Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Go, Herm, go!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Savior?
Anti-Islam rhetoric has replaced anti-communism as the right wing's ideological underpinning.
Not all Republicans, however, have embraced the anti-Islam rhetoric that has colored the GOP primary. Last week, for example, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, seen as a leading contender for president in either 2012 or 2016, offered a forceful and widely praised defense of a Muslim judge, Sohail Mohammed, whom he had appointed to a state judicial post.“The folks who criticize my appointment of Sohail Mohammed are ignorant,” Christie said. “They’re criticizing him because he’s a Muslim-American.” Of the anti-Shariah movement, Christie added: “This Shariah law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”
This is the Republican party's savior for 2012? How many right wingers are going to accept such a point of view? Well, it turns out even Governor Perry has Muslim friends.
as Salon has reported, Perry has also cultivated an intimate friendship with the Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of a sect of Shia Muslims known as the Ismailis. The relationship has produced not only mutual praise but a pair of Islam-friendly programs in Texas, such as an initiative to train high school teachers in Muslim history and culture.
Whoa, there. Has the right wing heard of this?
Not all Republicans, however, have embraced the anti-Islam rhetoric that has colored the GOP primary. Last week, for example, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, seen as a leading contender for president in either 2012 or 2016, offered a forceful and widely praised defense of a Muslim judge, Sohail Mohammed, whom he had appointed to a state judicial post.“The folks who criticize my appointment of Sohail Mohammed are ignorant,” Christie said. “They’re criticizing him because he’s a Muslim-American.” Of the anti-Shariah movement, Christie added: “This Shariah law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”
This is the Republican party's savior for 2012? How many right wingers are going to accept such a point of view? Well, it turns out even Governor Perry has Muslim friends.
as Salon has reported, Perry has also cultivated an intimate friendship with the Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of a sect of Shia Muslims known as the Ismailis. The relationship has produced not only mutual praise but a pair of Islam-friendly programs in Texas, such as an initiative to train high school teachers in Muslim history and culture.
Whoa, there. Has the right wing heard of this?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Unattached, and available
Now that Texan Perry has been deflated (even Republican right-wing pundits are criticizing him), and that Bachman's standing is back to being just a fringe figure, Republicans with billions are seeking out a figure to carry forth their dreams of less government, lower taxes, discredited liberals and defanged unions: a veritable conservative utopia. Their new sweetheart is governor Christie of New Jersey. A tough-talking, abrasive, yet attractive Republican, this governor embodies the latest hopes of those who want a credible challenger to president Obama.
They are rich. They are unattached. They are looking for a little excitement. Meet the Draft Christie committee, a small but influential group of Republican-leaning donors and activists, many based in New York, united by a shared desire to see Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey run for president. There is Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot founder who is perhaps Mr. Christie’s most fervent booster; Paul E. Singer, the publicity-shy hedge fund magnate and Republican activist who is among the most-sought-after Republican donors in the country; and David H. Koch, the industrialist, Tea Party benefactor and, according to Forbes, the richest man in New York. Charles R. Schwab, the personal investment guru, is also among those who have shown interest in seeing a Christie presidential bid, according to published reports and people familiar with the discussions, as is the financier Stanley F. Druckenmiller. So are the hedge fund managers David Tepper and Daniel S. Loeb, a onetime supporter of President Obama. In recent months, Christie enthusiasts have lighted up the phone lines between Manhattan and Trenton trying to persuade the governor to enter the Republican field amid growing concern about the current contenders.
Now, when financiers are willing to put their money where their ideology is, somehow that does not equal when unions do the same; unions are called special interest, are charged with holding the Democratic party hostage to their ideology, and bad for capitalism. When billionaires do it, what is it called?
Whatever they call it, these men simply do not like Mitt Romney. Why that is, I do not particularly care, but I do wonder.
Buzz about Mr. Christie’s presidential prospects intensified in recent days after a previously unknown group, the Committee for Our Children’s Future, unveiled a $1.5 million television advertising campaign in New Jersey promoting Mr. Christie’s accomplishments. “Runaway spending. Record debt. Gridlocked government. Washington is backwards,” the script reads. “But Chris Christie, with bipartisan support, is taking New Jersey in another direction.” The group was formed by Christie friends dating back to his undergraduate days at the University of Delaware. A Republican affiliated with the group, who agreed to speak in detail about its origins in return for anonymity, said it was formed as a way to defend against labor union attacks in New Jersey.
They do it anonymously, hiding behind their millions and pseudo-patriotic names, for they know that if the rabble knew that it is billionaires who owns industries in the Midwest but live in New York who finance the teabags, they might not like it quite so much as they do when it is a committee for our children's future that does it.
“I was at a conference this week with a lot of high-powered people,” said Bradford M. Freeman, who led California fund-raising for George W. Bush. “People just said he was fantastic. Those that know him or have heard him speak are very enthusiastic. He’s articulate, he’s done a good job in New Jersey, he has good charisma.”
High-powered people are not a special interest, of course. And what they like about his record is that he is anti-union.
Many have ties to the Manhattan Institute, an incubator of the brand of urban conservatism — heavy on criticism of public employee unions and runaway state budgets — to which Mr. Christie is the country’s most visible Republican heir.
They hate unions. That is a common theme. Unions are evil. Plutocrats are patriotic. But, perhaps there is another side of the issue to consider as accurate.
'Fiscal conservative’ masks anti-tax agenda, writes Darrell Delamaide.
