With apologies to President George W. Bush, I mangle that old adage even more to make a point. In this era of Search Engine Optimization and Social Media, it is becoming imperative for the LinkedIn individual to also show up on Facebook and Twitter as required ̶ for me it’s more about trying to control my online exposure (i.e., my digital footprint) than mere socializing (or as we still call it in the business world ̶ networking ̶ but that’s a topic for another day).
Nonetheless, to have any effective say on my digital footprint online, I would have to battle the Google God, which I know I cannot. Sidebar: How about I coin a new pet name for the Google God right now – the GooGod (one pronounces the name so that it almost sounds like “Good God” with the middle D silent!)
Now, back to my feeble attempt to appease the GooGod ̶ in the laundry list below, I am linking to the media that have published me in the past several years. Folks, feel free to click away on the links below and help the good stuff rise in the SERPs ̶ go ahead and Google me twice or more, so that the GooGod makes me look nice for sure! If that doesn’t work, I’ll go back to what good old Popeye used to say, “I yam what I yam” and live with it.
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on February 20, 2010, "An Apology, for What It’s Worth”
Jack Nargundkar in the International Herald Tribune on February 7, 2010, "A Shift for U.S. Foreign Policy”
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on January 22, 2010, "Lessons to Learn From Scott Brown's 'Tea Party'"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on December 31, 2009, "Navigating the nation's course after Flight 253"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on November 21, 2009, "A Compromise on Muslim Freedom"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on October 10, 2009, "Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Laureate”
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on August 26, 2009, "A Changing Tide on the Wars"
Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on May 1, 2009, “Securing Government Contracts”
Jack Nargundkar in Digital Signage Today on January 21, 2009, “Broadband creates digital signage opportunities in the SMB market”
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on January 20, 2009, "President Obama: A Day of Uplift”
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on September 27, 2008, "Is Marking to Market the Problem or Part of Solution?"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on August 24, 2008, "Russia, Georgia and the West”
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on April 14, 2008, "Do Asians Really Want a Red-State America?"
Jack Nargundkar in Digital Signage Today on March 24, 2008, “Digital signage strategies for small-to-medium businesses”
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on November 6, 2007, "If Sen. Clinton Were President Clinton"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 15, 2007, "Elections in Pakistan Don't Equal Democracy"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on October 3, 2007, "Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas, Redux"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on July 27, 2007, "What Do We Leave Behind in Iraq?"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on June 22, 2007, "Vetoing Stem Cells, Vetoing Life"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on March 8, 2007, "A Verdict for Libby, a Cloud for the White House"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on November 3, 2006, "A Man, a Cab, a Cellphone, a Laptop"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2006, "Counting War Dead Is Difficult -- Therefore, Let's Not Exaggerate"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 6, 2006, "Musharraf May Be Our Fair-Haired Boy Now . . . But Watch Out"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on September 4, 2006, "Are We Seeing a Half-Empty Glass?"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on July 29, 2006, "Still Dreaming"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on March 8, 2006, "Bush and the Nuclear Subcontinent"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on January 8, 2006, "Other Voices: How The Times Handled the Surveillance Story"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on April 11, 2005, "No Individual Blamed"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on April 1, 2005, "A Life Ends, and a Nation Pauses to Reflect"
Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on December 16, 2004, "Medals at Odds With Reality of War"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on May 27, 2004, "Punctuate a Comma Date"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on February 4, 2004, "Screening Bush: The Winners"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2004, "Hey, Big Spender, Spend a Little Less"
Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on December 29, 2003, "The Challenge From India"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on December 5, 2003, "'Cut and Run' and the Right Approach in Iraq"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2003, "Don't Let Conservatives Define Liberals' Views"
Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on April 12, 2003, "Next Steps on Iraq"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on January 8, 1998, "Behind ’90s Success Is Fiscal Discipline"
Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on March 17, 1997," WEBCASTING: A FEW TANGLES"
Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on October 25, 1993," THOUGHTS FOR CHAIRMAN GERSTNER"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on August 12, 1993, "Dear Laura Tyson…"
Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 19, 1992, "Reap the Silicon Whirlwind"
Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on July 13, 1992," SELL THE GREEN CARD TO THE AVERAGE JOE"
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Axis of Faith
Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of non-violence might have humbled the British empire of yesteryear, but such subtlety and discretion have little to no effect in this age of terrorism. India’s lack of a military response to the “26/11” Mumbai attacks might have gained it credibility in the western world but have made it appear weak and ineffective in its own backyard. China’s recent verbal saber-rattling over its long-standing border dispute with India is a case in point.
