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.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
26% approval rating
A new low of 26% of Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, down 11 percentage points since Gallup last measured it in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.
His solution? Go on the road, attack Congress as ineffective, and promise a major something in September. I don't think they quite get it, his political team: attacking Congress is more of the same tried and failed strategy of not taking responsibility, but simply casting blame.
President Obama's approval rating has dwindled in recent weeks to the point that it is barely hugging the 40% line. Three months earlier, it approached or exceeded 50%. History will remember this period for the messy political debate in Washington over the debt ceiling, followed by distress on Wall Street and tragedy in Afghanistan. How much each of these factors is responsible for the overall decline in Obama's approval rating is unclear. But Americans' unhappiness with each of them is reflected in recent declines in Obama's specific job ratings for the economy, the federal budget deficit, and various foreign policy measures, as well as in his markedly low rating for creating jobs.
Of course, as Rick Perry and his Texas swagger jump to the lead in the early Republican line, and push the Republican party decidedly to the right, the president benefits. it might work, to rely on the Republican Party losing the election and his winning reelection, but it won't do a damned thing to help the nation improve.
His solution? Go on the road, attack Congress as ineffective, and promise a major something in September. I don't think they quite get it, his political team: attacking Congress is more of the same tried and failed strategy of not taking responsibility, but simply casting blame.
President Obama's approval rating has dwindled in recent weeks to the point that it is barely hugging the 40% line. Three months earlier, it approached or exceeded 50%. History will remember this period for the messy political debate in Washington over the debt ceiling, followed by distress on Wall Street and tragedy in Afghanistan. How much each of these factors is responsible for the overall decline in Obama's approval rating is unclear. But Americans' unhappiness with each of them is reflected in recent declines in Obama's specific job ratings for the economy, the federal budget deficit, and various foreign policy measures, as well as in his markedly low rating for creating jobs.
Of course, as Rick Perry and his Texas swagger jump to the lead in the early Republican line, and push the Republican party decidedly to the right, the president benefits. it might work, to rely on the Republican Party losing the election and his winning reelection, but it won't do a damned thing to help the nation improve.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2011
A new face, an old face
G.O.P. on Defensive as analysts question Party’s fiscal policy: They just figured this out? The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity. Bachman, for example, continues to insist on her fictitious and offbase ideas, including using the tactic of bringing the country to default on its debts and obligations as a negotiating tactic. These critics include onetime standard-bearers of Republican economic philosophy like Martin Feldstein, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary to President George W. Bush, underscoring the deepening divide between party establishment figures and the Tea Party-inspired Republicans in Congress and running for the White House.
Debate Showed Why Americans Hate Government
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
