KCRW's Left, Right & Center 11.7.08 Show
LRC LIVE ONSTAGE--LIVE VIDEO/AUDIO WEBCAST AND BONUS PODCAST AT KCRW.com/LRCLIVE -- Sunday, 11.9.08 @ 5:45 pm PST; live broadcast (online and on air) 6 to 7 pm PST...JOIN US! Available online on-demand on 11.11.08.
Obama Talks Transition; Bad News Economy; GOP Gloom
The election’s over; what’s next and
what do the demographics mean for the future of the US and the conservative
Republican movement? President Elect Obama held his first press conference and
Tony, Bob and Matt ask, what’s his mandate and which side will he come down on
regarding the economy, whose interests will he serve. What do you think?
My Groups
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 2 days ago
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 2 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
A pretty positive show despite the ominous economic information.
Defeat is certainly an orphan. Bush's has to be the most conservative administration in history, except maybe to the anti-government spending faction, yet Blankley talks about conservatives being liberated from him as well as McCain. The question remains to do what? The Republicans have been first of all the party of big corporations and finance, with the emotional support of small business. If corporations and finance is who got rich and caused the mess, how can the Republicans be liberated from them? So what would this liberated conservative movement, that has answers for ordinary folks, look like? Blankley mentioned Hispanic voters, which suggests Republicans might have to abandon the nativist immigrant-bashing that looked like their big social values issue a year ago, but which disappeared during the campaign. The main issue McCain pounded was taxes taxes taxes, but Scheer must be right that, at least in this climate, that did not fly. If an orthoperdist looks at a problem and sees a knee operation, it seems that Republicans look at a problem and see a tax cut, and that can possibly solve every problem. Blankley can point out that despite everything, McCain got 46% of the vote, and that conservatives will be poised to rebound when at least some things go wrong under Obama.
McCain and Bush have actually been very gracious so far, although their bloggers have not all been. That suggests an opportunity for some bipartisanship behind the scenes during the transition, which seems like a good idea, and could lead the way to a change of culture in Washington, which will bea difficult task given peoles' ability to separate with like minded folks. Obama's biggest problems may come from his supporters, who will all be of high expectations for favorable treatment. Large numbers of people knocked themselves out to elect Obama and they will have agendas. Scheer said that some potential appointee was "unacceptable" but no one is in a position to say that. In fact, as the show pointed out, the future policies are surely far from worked out, as is the style and emphasis in governing Presidential elections are about bonding and Obama bonded. The most important thing will be what kind of administration he runs.
Sort of like the problem is not that one is hitting oneself in the head with a hammer, but that one is not hitting oneself in the head with a hammer HARD ENOUGH.
Good grief.
Good News and BAD news.
First, the good news. The pocast we all love to love is BACK. Great job guys!
Bad news: I had promised that I would "lose interest" in this board after the election. But, unfortunately NOBODY from the Obama transition team has contacted me yet and offered me a position in the BARACK ADMINISTRATION for my great work and fighting the good fight on this board.
It's not too late (ajarnbarryd@yahoo.com) to contact me, Barry! So, anyone who doesn't like me (I'm speaking to you Sarah), it's in your best interest to help get me a gig on CNN or a Cabinet Position!
10 Winners:
Accountability. Looking to the future/smuture. Elections are about the past. If accountability is lost in the American system of government, we might as well throw away the Constitution of the U.S. Like our belief that a printed piece of paper represents $1, the Constitution is based on more than just “checks and balances”; it's based on trust. If the Republican Party were allowed to simply change figure heads, rewrite a little history and invent a new campaign slogan and still win, it would have set a bad precedent for the future.
Restraint. I'd love to see someone make a list of all the times a candidate overplayed their hand in this election. Whether it was “clinging to their guns” or “palling around with terrorists” or “lipstick on a pig” or “John Lewis should apologize,” the handlers' weapon of choice this season was jumping on every gaffe or issue and repeating it ad nauseam, never deterred even if/when a charge was answered or refuted by the opposition.
Statesmanship. Hillary and Bill's refusal to concede the primary until they had squeezed out every ounce of hope could have been a deathblow to the Democratic Party. It's doubtful we'll see that kind of behavior in the future. That said, they did make amends and come out like statesmen in the end. John McCain, only hours after continuing the most hateful campaign in modern political history, also showed great statesman ship in his consession speech.
