(c) 2010 F. Bruce Abel
Normally Gail Collins is ironic but I believe she's serious about Nancy Pelosi, and this piece turns me favorable toward Pelosi.
Op-Ed Columnist - The Age of Nancy - NYTimes.com: "She has been around a long time and must have known that from the start. But she pushed anyway. Pelosi is an idealist working in the practical now. She genuinely sees her party as a vehicle for good and her pragmatism is not the least bit cynical. She is the most powerful woman in the country, the most fearless person on Capitol Hill and on track to be one of the most productive speakers in history.
I don’t know about you, but that kind of knocks me out."
Showing posts with label collins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collins. Show all posts
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Collins -- A Must Read
comments (42)
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: June 3, 2009
Americans believe that the world works best when consumers have unlimited choice. This is why my corner drugstore offers, by my last count, 103 different kinds of body moisturizers. These are not, of course, to be confused with moisturizers for the face, hand, elbow or foot.
Skip to next paragraph
The Conversation
David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.All Conversations »
Related
Times Topics: Student Loans
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (42) »
if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();
We, the informed shoppers, are supposed to scan the crowded shelves and decide whether our needs will best be met by body oil, body butter or firming emulsion. We will, perhaps, mull the “udder cream” whose big selling point is that it was originally developed for use on dairy cows. Then we select the products that will survive and thrive by voting with our pocketbooks.
This is way too much responsibility.
I have been thinking a lot about choices lately, because I have gotten interested in college loans. The Obama administration is trying to reform the current loopy system in which the government pays private companies to do the lending. The loans are then guaranteed by the government so the private companies are sheltered from loss. Then the government buys the loans back so the private companies can go out and do it all over again.
The White House believes that if it cuts out the middlemen, and just gives the loans to the students directly, it can save $94 billion over 10 years.
Hell hath no fury like a middleman scorned. The lenders have been rallying the troops, waving the banner of choice.
Citigroup sent a call to arms to its student borrowers, which is currently posted on Talking Points Memo. It warns darkly that if the Obama Armageddon comes to pass, “students and their families will not enjoy the benefits that competition has made possible for more than 40 years.”
There is, indeed, currently an army of different providers vying to supply students with financing for their higher education. I’m not entirely sure if the borrowing-money choices are as numerous as the body-hydrating ones, but they’re right up there.
This brings us to the critical question of whether endless options actually do any good. “We don’t hear students clamoring for choice in lenders. If anything, students and families need simplicity to understand the process and know how to navigate it,” said Edie Irons, communications director for the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit dedicated to making college more affordable.
Since the government-guaranteed loans are regulated by Congress, they have virtually identical terms. The main variation comes in customer service: who has the best Web site or staff. Most current and former students do not seem to find this as being all that big a deal. What they need to know is exactly how much it will cost to pay back the loan after graduation, information about which they tend to hear less than the Web-site-quality matter. Besides, the loans often come in pieces, cobbled together from an array of different programs. It would be hard for an accountant to figure out what it all meant, and 19-year-olds are not at the point in life that maximizes attention to detail.
Some students receive financial counseling, but it’s usually cursory, and it is only mandatory for government-backed loans. “It’s not required for private loans, and a lot of students in the worst situation have both,” said Robert Shireman of the Department of Education. Shireman was just back from a panel where he met an officer in the United States Student Association, who told him that some of her loans had an interest rate of 19 percent.
The real competition among the lenders is not to win over students so much as the school financial aid officers. This has led to unfortunate but deeply unsurprising instances of thinly disguised bribes and kickbacks. But even the most honorable officials don’t have much time for discussion when several hundred students are clamoring outside their doors. “You walk in and it’s like an assembly line in the bursar’s office,” said Stephen Marston, who graduated from New York University in 2006 with a degree in psychology. “They fill out everything for you. Here’s Sallie Mae — go ahead and sign. Payments weren’t even discussed.”
