Hardly a voice of moderation (pun intended), Senator Kyl strikes an uncommon chord: conservatives have to remember they are not in charge.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) warned that conservative Republicans shouldn't expect to get exactly what they want on a compromise in a deficit-reduction and debt-ceiling-increase package. "My Tea Party friends I’m sure appreciate this, but we have to keep reminding ourselves, we don’t control the government. Conservatives are not in charge," Kyl said Friday on Fox News. "And therefore we are not going to get exactly what we want; we have to craft something that leads us in the right direction." Kyl said the question for Republicans is what kind of bill they can entice Democrats to agree to.
Or get the President to cave in to, as they have in other matters.
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Tea Party targets
Orrin Hatch is conservative by almost any measure, but these days that’s not enough to shield him from the right. There’s a credible challenger in the wings and a real possibility that the Utah senator could become the first establishment casualty of the 2012 season. The Tea Party movement first demonstrated its clout last year by knocking off Hatch’s Utah colleague, Bob Bennett. Now the movement’s activists have served notice that they are displeased with several big-name Republican senators. Hatch, like most of them, is cultivating the grassroots, moving rightward, and hoping to fend off a serious primary challenger.
In their quest for ideological purity, the right wing of the Republican party may well doom the party to election losses and pyrrhic victories. Good. Run, Michelle, run.
Others drawing conservative scrutiny and complaints are Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Bob Corker of Tennessee.
Corker? How conservative do they want to be? Corker makes Hatch look moderate. Or, did.
In their quest for ideological purity, the right wing of the Republican party may well doom the party to election losses and pyrrhic victories. Good. Run, Michelle, run.
Others drawing conservative scrutiny and complaints are Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Bob Corker of Tennessee.
Corker? How conservative do they want to be? Corker makes Hatch look moderate. Or, did.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Flip-flop?
I enjoy reading Darrell Delamaid's columns: he is a thoughtful, and thought-provoking writer. I happen to disagree with him about Mitt Romeny, but that might be a prejudiced viewpoint (as I dislike Romney).
The conventional wisdom might be right and Romney may indeed find that taking care of the health of the people in Massachusetts has irreparably damaged his political health. And Romney continues to do his share of pandering to the tea party, but at least he’s showing that he can stick to something.
The extreme right will need pandering to all through the early phases of the campaign, and it will not be long before Romney either tilts further right by flip-flopping, or loses traction and gets walked over by others less reluctant to openly pander and grovel.
The conventional wisdom might be right and Romney may indeed find that taking care of the health of the people in Massachusetts has irreparably damaged his political health. And Romney continues to do his share of pandering to the tea party, but at least he’s showing that he can stick to something.
The extreme right will need pandering to all through the early phases of the campaign, and it will not be long before Romney either tilts further right by flip-flopping, or loses traction and gets walked over by others less reluctant to openly pander and grovel.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Leftie attacks Koch brothers
At the forefront of the movement [to 'out' the Koch Brothers as the bankers of the Tea Party] is the unlikely figure of Hollywood director Robert Greenwald, 65, who brought the world the Olivia Newton-John dance movie Xanadu. Greenwald reinvented himself as a leftwing documentary maker, and has his focus on the Koch brothers. His Brave New Foundation group organised the Lincoln Centre film show.
"The least we can do is ring their doorbell. What they are doing is hurting people's lives. Ideology has consequences."
Their money helped start Americans For Prosperity, a Tea Party-linked organisation that has campaigned vociferously against Barack Obama's healthcare reforms. It admitted helping to organise anti-union moves by the controversial Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, which led to some of the largest protests in recent American history.
The supposed grassroots movement is not that, at all, but an elite-financed political opposition movement aimed at undercutting the working and middle classes for the benefit of the wealthy, ironically using to disaffected working and middle class individuals by appealingto their fears and hates.
The Kochs have also given millions to thinktanks and groups that fight environmental legislation, especially to oppose the scientific consensus on global warming and try to lift regulations on air pollution and potentially dangerous chemicals. They believe in drastically cutting the role of government and slashing benefits such as social security.
And Larry Kudlow and his ilk support the ideology, wrapping it in the mantle of Reaganism, a failed set of political and economic tenets that remain as an ideological lair of the right wing.
The Kochs share the Tea Party view that Obama is a threat to the American way of life. Last week David Koch made a rare comment to a reporter from New York magazine, calling Obama "a hardcore socialist". "He's marvellous at pretending to be something other than that, but that is what I believe he truly is, a hardcore socialist. He's scary to me," he added.
Obama is the same sort of socialist as FDR: a conservative liberal seeking to change capitalism only gradually and in a very limited way, to smooth out a few rough edges.
There is nothing illegal about the Kochs' political activities. Greenwald concedes they have every right to fund whatever organisations they like.
Especially not with the assent of the Roberts Supreme Court.
