Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Ain't That America
Numbers:
1,200,000 -- Number of jobs lost so far in 2008, according to the U.S. Labor Dept.
$1,000,000,000,000 -- Minimum amount of wealth lost to the falling stock market.
1,200,000 -- Number of New York City residents with no health insurance.
844,424 -- Number of children living in poverty in New York City, according to the NYC Food Bank.
55% -- Percentage of New York City high school students who either drop out or do not graduate on time, according to a study by Colin Powell's America's Promise organization.
and...lastly...wait for it...
$590,000 -- amount forfeited, in both salary and fines, by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury for refusing to play on November 26 against Detroit.
One more...
$21,000,000 -- Marbury's salary this year.
Words fail.
1,200,000 -- Number of jobs lost so far in 2008, according to the U.S. Labor Dept.
$1,000,000,000,000 -- Minimum amount of wealth lost to the falling stock market.
1,200,000 -- Number of New York City residents with no health insurance.
844,424 -- Number of children living in poverty in New York City, according to the NYC Food Bank.
55% -- Percentage of New York City high school students who either drop out or do not graduate on time, according to a study by Colin Powell's America's Promise organization.
and...lastly...wait for it...
$590,000 -- amount forfeited, in both salary and fines, by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury for refusing to play on November 26 against Detroit.
One more...
$21,000,000 -- Marbury's salary this year.
Words fail.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Obama Condemns Mumbai Terror Attack
Sarah Palin, referencing Bill Ayers, accuses him of flip flopping on terrorism.
Thanksgiving Football
...sucks ass anymore. So Tennessee beats Detroit 47-10, and Dallas is already up 21-3 on Seattle. Great.
OK, maybe Seattle being such a bad team wasn't overly predictable. But Detroit? Not only do they stink, they have stunk for years, and will continue to stink for the forseeable future. Can we please rotate these games when it would make sense? Do I have to watch Detroit every year during a holiday meal?
Help a brutha out.
OK, maybe Seattle being such a bad team wasn't overly predictable. But Detroit? Not only do they stink, they have stunk for years, and will continue to stink for the forseeable future. Can we please rotate these games when it would make sense? Do I have to watch Detroit every year during a holiday meal?
Help a brutha out.
Health Care as a Threat
Sound odd? Well, don't forget the way Hillarycare was defeated in the early 1990s. It wasn't all about insurance industry profits. It was also driven by the fear among conservatives that a victory of this size would tip the country toward the Democratic party.
This time around, the insurance industry actually seems open to universal healthcare, with their main stipulation being that they want Congress to mandate that all Americans have coverage. Presumably this is their desire to force healthier people into the plan in order to profitably insure the less healthy, which is perfectly fair. Oddly enough, this is closer to Hillary's position than Obama's, but I don't think Obama is likely to fight this much.
Rest assured, however, conservatives are once again worried, and are gearing up for a big fight.
Here's an excerpt from a National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru that captures their thinking pretty well:
…it [universal healthcare] would also move American politics permanently leftward. First, the inevitable disappointments and failures of a nationalized system would just as inevitably be blamed on underfunding, creating a bidding war that liberals would usually win. On those occasions when voters understood that spending had to be controlled, they would prefer that liberals control it, so as to do the bare minimum necessary. Second, the creation of a new health-care regime would alter the incentives for all the interest groups involved. In the short run, at least, squeezing money out of the government system would be more advantageous than abolishing it. Third, the creation of a new system would make free-market alternatives look more radical to the public than they do now, because they would be more radical. The public’s aversion to risk, which now hurts advocates of liberal policies as much as it helps them, would only help them.
This time around, the insurance industry actually seems open to universal healthcare, with their main stipulation being that they want Congress to mandate that all Americans have coverage. Presumably this is their desire to force healthier people into the plan in order to profitably insure the less healthy, which is perfectly fair. Oddly enough, this is closer to Hillary's position than Obama's, but I don't think Obama is likely to fight this much.
Rest assured, however, conservatives are once again worried, and are gearing up for a big fight.
Here's an excerpt from a National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru that captures their thinking pretty well:
…it [universal healthcare] would also move American politics permanently leftward. First, the inevitable disappointments and failures of a nationalized system would just as inevitably be blamed on underfunding, creating a bidding war that liberals would usually win. On those occasions when voters understood that spending had to be controlled, they would prefer that liberals control it, so as to do the bare minimum necessary. Second, the creation of a new health-care regime would alter the incentives for all the interest groups involved. In the short run, at least, squeezing money out of the government system would be more advantageous than abolishing it. Third, the creation of a new system would make free-market alternatives look more radical to the public than they do now, because they would be more radical. The public’s aversion to risk, which now hurts advocates of liberal policies as much as it helps them, would only help them.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
"Change comes from me"
Just to add to Eric's post below on Gates, in his press conference this morning Obama was asked a somewhat gratuitously confrontational question by CNN's Ed Henry.
Henry asked Obama how he could claim to be bringing fresh thinking to the economic crisis given that he's appointed so many former Clinton hands thus far. He then tried to push Obama on some of the rumored cabinet appointments such as Hillary, Richardson, etc. It was a pathetic attempt to be "tough" - maybe Henry has been reading Mark Halperin lately or something.
Anyway, Obama shot that baby down by saying, essentially, that he needs experienced people around him, but that the change people voted for in November comes from him. He is running policy, and his appointees ultimately will be following his direction. Very necessary statement to calm the lefty Dems who are whining about appointments like Gates, and the ass-sniffing punditry looking for something pointless to criticize.
Henry asked Obama how he could claim to be bringing fresh thinking to the economic crisis given that he's appointed so many former Clinton hands thus far. He then tried to push Obama on some of the rumored cabinet appointments such as Hillary, Richardson, etc. It was a pathetic attempt to be "tough" - maybe Henry has been reading Mark Halperin lately or something.
Anyway, Obama shot that baby down by saying, essentially, that he needs experienced people around him, but that the change people voted for in November comes from him. He is running policy, and his appointees ultimately will be following his direction. Very necessary statement to calm the lefty Dems who are whining about appointments like Gates, and the ass-sniffing punditry looking for something pointless to criticize.
Gates
Regarding Gates, I know I have said this before, and I am sorry to keep repeating myself, but please, everyone of leftward persuasion, remember that the "change" we all really care about in the end is POLICY change. Chill out about Gates. I know, I know, he's a Bush appointee. However, before you recoil at the association with anything GWB has touched, remember that Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group that strongly criticized the Iraq War, and Bush appointed him from a very defensive posture after the PR disaster of Don Rumsfeld.
Also, I would urge you to remember the following:
1. He agrees with Obama on the most important priorities where his views matter, such as closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, and going after al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. If he agrees with Obama's policies and will faithfully implement them, what is the problem?
2. He had to assume his job after the category 5 tenure of Don Rumsfeld, and by all accounts has restored competence and professionalism to the defense department--no small accomplishment, indeed. As a result, he has the respect of the military brass, which is something Barack has yet to earn.
3. He is very close to Brent Scowcroft, whom Obama deeply respects. Also, if second hand sources are to be believed, he has a long standing relationship with Jim Jones, Obama's likely national security adviser.
4. It fulfills a major campaign promise, and shows Obama once again to be far more thoughtful than the reflexive political culture he operates in. He is anti-Bush where Bush is wrong. He isn't anti-Bush just because of the name. Wonder why Obama is so hard to target for righty partisans? That's why. The strongest advantage the Democratic Party has, BY FAR, is the Obama brand. Obama's approval rating is north of 70%. Congress is fortunate if they poll at Bush levels. That brand is what we will be cashing in for universal healthcare, energy independence, tax reform, aid to the states, re-regulation of the financial system, etc.
5. It is pretty hard for a defense secretary to be malignant all by himself. It is important to remember that Rumsfeld was enabled by an incredibly weak and unintelligent president, a Vice President at least as radical as Rumsfeld himself, a diffident national security adviser, and a marginalized Secretary of State. Those positions will now be held by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton. Even if Obama spends no time at all on defense/forpol, does anyone really believe that Gates will run roughshod over that bunch?
