A good friend told me not long ago that he was reserving judgement on the presidential race until the running mates were chosen; that the choices would tell him more about the candidates, and he would choose then. He made, I think, a good point. My political inclination is more, shall we say, sharply defined than his, but I have been waiting to see what those choices would tell me as well.
What the choices “said to me” was a very mixed bag.
Obama’s choice tells me that he believes the Vice President must be qualified in all respects to serve as President, unlike McCain with his choice.
Obama clearly wanted someone who could serve as a governing partner, who could add wisdom and counsel and assist him in governing the nation. In that respect, McCain’s choice is a bit mystifying. While Palin has a reputation as a reformer and a maverick, it is a short and untested reputation and it’s doubtful in the extreme that she would be able to swing any real weight in Washington if elected.
Advantage Obama so far, but things go downhill after that, because then we have to look at the degree to which the choices reflect the political inclinations of the candidates.
Does Obama really embrace the governing philosophy reflected by Biden’s not only voting for but driving the most recent Bankruptcy Bill? And it was Biden who served as the initiator of bipartisanship on the Patriot Act. Just to name two cases of him not only supporting, but serving as leader of anti-populist measures. That conflicts badly with Obama’s populist message.
By contrast Palin does appear to be a real populist; steering funds away from corporate causes and into projects with benefits to the general public, which actually makes her a rather odd pick for a Republican. The caution is that we don’t really know her yet. Politicians always look good their first year or so, busily carrying out campaign promises and clearing the decks for later when the media will be less attentive, so how much of that is for real. It’s a rather thin resume, but to the degree that McCain picked her for this reason, that reflects well on him.
And forget this “troopergate” nonsense. Even if true, Washington politicians do worse than before breakfast just to warm up. A Washington reporter would not even dignify that story with a “pfffft.”
Biden’s foreign policy credentials are much touted, but they are only marginally less warlike than John McCain’s. He adds to Obama’s already stated intention to increase military spending, despite the fact the we already spend more than all of the rest of the world combined, and that we already have the largest deficit in our history. Like Obama, he wants more war in Afghanistan and wants a warlike posture facing Iran.
It does not seem that McCain picked Palin for her military expertise or views because Palin, bless her heart, seems to think guns are only for the purpose of shooting moose. Her only stated policy on Iraq is that she thinks we should have an exit strategy. She has no known position on Afghanistan or Iran.
Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic, but if he has any theory of government that relates to his religion I have yet to hear it. He is pro-choice based on minimizing the government’s ability to interfere in individual rights. He opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and the provision of benefits to same-sex couples. I believe Obama holds the same views.
Palin does have religious positions, and they were a stated part of McCain’s reason for picking her. Abortion should be outlawed with no exception, and contraception of all types should not be allowed even between married couples. She opposes gay marriage and civil unions for gay couples. She opposes extending benefits to same-sex partners.
She has position on global warming: it is not man-made or contributed to by the actions of man, and no actions should be taken to curb it. Polar bears should not be placed on the endangered species list because she believes they are not endangered. Evolution is just a theory, no better of a theory than creationism, which is the true theory that should be taught in schools
To the degree that those extreme fundamentalist religious views reflect in any way the manner in which John McCain intends to govern, the selection of Sarah Palin utterly freaks me out. That makes him George W. Bush on steroids. The very thought that he embraces her religious beliefs as a governing theory chills me.
And Vice President… We should never let anyone with that extreme set of religious beliefs get anywhere near the helm of our government, let alone within a 75-year-old heartbeat of it.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Restoring Trust
Richard Cohen writes in an op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday,
He goes on to suggest that McCain or Obama can do that but that Clinton cannot, and I disagree with him. I have been listening to this campaign for, what, fifteen months now. Fifteen long, painful months.
Not one of these three can do it.
I am sick to death of this process and have all but reached the point that I don’t give a flying damn who the Democrats nominate, I don’t want to vote for any of them.
I don’t know how much of what McCain says is true, I don’t know how much of what Clinton says is true, I don’t know how much of what Obama says is true, I just know that for all the crap that all of them have been flinging enough of it has stuck that all of them stink like the sewers of Gomorrah.
