We saw an item recently about Hardball's Chris Matthews thinking about running in 2010 for the Pennsylvania seat in the US Senate now held by Arlen Specter. Didn't think much about it at the time. Now it seems he's serious. He's reportedly shopping for a house in the state where he was born. It's also true that he's harbored a boyhood dream to be a senator. I've always wanted to be a subway motorman. That doesn't mean I'm looking to take the test.
Chris Matthews wouldn't be the first tv personality to run for political office. Gee, there's the late Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy from the Love Boat, and Jesse "The Body" Ventura. And they all won! But seriously, Chris Matthews would have a hard road to Capitol Hill. For one, he's been hosting a political talk show, which means he's got friends for sure, but also enemies in Washington. Also, despite having been born in Pennsylvania, he's most closely associated with DC.
Then there's his ill advised slam of Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary. You may remember he said she got where she was because "her husband messed around". Chris Matthews may find out that the Clintons have a long reach, and long memories. Then there are those who view the noise about a Matthews senate run as merely a negotiating ploy to get more money from NBC when his contract expires next June. Don't laugh. It's been done before.
Matthews doesn't face an open road even to the Democratic nomination for the job he covets. Should he get past potential challengers in his own party, he faces a venerable opponent in Arlen Specter. True, the incumbent will be 80 years old in 2010, but Frank Lautenberg just got re-elected in New Jersey, and he's 84. Would Chris Matthews dare bring up the issue of age?
The MSNBC host has always been an acquired taste, but one who has a following despite being pilloried on occasion by the right. He should stay where he is, and do what he does best. Boyhood dreams don't always work out.
What do you think? Should Chris Matthews run for the Senate?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Mo Money Mo Money Mo Money!
The Big Three came back to Washington Tuesday, and this time they seem to have gotten the message about those corporate jets. Now the only question is whether Congress will buy their plea for a bailout before one or more of them goes broke. Instead of the $25 billion they were asking for just two weeks ago, GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $34 billion. But hey, what's $9 billion among friends?
Detroit came to the table this time with plans. GM's seems to be the most detailed, probably because they're in the most trouble. They say they'll cut as many as 30,000 jobs by 2012, close 11 factories, trim about 1700 odd dealers, and sell off Hummer and Saab, while shrinking Pontiac and getting rid of it;'s its Saturn brand completely. And like the other two CEOS, GM's would take a $1 dollar annual salary. Chrysler is in similar straits but is asking for $7 billion rather than the $18 billion sought by GM.
Ford says it can be profitable by 2011, and only needs $9 billion to use if necessary. Ford is in an interesting position here. While all three automakers say they'll focus on making more fuel efficient cars to sell here in the US, Ford already sells a number of such vehicles in other parts of the world. In fact, two Ford cars get better than 40 miles per gallon, with one getting an astonishing 63.6! Sadly, both are diesels, and neither is available here in the US.
Yet as we ponder whether the Big Three's commitment to more fuel efficient cars and leaner operations is real, consider this. The average fuel consumption figure for US cars, minivans, and SUVs stands at 22.6. In Europe the figure is 40.3, and in Japan it's 40.6. Maybe Detroit ought to come up with plans to raise the US number. For years, they've been resisting such calls, arguing the cost is prohibitive. Maybe the need to borrow $4 billion dollars from US taxpayers to survive the rest of the year ought to change that attitude.
One attitude has changed, for sure. The Big Three CEOs will all be driving hybrid vehicles fro Detroit to DC later this week. No more corporate jets, not after people noticed.
So, the question is, did the automakers make their case? You tell me.
Detroit came to the table this time with plans. GM's seems to be the most detailed, probably because they're in the most trouble. They say they'll cut as many as 30,000 jobs by 2012, close 11 factories, trim about 1700 odd dealers, and sell off Hummer and Saab, while shrinking Pontiac and getting rid of it;'s its Saturn brand completely. And like the other two CEOS, GM's would take a $1 dollar annual salary. Chrysler is in similar straits but is asking for $7 billion rather than the $18 billion sought by GM.
Ford says it can be profitable by 2011, and only needs $9 billion to use if necessary. Ford is in an interesting position here. While all three automakers say they'll focus on making more fuel efficient cars to sell here in the US, Ford already sells a number of such vehicles in other parts of the world. In fact, two Ford cars get better than 40 miles per gallon, with one getting an astonishing 63.6! Sadly, both are diesels, and neither is available here in the US.
Yet as we ponder whether the Big Three's commitment to more fuel efficient cars and leaner operations is real, consider this. The average fuel consumption figure for US cars, minivans, and SUVs stands at 22.6. In Europe the figure is 40.3, and in Japan it's 40.6. Maybe Detroit ought to come up with plans to raise the US number. For years, they've been resisting such calls, arguing the cost is prohibitive. Maybe the need to borrow $4 billion dollars from US taxpayers to survive the rest of the year ought to change that attitude.
One attitude has changed, for sure. The Big Three CEOs will all be driving hybrid vehicles fro Detroit to DC later this week. No more corporate jets, not after people noticed.
So, the question is, did the automakers make their case? You tell me.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Burress Shoots Himself- Career in Critical?
By now most people know that New York Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress shot himself with a gun he was carrying in a New York nightclub in the wee hours of last Saturday morning. The media frenzy that followed as entirely predictable. Burress has had trouble follow throughout his pro career, but nothing quite like this. On Monday, he was arraigned on a pair of felony weapons charges that could land him in prison for a mandatory minimum of 3 1/2 years. That would be on each count.
