My equanimity over the possibility that McCain could win -- because he was opposed to torture and Bush's lawlessness -- has been damaged by these latest revelations about his backtracking on earlier opposition to the Bushist excesses.
Greenwald details them here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/06/mccain/index.html
The bottom line, however, is that we will need to have a change of party in order to really start cleaning house. Is this because the Democrats are more virtuous than the Republicans? No, not really. There's little evidence for that. Indeed, the worst of the Bush excesses would not have been possible without enabling from the so-called opposition party.
But, while no better than the Republicans, the Democrats have incentives to cast the GOP behavior in a bad light and there is therefore a chance that some of the worst can come to light and reforms put in place as the Democrats try to capitalize on the disgust the truth will provoke.
McCain, while personally not as bad as Bush, cannot make the kind of break needed. For one thing, any McCain administration will, naturally, be filled with Republicans, many of theme the same folks that have been responsible for the abuses for the last eight years. But even the ones who did not bear direct responsibility for abuses will have little incentive to reveal the bad behavior of other Republicans.
No, McCain will not do. I'm sure torture will end and the worst abuses of FISA may very well stop under McCain, but it will be a temporary reprieve, easily reversed in the future bad precedents will be allowed to stand and Americans will not trust their government. An Obama administration, on the other hand, provides the opportunity for repudiating the Bush errors, revealing them for the world and America to see, and making clear to everyone how badly we strayed off course. It may not be possible to repair all the damage Bush did, but we can make a start.
Perhaps, someday, the Republicans and the "conservatives" will come to understand where they were wrong and it will be possible to entrust them with power again. Or, perhaps, the Democrats will screw up even worse than the GOP (they certainly have the talent) the voting for the Republicans will seem to be the lesser of the evils.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
We Have A Dream
You have to love a couple like this
Wikipedia notes: Senator Barack Obama will give his acceptance speech on August 28, the 45th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.
Sweet.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
No, she won't
Make a good VP, that is.
Poltiblog explains why:
Beyond the general difficulties for Obama of dealing with Hillary (as well as Bill), I think that the main chance that the Democrats have of wooing independents and some Republicans is an Obama ticket sans Clinton. While I lack empirical evidence to support the argument at the moment, I think that the general dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, mixed with the unpopularity of the Iraq War will translate into a number of Republicans being willing to vote for Obama in the Fall. However, those same disgruntled Republicans have a great deal of animosity aimed in the direction of the Clintons and will be utterly unwilling to vote for a ticket that contains a Clinton and they will either stick with McCain, cast a protest vote for Barr or stay home in November.
Put another way: an unpopular war and economic problems equals problems for the incumbent party–in a generic sense there is plenty of historic evidence to support such an assertion. Under such conditions, voters normally predisposed to vote for that party will defect or abstain. As such, it is reasonable to assume that Obama has a real chance of winning a decent number of Republican votes in the fall. However, Republicans, in general, have a great deal of dislike for the Clintons, and her presence on the ballot would suppress, to a substantial degree I believe, the generic pattern described in the first portion of this paragraph. As such, Obama-Clinton is far less of a “dream” for the Democrats as many pundits may think.
Poltiblog explains why:
Beyond the general difficulties for Obama of dealing with Hillary (as well as Bill), I think that the main chance that the Democrats have of wooing independents and some Republicans is an Obama ticket sans Clinton. While I lack empirical evidence to support the argument at the moment, I think that the general dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, mixed with the unpopularity of the Iraq War will translate into a number of Republicans being willing to vote for Obama in the Fall. However, those same disgruntled Republicans have a great deal of animosity aimed in the direction of the Clintons and will be utterly unwilling to vote for a ticket that contains a Clinton and they will either stick with McCain, cast a protest vote for Barr or stay home in November.
Put another way: an unpopular war and economic problems equals problems for the incumbent party–in a generic sense there is plenty of historic evidence to support such an assertion. Under such conditions, voters normally predisposed to vote for that party will defect or abstain. As such, it is reasonable to assume that Obama has a real chance of winning a decent number of Republican votes in the fall. However, Republicans, in general, have a great deal of dislike for the Clintons, and her presence on the ballot would suppress, to a substantial degree I believe, the generic pattern described in the first portion of this paragraph. As such, Obama-Clinton is far less of a “dream” for the Democrats as many pundits may think.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Zero credibility
That's what the United States has right now, including our military, because of President Bush.