6. Which brings us to the 800-pound gorilla in the room--the economy. One of the most important decisions a president ever makes is how he will manage his time. What will he focus on? I actually read quite a bit during the primary season and into the fall about how Obama actually saw himself as more of a foreign policy president than a domestic one. Obviously, he has adapted his vision of the office based on where the economy has gone. Isn't that the right decision? Don't we want him dedicating his time there? Doesn't that make the continuity argument of Gates at defense all the more compelling? If that doesn't work out, he can always move Gates at a later time. For now, Gates is competent, widely respected, is likely to work well with the rest of Obama's national security team, and agrees with Obama's basic priorities. It makes a good deal of sense, and as usual, Obama has been thoughtful, pragmatic, and yet strong-minded at the same time.
He doesn't make decisions the way we are used to seeing politicians make decisions.
Remember, everyone. Keep your eye on the ball here. It is the POLICY that matters. Let's get the policy right, and leave the personality driven crap to the screaming heads on TV, ok?
Also, I would urge you to remember the following:
1. He agrees with Obama on the most important priorities where his views matter, such as closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, and going after al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. If he agrees with Obama's policies and will faithfully implement them, what is the problem?
2. He had to assume his job after the category 5 tenure of Don Rumsfeld, and by all accounts has restored competence and professionalism to the defense department--no small accomplishment, indeed. As a result, he has the respect of the military brass, which is something Barack has yet to earn.
3. He is very close to Brent Scowcroft, whom Obama deeply respects. Also, if second hand sources are to be believed, he has a long standing relationship with Jim Jones, Obama's likely national security adviser.
4. It fulfills a major campaign promise, and shows Obama once again to be far more thoughtful than the reflexive political culture he operates in. He is anti-Bush where Bush is wrong. He isn't anti-Bush just because of the name. Wonder why Obama is so hard to target for righty partisans? That's why. The strongest advantage the Democratic Party has, BY FAR, is the Obama brand. Obama's approval rating is north of 70%. Congress is fortunate if they poll at Bush levels. That brand is what we will be cashing in for universal healthcare, energy independence, tax reform, aid to the states, re-regulation of the financial system, etc.
5. It is pretty hard for a defense secretary to be malignant all by himself. It is important to remember that Rumsfeld was enabled by an incredibly weak and unintelligent president, a Vice President at least as radical as Rumsfeld himself, a diffident national security adviser, and a marginalized Secretary of State. Those positions will now be held by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton. Even if Obama spends no time at all on defense/forpol, does anyone really believe that Gates will run roughshod over that bunch?
6. Which brings us to the 800-pound gorilla in the room--the economy. One of the most important decisions a president ever makes is how he will manage his time. What will he focus on? I actually read quite a bit during the primary season and into the fall about how Obama actually saw himself as more of a foreign policy president than a domestic one. Obviously, he has adapted his vision of the office based on where the economy has gone. Isn't that the right decision? Don't we want him dedicating his time there? Doesn't that make the continuity argument of Gates at defense all the more compelling? If that doesn't work out, he can always move Gates at a later time. For now, Gates is competent, widely respected, is likely to work well with the rest of Obama's national security team, and agrees with Obama's basic priorities. It makes a good deal of sense, and as usual, Obama has been thoughtful, pragmatic, and yet strong-minded at the same time.
He doesn't make decisions the way we are used to seeing politicians make decisions.
Remember, everyone. Keep your eye on the ball here. It is the POLICY that matters. Let's get the policy right, and leave the personality driven crap to the screaming heads on TV, ok?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Things to be thankful for
This story should warm the hearts of all, but as an educator I'm especially pleased:
I have met many talented students in the past few years that I've been teaching at the college level, and Rolle reminds me of them in some ways. Very nice to see. Here's more:
Florida State safety Myron Rolle was awarded a Rhodes scholarship Saturday. He is the first major-college football player of his generation to win what is considered the world’s most prestigious postgraduate academic scholarship.
I have met many talented students in the past few years that I've been teaching at the college level, and Rolle reminds me of them in some ways. Very nice to see. Here's more:
Rolle is in his final football season at Florida State and now faces a difficult decision. He will have to choose between perhaps playing in the N.F.L. next year and studying at Oxford. His planned course of study would be a one-year master’s degree in medical anthropology; he plans to become a doctor and open a clinic to help needy people in the Bahamas. Rolle has said that if he wins the award, he will make a decision with his family when things settle down.
“I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if he heads off to Oxford in October,” Karioth said of Rolle. “He’s really an academic. There aren’t a lot of Renaissance kids out there. He really is.”
Rolle has long stood out at Florida State. He was the country’s top recruit, started as a freshman and has had an all-American-caliber junior year in 2008.
Along with graduating in two and a half years with a 3.75 grade point average in pre-med, Rolle was awarded a $4,000 grant to conduct cancer research and set up a program in Okeechobee, Fla., to teach Seminole Indian children about health and physical fitness.
Elitism
H/t Digby:
In the first two weeks after the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the last eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama’s appearance on CBS’s “Sixty Minutes” last Sunday witnessed the president-elect’s unorthodox verbal tic, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.
But Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it “alienating” to have a president who speaks English as
if it were his first language.“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obsolete terrorists
You think al-Qaeda is worried about Barack Obama? Check out Juan Cole's take on the recent video released by Ayman al-Zawahiri, in which he supposedly refers to Barack as a "house Negro" who betrays the legacy of Malcolm X:
It is absolutely clear toward the end of the video that al-Zawahiri is petrified of Obama's popularity and is very afraid that he will be a game-changer in relations between the Muslim world and the United States. Hence his flailing around talking about house slaves, as though Obama were not (as of Jan. 20) himself the most powerful man in the world, catapulted into his position by nearly half of American whites (who voted for him in higher proportions than they did for Clinton and Kerry).
Al-Zawahiri has seen a lot of Muslim politics, and if he is this afraid of Obama, it is a sign that the new president has enormous potential to deploy soft power against al-Qaeda, and al-Zawahiri is running scared, trying to pretend it is still the 1960s, when it just isn't.
Obama has the opportunity to be the most popular US president in the Middle East since Eisenhower. If he is wise, he will defeat al-Zawahiri not just by military means but by stealing away al-Zawahiri's own intended constituency. Obama is about building communities up; al-Zawahiri is about destroying them. If Obama can convince the Arab publics of this basic fact, he will win.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Poseur Alert...Have Brown Bag Handy
Today's Winner is Mark Halperin, who spoke of "extreme pro-Obama media bias" in this year's election coverage at a recent journalism conference at USC. See below:
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election. "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."
McCain ran a shallow, dishonest, content-free campaign filled with little more than indefensible attacks on his opponent and paeans to a guy not named Joe who wasn't really a plumber. What the hell kind of coverage should he get?
Take one example: When the McCain campaign decided that Obama's use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to describe McCain's economic plans was actually a sexist insult directed at Sarah Palin. This was complete bullshit, and every single member of the political and media classes knew it. They knew it was a lie, and they knew that the entire McCain campaign knew it was a lie. Yet they covered it as though it was a legitimate point of view for the McCain campaign to take! We were treated to a few DAYS of "lipstick on a pig" and the McCain demand for Obama to apologize.
Here is what one skeptical journalist had to say about it on September 9th on CNN:
"It is a low point in the day ... and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. Stop the madness. I mean, this is, I think -- with all due respect to the program's focus on this and to what [CNN senior political analyst] David [Gergen] just said -- I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears. They know exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign, in the sense that, every day, they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them, because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more."
Who was that journalist? Drum roll...yeah, you guessed it...Mark Halperin! Quite the media critic, ain't he?
Thus, we see that Halperin is actually a poseur...a superficial contrarian who jumps to whatever side makes him stand apart.
Media has many biases. Partisanship is one of the least common.
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election. "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."
McCain ran a shallow, dishonest, content-free campaign filled with little more than indefensible attacks on his opponent and paeans to a guy not named Joe who wasn't really a plumber. What the hell kind of coverage should he get?
Take one example: When the McCain campaign decided that Obama's use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to describe McCain's economic plans was actually a sexist insult directed at Sarah Palin. This was complete bullshit, and every single member of the political and media classes knew it. They knew it was a lie, and they knew that the entire McCain campaign knew it was a lie. Yet they covered it as though it was a legitimate point of view for the McCain campaign to take! We were treated to a few DAYS of "lipstick on a pig" and the McCain demand for Obama to apologize.