They are rich. They are unattached. They are looking for a little excitement. Meet the Draft Christie committee, a small but influential group of Republican-leaning donors and activists, many based in New York, united by a shared desire to see Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey run for president. There is Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot founder who is perhaps Mr. Christie’s most fervent booster; Paul E. Singer, the publicity-shy hedge fund magnate and Republican activist who is among the most-sought-after Republican donors in the country; and David H. Koch, the industrialist, Tea Party benefactor and, according to Forbes, the richest man in New York. Charles R. Schwab, the personal investment guru, is also among those who have shown interest in seeing a Christie presidential bid, according to published reports and people familiar with the discussions, as is the financier Stanley F. Druckenmiller. So are the hedge fund managers David Tepper and Daniel S. Loeb, a onetime supporter of President Obama. In recent months, Christie enthusiasts have lighted up the phone lines between Manhattan and Trenton trying to persuade the governor to enter the Republican field amid growing concern about the current contenders.
Now, when financiers are willing to put their money where their ideology is, somehow that does not equal when unions do the same; unions are called special interest, are charged with holding the Democratic party hostage to their ideology, and bad for capitalism. When billionaires do it, what is it called?
Whatever they call it, these men simply do not like Mitt Romney. Why that is, I do not particularly care, but I do wonder.
Buzz about Mr. Christie’s presidential prospects intensified in recent days after a previously unknown group, the Committee for Our Children’s Future, unveiled a $1.5 million television advertising campaign in New Jersey promoting Mr. Christie’s accomplishments. “Runaway spending. Record debt. Gridlocked government. Washington is backwards,” the script reads. “But Chris Christie, with bipartisan support, is taking New Jersey in another direction.” The group was formed by Christie friends dating back to his undergraduate days at the University of Delaware. A Republican affiliated with the group, who agreed to speak in detail about its origins in return for anonymity, said it was formed as a way to defend against labor union attacks in New Jersey.
They do it anonymously, hiding behind their millions and pseudo-patriotic names, for they know that if the rabble knew that it is billionaires who owns industries in the Midwest but live in New York who finance the teabags, they might not like it quite so much as they do when it is a committee for our children's future that does it.
“I was at a conference this week with a lot of high-powered people,” said Bradford M. Freeman, who led California fund-raising for George W. Bush. “People just said he was fantastic. Those that know him or have heard him speak are very enthusiastic. He’s articulate, he’s done a good job in New Jersey, he has good charisma.”
High-powered people are not a special interest, of course. And what they like about his record is that he is anti-union.
Many have ties to the Manhattan Institute, an incubator of the brand of urban conservatism — heavy on criticism of public employee unions and runaway state budgets — to which Mr. Christie is the country’s most visible Republican heir.
They hate unions. That is a common theme. Unions are evil. Plutocrats are patriotic. But, perhaps there is another side of the issue to consider as accurate.
'Fiscal conservative’ masks anti-tax agenda, writes Darrell Delamaide.
David and Charles Koch, owners of the privately held energy firm Koch Enterprises, have long since been revealed as the main funders of the “grassroots” Tea Party movement, which cloaks an anti-tax agenda in a small-government Libertarian camouflage. Mitt Romney’s biggest liability as a candidate, aside from the fact that he may be too bland and too fake to defeat Barack Obama, is that he’s not sufficiently on board with this anti-tax agenda.
Perhaps Romney knows that the anti-tax agenda is a recipe for disaster; Ronald Reagan found it. But these plutocrats and their lackeys want to ignore historical truths.
Pundits have tried to figure out how people who say they want to reduce deficits can claim, against all notions of financial physics, that they can do so by lowering taxes. That’s because they aren’t really interested in reducing the deficit. They are just interested in lowering taxes.
They want someone who will do their bidding, get government out of their way, and maybe even turn the clock back a century.
The Koch brothers could have written the speech Christie gave Tuesday night at the Reagan library in California. Interspersed with barbs about President Barack Obama’s lack of leadership, Christie recited the familiar litany of the anti-taxers — unleash our entrepreneurial energies, favor accomplishment instead of entitlement, remove the “uncertainties” of the tax code, and so on and so on. Beneath all the apple-pie-and-motherhood talk of American exceptionalism and the greatness of Ronald Reagan, the key line of Christie’s speech was the attack on Obama for suggesting that a return to the modest Clinton-era tax rates would be a fair burden-sharing in restoring fiscal balance.
Bush and Cheney sent soldiers to war without adequate equipment, to accomplish abstract ideological goals and feed billions of dollars to the military-industrial complex, created an economic imbalance that nearly sent the nation into an economic depression, the standard of living of the middle class has stagnated for a decade, more than 40 million people are below the poverty line (itself a laughably inadequate sum), and what these people want is yet more money for themselves.
It would be hard to imagine a better way to mobilize the Democratic base than to nominate Christie and pair him with, say, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a vice presidential candidate to create the Tea Party dream ticket. Money counts for a lot in our battered democracy, but not yet everything.
Perhaps.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Commentary: Obama’s speech will show government isn’t answer
Darrell Delamaide is an unusual commentator: while he clearly has his own politics, he tries to provide analysis, and not just talking points. Case in point, this column.
The measures being previewed (leaked) — extending payroll tax cuts, business tax credits for hiring, patent reform (huh?) — are just so much small ball, which is all that Obama can play now because of political and budget constraints. He’ll detail the plans in a prime-time speech before Congress on Sept. 7, the White House said Wednesday. So Ronald Reagan and the Republicans are right: Given the current state of play, government is definitely not the solution. Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity over the past 2 1/2 years have seen to that.
Not sure what that Reagan reference means, but certainly Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity over the past 2 ½ years have accomplished nearly nothing.
But here’s the real irony: Private business, without the benefit of significant government help, may step up and give the economy enough lift to get Obama re-elected.
Not exactly without government help: the low level of taxation and the effectiveness of lobbyists in tailoring legislation for the benefit of business are of big help.
Historians can bewail the fact that enlightened policies were available that could have ameliorated the situation. But in a climate where widely accepted scientific theories like evolution and global warming are rejected by willfully ignorant politicians, it’s no surprise that Keynesian management of aggregate demand — one obvious solution to our problems — would also be spurned.