At the time, Marston was a thousand miles from his home in Texas with an education in finance that began and ended with a $500 limit credit card. He took out two $16,000 Sallie Mae loans to get through school. Thanks to accumulated interest, which began ticking as soon as he signed the papers, his total debt has now ballooned to about $50,000.
He would be the first to admit that no one twisted his arm. He could have gone to a state school in Texas for very little money. But Marston wanted New York. “I thought, ‘You only get one chance to experience this.’ I got caught up in the adventure.”
Walking down the drugstore aisle, he passed up the Jergen’s lotion and grabbed for the Bliss Vanilla Plus Bergamot Body Butter. As so many of us do. But at least we get a good look at the price tag.
Sign in to RecommendNext Article in Opinion (1 of 27) »
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Collins -- So Clear and Good
Why doesn't the government just make the student loans directly?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28collins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28collins.html
Thursday, April 23, 2009
A Brief and Wity Walk Through New York State Politics -- Collins
Oh she's good. And New York is important, et's face it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23collins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23collins.html
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Blow and Collins and Brooks -- Anger Mismanagement
Yes to Blow:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/opinion/21blow.html?_r=1
Yes to Collins:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/opinion/21collins.html
Yes to Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em
Yes again to Charlie Rose's interview three nights ago (see blog which caused you readers to spend 16 minutes on average on my blog!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/opinion/21blow.html?_r=1
Yes to Collins:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/opinion/21collins.html
Yes to Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em
Yes again to Charlie Rose's interview three nights ago (see blog which caused you readers to spend 16 minutes on average on my blog!)
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Collins: That Dreaded Word "Fairness"
Monkeys and politicians aren't different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/opinion/13collins.html?em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1229260839-qddqKqPaRNpFZ/BSyUdVmw
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/opinion/13collins.html?em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1229260839-qddqKqPaRNpFZ/BSyUdVmw
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Collins
Cruel but absolutely true. We cannot wait.
Op-Ed Columnist
Time for Him to Go
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 22, 2008
Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.
Post a Comment »
Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.
Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.
As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.
Can I see a show of hands? How many people want George W. out and Barack in?
A great many Americans have been counting the days all year on their 2008 George W. Bush Out of Office Countdown calendars. I know a lot of this has been going on because so many people congratulated me when the Feb. 1 Bush quote turned out to be from one of my old columns. (“I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth from the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth.”)
This was not nearly as good as Feb. 5 (“We ought to make the pie higher”) or Feb. 21 (“I understand small business growth. I was one.”) But we do what we can.
In the past, presidents have not taken well to suggestions that they hand over the reins before the last possible minute. Senator J. William Fulbright suggested a plan along those lines when Harry Truman was coming to the end of a term in a state of deep unpopularity, and Truman called him “Halfbright” for the rest of his life. Bush might not love the idea of quitting before he has a chance to light the Christmas tree or commute the execution of one last presidential turkey. After all, he still has a couple more trips planned. And last-minute regulations to issue. (So many national parks to despoil, so many endangered species to exterminate ... .) And then there’s all the packing.
On the other hand, he might want to consider his legacy, such as it is.
In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high. However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel, a spot currently occupied by James Buchanan, at least in my opinion. Buchanan nailed down The Worst President title in the days between Abraham Lincoln’s election and inauguration, when the Southern states began seceding and Buchanan, after a little flailing about, did absolutely nothing. “Doing nothing is almost the worst thing a president can do,” said the historian Michael Beschloss.
If Bush gives up doing nothing by giving up his job, it’s possible that someday history might elevate him to the ranks of the below average. Better than Franklin Pierce! Smarter than Warren Harding! And healthier than William Henry Harrison!
The person who would like this plan least probably would be Barack Obama. Who would want to be saddled with the auto industry’s problems ahead of schedule? The heads of America’s great carmaking corporations are so dim that they couldn’t even survive hearings run by members of Congress who actually wanted to help them. Really, when somebody asks you exactly how much money you need, the answer should not be something along the line of “a whole bunch.”