Here is what one skeptical journalist had to say about it on September 9th on CNN:
"It is a low point in the day ... and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. Stop the madness. I mean, this is, I think -- with all due respect to the program's focus on this and to what [CNN senior political analyst] David [Gergen] just said -- I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears. They know exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign, in the sense that, every day, they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them, because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more."
Who was that journalist? Drum roll...yeah, you guessed it...Mark Halperin! Quite the media critic, ain't he?
Thus, we see that Halperin is actually a poseur...a superficial contrarian who jumps to whatever side makes him stand apart.
Media has many biases. Partisanship is one of the least common.
Looking to 2010 in NC
brownsox from Dailykos has a good summation of the coming 2010 Senate race here in my home state.
To his credit, Richard Burr has positioned himself as well as a conservative can these days. He is a well-respected, hard working guy with a first-rate constituent services office. He also spends a good deal of time in NC at local community events and meeting with key leaders. We all saw how effectively the Hagan campaign was able to jab Liddy Dole for how little time and attention NC got from her. Not so with Burr. In addition, while a social conservative, Burr isn't a bomb thrower, and as a result, his cultural conservatism doesn't hurt him here.
No, the shape of this race will depend more on how the Obama administration performs, and how Burr responds to Obama's initiatives. If Obama performs well and the economy is beginning to turn, and most importantly, if Burr has opposed key Obama initiatives, then he is in serious jeopardy. That's the tricky part for Burr now. He is a conservative in an increasingly moderate state, and he is sure to face some difficult votes in the coming Congress. If he moves leftward and is able to attach himself to some bi-partisan Obama achievements, then he is less vulnerable. If he is seen as obstructing highly popular Obama proposals on issues like health care, energy, taxes, and infrastructure spending, then he'll be in real trouble.
Of all the Democrats who are expressing interest in this race (and there are a great deal, as brownsox points out, in light of Hagan and Obama's victories here), Roy Cooper is the most widely popular one, so I'd give him a slight edge going in, but it's a long way from here to there.
This is a seat to watch. Burr's positioning in the 2009 Congress will be watched fiercely by the Democrats here, and as he accumulates "no" votes, he'll get hammered up and down the state.
To his credit, Richard Burr has positioned himself as well as a conservative can these days. He is a well-respected, hard working guy with a first-rate constituent services office. He also spends a good deal of time in NC at local community events and meeting with key leaders. We all saw how effectively the Hagan campaign was able to jab Liddy Dole for how little time and attention NC got from her. Not so with Burr. In addition, while a social conservative, Burr isn't a bomb thrower, and as a result, his cultural conservatism doesn't hurt him here.
No, the shape of this race will depend more on how the Obama administration performs, and how Burr responds to Obama's initiatives. If Obama performs well and the economy is beginning to turn, and most importantly, if Burr has opposed key Obama initiatives, then he is in serious jeopardy. That's the tricky part for Burr now. He is a conservative in an increasingly moderate state, and he is sure to face some difficult votes in the coming Congress. If he moves leftward and is able to attach himself to some bi-partisan Obama achievements, then he is less vulnerable. If he is seen as obstructing highly popular Obama proposals on issues like health care, energy, taxes, and infrastructure spending, then he'll be in real trouble.
Of all the Democrats who are expressing interest in this race (and there are a great deal, as brownsox points out, in light of Hagan and Obama's victories here), Roy Cooper is the most widely popular one, so I'd give him a slight edge going in, but it's a long way from here to there.
This is a seat to watch. Burr's positioning in the 2009 Congress will be watched fiercely by the Democrats here, and as he accumulates "no" votes, he'll get hammered up and down the state.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Reports of Republicans in Decline are Exaggerated
The Economist has published an opinion that passes for a pretty broad swath of the emerging CW on the state of the Republican Party:
"The Republican party lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans..."
"Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party's loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda."
I like the criticism of their anti-intellectualism, but I also think that in its zeal to point out contemporary Republican shortcomings, it puts too kind a sheen on what the R's were doing in the 1980s. I would postulate that the last two election cycles are a matter of simple evolution. OK, so Bush is an idiot. But he's an idiot operating within the same damn firmament that Reagan and Bush 41 operated in. Some of Bush's failures are in fact the result of him being stoooopid (Katrina, for example). But most of the failure is a failure of conservatism as a governing philosophy, because most of what Bush did was straight out of the long-standing conservative playbook, only with Congressional majorities, and therefore a more potent version of the same conservative philosophy.
Conservatism's heyday was really enabled NOT by some high-minded, intellectually rigorous, philosophical triumph. Rather, it was the result of the southern strategy, the disastrous Carter administration and the easily attacked, bloated welfare state. In other words, conservatism never sold itself successfully. It just successfully attacked what was then taken as liberalism, thereby establishing the filter through which we have seen our politics for nearly 30 years. Has conservatism really ossified, or has its weaponry been neutralized by a liberalism that has adapted to its own political weaknesses? Obama seems to me to be the embodiment of liberalism with antibodies. How? Because the attack machine doesn't work on him.
The appeal of Republicanism is negativity--ridicule, scandal, investigation, character attacks, religious divisiveness, and anti-intellectualism. For a party that likes to deride liberals as overly emotional wussies, their appeals are entirely emotional, and based on winning elections by making the Democrat completely unacceptable in character. Democrats have a natural advantage on almost every issue (see my poll results table from a few days ago), but Republican character attacks are specifically designed to prevent the Democrat from ever really being heard.
That has been the Republican formula for victory since the 1960s, and in that sense, they have not changed one bit, whether they have won or lost. Republicanism is not aspirational, it is deconstructive. They couldn't break down Obama, so they lost. They broke down Kerry and Gore, so they won. They couldn't break down Clinton, so they lost. The difference with Clinton and Obama though, is their method of inoculating themselves against the Republican attack machine. Clinton neutralized them through triangulation and sometimes even capitulation. He surrendered the premises of Republican attacks and allowed them to frame American politics. He became the most skilled operator within a Republicanized landscape, which enabled him to win. Obama inoculated himself very differently. He challenged the entire framework of our politics, in his person, his approach to politics, and most importantly, his actual policies. He refused to "make a big election about small things", thus challenging the entire Republican narrative of the past 40 years. They couldn't break him down, so they lost. They couldn't deconstruct him and caricature him, so they lost. It wasn't the economy, it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't even Palin. These things only served to make people a little more willing to listen to Obama. But the win/lose is determined by whether the Republican succeeds in destroying the Democratic candidate's character. Every presidential election turns on that. Most state elections turn on that too.
That's the true barometer here. And that is why, if Obama governs successfully, this really could be realigning. The negativity stuff is weakened most by political and policy achievement. How will character attacks work if the Democrats are delivering real results? The question answers itself. They won't.
However, if the Democrats blow the enormous opportunity now in front of them, Republican attacks will be fierce, relentless, and highly potent, and we'll be right back in the mid-1990s. We'll hear about how liberals can't govern, that they can't protect the country, just want to tax and spend, and have failed to address the economy properly because they are latte-swilling effete snobs in Birkenstocks. It is maddeningly effective when it works.
But the real Change We Can Believe In is NOT about cabinet appointments. It's not about Joe Lieberman. It's not about the whole Clinton soap opera that we are unfortunately being treated to right now. It's about governing successfully over the next two years. There can be no disarray, no pettiness, no turf wars, none of the usual bullshit that Democrats get caught up in, as they did in 1993-1994. If Democrats are successful for the next two years, they will break the Republican Party as it currently exists, which will force the real conservatives to become far more intellectually rigorous and honest, and will split them from the paranoid Christian Righties and anti-government types, who will become electoral poison. If the Democrats are not successful, then Obama's historical importance becomes more symbolic and less substantive, and then we are right back in 1994.
I'll say it again. Super Bowl time, guys.
"The Republican party lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans..."
"Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party's loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda."
I like the criticism of their anti-intellectualism, but I also think that in its zeal to point out contemporary Republican shortcomings, it puts too kind a sheen on what the R's were doing in the 1980s. I would postulate that the last two election cycles are a matter of simple evolution. OK, so Bush is an idiot. But he's an idiot operating within the same damn firmament that Reagan and Bush 41 operated in. Some of Bush's failures are in fact the result of him being stoooopid (Katrina, for example). But most of the failure is a failure of conservatism as a governing philosophy, because most of what Bush did was straight out of the long-standing conservative playbook, only with Congressional majorities, and therefore a more potent version of the same conservative philosophy.