Here's an account of the latest Gitmo foolishness, where a military judge is "fired" for daring to rule independently. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/the_gitmo_circus.html#more
No doubt the torture apologists will defend this latest crap, but all I can say is Busg can't leave soon enough. Begone, foul spot!
Here's an account of the latest Gitmo foolishness, where a military judge is "fired" for daring to rule independently. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/the_gitmo_circus.html#more
No doubt the torture apologists will defend this latest crap, but all I can say is Busg can't leave soon enough. Begone, foul spot!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Barack and Iraq
There are some preliminary signs of progress in Iraq, which prompts the question of what Obama should do if things are going relatively well there when he takes office. (There's less of a question for a McCain presidency, because he has essentially committed us to staying there.)
On the one hand, Obama clearly will have a mandate to pull the U.S. out sooner rather than later. Presumably anyone who thinks we should stay will vote for McCain.
On the other hand, every indication is that Barack Obama is a man who deals with the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. And as much as he might be tempted to pull out anyway, I suspect he'll evaluate conditions on the ground and calibrate any pullout to match the situation.
Is does not necessarily follow, by the way, that we should stay if things are going well. Or leave if they are going well. The key thing is to determine why things are going well. IF they are only going well because of high U.S. troop levels then pulling out quickly is obviously a poor choice. But if the improvement is largely because of Iraqi choices, then leaving without unnecessary delay will help.
The one thing I don't think Obama is interested in is creating a permanent U.S. presence a la Germany or Japan after World War II or Korea. It's likely that any Iraqi government strong enough to govern will ask us to leave. A long-term presence in an Arab country seems to cause more trouble than it is worth. Sticking around in Saudi Arabia has caused no end to our troubles, for example. Better an off-shore naval presence or small special forces bases in small, friendly states like Kuwait.
On the one hand, Obama clearly will have a mandate to pull the U.S. out sooner rather than later. Presumably anyone who thinks we should stay will vote for McCain.
On the other hand, every indication is that Barack Obama is a man who deals with the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. And as much as he might be tempted to pull out anyway, I suspect he'll evaluate conditions on the ground and calibrate any pullout to match the situation.
Is does not necessarily follow, by the way, that we should stay if things are going well. Or leave if they are going well. The key thing is to determine why things are going well. IF they are only going well because of high U.S. troop levels then pulling out quickly is obviously a poor choice. But if the improvement is largely because of Iraqi choices, then leaving without unnecessary delay will help.
The one thing I don't think Obama is interested in is creating a permanent U.S. presence a la Germany or Japan after World War II or Korea. It's likely that any Iraqi government strong enough to govern will ask us to leave. A long-term presence in an Arab country seems to cause more trouble than it is worth. Sticking around in Saudi Arabia has caused no end to our troubles, for example. Better an off-shore naval presence or small special forces bases in small, friendly states like Kuwait.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Democrats
The inability of the Democrats to make rules and stick to them provides the Republicans for their best long-term hope that their time in the political wilderness will be shorter than it might otherwise be.
Discipline and Democrats are, evidently, not words with an affinity. It has explained why the GOP, even with its problems, has been able to stymie the Democrats on most issues.
Can there be any doubt that the GOP, if it had a congressional majority and a Democratic president as unpopular as Bush, would be running roughshod over them?
One of Obama's challenges, should he become president, will be bringing some discipline to his own party. This will likely be difficult because electoral success will tend to blind the Democrats to the problem. The fact that it's hard, does not make it any less important however.
Discipline and Democrats are, evidently, not words with an affinity. It has explained why the GOP, even with its problems, has been able to stymie the Democrats on most issues.
Can there be any doubt that the GOP, if it had a congressional majority and a Democratic president as unpopular as Bush, would be running roughshod over them?
One of Obama's challenges, should he become president, will be bringing some discipline to his own party. This will likely be difficult because electoral success will tend to blind the Democrats to the problem. The fact that it's hard, does not make it any less important however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
