Over at Obsidian Wings they commented about Gen. Petreaus' political savvy, ending with the comment that they hope he doesn't run for political office as a Republican someday.
I think that's short-sighted. I do hope he considers running, if he thinks he has something to contribute.
Currently I'm wishing Obama well. I think he's being a necessary corrective to Bush-era disasters. I said during the campaign and believe still that Bush represented such an epic failure of values and competence that we needed a complete "anti-Bush" as the next president and Obama is about as un-Bush as you can get.
That said, I think Obama is a singular individual and I see very little evidence that Democrats, generally, have improved at all over the feckless, short-sighted, morally cowardly bunch of hacks they've been. While the Bush-era disaster is, rightly, laid at the feet of the GOP, Democrats did not cover themselves in glory as the opposition, either.
Once Obama's 8 years are over (and I do assume he will be re-elected) the country may well be ready for a swing closer to the middle and someone like Petreaus may be a good choice. Generals tend to be pragmatic individuals, especially the good ones, and not particularly ideological. Given that the Republicans seems determined to go through at least one more round of drubbings in 2012, someone like Petreaus (or maybe a Huntsman-Petreaus ticket) could lead them back from the wilderness. A Huntsman-Petreaus ticket might win the White House, but it's highly likely they would start out with the Congress still controlled by the Democrats, which creates some interesting potential political dynamics as well. It may be that most of the legistlation that gets passed by a H-P administration would be Democrat originated but with signifcant concessions to the middle ground of a moderate GOP. Hard-core left Dems and the Rightist GOp rump might both find themselves left out in the cold -- which would be the best possible outcome.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
GOP lifts off from any connection with reality or principles
There are a few things evident from the last few weeks:
Republicans are opposed to deficit spending By Democrats -- but not Republicans.
Republicans are happy to setting strict rules on how much taxpayer money you can receive if you are on welfare or a union auto worker -- but not if you're a Wall Street CEO.
Republicans are happy to cut taxes -- so long as most of the tax cut benefits the wealthy.
Republicans are against class warfare so long as it's waged against the rich -- but it's OK against the middle class, working class and poor.
Republicans are all for bipartisan compromise -- so long as they get what they want but don't have to actually vote for it.
Democrats are invertebrates.
Republicans are opposed to deficit spending By Democrats -- but not Republicans.
Republicans are happy to setting strict rules on how much taxpayer money you can receive if you are on welfare or a union auto worker -- but not if you're a Wall Street CEO.
Republicans are happy to cut taxes -- so long as most of the tax cut benefits the wealthy.
Republicans are against class warfare so long as it's waged against the rich -- but it's OK against the middle class, working class and poor.
Republicans are all for bipartisan compromise -- so long as they get what they want but don't have to actually vote for it.
Democrats are invertebrates.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Party of Putz
Now just to be clear, the modern Republican Party has disgraced itself by embracing torture, aggressive war and executive branch lawlessness. It's abandoned fiscal restraint (unless the program is proposed by Democrats), limited government (Terry S.) and science. It's signature issues are hostility to gays, people of color, immigrants, regulations and, especially, taxes of any sort. In short they are a mess.
On the other hand, should they straighten themselves out they will have a clear path to power because the opposition party is afflicted with terminal putzness. The latest example is the sorry saga of Blagojevich and Burris. It simply proves that it's not only Republicans that can outmaneuver Democrats. It simply requires that someone be smart and a little ruthless. That can be a force for good (Obama) or bad (Blago) but the bottom line is that the Democrats, being unable to stand up for any real principles, are hopelessly unable to stand their ground against determined opposition.
In some ways this is a hopeful thing, as I think people who expect Obama to have a lot of trouble with his own side of the aisle are mistaken and are, once again, underestimating him. I think he'll get his way on a surprising amount of his agenda in the end.
But this may not lead to the lasting Democratic party successes that it should because I think Obama is a singular fellow and I doubt he'll be bale to institutionalize the changes in the Democratic Party needed to overcome putzness.
Reid and company made a grave error by laying down a marker on Blagojevich's pick for a senator. Having very thin legal grounds for blocking any pick, they made a vow they couldn't keep. Having no real legitimate grounds for excluding Burris they simply invited Blago to humiliate them by picking someone like Burris that they couldn't really say "no" to. The right response would have been to simply promise to evaluate any pick and make it clear that anyone tainted by a credible report of corruption would face scrutiny. Instead, like the putzheads they are, they rashly demanded that Blago appoint no one and vowed not to seat anyone he appointed.
Unless the Democrats actually produce some real legislative leadership (Reid and Pelosi not being it) I predict the Republicans will come roaring back before the end of Obama's second term.
On the other hand, should they straighten themselves out they will have a clear path to power because the opposition party is afflicted with terminal putzness. The latest example is the sorry saga of Blagojevich and Burris. It simply proves that it's not only Republicans that can outmaneuver Democrats. It simply requires that someone be smart and a little ruthless. That can be a force for good (Obama) or bad (Blago) but the bottom line is that the Democrats, being unable to stand up for any real principles, are hopelessly unable to stand their ground against determined opposition.