Centrism. It could never be more clear that the true swing voters are not self-described “independents” or the mythical “Reagan Democrats” but moderates. Whichever side these “centrists” side with—liberal or conservative—almost always wins.
Middle Class. If there is such thing as “Class Warfare” in America, then newsflash—it's over and the wealthy won. We'll see if the promises come to fruition, but the Middle Class for the first time in a long time won the rhetoric battles usually dominated by “helping the poor” or “tax breaks for 'everyone'” (i.e. the wealthy).” In Class Warfare II, let's hope the Allies defeat the Axis of evil this time around.
Christianity. Even if you're an Atheist, you can't help but be relieved that there are still liberals and moderates in the church pews. Ironically, for all their self-righteousness, rightwingers have all but destroyed Jesus's reputation in the world over the past two decades.
Patriotism. For the first time in a long time, if ever, Americans threw out the notion that jingoism and patriotism are the same thing. With the bathwater also went the CW that your ethnicity, culture, heritage, region, lapel pin, name, or your associations have anything to do with your patriotism. I say good bye, Baby, good bye.
Intelligence. Although left-wing and right-wing “intellectualism” is thankfully still ostracized, the idea that someone is who is intelligent, has a good education or who doesn't speak in insulting caricatures “you, betcha, doggone it” might actually be considered “one of us” and worthy to be president brings hope back for America's future.
Public Financing of Elections. There will be no whining in the future. If you can get enough people to donate to your campaign online, you too can run for president.
America. [insert history lesson here]
It's silly to say that the Republican party is a party of big corporations and finance. Check the distribution of finance contributions and find that Obama received more campaign money from these institutions than McCain. They have their hooks in him deep, but so does MoveOn who mentioned that they conjured up 88 million for him, not to mention the unions who slathered on 68 million and sent their minions to canvass neighborhoods, not to mention the 100 million that came in during September by untraceable pre-paid credit cards (who knows who's behind that one). All of these entities will be at our new president's side with their hands out, not to mention his democratic colleagues in the congress who assisted in his election. I hope our new president doesn't get pulled apart by his financial supporters. If anything is done prior to the next election, it is my hope they find a way is found to keep all of this money from buying our next president.
For those of you to feel that the election is a shift to the center-left, consider how it took nearly 700 billion dollars in campaign funds, a sitting president with very low approval ratings, an economic collapse, ACORN, and 70% of the biased media to shift 3.5% of the voters for a win.
After our new president-elect held his initial briefings and news conference a theme developed within the media pundits that carried-over in the LRC show; Obama appeared subdued, shaken, reiticent. It's because he has just joined the club of the governing informed elite who make their decisions based on the secret, gory details. Hopefully, he will form his decisions based on these details and not political expediency.
The country elected Obama on hope, the hope that he is the centris candidate he portrayed during the election and not the liberal leftist he was before his candidacy. For our country's sake let's hope he becomes his image.
Prop 8 is being challenged in court so it will get thrown out anyway so no worries for the people who opposed it.
Bush has been called a right winger by many here but lets keep some perspective. Bush allowed his party to spend the country into near ruin. When Bush took office the Federal Government took just over 18% of the GDP, now it's close to 23%. Bush took a $128B surplus and turned it into something close to a $750B deficit.
Some was to fund the war but most was for No Child Left Behind, 2002 Farm bill, 2003 Medicare drug bill, 2005 highway bill, 2006 ethanol mandate and on top of all that nearly 70,000 pork projects. Bush showed no leadership when it came to setting spending priorities, he just let the congress spend what it wanted as long as he got what he wanted. He couldn't find his veto pen for 5 years then when he does one of his vetoes is a children's health benefit expansion (SCHIP) which made no sense seeing how he couldn't find a spending bill to oppose before (thanks for making us look good dubya, maybe you could also veto a bill against kicking puppies too).
Bush promised to oppose campaign finance reform but signed McCain-Fingold even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Steel Tarrifs? Screw free trade.
I like the way one National Review writer put it, "Bush is the GOP’s Jimmy Carter, a weak bumbler who embarrassed his constituents, betrayed his philosophical movement, sank his party, and eventually surrendered the White House to the opposition..."