The reaction of the sporting press was outrage, the kind of outrage reserved for athletes they consider pampered who do something inarguably stupid. Sports journalists all too often ignore the presumption of innocence that is the foundation of our country's legal system. In the case of Plaxico Burress, no less a personage than the Mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, weighed in. He says Burress should be prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law". For Bloomberg, that means three and a half years in prison. After all, he was the one who successfully lobbied the state to increase the punishment for illegal weapons possession from a year.
You can argue all day whether Burress deserves jail time or counseling, but a few things need to be established here. Athletes and celebrities often walk around armed, and don't get caught. That's because they fear being robbed, as several have been leaving clubs or even in front of their own homes. Why Burress didn't simply hire a legally armed bodyguard is anybody's guess. It's a delicious irony that Plaxico Burress, a man who makes a really good living catching a football, couldn't manage to hang on to a gun in his own pants.
The central question here, whether you're outraged by what he did or just think he's an idiot (or both) is whether he's offered a plea bargain or if he actually goes to trial. in the case of the latter, a mandatory minimum sentence wouldn't likely be imposed. Perhaps proper punishment for Plaxico Burress is a trip out of town. The New York Giants won this past weekend without him. For all his skills, he is in fact expendable. Voiding his contract for misconduct would cost him the better part of $35 million dollars.
Then let Plaxico Burress go out and make a living like the rest of us.
The reaction of the sporting press was outrage, the kind of outrage reserved for athletes they consider pampered who do something inarguably stupid. Sports journalists all too often ignore the presumption of innocence that is the foundation of our country's legal system. In the case of Plaxico Burress, no less a personage than the Mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, weighed in. He says Burress should be prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law". For Bloomberg, that means three and a half years in prison. After all, he was the one who successfully lobbied the state to increase the punishment for illegal weapons possession from a year.
You can argue all day whether Burress deserves jail time or counseling, but a few things need to be established here. Athletes and celebrities often walk around armed, and don't get caught. That's because they fear being robbed, as several have been leaving clubs or even in front of their own homes. Why Burress didn't simply hire a legally armed bodyguard is anybody's guess. It's a delicious irony that Plaxico Burress, a man who makes a really good living catching a football, couldn't manage to hang on to a gun in his own pants.
The central question here, whether you're outraged by what he did or just think he's an idiot (or both) is whether he's offered a plea bargain or if he actually goes to trial. in the case of the latter, a mandatory minimum sentence wouldn't likely be imposed. Perhaps proper punishment for Plaxico Burress is a trip out of town. The New York Giants won this past weekend without him. For all his skills, he is in fact expendable. Voiding his contract for misconduct would cost him the better part of $35 million dollars.
Then let Plaxico Burress go out and make a living like the rest of us.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Will Fine Tuning be Enough?
As President-Elect Obama rolls out his national security team Monday, the Big Three automakers are preparing for their second plea to Congress for money. You may remember their first trip to DC didn't turn out so well. Not only did they come to then nation's capital in private jets, they came without a plan about how they'd spend the money if they got it. The money in this case is $25 billion dollars.
Reports say GM, Ford, and Chrysler all worked feverishly through the weekend to come up with plans to restructure the way they do business. At the top of their list ought to be how to create a quantum leap in fuel efficiency for their vehicles. A recent online article made the point that miles per gallon figures in Europe and Japan far surpass even the best projections of Detroit. What's ironic is several of the cars mentioned in that article are made by Ford yet are unavailable here in the US.
One silver lining in Detroit's cloud is the willingness of he United Auto Workers to offer concessions in an effort to convince the Congress to come up with the money. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger says the union will do its part if they see sacrifices on the part of management. One can hardly see how the bigwigs can say no to that. After all, a cap on executive compensation is something Democratic members of Congress will demand.
The down side is that the carmakers will be coming to Capitol Hill on the same day sales results for last month will come out. They expected to only be marginally better than October, when sales were at a 25 year low. The crucial question is whether the plans, which vary somewhat among the three automakers contain enough detail to sway those members of Congress who thus far have been less than inclined to help. There are still some lawmakers who see Detroit's problems as being of their own making, which, to be blunt, they are.
However, if Ford, Chrysler, and GM come to the table Tuesday with a plan that makes sense, they should get the money they are looking for. What do you think?
Reports say GM, Ford, and Chrysler all worked feverishly through the weekend to come up with plans to restructure the way they do business. At the top of their list ought to be how to create a quantum leap in fuel efficiency for their vehicles. A recent online article made the point that miles per gallon figures in Europe and Japan far surpass even the best projections of Detroit. What's ironic is several of the cars mentioned in that article are made by Ford yet are unavailable here in the US.
One silver lining in Detroit's cloud is the willingness of he United Auto Workers to offer concessions in an effort to convince the Congress to come up with the money. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger says the union will do its part if they see sacrifices on the part of management. One can hardly see how the bigwigs can say no to that. After all, a cap on executive compensation is something Democratic members of Congress will demand.
The down side is that the carmakers will be coming to Capitol Hill on the same day sales results for last month will come out. They expected to only be marginally better than October, when sales were at a 25 year low. The crucial question is whether the plans, which vary somewhat among the three automakers contain enough detail to sway those members of Congress who thus far have been less than inclined to help. There are still some lawmakers who see Detroit's problems as being of their own making, which, to be blunt, they are.
However, if Ford, Chrysler, and GM come to the table Tuesday with a plan that makes sense, they should get the money they are looking for. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
