of Americans died in a surprise military attack.

Don’t get me wrong.  It was reprehensible treatment of fellow Americans, many of whom either fought or sent sons to fight in defense of their U.S. homeland despite – in some cases – family still living on the Japanese islands.

It was a horrible event during horrible times.

For Anglo veterans of the Pacific in World War II, many never got over what they experienced fighting the Japanese.  I recall a day out golfing with a good friend in the late ’80s/early ’90s, when we pulled up the 10th tee after the turn.  A group of older Anglo gentlemen were already on the tee, waiting for a group in the fairway to clear out.  One of the gents came up and – by way of apology – stated that they were waiting for “the gooks” to move on.  Being the smartass, I replied, “”You mean those Oriental gentlemen?”  And despite the fact that you could not determine from where we stood whether they were Japanese, Korean, Chinese or whatever, he dismissively snorted, “Not if you were in the Pacific during WW2!” 

For another perspective – though fictional – read Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson.  It deals with the real discrimination that Japanese- American World War II veterans faced in the years after the war ended.  A national award winner, it’s also an enjoyable read!

The Forecast Blues

Posted on by

Tonight: Snow, followed by up to 1/2 inch of ice! … Changing to rain, then to a rainy, icy mix tomorrow night.

I can’t take much more of this.  Of course, it could always be worse.  The Mid-West can expect up to 2 feet of winter wonderfulness from the same storm.  So we’re not getiing the worst of it.

Where is global warming when you could really use it?!?

It ain’t easy …

Posted on by

… writing a blog, or anything else, I imagine.  Despite my goal to contribute to this endeavor on a semi-strict, regular schedule, experience thus far indicates that it just isn’t that easy.  I am concerned despite the fact that NO ONE as yet has been permitted to peek at this effort of mine.

But it’s not like there’s nothing to write about.  From the events in Egypt to early maneuvering in the 112th Congress, there is plenty of material out there.  Fact is, you have to be in the mood to write anything meaningful. Otherwise, you just end up with a lot of muddled, directionless drivel … Kind of like this.

Yet there are times when I cannot wait to get at the computer to put thoughts and ideas to the ethernet.  I imagine other blogger/writer types probably experience this as well.

In my current state of mind, I can readily identify the time of year as one possible cause.  The Dead of Winter is upon us.  This is the worst time of the year for me. I hate it.

The holidays are behind us; Spring seems to be miles away; and there’s very little I like to do at this time of year … that doesn’t involve doing the kind of domestic chores I abhor.

And this weather ain’t helpin’!  Snow snow everywhere … It must be piled 4-5 feet deep along the edges of anything paved. And any public area with a parking lot looks like a Himalayan landscape.  Some of these mounds look like they will still be with us on the 4th of July.

Anyways, it’s a real mood killer.

So what’s the neophyte blogger’s solution?

I think I have to develop some likely themes for those Geez-what-do-I-write-about moments.  This will at least give me ideas for subject matter that can be developed during these dry times.  And I think, once I clue people I know into my secret little project here, I can solicit ideas they might have for promising topics.  That is assuming I end up deciding that this venture is worth someone actually viewing it.

We’ll see.

Reading List: “Game Change” – Heilemann & Halperin

Posted on by

(I’m sure many blogs are delving deeply into the recent SOTU Address and the analysis thereof.  But the SOTU has become such partisan political demonstration, I have a hard time even reading the media analyses, let alone actually watching the speeches themselves.  So today I’ll stick to a less aggravating topic, political history.)

Game Change was written by two political journalists, John Heilemann (New York) and Mark Halperin (Time). Both are regular contributors on Joe Scarborough’s morning MSNBC offering, Morning Joe.

Game Change takes a look at the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, including the critical Democratic primary run-up that saw the rise of Barack Obama to national prominence.

By far the most interesting aspect of the book is the meteoric rise of Obama, and the unseating of Hillary Clinton as heir to the throne.  John Kerry’s decision to invite a little known State Senator from Illinois to give a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention resulted in recognition on a national level of Obama as a charismatic leader with the potential to unite and excite the various factions with in the Democratic Party.