All that said, who do the Republicans nominate to run to take his place? John McCain of McCain-Finegold anti-free speech fame, Comprehensive Immigration reform, gang of 14, Cap and Trade and opposition to the Bush tax cuts(one conservative success).
Although I don't forgive him for losing his veto pen but congress had his feet over the fire so that he would get more money to carry out the Iraq war...so I blame congress just as much.
Obama's mandate:
Short term, two critical mandates:
In line with Bob's LRC clarion call of late -- he has to first focus on an intelligent stimulus which stabilizes the housing market *and* stops the arterial gushing of job losses for working Americans.
Second -- Obama has to carefully draw down our military presence in Iraq -- while engaging other international partners in a multi-lateral strategy to keep Iraq stable. I think that means frank, open engagement with Iran, and spearheading a new partnership with Iran, and better relations and cooperation -- i.e., engagement rather than anti-regime rhetoric. It's a risky proposition -- but better the enemy you know--and most Iranians will be open to an overture from Obama.
Longer term -- as Obama has outlined, he needs to foster innovation and investment in cleaner and alternative sources of energy.
Critical also is his mandate to appoint Supreme Court and judicial nominees who are in line with the political moderates, rather than either political extremes.
A note: Before Obama's first press conference as President Elect, Rush Limbaugh declared Wednesday as Day One of the Obama Recession! If Obama delivers on his mandate deliberately, with drive and innovation--the voices of right wing has-been, Rove-goon assholes will increasingly fade into the background radiation of pond scum.
While the Republicans are the natural party of the business and finance class, they also like to keep some Democrats within striking distance, so they often spread their money around. Obama did get substantial sums from the finance industry (Hillary did too). Of course no one gets enough money and credibility to get elected president without being aceptable to business and big money contributors. For Democrats to have a chance to win there usually has to be a split in the business class. This happened with Clinton as some businesspeople liked his attitude toward world trade and wanted to pass NAFTA which required a Democrat. They quickly backed Gingrich too and just loved the next 6 years. Apparently something similar has happened here too despite Bush's pro business tax cuts, deregulation, judges and the general free for all of the Abramoff era. I suspect some of them, like other Americans, think as Dalton does that Republicans should pay some price of discipline when they screw up as much as Bush has. Plus they obviously recognize that Obama is a cautious centrist they can live with and not what the Republicans tried to depict him as, this radical left winger.
Obviously a lot of people have either contributed, voted or worked for Obama. They will have expectations. He will not meet all their needs. Today the pundits were starting in. David Brooks, a conservative, says Obama needs to say no to the African Americans, the teachers unions, the labor unions to be acceptable to him and change the culture of washington. Paul Krugman called for progressive policies. Amon says that Limbaugh is sticking Obama with the recession, even before he takes office.
The faction of conservatives that can be down on Bush are the anti-tax, anti government group, which it sounds like Mr. X agrees with. Medicare D, although popular with the drug companies, is a large domestic spending program. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy added to the deficit, and of course the war really piled on. And the bailout threw to the winds any ideology that government should not spend large amounts of money, even if it is to help business. Still you don't see conservatives wanting to name airports after Clinton, although he left office with a surplus of sorts and a positive if somewhat padded economy.
Carter, after leaving office, went on to become the greatest living ex-president since William Howard Taft, with his work for peace and democracy in the world. If conservatives are comparing Bush to Carter, lets hope Bush figures out a way to do some good also. One of his positives was about AIDS in Africa, so maybe he can do some good there.
I feel sorry for any candidate that carries the rightwing water, like Bush did and how McCain tried to do on the campaign trail. When the candidate loses because of this diseased water, the rightwingers all blame the guy carrying the water.
An article in the Wall Street Journal makes the case that "Racial Gerrymandering is unnecisarry."
This rightwing wetdream's never gonna happen. Your time would be better spent sticking the knife in Bush and McCain's back and rebuilding Sarah Palin's image, like the rest of the rightwing intelligencia.