The world discerns between India’s post-26/11 fatalism and America’s post-9/11 realism. However, if India wants to be seriously considered as a major economic and military power in the 21st century, it needs to revamp its 20th century “non-aligned” foreign policy just like it overhauled its antiquated socialist economic model in 1991. India’s economic gains since then are clearly visible to the world; however, its inability to simultaneously defend itself against modern-day terrorism and communist China’s expansionist designs has the potential to mire it in an eternal crisis that can only suppress its growth as a 21st century power.
As far the United States is concerned, there are two significant reasons that it needs to revisit its Cold War foreign policy paradigm:
1. Thirty-odd years of economic engagement with China has not resulted in a concomitant shift in China’s totalitarian political structure – the U.S. should have embarked on a mid-course correction in its China policy shortly after the end of the Cold War in 1991. China’s unchecked power and blatant ambition could result in a New Cold War situation with the western world in the next couple of decades.
2. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S. not only abandoned Pakistan, but further slapped it with the Pressler Amendment sanctions – which banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President certified annually that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons. Any attempt to mollify Pakistan after two decades of neglect will eventually prove to be a waste of time and energy – the Pakistani people no longer trust the U.S. and never will.
Notwithstanding Pakistan’s current offensive against its own homegrown Taliban, it remains a fragile democracy that can be usurped at any time by its powerful military. As soon as President Obama starts winding down military operations in Afghanistan next year, we will see an attendant increase in Pakistan’s meddlesome activities along its eastern border with India. Based on China’s ongoing problems with the United States and India, Pakistan must already be hedging its bets – by renewing old ties with and seeking longer term refuge under Beijing’s expanding Asia-Pacific umbrella.
Thus, in this rapidly evolving new power structure, it only makes sense that the U.S. seek stronger ties with like-minded nations in the Asia-Pacific region – that go beyond its traditional Cold War allies such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. It is imperative for the United States and India to become more closely aligned from a political, economic, technological and military standpoint. Keeping the world’s oldest and largest democracies together – in a new long term “axis of faith” partnership – should become the foundation of 21st century U.S. foreign policy.
The world discerns between India’s post-26/11 fatalism and America’s post-9/11 realism. However, if India wants to be seriously considered as a major economic and military power in the 21st century, it needs to revamp its 20th century “non-aligned” foreign policy just like it overhauled its antiquated socialist economic model in 1991. India’s economic gains since then are clearly visible to the world; however, its inability to simultaneously defend itself against modern-day terrorism and communist China’s expansionist designs has the potential to mire it in an eternal crisis that can only suppress its growth as a 21st century power.
As far the United States is concerned, there are two significant reasons that it needs to revisit its Cold War foreign policy paradigm:
1. Thirty-odd years of economic engagement with China has not resulted in a concomitant shift in China’s totalitarian political structure – the U.S. should have embarked on a mid-course correction in its China policy shortly after the end of the Cold War in 1991. China’s unchecked power and blatant ambition could result in a New Cold War situation with the western world in the next couple of decades.
2. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S. not only abandoned Pakistan, but further slapped it with the Pressler Amendment sanctions – which banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President certified annually that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons. Any attempt to mollify Pakistan after two decades of neglect will eventually prove to be a waste of time and energy – the Pakistani people no longer trust the U.S. and never will.