Conservatism's heyday was really enabled NOT by some high-minded, intellectually rigorous, philosophical triumph. Rather, it was the result of the southern strategy, the disastrous Carter administration and the easily attacked, bloated welfare state. In other words, conservatism never sold itself successfully. It just successfully attacked what was then taken as liberalism, thereby establishing the filter through which we have seen our politics for nearly 30 years. Has conservatism really ossified, or has its weaponry been neutralized by a liberalism that has adapted to its own political weaknesses? Obama seems to me to be the embodiment of liberalism with antibodies. How? Because the attack machine doesn't work on him.
The appeal of Republicanism is negativity--ridicule, scandal, investigation, character attacks, religious divisiveness, and anti-intellectualism. For a party that likes to deride liberals as overly emotional wussies, their appeals are entirely emotional, and based on winning elections by making the Democrat completely unacceptable in character. Democrats have a natural advantage on almost every issue (see my poll results table from a few days ago), but Republican character attacks are specifically designed to prevent the Democrat from ever really being heard.
That has been the Republican formula for victory since the 1960s, and in that sense, they have not changed one bit, whether they have won or lost. Republicanism is not aspirational, it is deconstructive. They couldn't break down Obama, so they lost. They broke down Kerry and Gore, so they won. They couldn't break down Clinton, so they lost. The difference with Clinton and Obama though, is their method of inoculating themselves against the Republican attack machine. Clinton neutralized them through triangulation and sometimes even capitulation. He surrendered the premises of Republican attacks and allowed them to frame American politics. He became the most skilled operator within a Republicanized landscape, which enabled him to win. Obama inoculated himself very differently. He challenged the entire framework of our politics, in his person, his approach to politics, and most importantly, his actual policies. He refused to "make a big election about small things", thus challenging the entire Republican narrative of the past 40 years. They couldn't break him down, so they lost. They couldn't deconstruct him and caricature him, so they lost. It wasn't the economy, it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't even Palin. These things only served to make people a little more willing to listen to Obama. But the win/lose is determined by whether the Republican succeeds in destroying the Democratic candidate's character. Every presidential election turns on that. Most state elections turn on that too.
That's the true barometer here. And that is why, if Obama governs successfully, this really could be realigning. The negativity stuff is weakened most by political and policy achievement. How will character attacks work if the Democrats are delivering real results? The question answers itself. They won't.
However, if the Democrats blow the enormous opportunity now in front of them, Republican attacks will be fierce, relentless, and highly potent, and we'll be right back in the mid-1990s. We'll hear about how liberals can't govern, that they can't protect the country, just want to tax and spend, and have failed to address the economy properly because they are latte-swilling effete snobs in Birkenstocks. It is maddeningly effective when it works.
But the real Change We Can Believe In is NOT about cabinet appointments. It's not about Joe Lieberman. It's not about the whole Clinton soap opera that we are unfortunately being treated to right now. It's about governing successfully over the next two years. There can be no disarray, no pettiness, no turf wars, none of the usual bullshit that Democrats get caught up in, as they did in 1993-1994. If Democrats are successful for the next two years, they will break the Republican Party as it currently exists, which will force the real conservatives to become far more intellectually rigorous and honest, and will split them from the paranoid Christian Righties and anti-government types, who will become electoral poison. If the Democrats are not successful, then Obama's historical importance becomes more symbolic and less substantive, and then we are right back in 1994.
I'll say it again. Super Bowl time, guys.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Stan Lee, National Treasure
Apparently Stan Lee has been awarded the National Medal of Arts and the National Humanities Medal today.
The WaPo describes Lee as "co-creator" of most of Marvel Comics' best-known superheroes, which papers over his controversial image in the special world of comics' fandom. It must be killing the families of Steve Ditko (Spider-Man, Dr. Strange) and Jack Kirby (Captain America, Fantastic Four, Hulk, X-Men) to read this headline.
I met Stan Lee once, when I was about 10 years old, at a comic convention in New York City. All I recall is that Stan talked just like his comic book characters; he exhorted us "true believers" and "merry Marvelites" in line for his autograph, and seemed to wear a permanent smile... much like the one in the photo above. Man, it must be great to be that happy all the time!
Safe Haven
This disturbing story has received alot of play lately:
The mistake, said a Nebraska official this morning, is that they failed to define "child" precisely enough. The legislature had intended to limit dropoffs to newborns to prevent young mothers from abandoning their kids. Apparently pre-teens and teenagers don't qualify as "children" under the intended Nebraska definition.
What should we make of this strange and disturbing episode?
If parents truly are abandoning their kids (some even flying them in from out of state!) in Nebraska not out of financial need but for their own convenience, it seems like one of the more damaging indictments of our current culture. Here are a couple of gut-level observations:
1. Parenthood. We encourage parenthood without any sense of long-term commitment. Parenting is to a great extent sacrifice, from infancy on up. Too many people are in love with the idea of being a parent but have no use for the daily grind that kids present. It is easy to vent our collective outrage at the appalling choices of individual parents, as we're seeing in the Nebraska case, but we have to examine a society that offers too few supports for parents, that mindlessly celebrates parenthood for even the most obviously unfit parents, and that sets up teenagers in particular for failure.
2. Teenagers. We offer them the worst possible role models in our dumbass money culture, which actually celebrates ignorance, laziness, and hostility to any and all adult authority (regardless of how its constituted, so legitimate and illegitimate authority figures blur together). Moreover, when parents act in petty and selfish ways, as they often do when their kids inconvenience them, kids pick up on that and it becomes legitimate to them. "Fuck you, it's all about me" is too often a default response for parents and their teenage kids alike. "I should get my way even if I haven't earned it" likewise.
3. Childhood Protection. In many areas of our public life, we have defined downward the age line between childhood vulnerability and adult responsibility. Child offenders are tried as adults more often than at any time in the past 100 years (see the recent story about the 8-year-old who shot his dad who is about to be tried in adult court). In our culture, to paraphrase one scholar, kids "know what we know about sex and violence" at a much earlier age than they really should. Then we turn around and penalize them for acting on that knowledge in immature and dangerous ways.
I dearly wish this Nebraska story would prompt more critical analysis in the media of the underlying reasons why so many parents are so eager to dump their kids so callously. There are so many questions simply not even on the table in the public discourse that need to be.
Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday, three fathers walked into two
hospitals in Omaha and abandoned their children. One left nine siblings, ages 1
to 17.
The men, unless proven to have abused the kids, won't face prosecution
under a new Nebraska law that is unique in the nation. The law allows parents to
leave a child at a licensed hospital without explaining why.
Other parents have also used the law to leave their children. Last
week, a 13-year-old girl was left. The week before that, two boys ages 11 and
15. In all, fathers, mothers and caregivers in six families — some single
parents — have bailed on 14 kids, including seven teens, since the law took
effect in July.
"They were tired of their parenting role," says Todd Landry of
Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services.
The mistake, said a Nebraska official this morning, is that they failed to define "child" precisely enough. The legislature had intended to limit dropoffs to newborns to prevent young mothers from abandoning their kids. Apparently pre-teens and teenagers don't qualify as "children" under the intended Nebraska definition.
What should we make of this strange and disturbing episode?
If parents truly are abandoning their kids (some even flying them in from out of state!) in Nebraska not out of financial need but for their own convenience, it seems like one of the more damaging indictments of our current culture. Here are a couple of gut-level observations:
1. Parenthood. We encourage parenthood without any sense of long-term commitment. Parenting is to a great extent sacrifice, from infancy on up. Too many people are in love with the idea of being a parent but have no use for the daily grind that kids present. It is easy to vent our collective outrage at the appalling choices of individual parents, as we're seeing in the Nebraska case, but we have to examine a society that offers too few supports for parents, that mindlessly celebrates parenthood for even the most obviously unfit parents, and that sets up teenagers in particular for failure.
2. Teenagers. We offer them the worst possible role models in our dumbass money culture, which actually celebrates ignorance, laziness, and hostility to any and all adult authority (regardless of how its constituted, so legitimate and illegitimate authority figures blur together). Moreover, when parents act in petty and selfish ways, as they often do when their kids inconvenience them, kids pick up on that and it becomes legitimate to them. "Fuck you, it's all about me" is too often a default response for parents and their teenage kids alike. "I should get my way even if I haven't earned it" likewise.