Some groups have said however that their business practices are sometimes the opposite of their public campaigns. A non-partisan Washington watchdog group, the Centre for Public Integrity, reported last month that Koch Industries' ethanol business enjoys high incomes thanks to government subsidies, despite their disapproval of such policies. Equally, while they oppose a cap-and-trade system in the US to control carbon emissions, the trading arm of Koch Industries makes millions in Europe from such a system.
So much for ideological purity.
"The least we can do is ring their doorbell. What they are doing is hurting people's lives. Ideology has consequences."
Their money helped start Americans For Prosperity, a Tea Party-linked organisation that has campaigned vociferously against Barack Obama's healthcare reforms. It admitted helping to organise anti-union moves by the controversial Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, which led to some of the largest protests in recent American history.
The supposed grassroots movement is not that, at all, but an elite-financed political opposition movement aimed at undercutting the working and middle classes for the benefit of the wealthy, ironically using to disaffected working and middle class individuals by appealingto their fears and hates.
The Kochs have also given millions to thinktanks and groups that fight environmental legislation, especially to oppose the scientific consensus on global warming and try to lift regulations on air pollution and potentially dangerous chemicals. They believe in drastically cutting the role of government and slashing benefits such as social security.
And Larry Kudlow and his ilk support the ideology, wrapping it in the mantle of Reaganism, a failed set of political and economic tenets that remain as an ideological lair of the right wing.
The Kochs share the Tea Party view that Obama is a threat to the American way of life. Last week David Koch made a rare comment to a reporter from New York magazine, calling Obama "a hardcore socialist". "He's marvellous at pretending to be something other than that, but that is what I believe he truly is, a hardcore socialist. He's scary to me," he added.
Obama is the same sort of socialist as FDR: a conservative liberal seeking to change capitalism only gradually and in a very limited way, to smooth out a few rough edges.
There is nothing illegal about the Kochs' political activities. Greenwald concedes they have every right to fund whatever organisations they like.
Especially not with the assent of the Roberts Supreme Court.
Some groups have said however that their business practices are sometimes the opposite of their public campaigns. A non-partisan Washington watchdog group, the Centre for Public Integrity, reported last month that Koch Industries' ethanol business enjoys high incomes thanks to government subsidies, despite their disapproval of such policies. Equally, while they oppose a cap-and-trade system in the US to control carbon emissions, the trading arm of Koch Industries makes millions in Europe from such a system.
So much for ideological purity.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Conspiracy theories
President Obama released his birth certificate today. However, the move did anything but end the chatter. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck both said that they think the release today was timed to distract from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s news conference. Beck said, “My theory: this is because Bernanke is speaking today.” And Orly Tatiz, the self-anointed leader of the “birther” movement, says she still has doubts about Obama’s past: “This is not Joe Schmoe. This is a guy sitting in the position of president of the United States…We need to know the answer to all of those questions." Meanwhile, the widow of Dr. David A. Sinclair, the doctor who delivered Obama according to the document, claims to have had no idea that her husband delivered a president. She calls the news “very exciting.”
How 'bout that? Beck and Palin agree.
How 'bout that? Beck and Palin agree.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Presidential timber, or balsa wood?
Heilemann: Huckabee’s Obama-From-Kenya Statement Either ‘Sketch Comedy’ or ‘Grotesque Pandering’
His spokesman apologized, sort of,but he accomplished what he wanted: tell the right wing base that he agrees with their hate of Obama. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Michael Dale Huckabee is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican Party: He don’t get no respect. In poll after poll, the former Arkansas governor turned Fox News pundit rates as the most popular conservative public figure in the country. In December, a national Reuters Ipsos survey ranked him ahead, in ascending order, of Rush Limbaugh, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, and Mitt Romney—as well as Barack Obama and David Petraeus—in terms of his net favorability rating. (The only person ahead of Huckabee? Hillary Clinton.) More recently, an array of polls of Republican voters have put him at or near the top of the heap among potential GOP presidential candidates. Privately, several of Obama’s top political advisers believe Huckabee would be the toughest opponent for their boss. And yet most professional Republicans dismiss him, deride him, or, most damning of all, simply ignore him.
Perhaps he is not hard-core enough, though by making the Kenya remark he seems to be trying to tack hard right.
The truth is, there are good reasons to believe that Huckabee, in the end, will decline to run—and in so doing will shape the Republican race almost as much as if he gets in. What interests me more than the implications of his decision, however, is the reasoning behind it, the factors he is weighing, and what his thinking says about the state of the GOP heading into 2012.
On the writing of a new book, Huckabee says, “I felt maybe there was a need to present some of them in a way that was not written for academics. This book was not designed so it would be a textbook at Harvard.” Perhaps he flatters himself a bit too much.
though Huckabee asserts in his introduction that he doesn’t “doubt for a minute that Barack Obama loves our country and wants to make it better,” this ostensible graciousness evaporates in the chapters that follow. “Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings,” Huckabee writes at one point. “Why am I not surprised?”
What kind of logic is that?
for all the grassroots energy that the tea party is providing to the GOP right now, the party Establishment still reigns when it comes to the raising of campaign cash—and little that Huckabee has done since 2008 has improved his standing there.
