Washington and the NFC West

Watching my Cardinals play the Rams this afternoon- while tracking the San Francisco/Seattle game- quite frankly, made me cringe. But, it also made me think…

The Cardinals/Rams game was, in essence, a tale of two quarterbacks: the Rams’ Sam Bradford and the Houston Texans’ Matt Leinart. Leinart, of course, was a Heisman trophy winner from USC,  and he was supposed to be the heir apparent to Kurt Warner after several years of tutelage (and not cutting it on his own). After Warner’s retirement, Leinart apparently never proved he was as good as advertised. He was beaten out in preseason by the much-maligned Derek Anderson, and Leinart was released shortly thereafter. Contrast that with Bradford, who, as a rookie, seemed to be confident- if not comfortable- in his starting role.

It reminded me of two presidents, Barack Obama and George Bush. Obama- like Leinart- was the much-hyped prodigy that, in retrospect, was never really ready for the role in which he was expected to excel. Bush, while steadfastly confident like Bradford- and maybe as maligned as Anderson- seemed to find his comfort zone while on a very steep learning curve.

As bizarre as that realization was, the other game also rang a familiar bell. San Francisco was supposed to be the team to move in and succeed where the depleted Cardinals were on the decline. Seattle was the team in disarray with a controversial new leader and a bunch of aging veterans. When the game was played, though, the 49ers came up lacking in a big way. I couldn’t help but compare San Francisco to the Democrats- intending to shake things up, but in over their heads when it counted. Seattle and its controversial leader seems to be a fitting comparison to the Republicans and the Tea Party movement.

The season is still young, of course, and things can still change for all of these teams and players. And, though this is generally a Republican year, both parties are still capable of self-inflicted wounds. But there is definitely a major shift in the NFC West this year- one so great you can see Washington in it.

9 1/2 Years

The question is simple: are we where we want to be 9-1/2 years after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001?

The answer is not so simple.

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that we still don’t feel really all that safe, though I suspect this generation will likely always be on some sort of guard (and that’s not a bad thing), and that may be pulling those poll numbers down slightly. The biggest challenge is how to address future threats- proactively, or reactively. This requires a delicate balance of foreign intervention and foreign restraint, of personal liberty and public security; however, the proactive/reactive decision is a no-brainer. Part of the reason we don’t feel safer is because the administration and Congressional leadership seem to be distracted by finding that balance point.

Of course, Saturday marks 9 years since the September 11 terror attacks on America. The extra six months puts us into March, two months after the 112th Congress is sworn in. The faltering economy is a reminder that elections have consequences, but we also need to be thinking of our security.

September 11 will always be in the back of our minds, popping up to the surface this time of year. Let’s make sure it also plays a part in how we approach November 2 this year.

Where do you want to be after 9-1/2 years?

Slow Burn

I have a lot of questions about this Koran burning event set for Saturday. So, in no particular order:

For it to have lived up to the hype, the fire would have had to be really big. Where were they getting all the Korans? Are they buying them en masse? Doesn’t that bring the laws of supply and demand into play, i.e. if they bought a bunch of Korans, wouldn’t publishers respond to the increased demands… by printing more of them?

I’ve  thought it was a bad idea, not to mention one that flies in the face of Christian teaching, but I don’t think the pastor bears the sole blame for this. Now that his “demands” have been publicized (not building the mosque at Ground Zero), why hasn’t as much pressure been placed by the Obama administration on the imam to move the mosque as it has on the pastor to stop the Koran burning?

For that matter, the church’s website was taken down and the FBI visited the pastor today. Given the church’s out-of-the-mainstream brand of Christianity, does anybody see this eventually going the way of the Branch Davidians?

And why do I get the feeling that we haven’t heard the last of any of this?

Hidden Agendas

One of the popular themes among conservatives- especially the Libertarian right- is that President Obama has some sort of hidden agenda to drive/drag/push America into full-fledged socialism. Granted, there is a lot coming from the administration- and Obama himself- to confirm that.

I’m going to step out on quite a limb by saying this, but I’ve come to believe recently that Obama is, in fact, does not have a hidden agenda to socialize America. Any agenda he has to socialize America is, or will be, out in the open. Some of his advisors/followers/czars may have hidden agendas in that regard. I’d bet they probably do. But America’s greatest problem right now is Obama’s real hidden agenda, though that agenda, too, is starting to see the light of day.

Obama’s only agenda right now is trying to look like a competent captain on a sinking ship.

His party is going to suffer serious losses in both houses of Congress this November, possibly losing control of at least one house altogether. Even if the Democrats’ firewall strategy holds, and they retain control of both houses, Republicans will gain enough seats in the Senate to sustain filibusters when necessary. Given Obama’s strength as a campaigner, Democrats should be flocking to his side in the runup to November. Few, if any, Democrats are calling him in to boost their poll numbers. Even when he’s tapped into his strength and gone into campaign mode to try to drum up support for his agenda, his efforts have not yielded their usual fruit.

Some of this is attributable to the unpopularity of his agenda on its face. Some of it is due to the unfulfilled campaign promises of increased transparency and an end to politics-as-usual. But I think a large portion of this is due to a lack of confidence in Obama’s ability to govern. That’s right; as great as he may have been on the campaign trail, he has not established himself as any kind of effective leader. He seems out-of-touch with the American people with his spendthrift economic policy, his decidedly pro-Islamic foreign policy (which probably explains the large percentage of Americans that believe he’s Muslim), and his “blame Bush first” economic policy. Mostly, though, he seems to be trying to appear to be “above it all.” Instead, he comes across as aloof and disconnected, content to let the maelstrom swirl around him as long as he remains unharmed.

Now, Obama’s disconnectedness may be just what his advisors want. They may have signed on to take advantage of his charisma to further their own political agendas. If so, expect many of them to start finding excuses to jump ship (like Rahm Emanuel) before it sinks completely in November. Those who followed him on his meteoric rise (which is kind of a funny idiom… since meteors are usually seen as falling) to fulfill their own personal ambitions may soon leave, though some may stick around to function as the wizened voice of dissent from the inside (Hillary Clinton, perhaps?). So, there may be plenty of hidden (and not so hidden) agendas in the White House. I just don’t think Obama has one… unless he’s hiding it from himself.