Notwithstanding Pakistan’s current offensive against its own homegrown Taliban, it remains a fragile democracy that can be usurped at any time by its powerful military. As soon as President Obama starts winding down military operations in Afghanistan next year, we will see an attendant increase in Pakistan’s meddlesome activities along its eastern border with India. Based on China’s ongoing problems with the United States and India, Pakistan must already be hedging its bets – by renewing old ties with and seeking longer term refuge under Beijing’s expanding Asia-Pacific umbrella.
Thus, in this rapidly evolving new power structure, it only makes sense that the U.S. seek stronger ties with like-minded nations in the Asia-Pacific region – that go beyond its traditional Cold War allies such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. It is imperative for the United States and India to become more closely aligned from a political, economic, technological and military standpoint. Keeping the world’s oldest and largest democracies together – in a new long term “axis of faith” partnership – should become the foundation of 21st century U.S. foreign policy.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Pallin Around With Palin
It was a month ago on 9/11 that I posted my imaginary interview (see “The Real McCoy”) with Senator McCain. Since then, his running mate, Governor Palin flubbed a few sit-downs with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’ Katie Couric. Consequently, the McCain campaign decided that Palin was off limits to the mainstream media until after the election. However, the American public was given to understand that Governor Palin would still meet with conservative and small town wannabe journalists. Unfortunately, I am not your average Joe Sixpack pundit that the Governor would be comfortable with. In fact, I am that potent combination of a liberal with an Ivy League graduate degree – so I am pretty sure that she won’t talk to me. Alas, as I did with Senator McCain, I need to fake my interview with the lovely Ms. Palin. So here goes…
Jack: It’s a pleasure to meet you in person…
Sarah Palin: Can we get started? I have half-a-dozen of you wannabes lined up this morning, and you are only my first.
Jack: OK! Back in June you told Larry Kudlow of CNBC that you were not sure “what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Now that you have been a VP candidate for over six weeks, do you know any better?
Sarah Palin: Well, if I am so blessed, and Senator McCain is so blessed… I expect that he has a role in mind, which will fulfill the maverick image that he and I have earned as two mavericks. We will reform Washington as two outsiders on a mission to…
Jack: But, Sarah. Excuse me; can I call you, Sarah? You see I have this joke, I mean, this question lined up later on that requires me to call you Sarah. So is that OK, Sarah?
Sarah Palin: Whatever, Jack? Your interview is not going to make it into the mainstream media, anyway, so you can call me whatever your puny readership desires…
Jack: Thanks, Sarah! But you just called Senator McCain an outsider when he has been a beltway insider for, like 26 years… what’s up with that?
Sarah Palin: Jack, Jack, Jack… Senator McCain has always been an outsider to members of his own party. In fact, he was going to pick that matzo ball, Lieberman, as his VP. Oops, silly me, cross that matzo ball thingy as off the record. Never mind, no one is going to read you, anyway… so, you see McCain has always been on the inside looking out!
Jack: But that still makes him an insider, so how is he going to reform anything?
Sarah Palin: Because he is going to bring all these outsiders and mavericks into Washington and reform the place. The man’s a maverick just like me…
Jack: OK, moving on… at a recent campaign rally, you said of Joe Biden, “I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade.” Sarah, Joe Biden entered the Senate in January 1973, when you were almost nine years old. At nine, most kids are in fourth grade, so did you like repeat…
Sarah Palin: Jack, I was joking… but seriously, what have you heard?
Jack: That you went to six different colleges before you graduated from your “own private Idaho?”
Sarah Palin: Ha! Ha! Very funny, Jack! What else you got?
Jack: Have?
Sarah Palin: What?
Jack: What else do you have?
Sarah Palin: Whatever…
Jack: Your older sister, Heather Bruce, told Glamour magazine recently that “What’s happening to Sarah Palin right now is like the worst college exam cram period ever.” Do you believe this is a fair way – essentially pulling a few all-nighters – to land a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Sarah Palin: Hey if Dubya got by for eight years, so can I. Besides, it can only get better, right? (At this point in my interview, Sarah concludes her answer by winking her left eye at me).