An instantaneous takeover would also ruin the Obama team’s plan to have the tidiest, best-organized presidential transition in history. Cutting it short and leaping into governing would turn their measured march toward power into a mad scramble. A lot of their Cabinet picks are still working on those 62-page questionnaires.
But while there’s been no drama with Obama, we’ve been living a Technicolor version of “The Perils of Pauline.” Detroit is tied to the railroad tracks and the train is coming! California’s state government is falling into the sea! The way we’re going now, by the time the inauguration rolls around, unemployment will be at 10 percent and the Dow will be at 10.
Time for a change.
More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on November 22, 2008, on page A21 of the New York edition.
Past Coverage
QUESTIONS FOR KARL ROVE; Party Loyalist (November 16, 2008)
Change (November 16, 2008)
WHITE HOUSE MEMO; As the Handoff Begins, A Visit Both Historic And Perhaps Awkward (November 10, 2008)
Bush's Prepared Text (October 7, 2008)
Op-Ed Columnist
Time for Him to Go
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 22, 2008
Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.
Post a Comment »
Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.
Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.
As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.
Can I see a show of hands? How many people want George W. out and Barack in?
A great many Americans have been counting the days all year on their 2008 George W. Bush Out of Office Countdown calendars. I know a lot of this has been going on because so many people congratulated me when the Feb. 1 Bush quote turned out to be from one of my old columns. (“I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth from the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth.”)
This was not nearly as good as Feb. 5 (“We ought to make the pie higher”) or Feb. 21 (“I understand small business growth. I was one.”) But we do what we can.
In the past, presidents have not taken well to suggestions that they hand over the reins before the last possible minute. Senator J. William Fulbright suggested a plan along those lines when Harry Truman was coming to the end of a term in a state of deep unpopularity, and Truman called him “Halfbright” for the rest of his life. Bush might not love the idea of quitting before he has a chance to light the Christmas tree or commute the execution of one last presidential turkey. After all, he still has a couple more trips planned. And last-minute regulations to issue. (So many national parks to despoil, so many endangered species to exterminate ... .) And then there’s all the packing.
On the other hand, he might want to consider his legacy, such as it is.
In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high. However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel, a spot currently occupied by James Buchanan, at least in my opinion. Buchanan nailed down The Worst President title in the days between Abraham Lincoln’s election and inauguration, when the Southern states began seceding and Buchanan, after a little flailing about, did absolutely nothing. “Doing nothing is almost the worst thing a president can do,” said the historian Michael Beschloss.
If Bush gives up doing nothing by giving up his job, it’s possible that someday history might elevate him to the ranks of the below average. Better than Franklin Pierce! Smarter than Warren Harding! And healthier than William Henry Harrison!
The person who would like this plan least probably would be Barack Obama. Who would want to be saddled with the auto industry’s problems ahead of schedule? The heads of America’s great carmaking corporations are so dim that they couldn’t even survive hearings run by members of Congress who actually wanted to help them. Really, when somebody asks you exactly how much money you need, the answer should not be something along the line of “a whole bunch.”
An instantaneous takeover would also ruin the Obama team’s plan to have the tidiest, best-organized presidential transition in history. Cutting it short and leaping into governing would turn their measured march toward power into a mad scramble. A lot of their Cabinet picks are still working on those 62-page questionnaires.
But while there’s been no drama with Obama, we’ve been living a Technicolor version of “The Perils of Pauline.” Detroit is tied to the railroad tracks and the train is coming! California’s state government is falling into the sea! The way we’re going now, by the time the inauguration rolls around, unemployment will be at 10 percent and the Dow will be at 10.
Time for a change.
More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on November 22, 2008, on page A21 of the New York edition.