3. Childhood Protection. In many areas of our public life, we have defined downward the age line between childhood vulnerability and adult responsibility. Child offenders are tried as adults more often than at any time in the past 100 years (see the recent story about the 8-year-old who shot his dad who is about to be tried in adult court). In our culture, to paraphrase one scholar, kids "know what we know about sex and violence" at a much earlier age than they really should. Then we turn around and penalize them for acting on that knowledge in immature and dangerous ways.
I dearly wish this Nebraska story would prompt more critical analysis in the media of the underlying reasons why so many parents are so eager to dump their kids so callously. There are so many questions simply not even on the table in the public discourse that need to be.
Really Real Housewives?
The other night I was more or less "forced" to watch a couple of episodes of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta" on Bravo. Really, this has to be one of the worst shows ever.
The obvious reasons are its crass, almost ironically so, materialism, and celebration of idle wealth. But really, is this the only way women can attain wealth in our society? By blowing wealthy men really well, be they athletes or corporate tycoons or second-generation trust fund babies? The show reveals women who lead incredibly empty lives, filled with aimless driving of SUVs, endless gossping on walkie phones, and gaudy social gestures that seem deep and meaningful within their bubble but appear as unbelievably superficial and shallow to anyone who lives on Earth.
The most hilarious storyline on the show had to be a divorcee, Sherie, who attempts, pathetically, to launch a fashion line in Atlanta. It turns out her ex-husband was Bob Whitfield, the All-Pro offensive tackle for the Falcons, and one of the best linemen in recent NFL history.
The whole thing is supposed to be a show of her independence: she's doing her own fashion thing all by herself (but with his money). She's "worked really hard on it" (even though she didn't draw the designs, or sew the dresses, or actually do anything other than make lots of phone calls, bitch at people, hire unnecessary seeming staff assistants, and ogle male models who competed for the humiliation of standing around in underwear painted with her moronic "She" logo).
In a fitting turn of events, Sherie's shit gets all messed up. The day of an event she had scheduled at a hip gallery to show her line, her dresses arrived at her home mangled, poorly sewed, and unfit for public exhibition. So she had a show anyway, complete with media and hipsters in attendance, but with no dresses - just half-naked guys in fashion paint and blown-up sketches of her dresses (which she herself hadn't even drawn).
In other words, there was literally no there there. A fashion show with no clothes - an appropriately postmodern tribute to the women on this inane show. And it doesn't really matter if they're not like this in real life - this is how they and the producers choose to portray them.
Thorstein Veblen's head would explode if he had to watch these fucking shows. He thought New York's nouveau riche circa 1900 flaunted its wealth excessively by holding costume balls in faux Versailles palaces, or dining on tables made of gold, while thousands starved mere blocks away.
Were the Vanderbilts or the Rockefellers or the Carnegies as stupid and self-absorbed as the idle rich portrayed in the "Real Housewives" series? At least they started meaningful philanthropies and didn't invade people's living rooms every week.
Would that Bravo would do a "Real Real Housewives" show set in Flint, or any inner-city housing project, or some rural backwater in Louisiana or something. As my wife pointed out, it might be the same thing - women who aren't working with lots of time on their hands and wildly inflated delusions of grandeur.
Hole in the floor
Watched Obama's interview on 60 Minutes tonight. His answer on the proposed auto industry bailout was spot-on.
Michelle said when they first started dating his car had a hole in the bottom, and she could see the road thru it when they drove. This reminded me of something that happened to me right around the time, probably, that Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama were first tooling around Chicago in that old hooptie of Barack's.
One night in 1991, I drove a VW van with a gaping hole in the floor from Houston to New Orleans overnight in freezing weather. We had just seen Nirvana (this was right before "Nevermind" blew up). We road-tripped to a venue in Houston just to see the show and then drive back home, a solid 6-hour drive each way.
I was really tired and afraid that I'd fall asleep at the wheel, especially with nobody to talk to. Everyone else went right to sleep. My friend Terry rode shotgun and promised he'd keep me awake.
About 10 minutes after I got on the highway I turned to say something to him and he was out cold. I reached out and slapped him but nothing. Thanks, dude!
The only thing that kept me from passing out and killing us all the whole way home was the cold breeze on my feet from that damn hole in the floor!
Guess there's no sense of Presidential-level destiny from that story, but I thought of it nevertheless...
Michelle said when they first started dating his car had a hole in the bottom, and she could see the road thru it when they drove. This reminded me of something that happened to me right around the time, probably, that Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama were first tooling around Chicago in that old hooptie of Barack's.
One night in 1991, I drove a VW van with a gaping hole in the floor from Houston to New Orleans overnight in freezing weather. We had just seen Nirvana (this was right before "Nevermind" blew up). We road-tripped to a venue in Houston just to see the show and then drive back home, a solid 6-hour drive each way.
I was really tired and afraid that I'd fall asleep at the wheel, especially with nobody to talk to. Everyone else went right to sleep. My friend Terry rode shotgun and promised he'd keep me awake.
About 10 minutes after I got on the highway I turned to say something to him and he was out cold. I reached out and slapped him but nothing. Thanks, dude!
The only thing that kept me from passing out and killing us all the whole way home was the cold breeze on my feet from that damn hole in the floor!
Guess there's no sense of Presidential-level destiny from that story, but I thought of it nevertheless...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
“Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized it.” – Karl Rove, November 2008
“Drawing on Obama's own record and statements, they need to paint him as a big spender, class warrior and cultural elitist; they need to say he's never worked across party lines or gotten his hands dirty solving big issues.” -- Karl Rove, October 2008
My definition of "center right" -- a shorthand device used by elite opinion makers to express the intellectually lazy consensus that has undergirded American politics for the past 30 years. Since 1972, there has really been only one president--Ronald Reagan. The rest of contemporary presidential history is interpreted in relation to that presidency. Clinton never challenged Reaganism much, except from a defensive, "triangulating" posture. Fear of the political commentariat does not equal American public opinion.
Just for fun, here's some recent polling data from our center-right electorate. At least the righties still have gay marriage as a tie vote. One might say they cling to it bitterly. : )
Doc 1
“Drawing on Obama's own record and statements, they need to paint him as a big spender, class warrior and cultural elitist; they need to say he's never worked across party lines or gotten his hands dirty solving big issues.” -- Karl Rove, October 2008
My definition of "center right" -- a shorthand device used by elite opinion makers to express the intellectually lazy consensus that has undergirded American politics for the past 30 years. Since 1972, there has really been only one president--Ronald Reagan. The rest of contemporary presidential history is interpreted in relation to that presidency. Clinton never challenged Reaganism much, except from a defensive, "triangulating" posture. Fear of the political commentariat does not equal American public opinion.
Just for fun, here's some recent polling data from our center-right electorate. At least the righties still have gay marriage as a tie vote. One might say they cling to it bitterly. : )
Doc 1
Get your own at Scribd or explore others:
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Hillary for Secretary of State?
A stunning move, if true. Josh Marshall is confused. Sullivan seems to think it's brilliant. Others don't even think it's real. I'm thrown for a loop by it, honestly. I think I share in Josh's confusion. My concerns beyond that are more basic. For a guy who thrives on "No Drama", and wants competence and focus, and campaigned on getting beyond the petty fights of the 1990s as well as the Bush years, why bring the very personification of those "petty fights" directly into your inner circle? Some have put forward the idea that this neutralizes her by getting her out of domestic policy debates and out of party politics, since Sec of State is supposed to be an "above the fray" position. I don't see this. I don't see what he has to fear from her in the Senate. There isn't much for them to tangle over, really, since Hillary basically agrees with every major policy position Obama holds. She has to take yes for an answer. If the rumors are true, then is this the act of a self-confident guy acting in the "Team of Rivals" mold that he has often espoused, or is he actually worried about her and acting from a defensive posture? I find the former possible (if a bit odd), and the latter hard to believe.
What Matters
The following are some media narratives currently being driven, ALL of which we should be paying ZERO attention:
1. Speculation about cabinet positions. We'll know when we know. No Drama Obama tends to land in a good place. Just chill. (OK, I had a bit of a freakout at the thought of John Kerry at State...guilty as charged)
2. Sarah Palin. This chick was yesterday before, during, and after the campaign. She is taken seriously by men who want to have sex with her. Period. And some of them don't even take her seriously.