When major political candidates speak of doubting the reality of human causes of global warming to audiences who also do not believe in evolution, mature and effective economic policies are not going to be forthcoming.
So we are left with Adam Smith’s world, with its harsh business cycle and merciless treatment of the working class. Fortunately, some of the shock absorbers, built in by Keynes and other enlightened policy makers before the new Dark Ages of economics descended on us, continue to function and shield us from the worst.
It is amazing to see middle class voters support ideologues who pander to their fears and ignorance while pushing legislation that enriches the already-rich by taking wealth away from all others – or, perhaps, not so amazing.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Regaining mantle of campaigner
As he did four years ago when he found his back against the wall in his Democratic primary fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama seemed intent on showing that he is the partisan fighter that some of his supporters fear he is not. That is the essence of the Obama problem: he is a campaigner, not a governor. He ran a great campaign, and has run a disappointingly mediocre government. As a result, it is difficult to work up enthusiasm for his reelection.
He signaled that he intends to use the rising influence of the Tea Party movement as a chance to undermine Republicans with independent voters. And he bluntly asked voters to begin considering what he believes the consequences would be if Republicans won the White House.
There is no question that the right wing has hijacked the Republican party, and no doubt that combination bodes ill for liberals, for the not-wealthy, not-corporate, not-extremist, but is that all he can offer?
It is premature to suggest the enthusiasm gap is permanent. Democrats are confident that when the general election battle begins — with Mr. Obama matched against a single opponent — the fervor surrounding the 2008 campaign will return.
To wait until the game starts to bring out one's best effort is a dangerous tactic. Fervor? Not again, no. Resignation.
“Everyone was so hopeful with him, but Washington grabbed him and here we are,” said LuAnn Lavine, a real estate agent from Geneseo, Ill. “I just want him to stay strong and don’t take the guff. We want a president who is a leader, and I want him to be a little bit stronger.”
Agreed. He went in with an agenda for change, and compromised every single time, and looked weak.
With his own approval ratings hovering near their lowest point since he became president, and with a new Gallup poll showing that only 26 percent of Americans approve of his economic policies, Mr. Obama singled out one element of Washington that is viewed in an even more unfavorable light: Congress. “You’re supposed to be in public service to serve the public,” Mr. Obama said. “And that means that, yes, you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It means that you compromise. It means you apply common sense.”
Perhaps they are supposed to, but Republicans do not agree with his rules, they do not apply common sense, they apply political sense. And while he waits for his opponents to play fair, they are working to defeat him, as they have for 31 months.
He signaled that he intends to use the rising influence of the Tea Party movement as a chance to undermine Republicans with independent voters. And he bluntly asked voters to begin considering what he believes the consequences would be if Republicans won the White House.
There is no question that the right wing has hijacked the Republican party, and no doubt that combination bodes ill for liberals, for the not-wealthy, not-corporate, not-extremist, but is that all he can offer?
It is premature to suggest the enthusiasm gap is permanent. Democrats are confident that when the general election battle begins — with Mr. Obama matched against a single opponent — the fervor surrounding the 2008 campaign will return.
To wait until the game starts to bring out one's best effort is a dangerous tactic. Fervor? Not again, no. Resignation.
“Everyone was so hopeful with him, but Washington grabbed him and here we are,” said LuAnn Lavine, a real estate agent from Geneseo, Ill. “I just want him to stay strong and don’t take the guff. We want a president who is a leader, and I want him to be a little bit stronger.”
Agreed. He went in with an agenda for change, and compromised every single time, and looked weak.
With his own approval ratings hovering near their lowest point since he became president, and with a new Gallup poll showing that only 26 percent of Americans approve of his economic policies, Mr. Obama singled out one element of Washington that is viewed in an even more unfavorable light: Congress. “You’re supposed to be in public service to serve the public,” Mr. Obama said. “And that means that, yes, you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It means that you compromise. It means you apply common sense.”
Perhaps they are supposed to, but Republicans do not agree with his rules, they do not apply common sense, they apply political sense. And while he waits for his opponents to play fair, they are working to defeat him, as they have for 31 months.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tea Party: The Christian Right in Disguise?
Without doubt.
Tea Party candidates like O’Donnell and Bachmann have campaigned on libertarian economic platforms, leading some commentators to dig into old Ayn Rand novels for the source of this new economic populism. But what they’ve missed is that the Tea Party’s obsession with the size of government has been part of Christian conservatives’ platform for decades. The Tea Party was just a new name coined by clever activists and the media—a rebranding that has made it much easier for Christian-right candidates to run for office without having to air their views on social issues, which are increasingly viewed in a negative light by the general public.
Tea Party candidates like O’Donnell and Bachmann have campaigned on libertarian economic platforms, leading some commentators to dig into old Ayn Rand novels for the source of this new economic populism. But what they’ve missed is that the Tea Party’s obsession with the size of government has been part of Christian conservatives’ platform for decades. The Tea Party was just a new name coined by clever activists and the media—a rebranding that has made it much easier for Christian-right candidates to run for office without having to air their views on social issues, which are increasingly viewed in a negative light by the general public.
Science? Just a theory
Rick Perry calls global warming an unproven, costly theory. The Texas governor says scientists have 'manipulated data' to win research dollars. And maybe the earth is flat, in fact.
Without citing his sources, Perry added that the cost of implementing what he called "anti-carbon programs" is billions of dollars: "I don't think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn't been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."
O, it gets better.
One of his questioners was Jim Rubens, a Republican from the village of Etna who works as a consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists. If both "observed scientific data" and the National Academy of Sciences are wrong on the issue, Rubens asked Perry, "doesn't that call into question the entire science discovery process that is the basis for America's status as an advanced technological society?"
That is, if science is hokum, then what does that make the US?