Beyond questions of money, this last consideration—the dynamics that will be in play in the Republican nomination contest—is what is weighing most heavily on Huckabee’s mind. “I think I would have the best chance in the general election, because I offer the most distinct but not rancorous contrast against Obama,” he says. “But the Republican primary, I’m trying to figure out where it goes this time. If it’s going to be a search for a problem-solving pragmatist communicating kind of guy, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to be a purity contest of who’s the most gun-loving, the most anti-immigrant, the most pro-life, the most everything, it gets ridiculous.”
One can only hope that Republicans slash one another savagely, and make their primaries a test of ideological purity. I'm rooting for Bachman and Palin to get in; Romney will run against himself in trying to gain his right wing purity badge, as will Newt. O, the prospects almost make me salivate.
His spokesman apologized, sort of,but he accomplished what he wanted: tell the right wing base that he agrees with their hate of Obama. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Michael Dale Huckabee is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican Party: He don’t get no respect. In poll after poll, the former Arkansas governor turned Fox News pundit rates as the most popular conservative public figure in the country. In December, a national Reuters Ipsos survey ranked him ahead, in ascending order, of Rush Limbaugh, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, and Mitt Romney—as well as Barack Obama and David Petraeus—in terms of his net favorability rating. (The only person ahead of Huckabee? Hillary Clinton.) More recently, an array of polls of Republican voters have put him at or near the top of the heap among potential GOP presidential candidates. Privately, several of Obama’s top political advisers believe Huckabee would be the toughest opponent for their boss. And yet most professional Republicans dismiss him, deride him, or, most damning of all, simply ignore him.
Perhaps he is not hard-core enough, though by making the Kenya remark he seems to be trying to tack hard right.
The truth is, there are good reasons to believe that Huckabee, in the end, will decline to run—and in so doing will shape the Republican race almost as much as if he gets in. What interests me more than the implications of his decision, however, is the reasoning behind it, the factors he is weighing, and what his thinking says about the state of the GOP heading into 2012.
On the writing of a new book, Huckabee says, “I felt maybe there was a need to present some of them in a way that was not written for academics. This book was not designed so it would be a textbook at Harvard.” Perhaps he flatters himself a bit too much.
though Huckabee asserts in his introduction that he doesn’t “doubt for a minute that Barack Obama loves our country and wants to make it better,” this ostensible graciousness evaporates in the chapters that follow. “Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings,” Huckabee writes at one point. “Why am I not surprised?”
What kind of logic is that?
for all the grassroots energy that the tea party is providing to the GOP right now, the party Establishment still reigns when it comes to the raising of campaign cash—and little that Huckabee has done since 2008 has improved his standing there.
Beyond questions of money, this last consideration—the dynamics that will be in play in the Republican nomination contest—is what is weighing most heavily on Huckabee’s mind. “I think I would have the best chance in the general election, because I offer the most distinct but not rancorous contrast against Obama,” he says. “But the Republican primary, I’m trying to figure out where it goes this time. If it’s going to be a search for a problem-solving pragmatist communicating kind of guy, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to be a purity contest of who’s the most gun-loving, the most anti-immigrant, the most pro-life, the most everything, it gets ridiculous.”
One can only hope that Republicans slash one another savagely, and make their primaries a test of ideological purity. I'm rooting for Bachman and Palin to get in; Romney will run against himself in trying to gain his right wing purity badge, as will Newt. O, the prospects almost make me salivate.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Conservatives, and a queen
Now, this is what I like to see: conservative infighting. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld can't even go out in their own backyard: Ron Paul supporters heckled them at CPAC Thursday. Rumsfeld was greeted by boos and then a walkout of many young attendees. Cheney was peppered with taunts of "Where's Bin Laden?" and "draft dodger." Cheney's supporters replied by yelling "shut up" and chanting "USA!" Rumsfeld was presented with the "Defenders of the Constitution Award."
Jordan tribes break taboo by targeting queen - Popular discontent in Jordan has taken a new turn with unprecedented public criticism of King Abdullah II's wife, Queen Rania, who stands accused of "corruption" by large tribes. "We call on the king to return to the treasury land and farms given to the Yassin family (of the queen). The land belongs to the Jordanian people," 36 tribal leaders said this week in a joint statement. By so doing, they have broken a taboo in the desert kingdom, where criticism of the royal family is punishable by a three-year imprisonment.
In an age when popular uprisings have toppled two Arab governments, to have such a law as criminalizing criticism of the king is absurd.
Jordan tribes break taboo by targeting queen - Popular discontent in Jordan has taken a new turn with unprecedented public criticism of King Abdullah II's wife, Queen Rania, who stands accused of "corruption" by large tribes. "We call on the king to return to the treasury land and farms given to the Yassin family (of the queen). The land belongs to the Jordanian people," 36 tribal leaders said this week in a joint statement. By so doing, they have broken a taboo in the desert kingdom, where criticism of the royal family is punishable by a three-year imprisonment.
