VintageBrett.com

Charisma Always Wins

Obama's historic victory only confirms one thing: charisma, more than anything, determines election results. 

More than policies, more than character, more than track record, more than anything, charisma does a President make. Let's look at the evidence:

• In '08, Obama is no doubt more charismatic than McCain. 
• In 00' and '04, Bush, though somewhat dim-witted in perception, was still more charismatic than both Kerry and Gore (ironically, Gore became surprisingly charismatic AFTER he exited politics).  
• In '92 and '96, Clinton was more charismatic than both Dole and Bush.   
• In '88, Bush was more charismatic than Dukakis.   
• In '84 and '80, Reagan was more charismatic than Mondale and Carter.   
• In '76, Carter was more charismatic than Ford.   
• In '72, my understanding is both Nixon and McGovern were charismatic, but McGovern's ill-focused charisma might actually prove to be an anomaly.     

We could keep going, and I welcome you to chime in with your thoughts. The point here is simple: humans are affected more by perceptions and stories than anything. Obama tells a better story, and he tells it in a better way. 

FYI, here's an interesting and informative site on the history of Presidential Elections.  

Girls = Evil

Just click the link and read the post. Pretty witty. 

DragonForce: Gay or Guitar Gods?

Have you heard of these guys yet? I can't make up my mind if this is good stuff or just stuff. The songs are hard to listen to, but the acrobatic guitar playing is entertaining. 

McCain's Plan to Save $15 mil.

Thanks to John for passing along. 

A Presidential Rant

First, I don't see how anyone can think "their candidate" came out a winner tonight. Both Obama and McCain managed to sound, look and act anything but presidential. When they could have clarified how they were actually going to improve things, they only clarified how the other candidate was going to ruin America. When asked a direct question, they glazed over a direct answer and instead found a way to insert what they had already repeated 15 times in the prior 20 minutes. When asked repeatedly to follow the rules they'd agreed to, they continued to break them and then tattle on the other guy when he broke them. They even managed to piss off Tom Brokaw. 

Out of all the smart, experienced, qualified, proven, well-spoken, straight-talking people that could have made a run for it, how did we end up with these two? 

Second, can somebody please stop talking about "who won the debate?" The problem here is that campaigning has almost next to nothing to do with leading a country. But that's how we choose leaders. Whoever raises the most money, whoever runs the most ads, whoever favors the least polarizing positions, whoever knows how to debate best, whoever can spar and interview best gets to be President. 

Will either of these guys ever debate as President? No. They will be the audience of many debates, and they'll then have to be decisive, but they won't have to debate themselves. Sure, it's an impressive skill to have - that of debating well - but debates, at least in this case, shouldn't be about winning. They should be about communicating your position in a forum for the nation to see, and then the nation decides. 

Here are some things I'd like to know about each candidate that DOES have to do with being President:

• Who will be on your cabinet? 
• What will you do in your first 6 months in office?   
• What are your goals over your four-year term (and don't be subjective with me)?  
• How are you going to fix the economic problems and NOT tax us?   
• Since voting records seem to be so important, walk me through every vote you've cast over the past four years, and tell me why you voted the way you did.   

The cabinet and inner circle especially has a huge influence over a President's term. Refer to Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. 

I've said before that I'll be voting for McCain, but I think Obama will win. That's probably still true, but, man, McCain makes it hard for me to vote for him. The only thing that he's got going for him is that every time I start to think that maybe Obama is the better choice for America right now between the two, my tongue swells up and I start to get that burning feeling of brewing vomit in the back of my throat. 

As for the issues themselves, here's my quick take on the biggies:

On the economy:

• America needs more money. Taxes are how America makes more money. I don't mind paying more taxes if it will fix the economy. So tell me you're going to tax me, and why. 
• The government is not going to fix our economy. In capitalism, capitalists create change. That means businesses, the private sector, is going to get creative in finding a way to fix this and also capitalize.   
• We need to confess we are way over our heads in debt, and acknowledge that debt = bad. Maybe Dave Ramsey needs to walk the White House through the Total Money Makeover.   
• We Americans are not the victims here. Yes, the government has been irresponsible, but so have we. I signed my mortgage. I use credit cards, and get car loans, and sign up for furniture that I can pay out for the next five years. Plus, we have all prospered during this time, too. Let's fess up and take a little ownership.   
• We, society, are going to have to sacrifice. You don't get out of a mess like this without getting dirty. Let's face it, acknowledge it, prepare for it and then dive in and get it over with.    

  On healthcare:

• It's definitely not a right, but it's more than just a privilege, too. 
• Shouldn't we start by cracking down on the pharmaceutical industry, making sure they are a) charging fair prices for their medicines, and b) making sure they make medicine that cures, not just covers up symptoms while prolonging the issue. Same attitude goes for hospital and doctor charges.   

On foreign policy:

•  I don't know . . . . I am scared of Russia, though.  

 

 
  

Interesting Discussions, Oct. 2, 2008

Here are a few interesting discussions you might want to get in on:

1. Republicans or Democrats: Who's to blame? - Some interesting takes on the bailout and all that entails, particularly opinions on an investigation. 
2. Politics Before Religion - I've been hearing more and more about how Christians, esp. Southern Baptists, are supposed to respond to Palin in the White House, when they don't even allow a woman in the church house. I slightly disagree with Samuel here, but it's good reading. 
3. On the Issues - Nice summary of where McCain and Obama stand on the major issues.    

  

Jesus is a Friend of Mine - Sonseed and David Crowder

This thing is spreading like wildfire, BUT . . . .just in case you haven't seen it, I give you Sonseed, and then the David Crowder version:

Cowboys/Redskins Review

Here is my take on the pathetic game the Cowboys put up yesterday against the Skins. 