"You may have a point there," Perry quipped, adding that he believed the issue had become politicized. Without citing any specific examples, the Texas governor charged that "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."
So, the Guv'ner politicizes the issue, says it has been politicized (which is bad), and it might all be a bunch of nonsense. First he calls the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank a traitor, then backs off slightly, now he calls global warming (and evolution) unproven theories. These are code words to the right wing fringe: all this liberal crap is nothing more than that: crap, and you can count on this good old boy to throw it out, once he get into office.
But the Guv's battles is not just with lefties; he also has a feud with the Bushes and their Bushies.
Without citing his sources, Perry added that the cost of implementing what he called "anti-carbon programs" is billions of dollars: "I don't think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn't been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."
O, it gets better.
One of his questioners was Jim Rubens, a Republican from the village of Etna who works as a consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists. If both "observed scientific data" and the National Academy of Sciences are wrong on the issue, Rubens asked Perry, "doesn't that call into question the entire science discovery process that is the basis for America's status as an advanced technological society?"
That is, if science is hokum, then what does that make the US?
"You may have a point there," Perry quipped, adding that he believed the issue had become politicized. Without citing any specific examples, the Texas governor charged that "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."
So, the Guv'ner politicizes the issue, says it has been politicized (which is bad), and it might all be a bunch of nonsense. First he calls the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank a traitor, then backs off slightly, now he calls global warming (and evolution) unproven theories. These are code words to the right wing fringe: all this liberal crap is nothing more than that: crap, and you can count on this good old boy to throw it out, once he get into office.
But the Guv's battles is not just with lefties; he also has a feud with the Bushes and their Bushies.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Promises, promises
Bachmann: If elected, gas prices would fall to less than $2 per gallon Perhaps she can also get the tooth fairy to up her rewards for lost teeth.
McConnell’s message to Obama: Stop pushing your failed economic policies Those would be the ones that Republicans made sure failed, surely.
Perry: Scientists are manipulating data to prove climate change And they would not get to do so in Texas, coz the Guvner would kick their asses.
McConnell’s message to Obama: Stop pushing your failed economic policies Those would be the ones that Republicans made sure failed, surely.
Perry: Scientists are manipulating data to prove climate change And they would not get to do so in Texas, coz the Guvner would kick their asses.
What would Hillary have done?
As disappointed and disillusioned as I am with President Obama, I am uncomfortable with all the braying from disappointed liberals. I have not understood why liberals were so ready to undermine him, as if they did not realize that the Republican and, especially, the right wing relished their attacks. Now they are, some of them, saying that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice, that she would have handled her presidency in a better fashion, would have negotiated and shown more spine, than Barack Obama.
Rather than reveling in these flights of reverse political fancy, I find myself wanting the revisionist Hillary fantasists — Clintonites and reformed Obamamaniacs alike — to just shut up already. I understand the impulse to indulge in a quick “I told you so.” I would be lying if I said I didn’t think it sometimes. Maybe often. But to say it — much less to bray it — is small, mean, divisive and frankly dishonest. None of us know what would have happened with Hillary Clinton as president, no matter how many rounds of W.W.H.H.D. (What Would Hillary Have Done) we play.
It is a kind of piling on that liberals are engaged in now that it is acceptable to admit that perhaps we made a wrong choice. It's too easy. It is almost as if they were confessing their sins in hope of purifying their souls, only waiting for someone to absolve them, tell them to recite I will not vote foolishly again two hundred times, and promise that everything will be better in the morning.
I believe she was better prepared to navigate the vast right wing of our political system? Yes, sir, that’s part of why I voted for her over Obama. Do I wonder if she might not also have taken us to war with Iran by now? Well, that’s part of why I almost voted for Obama over her.
Obama seemed the candidate of change, of hope for a different way of conducting ourselves in the world and of ending the trend toward greater and greater economic disparity at home. Clinton seemed a tired choice, and then there was Bubba.
The visions — in 2008, of Obama as a progressive redeemer who would restore enlightened democracy to our land and Hillary as a crypto-Republican company man; or, in 2011, of Obama as an appeasement-happy crypto-Republican and Hillary as a leftist John Wayne who would have whipped those Congressional outlaws into shape — they were all invented. These are fictional characters shaped by the predilections, prejudices and short memories of the media and the electorate.
Wailing and hoping they, we, had voted for Hillary and thus wound up with a President we would still be supporting fervently, who would have already closed Guantanamo and withdrawn our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, who would not have agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, would have ended torture definitively ... it is pure fantasy.
If she had won her party’s nomination and then the general election, Hillary Clinton’s presidency would probably not have looked so different from Obama’s. You think Obama’s advisers are bad? Hillary Clinton hired, and then took far too long to get rid of, Mark Penn. And her economic team probably would have looked an awful lot like Obama’s.
Excellent point. Obama drew his administration from the Democratic establishment, and the prior Democratic president was Bill Clinton: Panetta and others. Would Hillary have ditched Bob Gates as Defense Secretary? They are false choices we imagine.
It’s just that her similarities to Obama never seemed to register with those who saw in our current president a progressivism that he himself wasn’t advertising, and saw in her a drive and ferocity that — far from being the salvation some are now imagining — made her a harpy, a monster and a bitch. Her storied toughness was then read as craven ambition that was going to tear her party apart. Her knowledge of how Congress works was seen as part of her dynastic and corrupt Beltway privilege.
I certainly felt that she did not deserve to be the nominee ; I hated the idea that Bubba would be back in the White House, in any capacity.
Barack Obama walked into the White House in January 2009 with his own set of structural and strategic challenges: an economy in free fall; a 24-hour cable-news and talk-radio-fed culture eager to blare “crisis!” headlines every 12 minutes, making long-view evaluations of a presidency impossible; and most important, an obstinate Congress. On every major vote, from the stimulus to uncompromised health care reform, Obama needed 60 (not the historically customary 50) to get anything moving, a practical impossibility, thanks both to Republicans, whose stated goal was not to fix things but to keep the president from fixing anything, and to conservative Democrats, who made the party’s majority a false promise to begin with.
