Robert Reich's Blog

Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

My Photo
Name: Robert Reich

Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

McCain, Palin, and the Important Difference Between Boldness and Riskiness

At this perilous juncture, America needs boldness. But it does not need to take unnecessary risks. The distinction between boldness and riskiness is critical, as evidenced by the events of the last two days.

Barack Obama has laid out a bold plan for reforming the economy and redirecting foreign policy -- a plan whose boldness is directly proportional to the scale of the problems we face. On Thursday night he restated it in detail. As someone who has had a very modest role in developing it, and who served as a cabinet officer under Bill Clinton and therefore knows something about public policy and about the challenges we face, I can attest to the appropriateness and boldness of Obama's plan.

John McCain’s plan, on the other hand, is the reverse of boldness. Whatever you think of it, there is little disputing that McCain would continue Bush’s economic and foreign policies and even enlarge upon them – adding even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, injecting even more belligerence into foreign policy.

McCain’s choice of vice president is termed “bold” in today’s headlines but it is not at all bold, if we understand boldness to be the equivalent of courageous and appropriate to the times. To the contrary, the choice suggests that McCain caved to the religious right within the Republican Party, using his pick as a political ploy to
stir their enthusiasm while perhaps attracting a few women who are attracted to a female on a ticket regardless of her views.

Yet his choice is risky – not just for McCain’s campaign but for America’s future. Yesterday McCain celebrated his 72nd birthday; he has a history of skin cancer; if elected, he would be the oldest American ever to serve. Hence, his choice of vice president is critically important because the odds are much higher than normal that such a person would have to assume the office of the presidency.

Sarah Palin has been a governor of state inhabited by more moose than people for twenty months, and before that mayor of a town with a population smaller than two blocks of downtown Manhattan. Although she has barely exercised power, she is already under federal investigation for abuse of it. And while Ms. Palin is perfectly entitled to believe that evolution is a myth, that women should be barred from choosing to have abortions, and that global warming has yet to be proven, these views all run counter to the views of mainstream America.

Palin’s defenders say that she is no less experienced than Obama, but that is false. Barack Obama has served as a United States Senator and an Illinois state legislator; he has also been a community organizer in Chicago. He knows how Washington works and does not work; he knows the ways our cities and metropolitan regions function and do not; his breadth and depth of experience around the world – both personally and officially – is impressive. Obama can lead the nation at a time of crisis; Sarah Palin cannot. Until very recently she did not even know what a vice president does. (Last month, on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program – a predictable den of conservative Republican thought on which I am a token Democrat – Palin asked “what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?”)

In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain has subjected the nation to an unnecessary risk, at the very time when America can least afford to take unnecessary risks. His choice of vice president should not be mistaken for boldness. It is irresponsible.

118 Comments:

Anonymous MikeG said...

72nd, not 92nd. McCain's old, but he isn't that old.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
OpenID andrewsmiracledrug said...

Besides not knowing what a vice president does, it appears that Gov. Palin has given very little thought to the world outside Alaska. I just heard on NPR's All Things Considered Weekend that she only got a passport last year. Though I don't think that world travel should be a requirement for any office, it does reveal a lack of interest in the outside world - particularly for a person who has spent her life in a state closer to two foreign countries than the rest of the US, that I find disquieting.

This is a reckless, arrogant choice by McCain.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous tim f said...

McCain's 92nd birthday? Does he have more than one every year?

(Otherwise, I agree.)

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Blogger ollie said...

Ok, I am going to grit my teeth and say this, but I think that Palin's answer "what does a VP do anyway" what a rhetorical question to make the point that she thinks that it is more important to remain governor.

(note: Bill Maher answered her question: a VP subverts the Constitution, lines the pockets of his friends, starts wars and shoots his hunting partners in the face)

Anyway, the rest of your post is spot on.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your polite and deliberative analysis.

Left Coast

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Blogger consultant said...

With this pick, the Republican cabal, again, has demonstrated its utter contempt for national government.

This is picking "Brownie" to head up FEMA all over again.

If McCain gets elected, whats next? Walmart check out clerk nominated for Sec. of Labor? NASCAR driver for Sec. of Transportation.

What a joke! What a bunch of arrogant fools.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Blogger Doug said...

OK I'm gonna be rude here - Palin has nice hooters. This choice is beyond briliant. Only Mrs Clinton could have outdone this. I can't help but belive that the Dems would win in a landslide with Hil as VP. Unless the Dems can exploit Palin's scandals quick enough, her hooters will carry her to office. Yes they will, I'm sorry to say. We're dealing with the American electorate here, not a bunch of geniuses.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous rwanderman said...

God help us if Doug is right and the thought that he might be scares me more than McCain.

The fact that MacCain/Palin is even remotely electable in this country says worlds about how far we've sunk.

I'm a huge Robert Reich fan and I hope if Obama gets it Reich will have a place in the new government, but, I'm quite worried that the American people aren't smart enough to elect decent, smart people to lead them in this "American Idol" world of ours.

Sorry to be cynical but Palin brings out the worst.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous pheski said...

Hi Bob ~>

Seventy two, not ninety-two. At least in chronologic years on earth rather than dating him according to his ideas.

Otherwise, absolutely spot-on.

Peter Elias '69

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous Denis said...

The same old snake oil salesmen of the Republican Party and Karl Rove are once again emotionally distracting people. Does this seduction never end? The evangelical Christians cultural anger is again being used in an attempt to further Bush-McCain economic ends. Clearly they are being duped. And if it works, they will once again screw themselves as well as the rest of the nation economically.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

c'mon now people. instead of appealing to the soccer\hockey moms, McCain married to a beer magnate, making him the proverbial joe 6 pack. Instead of finding a running mate who appeals to sally soccer mom, he put one on the ticket. Its a stroke of genius. He's a shoe in now. McCain by 20 points.

Every time I hear the term joe 6 pack or sally soccer mom, I want to kick a dog. Someone kick Carville (who coined the terms) for me.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Blogger Shelley said...

Some great points here, thank you.

Second to last sentence is probably meant to read, "His choice of vice president should NOT be mistaken for boldness."

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Blogger Crisatunity said...

I completely agree that Palin was a reckless choice. However, describing Obama's vague empty strategies as bold is a laugher.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who say that the VP's position is irrelevant, it is a travesty. Was Al Gore job irrelevant? He was an ambassador for the US when he visited other countries; those were the days where the world saw us as intelligent individuals.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Blogger Max said...

Well, FWIW, I think this will backfire in a huge way. Her youth and looks will emphasize McCain's age much more than Obama ever did; and her vacuousness will turn off the pissed-off Hilary supporters.

McCain just handed this election to Obama on a silver platter.

Saturday, 30 August, 2008  
Anonymous Jojo said...

Good post here on Palin:
McCain's maverick mistake

McCain could die in office before his term expires. Is this woman REALLY qualified to be next-in-line for the presidency? I hope voter's will ask themselves this question, instead of, as Doug pointed out, focusing on her "hooters"...

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich,

Do you recall an Anonymous response to a story about McCain's fellow prisoner of war for 8 eight years by the name of Phillip Butler? Butler's story about McCain's rash judgemental qualities was given on your essay post entitled: McCain, Obama, and the Inherent Advantage of Caring M... Here's a repeat of it as it relates to McCain's crazy selection of Sarah Palin as VP:


`McCain is a well-meaning man but not the brightest in the world, certainly insufficiently astute to deal with all the complex problems facing us. He promotes his war hero stuff to inflate his qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief because he's pretty Naive on so many other matters, like, "The Economy, Stupid.

Phillip Butler, a heroic comrade in arms as an 8 year prisoner of war and fellow student with McCain at the Naval Academy said it bluntly: McCain was always a Hot Head, graduated in bottom 5 of a class of 800, did nothing exceptionally more heroic in prison than others and did not suffer more than hundreds of others, including Phillip Butler. In Mr. Butler's opinion, McCain's character is too unstable to be confident of giving him the last responsibility to push the Red Button.´

It appears Mr.Butler knows what he´s saying when you witness McCain´s choice of an unknown, uneducated, untraveled, provincial small time experienced individual named Sarah Palin as VP, one step away from the Presidency.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Carol said...

I supported Obama over Clinton because I believed he was the best qualified candidate, not for his race or gender. As a woman, I'd love to see a woman in office, but please - one with brains and experience. McCain's choice only underscores his lack of brains.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Conor Ryan said...