3. Joe Lieberman. Small potatoes. Or, in his case, small latkes. : ) I mean really, what the hell difference does it make where he lands? What Lieberman cares about most is preserving his own sanctimonious self-image, which is something you can't do when you have no friends and are a sure bet to be defeated for re-election. So, his options are pretty limited--kiss Obama's ring or be marginalized. The Meshugenah in Winter.
4. The Republicans. They are less relevant than they've ever been in my lifetime. Here is a challenge. Name one of the following: (a) a leader of the Republican Party; or (b) a probable 2012 presidential candidate who could plausibly win. These guys are in such sorry shape that they almost put the Democrats to shame. Almost.
No, what matters now is purely and simply this: what the Democrats do after January 20. Democrats have been given a more significant mandate, with larger Congressional majorities, and a more focused, engaged public, than they are likely to see for a long time. This convergence has enormous potential. They will either seize this opportunity, enact MAJOR legislation around big issues like health care, energy, market regulation, and taxation, or they will show themselves unfit to be a governing majority. It's not just the majorities they have, it's also the very full plate of issues they face, and the status of the Republicans as a discredited brand. It is virtually impossible to overstate the magnitude of the opportunity, and alas, the risk, of the environment that the Democrats will operate in next year.
In foreign affairs, what will Obama do? Will he get us out of Iraq? Will he go after al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Will he close Gitmo? Will he restore habeas corpus? Will he end torture? Will he strengthen our alliances? These are BIG tasks.
The Obama presidency is already a tremendously powerful symbol of the possible. It can also be one of the most consequential in American history in policy. POLICY is the key output of this administration. What policy changes do we really make?
THAT...is "what matters". The rest is fluff.
This is it, guys. Super Bowl time.
1. Speculation about cabinet positions. We'll know when we know. No Drama Obama tends to land in a good place. Just chill. (OK, I had a bit of a freakout at the thought of John Kerry at State...guilty as charged)
2. Sarah Palin. This chick was yesterday before, during, and after the campaign. She is taken seriously by men who want to have sex with her. Period. And some of them don't even take her seriously.
3. Joe Lieberman. Small potatoes. Or, in his case, small latkes. : ) I mean really, what the hell difference does it make where he lands? What Lieberman cares about most is preserving his own sanctimonious self-image, which is something you can't do when you have no friends and are a sure bet to be defeated for re-election. So, his options are pretty limited--kiss Obama's ring or be marginalized. The Meshugenah in Winter.
4. The Republicans. They are less relevant than they've ever been in my lifetime. Here is a challenge. Name one of the following: (a) a leader of the Republican Party; or (b) a probable 2012 presidential candidate who could plausibly win. These guys are in such sorry shape that they almost put the Democrats to shame. Almost.
No, what matters now is purely and simply this: what the Democrats do after January 20. Democrats have been given a more significant mandate, with larger Congressional majorities, and a more focused, engaged public, than they are likely to see for a long time. This convergence has enormous potential. They will either seize this opportunity, enact MAJOR legislation around big issues like health care, energy, market regulation, and taxation, or they will show themselves unfit to be a governing majority. It's not just the majorities they have, it's also the very full plate of issues they face, and the status of the Republicans as a discredited brand. It is virtually impossible to overstate the magnitude of the opportunity, and alas, the risk, of the environment that the Democrats will operate in next year.
In foreign affairs, what will Obama do? Will he get us out of Iraq? Will he go after al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Will he close Gitmo? Will he restore habeas corpus? Will he end torture? Will he strengthen our alliances? These are BIG tasks.
The Obama presidency is already a tremendously powerful symbol of the possible. It can also be one of the most consequential in American history in policy. POLICY is the key output of this administration. What policy changes do we really make?
THAT...is "what matters". The rest is fluff.
This is it, guys. Super Bowl time.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
After-Dinner Democrats
Like many others, I've been watching the Dems struggle over what to do with Joe Liebermann. Last night I thought Evan Bayh, on the excellent Rachel Maddow show, gave the clearest explanation of where negotiations stand at the moment.
He warned that if the Dems stripped L of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, in retaliation for L's disgusting actions against President-elect Obama, that L might become "embittered" and bolt to the Republicans, or even might retire, allowing Connecticut's Republican governor to appoint an even more right-wing successor.
Digby, whom I respect a lot, thinks this shows Bayh's spinelessness:
This reminds me of a phrase coined privately by your friendly Burning Bush bloggers a few years ago: the "After-Dinner Democrat."
During the Clinton years, there was a certain brand of "moderate" Democrat who liked to describe self as a "fiscal conservative who was liberal on social issues." This was the type of Dem who was happy to listen to constituents pressing issues like wage stagnation, the war on drugs, or health care reform, only after their latest black-tie dinner with corporate lobbyists. "After dinner."
Lieberman and Bayh both fell into this camp, so it's not surprising to see Bayh waffling now. Poll-tested, wussified, After-Dinner Dems aren't really about anything anyway.
But Bayh is probably speaking from some inside knowledge of the behind the scenes negotiations going on right now about L's chairmanship. My reading of it was that L has actually threatened to retire or screw the Dems in some blatant way in the Senate. And that the Dems have told him he must issue a heartfelt public apology to Obama, and behave from here on out, to keep his chair. Bayh repeated several times last night that the Dems could remove L at any time from his spot.
So here's my take: at this point L is the ultimate lame duck. CT voters, both R and D, hate his guts. He has no chance of being re-elected in 2012. Thus he has become a useful idiot, first for McCain and Bush, and now potentially for Reid and Obama. Everyone knows this. The Dems are playing a major realpolitik game here, chancing that looking like punks right now will pay off down the road in close votes.
The Dems think they get L: even though he's an ideologue on foreign policy, L's own political career is more important. If he thinks he can advance himself, he might be cornered into doing the right thing for the next few years. This is playing with fire, but it might work.
To be clear: I despise this guy. Every time some pampered pundit uses the word "Democrat" to describe him, I cringe: he isn't a Democrat. He's scum. But if we can use him for something good in the next session, I'll live with it. If it blows up in the Dems' faces, and he embarrasses Obama in some stupid way, or helps torpedo health care, economic, or forpol legislation, I'll be sick.
BB
He warned that if the Dems stripped L of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, in retaliation for L's disgusting actions against President-elect Obama, that L might become "embittered" and bolt to the Republicans, or even might retire, allowing Connecticut's Republican governor to appoint an even more right-wing successor.
Digby, whom I respect a lot, thinks this shows Bayh's spinelessness:
Bayh was just embarrassing. He's going to have to pop a fistful of viagra
and watch some "24" just to persuade himself that his testes are still descended
after that pathetic performance.
This reminds me of a phrase coined privately by your friendly Burning Bush bloggers a few years ago: the "After-Dinner Democrat."
During the Clinton years, there was a certain brand of "moderate" Democrat who liked to describe self as a "fiscal conservative who was liberal on social issues." This was the type of Dem who was happy to listen to constituents pressing issues like wage stagnation, the war on drugs, or health care reform, only after their latest black-tie dinner with corporate lobbyists. "After dinner."
Lieberman and Bayh both fell into this camp, so it's not surprising to see Bayh waffling now. Poll-tested, wussified, After-Dinner Dems aren't really about anything anyway.
But Bayh is probably speaking from some inside knowledge of the behind the scenes negotiations going on right now about L's chairmanship. My reading of it was that L has actually threatened to retire or screw the Dems in some blatant way in the Senate. And that the Dems have told him he must issue a heartfelt public apology to Obama, and behave from here on out, to keep his chair. Bayh repeated several times last night that the Dems could remove L at any time from his spot.
So here's my take: at this point L is the ultimate lame duck. CT voters, both R and D, hate his guts. He has no chance of being re-elected in 2012. Thus he has become a useful idiot, first for McCain and Bush, and now potentially for Reid and Obama. Everyone knows this. The Dems are playing a major realpolitik game here, chancing that looking like punks right now will pay off down the road in close votes.
The Dems think they get L: even though he's an ideologue on foreign policy, L's own political career is more important. If he thinks he can advance himself, he might be cornered into doing the right thing for the next few years. This is playing with fire, but it might work.
To be clear: I despise this guy. Every time some pampered pundit uses the word "Democrat" to describe him, I cringe: he isn't a Democrat. He's scum. But if we can use him for something good in the next session, I'll live with it. If it blows up in the Dems' faces, and he embarrasses Obama in some stupid way, or helps torpedo health care, economic, or forpol legislation, I'll be sick.