In an age when popular uprisings have toppled two Arab governments, to have such a law as criminalizing criticism of the king is absurd.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Crowded Republican field bodes well for Obama
The burgeoning free-for-all for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination bodes well for President Obama’s reelection.It’s almost as if his chances improve in direct proportion to how many GOP politicians decide it may be their year to run for president.
The more of them, the better. Late 2011 and early 2012 will prove to be a butchering time, as candidates such as the first four names below, try to move further and further right, slashing at the others as not being pure enough (and I root for Michelle Bachman to join the fray), as some others try to dig in and find some sort of center (but who will have to at least tilt right).
There are the battle-tested candidates from the 2008 campaign – Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and maybe Rudy Giuliani – who are the “frontrunners” because they have experience and money. But in addition there are a baker’s dozen and counting of other potential candidates – from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to true nobodies like the former Louisiana congressman and governor, Buddy Roemer, who last held public office in 1992.
Newt? Rudy? They just can't believe people don't give a hoot about them any longer.
The fragmented Republican field reflects a party riven by a tug of war between ideological purists and political pragmatists. It is testimony to the growing conviction that a Republican nominee will not prevail against the incumbent.
I root for internecine warfareamong the Republicans; let the survivor and her or his 25% go up against the President riding the wave of economic recovery.
Palin could mobilize the Republican “base” to win the primaries and then go down in flames in a defeat that would make Barry Goldwater’s 1964 loss to Lyndon Johnson look like a contest. But if Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, the self-appointed congressional spokeswoman for the Tea Party, enters the contest, she would make Palin look like a moderate.
I've love to see those two loons competing to be the purer ideologue.
Romney, who will be 65 in November 2012, spent his Mormon missionary years in France, has lived on the East Coast and is Atlantic-oriented. Huntsman, who will be 52 at the time of the election, spent his missionary years in Taiwan, is from a Western state and is Pacific-oriented. Where does the future lie?
The more of them, the better. Late 2011 and early 2012 will prove to be a butchering time, as candidates such as the first four names below, try to move further and further right, slashing at the others as not being pure enough (and I root for Michelle Bachman to join the fray), as some others try to dig in and find some sort of center (but who will have to at least tilt right).
There are the battle-tested candidates from the 2008 campaign – Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and maybe Rudy Giuliani – who are the “frontrunners” because they have experience and money. But in addition there are a baker’s dozen and counting of other potential candidates – from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to true nobodies like the former Louisiana congressman and governor, Buddy Roemer, who last held public office in 1992.
Newt? Rudy? They just can't believe people don't give a hoot about them any longer.
The fragmented Republican field reflects a party riven by a tug of war between ideological purists and political pragmatists. It is testimony to the growing conviction that a Republican nominee will not prevail against the incumbent.
I root for internecine warfareamong the Republicans; let the survivor and her or his 25% go up against the President riding the wave of economic recovery.
Palin could mobilize the Republican “base” to win the primaries and then go down in flames in a defeat that would make Barry Goldwater’s 1964 loss to Lyndon Johnson look like a contest. But if Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, the self-appointed congressional spokeswoman for the Tea Party, enters the contest, she would make Palin look like a moderate.
I've love to see those two loons competing to be the purer ideologue.
Romney, who will be 65 in November 2012, spent his Mormon missionary years in France, has lived on the East Coast and is Atlantic-oriented. Huntsman, who will be 52 at the time of the election, spent his missionary years in Taiwan, is from a Western state and is Pacific-oriented. Where does the future lie?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Blood libel
In the wake of the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, many liberal talking-heads and pundits have castigated conservatives talking-heads and pundits for their vitriol. In response to such attacks, Sarah Palin pushed back today, calling attacks on her as "blood libel."
Blood libel has a particular historical meaning: it is the anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish myth that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzoh. In modern days, the meaning has been expanded. Yet even the ADL, which tends to be rather conservative, commented that "While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
Others have been less restrained in their criticism of the half-term former Alaska governor.
President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer said in a statement that "the term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line. In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel," Greer said, adding "in addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as 'Nazis.' Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem."
Blood libel has a particular historical meaning: it is the anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish myth that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzoh. In modern days, the meaning has been expanded. Yet even the ADL, which tends to be rather conservative, commented that "While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
Others have been less restrained in their criticism of the half-term former Alaska governor.
President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer said in a statement that "the term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line. In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel," Greer said, adding "in addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as 'Nazis.' Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem."
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Irked Liberal Lion
“If you widen the lens, the public is being sold a big lie — that our problems owe to unions and the size of government and not to fraud and deregulation and vast concentration of wealth. Obama’s failure is that he won’t challenge this Republican narrative, and give people a story that helps them connect the dots and understand where we’re going.”
I agree with that assessment. Why the President won't fight is a mystery: yes, he's a conciliator, not a pugilist; his game is basketball, not football. He gives some speeches where he calls his opponents hostage-takers. But he does fight.