How do you spell Sarah Palin: D-A-N-Q-U-A-Y-L-E.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger notsofast said...

Robert said…
“Obama can lead the nation at a time of crisis; Sarah Palin cannot.”
“In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain has subjected the nation to an unnecessary risk, at the very time when America can least afford to take unnecessary risks.”

Sarah Palin is unacceptable on ideological and policy grounds but lack of national political experience doesn’t necessarily make her a risky choice and someone we should fear. The job of president isn’t really all that complicated. We like to mystify the presidency and argue that professional politicians or others with some kind of expert knowledge are the only ones capable of doing the job. It’s basically a management job that requires good people skills and the ability to listen to others with experience and knowledge in relevant areas. It’s not like highly abstract theoretical physics which requires mastery of things those of us on this blog and roughly 99% of the population will never understand. It’s decision making based entirely on events rooted in human experience. Nothing more complicated than this. We can argue that it requires a certain temperament or personality and a curiosity about the world and that’s fair. Let’s observe Sarah Palin for awhile and see what she’s like. She does appear to have an impressive maternal instinct. This characteristic could potentially be good for humanity. From observations made so far I’d rather see her president than John McCain. He impresses as a very dangerous person. Her first impression is otherwise.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

It is true that Obama has somewhat more experience than Palin. Being a community organizer in Chicago really helps. But that is why Obama goes for a President and Palin only for a VP. The risk distribution is proportional here.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Palin's abuse of power involved pushing for the firing of a state trooper for divorcing her sister and firing the official who told her such an action wasn't lawful. This great defender of fetal life was so overwhelmed that God was giving her and her family the gift of a fifth child that she said nothing about it until a month before the child was born. There are also persistent rumors in Alaska that the child is not even hers but belongs to her 16 year old daughter who was absent from school for several months preceeding the birth. I guess we will be changing the address of the White House from Pennsylvania Avenue to Wisteria Lane. I can only imagine the party at Vladimir Putin's house when he heard who his future "adversary" might be.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something doesn't make sense, folks. I mean, come on. This is the time the Dems have been waiting for... a tanking economy, surging gas prices, a war that's been dragging on without a defined bebefit to the US, no incumbent running in either party. Now, the opposition (republicans) have taken the ball and effectively RUN THE WRONG WAY DOWN THE FOOTBALL FIELD!!! Why are the Dems upset with this? Why aren't they stganding up and applauding McCain's decision and then secretly high-fiving themselves about the boneheaded move on McCain's part? Are they really THAT worried that the Dem's can't even pull off a white house win under these circumstances? If they can't win the Oval office this time, then they will have to ask themselves if they can even function as a serious, viable party. I mean, come on. To get angry means that they have a real and if undefined concern that they can not win. If they had any confidence, they would be expressing glee, not anger.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notsovast,

Love Ya my friend, but your comments make me feel you are more dangerous than Sarah.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Dr. Reich writes:

Barack Obama has laid out a bold plan for reforming the economy and redirecting foreign policy -- a plan whose boldness is directly proportional to the scale of the problems we face. On Thursday night he restated it in detail. As someone who has had a very modest role in developing it, and who served as a cabinet officer under Bill Clinton and therefore knows something about public policy and about the challenges we face, I can attest to the appropriateness and boldness of Obama's plan

Ralph Nader writes:
Tradition has it that former presidents get a speaking slot at the national conventions.Not at Obama's convention.
Why?
Because Carter has spoken out about the plight of the Palestinian people in his book with the descriptive title: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid! Because Obama didn't want to offend the militarist American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

Nader references the article in Forward, Aug. 29, 2008.




To argue that American policy is based on Democrats or Republicans is a stretch. The evidence here points to Israeli Policy controlling and running America.

The bold policy of Barak Obama is not his bold policy but Israel's bold Policy. The bold policy of George Bush has clearly been Israel's bold policy. That policy has gotten us to where we are today-In deep doo doo.


About Palin, it appears that George Bush destroyed the old Republican Party. He did what he wanted and screwed everybody including the Evangelicals. After him, it appears to me that the Republican party split 3-ways. First, the nuts and the Neocons[another way of saying Israel] Second, the Evangelicals who were betrayed by Bush over and over and who began their own party. They were betrayed with meaningless promises. And finally,Three, the Conservative Republicans,the Goldwater gang. Even though McCain looks like a goldwater type, he has embraced the Neocons and with this pick, he is trying to win back the Evangelicals.
However, to say that Obama is a bold new program is a stretch. Israel calls the shots to our own downfall.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Who can really complain about Palin or her capabilities when we have experienced the brilliancy of the last 8 years and whom so many today herald as a great president?
Give me a break!

As for Israel, why are our politicians closely associated with AIPAC why is apartheid and genocide allowed to exist in Gaza etc. This segment of mankind is constantly advertising the Holocaust, how mankind hates Jews, and how the whole world is against them while they themselves are behind torture, genocide, apartheid, terrorist attacks against other nations like in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq,and are responsible for so many crimes against mankind that they are too numerous to count...yet...all of the American politicians beg to be seen as their friends. Who makes friends with racists, liars, and killers?

The Foreward Article:

Jimmy Carter Conspicuously Absent From Podium
By Brett Lieberman and Nathan Guttman
Thu. Aug 28, 2008


Denver — Former president Jimmy Carter’s controversial views on Israel cost him a place on the podium at the Democratic Party convention in late August, senior Democratic operatives acknowledged to the Forward.
Breaking with the tradition of giving speech time to living former presidents, convention organizers honored Carter with only a short video clip highlighting his work with Hurricane Katrina victims and a brief walk across the Pepsi Center stage.
The sidelining of Carter was driven by recognition in the Obama camp and among Democratic leaders that giving the former president a prominent convention spot might alienate Jewish voters.
“What more could we do to diss Jimmy Carter?” said a Democratic official who was involved in deliberations on how to handle the former president’s presence at the convention. The treatment Carter received, the official added, “reflects the bare minimum that could be done for a former president.”
Although Carter says limiting his presence at the convention was his idea, denying him a speaking opportunity ends a two-year struggle for the party over how to deal with the controversial former president. Since Carter published a book in November 2006 accusing Israel of practicing apartheid against the Palestinians, Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from the former president and to convince Jewish activists that he does not represent the party line.
Carter’s status at the convention was an issue for the Democratic leadership going back to the early preparation stages, a party official said. The solution to what one Democratic official referred to as “the Carter problem,” however, was not found until the final run-up to the Denver convention.
Carter, according to party insiders, was initially scheduled to speak at the event, though organizers insisted he focus only on issues relating to domestic policy and not touch on foreign affairs. During his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston, Carter mentioned Israel, but he only touched in general terms on the need to bring peace to the region.
As the Denver convention drew near, organizers grew uneasy with the idea of having Carter speak even on domestic issues. In the end, the decision was made to have what the official convention schedule described as a “President Jimmy Carter segment,” which included a video presentation of the former president’s work in New Orleans. The video was followed by a brief appearance by Carter and former first lady Rosalynn Carter, who walked across the stage to the sound of Ray Charles’s “Georgia on My Mind.” The assembled delegates showered Carter with applause and a standing ovation.
Jewish Democrats approved of Carter’s limited presence at the convention, as they have argued that embracing the former president could tarnish the party in November.
“You can’t give him a podium, because people will draw the conclusion” that the Democratic Party supports Carter’s views on the Middle East, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York. “I wouldn’t let him within 100 miles of the convention center, because it would be used by an unscrupulous Republican Party that doesn’t care about the truth in character assassination against our candidate.”
While Carter did come to Denver, he downplayed suggestions that he had been silenced.
In an August 26 interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Carter said that the idea not to speak at the convention was his own.
“Michelle spoke last night, Barack is going to speak Thursday night and the other two nights are for the Clintons,” Carter said. “So, I didn’t want to intrude…. I didn’t need to get on the stage and make a speech.”
Delegates from Carter’s home state of Georgia did not seem to take much offense at the former president not being among the conventions’ speakers.
“I didn’t think much of it at all,” delegate Freddie Mitchell said. “He has spoken at a number of these things in the past.”
Among some of Jewish delegates to the convention, however, denying Carter a speech but offering him a video tribute was not nearly sanction enough.
“He hasn’t shown respect to Israel and many of the Jewish constituencies here based on the things he has done,” said Nan Rich, a Florida state senator who left the hall in protest before Carter’s appearance onstage.
Although staunch critics of Carter may not have been won over by the Obama campaign’s sidelining of the former president, at least one Jewish Democratic official says the episode reflects the degree to which the presidential hopeful is concerned about shoring up Jewish support before November.
“I think it’s hard to ask a political party to take a former president and say, ‘We’re not going to hear you at all,’” said Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “The party is very sensitive to the American Jewish community, and it’s very sensitive to ever conveying that this is anything but a pro-Israel party.”
And though Rich chose to protest Carter’s inclusion, she was among the critics who appreciated the decision to minimize his role.
“It shows the party gets it and Barack Obama’s campaign gets it,” she said.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

Summarizing the comments by "whatshisface". McCain is sort of pro-Israel. Obama is sort of pro-Muslim. Bringing Carter to the convention would have made it all too obvious.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

VK,

Right on. Whatshisface has had one drink too many!