They lie and they pander and they make promises that they cannot keep. They say they will cut taxes or alter taxes, but tax rates are the province of Congress; a President can suggest but not enact tax laws. That does not prevent them from making a promise that they know to be a lie.
They make one promise to one audience and a contrary promise to the next because the only thing that any of them ever say is whatever they think will make the current audience vote for them, or give them money, or both.
Whatever this is, democracy it is not.
…but let me suggest that Bush's "worst legacy" is what he has done to whatever trust Americans still had in their government. This administration's incessant lying, its secrecy -- its creepy Cheneyism with its petty justifications for torture and violation of privacy -- is its worst legacy, one that will endure long after Wal-Mart opens a branch in Sadr City. Only an idiot would trust this government.
And so it will be the job, the obligation, the solemn task of the next president to restore that trust.
He goes on to suggest that McCain or Obama can do that but that Clinton cannot, and I disagree with him. I have been listening to this campaign for, what, fifteen months now. Fifteen long, painful months.
Not one of these three can do it.
I am sick to death of this process and have all but reached the point that I don’t give a flying damn who the Democrats nominate, I don’t want to vote for any of them.
I don’t know how much of what McCain says is true, I don’t know how much of what Clinton says is true, I don’t know how much of what Obama says is true, I just know that for all the crap that all of them have been flinging enough of it has stuck that all of them stink like the sewers of Gomorrah.
They lie and they pander and they make promises that they cannot keep. They say they will cut taxes or alter taxes, but tax rates are the province of Congress; a President can suggest but not enact tax laws. That does not prevent them from making a promise that they know to be a lie.
They make one promise to one audience and a contrary promise to the next because the only thing that any of them ever say is whatever they think will make the current audience vote for them, or give them money, or both.
Whatever this is, democracy it is not.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Politics of Us
In the 1960’s Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made us look at ourselves. He gave us no choice. He gathered a following, stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and made us look at who we really were. He told us that if we did not like what we saw that, rather than looking away, we must change what we saw. We must change who we had become. We must become better.
Never in my life had I been more proud of my nation than when that nation embarked on a journey of reconciliation that was the response to Dr. King’s challenge. Forty years later the destination has not yet been reached, is barely even within sight. The pace of the journey has slowed.
About a year ago Barack Obama began to build a candidacy that was based on making the American people take charge of their own lives, take control of their own government. “This is not about me,” he would say, “this is about you. Change does not happen from the top down, change happens from the bottom up. You will change the way government works and I will lead you in that effort.”
McCain and Clinton continue the politics of fear, of making us afraid so that they can promise to keep us safe. Obama makes us look at the fact that we are afraid. We don’t want to see that. We want to be kept safe, but we want to do that without admitting that we are afraid. Obama makes us admit our fear. He challenges us to look at ourselves.
When Obama addressed the race issue yesterday he talked about his grandmother, and I had tears in my eyes because he was talking about my grandmother as well. She was a product of her generation and of the Deep South where she grew up. I loved her deeply and would never renounce or reject her no matter how much I rejected the racist beliefs that she held. He was not talking about himself, he was speaking to make America look into its own soul.
Those who are choosing Obama are the people, for the most part, who are willing to look at ourselves and to resolve, “We must be better than this.”
“If you are ready to make change happen…” Obama says.
This is the leadership that has been missing from America for too long.
Never in my life had I been more proud of my nation than when that nation embarked on a journey of reconciliation that was the response to Dr. King’s challenge. Forty years later the destination has not yet been reached, is barely even within sight. The pace of the journey has slowed.
About a year ago Barack Obama began to build a candidacy that was based on making the American people take charge of their own lives, take control of their own government. “This is not about me,” he would say, “this is about you. Change does not happen from the top down, change happens from the bottom up. You will change the way government works and I will lead you in that effort.”
McCain and Clinton continue the politics of fear, of making us afraid so that they can promise to keep us safe. Obama makes us look at the fact that we are afraid. We don’t want to see that. We want to be kept safe, but we want to do that without admitting that we are afraid. Obama makes us admit our fear. He challenges us to look at ourselves.
When Obama addressed the race issue yesterday he talked about his grandmother, and I had tears in my eyes because he was talking about my grandmother as well. She was a product of her generation and of the Deep South where she grew up. I loved her deeply and would never renounce or reject her no matter how much I rejected the racist beliefs that she held. He was not talking about himself, he was speaking to make America look into its own soul.