“Obama had a chance to reboot the bailout,” he says. “He could have said to the bankers, ‘If you want more, you’ve got to put a cap on salaries, you’ve got to agree to modify X number of mortgages.’ ” Mr. Reich sees a parallel with his former boss, Mr. Clinton, and draws no comfort from the comparison. Confronted with a muscular Republican majority in the House in 1994, Mr. Clinton mastered triangulation, which is to say he sailed into a sea neither Republican nor Democratic. It was a strategic masterstroke, but he threw overboard some liberal founding stones. “I found myself truly impressed by how quickly Clinton moved to the putative center,” says Mr. Reich, a touch archly. Mr. Reich sees President Obama taking a similar tack. This argument drives the president and his advisers to distraction.
Yes, he has accomlished a good number of things, and his advisers point to: health care and financial reform, to extended unemployment benefits and to the stimulus bills (which liberal economists criticized as too small) that let city and state governments avoid tens of thousands of layoffs. They will put their accounting up against that of their critics.
At the same time that Reich and Krugman call Obama too timid, the Republicans call him a dangerous radical socialist Kenyan.
I agree with that assessment. Why the President won't fight is a mystery: yes, he's a conciliator, not a pugilist; his game is basketball, not football. He gives some speeches where he calls his opponents hostage-takers. But he does fight.
“Obama had a chance to reboot the bailout,” he says. “He could have said to the bankers, ‘If you want more, you’ve got to put a cap on salaries, you’ve got to agree to modify X number of mortgages.’ ” Mr. Reich sees a parallel with his former boss, Mr. Clinton, and draws no comfort from the comparison. Confronted with a muscular Republican majority in the House in 1994, Mr. Clinton mastered triangulation, which is to say he sailed into a sea neither Republican nor Democratic. It was a strategic masterstroke, but he threw overboard some liberal founding stones. “I found myself truly impressed by how quickly Clinton moved to the putative center,” says Mr. Reich, a touch archly. Mr. Reich sees President Obama taking a similar tack. This argument drives the president and his advisers to distraction.
Yes, he has accomlished a good number of things, and his advisers point to: health care and financial reform, to extended unemployment benefits and to the stimulus bills (which liberal economists criticized as too small) that let city and state governments avoid tens of thousands of layoffs. They will put their accounting up against that of their critics.
At the same time that Reich and Krugman call Obama too timid, the Republicans call him a dangerous radical socialist Kenyan.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
On the other hand ...
Budget antics more theater than reality show. As if it were difficult to predict, the Republican radicals have a bigger bark than bit. Hours after taking control of the House of Representatives, Republican lawmakers were already rolling back pledges to slash spending -- a rollback that may actually be the best thing they can do for the economy. It's very different to govern than it is to campaign. The wonder is that people are stupid enough to believe the lies that politicians spew during political campaigns: change, leaner government, no earmarks, lower taxes, bipartisanship. Hooey.
I did see a bozo that is a new Represenative from Florida, Allen West, last night on the LawrenceO'Donnell show, The Last Word. West, whom LO quoted making disparaging and acrimonious remarks about the President, criticized President Obama for flying into Afghanistan in a darkened Air Force One. West believes that troops deserve bold leadership, and flying in a darkened airplane is not bold leadership. This minnow is a wingnut, a whacko, an amazing example of an idiot rising above his level of competency by appealing to people's baser instincts. He's a Tea Bagger, to boot. Yet when LO pressed him on details of his budget cutting proposals, this newly-sworn-in representative sounded as if he'd been in politics a long time. He is a retired military, a colonel, or something. Bozo.
I did see a bozo that is a new Represenative from Florida, Allen West, last night on the LawrenceO'Donnell show, The Last Word. West, whom LO quoted making disparaging and acrimonious remarks about the President, criticized President Obama for flying into Afghanistan in a darkened Air Force One. West believes that troops deserve bold leadership, and flying in a darkened airplane is not bold leadership. This minnow is a wingnut, a whacko, an amazing example of an idiot rising above his level of competency by appealing to people's baser instincts. He's a Tea Bagger, to boot. Yet when LO pressed him on details of his budget cutting proposals, this newly-sworn-in representative sounded as if he'd been in politics a long time. He is a retired military, a colonel, or something. Bozo.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
In the middle
From the left: Howard Dean endorses Daley for chief of staff, rips White House. At a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, Dean refused to single out any administration officials for criticism, but said Obama would be better served by staff that has not spent so much time in Washington. Noting that many officials are "either out of the White House or going," Dean blasted Obama's current officials who he says have treated the left wing of the Democratic Party with "contempt." Seems the Doctor's feelings are quite hurt.
From the right: Bachmann mum on presidential run Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won’t say whether she’s running for president, and insists the focus should be on making sure President Barack Obama isn’t elected to a second term in 2012. This wingnut run for President? Oy vay. Yet, she has supporter, as unbelievable as that seems, to me.
So the left castigates him, the right castigates him; seems he's doing okay.