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Doug Winter said...

After McCain's choice was made public, a couple of republican friends of mine were talking about what a wonderful choice she was - "a breath of fresh air....can't be worse than Biden..." They were dead serious.

This is what most baffles me about our country, that so many do not see this as reckless or a gimmick, but a totally legitimate choice. Is someone putting something in our water?

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Doug,

You can imagine how this stupidity is perceived around the rest of the world.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

notsofast:

Generally a cogent post but I tend to disagree with some of your arguments.

Most of us here would agree that ideologically Palin is a nonstarter as a VP let alone as one sitting within a hearbeat of the Presidency or to your oft posted thoughts, a few synapse malfunctions away.

Would agree that the President's job is not rocket science but it is far more than just a management job. To my mind management is a minimal expertise requirement. It is the paramount leadership job and leadership is not necessarily dependent of good management skills.

Between staff and Cabinet and Agency heads much of the day to day management takes place far from the President's purview. Perhaps the most important management skill required is the ability to select good people and even that process is greatly controlled by staff. Granted the president makes the final decision but only after vetting and hours of evaluation by staff. At that many Agency heads continue to be appointed via the old "spoils" system.

To the extent that day to day decisions affect the President and his political posture most administrations have their own versions of Karl Rove to keep the troops in line often without the President ever knowing what went on. I don't see where good people skills is that important other than dealing with Congress, party bigwigs, lobbyists and in today's world, religious leaders.

Much like CEOs in private industry, the job commands, by its stature, adherence and loyalty from the troops. In most administrations you find few mavericks pushing hard for an agenda that differs with the political philosophy of the Prez.

To me the most important asset a President can have is the ability to listen, absorb, weed out purely personal perspectives, and make wise decisions carefully considering all viewpoints coupled with the ability to communicate (sell) the final decisions to the people. Embodied in all this is the necessity of a vision, a perspective of where you want to lead the country and to some extent the world. These are leadership skills not merely good management skills. If you can get both all the better but give me strong leadership in the Prez's office and leave the management to those who can follow the leader and communicate the goals downline.

We have in this country a plethora of good managers, from CEO levels on down. True leaders are far less in number.

As best as I can tell so far, Palin, much like McCain, thrives on power. McCain has certainly been effective at working across the aisle, not due to preference but because that was the only way he could get things done. He is but one Senator among a hundred. My sense is that given his preference he would dictate what he wants done. In that regard Palin seems a mirror image.

She appears to love to fire people, with a bent towards those who disagree with her. Not what we typically think of as good people skills. She is feisty and clearly does not suffer fraud, fealty and malfeasance gladly. That trait is both admirable and refreshing. It is much easier to uphold that honor code at the state level than at the national level. Dumbya has learned that in DC things don't happen just because he says they should happen.

Good leadership skills are not dependent on firing naysayers just as good loyalty does not mean harboring incompetence.

We all realize that Palin is the VP candidate not the candidate for the main job but for a variety of reasons, age and health at the top of the list, she must be viewed in a much stronger light than Biden. We have little choice but to give her time, albeit only a couple of months, hopefully, before completely denouncing her but it is often best to be proactive rather than waiting and seeing.

Though I tend to favor giving the reins to a woman I don't know if I would couch my feelings as resulting from a maternalistic aura. We men can often be driven by macho instincts getting in the way of good sense. We come by it honestly since we carry our brains closer to our center of gravity in an area which we consider the fount of our manhood. Women, on the other hand, tend toward a more objective decision making process unfettered by fears of impotency. Maybe that is maternalistic.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

whatshisface:

Never in a million years would I have believed we could find someone more asinine than sbvor.

That million years went by in an instant.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

Don't you guys think that Obama is a funny choice? I am telling you, the entire world is laughing hard at how America's got a taste of its own medicine. Pailin is obviously chosen as a sarcastic cross between Obama's lack of experience and Hillary being a female. Would have been perfect if she were black.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Francine McKenna said...

orxmaThis is great. I linked to it on Twitter.
Twitter ID @retheauditors

You should be on Twitter. That's where all the action is.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich,

If there's any consolation in all this, Hillary Clinton is not going to let a small town unknown steel her thunder.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Robert Reich for pointing out that the real problem with the Sarah Palin pick is what it tells us about John McCain's judgment. Repubs keep saying "she is just as qualified as Obama." Even if that were true - which it is not - WHAT KIND OF JUSTIFICATION FOR A PICK IS THAT? THAT SHE's NOT QUALIFIED BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE BOTHERED ABOUT IT? McCain's pick is an insult to the nation. He is basically telling us that if he drops dead, so can we, he doesn't give a crap what hands the nation falls into after that.

This from a guy who was accusing Obama of putting politics ahead of the good of the country?

As to the question of Obama's qualifications, well, 18 million people say he is qualified. One of our two polictical parties has put him forward as a nominee. He made it through the primaries and defeated Hillary. If Palin had done those things, I'd accept her as a possible president. Palin instead has won perhaps 100k votes in a single state, and instead of being picked by a party, she has been picked by one apparently crazy old man.

No one should fall for the Palin/Obama comparison. Focus on what the Palin pick tells us about McCain's judgment. It is appalling.

President Palin? Is he serious?

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Readers,

If you want to hear more about McCain's number of homes and humble living style, go to: "Will Blog for Food: John McCain Has so Many Houses He Doesn't Know What To..."

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Art A Layman said...
whatshisface:

Never in a million years would I have believed we could find someone more asinine than sbvor.

That million years went by in an instant.
Art:


Maybe within a hearbeat



To me the most important asset a President can have is the ability to listen, absorb, weed out purely personal perspectives, and make wise decisions carefully considering all viewpoints coupled with the ability to communicate (sell) the final decisions to the people. Embodied in all this is the necessity of a vision, a perspective of where you want to lead the country and to some extent the world. These are leadership skills not merely good management skills. If you can get both all the better but give me strong leadership in the Prez's office and leave the management to those who can follow the leader and communicate the goals downline. Is this why you favor the platform of the Neocons?

Good leadership skills are not dependent on firing naysayers just as good loyalty does not mean harboring incompetence

Perhaps this is why this country is down the drain? We have good leadership skills? How about you running for president instead of running off with your passions and your sad evaluations

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

My first gut reaction to Sarah P was there is something dark and crazy going on inside her brain. Having five or six children and then at age 45 having another pregnancy is bizarre.

Giving birth to a birth defect child shows something unhinged, if she is truly homeschooling her childre.

Less than two years experience as governor, giving birth, and home schooling her children. Any woman, evangelical or not, knows there is something out of kilter here.

It was amusing to read her husband is a patron of $400 hair cuts and a lover of many ladies. That sorta makes sense.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous johnnycomelately said...

How do you spell Sarah Palin?

"H a r r i e t M e y e r s"

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Benedict@Large said...

OK. Reich for Treasury Secretary. But only if I can have Roubini for Fed Chairman.

Take THAT, Chicago. lol

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Zippy said...

Hey Bob, Bill Clinton took a risk on you and he I am sure, regrets that call.

And you know short people==

==nevermind you get the idea.

First impressions are not very logical are they?

Sometimes being an intellectual has it's burdens, no?

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Blogger Chris said...

Obama has 1 year as a junior Senator and when not in front of a teleprompter (reading what his speech writers write) says some naive, imprudent, and just plain stupid things: invade Pakistan, 57 states, exit Iraq by 2008 and locate a ready force in Japan? His own VP says he's not ready when honest, and even Barack said he wasn't prepared to run for the presidency back before started seeing his image in toast.