But the depth and breadth of his appeal with little experience at the national level and absolutely no executive background puzzled many.

In one scene (p. 65) – to which many of us who watched this drama from the Republican side can relate –  a white woman in an Iowa focus group leading up to the caucuses there states, “There’s something about that guy; that’s the guy I want. I can’t even put it in words.”  The occurrence nicely summarizes the phenomena that launched his successful quest for The Oval Office.  Who is this guy?  How did he get here?  What’s the appeal?

For me, it’s a fascinating story. 

The play between the Obama and Clinton camps is the best part of the story.  Hillary actually coaches the newly elected Senator Obama during his very short stint in The Senate (141 days).  Yet the animosity for the Clintons within the Democratic Party, which lies just beneath the facade of support demonstrated by party leaders becomes all too easy for Obama to tap.  Just goes to show that if you’re considered the playground bully – as the Clintons were, it doesn’t take much to instigate a palace revolt!

Obama slowly starts to pull in party support and endorsements, including the defection of Bill Richardson, former New Mexico governor who served as Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the U.N. in Bill Clinton’s administration.  And the theme of the book quickly becomes the befuddlement of the Clintons as political rugs are pulled out from beneath them time and again. 

Of course my first reaction to all this, as it peaked during the caucus and primary season in the summer of ’08, was not particularly flattering.  I kept recalling the campaign and election of James Earl (Jimmy) Carter.  I would shudder when I recalled all the excitement and media frenzy surrounding the peanut farmer with the big toothy smile.  Ever since, I can’t look at Planter’s Peanuts commercials featuring Mr. Peanut without getting nauseous.  Afterall, Carter has to go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history.  I can still see the cardigan sweater-clad Carter sitting leisurely by a fireplace as he chided America about its defeatist attitude, which would later be described by Carter staffers as a national “malaise”.  Just a complete lack of leadership …

On the other hand, John Edwards and his late wife, Elizabeth, do not fare well in Game Change.  From John’s $400-1200 haircuts, his Rielle Hunter affair, and the knock-down drag-out fights it produces between them to Elizabeth’s unfortunate bout with cancer, her high maintenance needs and general surliness towards everyone, it’s an ugly picture.  How exactly Edwards thought he could pull off an affair with the attention-whore Hunter and still think he could be a good president is simply mind-boggling.  It’s the height of self-absorbed elitism.

Once Obama seals the Democratic nomination, the story turns to John McCain and Sarah Palin.  They come out looking better than the Edwards’, but not by much.  McCain comes off as an aloof candidate, prone to angry outbursts sprinkled with expletives; more concerned about dinner plans with his much younger wife, Cindi, than he is about campaign issues.  This includes a White House strategy session McCain instigates to offer his plans to right the economy during the banking crises.  McCain arrives at the meeting completely unprepared.  Obama end up doing a much better job of presenting his views and call to action.  As a result, even Bush43 wonders what the heck McCain’s point was in betting his political life by proposing the crises meeting.  

Sarah Palin shows her ability to wow a crowd, but becomes more of a drag on a sinking McCain candidacy.  Her obliviousness to even the most rudimentary political and foreign policy issues is alarming for anyone who was concerned about her readiness for the international spotlight.  I’m not a fan of hers, so some might conclude I’m letting the media influence me.  But there’s an awful lot of baggage there.  In the end though, it was the McCain campaign that did her in by shoving her into the national spotlight when she wasn’t ready for the national stage.

As you can see there’s a lot of meaty political nastiness and intrigue in Game Change.  Even as an avid reader, I NEVER read books on politics.  Political history, biographies?  Absolutely!  (Pick up some of Edmund Morris’ works on Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan!)  But never political tomes. 

But I was fascinated by the 2008 campaigns …  the changing fortunes of the Clintons, the meteoric rise of Obama, the RNC settling for an indifferent and low-energy McCain, Palin, the Edwardses …  It was a political soap opera.  If you feel – like I do – that the 2008 election cycle was so atypical for what we have grown used to over the past 20 years or so, you should definitely pick this book up! 

4 stars out of 5

(Hope you enjoyed this.  It’s been DECADES since I did a book report!)