Past Coverage
QUESTIONS FOR KARL ROVE; Party Loyalist (November 16, 2008)
Change (November 16, 2008)
WHITE HOUSE MEMO; As the Handoff Begins, A Visit Both Historic And Perhaps Awkward (November 10, 2008)
Bush's Prepared Text (October 7, 2008)
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Collins on Hillary for Secretary of State
Funny but serious
Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary for Secretary?
comments
writePost();
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/opinion/15collins.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 15, 2008
Hillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillary.
Post a Comment »
Is she going to be Barack Obama’s secretary of state?
It’s been quite a while since we’ve had an opportunity to discuss the Clinton-Obama dynamic, and it does feel good to be back. Forget bankrupt automakers and retail sales numbers. It’s May, and we’re in Indiana arguing about gas prices.
Barack and Joe and Hillary, together again. Just like the YouTube debate, only with more maps.
Obama invited Clinton to Chicago this week for a talk. It isn’t entirely clear whether he offered her the job. But if it was just a courtesy get-together, he really should have tried texting. Now he’s got her fans geared up all over again.
On Friday, a speaker at the City University of New York Women’s Leadership Conference mentioned the story about Hillary’s possible appointment and several hundred women burst into applause. All around the country, the news reminded old Hillary supporters of a nagging pang of disappointment, the feeling that the great election bandwagon had left something behind.
Good luck telling them that it’s actually going to be John Kerry.
While there are many excellent arguments for offering Clinton the job, one of the best is that until now, Senator Kerry was supposed to be the front-runner for State. Does that sound right, people? When one is out searching for the nation’s top diplomat, does it make sense to pick a guy who gets low scores in sociability? Although Kerry has many excellent qualities and his children appear to be very fond of him, if there was a contest for Senator You Would Least Want to Have a Cup of Coffee With, he would be a good bet for top 10. Politicians often brag that they never forget a name, but Kerry is one of those guys who can’t even remember a face.
Clinton is the exact opposite. Plunk her down anywhere and she’ll catch sight of somebody who she met at the Conference of Concerned Problem-Solvers and engage them in a spirited dialogue on what’s going on with that muskrat preservation project in East Engorvia. And she can do that abroad, too, since — as was mentioned a time or two during her campaign — she has already visited 82 countries.
True, there’s 112 countries to go before she runs the table. All the more incentive for her to make sure Obama gets a second term. And on a slightly more elevated level, there’s the fact that the rest of the world would be thrilled with her appointment. She would give our diplomatic outreach a power and gravitas that it hasn’t had for years.
I know, my little Obama hyperpartisans. You spent a year of your lives trying to keep Hillary out of the White House because she voted to let the Bush administration invade Iraq. And now, your man is talking about letting her be the point person on foreign policy. What happened to the transformative change?
We have been through all this before. Candidates who promise to bring everybody together are talking about meeting in the middle. The only people who think Barack Obama is a radical are you and Joe the Plumber.
On Friday, the junior senator from New York was keeping her own counsel. She made a scheduled appearance at the New York State Public Transit Industry Fall Conference in Albany and assured the unexpectedly large delegation of reporters that she was not going to say anything that they would be interested in hearing.
While that did not exactly move the story forward, the event did throw some light on one surprising part of the nation’s current political dynamic. Has anybody noticed how eager Democratic senators seem to be to get out of the Senate? Really, we were under the impression that a safe Senate seat was quite a cushy gig.
The thing is that although there are indeed occasional perks, like fawning staff and an official three-day workweek, a senator’s calendar does tend to get crammed with many variations on the theme of Public Transit Industry Fall Conference. Secretaries of state also go to a lot of boring meetings; however, very few of them take place at an Albany Holiday Inn.
But I digress. Here are four good reasons why Hillary Clinton would be a great pick for secretary of state:
1. She would not let the vice president run our foreign policy. Joe Biden is no Dick Cheney, but we just do not want to go there again. We have scars.
2. Obama could live out his fantasy of following the Abraham Lincoln model and filling his cabinet with a team of rivals without having to make Sarah Palin secretary of commerce.