Jack: Are you trying to seduce me, Ms. Robinson?
Sarah Palin: Say what?
Jack: You just winked at me, so I remembered that famous line from “The Graduate?”
Sarah Palin: That movie was, like, so before my time…
Jack: Never mind. Let’s move on. In a recent campaign appearance you said that Senator Obama is “palling around with terrorists.” Don’t you think that was beyond the pale?
Sarah Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Jack: I’m Jack…
Sarah Palin: Sorry, I had a flashback to Charlie Gibson for a moment there … Hmm… beyond the pale… Jack, are you making fun of my last name? Todd is standing right outside… he does not like people who make fun…
Jack: Sarah, ‘beyond the pale’ means over the top…
Sarah Palin: Then why didn’t you just say so, like we do in small-town America? Did you go to one of those fancy Ivy League schools like Obama?
Jack: Do you think it’s fair to associate Obama with a guy who was a terrorist forty years ago, when Obama was only eight?
Sarah Palin: Yes, because the guy helped launch Obama’s political career more recently back in the mid-90s.
Jack: So that is the same as “pallin” around? Sarah, your husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from the mid-90s until 2002. Isn’t your husband’s recent association with a secessionist party more egregious than Obama serving as one of the members of an education board, which happened to include a long rehabilitated ex-terrorist?
Sarah Palin: What’s your point, Jack? The people of Alaska still voted for me as their Governor.
Jack: Hey, maybe they all want to hook up with Russia! Who knows? Fifteen years from now I could say that I was “pallin” around with you just because of this one fake interview?
Sarah Palin: Hey, I am not looking beyond this election right now. Fifteen years is a long time in politics. What else you got?
Jack: Is it true that you told Bill Kristol that you wanted Senator McCain to take the gloves off?
Sarah Palin: Sure. He needs to bring up that Wright stuff, too!
Jack: I don’t think you want to go there, given that you are all over YouTube getting exorcised by a witch doctor from Africa?
Sarah Palin: Oh well, that pastor was getting rid of my demons, not demonizing my country!
Jack: What demons?
Sarah Palin: That’s personal, Jack.
Jack: OK. I would like you to answer this last question without using any one of the following words: bridge, maverick, reform, surge, victory, and exceptional. OK, why do you think Senator McCain will make a better president than Senator Obama?
Sarah Palin: Umm… because he always puts his country first!
Jack: But, you heard Obama say at his convention speech, “We all put our country first..."
Sarah Palin: I’d love to debate you, Jack, but that was your last question. Hey, Todd, can you show Jack out the door and send in the next wannabe… and get me an aspirin…
Jack: Thank you, Sara… When you build your house, call me home…
Sarah Palin: What? Todd, this guy is weird…
Todd Palin: That’s Fleetwood Mac, honey…
Jack: Don't stop (thinking about tomorrow)…
Folks, she could actually turn out to be our next Vice President! And you thought it couldn’t get any scarier after Cheney!
Jack: It’s a pleasure to meet you in person…
Sarah Palin: Can we get started? I have half-a-dozen of you wannabes lined up this morning, and you are only my first.
Jack: OK! Back in June you told Larry Kudlow of CNBC that you were not sure “what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Now that you have been a VP candidate for over six weeks, do you know any better?
Sarah Palin: Well, if I am so blessed, and Senator McCain is so blessed… I expect that he has a role in mind, which will fulfill the maverick image that he and I have earned as two mavericks. We will reform Washington as two outsiders on a mission to…
Jack: But, Sarah. Excuse me; can I call you, Sarah? You see I have this joke, I mean, this question lined up later on that requires me to call you Sarah. So is that OK, Sarah?