BB
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My One and Only Request of Obama
This banner was created by people who supported Kerry in 2004!
Please...no wait, you didn't hear me...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE...
NOT John Kerry as Sec of State.
After everything I've done for you, Mr. President, you owe me that. Just listen to the guy talk, and have mercy on all the foreign leaders who will have to sit with him for hours on end. I'm afraid we'll get attacked by some country that just doesn't want to have to listen to Kerry anymore. Please...how about Ben Stein?
A Veterans Day Message for the GOP
A brilliant post on BobGeiger.com:
Being from a distinctly lower middle-class family in central Nebraska, I grew up in a house where we never wanted for food or shelter, but where there was no money for luxuries and where members of my immediate and extended family had little hope of ever going to college. So I went into the military, got the original G.I. Bill -- yes, I am that old -- and decades later enjoy a healthy standard of living based on getting an incredible education and all the doors that has opened for me.
I gave to my country and my country gave back to me.
And, in purely financial terms, I'm also convinced America has more than recouped my educational costs based on 30 years of much higher wages (and associated revenue from my taxes) than I would ever have realized based on my diploma from a rural Nebraska high school.
So Veterans benefits are earned -- and they matter.
Which is why I get so disgusted whenever I see all the faux military-loving Republicans turning up on Veterans Day with their flowery pronouncements of how much we Vets mean to them when they prove at every turn that they really don’t give a damn about the troops, Veterans or military families.
Of course, Exhibit A is Iraq and the Republican party's steadfast refusal to ever allow our troops to come permanently home to their families and their continued desire to keep them bogged down in a war for nothing. But I mention the G.I. Bill specifically because of the following samples of Republican hypocrisy we see every Veterans Day:
What's the common denominator in this crew? They all were among 22 Republicans who voted against the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, authored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran -- and passed with 75 votes on May 22nd of this year.
Webb's bill brought back the full, post-service educational benefits that I and so many other Veterans have enjoyed. After three years of service, it provides tuition and fees for any in-State public college, a stipend for books and supplies and a housing allowance based on actual housing costs in the area. The benefit is extended to both active-duty troops and members of the National Guard and Reserve who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
An opportunity. A way to better oneself after sacrificing much for the country. And a nation expressing gratitude in a meaningful, tangible way.
President-Elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) both found time in the midst of their frenzied presidential campaigns to vote for it, while John McCain (R-AZ) couldn’t be bothered to even show up to vote on Webb's bill --probably because he wanted to be president and it would have looked bad when he voted against it.
And this instance of the GOP's true anti-Veteran sentiments, came despite the fact that some old-school and fairly conservative Veterans groups like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly supported the legislation.
So why did these patriots who wear their little flag lapel pins and festoon their SUVs with support-the-troops ribbons vote against the new G.I. Bill?
Because they were primarily afraid that, after serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of our military men and women might -- horror of horrors -- actually avail themselves of the benefit they so richly deserve and leave the military. Yes, people like Alexander, Corker, Kyl and Hatch want them to remain in harm's way, not going off on some college campus recovering their lives and bettering themselves.
Here's John Cornyn (R-TX), who also voted against the measure, on the Senate floor in May arguing that point:
"A perverse incentive." Amazing.
But what can you really expect from a Republican Chickenhawk like Cornyn who never served in the military himself but who loves war and considers it a "perverse incentive" to give combat Veterans an opportunity to go to college.
Hillary Clinton said it best on the Senate floor on May 22nd, 2008 when she declared "we often hear wonderful rhetoric in this Chamber in support of our troops and our veterans, but the real test is not the speeches we deliver but whether we deliver on the speeches."
And in that spirit, Senators Alexander, Corker, Kyl and Hatch -- and every other Republican who voted against this important Veterans benefit -- I hope you'll forgive this Vet today when I say that you can take your self-serving, Veterans Day press releases and shove them.
Being from a distinctly lower middle-class family in central Nebraska, I grew up in a house where we never wanted for food or shelter, but where there was no money for luxuries and where members of my immediate and extended family had little hope of ever going to college. So I went into the military, got the original G.I. Bill -- yes, I am that old -- and decades later enjoy a healthy standard of living based on getting an incredible education and all the doors that has opened for me.
I gave to my country and my country gave back to me.
And, in purely financial terms, I'm also convinced America has more than recouped my educational costs based on 30 years of much higher wages (and associated revenue from my taxes) than I would ever have realized based on my diploma from a rural Nebraska high school.
So Veterans benefits are earned -- and they matter.
Which is why I get so disgusted whenever I see all the faux military-loving Republicans turning up on Veterans Day with their flowery pronouncements of how much we Vets mean to them when they prove at every turn that they really don’t give a damn about the troops, Veterans or military families.
Of course, Exhibit A is Iraq and the Republican party's steadfast refusal to ever allow our troops to come permanently home to their families and their continued desire to keep them bogged down in a war for nothing. But I mention the G.I. Bill specifically because of the following samples of Republican hypocrisy we see every Veterans Day:
“On Veterans Day – and every day – we thank the
men and women who have fought to keep us safe and free.” - Senator Lamar
Alexander (R-TN)
"We must remember the great debt that we owe
veterans and members of the armed services who fight to maintain our freedom
around the world. Throughout history, our soldiers have risked their lives to
defend our freedom, and we must not forget their sacrifices." - Senator Jon Kyl
(R-AZ)
“Veterans Day is our opportunity to honor
America’s veterans who have courageously served our country. These brave men and
women have fought to keep our nation free and secure, and we thank them and
their families for their service and sacrifice on our behalf.” - Senator Bob
Corker (R-TN)
"So this day, perhaps more than any other
day, is a time to honor them. We owe them our respect and profound gratitude." -
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
What's the common denominator in this crew? They all were among 22 Republicans who voted against the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, authored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran -- and passed with 75 votes on May 22nd of this year.
Webb's bill brought back the full, post-service educational benefits that I and so many other Veterans have enjoyed. After three years of service, it provides tuition and fees for any in-State public college, a stipend for books and supplies and a housing allowance based on actual housing costs in the area. The benefit is extended to both active-duty troops and members of the National Guard and Reserve who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
An opportunity. A way to better oneself after sacrificing much for the country. And a nation expressing gratitude in a meaningful, tangible way.
President-Elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) both found time in the midst of their frenzied presidential campaigns to vote for it, while John McCain (R-AZ) couldn’t be bothered to even show up to vote on Webb's bill --probably because he wanted to be president and it would have looked bad when he voted against it.
And this instance of the GOP's true anti-Veteran sentiments, came despite the fact that some old-school and fairly conservative Veterans groups like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly supported the legislation.
So why did these patriots who wear their little flag lapel pins and festoon their SUVs with support-the-troops ribbons vote against the new G.I. Bill?
Because they were primarily afraid that, after serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of our military men and women might -- horror of horrors -- actually avail themselves of the benefit they so richly deserve and leave the military. Yes, people like Alexander, Corker, Kyl and Hatch want them to remain in harm's way, not going off on some college campus recovering their lives and bettering themselves.
Here's John Cornyn (R-TX), who also voted against the measure, on the Senate floor in May arguing that point:
"I know it is not his intention, but Senator
Webb's bill actually would encourage people not to reenlist by providing a
perverse incentive to leave early in order to obtain the benefits they would
receive after 3 years of service. We need to make sure we encourage continuation
of service, retention in the military in the best interests of our All-Volunteer
military force."
"A perverse incentive." Amazing.
But what can you really expect from a Republican Chickenhawk like Cornyn who never served in the military himself but who loves war and considers it a "perverse incentive" to give combat Veterans an opportunity to go to college.
Hillary Clinton said it best on the Senate floor on May 22nd, 2008 when she declared "we often hear wonderful rhetoric in this Chamber in support of our troops and our veterans, but the real test is not the speeches we deliver but whether we deliver on the speeches."
And in that spirit, Senators Alexander, Corker, Kyl and Hatch -- and every other Republican who voted against this important Veterans benefit -- I hope you'll forgive this Vet today when I say that you can take your self-serving, Veterans Day press releases and shove them.