3. Clinton already has a supply of pantsuits sufficient to get her through six months of peace negotiations in the Middle East without coming home for a change of clothes.
4. She might do a terrific job.
Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary for Secretary?
comments
writePost();
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/opinion/15collins.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 15, 2008
Hillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillary.
Post a Comment »
Is she going to be Barack Obama’s secretary of state?
It’s been quite a while since we’ve had an opportunity to discuss the Clinton-Obama dynamic, and it does feel good to be back. Forget bankrupt automakers and retail sales numbers. It’s May, and we’re in Indiana arguing about gas prices.
Barack and Joe and Hillary, together again. Just like the YouTube debate, only with more maps.
Obama invited Clinton to Chicago this week for a talk. It isn’t entirely clear whether he offered her the job. But if it was just a courtesy get-together, he really should have tried texting. Now he’s got her fans geared up all over again.
On Friday, a speaker at the City University of New York Women’s Leadership Conference mentioned the story about Hillary’s possible appointment and several hundred women burst into applause. All around the country, the news reminded old Hillary supporters of a nagging pang of disappointment, the feeling that the great election bandwagon had left something behind.
Good luck telling them that it’s actually going to be John Kerry.
While there are many excellent arguments for offering Clinton the job, one of the best is that until now, Senator Kerry was supposed to be the front-runner for State. Does that sound right, people? When one is out searching for the nation’s top diplomat, does it make sense to pick a guy who gets low scores in sociability? Although Kerry has many excellent qualities and his children appear to be very fond of him, if there was a contest for Senator You Would Least Want to Have a Cup of Coffee With, he would be a good bet for top 10. Politicians often brag that they never forget a name, but Kerry is one of those guys who can’t even remember a face.
Clinton is the exact opposite. Plunk her down anywhere and she’ll catch sight of somebody who she met at the Conference of Concerned Problem-Solvers and engage them in a spirited dialogue on what’s going on with that muskrat preservation project in East Engorvia. And she can do that abroad, too, since — as was mentioned a time or two during her campaign — she has already visited 82 countries.
True, there’s 112 countries to go before she runs the table. All the more incentive for her to make sure Obama gets a second term. And on a slightly more elevated level, there’s the fact that the rest of the world would be thrilled with her appointment. She would give our diplomatic outreach a power and gravitas that it hasn’t had for years.
I know, my little Obama hyperpartisans. You spent a year of your lives trying to keep Hillary out of the White House because she voted to let the Bush administration invade Iraq. And now, your man is talking about letting her be the point person on foreign policy. What happened to the transformative change?
We have been through all this before. Candidates who promise to bring everybody together are talking about meeting in the middle. The only people who think Barack Obama is a radical are you and Joe the Plumber.
On Friday, the junior senator from New York was keeping her own counsel. She made a scheduled appearance at the New York State Public Transit Industry Fall Conference in Albany and assured the unexpectedly large delegation of reporters that she was not going to say anything that they would be interested in hearing.
While that did not exactly move the story forward, the event did throw some light on one surprising part of the nation’s current political dynamic. Has anybody noticed how eager Democratic senators seem to be to get out of the Senate? Really, we were under the impression that a safe Senate seat was quite a cushy gig.
The thing is that although there are indeed occasional perks, like fawning staff and an official three-day workweek, a senator’s calendar does tend to get crammed with many variations on the theme of Public Transit Industry Fall Conference. Secretaries of state also go to a lot of boring meetings; however, very few of them take place at an Albany Holiday Inn.
But I digress. Here are four good reasons why Hillary Clinton would be a great pick for secretary of state:
1. She would not let the vice president run our foreign policy. Joe Biden is no Dick Cheney, but we just do not want to go there again. We have scars.
2. Obama could live out his fantasy of following the Abraham Lincoln model and filling his cabinet with a team of rivals without having to make Sarah Palin secretary of commerce.