Sarah Palin: Whatever, Jack? Your interview is not going to make it into the mainstream media, anyway, so you can call me whatever your puny readership desires…
Jack: Thanks, Sarah! But you just called Senator McCain an outsider when he has been a beltway insider for, like 26 years… what’s up with that?
Sarah Palin: Jack, Jack, Jack… Senator McCain has always been an outsider to members of his own party. In fact, he was going to pick that matzo ball, Lieberman, as his VP. Oops, silly me, cross that matzo ball thingy as off the record. Never mind, no one is going to read you, anyway… so, you see McCain has always been on the inside looking out!
Jack: But that still makes him an insider, so how is he going to reform anything?
Sarah Palin: Because he is going to bring all these outsiders and mavericks into Washington and reform the place. The man’s a maverick just like me…
Jack: OK, moving on… at a recent campaign rally, you said of Joe Biden, “I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade.” Sarah, Joe Biden entered the Senate in January 1973, when you were almost nine years old. At nine, most kids are in fourth grade, so did you like repeat…
Sarah Palin: Jack, I was joking… but seriously, what have you heard?
Jack: That you went to six different colleges before you graduated from your “own private Idaho?”
Sarah Palin: Ha! Ha! Very funny, Jack! What else you got?
Jack: Have?
Sarah Palin: What?
Jack: What else do you have?
Sarah Palin: Whatever…
Jack: Your older sister, Heather Bruce, told Glamour magazine recently that “What’s happening to Sarah Palin right now is like the worst college exam cram period ever.” Do you believe this is a fair way – essentially pulling a few all-nighters – to land a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Sarah Palin: Hey if Dubya got by for eight years, so can I. Besides, it can only get better, right? (At this point in my interview, Sarah concludes her answer by winking her left eye at me).
Jack: Are you trying to seduce me, Ms. Robinson?
Sarah Palin: Say what?
Jack: You just winked at me, so I remembered that famous line from “The Graduate?”
Sarah Palin: That movie was, like, so before my time…
Jack: Never mind. Let’s move on. In a recent campaign appearance you said that Senator Obama is “palling around with terrorists.” Don’t you think that was beyond the pale?
Sarah Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Jack: I’m Jack…
Sarah Palin: Sorry, I had a flashback to Charlie Gibson for a moment there … Hmm… beyond the pale… Jack, are you making fun of my last name? Todd is standing right outside… he does not like people who make fun…
Jack: Sarah, ‘beyond the pale’ means over the top…
Sarah Palin: Then why didn’t you just say so, like we do in small-town America? Did you go to one of those fancy Ivy League schools like Obama?
Jack: Do you think it’s fair to associate Obama with a guy who was a terrorist forty years ago, when Obama was only eight?
Sarah Palin: Yes, because the guy helped launch Obama’s political career more recently back in the mid-90s.
Jack: So that is the same as “pallin” around? Sarah, your husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from the mid-90s until 2002. Isn’t your husband’s recent association with a secessionist party more egregious than Obama serving as one of the members of an education board, which happened to include a long rehabilitated ex-terrorist?
Sarah Palin: What’s your point, Jack? The people of Alaska still voted for me as their Governor.
Jack: Hey, maybe they all want to hook up with Russia! Who knows? Fifteen years from now I could say that I was “pallin” around with you just because of this one fake interview?
Sarah Palin: Hey, I am not looking beyond this election right now. Fifteen years is a long time in politics. What else you got?
Jack: Is it true that you told Bill Kristol that you wanted Senator McCain to take the gloves off?
Sarah Palin: Sure. He needs to bring up that Wright stuff, too!
Jack: I don’t think you want to go there, given that you are all over YouTube getting exorcised by a witch doctor from Africa?
Sarah Palin: Oh well, that pastor was getting rid of my demons, not demonizing my country!
Jack: What demons?
Sarah Palin: That’s personal, Jack.
Jack: OK. I would like you to answer this last question without using any one of the following words: bridge, maverick, reform, surge, victory, and exceptional. OK, why do you think Senator McCain will make a better president than Senator Obama?