From the right: Bachmann mum on presidential run Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won’t say whether she’s running for president, and insists the focus should be on making sure President Barack Obama isn’t elected to a second term in 2012. This wingnut run for President? Oy vay. Yet, she has supporter, as unbelievable as that seems, to me.
So the left castigates him, the right castigates him; seems he's doing okay.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Once a conservative ...
In Health Law, Old Debate Gets New Airing
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Resistance to the expansion of the social safety net stems from tension between two competing traditions. Ronald Reagan took a stand against Medicare in the 1960s.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Obama gets intense
It is about time. After the Election Day debacle, following Republican gloating and continued recalcitrance, the President struck a tax deal with the Republicans. It extends the Bush tax cuts for two years, cuts the payroll tax, and a few other things. Liberals are apoplectic.
If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then, let's face it, we will never get anything done," Obama said. "People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people, and we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are
Exactly. What liberals continue to fail to see and understand is that this country can not governed from the left. They thought they had their guy in Obama, and can not accept he is not doing their bidding. Katrina vanden Heuvel is one of the lefties that is upset: Obama: On the way to a failed presidency? This isn't about conventional politics. This is simply about the fate and future of our country. This president has a clear and imperative historic mandate. If he shirks it, he risks more than failing to get reelected. He risks a failed presidency.
She details the liberal agenda that she charges the President has abandoned, and the conservative agenda he has adopted. But, in his first two years the President (almost) had 60 votes in the Senate; in one month he won't. How is he supposed to accomplished the liberal agenda?
If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then, let's face it, we will never get anything done," Obama said. "People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people, and we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are
Exactly. What liberals continue to fail to see and understand is that this country can not governed from the left. They thought they had their guy in Obama, and can not accept he is not doing their bidding. Katrina vanden Heuvel is one of the lefties that is upset: Obama: On the way to a failed presidency? This isn't about conventional politics. This is simply about the fate and future of our country. This president has a clear and imperative historic mandate. If he shirks it, he risks more than failing to get reelected. He risks a failed presidency.
She details the liberal agenda that she charges the President has abandoned, and the conservative agenda he has adopted. But, in his first two years the President (almost) had 60 votes in the Senate; in one month he won't. How is he supposed to accomplished the liberal agenda?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Liberal? Progressive?
John McWhorter wrote an op-ed piece for today's NY Times discussing the terms Liberal and Progressive. In it he references an op-ed piece written by Timothy Garton Ash, on 25 January 2009 defining liberalism: A Liberal Translation.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Under seige
Within five minutes I took calls for these two books; if they are to be believed, we are in deep trouble. Deep doo-doo.
American conspiracies : lies, lies, and more dirty lies that the government tells us / by Jesse Ventura, with Dick Russell.
Jesse Ventura takes a systematic look at the gap between what the American government knows and what it reveals to the American people. According to this former Navy SEAL, former pro wrestler, and former Minnesota governor, the media is complicit in these acts of deception. For too long, the mainstream press has refused to consider alternate possibilities and to ask the tough questions. In Ventura's eyes, the murder of Abraham Lincoln and the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, all need to be re-examined. Was the CIA involved in Watergate? Did the Republican Party set out to steal two elections on behalf of George W. Bush? Has all the evidence been presented about the 9/11 attacks? And finally, is the collapse of today's financial order and the bailout plan by the Federal Reserve the widest-reaching conspiracy ever perpetrated?
All the way back to Lincoln? Yop.
The first not-alone-nut: John Wilkes Booth -- The big-money plot to overthrow FDR -- The Kennedy assassination: biggest cover-up of my lifetime -- The assassination of Malcolm X -- The murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr -- The assassination of Robert Kennedy -- Watergate revisited: the CIA's war against Nixon -- The Jonestown Massacre -- "October surprise": the first stolen election -- Your government dealing drugs -- The stolen elections of 2000, 2004 (and almost 2008) -- What really happened on September 11? -- The Wall Street conspiracy -- The secret plans to end American democracy.
Booth was part of a conspiracy. What does that have to do with 9/11? One this for sure, the Guv'ner will make money from this book.
The grand Jihad : how Islam and the Left sabotage America.
A second patron just asked for it (3.15pm); I was writing this blog entry as he did.
Claims that the United States is under attack from Islamist forces that have united with the American Left, under the leadership of Barack Obama, to overthrow the Constitution and end democracy.
The writer is a former prosecutor, and he seems to have lost his marbles.
Jesse Ventura takes a systematic look at the gap between what the American government knows and what it reveals to the American people. According to this former Navy SEAL, former pro wrestler, and former Minnesota governor, the media is complicit in these acts of deception. For too long, the mainstream press has refused to consider alternate possibilities and to ask the tough questions. In Ventura's eyes, the murder of Abraham Lincoln and the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, all need to be re-examined. Was the CIA involved in Watergate? Did the Republican Party set out to steal two elections on behalf of George W. Bush? Has all the evidence been presented about the 9/11 attacks? And finally, is the collapse of today's financial order and the bailout plan by the Federal Reserve the widest-reaching conspiracy ever perpetrated?