Those who are choosing Obama are the people, for the most part, who are willing to look at ourselves and to resolve, “We must be better than this.”
“If you are ready to make change happen…” Obama says.
This is the leadership that has been missing from America for too long.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
My Audacity of Hope
As may be clear to most readers by now, I have pretty much settled on Senator Obama as my choice for the Democratic nominee and future President. To some degree that choice is the result of his message of hopefulness and unification, of my hope that he will change the course of this nation. To some degree it is simply that he is the “least bad” of the options available, since I see some positions he takes that make me less than optimistic.
Yesterday I posted his regarding the Senator’s FY 2008 earmark requests. While there is nothing really noteworthy in the list, some of them are pure pork on their face and a list that long and containing that much money cannot fail to be financially rewarding to some of his campaign contributors.
Senator Obama supports the “Employee Free Choice Act.” I am strongly in favor of labor unionization, but this bill is misnamed: it takes away the right of workers to secret ballot elections on whether to unionize.
Currently, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards saying that they would like to unionize, then the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) organizes an election using secret ballots. It is not unusual today for an election using secret ballots to fail after a majority has signed the cards.
Under the proposed bill those cards are the last word. If this bill is passed then once the union gets a majority of workers to sign the cards the union becomes their sole representative to management and they’re forced to pay dues. This opens the door to union organizers pressuring workers to sign up, while taking away their right to say “no” in a secret ballot.
It is true that current labor law allows employers to unethically block union drives, and employers do pressure employees between the card drive and the election. The answer to that are stronger penalties against those employers and greater protections of elections with secret ballots, not taking away from workers the most basic right of democratic association.
Senator Obama does not rule out the use of mercenary forces in the implementation of American military policy in the Middle East. In fact, he has specifically stated that he sees an increasing role for contract forces in the area as we reduce our military presence in Iraq.
So, rather than ending the war in Iraq as he has been promising to do, he is essentially merely shifting the implementation of that war from U.S. military to forces provided by Blackwater et al. Not only is this vastly more costly to the taxpayer and more financially rewarding to war profiteers, but the performance of paid mercenaries has hardly reflected credit upon this nation so far and is extremely unlikely to do so in the future.
These positions are seriously at odds with the rhetoric of his campaign, and they make me wonder just how much of his “Audacity of Hope” will actually be put into action once he is elected. None of the others are even talking about it, though, so I can at least, well, hope.
Yesterday I posted his regarding the Senator’s FY 2008 earmark requests. While there is nothing really noteworthy in the list, some of them are pure pork on their face and a list that long and containing that much money cannot fail to be financially rewarding to some of his campaign contributors.
Senator Obama supports the “Employee Free Choice Act.” I am strongly in favor of labor unionization, but this bill is misnamed: it takes away the right of workers to secret ballot elections on whether to unionize.
Currently, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards saying that they would like to unionize, then the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) organizes an election using secret ballots. It is not unusual today for an election using secret ballots to fail after a majority has signed the cards.
Under the proposed bill those cards are the last word. If this bill is passed then once the union gets a majority of workers to sign the cards the union becomes their sole representative to management and they’re forced to pay dues. This opens the door to union organizers pressuring workers to sign up, while taking away their right to say “no” in a secret ballot.
It is true that current labor law allows employers to unethically block union drives, and employers do pressure employees between the card drive and the election. The answer to that are stronger penalties against those employers and greater protections of elections with secret ballots, not taking away from workers the most basic right of democratic association.
Senator Obama does not rule out the use of mercenary forces in the implementation of American military policy in the Middle East. In fact, he has specifically stated that he sees an increasing role for contract forces in the area as we reduce our military presence in Iraq.
So, rather than ending the war in Iraq as he has been promising to do, he is essentially merely shifting the implementation of that war from U.S. military to forces provided by Blackwater et al. Not only is this vastly more costly to the taxpayer and more financially rewarding to war profiteers, but the performance of paid mercenaries has hardly reflected credit upon this nation so far and is extremely unlikely to do so in the future.