Yes, quite very true, but he wanted the job, just as she did. And his strategic and tactical choices were bad ones: let Congress hash out legislation out in the open, get only marginally involved during the legislative process, and wait for the end of the process to step in and close the deal. And go for health care first. Still, the Republican campaign to destroy his presidency, even if it damaged the country (in effect, especially if it damaged the country, for then they could really blaming for screwing up), and their ability to prevent any defections, hurt him badly. But his inability to overcome such intransigence is a key part of his defeats.
Rather than reveling in these flights of reverse political fancy, I find myself wanting the revisionist Hillary fantasists — Clintonites and reformed Obamamaniacs alike — to just shut up already. I understand the impulse to indulge in a quick “I told you so.” I would be lying if I said I didn’t think it sometimes. Maybe often. But to say it — much less to bray it — is small, mean, divisive and frankly dishonest. None of us know what would have happened with Hillary Clinton as president, no matter how many rounds of W.W.H.H.D. (What Would Hillary Have Done) we play.
It is a kind of piling on that liberals are engaged in now that it is acceptable to admit that perhaps we made a wrong choice. It's too easy. It is almost as if they were confessing their sins in hope of purifying their souls, only waiting for someone to absolve them, tell them to recite I will not vote foolishly again two hundred times, and promise that everything will be better in the morning.
I believe she was better prepared to navigate the vast right wing of our political system? Yes, sir, that’s part of why I voted for her over Obama. Do I wonder if she might not also have taken us to war with Iran by now? Well, that’s part of why I almost voted for Obama over her.
Obama seemed the candidate of change, of hope for a different way of conducting ourselves in the world and of ending the trend toward greater and greater economic disparity at home. Clinton seemed a tired choice, and then there was Bubba.
The visions — in 2008, of Obama as a progressive redeemer who would restore enlightened democracy to our land and Hillary as a crypto-Republican company man; or, in 2011, of Obama as an appeasement-happy crypto-Republican and Hillary as a leftist John Wayne who would have whipped those Congressional outlaws into shape — they were all invented. These are fictional characters shaped by the predilections, prejudices and short memories of the media and the electorate.
Wailing and hoping they, we, had voted for Hillary and thus wound up with a President we would still be supporting fervently, who would have already closed Guantanamo and withdrawn our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, who would not have agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, would have ended torture definitively ... it is pure fantasy.
If she had won her party’s nomination and then the general election, Hillary Clinton’s presidency would probably not have looked so different from Obama’s. You think Obama’s advisers are bad? Hillary Clinton hired, and then took far too long to get rid of, Mark Penn. And her economic team probably would have looked an awful lot like Obama’s.
Excellent point. Obama drew his administration from the Democratic establishment, and the prior Democratic president was Bill Clinton: Panetta and others. Would Hillary have ditched Bob Gates as Defense Secretary? They are false choices we imagine.
It’s just that her similarities to Obama never seemed to register with those who saw in our current president a progressivism that he himself wasn’t advertising, and saw in her a drive and ferocity that — far from being the salvation some are now imagining — made her a harpy, a monster and a bitch. Her storied toughness was then read as craven ambition that was going to tear her party apart. Her knowledge of how Congress works was seen as part of her dynastic and corrupt Beltway privilege.
I certainly felt that she did not deserve to be the nominee ; I hated the idea that Bubba would be back in the White House, in any capacity.
Barack Obama walked into the White House in January 2009 with his own set of structural and strategic challenges: an economy in free fall; a 24-hour cable-news and talk-radio-fed culture eager to blare “crisis!” headlines every 12 minutes, making long-view evaluations of a presidency impossible; and most important, an obstinate Congress. On every major vote, from the stimulus to uncompromised health care reform, Obama needed 60 (not the historically customary 50) to get anything moving, a practical impossibility, thanks both to Republicans, whose stated goal was not to fix things but to keep the president from fixing anything, and to conservative Democrats, who made the party’s majority a false promise to begin with.
Yes, quite very true, but he wanted the job, just as she did. And his strategic and tactical choices were bad ones: let Congress hash out legislation out in the open, get only marginally involved during the legislative process, and wait for the end of the process to step in and close the deal. And go for health care first. Still, the Republican campaign to destroy his presidency, even if it damaged the country (in effect, especially if it damaged the country, for then they could really blaming for screwing up), and their ability to prevent any defections, hurt him badly. But his inability to overcome such intransigence is a key part of his defeats.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Run, Paul, run
Republican Congressman Paul Ryan is strongly considering a 2012 presidential run, according to the Weekly Standard. The magazine claims the Wisconsin representative is on vacation in Colorado to discuss the possible campaign with his family during the congressional recess. He’s also reportedly been in talks with political strategists about the bid. “He’s coming around,” a Republican source close to Ryan reportedly told the publication. Ryan, as the House Budget Committee chairman, has been a powerful voice on conservative economic policy, and he’s stated that he isn’t satisfied with the current crop of GOP candidates, especially when they debate deficit issues.
The more, the better. All of these (Ryan, Perry, even Palin) will push the Repoublicans further to the right, and will show them for what they are: defenders of the privileged and the corporate.Now they are even talking about putting the US back on the gold standard. Maybe they'll do away with the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice, as well.
The more, the better. All of these (Ryan, Perry, even Palin) will push the Repoublicans further to the right, and will show them for what they are: defenders of the privileged and the corporate.Now they are even talking about putting the US back on the gold standard. Maybe they'll do away with the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice, as well.