And as a note, skin cancer is easiest cancer to cure when detected early, so if McCain has a good doctor he has nothing to worry about.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris

Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States? Is she even close?

That's all you need to ask yourself. If the answer is "no", John McCain is simply irresponsible.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous bobby jones said...

In general, you sound like a chairleader for Obama.

Certainly, Obama is witty and charasmatic but Palin has those same virtues.

Moreover, my stay at home mom couldn't get a job because she didn't have "work history" yet my bother earned a phd from Yale.

In my opinion-- and after having seen Palin speak, I think she's the most qualified to be president.

If you're shaking your head, remember that America is run by think tanks and advisors and I think she'll fit right into that scheme.

Of course, if Obama was so lackluster in Denver, maybe I'd be more enthused but the speech was 1/3 bragging; 1/3 free lunch offers; and 1/3 garbage.

For example, he was upset that McCain was in Washington DC for 26 years yet he praised Durbin (25 year veteran) and chose Biden (38 years??) so Obama likes to BS.

Sunday, 31 August, 2008  
Anonymous California Independent said...

"Palin’s defenders say that she is no less experienced than Obama, but that is false. Barack Obama has served as a United States Senator and an Illinois state legislator; he has also been a community organizer in Chicago."

Give me a break. Reich's defense of Obama is borderline silly. He is experience b/c he spent two years in the Senate (one of them running for president)? B/C he was a "community organizer?" If I didn't know better, I would have thought this was written tongue in cheek.

Let's come clean here: Biden and McCain are qualified to be President. Obama and Palin are not. Anything else is completely partisan and disingenuous.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Gary Stoneking said...

Unless I'm mistaken, the investigations into Gov. Palin's alleged misconduct are both state-level, not federal. That said, I agree whole-heartedly with this post.
I think that the choice of a running mate should be made first to fill the position with a candidate who is capable of assuming the role of President. Politics (i.e., pandering to the base) should not be a consideration. The job is too important.
Sen. McCain's choice was a political choice, and not a very wise one, at that. My prediction is that Gov. Palin will not be on the ticket at all by November 4. I believe that she will remove herself from the ticket or be asked to step down because of the "TrooperGate" scandal. We'll have to wait and see...

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger Ian Thal said...

Given that there are prominent Republican women that McCain could have drafted for his ticket such as Senators Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey-Hutchenson, without anyone questioning his judgement, or their leadership abilities, why did he pick Palin? It begs the question: does McCain have a personal issues working with powerful women of accomplishment and experience?

And onto another topic:

Notice how the commenter Whathisface, is throwing around false charges of "genocide" against Israel. That's the most serious charge under international law and both the courts and NGOs that monitor human rights require evidence. Instead we have the word used purely for shock value. Whatshisface is more than asinine, he's malicious.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's not a maverick, he's a loose cannon.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

If we forget the party lines for a minute, McCain/Biden sounds like a decent ticket, while Obama/Palin as a pretty funny choice.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No yk, McCain/Biden does not sound like a good ticket. McCain is famously a hothead. He doesn't have the judgement necessary to be president. In the major issues of the day, McCain is a continuation of George Bush. He was, like Bush, born into privilege and is totally out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. How many houses do you own? Can you count them? Do you think John McCain worries about healthcare? Retirement? Both of course handled through one of the last (and best) defined benefit plans, the Congressional retirement/healthcare system, which he, now after years of suckling at the public teat, will enjoy...

In arguably his first decision, McCain has chosen an inexperienced, albeit pretty face. Should he take a presidential nap and never wake up, do you want Sarah the Barracuda sitting across the table from Putin?

McCain/Palin--a bridge to nowhere...

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger Athena Smith said...

Obama is the only candidate so far who has attracted people because he has exhibited "common sense" combined with a powerful intellect. He is a man of his times and not a man of the past century. Why do you think college students have so strongly mobilized behind him? Because they are stupid and gullible? Come on... they are the smartest among us, the ones who have to deal with exhausting intellectual demands and have been born to a globalized world.
Older and isolated candidates simply don't get what it is like to live in a globalized world. To see your country through the eyes of others. And reach decisions that secure global balances.
Leadership, has very little to do with experience. It has to do with knowing how to serve, how to learn, how not to fear and how to co assess multiple variables. Throughout history, the greater victories were achieved by first time generals. They had common sense and intellect. When they gained experience (Napoleon for example) arrogance blinded their vision and started underestimating grossly their opponents and the world around them.

Having said all that, I have no problem with a leader who has not worked in that particular field. I have a problem with a person who does not strike me as a leader. In the year 2008, the world is on a breathtaking sprint forward. Giants like China and India are trying to stop the train to get on. But people who are against stem cell research because they are worried about the life of four cells while they do not hesitate to wage wars that kill thousands of fully formed human beings, people who want to sneak religion into the school system through the disguise of creationism, people who are willing to push women to back alley butchers, are simply trying to stop the train to get off.

I like the sprint forward. I do not want to get off the train. Plain and simple.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Just for the record, three of our greatest Presidents -- Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt had spent the least in electoral politics and less than 2 years as Governors, except FDR with 4 years.

The point is that the length of experience in national politics, including short-period stints as a Governor are poor predicators of Presidential success. Example is Abraham Lincoln who dared to run for President after having served a very mediocre single term in the House of Representatives.

So my criteria for comparing Obama with McCain or even Sarah Palin (a real step away from being President if McCain won and were, God forbid, incapacited for any reason) will be determined by other important `life experiences´
including:

EDUCATION/CAREER: Obama got his BA Degree from Columbia and his JD Degree from Harvard Law School-Magna Cum Laude; he taught 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School, splitting his time as 7-year State Senator of Illnois, and then was elected US State Senator in 2004.

EDUCATION/CAREER: Sarah Palin got a BA Degree in Commmunications and Journalism from the University of Idaho; in 1996 she became City Manager of Wasilla (population 8,000) and held same until 2006 when she was elected Governor of Alaska.

CONCLUSION: This American doesn't think 20 months as Governor of Alaska qualifies anyone as having exceptional management ability over a background like Obama's (nor over Biden's +35 years in national government) who has a superior educational achievement, 12 years of Senatorial experience in state and national political positions while simultaneously lecturing in law for 12 years, reaching Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

That plus Obama's years as an anti-poverty Community Organizer,
"thrusting him into the real lives of real people," match McCain's plus 35 years in mational politics and, certainly by any stretch of the imagination, out-match Sarah Palin's local 10 year small scale political Wasilla mayorship and 20month Alaska so-called "executive" experience as Governor (both her experiences being also, like Obamam and Biden's, with "real people").

So for all those in the Experience Camp, it comes down to who one recognizes is the most qualified, from objective and subjective perspectives, to bring real Change to our broken down economic system? Who has the mastery of the details on domestic and foreign policy? Who has the common touch, vision, balance, and charisma to heal our paralyzed governmental performance at home and loss of respect abroad? And as one poster has already noted, who do we ultimately trust to have his or her finger on the Red Button?

So it really comes down to the candidate Americans have confidence in for his or her good judgment and brains to deal with the massively complex problems facing our nation.

Speaking as an political Independent, ideological zealotry or blind gender democracy should be thrown out the window this time. Presently, we are a nation at multiple serious economic-social dysfunctions and inequities.

It's time we come together with a little unity and common sense. For we need the very finest Talent AND Experience to get us out of the big Mess we're in ... fired by the courage to change course on many fronts.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger notsofast said...

anonymous said….
“He's not a maverick, he's a loose cannon.”

haha John McCain has some, shall we say, (interesting) personality traits. He typically finished at the bottom of his academic class including the Naval Academy despite having high intelligence with bona fide IQ scores of 133 and 128. He received numerous demerits at the NA and wrecked several planes stateside and in Vietnam. After returning home from Vietnam psychiatrists diagnosed him with "histrionic pattern of personality adjustment" or "mildly hysterical traits"; this is psychiatric code for “drama queen”. lol
time
He has a legendary temper within the senate. If we can survive a McCain presidency it would no doubt be an interesting and wild ride. lol

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

whatshisface:

Why is it that the most intelligible things you post are posts from others?

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Sorry correction: 2nd paragraph,
3rd sentence: predictors

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich:

Sarah Palin is a transparent shameless seducer for the women votes. She may have some political qualities but hardly those for Vice President of the United States.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger Athena Smith said...