Mr. Parsons,
If you think Senator Obama is Lily White (figuratively) with respect to Big Wall Street money, then you haven't been watching who's been funding his campaign. Wall Street Bankers are not dumb enough to bet on just one side or the other, and the money trail points to Obama's campaigne receiving over twice as much money from the Big Financials as McCain's
I'm a little worried that you are correct. I agree with Robert Scheer that the Clinton people who enabled Phil Graham in the name of triangulation should not be rewarded. Obama should show his independence by making a bold choice for his Treasury Secretary. Of course, any such action is complicated by the fact that the financial market must not only be stablized but encouraged, and the best way to do that is to make a safe choice of someone Wall Street is comfortable with.
So, any bold new direction or independence will not likely take place initially. Still, I trust Barack and as a moderate I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, no matter if i like his initial decisions or not.
He's a pretty smart, no-drama guy.
Another thing to consider is the effect this has on partisanship. In an MSNBC article from just before the election:
Is gerrymandering based on race better for blacks and the country? Kind of a political "separate but equal"?
Quite simply. You're playing the race card.
We all understand that the Governor of each state has a lot to say about this issue. Rather than using your explosive term, gerrymandering, most honest people simply talk about redistricting.
From what I've read, your plan would only cost the Democrats potentially 15 seats, with only a few of those having to do anyting with Blacks.
If you want to know where you guys can make some serious gains, you might turn your attention to Hispanics, where Republicans lost the most electoral ground. Why? Because the rightwingers wouldn't let Bush off the reservation when he wanted to pass Immigration Reform. McCain might have had a chance this year if you would have let Bush off his righwing leash.
Finally, it's complete rightwing mythology that minorities vote for "their own kind." Fact is, minorities tend to vote for their economic interests. And it just so happens the Democrats have represented their interests more, at least in rhetoric and promises.
We Whites are the ones guilty of voting on so-called "social issues". Do you know how many White people vote against a candidate because of his 'associations' rather than what will benefit themselves and their children more? A lot. You may call that voting on "principle". I call that being a lemming.
I doubt it. The reason this is supported by both parties is because when you pack heavily democratic blacks into majority black districts you remove them from other districts which can lead other solidly republican districts nearby. Undoing the gerrymandering would lead to more moderates from both parties and would cut down on some of the bitter partisanship we have now.
I wonder who is committing the worse sin here. People who want to pack blacks into majority black districts just to make sure they get a reliable democratic vote in congress or people who pack blacks into majority black districts so that they can purge reliable democratic voters out borderline republican districts to keep the seats for the republicans.
The lady from KCRW talked for too long, so it wasn't really an hour show. I know they sponsor the show and the website that I use when I have to miss the local broadcast, and its public radio with its endless funddrives. We should be grateful.
The comedian questioner was great. I'm sure he's a pro and was auditioning, but maybe they should take him up when Arianna is away.
To Louie, immigration is a disfunctional government program that has unfortunately become a values issue for many people. It disapeared in the election because the nativists were going to vote Republican anyway, while Hispanics, Asians and Middle Easterners' votes were in play. However it will be back. The point is that almost none of those people should be illegal immigrants. They should be allowed to come here as legal immigrants and doing work we need, without the fear of being turned in to keep their pay artificially low. If they were here legally, there would be a lot less political problem. America has had a nativist "know nothing" strain since its founding, with all of our ancestors having been unwelcome to someone, but it has never wagged the dog. Actually there is an underlying issue beneath all of the "values issues" that have motivated conservatives over the past decades, generally involving authority being challenged in some way by chaos. Crime, welfare, gays, immigration and a lot of the sixties social conflicts that we are perhaps starting to put behind us, or at least people who don't care as much about those conflicts outnumbering people who do. I think it is that people feel disrespected and threatened in some way, and it is because that is how society treats people. Anyway the answer to immigration may be like the answer to unpopular wars, to declare victory and go home, that is take all the undocumented people and document them (without the bureaucratic inanity of making them all go outside the border and turn around and come back, or pay some huge fine. How about 100 hours of community service?)
As to gerrymandering black districts, the real problem is gerrymandering in general. That and campaign financing are the two main things that get in the way of democracy and we have nothing approaching a consensus on how to deal with them. The problem is that if you are in a "safe district" your vote and participation really don't count. Virtually none of the legislative districts near where I live are competitive. One of them was truly gerrymandered, with part of a city carved out and given to a safe Republican District, with the pieces of Republican districts added to create a second safe Republican district. Because many minorities live in close proximity in cities, it is easy to put them all in a safe district which will may well elect minority candidates to office and avoid voting rights act issues. However this is really a tag-along to the larger problem. Gerrymandering means you have politicians choosing voters instead of voters choosing politicians. Both parties do it when they get the chance, and the public has a hard time getting emotionally involved in process issues compared to making their mortgage payments or keeping their jobs. There could be some rules though, like prohibiting districts to be drawn by any body that has a majority in any political party.