Stop the bickering
On Tuesday, Starbucks Corporation CEO Howard Schultz called on business leaders to stop funding political campaigns until Congress stops the partisan bickering. A CNBC poll on political donations in light of the debt debate fiasco last month showed that 89% of respondents agreed with Schultz. Shortly after, CNBC showed a comment by political commentator Robert Reich saying that the reason companies contribute to U.S. politicians is because they see it as an investment. With that in mind, will Schultz’s view prevail? Unlikely.
It is heartening, and discouraging, that it has gotten to the level of a CEO to voice this complaint. Witness the 89% who agree. Despite these voices, politicians continue to rail that they represent the voice of the American people and that it is for them that they are fighting. Nonsense. The vaunted American people for whom they claim to be fighting are sick of their posturing and ineffectiveness, of their bromides anc clichés. Yet things continue the same as always. Why? The answer is simple: money.
Here is the “best way” to understand U.S. politics in four bullet points.
CNBC “Squawk on the Street” hosts asked why Schultz was making these statements and not bigger name CEOs. In particular, they asked why executives like Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase CEO, are not coming forward to complain about Washington, too. After all, lack of confidence in Congress has been something nearly every average trader and money manager in the market has been talking about all summer long, including in interviews here at Forbes. For that answer, see bullet point No. 1.
Dimon wants less regulation, even after the financial crisis. That lack of confidence is a smoke screen.
“I’m not a politician and I’m not here to prescribe policy. But as a business man who employs over 100 thousand people…I want to see congressional leadership,” Schultz told CNBC Tuesday morning. “We have a profound crisis of confidence in America and that problem stems from Washington,” he said. Stems? I doubt it. Washington excacerbates the problem, but the fault is not in our politicians, but in ourselves.
It is heartening, and discouraging, that it has gotten to the level of a CEO to voice this complaint. Witness the 89% who agree. Despite these voices, politicians continue to rail that they represent the voice of the American people and that it is for them that they are fighting. Nonsense. The vaunted American people for whom they claim to be fighting are sick of their posturing and ineffectiveness, of their bromides anc clichés. Yet things continue the same as always. Why? The answer is simple: money.
Here is the “best way” to understand U.S. politics in four bullet points.
- Republicans and Democrats both play to the rich 1% and to the following industries: big oil, big pharma, defense contractors, and banking and insurance. Add the NRA.
- Republicans take their talking points from Fox News, but are really laser focused on bullet no. 1. Fox talking heads berate the Democrats and the President, both of whom take money from the same donors as the Republicans, but who argue a different ideology.
- No matter who is elected, it is never as good, or as bad, as voters expect it to be. President Bush never banned abortion and we didn’t get Martial Law. President Obama failed to save the economy and we didn’t go socialist (or soshilist; same thing). Well, for the most part that might be true, but many people have suffered, and continue to suffer under a Democratic president, as badly, if not worse, than under a Republican president.
- The vote that matters is the vote that’s local, like a town hall vote for the school budget or a zoning law. As a result, voting for selectmen, city council and maybe the mayor and governor, matters and voting actually changes things. For Congress and the Senate, see bullet points 1 and 2. Well, abdicating national politics to the rich and powerful only confirms their domination and power.
CNBC “Squawk on the Street” hosts asked why Schultz was making these statements and not bigger name CEOs. In particular, they asked why executives like Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase CEO, are not coming forward to complain about Washington, too. After all, lack of confidence in Congress has been something nearly every average trader and money manager in the market has been talking about all summer long, including in interviews here at Forbes. For that answer, see bullet point No. 1.
Dimon wants less regulation, even after the financial crisis. That lack of confidence is a smoke screen.
“I’m not a politician and I’m not here to prescribe policy. But as a business man who employs over 100 thousand people…I want to see congressional leadership,” Schultz told CNBC Tuesday morning. “We have a profound crisis of confidence in America and that problem stems from Washington,” he said. Stems? I doubt it. Washington excacerbates the problem, but the fault is not in our politicians, but in ourselves.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
GOP free-for-all
This should be good: Bachman is nipping at Romney's percentage-of-popularity heels, Rick Perry is about to announce that Jesus, er, that is, he's also runnin' for the nomination, and now the grizzly momma is showing up in her bus. Palin bus tour to roll into Iowa.
After a more than two-month hiatus, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning to crash the presidential party once again with a heartland-themed re-launch of her "One Nation" bus tour this week in Iowa, according to a Palin fundraising email obtained by CNN. Palin is bringing her Constitution-draped bus to the Iowa State Fair, just 30 miles south of where the Republican presidential field will take the stage on Thursday for a presidential debate in Ames.
It's not yet clear which day the tour begins, but her surprise arrival in Iowa will happen before the closely watched Ames straw poll. Palin is not on the straw poll ballot. According to a video link included the fundraising solicitation for Palin's political action committee, Sarah PAC, it appears the bus will also take Palin to Missouri and Illinois to visit the respective hometowns of former presidents Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan.
That's rich: Reagan and Truman
After a more than two-month hiatus, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning to crash the presidential party once again with a heartland-themed re-launch of her "One Nation" bus tour this week in Iowa, according to a Palin fundraising email obtained by CNN. Palin is bringing her Constitution-draped bus to the Iowa State Fair, just 30 miles south of where the Republican presidential field will take the stage on Thursday for a presidential debate in Ames.
It's not yet clear which day the tour begins, but her surprise arrival in Iowa will happen before the closely watched Ames straw poll. Palin is not on the straw poll ballot. According to a video link included the fundraising solicitation for Palin's political action committee, Sarah PAC, it appears the bus will also take Palin to Missouri and Illinois to visit the respective hometowns of former presidents Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan.
That's rich: Reagan and Truman
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
One-Term Presidency?