Sarah Palin: Umm… because he always puts his country first!
Jack: But, you heard Obama say at his convention speech, “We all put our country first..."
Sarah Palin: I’d love to debate you, Jack, but that was your last question. Hey, Todd, can you show Jack out the door and send in the next wannabe… and get me an aspirin…
Jack: Thank you, Sara… When you build your house, call me home…
Sarah Palin: What? Todd, this guy is weird…
Todd Palin: That’s Fleetwood Mac, honey…
Jack: Don't stop (thinking about tomorrow)…
Folks, she could actually turn out to be our next Vice President! And you thought it couldn’t get any scarier after Cheney!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Real McCoy
The Internet has become the great equalizer, in that; it has empowered so many people in so many professions in so many ways. Google has given new meaning to the saying, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” YouTube has redefined what we mean by “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Bloggers have neutralized the news cycle by publishing “All the News That's Fit to Print” on a 24/7 basis.
And yet, there is not a Google search item, not one YouTube video, and nary a blog post that brings out the real Senator McCain. So I have decided to publish this satirical take on my alleged tête-à-tête with the Senator. Here’s how I think my faux conversation would expose the real McCoy:
Jack: Senator, let’s cut to the chase… have you heard of the saying “The more things change, the more they remain the same?”
McCain: Yes, but are you trying to suggest something…
Jack: Nothing. How long have you been in Washington?
McCain: I have been in Congress since 1983… I began as a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution…
Jack: Yeah, it’s quite amazing how you went from being a well-decorated, retired Navy captain to start out all over again as an ordinary foot-soldier in Congress.
McCain: I have paid my dues, my friend.
Jack: O.K., but many presidential candidates have promised to change Washington in the past 25 years, so how are you any different?
McCain: The others let Washington change ’em. Washington won’t change me. I am the same guy I was 25 years ago. I am set in my ways.
Jack: So you haven’t changed, but you will change Washington?
McCain: Damn straight!
Jack: How do you propose to do that?
McCain: I will veto every earmark that comes across my desk.
Jack: You realize that you will be likely working with a strong Democratic majority in both branches of Congress?
McCain: Yes, but I am determined to approve only pork-free bills.
Jack: Wow! Are you trying to appease the Muslims…
McCain: Very funny, Jack! Everyone’s a comedian…
Jack: But seriously, the last president to veto too many bills lasted only one term – your predecessor’s father – remember, “Read my lips…”
McCain: Of course, but he lost because he raised taxes, not because he vetoed bills!
Jack: Clinton raised taxes and vetoed bills – and still served two terms that saw unprecedented peace and prosperity?
McCain: That is because Clinton had a Republican Congress…
Jack: Reagan worked with a largely Democratic Congress…
McCain: Yeah, but they gave him what he wanted…
Jack: I would imagine that the GOP Congress gave Clinton what he wanted…
McCain: Look Jack, what’s your point?
Jack: You can’t bring about change by veto, especially with a Congress run by the other party.
McCain: My friend, I know how the system works, and I intend to change it. Period.
Jack: O.K. So you are going to change the meaning of “change?”
McCain: Exactly! Wait a minute – is that a trick question? Look, my friend, the Democrats are big spenders and they will insist on all their pork-barrel projects. Hillary with her healthcare plan – no amount of lipstick on that pig will get me to ever agree…
Jack: Excuse me, did you just call Hillary a pig?
McCain: Of course not! I was talking about her healthcare plan…
Jack: Just like Obama was talking about all your plans the other day…
McCain: No, no he was talking about Sarah – we even made an ad about it, so that the American people would know him for the Muslim that he is. You do know that Muslims consider pigs unholy and dirty, right? Why else, would he call Sarah a pig?
Jack: That is absolutely not true – are you trying to Swift boat the poor guy?