In some ways this is a hopeful thing, as I think people who expect Obama to have a lot of trouble with his own side of the aisle are mistaken and are, once again, underestimating him. I think he'll get his way on a surprising amount of his agenda in the end.
But this may not lead to the lasting Democratic party successes that it should because I think Obama is a singular fellow and I doubt he'll be bale to institutionalize the changes in the Democratic Party needed to overcome putzness.
Reid and company made a grave error by laying down a marker on Blagojevich's pick for a senator. Having very thin legal grounds for blocking any pick, they made a vow they couldn't keep. Having no real legitimate grounds for excluding Burris they simply invited Blago to humiliate them by picking someone like Burris that they couldn't really say "no" to. The right response would have been to simply promise to evaluate any pick and make it clear that anyone tainted by a credible report of corruption would face scrutiny. Instead, like the putzheads they are, they rashly demanded that Blago appoint no one and vowed not to seat anyone he appointed.
Unless the Democrats actually produce some real legislative leadership (Reid and Pelosi not being it) I predict the Republicans will come roaring back before the end of Obama's second term.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Worst case scenario for Lieberman
Is if the Democrats pick up less than what they need for 60, like enough to get to 57, say. Then Lieberman is not needed for the filibuster, yet they also are comfortably over 51 and don't need him for control, either.
In that case they may just cast him loose, wish him luck with his GOP buddies and plan to knock him off with a real Democrat next time he's up for re-election.
In that case they may just cast him loose, wish him luck with his GOP buddies and plan to knock him off with a real Democrat next time he's up for re-election.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Is it Bayh?
Drudge reports that a Kansas TV station is reporting a local company is printing Obama-Bayh campaign materials.
Source: http://www.kmbc.com/politics/17267009/detail.html
If true, it's a fairly conventional choice for Obama, although probably a safe one.
This is more evidence, I think, that Obama will be much less radical than opponents fear and supporters may want. In his head, the guy is definitely a liberal, but in his gut, he's a cautious, deliberative and basically conservative man. He really is the Anti-Bush.
If true, I'd expect an announcement earlier, rather than later.
Source: http://www.kmbc.com/politics/17267009/detail.html
If true, it's a fairly conventional choice for Obama, although probably a safe one.
This is more evidence, I think, that Obama will be much less radical than opponents fear and supporters may want. In his head, the guy is definitely a liberal, but in his gut, he's a cautious, deliberative and basically conservative man. He really is the Anti-Bush.
If true, I'd expect an announcement earlier, rather than later.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The summer of our discontent
It's hard to believe, given the disastrous nature of the Bush era, that the Republicans are still competitive in this race. If there was any justice in the world, they would be sent, as a body, packing into the wilderness for 40 years to repent.
But, of course, justice in this world is in short supply, which explains our hope there is more justice in the world to come.
I think there are many reasons why the race is still close, and to the extent that some of those reasons persist in the fall, there's a chance McCain will pull it off.
In no particular order:
1. Democrats, as a rule, a pathetic losers. They are to party discipline what cats are to herding. They're so afraid of being portrayed as "weak" on various issues that they cave in to the most unreasonable GOP demands. Evidently they are completely clueless that this confirms for all to see that they are, indeed, weak.
2. People aren't paying attention yet. It's only August.
3. Iraq isn't as big a disaster as it was last year. This allows McCain to make short-term claims that he was "right about the surge" but the long-term story is still disadvantageous to the GOP. The bottom line is that the public has made up its mind on Iraq and there's little that can happen there that will make a difference.
4. People like and respect McCain. Or at least the ones that aren't paying attention (See No. 2, above) People who are paying attention are having some second thoughts because of No. 5, below.
5. Negative campaigning still works. Or, at least, it works to make voters see your opponent more negatively. McCain is gambling that he can pull Obama down enough to catch him without losing much ground himself. This is a gamble, however, because it assumes Obama will refrain from going negative himself. McCain provides plenty of ready ammo for negative campaigning, though, and he may regret opening that Pandora's box. McCain is banking on Obama not being ruthless enough to go tit-for-tat with negative ads. While I don't doubt that Obama would prefer not to go there, I think he's provided ample evidence he will do what he must to win. McCain may be misunderestimating his opponent.
6. McCain is popular with the press -- for a Republican. The press hasn't made up its mind on Obama. In part, it wants to like Obama, but because it knows it wants to like Obama it thinks it shouldn't like Obama. If that makes sense to you, you're a journalist. If it doesn't make sense to you then you're a normal person.
7. There's a portion of the electorate (of undetermined size) that isn't ready to vote for a black man under any circumstances. On the other hand, most of those people probably wouldn't vote for any Democrat and have already been factored into the likely vote. The only way this would make a difference is if there's a significant number of people who would otherwise have voted Democrat that won't because of Obama's race. Maybe there is. If the race is close, they may make a difference. My sense is, however, that the anti-GOP sentiment is probably strong enough that other factors will overcome this effect.