So, her kid is pregnant. And the kid is going to raise another kid.
Now, let us not talk about the emotional, intellectual and physical demands of parenthood. As long as we think that kids are capable of raising kids, then we have no place calling ourselves "the leaders of the free world."

I am not advocating abortion. I am advocating continuous sex education in our schools that will meet the changing reality of our era. "Only abstinence" programs were the direct result of a horrendous lack of leadership.

We are supposedly the children of renaissance, reason, reformation, and John Locke.
What is happening to this country in its desperate mania to accommodate a few evangelicals?

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger Athena Smith said...

I also read that McCaine knew about it before he asked her. And despite this he chose HER to attract the evangelicals?
Now, you call this "judgement?"
I am missing something here....

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Per robert Reich Palin is not a good VP selection beause:

1. she comes from a small insignificant state
2. Pro life
3. Under federal investigation

Of course Obama is qualified for just the opposite of those reasons.
First of all coming from a small or large state means nothing. GW is a great example, nothing more needs to be said.
Pro life or not means nothing in regards to her ability to make good decisions.
She is not under federal investigations for trooper-gate rather its a state thingy and Republicans are doing the investigations so not much is going to happen anytime soon.

Mr. Reich takes the old Democratic or Republican standard attack bible in this case and uses the basic idea that its best we have proven insider (Obama) in this case vs an outsider such a Palin. Not much of an argument really, as a independent voter both major political parties look to be more of the problem then a solution to solving or national issues regarding Defense, economy, Social Security, health care etc. Mostly the major political parties are interested in putting in their men/women in office, getting the best federal contracts and generally be the power brokers, in Reich's case he is looking for a new job in Obama's adminstration to provide the same old song about retraining american workers etc.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

athena:

What is happening to us is a conundrum that likely will be left to 22nd or 23rd century historians most probably of Asian origin.

It would take volumes to delineate all the factors that have truly created the "dumbing down of America".

While I don't disagree with your statements regarding Palin's daughter, I believe she is the 17 year old and that's not an age all that far removed from commencing parenthood just a few generations ago. Maybe that was the beginning of the problem.

No doubt many of our social problems escalated when we began seeing both parents entering the workforce. This was a crushing blow to what had been the American paradigm for at least Middle America. On the surface it didn't seem all that detrimental initially but it exacerbated the growing influence of TV on our young people by making TV a convenient babysitter or an easy divergence allowing downtime for parents.

It took a couple of generations for fathers to begin shouldering some of the household duties heaping more pressure on mothers and at least when I was growing up mothers were the stalwarts of the household unit. To their credit, mothers, in the early segue and even through today, still often bear a much greater burden of the normal household responsibilities than do fathers. If you look at it analytically many mothers are true marvels.

Try as we might we have not determined how to add hours to a day.

Another major problem, as I see it: We are supposedly the children of renaissance, reason, reformation, and John Locke. Mention those to most young kids today and they wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about. "John Locke; is he a rock star or does he play first base for some team? Renaissance, reformation; doesn't that have to do with art? I'm not big on art stuff. Reason; oh I know that one, that's like when you make an excuse for something."

Humanities subjects have all but disappeared from our primary and secondary educational systems. A variety of humanities subjects can be found in higher education but often only as electives. When I was in college we had "common curriculum" requirements, don't know if they still exist, but even then the number of credit hours devoted to those kinds of courses were minimal. It was much more important that I be steeped in principles of this business subject or that one, in advanced accounting, in cost accounting, in economics and government, in marketing, in consumer behavior, in all those subjects that had practical value, that had direct impact on my ability to get and do a job. What can you learn of debits and credits from history or english lit or, god forbid, philosophy?

Education shifted from learning, real learning about who we are and where we have evolved from, to a more pragmatic approach of how we get from here to there; not how we got from there to here. If there were so damned important we'd still be there.

Back to TV; I have long held that it has been the most detrimental invention ever devised by mankind. Not that there aren't or couldn't be many good things to use the medium for but it muted, in my mind, the most important trait we had going for us; imagination. As a kid, before TV entered the scene, we had to make believe. We had to imagine the scene or the character or the layout of the town and the roads we needed to make it real. We had toys but our toys were props to a grander scheme, they did not do things by themselves. Imagination once stirred can be like a sleeping giant. It creates new ideas but also increases desires to know more to create even bigger ideas, grander schemes. Before TV we had movies but they were not an everyday constant kind of thing. To expand, to enter that wonderful world of imagination we had to read. Reading forced us to envision that which the author was describing, to force our minds to "see" the picture that someone else was painting for us with words. Even radio, back in those days, had real programs, not talk shows and music. The serials and programs we watch today we used to listen to. Again, this required our minds to "see" what our ears were hearing.

Just some of my musings on a lazy Labor Day.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone truly believe that someone who comes out of the most corrupt political system in the country, CHICAGO, is right for the White House? hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!!! I tell you Reich is a scream!!!

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous bdg123 said...

Let me say that a part of me agrees with you and a part doesn't. Since when do we need a ruling class to run this country? Isn't that what you mean by experience? Really? The viewpoint is pervasive amongst elitists. Regardless of how anyone packages it, that is the reality. We want to see that they are experienced at being indoctrinated by the 'state'. Palin is not going to do any worse a job than Bush.

The fact that McCain is hated by his party core, Palin has no experience and Obama is feared by the establishment makes me squeal with glee.

Now, what I would really like to see is you join a White House as an economic advisor, Labor secretary or Treasury secretary.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The kid should be put up for adoption. There are plenty of couples unable to conceive who are dying to adopt. This is the only win situation for the 17 y.o., Palin and adopting parents.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

Can someone comment on what exactly are the responsibilities of a community organizer ( in Chicago )? How does that compare with the responsibilities of a small town mayor?

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...well, whether reckless or bold or good hooters gets one into the white house (or booted out) time will indeed tell. mr. obama whether he wins or loses this time round~note THIS TIME ROUND, has named much of what ails this country. as has mr. reich if you have the good fortune to read his books. just devoured "reason" and "supercapitalism". great reads especially during this time leading up to an election. in any case, what democrats are encouraging is relcaiming of the democratic process by citizens. the republicans could do that too but probably wont~just arent up to the task these days. they could if they got smart. mr. obama will be affecting democratic policy in this country for decades, whether this election passes him by or not.

Monday, 01 September, 2008  
Anonymous Alex Birch said...

Let's be honest, the president really doesn't count. What really matters are two things, who are the advisers and how the president listens to them.

Dr. Reich I'm a huge fan, but I'm a little disappointed on how you took Gov. Palin out of context. It's sad when politicians are limited to few second sound bite and when they dare to have a little fun people take them out of context.

We shouldn't listen to mainstream America... otherwise Simon from American Idol's opinion would matter more to mainstream America than yours on matters regarding economics.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs. Palin is surely not perfect. Who is? But she seems to have common sense & backbone, traits that seem to be missing from our entrenched "experienced" leaders at the moment.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

bdg123:

Palin is not going to do any worse a job than Bush.

That statement alone should strike fear in the hearts of men and women. Have to admit it's likely true since how is it possible to do a worse job than Bush?

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that the Republicans didn't select a black, female, Christian leader, Mary Kay representative.

If I were Mrs. Palin I would be insulted. She is being used to appeal to the uneducated in America.

This is a slap in the face for all female voters.

We need someone with brains and not just a pair of breasts for a VP.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs. Palin should spend more time at home educating her own kids and taking proper care of her special needs child.
I suspect her daughter is now being forced into marriage to maintain the image of high values.
This is sad for the Palin family and America.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms. Smith & Mr. Layman,
Excellent posts, both of you. Kids today receive a barrage of stimulus from all sorts of media that numb them to the existence of consequences to their actions. Furthermore, they receive less and less inputs that reinforce accountability & consequences. I believe our secondary schools should begin teaching lessons about morals and accountable behavior. Unfortunately, the rules separating church & state have had the harmful effect of creating a school system offering no moral compass to our youth, and we are seeing the results. Why not teach the lessons instructing good moral behavior without specifying the religion of origin?

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Repub-libumkins could have trumped the Dems with a decent VP selection, since Obama tripped up by not picking Hillary.

Instead they played a double down bet with a bluff.

This card game is getting more interesting.

America will get what it deserves....

Maybe this nation of the blind will end up being led by a one-eyed king.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

Breasts matter!