These positions are seriously at odds with the rhetoric of his campaign, and they make me wonder just how much of his “Audacity of Hope” will actually be put into action once he is elected. None of the others are even talking about it, though, so I can at least, well, hope.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Views on Diplomacy, Part 3
Hilzoy wrote a post at Obsidian Wings on Saturday regarding the dustup between Clinton and Obama over a YouTuber’s question on conduct of diplomacy. It’s a lengthy and extremely insightful post and I urge you to read it. I’m not really going to quote from it here, except to highlight some thoughts that I have related to the subject.
Reporters and pundits on both sides seemed to think that Clinton was right, but the American people disagree.
(A commenter added that polls actually show 42% agree with Obama, 35% with Clinton, and 24% are uncertain.)
Hilzoy, I think, understates. “Seemed” is pretty mild in terms of what I am reading and hearing. Pundits and reporters and raving about what a horrible mistake Obama made, and how Clinton “brilliantly displayed her superiority in experience.”
I find this rather disturbing. One of the commenters opined that in due course the public’s opinion will fall into line with that of the pundits and reporters, and I find that extremely disturbing. It suggests to me that the election will be decided, not by the people or by the candidates, but by the pundits and reporters. What is particularly disturbing about this feeling is that I rather suspect that it may be correct.
As to setting limitations on meetings, and conditions on who we will meet with, hilzoy writes,
…the peculiar view that negotiating with someone confers some sort of legitimacy on that person. This is a view that we can make true if we want. If we go around saying that we will only negotiate with people we think are absolutely wonderful, or that negotiations with us should be thought of as a certification of quality, like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, then it will be true that a lot can be read into our decision to negotiate.
To me, that's a very good reason not to say things like that.
That is so nicely said that I’m not even going to comment further.
Hilzoy then goes on to Obama turning the discussion to the Congressional voting record on the war in Iraq, quoting Obama,
And there's no getting around it: the Iraq vote is central here. It was the biggest foreign policy mistake of my lifetime, and possibly in our history. And whether because of opportunism, a misplaced trust in George W. Bush, a failure to foresee the likely consequences, or whatever, Clinton and Edwards both voted the wrong way. Moreover, in Clinton's case, it's not at all clear to me what, if anything, she has learned from that mistake.
Hilzoy doesn’t really comment on this issue, but the whole dustup is about foreign policy experience, is it not? And what he says here is very much to the point. Mistakes do get made, and when one does not admit error one cannot possibly learn from that error. Clinton made a huge error by voting as she did, and she steadfastly refuses to admit that error. What does that say about her ability to conduct foreign policy?
In any event, I think that this was a controversy that Hillary Clinton devised, and that while there didn't have to be any disagreement between the two of them as far as their actual answers in the debate went, she mischaracterized what he said and created one.
Because this is what Hillary Clinton does. This is who Hillary Clinton is. This is what Hillary Clinton is made of. Not real leadership, not real issues, not honesty, but political calculation, adversarial confrontation, manipulation, and abuse of process. When listening to a questioner, she is not thinking how she can answer the questioner, she is thinking how she can use the opportunity.
I have read one Hillary Clinton supporter after another say that I am against her because of the “right wing smear machine.” No, my opinions of her have been formed by the words that I have heard her say live and in context, and by the votes that she has cast on the floor of the United States Senate.
Reporters and pundits on both sides seemed to think that Clinton was right, but the American people disagree.
(A commenter added that polls actually show 42% agree with Obama, 35% with Clinton, and 24% are uncertain.)
Hilzoy, I think, understates. “Seemed” is pretty mild in terms of what I am reading and hearing. Pundits and reporters and raving about what a horrible mistake Obama made, and how Clinton “brilliantly displayed her superiority in experience.”
I find this rather disturbing. One of the commenters opined that in due course the public’s opinion will fall into line with that of the pundits and reporters, and I find that extremely disturbing. It suggests to me that the election will be decided, not by the people or by the candidates, but by the pundits and reporters. What is particularly disturbing about this feeling is that I rather suspect that it may be correct.
As to setting limitations on meetings, and conditions on who we will meet with, hilzoy writes,
…the peculiar view that negotiating with someone confers some sort of legitimacy on that person. This is a view that we can make true if we want. If we go around saying that we will only negotiate with people we think are absolutely wonderful, or that negotiations with us should be thought of as a certification of quality, like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, then it will be true that a lot can be read into our decision to negotiate.