All the way back to Lincoln? Yop.
The first not-alone-nut: John Wilkes Booth -- The big-money plot to overthrow FDR -- The Kennedy assassination: biggest cover-up of my lifetime -- The assassination of Malcolm X -- The murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr -- The assassination of Robert Kennedy -- Watergate revisited: the CIA's war against Nixon -- The Jonestown Massacre -- "October surprise": the first stolen election -- Your government dealing drugs -- The stolen elections of 2000, 2004 (and almost 2008) -- What really happened on September 11? -- The Wall Street conspiracy -- The secret plans to end American democracy.
Booth was part of a conspiracy. What does that have to do with 9/11? One this for sure, the Guv'ner will make money from this book.
A second patron just asked for it (3.15pm); I was writing this blog entry as he did.
Claims that the United States is under attack from Islamist forces that have united with the American Left, under the leadership of Barack Obama, to overthrow the Constitution and end democracy.
The writer is a former prosecutor, and he seems to have lost his marbles.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Depends how you look at it
If climate change research is inexact science that can be disputed and argued, how does political science fare?
On Tuesday there were a few primaries in a handful of states. Expectations in the media were that the Tea Party as a vehicle expressing populist outrage at Big Government, Bailouts, and Taxation would rule the day. Democrats were supposed, predicted, to be on the run. Incumbents would be routed, proof that the Republican Party and the Tea Party were on the ascendancy.
A story in the Wall Street Journal has it this way: One Victory Alters Parties' Calculus.
Of all Tuesday's election results, it's the Democrats' win in a U.S. House contest in Pennsylvania that is causing both parties to re-examine what they thought they knew about the 2010 campaign ... on Wednesday, Democrats celebrated an eight-point victory in the district of the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha. Party officials said the result, along with the outcome of several Senate primaries Tuesday, had shown them a way to talk successfully to the voters who have resisted them most. Republicans were left puzzling over whether they had been too quick to expect outsized gains this fall.
This was supposed to be one of the places the Second Tea Party would be launched. Seems it wasn't.
"It was a pretty significant blowout," conceded former Rep. Tom Davis (R., Va.), who led the GOP House campaign effort from 1998 through 2002. He said the result put in question whether a wave is building that would hand Republicans a House majority.
But let it never be said that conservative pundits let reality stand in the way of making a good assertion. Two of the Journal's favorite blowhards, er, pundits, have it this way:
Rove: A Bad Day for the Obama Agenda
Barnes: Anti-incumbent? Try anti-Obama
Either they didn't read the paper, or I'm in an alternate universe.
On Tuesday there were a few primaries in a handful of states. Expectations in the media were that the Tea Party as a vehicle expressing populist outrage at Big Government, Bailouts, and Taxation would rule the day. Democrats were supposed, predicted, to be on the run. Incumbents would be routed, proof that the Republican Party and the Tea Party were on the ascendancy.
A story in the Wall Street Journal has it this way: One Victory Alters Parties' Calculus.
Of all Tuesday's election results, it's the Democrats' win in a U.S. House contest in Pennsylvania that is causing both parties to re-examine what they thought they knew about the 2010 campaign ... on Wednesday, Democrats celebrated an eight-point victory in the district of the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha. Party officials said the result, along with the outcome of several Senate primaries Tuesday, had shown them a way to talk successfully to the voters who have resisted them most. Republicans were left puzzling over whether they had been too quick to expect outsized gains this fall.
This was supposed to be one of the places the Second Tea Party would be launched. Seems it wasn't.
"It was a pretty significant blowout," conceded former Rep. Tom Davis (R., Va.), who led the GOP House campaign effort from 1998 through 2002. He said the result put in question whether a wave is building that would hand Republicans a House majority.
But let it never be said that conservative pundits let reality stand in the way of making a good assertion. Two of the Journal's favorite blowhards, er, pundits, have it this way:
Rove: A Bad Day for the Obama Agenda
Barnes: Anti-incumbent? Try anti-Obama
Either they didn't read the paper, or I'm in an alternate universe.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Left, or right?
So I get home after work, and turn on the telly to watch something, relax a bit. Not a good movie on, so I make the mistake of putting on politics and news.
Two big stories are in the ether right now: the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the failed bomb in Times Square.
Right wing nuts have started to say that perhaps the radical left caused the spill by sabotaging the platform 30 miles offshore. How that could be done dosn't need to be explained or substatiated, because the purpose of that preposterous statement is to get people who are already extremely displeased with the President and the Democratic Party even more riled up (and if along the way some other people are caught in the net of bombastic stupidity, so much the better).
Now Michael Brown, who was head of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, is being given air time: he is charging that either the Obama administration is allowing the oil to reach shore for political purposes, or is using the calamity of oil reaching shore to suspend offshore drilling and other policy points part of their strategy to pass cap-and-trade. And if that wasn't preposterous enough, he's charging the Administration with slow response. This is Brownie, who didn't respond to Katrina. Now he's charging that he couldn't respond becuase the federal government, the Bush administration, didn't give him the tools he needed to respond properly.