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich,

It's sad to realize Sarah Palin at 43 must have been aware (as most women) having children at that age has a high chance of resulting in a Down Syndrome child (and same for girls having babies at 17 or younger). Yet Sarah goes ahead with her wish to become pregnant. Now she must care 20 hours a day for the child for many years but how can she if she's McCain's Vice President? Oh. The fame and added money will take care of that as costly fulltime professional help can now take over. There's something about family planning, family training, and family values here that is wildly missing. Sounds like a typical small town pretty girl who can handle the boys, this Sarah Palin, despite all the public relations baloney and hyped impressions of her qualifications --like living close to Russia makes her a cold-war expert in foreign affairs strategy.

Brother, how we Americans can be so easily lured with an unknown, mediocrity that has been over night packaged and sold as a freedom loving, anti-abortionist, cool-headed, gun-totting, cost-cutting, environmentally flexible, ideally living Christian, free-thinking battle tested executive CEO, and former Miss Runnerup Beauty Queen. Brother, are we in trouble or aren't we.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

Thank you.

I would suggest that social mores existed long before Christ and certainly long before any religious texts were available to the general public. So morals can be taught without any reference to religion or the avoidance of same.

There is a problem in relying on history and philosophy to teach them and that is the age at which children are able to understand and absorb the basis material.

Historically, teaching morals was primarily the province of parents and churches. Many parents derived their moral lessons from religion and in the home that's fine. Reinforcement occurred in schools and in my time was often referenced to religion but it doesn't have to be.

If you teach them in schools but they are not reinforced in the home the impact will be far less, similar to what we have today.

One can make the argument that religion is not a good basis upon which to teach morals at all. My limited knowledge of most religious teachings would suggest a variety of contradictions to moral tenets. Certainly the Old Testament is fraught with conflicting sections and verses. Though my limitations are severe it seems to me that the ancient philosophies are more consistent in expressing moral values across a broad spectrum.

In my early school years we were taught about truth or not lying using the fantasy (we, at the time, did not know it was fantasy) of George Washington and the cherry tree. It was effective, albeit nothing is perfect, but using a tool such as that can be a detriment when it is discovered that it is fantasy.

I have mentioned frequently, and Athena has agreed, that many of our problems with teaching our children are centered in the breakdown of parental responsibility. There are no simple solutions to that issue but for making your way in this world the lessons learned at home should far exceed anything the schools can teach you.

To a great extent the idea of handing over moral and behavioral lessons to the schools is just one more bailout by parents. I would agree that schools should reinforce moral and responsible behavior but making schools the first line of defense is full of problems. Even attempting to reinforce could create multiple problems.

We see today many instances of parents disagreeing vehemently with what is being taught by the schools. Books are censored; teachers are condemned or fired for proposing required or even optional reading materials, let alone statements made or misinterpreted in classes. Somehow we have to get back to allowing schools to educate; to offer students exposure to a wide variety of materials to help them frame a life perspective without parental intervention at every turn.

Diligence and oversight are important to minimize zealotry but learning is an all encompassing exercise and it should be up to parents to put things in perspective, not to limit exposures. One way to improve sex education would be to, and I don't have the faintest clue as to how, establish a method that will force parents to engage their children on the subject or vice versa. Could be a Pandora's Box.

I wrestle from time to time with these kinds of issues and always end up back at Pogo.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Layman:

You are right. Excellent post. Totally agree.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I'm not suggesting making schools the first line of defense. It seems that in many areas, the family unit is so broken that the school becomes the only option through which many children today receive any instruction. I'm saying we should take better advantage of this contact point. I remember (way back) in the 3rd grade, our class was reminded pretty much on a weekly basis what the Golden Rule was. I have no idea whether or not this is taught these days or not.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

Very good point. I'm not sure either, being far removed from the age of having children in school, whether they still emphasize the Golden Rule but they should be. Have long believed if you only had one rule to live by it would be the best.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Frank:

Did you read Brooks today? Decent article and fairly objective.

He talks around it but doesn't explicitly state that one of McCain's biggest failings as well as his biggest virtue is his maverick nature.

Mavericks are interesting people. I have stated before, here or somewhere, that I have always been a rebel, a maverick, interested in finding faults and correcting them. I am in no way suggesting that I am on McCain's level. That trait has made me very argumentative, though I hide it well. ;)

The problem is that mavericks tend to have short attention spans. We're always looking for the next frontier, the next battle to be fought. This can lead to ignoring the mundane, the normal, the everyday minutiae. Sometimes we fail to recognize the difference between unimportant and important depending on which way our radar is pointing.

Even worse; when faced with a dearth of battles to be fought, much less of a problem in DC, we either conjure up some obscure dilemma that sorely needs our attention or we take a routine matter and change it into a federal case. We can keep things exciting but we can also waste a lot of people's time because as Brooks points out we have no overriding philosophy, no guiding principle that keeps us focused on the bigger picture.

As Brooks further alludes, Palin and McCain come from this same school of thought and practice. As good as those qualities are there are limits in Washington as to how much you can do with them. No doubt McCain has worked with the opposition well in the past but his nature, which exudes in his personality, is that once in power his perspective will change to my way or the highway but he can't show elected officials the highway.

Brooks final point is that Palin, while an exciting running mate, will be of little help to McCain in running the business of the country.

Is turning into an interesting election but a scary one.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,

When Liselotte and I returned to the states with the kids in the late 70s after many years living in Holland, Denmark, and Belgium, I started a construction company focusing on multi-family residential housing with some quite unique designs.

My wife is very gifted with children. So we decided to build a substantial separate Day Care addition to our home in rough oak and ash wood beams and flooring, called "Small Stuff." We were the very first in Connecticut to do such a thing right at the time that mothers were just starting out of necessity to leave home to work. So, we both saw a lot of tears initially as parents left for the first time a 3 year old girl or boy in the all-day trust of someone else. Over half of the parents' kids came from our street or close by so this helped sooth departure emotions each day.

We had approval for 6 children (and of course there were our 3 children) from ages 3 to 6. Parents were thrilled to bring their children to a separately attached "home" environment with the traditional Dutch door welcoming them, with its apart breakfact lunch niche, toilet/wash room, large play room with 20 foot ceiling, spacious windows and skylights, wide mix of toys from Holland, reading sessions, free time to be alone in a corner of the day care to do whatever the child wanted and, of course, privacy to take a nap ... a really cosy family environment.

It was a great time and many close acquaintances were made with the parents. The children had different learning interests and speeds but this was accomodated without any complication with only 6 children and Liselotte's personal love and attention to each child.

We always had international toys that challenged the kids in many different ways. They were predominantly wooden toys we purchased in Europe ... rather than the plastic rather simplistic toys from Fisher or Mattel.

Liselotte read to the children at least 2 hours each day and they loved it! She had all kinds of fairy tales on tape which they could hear and simultaneously follow in little booklets with pictures and big print. Many songs were also on tape (some in the Dutch and Frech language) so kids could sing along with the melody and words. Of course, there was no TV.

Then we watched sadly as larger and larger company-owned Day Care Centers came along in the area with an institutional ambience you could almost smell ... with almost every second of the day planned, leaving little room for children at such an impressionable and expressionistic age to find each their own time of quiet fantasy or a particular other child to play alone with.

Your prior post about the old days of listening to the radio and reading when we were fairly young and how this stimulated the IMAGINATION all brought back fond memories of Liselotte's Day Care "Small Stuff".

You are right: kids today are being drowned in automatic communication reflex electronics. And it's a real struggle for parents to find time to stir their better and broader imaginations with a good book.

Obama has put stress on these formative years in children's upbringing as being so critical to their mature emotional development. He's so right!

Excuse a personal note on this blog. But the subject is indirectly relevant to your opening remark about the "Dumbing Down" trend in America. The formative years are the first battle line against this trend that is the key responsibility of parents.

Thanks for bringing back in a small way some wonderful memories and experiences in early nurturing of little minds ... also from Liselotte.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,
No I didn't read it but will. Maybe my last criticism woke him up a bit ... optimist that I am.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Art:

What does it matter that Palin is qualified or not. She is more qualified than Pat Buchanan who did not have Israel’s approval. As long as Palin has the approval of Israel, what does it matter? As long as she goes along with Genocide and the Invasion of Iran, she’s fine. Have you ever known the Republicans not to go along with Israel? Of for that matter, have you ever known the Democrats not to go along with them? Have you ever known anyone in public office not to have their approval?