Quite a complaint coming from you StanH. This was one of your "brief posts" and it was 567 words long! Usually it's double that. In the above sentence you used 15 words to make a pointless point. Was it an hour? A little short of an hour? A little longer than an hour? WHO CARES?
On immigration: You suggest we just give everybody a pass without all that "inanity" of making them comply with the law? Give me a break. Has the rightwing completely destroyed the word "accountability" in every facet of your government now? I tend to agree that the current aliens should be given permanent residence if they can show they are gainfully employed...but that has to be accompanied with a crackdown on illegal immigration and the company's who who employ (and often exploit) illegal immigrants.
On "Gerrymandering": You guys need to just get over it. Stop labeling voters as liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, based on their race. That'd be a great start. Obama's black we get it. You're obsessed with race. Move on. Hey, you rightwing-controlled Republicans. Try coming up with some policies that reach out to these "others" who don't currently support you.
Mutts: I support gerrymandering in regions where the majority of people are half-white/half-black, like Obama, but not in areas where they are all black, like Jesse Jackson, or all white like Sarah Palin.
Perhaps the closest analogy to immigration now was prohibition. You had a law that was unworkable and people ignored it. They repealed the law. We still struggle a little with alcoholism and drunk driving issues. With immigration, they passed a law with too few quotas for immigrants. You need to become a virtual police state to enforce a law like this, and it has all sorts of side effects. Since I wasn't around during prohibition, I don't know if it was a values issue like immigration has been, all wrapped up in affirming the European descended, English speaking culture, to say nothing of various economic threats. But we know that most of the undocumented immigrants are pretty law abiding, other than their status. There are some criminals of course, but we can handle them like we do other criminals. Probably the political dynamic was different enough back in prohibition times. In any case no one today really misses prohibition or worries about how accountability was weakend by repealing it. And once prohibition was over it was over (admittedly some states and localities struggled with wet dry issues in ways that lead up to present culture wars). There weren't millions of people who needed their status fixed.
I've got news for you. The U.S.A. is already a police state. You can't drive anywhere without a cop pulling you over for a ticky tack traffic violation. Meanwhile we've got illegal immigrants transporting illegal drugs to our country all the time. Nobody's saying all illegals are bad people. But they are breaking the law. Do we need to show compassion? Of course. But a whole mea culpa is not healthy for our country in the short term. Maybe in the short-term it gets the problem off our plate. But that's not a solution.
I don't even know what to say about your prohibition analogy. You should have your license to analogize revoked. First of all prohibition was an amendment to the Constitution outlawing a drug called alcohol. It had nothing to do with human beings. Other than the illegal drug analogy, which is a giant leap, I'm struggling to find any connection to people sneaking into our country without going through the "inanity" of filling out paperwork and getting our government's approval first and prohibiting alcohol.
Every country in the world has immigration laws. If you break them you are deported. Period. In Thailand I have to report to a government office every 90 days to let them know i haven't changed my place of residence.
It's all about economic and national security. It's not about racism or pettiness.
Police love this kind of thing because it gets results. A recent "sobriety" checkpoint in my area netted a couple of drunk driver arrests along with several dozen "citations" for whatever since articles never say. This always gets some good headlines for the Police so they really love it.
Now we have "red light" cameras up at some intersections to allegedly cut down on accidents. Just overlapping the red lights more and longer yellows would be cheaper and more effective but this is an easy way to get some free money for a city. Some cities have been caught setting the yellows to shorter times to boost revenue.
This is off topic but I always wondered, how do US citizens who live out of the country get treated as far as voting in US elections? Do you get to vote at all? If so which state do you vote in? What about house district and local elections?
Now things are turned around in a way, because of the 17th amendment, the senate is directly elected and because you can't gerrymander a state, the legislature has no power over the senate. The legislature does have a very, VERY limited check on the House in that they essentially select the affiliation of house members through the redistricting gerrymander. I don't think the house members are really accountable to the legislature because the connection is so far removed.