To me, that's a very good reason not to say things like that.
That is so nicely said that I’m not even going to comment further.
Hilzoy then goes on to Obama turning the discussion to the Congressional voting record on the war in Iraq, quoting Obama,
And there's no getting around it: the Iraq vote is central here. It was the biggest foreign policy mistake of my lifetime, and possibly in our history. And whether because of opportunism, a misplaced trust in George W. Bush, a failure to foresee the likely consequences, or whatever, Clinton and Edwards both voted the wrong way. Moreover, in Clinton's case, it's not at all clear to me what, if anything, she has learned from that mistake.
Hilzoy doesn’t really comment on this issue, but the whole dustup is about foreign policy experience, is it not? And what he says here is very much to the point. Mistakes do get made, and when one does not admit error one cannot possibly learn from that error. Clinton made a huge error by voting as she did, and she steadfastly refuses to admit that error. What does that say about her ability to conduct foreign policy?
In any event, I think that this was a controversy that Hillary Clinton devised, and that while there didn't have to be any disagreement between the two of them as far as their actual answers in the debate went, she mischaracterized what he said and created one.
Because this is what Hillary Clinton does. This is who Hillary Clinton is. This is what Hillary Clinton is made of. Not real leadership, not real issues, not honesty, but political calculation, adversarial confrontation, manipulation, and abuse of process. When listening to a questioner, she is not thinking how she can answer the questioner, she is thinking how she can use the opportunity.
I have read one Hillary Clinton supporter after another say that I am against her because of the “right wing smear machine.” No, my opinions of her have been formed by the words that I have heard her say live and in context, and by the votes that she has cast on the floor of the United States Senate.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Views on Diplomacy
Dick Pohlman had a merciless evaluation of Obama’s Bambi problem
on his American Debate blog today. He may be (probably is) right, but I disagree with the underlying basis of the issue.
I think Obama’s answer was the correct one, that the “preconditions” the questioner had in mind and which Obama based his reply upon, were such things as stopping uranium enrichment and not a simple discussion of the meeting agenda. Hillary’s reply was, to me, only slightly less arrogant than the position that Bush has held for six years.
“Yes,” Hillary is saying. “I’ll meet with you, but only on my terms and the agenda will include only those items that I am willing to discuss.”
That she might be “held hostage to propaganda purposes” if a topic arises that is not on her agenda sounds really good as a sound bite in a farcial campaign presentation labeled as a debate, but it is factually absurd.
Part of the sadness that I hold regarding my country is that we walk in the community of nations with so much arrogance that we engender ill will and hatred. This really is a great nation and we need a leader who will represent that greatness with more of the dignity of being one in a community of equals, and not with the chest thumping and braying of a gorilla ruling his patch of jungle.
on his American Debate blog today. He may be (probably is) right, but I disagree with the underlying basis of the issue.
I think Obama’s answer was the correct one, that the “preconditions” the questioner had in mind and which Obama based his reply upon, were such things as stopping uranium enrichment and not a simple discussion of the meeting agenda. Hillary’s reply was, to me, only slightly less arrogant than the position that Bush has held for six years.
“Yes,” Hillary is saying. “I’ll meet with you, but only on my terms and the agenda will include only those items that I am willing to discuss.”
That she might be “held hostage to propaganda purposes” if a topic arises that is not on her agenda sounds really good as a sound bite in a farcial campaign presentation labeled as a debate, but it is factually absurd.
Part of the sadness that I hold regarding my country is that we walk in the community of nations with so much arrogance that we engender ill will and hatred. This really is a great nation and we need a leader who will represent that greatness with more of the dignity of being one in a community of equals, and not with the chest thumping and braying of a gorilla ruling his patch of jungle.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Affirmative Action
It bothers me that racial divisiveness is still a part of the social fabric of this nation. I do not believe that affirmative action is in and of itself the final solution to that problem, but so long as the problem exists affirmative action is one of the tools that we use to solve the problem. It is a useful and important tool and it is by no means time to do away with it.
Barack Obama on was a guest on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" which you can read here, and one question that was asked was this:
Stephanopoulos: And you're a constitutional law professor so let's go back in the classroom.....I'm your student. I say Professor, you and your wife went to Harvard Law School. Got plenty of money, you're running for president. Why should your daughters when they go to college get affirmative action?