Light My Fire
Burning Bush is a collaboration between two brothers, Bill and Eric Bush, who have been emailing each other about politics, culture, and society relentlessly for the past several years. And we're sufficiently impressed with ourselves to start a blog - the online equivalent of the onetime Punk Rock dictum to "Start Your Own Band" and be an active participant rather than a passive spectator in the drama of life.
So here we are. We hope to attract a readership at some point beyond our existing friends and family...
BB
So here we are. We hope to attract a readership at some point beyond our existing friends and family...
BB
McCain Hypocrisy Watch
I'd figured that John McCain's image rehab would be well underway already. I suppose not. See below, and remember that this is who the man is. He is a member of only one party--the McCain Party.
"I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."-- Sen. John McCain, quoted by CNN, on the campaign ads used by Saxby Chambliss (R) against Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) in the 2002 U.S. Senate race.
McCain is now scheduled to campaign for Chambliss in his Georgia run off against Jim Martin (D).
"I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."-- Sen. John McCain, quoted by CNN, on the campaign ads used by Saxby Chambliss (R) against Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) in the 2002 U.S. Senate race.
McCain is now scheduled to campaign for Chambliss in his Georgia run off against Jim Martin (D).
Mahmoud AhMcCainejad?
So much of the post-election aftershocks have been based upon the slack jawed, still-startled American public. And yet, the impact abroad may be more meaningful in some important respects. Some forpol wonks, such as Fareed Zakaria, have said that Obama could be a "transformational figure" who would change the way the world perceives America. And yet there isn't much meat on the bones of this argument. How exactly would Obama's election increase American influence or at least get disaffected countries to look upon us anew? Well, apparently, the Iranian hardliners are concerned. America under the outright buffoonery of ol' Dubya was more than comic relief for them. It was the propaganda gift that kept on giving, as vast as their seemingly endless oil reserves. Obama's multicultural appeal, and obvious and direct repudiation of Bush, creates great risks for the Machiavells of oil country. Let us hope, for all our sakes, that Iranian character attacks are just as ineffective as those of the Republican Party. I can't wait until the Iranians bring up Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright! Oh wait, that could have the perverse impact of improving Obama's popularity in Iran! : - P
Analysis: Iran's hard-liners try to tarnish Obama's image
Nov. 9, 2008
MEIR JAVEDANFAR , THE JERUSALEM POST
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has great admiration for his own fortune-telling capabilities. For years, he has been making all kinds of predictions. Among his most famous are the destruction of Israel and the end of the "US empire."
In March 2008, he made another prediction. "They would not allow Obama to become the US president," the Iranian president declared confidently in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
This new failure in his clairvoyance has probably disappointed the president.
Nevertheless, he took the time to congratulate the man he thought would never become US president by saying, "Teheran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts."
He added what is obviously his idea of helpful advice: "I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem."
Despite this message, the conservative hard-line camp in Iran is worried about the overwhelming enthusiasm and support for the US that Obama's election has created around the world. A popular American president who talks about peace and wants to negotiate with Iran would take away their justification for leading the anti-American front in the Middle East. Furthermore, increased international support and credibility for the United States represents a more serious challenge to Iran, especially if the international community initiates new sanctions against Teheran. All this while oil prices are falling.
This is why efforts are already efforts under way in the Iranian press to tarnish Obama's image.
"A hawk in a dove's outfit" is the way the right-wing newspaper Keyhan described Obama in a front page article the day after his election. The article puts special emphasis on what it calls "Obama's praise of America's actions in Afghanistan and George Bush Sr.'s war in Iraq." It goes on to say, "Obama has never been peace-seeking."
Jomhuriye Eslami, another right-wing newspaper, has gone a step further. It headlined an editorial, "That Black Man Will Never Change US Policy." It went on to say that despite Obama's victory, US policy will remain the same because of "the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists."
In other words, Obama's victory won't change the fact that, to Iran's leadership, America remains a racist state controlled by Israel.
More important to note is that the leading protagonist in the media assault against Obama seems to be Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Keyhan and Jomhuriye Eslami are the two newspapers closest to him. This is a strong indication of how worried Iran's leadership is.
However, not all parties and individuals in Iran see Obama as a threat. The reformists take a very different view, as indicated by Ebrahim Yazdi, the secretary-general of the Freedom Movement of Iran. He sees Obama's election as an opportunity.
In an interview with the Teheran-based IR Diplomacy publication, Yazdi called on Iran's foreign policy establishment to declare openly that "Iran is prepared to negotiate unconditionally with America over issues such as current disputes in the Middle East, and bilateral differences... If the government of Iran undertakes such an initiative, it would be positive for relations between Teheran and Washington, and the international community as a whole."
Even moderate conservatives in Iran seem to be willing to give Obama a chance. Tabnak news, a leading moderate conservative news agency, published a piece which quoted a US soldier telling CNN that Obama is "an angel rescuing [America] from hell."
Obama's election has even been used for satirical purposes. In one spoof report by Shahab News, which is close to Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, it was reported that former Iranian presidential candidate Ayatollah Mehdi Karrubi had contacted Obama on the night of the election, telling him "not to sleep a wink."
Karrubi's "suggestion" was based on his own bitter experience. On the night of the Iranian presidential elections of 2005, he was leading Ahmadinejad before he went to sleep. By the time he woke up, Ahmadinejad had beaten him.
Analysis: Iran's hard-liners try to tarnish Obama's image
Nov. 9, 2008
MEIR JAVEDANFAR , THE JERUSALEM POST
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has great admiration for his own fortune-telling capabilities. For years, he has been making all kinds of predictions. Among his most famous are the destruction of Israel and the end of the "US empire."
In March 2008, he made another prediction. "They would not allow Obama to become the US president," the Iranian president declared confidently in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
This new failure in his clairvoyance has probably disappointed the president.
Nevertheless, he took the time to congratulate the man he thought would never become US president by saying, "Teheran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts."
He added what is obviously his idea of helpful advice: "I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem."
Despite this message, the conservative hard-line camp in Iran is worried about the overwhelming enthusiasm and support for the US that Obama's election has created around the world. A popular American president who talks about peace and wants to negotiate with Iran would take away their justification for leading the anti-American front in the Middle East. Furthermore, increased international support and credibility for the United States represents a more serious challenge to Iran, especially if the international community initiates new sanctions against Teheran. All this while oil prices are falling.
This is why efforts are already efforts under way in the Iranian press to tarnish Obama's image.
"A hawk in a dove's outfit" is the way the right-wing newspaper Keyhan described Obama in a front page article the day after his election. The article puts special emphasis on what it calls "Obama's praise of America's actions in Afghanistan and George Bush Sr.'s war in Iraq." It goes on to say, "Obama has never been peace-seeking."
Jomhuriye Eslami, another right-wing newspaper, has gone a step further. It headlined an editorial, "That Black Man Will Never Change US Policy." It went on to say that despite Obama's victory, US policy will remain the same because of "the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists."
In other words, Obama's victory won't change the fact that, to Iran's leadership, America remains a racist state controlled by Israel.
More important to note is that the leading protagonist in the media assault against Obama seems to be Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Keyhan and Jomhuriye Eslami are the two newspapers closest to him. This is a strong indication of how worried Iran's leadership is.
However, not all parties and individuals in Iran see Obama as a threat. The reformists take a very different view, as indicated by Ebrahim Yazdi, the secretary-general of the Freedom Movement of Iran. He sees Obama's election as an opportunity.
In an interview with the Teheran-based IR Diplomacy publication, Yazdi called on Iran's foreign policy establishment to declare openly that "Iran is prepared to negotiate unconditionally with America over issues such as current disputes in the Middle East, and bilateral differences... If the government of Iran undertakes such an initiative, it would be positive for relations between Teheran and Washington, and the international community as a whole."
Even moderate conservatives in Iran seem to be willing to give Obama a chance. Tabnak news, a leading moderate conservative news agency, published a piece which quoted a US soldier telling CNN that Obama is "an angel rescuing [America] from hell."
Obama's election has even been used for satirical purposes. In one spoof report by Shahab News, which is close to Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, it was reported that former Iranian presidential candidate Ayatollah Mehdi Karrubi had contacted Obama on the night of the election, telling him "not to sleep a wink."
Karrubi's "suggestion" was based on his own bitter experience. On the night of the Iranian presidential elections of 2005, he was leading Ahmadinejad before he went to sleep. By the time he woke up, Ahmadinejad had beaten him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)