McCain: That is the only way we are going to win, my friend! I tried the “experience” thing first , then usurped the “change” mantle from Obama even though I don’t believe in it for a second. Heck, I have been a part of this old boy network for 25 years – why would I want to change anything now, when I am 72 years old. Hey, Obama threw us a freebie with this pig line – we are going to ride that baby to victory in November! All’s fair in love and politics!
Jack: Thank you, Senator McCain for the straight talk – you are the real McCoy!
P.S. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am guilty of using the self-same term, “lipstick on a pig,” as can be evidenced by my letter to the Wall Street Journal dated October 15, 2007.
And yet, there is not a Google search item, not one YouTube video, and nary a blog post that brings out the real Senator McCain. So I have decided to publish this satirical take on my alleged tête-à-tête with the Senator. Here’s how I think my faux conversation would expose the real McCoy:
Jack: Senator, let’s cut to the chase… have you heard of the saying “The more things change, the more they remain the same?”
McCain: Yes, but are you trying to suggest something…
Jack: Nothing. How long have you been in Washington?
McCain: I have been in Congress since 1983… I began as a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution…
Jack: Yeah, it’s quite amazing how you went from being a well-decorated, retired Navy captain to start out all over again as an ordinary foot-soldier in Congress.
McCain: I have paid my dues, my friend.
Jack: O.K., but many presidential candidates have promised to change Washington in the past 25 years, so how are you any different?
McCain: The others let Washington change ’em. Washington won’t change me. I am the same guy I was 25 years ago. I am set in my ways.
Jack: So you haven’t changed, but you will change Washington?
McCain: Damn straight!
Jack: How do you propose to do that?
McCain: I will veto every earmark that comes across my desk.
Jack: You realize that you will be likely working with a strong Democratic majority in both branches of Congress?
McCain: Yes, but I am determined to approve only pork-free bills.
Jack: Wow! Are you trying to appease the Muslims…
McCain: Very funny, Jack! Everyone’s a comedian…
Jack: But seriously, the last president to veto too many bills lasted only one term – your predecessor’s father – remember, “Read my lips…”
McCain: Of course, but he lost because he raised taxes, not because he vetoed bills!
Jack: Clinton raised taxes and vetoed bills – and still served two terms that saw unprecedented peace and prosperity?
McCain: That is because Clinton had a Republican Congress…
Jack: Reagan worked with a largely Democratic Congress…
McCain: Yeah, but they gave him what he wanted…
Jack: I would imagine that the GOP Congress gave Clinton what he wanted…
McCain: Look Jack, what’s your point?
Jack: You can’t bring about change by veto, especially with a Congress run by the other party.
McCain: My friend, I know how the system works, and I intend to change it. Period.
Jack: O.K. So you are going to change the meaning of “change?”
McCain: Exactly! Wait a minute – is that a trick question? Look, my friend, the Democrats are big spenders and they will insist on all their pork-barrel projects. Hillary with her healthcare plan – no amount of lipstick on that pig will get me to ever agree…
Jack: Excuse me, did you just call Hillary a pig?
McCain: Of course not! I was talking about her healthcare plan…
Jack: Just like Obama was talking about all your plans the other day…
McCain: No, no he was talking about Sarah – we even made an ad about it, so that the American people would know him for the Muslim that he is. You do know that Muslims consider pigs unholy and dirty, right? Why else, would he call Sarah a pig?
Jack: That is absolutely not true – are you trying to Swift boat the poor guy?
McCain: That is the only way we are going to win, my friend! I tried the “experience” thing first , then usurped the “change” mantle from Obama even though I don’t believe in it for a second. Heck, I have been a part of this old boy network for 25 years – why would I want to change anything now, when I am 72 years old. Hey, Obama threw us a freebie with this pig line – we are going to ride that baby to victory in November! All’s fair in love and politics!
Jack: Thank you, Senator McCain for the straight talk – you are the real McCoy!
P.S. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am guilty of using the self-same term, “lipstick on a pig,” as can be evidenced by my letter to the Wall Street Journal dated October 15, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)