You can read Obama’s answer at the link above, you’ll have to scroll down a bit to reach the topic in the interview, but I was disappointed with it. His response seemed rambling and disjointed to me, and it did not seem that it was a question to which he had given much thought. As a candidate for the nation’s highest office, I believe he should have been able to answer much more clearly. (Ha, you thought I was going to say because he is an African-American, didn’t you?)
To be fair to Obama, though, I hate it when the media asks such loaded and stupid questions.
Affirmative action is not about Obama’s daughters. It’s not about any individual kids. It’s about millions of kids. Children in African-American households grow up in disadvantaged conditions in numbers far exceeding white households, and we need to address that as a nation. Affirmative action is an important tool that we use to address that condition and until we eliminate that condition we need to preserve that tool. It isn’t about what happens to one or two individuals, white or Black, it is about an entire class of people who need and deserve the opportunity that has been denied to them for too long.
More importantly, affirmative action is not about the benefit that African- American kids receive when they get into college, or that African-American men and women receive when they get good jobs, it’s about the benefit that accrues to this nation and this society when that happens. Having that happen takes us in the direction of a nation where racial divisiveness is no longer a part of our social fabric. It takes us toward becoming a society that is truly colorblind. It brings Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream closer to reality.
Affirmative action benefits people of color but much more important, it benefits our country.
Trounced again today. Oh boy, this is sad.
Oracle has been outmaneuvered in the prestart three races out of three, and lost the start badly all three times. They’ve chosen the wrong side of the course twice, and given up the favored right side of a neutral course the third time. They’ve read the wind wrong repeatedly. They’ve seemed less than aggressive when trailing, although I’ll admit that without being on the course that’s not really a realistic judgement.
The boat speed is good upwind and really excellent on a run. Crew work is excellent. But the strategic and tactical decisions have been decidedly amateurish. Where are you when we need you Dennis Conner?
Barack Obama on was a guest on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" which you can read here, and one question that was asked was this:
Stephanopoulos: And you're a constitutional law professor so let's go back in the classroom.....I'm your student. I say Professor, you and your wife went to Harvard Law School. Got plenty of money, you're running for president. Why should your daughters when they go to college get affirmative action?
You can read Obama’s answer at the link above, you’ll have to scroll down a bit to reach the topic in the interview, but I was disappointed with it. His response seemed rambling and disjointed to me, and it did not seem that it was a question to which he had given much thought. As a candidate for the nation’s highest office, I believe he should have been able to answer much more clearly. (Ha, you thought I was going to say because he is an African-American, didn’t you?)
To be fair to Obama, though, I hate it when the media asks such loaded and stupid questions.
Affirmative action is not about Obama’s daughters. It’s not about any individual kids. It’s about millions of kids. Children in African-American households grow up in disadvantaged conditions in numbers far exceeding white households, and we need to address that as a nation. Affirmative action is an important tool that we use to address that condition and until we eliminate that condition we need to preserve that tool. It isn’t about what happens to one or two individuals, white or Black, it is about an entire class of people who need and deserve the opportunity that has been denied to them for too long.
More importantly, affirmative action is not about the benefit that African- American kids receive when they get into college, or that African-American men and women receive when they get good jobs, it’s about the benefit that accrues to this nation and this society when that happens. Having that happen takes us in the direction of a nation where racial divisiveness is no longer a part of our social fabric. It takes us toward becoming a society that is truly colorblind. It brings Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream closer to reality.
Affirmative action benefits people of color but much more important, it benefits our country.
America’s Cup Update
Trounced again today. Oh boy, this is sad.
Oracle has been outmaneuvered in the prestart three races out of three, and lost the start badly all three times. They’ve chosen the wrong side of the course twice, and given up the favored right side of a neutral course the third time. They’ve read the wind wrong repeatedly. They’ve seemed less than aggressive when trailing, although I’ll admit that without being on the course that’s not really a realistic judgement.
The boat speed is good upwind and really excellent on a run. Crew work is excellent. But the strategic and tactical decisions have been decidedly amateurish. Where are you when we need you Dennis Conner?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)