3. Clinton already has a supply of pantsuits sufficient to get her through six months of peace negotiations in the Middle East without coming home for a change of clothes.
4. She might do a terrific job.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Gail Collins
Oh the days when the Dow was 11,000 -- last month, for example.
Op-Ed Columnist
Dear Old Golden Dog Days
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/opinion/11collins.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 10, 2008
I miss the good old days. Remember when the presidential campaign was all about oil drilling? That sure was fun.
Post a Comment »
I miss August. August was neat. The Dow was over 10,000 and nobody had ever heard of Sarah Palin.
Remember how we used to joke about John McCain looking like an old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn? It’s only in retrospect that we can see that the keep-off-the-grass period was the McCain campaign’s golden era. Now, he’s beginning to act like one of those movie characters who steals the wrong ring and turns into a troll.
During that last debate, while he was wandering around the stage, you almost expected to hear him start muttering: “We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious.”
Remember when McCain’s campaign ads were all about his being a prisoner of war? I really miss them.
Now they’re all about the Evil That Is Obama. The newest one, “Ambition,” has a woman, speaking in one of those sinister semiwhispers, saying: “When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied.” Then suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, she starts ranting about Congressional liberals and risky subprime loans. Then John McCain pops up to say he approved it. All in 30 seconds! And, of course, McCain would think it’s great. For the first time, the Republicans appear to have captured his thought process on tape.
The Republican campaign strategy now involves sending their candidates to areas where everybody is a die-hard McCain supporter already. Then they yell about Obama until the crowd is so frenzied people start making threats. The rest of the country is supposed to watch and conclude that this would be an enjoyable way to spend the next four years.
Maybe the Republicans should have picked somebody else. I miss Mitt Romney. Sure, he was sort of smarmy. But when Mitt was around, the banks had money and Iceland was solvent. And, of course, when we got bored, we could always talk about how he drove to Canada with his Irish setter strapped to the car roof.
I miss the old George W. Bush. When he came out of the White House and made an announcement, you would usually think that whatever he wanted to do was a terrible idea. But at least you thought he could actually make the terrible idea happen.
I miss the old American public that was too busy shopping to worry about the state of the world. Now everybody is getting scared and weird. They’ve been racing off in great numbers to see “Beverly Hills Chihuahua.” And nagging Target to take the Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo dolls off the shelves because people think that when it gurgles you can hear the baby say “Islam is the light.”
I miss the old Cindy McCain. The one who used to go to rallies and sit huddled in the corner looking as if she thought the audience had a communicable disease. Now, she’s right up there on stage, standing behind her husband and making disgusted faces when he rails on about the opposition. And she’s started railing herself. (The family that rants together ...) Obama is waging “the dirtiest campaign in American history.” His votes on Iraq were votes “not to fund my son when he was serving.”
Remember when the McCains wouldn’t talk about the fact that their son was in Iraq? Oh well.
Maybe Cindy is trying to hold her own against Sarah, who is with John almost as much as she is. I miss the old guy-guy McCain who had so many male pals around he looked like a walking fraternity reunion. Now, he’s starting to resemble an ambulatory patient accompanied by female attendants on an outing.
Palin has been pressing the line that people don’t really know “the real Barack Obama,” and who could make the argument better than a woman who we’ve already known for almost six weeks? Really, she’s like one of the family.
We’ve gotten so close we’ve already learned that she didn’t actually sell the plane on eBay, didn’t actually visit the troops in Iraq and didn’t really have a talk with the British ambassador. As soon as we get the Trooper thing and Alaska Independence Party thing and the tax thing figured out, she’ll be an open book.
And she’s got a point about Obama. True, he’s been campaigning for 19 months and has been interviewed by everybody from “Meet the Press” to “Men’s Health.” Which would be O.K. if we were talking about somebody from a small town rather than, as a McCain campaign co-chairman noted delicately, a “guy of the street.”