It was a year and a half ago when President Obama told Diane Sawyer of ABC News in an interview that he would rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Now, coming off one of his worst weeks since taking office, Mr. Obama is nearing a decision on whether he really meant that. Is he willing to try to administer the disagreeable medicine that could help the economy mend over the long term, even if that means damaging his chances for re-election?
Who is kidding whom? He has a reelection committee. His advisers are leaking all over the place, theorizing about the next election, about possible opponents. C'mon, give us a break.
Who is kidding whom? He has a reelection committee. His advisers are leaking all over the place, theorizing about the next election, about possible opponents. C'mon, give us a break.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
I'm responsible ... right?
Obama says he inherited economic problems - President Barack Obama said on Monday he inherited many of the country's problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House, sounding a theme likely to dominate his 2012 re-election campaign. Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser, where families paid $15,000 to get a picture with him, Obama defended his economic record and noted that problems in Europe were affecting the United States. "We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited," Obama said. The financial crisis, he said, made the problem worse.
But, I'm in charge now, so it is my responsibility, and it is time to stop blaming someone else for the troubles I should be fixing. He might have said something along those lines, but did not. And that is the crux of the matter: it is somebody else's fault, not his, the preasident maintains. But 2½ years into his term, it is time he accepted responsibility.
But, I'm in charge now, so it is my responsibility, and it is time to stop blaming someone else for the troubles I should be fixing. He might have said something along those lines, but did not. And that is the crux of the matter: it is somebody else's fault, not his, the preasident maintains. But 2½ years into his term, it is time he accepted responsibility.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
87% disapprove
In the wake of the debt-ceiling debate, 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job—the highest ever, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. I'd like to hear what the other 18% think.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
We got a deal
I am not a fan of declarations of things will never be the same, or of the current penchant to include the words Here's how in any pronouncements, but perhaps this article does have quite valid points. In the aftermath of the deal worked out between te Three Stooges (namely, Obama, Democrats and Republicans), all talking heads are in a rush to provide instant, profound analysis.
My judgment is that all the Three Stooges look worse now than before the most recent crisis: Obama looks indecisive, seems to have no spine, to not understand how to use power, to be reluctant to twists arms (let alone kick a little ass), and to have no guiding principle other than reelection; the Democrats seem timid, weak, ignored by a president of their own party, and unable to fight the opposition effectively; and the Republicans look to be hostages of their right wing.
Nonetheless, perhaps the Republicans came out looking the best of the three. Speaker Boehner resisted the Tea Party dictates in the end, and he got his party to vote for the legislation.
Debt-ceiling increases are now tied to deficit reduction. With President Obama's signature, every future president until America's debt monster is tamed must come to Congress on bended knee and plead for the privilege of avoiding default.
Obama looked weak an dineffective, and was unable to impose his will. Then again, he does seem to believe he should be imposing his will. Score one for a weak president.
Bipartisan entitlement protection lives on. No one has the nerve to cut spending in any meaningful way. For all the GOP fervor to rein in government spending, the agreement defers all decisions about entitlement spending to a so-called super committee with an internal architecture almost built for stalemate. The legislationcreated a committee to com eup with cuts. Last year's Deficit Reduction Commission, already all but fiorgotten, is an indicator of how this new committee will fare: badly.
Congress's back-loading of spending cuts lives on. A Democratic president and a tea party-inspired Republican Party will mutually agree to cut domestic discretionary spending (defined by budget authority) by $10 billion compared with 2011 budget totals. That's out of projected domestic discretionary spending of just more than $2 trillion for fiscal 2012 and 2013. Crumbs.Half of one percentage point.
Speaker John Boehner wobbled but didn't fall. Does that make him a force to be reckoned with? Well, he still has the Sperakership. And he did get the votes.
My judgment is that all the Three Stooges look worse now than before the most recent crisis: Obama looks indecisive, seems to have no spine, to not understand how to use power, to be reluctant to twists arms (let alone kick a little ass), and to have no guiding principle other than reelection; the Democrats seem timid, weak, ignored by a president of their own party, and unable to fight the opposition effectively; and the Republicans look to be hostages of their right wing.
Nonetheless, perhaps the Republicans came out looking the best of the three. Speaker Boehner resisted the Tea Party dictates in the end, and he got his party to vote for the legislation.
Debt-ceiling increases are now tied to deficit reduction. With President Obama's signature, every future president until America's debt monster is tamed must come to Congress on bended knee and plead for the privilege of avoiding default.
Obama looked weak an dineffective, and was unable to impose his will. Then again, he does seem to believe he should be imposing his will. Score one for a weak president.
Bipartisan entitlement protection lives on. No one has the nerve to cut spending in any meaningful way. For all the GOP fervor to rein in government spending, the agreement defers all decisions about entitlement spending to a so-called super committee with an internal architecture almost built for stalemate. The legislationcreated a committee to com eup with cuts. Last year's Deficit Reduction Commission, already all but fiorgotten, is an indicator of how this new committee will fare: badly.
Congress's back-loading of spending cuts lives on. A Democratic president and a tea party-inspired Republican Party will mutually agree to cut domestic discretionary spending (defined by budget authority) by $10 billion compared with 2011 budget totals. That's out of projected domestic discretionary spending of just more than $2 trillion for fiscal 2012 and 2013. Crumbs.Half of one percentage point.
Speaker John Boehner wobbled but didn't fall. Does that make him a force to be reckoned with? Well, he still has the Sperakership. And he did get the votes.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Good news?
The debate to raise the federal government's debt ceiling has exposed, or shone a spotlight on what was already obvious, namely, the incompetence and ideological intransigence of Democrats, Republicans and the President. No one looks good, and the bad of it is that we the people are the ones suffering; these jerks get to keep their jobs – for now, at least. One idea that died quicker than ethics do in Washington was a grand bargain.
After all, who really wants a deal struck by one of the most inept bargainers-in-chief ever to live in the White House and a Republican leadership trapped by the ideological intransigence of right-wing extremists?