Jimmy Carter regretted Israel’s betrayal of the Oslo Accords and other things as well as Israel’s Apartheid State. But when he was elected, he was qualified because Israel said he was. They appeared to have led him along. He regretted that he worked all those years for peace and claimed Israel never really honored any treaty or cared to honor them. He is disgusted that they abuse other people and treat them like South Africans treated the Africans. That’s why he is nuts and the worst president that ever held the Oval Office and that is why he is unqualified and unfit to be president. Yet, Palin who goes along with AIPAC is qualified and will not interfere in Israel’s agenda. This Is not about qualifications…its about Israel. Why do you and others waste print and effort trying to discredit me when I point it out?
.
I know I am the poorest writer here but please have mercy.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Ian Thal said...

Whathisface-

You are not merely the poorest writer, but you are a tiresome anti-Semite who hasn't a clue as to how the U.S. political system works, let alone stay on topic.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,

There's an even much better article entitled, "REALISTS UNITE",
which is kind of close to theme I've been writing about for months now. It's written by Leslie H. Gelb in NY Times. (My favorite Pres. Truman is part of the story)

I think we both know what group McCain and Obama fit in.

I read the article written by Phillip Butler who was McCain's classmate at the Naval Academy and a co-prisoner for 8 years in Vietnam. He gives a not surprising but shocking first hand report of McCain's hot head, reckless temperament. He's a very decent, honorable man who's doen much for his patronage. But he's not only old school(e.g.,wanted immediately to have Russia removed form the Security Council) but a maverick with a very reckless, unwise bent. No thanks. We need the cool brilliance and energy of Obama and the considerable talent he attracts to solve huge problems confronting us. We need others to want to work with us, so have to stop treating our friends with such arrogance and disdain if they don't agree with us.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,

In context with Gelb's article,
I forgot to mention what a wise grand lady (formerly member of the Democratic National
Association) just said to me today:

"You don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies."

As you can see, there's double message here.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger Dan said...

Another funny spin given Obomas complete lack of the same things of which you are accusing Palin.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

That "community organizer" gig really separates Obama from the pack. Must have been in charge of more than 9000 people and some serious budgets.

Tuesday, 02 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YK,

Obama got down to basic realites of aiding jobless and poverty afflicted people in his Community Organizing Work.

He later became a State Senator
of Illinois with 12.6 million
people compared to SP's 20 months
as Governor of Alaska with 670,000
people. Comparing her cv to Obama's, is like comparing George Bush's to Winston Churchill!

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art Layman,
C'est impossible vous parvenir à votre Email adresse. Essayez encore une fois à mon adresse
confidentiel. J'ai recu votre seul Email. Merci bien.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

Le deuxième essai ballon est sur sa voie.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

whatshisface:

Watch this video and I think you'll see that Palin ain't likely to get Israel's approval.

I don't attempt to discredit your lunatic ravings, they do that all by themselves. Most here debate or discuss from a basis of reason. Their premises may not always be correct and sometimes their logic may be faulty but those who lean toward reasoned thought, rather than emotional rants, generally are well received.

On the other hand, those who go off on fatuous expositions are frequently met with angry vehement retorts.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Frank:

Couldn't find the Gelb article at NYT but ran across one titled "A Realist Rally" on the National Interest website that may be the same one.

Was a brilliant article and just further points out that we, somehow, need to separate ourselves from this narrow political ideology bullshit and engage bright statesmen in the process.

Provided if a President has an open, somewhat apolitical mind, it is not necessary for him/her to be a world class diplomat to put together a team of world class statesmen to establish and execute a world strategy aimed at including all the talents of the world in creating a semblance of order.

We have to get off this arrogant idea that only we have all the right answers. Expanding on Mr. Gelb's point, the Truman administration embarked on rebuilding a world devastated by WWII, on resurrecting once great nations to a new great nation status. We were immensely successful, despite some stupid decisions under subsequent administrations. Granted some of our motivations were to offset Soviet strengths but in the end we helped restore Europe and Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and others to major player status. The beauty was that we achieved it without making them military powers again but economic ones.

Did we do this merely to create a a group of country children that will forever follow the directions of the US "parents" or did we do it to establish a system of democratic countries who could serve as partners, equal partners, in trying to maintain peace and order for the future? Whatever the original reasons we now have the results and it's time for us to let the children leave the nest and begin to engage them as adults, as equals, using a collective wisdom to solve problems. In reality the leaving has happened, the only thing missing is our recognition that they no longer need our parental guidance but rather our parental leadership.

There may be times when a military solution is the only answer and we are best equipped to provide the bulk of that but much more frequently a united diplomatic front will solve the issues; saving lives and avoiding deep nationalistic wounds.

Besides our ubiquitous partisanship, movement conservative has also intensified the effort to remand more governmental control in the office of the President and it began to intensify with Reagan. There were very valid reasons that our founding fathers set the Congress up as the principle decision maker of our government. They knew that too much power vested in one individual could misdirect the nation into no end of morasses. They allowed enough power to enable the President to respond to emergencies but, in my reading, always intended to give Congress the right to override. Of course part of the problem, they may not have foreseen, is a hapless Congress.

Anyway, was a fantastic article.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,

Excellent summary.

Terrible when one feels so nostalic (as I did) reading about past US leaders who were constructively realistic and sensible across party lines. How we have decayed sadly into this I win, you lose two-party political Down Syndrome.

Only slight edit I would make is in your phrase in last two sentences of paragraph 5: ... they no longer need our parental guidance but rather our parental leadership.

Don't see a lot of difference in words guidance and leadership and both sound patronizing. So I would suggest: ... they no longer need our parental guidance but rather mutual respect in partnership and close collaboration.

P.S. Sent Em just now with right address... I hope??

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,
Correction, it's late: nostalgic

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Polzoo said...

You are a good writer. I would like to invite you to join our new online community at polzoo.com. We are a user generated political editorial. I think your voice would be a great addition.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Art:
Watch this video and I think you'll see that Palin ain't likely to get Israel's approval.

You should keep up with the news.

You and Ian seem to have something in common. When someone points out who really calls the shots in America, you have a tendency to label them.

Ian said that I was anti-semetic because of my comments and you think I am a lunatic. Are you afraid of the truth? Or is it just easier to label someone?

If you want to call someone an anti-semite when they say that American foreign policy is Israeli foreign policy and that the candidates have to be approved by Israel, that is on you. If you want to ignore the Iraq war and claim it was not conducted and orchestrated by Israel's proxies in the white house, that is on you. And, if you want to pretend that Israel is not committing genocide against the Palestinian people, that is also on you. Most of all, if you want to label President Carter an anti-Semite when he points out Israel's Apartheid policies and torture, that's on you. I know that you know it is happening but just because no-one brings the subject up doesn't mean it is the ravings of a lunatic.

Everything that has happened to America has happened because George Bush betrayed America and was involved with Sharon and Israel and when I point out the facts that the new leaders, McCain and Obama and their running mates are also proxies of Israel, you start launching invectives as though all that I have said is wrong.

America is down the drain and you are pretending to be an American when in fact you are one of the millions that are supporters of the neocon agenda. We don't need people like you defending Israel.This is America and we were talking about Palin and why she was selected. You refuse to accept my take and would rather argue otherwise.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Ian Thal said...

Since Whatshisface is directly addressing me:

Lies whose raison d'etre only to demonize Jews and the Jewish state are anti-Semitic propaganda.

"Genocide" is a serious crime which has a clear legal definition under international law, and thus such a charge without credible evidence is slander. The only reason for this blood libel is because it's extra hurtful when the libeled are a nation of people who have fled from genocide. You repeat the false charges only to belittle the genuine historical trauma of "The Final Solution"-- which makes you something of a "soft-core" Holocaust denier.

Likewise, there is no evidence that the Israeli government advised or encouraged the Bush administration to invade Iraq-- indeed there's a lot of evidence that Israeli officials were advising against it: either way, it was Bush's decision and he is the one who must bear responsibility. Instead of addressing the individuals responsible for the policy, one focusses on an Israeli scapegoat.

Accusations of Israeli control of the American government without credible evidence is what is generally called a "conspiracy theory."

So yes, Whathisface, you are an anti-Semite and you are attempting to hijack Professor Reich's blog with your blood-libel.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger whatshisface said...