1. Blame Garrett and the coaching staff first: After Barber enjoyed a career-high game in Green Bay last week, and after Felix Jones had scored a touchdown in each of his first three NFL games, the Cowboys managed to only run the ball 11 times yesterday for 44 yards. Two of those 11 were by TO, and one left for Romo. To put it another way, Owens produced 25% of the Cowboys rushing yardage (and 24% of their receiving yardage, ironically). This can't happen. Yes, the Redskins were stopping Barber early in the game, but that's not new. He often finds a way to get the big runs in the second half after wearing down the defense. And then you don't even hand off to Felix Jones all day? I don't understand it, but there's no way you can blame any single player more than you can blame the game plan from Wade and co. 
2. What's wrong with Newman? I think I saw the ghost of Roy Williams out there in the body of Terrence Newman yesterday. Was that really a top 5 corner getting burnt? I know he slipped on that first TD to Thrash, but he was all over the place, except he was rarely in the right place. Hands down his worst game to date.  
3. Romo isn't Romo: By the numbers, Romo looked great yesterday: 300 yards, 3 TD, 1 Int. But something's not quite as magical so far this year about Jessica's man. I think he's getting some unfair critiques about hanging his head yesterday, but something just isn't clicking yet, both with his game (too many flawed passes) and his head (too many poor choices). I have no doubts he'll get it together, but it's not there right now.   
4. Forcing the ball: The Redskins secondary was really, really tough yesterday. They frustrated TO and didn't allow the big plays when it counted. Which exposes the one major weakness I see in the Cowboys offense: they force the ball to certain receivers way too much. I didn't have a bird's eye view of the entire field for the game yesterday, but I've got to think there's a way to exploit even great coverage beyond TO and Witten. I don't know if that's an issue with play-calling or Romo's choices and lack of checking down. But how many passes to a covered TO have to be knocked away before you think maybe you shouldn't try to thread the needle so much? 
5. The Redskins are good: On top of it all, the Cowboys lost to a very good team. And what makes them good is a) a strong system that's well executed, and b) a playmaking defense that forces teams to change their plans. The problem was the Cowboys didn't seem to have a good Plan B.   
6. The Cowboys defense is good: But they aren't great. The secondary is still extremely patchy that only looks good on paper and has yet to look good on the grass. I actually think the front 7 did a pretty good job yesterday, but at the same time Portis got 121 yards on the ground.    
7. It's not hopeless: Did the Cowboys look pretty pathetic yesterday? Yes, but they also didn't do almost anything that they're known for. For whatever reason, they got away from what makes them great, and they showed us that it takes more than talented players to make wins happen. It's a good wake up call I think they needed, and I still think they're the team to beat in the NFC.    

A Few Simple Explanations for our Economic Mess

While trying to make sense of what's going on with our economy, I came across the following posts and thought I would share:

1. The Economic Crisis Made Simple
2. Ron Paul's Commentary at CNN.com
3. Definition of "Mortgage-Backed Securities"
4. Wiki on Community Reinvestment Act
5. Wiki on Federal Reserve
6. Another Explanation of the Current Financial Crisis - Mike Sylvester
7. Ric Edelman's Take

We'll Spend ONLY $460 Billion This Christmas

Maria Halkias reports today in the Dallas Morning News that the National Retail Federation predicts holiday sales will rise only 2.2 percent this year to $470 billion in light of our country's continuing financial woes.

Let's not all make a run on the bank at once.

Sure, times are tough, but let's keep in mind that the prediction is still for an increase in our shopping spending this year when compared to last year. I might not be forking out the 4 percent the Federaton was predicting, but they're still betting on me beating last year's feat.

Gift cards are getting hit the hardest to only $25 billion this holiday season. Boo-hoo.

Things aren't looking good right now, but this useless stat is not a sign of the coming depression. What will be interesting is to see how we as consumers really react come Christmas. Will we forego our comforts and luxuries and gluttonies as we celebrate this year? I doubt it.

I'm starting to think Phil Gramm was right about us whiny Americans.

Ray Boltz: Gay Christian?

Renowned Christian singer/songwriter Ray Boltz has come out of the closet, claiming a lifelong battle with living in homosexuality.

As explained at Emphatic Asterisk, there are two polar reactions occuring in response. One, there are the mourning Christians who are observing the fall of a celebrated icon (esp. in the mid-90s when permed mullets were en vogue and Ray's was one of the best in the biz). Then there are the celebrative homosexuals who are welcoming Gay Ray with open arms.

Boltz made his original public statement for The Washington Blade.

So, as a Christian, how do you process this one? I'll tell you where I'm at.

First, I'm convinced that the Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are a sin. Boltz obviously doesn't feel this way, as he believes this is just the way he has been made.

But we all sin, and acting in homosexuality is sin, albeit one with hefty consequences. The real question is in are people created this way?

I don't think so, even though there is some compelling data to at least make you think about it. Obviously, if it's sin, God isn't going to create us to be sinners without a chance. At the same time, we are a broken, fallen people, both as mankind and as individuals. We are sinners, constantly in need of our redeemer.

We Christians can't automatically think Ray Boltz has lost his salvation; that thinking says much more about our Savior than it does him. We can't think he's never been a Christian either. We all struggle with sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Our Saviour is bigger.

The fault is in not seeing the act as sin, in not repenting. In this, Ray is guilty, as he says: “This is what it really comes down to,” he says. “If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

But it is not a fault that transcends forgiveness.