Back in August, women politicians were afraid of going negative because it might have made them look too strident. Amazing, the things you wind up being nostalgic for.
Op-Ed Columnist
Dear Old Golden Dog Days
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/opinion/11collins.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 10, 2008
I miss the good old days. Remember when the presidential campaign was all about oil drilling? That sure was fun.
Post a Comment »
I miss August. August was neat. The Dow was over 10,000 and nobody had ever heard of Sarah Palin.
Remember how we used to joke about John McCain looking like an old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn? It’s only in retrospect that we can see that the keep-off-the-grass period was the McCain campaign’s golden era. Now, he’s beginning to act like one of those movie characters who steals the wrong ring and turns into a troll.
During that last debate, while he was wandering around the stage, you almost expected to hear him start muttering: “We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious.”
Remember when McCain’s campaign ads were all about his being a prisoner of war? I really miss them.
Now they’re all about the Evil That Is Obama. The newest one, “Ambition,” has a woman, speaking in one of those sinister semiwhispers, saying: “When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied.” Then suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, she starts ranting about Congressional liberals and risky subprime loans. Then John McCain pops up to say he approved it. All in 30 seconds! And, of course, McCain would think it’s great. For the first time, the Republicans appear to have captured his thought process on tape.
The Republican campaign strategy now involves sending their candidates to areas where everybody is a die-hard McCain supporter already. Then they yell about Obama until the crowd is so frenzied people start making threats. The rest of the country is supposed to watch and conclude that this would be an enjoyable way to spend the next four years.
Maybe the Republicans should have picked somebody else. I miss Mitt Romney. Sure, he was sort of smarmy. But when Mitt was around, the banks had money and Iceland was solvent. And, of course, when we got bored, we could always talk about how he drove to Canada with his Irish setter strapped to the car roof.
I miss the old George W. Bush. When he came out of the White House and made an announcement, you would usually think that whatever he wanted to do was a terrible idea. But at least you thought he could actually make the terrible idea happen.
I miss the old American public that was too busy shopping to worry about the state of the world. Now everybody is getting scared and weird. They’ve been racing off in great numbers to see “Beverly Hills Chihuahua.” And nagging Target to take the Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo dolls off the shelves because people think that when it gurgles you can hear the baby say “Islam is the light.”
I miss the old Cindy McCain. The one who used to go to rallies and sit huddled in the corner looking as if she thought the audience had a communicable disease. Now, she’s right up there on stage, standing behind her husband and making disgusted faces when he rails on about the opposition. And she’s started railing herself. (The family that rants together ...) Obama is waging “the dirtiest campaign in American history.” His votes on Iraq were votes “not to fund my son when he was serving.”
Remember when the McCains wouldn’t talk about the fact that their son was in Iraq? Oh well.
Maybe Cindy is trying to hold her own against Sarah, who is with John almost as much as she is. I miss the old guy-guy McCain who had so many male pals around he looked like a walking fraternity reunion. Now, he’s starting to resemble an ambulatory patient accompanied by female attendants on an outing.
Palin has been pressing the line that people don’t really know “the real Barack Obama,” and who could make the argument better than a woman who we’ve already known for almost six weeks? Really, she’s like one of the family.
We’ve gotten so close we’ve already learned that she didn’t actually sell the plane on eBay, didn’t actually visit the troops in Iraq and didn’t really have a talk with the British ambassador. As soon as we get the Trooper thing and Alaska Independence Party thing and the tax thing figured out, she’ll be an open book.
And she’s got a point about Obama. True, he’s been campaigning for 19 months and has been interviewed by everybody from “Meet the Press” to “Men’s Health.” Which would be O.K. if we were talking about somebody from a small town rather than, as a McCain campaign co-chairman noted delicately, a “guy of the street.”
Back in August, women politicians were afraid of going negative because it might have made them look too strident. Amazing, the things you wind up being nostalgic for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)