Ian:

Israeli policy in America is clear.And the way Israel and guys like you slander president Carter is clear. We know why do it as well.

From the days of Herzel and the Baron and before, you have colonized the land with one intent...exclusive use for Jews, since you bring the word up. the land formerly occupied by others is now occupied by you. The settlements, the apartheid, the racist policies are all well documented. They have but one purpose and one conclusion...to exterminate the previous people that lived there in accordance with Deuteronomy.

I did not hijack this blog to be insulted by you or yours. It was to argue that American elections are vetted by Israel and that the war in Iraq and Iran are the policies of israel, not the wishes of the American people. It was to dispute the narrow arguments posited here, including fanatics like you.

Why should a presidentiial candidate complain about Iran but for Israel. Bush does not complain about Pakistans nuclear Program or India's nuclear program? It does not even complain about Israel's nuclear program. These elections and these issues are all about Israel in my view If you don't like it, tough. Kick me off. I'll go somewhere else.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger YK said...

Considering how quickly Obama rose out of nowhere, and considering that 18 million people voted for a person with no known accomplishments, I would tend to think that an outside interest with real big money and influence is behind all of this. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out who that might be. From this viewpoint Palin looks like a much less risky choice.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Frank:

Would have to agree your wording is more precise.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

whatshisface:

One would think that someone of your age would have gained some wisdom by now. Apparently not!

Everything that has happened to America has happened because George Bush betrayed America and was involved with Sharon and Israel and when I point out the facts that the new leaders, McCain and Obama and their running mates are also proxies of Israel, you start launching invectives as though all that I have said is wrong. (emphasis added)

Once again I refer you to sbvor. At least sbvor sometimes posts data and proclaims it to be "facts". You, on the other hand, as does sbvor frequently, post opinions, more aptly lunacy, and proclaim your opinions to be "facts". It is customary, except on the Internet, that when you make assertions you support them with "factual" references.

You would have us believe that you are privy to information, perhaps from some ethereal source, that is profound and unknown to the rest of us. In addition to "conspiracy theories", aptly mentioned by ian thal, there is also a phenomenon called "Messianic complexes". It is not uncommon for the two to coexist in the same person.

Most of all, if you want to label President Carter an anti-Semite when he points out Israel's Apartheid policies and torture, that's on you.

I guess we must consider neurological stupors, but can you find anywhere that I have said anything derogatory about Jimmy Carter?

This not being my blog and considering that I can do my share of acting the raving lunatic, I have no desire to "kick you off". Free speech, clearly, exists here on Dr. Reich's blog and only he can decide whether you're a keeper.

As for me, I will probably read your blather and respond sometimes and other times not. That is my free speech right.

I have no problem defering to ian thal since he has said it all much better.

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YK,

You continue to soak yourself in the unreality that Obama's qualifications for Pres. are no better than Palin's for Vice Pres. or Pres. if something should happen to McCain. You're smoking pot, my good man. Harvard Law school, 12 years State and US Senator vs. local mayor with 20 months as Governor of a state the size of Austin, Texas. How ridiculous to even contemplate such a comparison of equals with economic and global times as dangerous as they are now for our country. Come to your common sense please!

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art,

Inadvertently misled you about source of Leslie Geld's US foreign policy article. It was in my Sept. 2 International Herald Tribune published in Paris and owned by the NY Times. So assumed IHT article also appeared in NY Times as is generally the case.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is a lightweight. She has already revealed this with her vindictive, spiteful attacks on a presidential candidate who is proving to be one of the true statesmen of our time. When she accuses him of being two-faced, does she mean that he should never express a single concern or criticism about any aspect of any group, because that proves that he is untrustworthy? That's plain foolish thinking.
Palin is quick to attack. Yet she is underhanded in hiding her own unpopular convictions.

When she denigrates Obama's service to those less fortunate, she is also throwing dirt at the many people who so desperately needed his generous help.

What more compelling proof of Obama's dedication to "the people" can there be? Obama could have taken a high-paying, prestigious career. But he didn't. Yet Palin throws out shallow slogans. She claims that her team uses their career to serve, while the democrates do the opposite.

But I don't know. Palin is the one who has no concern that being the vice president could take her away from her family. If she sacrifices her children for her career, who else will she toss aside? Frankly, if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter and a new baby with a disability, I'm sure that people would be all over him with concerns.

All the cheery frenzy around Palin disappoints me, as it shows little judgement. I doubt that Palin will ever be able to demonstrate herself to be of the calibre of Obama or Clinton. But she could at least rein in her caustic tongue and try to focus on what she thinks she has to offer.

McCain and Palin keep raving about courage. They think that a reckless choice of running mate shows courage. They also think that being confrontational demonstrates courage. Fighting and killing as a soldier or being openly confrontational with his own party members is the truest hallmark of courage, according to him. I'm sure many people will see through such simplistic thinking.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Blogger John said...

General Fred Franks (no relation to Tommy Franks), who led the VII Corps armored advance during the first war with Iraq, had the best explanation of this issue:

You have to know the difference between taking a risk and gambling. A risk is something you can get back. A gamble is game over.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a Republican told me 2 + 2 = 4, I would ask for a calculator. What I hear & see of the Republicans is hypocrisy squared!

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The McCain/Dr.Laura ticket is really scary. They both love guns and war way too much - especially for both claiming to be Christians.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People have complained about Ms. Palin's lack of experience and McCain's people have shot back in the manner of a kid defending a weak resume by artfully stating that Ms Palin is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard and as a governor neiboring Russia has skads of foreign policy experience. People actually laughed.

MS Palin has extensive REPUBLICAN foreign policy experience. You will recall that the official foreign policy strategy endorsed by the younger Mr Bush has been to NOT TALK to parties with whom you have substansive differences. Using this negotiation strategy, the Republicans find that they do not back into positions of weakness. Look at what has happened when Mr. Bush disregarded his own advice: He gazed into Putin's eyes, claimed to have seen his soul and proceeded to give Putin carte blanche to run amuck. We are still reaping the benefits.

Ms. Palin, in her role as governor, has succeeded in accomplishing "plenty of nothing", making for the ideal Republican foreign policy resume, for which we should all be immensely grateful and humbly pray that she stick to in a principled and dedicated way should she be called to fulfill the vice presidential constitutional duty.

Monday, 08 September, 2008  
Anonymous the more you know ... said...

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush?... lipstick.

Tuesday, 09 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all due respect Dr. Reich,

For any Obama supporter to complain about Palin's lack of experience is about the funniest thing I have ever heard out of otherwise intelligent people.

Friday, 12 September, 2008  
Anonymous Jeanne Trupiano said...

As a working mother, my first thought about Sarah Palin was that John McCain made an irresponsible decision in naming her as the vice presidential candidate. I only hope that the American public sees through this front and votes for the democratic ticket.

Wednesday, 17 September, 2008  
Anonymous Thomas W said...

Sarah Palin, is just another Bush/ Rove nominee -- but wearing lipstick.

Vote four more years! And another financial crisis, war with Russia and Iran..

Bet Alaskan roading would be in good condition, though.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Chus said...

Hot news!: McCain suspends campaign

Wednesday, 24 September, 2008  
Anonymous magician said...

Palin is irrelevant because her running mate won't live to be inaugurated. For details, see http://actualastrology.net/McCain%20Ain%27t%20McAble.html

Friday, 26 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched recently a documentary about the mistakes made in the depression of the 30's. It appears to me that the bigger government and higher taxation for businesses it did not work. Relieve in taxes for the middle class will not create jobs. Well! perhaps in pedicures, manicures and vacations. What we need are business that are willing to produce products and jobs for the middle class. Do you know wha happen with those benefits that Mr. Obama wants to pass to the poor people. The government frequently is paying over 15,000 to mothers so that their children can go to day care and they can stay at home watching TV. Working for minimum wages is to hard for them.

Tuesday, 07 October, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many complaint about Sarah Palin having no experience to be a VP. As an accountant, I can say that many accounting majors frequently can't run an accounting department because they work for large corporations and they only get to work and see a small part of the operation of the accounting department. Accountants that run small companies and have to take care of the entire accounting function can do a much better job. I believe that Sarah experience running a city as a major and the state as a governor is a better background than Bidens many years of experience in Washington. In addition, any female that can put together a family and a job as she did is a wonderful candidate.

Tuesday, 07 October, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

Thursday, 12 February, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home