An arrest has been made in the failed Times Square bombing. The left is extolling the quick response of law enforcement authorities, the right is castigating the fact that the charged perpetrator has been read his Miranda rights. Major General Paul D. Eaton, retired, appeared with Keith Olbermann, and ripped Republicans for undermining the work of police, the FBI and the armed forces. I've not seen him before, but he was angry, and obviously not a rightie. He works for the National Security Network, a left organization: The National Security Network (NSN) was founded in June 2006 to revitalize America's national security policy, bringing cohesion and strategic focus to the progressive national security community.
Earlier, I watched a few minutes of Sean Hannity's show, and was amazed at the depths this twerp plumbs: he has a yahoo, Aaron Klein, whohas co-authored this book: The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's ties to Communists, Socialists, and other anti-American extremists. Really. Hannity was ecstatic.Aaron Klein has written three other books: The late great state of Israel : how enemies within and without threaten the Jewish nation's survival (2009); Schmoozing with terrorists : from Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists reveal their global plans-- (2007); this latest tome; and Deion Sanders, this is Prime Time (1995). He writes for an outlet called World Net Daily (one of its banner ads is for a book entitled The Nazi connection to terrorism).
Time to turn it off, and go read. Oy.
Two big stories are in the ether right now: the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the failed bomb in Times Square.
Right wing nuts have started to say that perhaps the radical left caused the spill by sabotaging the platform 30 miles offshore. How that could be done dosn't need to be explained or substatiated, because the purpose of that preposterous statement is to get people who are already extremely displeased with the President and the Democratic Party even more riled up (and if along the way some other people are caught in the net of bombastic stupidity, so much the better).
Now Michael Brown, who was head of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, is being given air time: he is charging that either the Obama administration is allowing the oil to reach shore for political purposes, or is using the calamity of oil reaching shore to suspend offshore drilling and other policy points part of their strategy to pass cap-and-trade. And if that wasn't preposterous enough, he's charging the Administration with slow response. This is Brownie, who didn't respond to Katrina. Now he's charging that he couldn't respond becuase the federal government, the Bush administration, didn't give him the tools he needed to respond properly.
An arrest has been made in the failed Times Square bombing. The left is extolling the quick response of law enforcement authorities, the right is castigating the fact that the charged perpetrator has been read his Miranda rights. Major General Paul D. Eaton, retired, appeared with Keith Olbermann, and ripped Republicans for undermining the work of police, the FBI and the armed forces. I've not seen him before, but he was angry, and obviously not a rightie. He works for the National Security Network, a left organization: The National Security Network (NSN) was founded in June 2006 to revitalize America's national security policy, bringing cohesion and strategic focus to the progressive national security community.
Earlier, I watched a few minutes of Sean Hannity's show, and was amazed at the depths this twerp plumbs: he has a yahoo, Aaron Klein, whohas co-authored this book: The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's ties to Communists, Socialists, and other anti-American extremists. Really. Hannity was ecstatic.Aaron Klein has written three other books: The late great state of Israel : how enemies within and without threaten the Jewish nation's survival (2009); Schmoozing with terrorists : from Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists reveal their global plans-- (2007); this latest tome; and Deion Sanders, this is Prime Time (1995). He writes for an outlet called World Net Daily (one of its banner ads is for a book entitled The Nazi connection to terrorism).
Time to turn it off, and go read. Oy.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Level playing field?
President Obama mentioned a recent Supreme Court decision that, he asserted, would allow corporate special interests to flood the election landscape with their money. Now, legislation has been proposed to counter that.
The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.
However, that provision cuts both ways: the "left" is opposed, for its own special reasons, or, rather, reason: the money it gets.
advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.
Dilemma.
The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed. "It's a significant issue," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. He said that the environmental group was working to change the legislation. It was too soon, he added, to say whether or not the Sierra Club would oppose the bill. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, said the group shared the Sierra Club's concerns.
Wealth should not be able to hide behind anonymity as it seeks to influence policy and elections.
The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.
However, that provision cuts both ways: the "left" is opposed, for its own special reasons, or, rather, reason: the money it gets.
advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.
Dilemma.
The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed. "It's a significant issue," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. He said that the environmental group was working to change the legislation. It was too soon, he added, to say whether or not the Sierra Club would oppose the bill. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, said the group shared the Sierra Club's concerns.
Wealth should not be able to hide behind anonymity as it seeks to influence policy and elections.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
LIberal?
Gary Wills reviewing David Remnick's The Bridge, discusses Barack Obama: Later, when he taught at the University of Chicago Law School, he won the respect of conservative professors there, including Richard Posner — “especially,” as Posner tells Remnick, “after one of my clerks, who had worked with him at The Harvard Law Review, told me that he wasn’t even all that liberal.” llustration by Joon Mo Kang;
photograph by Pete Souza
Barack Obama in 2004.
photograph by Pete Souza
Barack Obama in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