The gerrymanders have gotten so sophisticated that they cut streets inside of neighborhoods in two. Look at a map of North Carolina House districts(PDF WARNING) and you will see several districts meander all over. One includes parts of Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Charlotte (this is the compromise with the courts after it originally started in Durham and was only about 100 feet wide while it followed I-85 for 150 miles to Charlotte) I live in Raleigh, NC which is cut in three by the 2nd, 4th and 13th districts and two of those districts run through my neighborhood. I live in the 4th but can go for a walk and be in the 13th without crossing any major roads.
Since my district is mostly Durham and Chapel Hill (uber democratic party strongholds) I really don't have a choice, David Price has been my congressman for most of 20+ years with the exception of when he was voted out for two years in the 90's and for a couple of years during the early 2000's redistricting fiasco where I was in the 2nd district for a while before they redrew it again and put me back in the 4th.
All that said, it really doesn't matter since it will never change.
It's not about headlines so much as it's about revenue. When taxes are low, the bills must get paid somehow. So, we get to pretend we're for "low taxes" but nothing's for free. So even though WE PAY their salary, the police get to harass hardworking, law-abiding citizens who are just trying to get to work and back home.
The law differs by state, but you basically can register to vote through the mail. Which elections you can vote in is up to the state and other factors. You must send a form to your hometown or last place you were registerd to vote. They send you an Absentee Ballot. I voted in the Missouri election, but only for President-Elect Obama. Of course, who really knows what happens to provisional ballots and absentee ballots? It's one of the cracks that ballots often fall through.
As long as redistricting ensures diversity I don't see the problem with it. In the end, the voters vote independently and it's up to the elected officials to develop policies that appeal to all of their constituency (or at least a majority).
The best cure for immigration is to get the economies so that people can make a living back home. Most of the ancestors of those who are here now came because of something bad back home, wars, famines, religious persecutions. Listen to the lyrics of the songs they wrote about how sad it was to leave home. Even today many immigrants eventually return. The counter to money that would invest in creating jobs fleeing to poverty and cheap labor overseas is poverty and cheap labor coming here. They are two sides of the same coin.
Prohibition was a law that didn't work, that people weren't going to enforce, and which got repealed and the world was better without it. There are a number of laws like that but it is probably the most famous. Obviously it had something to do with human beings, although it didn't expressly regulate them. Another similar situation was slavery. Runaway slaves in the north lived like undocumented immigrants. They tried to live normal lives but were always vulnerable to being captured and returned. And it was bad for everyone else, which is why Lincoln said you couldn't have a place that was half slave and half free.
If people get beyond the conceptual issue of "controlling the borders" to talking how many immigrants there should be, it is clear that the there is plenty of room for the ones that come here to do work, but not enoughh slots or a responsive enough bureaucracy. Perhaps if they were paid a decent wage, more native born people would compete for the jobs immigrants do. Employers can pay less to "illegal" immigrants they can just turn in. If they were all legal and that threat didn't exist then you might have something like a freer market in labor and people would earn more like what they deserve.
There are some immigrants who carry drugs, and lots of non-immigrants who are part of the illegal drug business. When we catch them we punish them. Given the extremely high numbers (millions) of undocumented immigrants, the number of drug mules is comparatively small. Most immigrants are looking to make a living for their families either here or back home. Again the drug business is driven by demand for drugs here. If people want them, eventually some entrepreneurs will be supplying them at some cost. And when you catch them, others replace them.
As to the police state issue. In many ways the more surveillance and information there is the more power law enforcement has. Much of this happens because of trade offs. People are afraid of crime and even worse of terrorism, and they expect the police to know everything about everyone. So we elect law and order judges who uphold pretty much any stop that comes up with some evidence of lawbreaking. When America was founded it was not clear what sort of private gun ownership rights were thought to be inherent, but it is pretty obvious they did not like the way the British authorities searched, siezed and required that people put them up. People today don't have that attitude toward authority. And as people are less willing to pay taxes for services, the more they try to raise money other ways, through speed traps, fines and costs.
Anyway, as with his political pronouncements, Tony's hard-line position on Matt's diction was both erroneous and supercilious. There--how's that for diction, Mr. Right?