Obama looks awful. He would have a difficult time convincing a baseball player to spit. The Republican dog is wagged by the right-wing tail.
They will do everything to sabotage Obama, including screwing the country, arrogant in their belief they will get into power and fix things.
But Obama, who suffers from the hubris of thinking always he’s the smartest guy in the room, walked right into their trap in accepting the debt-ceiling debate on their terms instead of exercising leadership and keeping the focus on unemployment.
His idea of leadership is to wait, wait some more, and see what happens.
It depends in the end on how severe the political backlash to this debacle will be. At present, regardless of the actual outcome of this nauseating debate, it looks like the public frustration and disgust with Washington that has been simmering for some years is ready to boil over.
It would be nice if there was some public anger, but it ain't gonna happen.
After all, who really wants a deal struck by one of the most inept bargainers-in-chief ever to live in the White House and a Republican leadership trapped by the ideological intransigence of right-wing extremists?
Obama looks awful. He would have a difficult time convincing a baseball player to spit. The Republican dog is wagged by the right-wing tail.
We don’t need a grand bargain — not now, or six months from now, or ever. What we need are responsible politicians who understand a little bit about economics and who are willing to work in the public interest day after day, year after year. Even a short-term debt-ceiling reprieve that kicks the can down the road would be preferable to an ill-advised grand bargain that locks in harmful spending cuts for a decade.
Obama has caved in to the right wing. The Republican party has caved in to the right wing. So we have the nation's politics dominated by a hundred right wing nuts who actually believe that it is better to have the nation lose its credit rating than to compromise.
any spectacle that sees McConnell and Reid emerge as the heroes is a sorry one, indeed.
Indeed. Those two have to be some of the most mediocre politicians in modern US history. Where is Roman Hukstra when we need him?
it’s important to have no illusions going into an election year. Obama, as noted, has confirmed his reputation for ineptitude. Voters may choose to return him to office, but they will have to adjust their expectations downward.
What a disappointment, too. So much promise, so much hope, and so little done.
House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, meanwhile, can continue their internecine warfare, and congressional Republicans can bicker their way out of majority control of the House.
That used to seem exciting, but what would be the alternative? Democrats in control? They're as bad.
It would be sad if the Republicans, who have shown themselves willing to sacrifice the welfare of the American people in order to sabotage the Obama presidency, succeeded in their plan.
They will do everything to sabotage Obama, including screwing the country, arrogant in their belief they will get into power and fix things.
But Obama, who suffers from the hubris of thinking always he’s the smartest guy in the room, walked right into their trap in accepting the debt-ceiling debate on their terms instead of exercising leadership and keeping the focus on unemployment.
His idea of leadership is to wait, wait some more, and see what happens.
It would be a long shot for Bloomberg or anyone else to step up as a third-party candidate and a much longer shot for such a candidate to capture the White House. It’s never happened since our two-party system became the norm, but then the U.S. has never defaulted before, either.
Bloomberg? I just don't see him appealing to enough voters. I think he's arrogant, self-centered, aloof, and convinced he is about as smart and effective a leader as is possible. But, hey, who knows?
It would be nice if there was some public anger, but it ain't gonna happen.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Another dwarf
Perry Changes Tune on White House Bid - Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said for months he has no interest in running for the White House in 2012. But political advisers and friends say that in private conversations he has recently changed his tune on a possible presidential campaign.
Obama should be so lucky.
Mr. Perry is making a number of national appearances this month, including an address next week to an annual dinner of the New York Republican Party. Last week he announced an August summit in Houston and invited all the country's governors to attend. He described the event as a 'day of prayer and fasting' focused on "the healing of our country." Mr. Perry has recently built a base among tea-party groups and conservatives by hammering on state's rights and attacking the Obama administration for its health-care overhaul and interventions in the economy. This year, he backed an array of measures appealing to social conservatives, including a requirement that all women considering an abortion have a sonogram first.In 2009, Mr. Perry caused a stir by expressing sympathy for Texans who might want to secede from the union if federal mandates became too onerous, a comment that could prove problematic in a presidential campaign, especially among general-election voters. Mr. Perry's candidacy would also test whether voters are willing to elevate another Texas governor so soon after the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr. Perry's predecessor in Austin.
Perfect: Bush III, and a Tea-Party, secession-supporting right-winger. Obama should be so lucky.
Obama should be so lucky.
Mr. Perry is making a number of national appearances this month, including an address next week to an annual dinner of the New York Republican Party. Last week he announced an August summit in Houston and invited all the country's governors to attend. He described the event as a 'day of prayer and fasting' focused on "the healing of our country." Mr. Perry has recently built a base among tea-party groups and conservatives by hammering on state's rights and attacking the Obama administration for its health-care overhaul and interventions in the economy. This year, he backed an array of measures appealing to social conservatives, including a requirement that all women considering an abortion have a sonogram first.In 2009, Mr. Perry caused a stir by expressing sympathy for Texans who might want to secede from the union if federal mandates became too onerous, a comment that could prove problematic in a presidential campaign, especially among general-election voters. Mr. Perry's candidacy would also test whether voters are willing to elevate another Texas governor so soon after the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr. Perry's predecessor in Austin.
Perfect: Bush III, and a Tea-Party, secession-supporting right-winger. Obama should be so lucky.
Friday, June 3, 2011
This is what passes for news
as tornadoes ravage the land, as flood waters drown Louisiana, Montana and Vermont, as Congress threatens not to pay America’s creditors and as the economy teeters, “Weiner’s Pickle” as The Daily News phrased it on Thursday, dominates. CNN, ABC and CBS lead broadcasts with it. Fox News is nearly beside itself — a liberal Democrat endangered! — and so offers a Weiner extravaganza.
Fair and balanced.
Fair and balanced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