Once the convention's shake out things will become more clear
But, of course, justice in this world is in short supply, which explains our hope there is more justice in the world to come.
I think there are many reasons why the race is still close, and to the extent that some of those reasons persist in the fall, there's a chance McCain will pull it off.
In no particular order:
1. Democrats, as a rule, a pathetic losers. They are to party discipline what cats are to herding. They're so afraid of being portrayed as "weak" on various issues that they cave in to the most unreasonable GOP demands. Evidently they are completely clueless that this confirms for all to see that they are, indeed, weak.
2. People aren't paying attention yet. It's only August.
3. Iraq isn't as big a disaster as it was last year. This allows McCain to make short-term claims that he was "right about the surge" but the long-term story is still disadvantageous to the GOP. The bottom line is that the public has made up its mind on Iraq and there's little that can happen there that will make a difference.
4. People like and respect McCain. Or at least the ones that aren't paying attention (See No. 2, above) People who are paying attention are having some second thoughts because of No. 5, below.
5. Negative campaigning still works. Or, at least, it works to make voters see your opponent more negatively. McCain is gambling that he can pull Obama down enough to catch him without losing much ground himself. This is a gamble, however, because it assumes Obama will refrain from going negative himself. McCain provides plenty of ready ammo for negative campaigning, though, and he may regret opening that Pandora's box. McCain is banking on Obama not being ruthless enough to go tit-for-tat with negative ads. While I don't doubt that Obama would prefer not to go there, I think he's provided ample evidence he will do what he must to win. McCain may be misunderestimating his opponent.
6. McCain is popular with the press -- for a Republican. The press hasn't made up its mind on Obama. In part, it wants to like Obama, but because it knows it wants to like Obama it thinks it shouldn't like Obama. If that makes sense to you, you're a journalist. If it doesn't make sense to you then you're a normal person.
7. There's a portion of the electorate (of undetermined size) that isn't ready to vote for a black man under any circumstances. On the other hand, most of those people probably wouldn't vote for any Democrat and have already been factored into the likely vote. The only way this would make a difference is if there's a significant number of people who would otherwise have voted Democrat that won't because of Obama's race. Maybe there is. If the race is close, they may make a difference. My sense is, however, that the anti-GOP sentiment is probably strong enough that other factors will overcome this effect.
Once the convention's shake out things will become more clear
Friday, July 18, 2008
The doldrums of summer have hit
But yet we still have news.
Obama's heading to Europe where he seems likely to face swooning schoolgirls and presidents.
McCain's back home, trying hard to make some news that's actually favorable.
Former AG Ashcroft further solidifies his growing reputation as the sane one, who actually believed in following the rule of law -- who'd have thunk?
Bobb Barr makes progress in his crusade to punish the GOP for forgetting all its principles by giving conservatives who just can't bear the thought of voting for a Liberal but despise the current GOP a place to park their votes for now. It seems to me likely that Barr will siphon off enough votes to make a difference.
Obama's heading to Europe where he seems likely to face swooning schoolgirls and presidents.
McCain's back home, trying hard to make some news that's actually favorable.
Former AG Ashcroft further solidifies his growing reputation as the sane one, who actually believed in following the rule of law -- who'd have thunk?
Bobb Barr makes progress in his crusade to punish the GOP for forgetting all its principles by giving conservatives who just can't bear the thought of voting for a Liberal but despise the current GOP a place to park their votes for now. It seems to me likely that Barr will siphon off enough votes to make a difference.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
FISA Follies
The abject worthlessness of the Democratic party was on full display with how they collectively handled the FISA issue -- which is to say they didn't handle it collectively at all.
Say what you will about the Republicans -- and there's a to say -- when it comes time to vote on an issue they usually get their ducks in line. Here and there the Democrats may shave off a couple of GOP members on a particular issue, although rarely enough to make up for the number of Democrats who get chipped off their bloc.
The Democrats area different story. More than once, some really bad legislation wanted by the administration has been passed by enlisting a substantial number of Democrats to vote with the nearly unanimous GOP. So we have the amazing sight of the so-called majority party caving in to the minority party line, despite the unpopularity of the minority party and its president. While they were the majority party, the Republicans were able to act as though they owned a supermajority despite the fact their edge was actually rather narrow, due to this Democratic habit.
The problem for the Democrats is that the public perceives them as being weak, fractious and ineffective. This is a problem because the public perception happens to be accurate. This perception, more than anything else, will pose a problem for the Democrats down the line unless they manage to change. Their time on top may not be as long-lived as it was before because the Republicans, should they manage to regain their conservative soul (see Andrew Sullivan for more on that) will be poised for a quick comeback.
Obama's flip-flop on this issue is a disappointment, although it doesn't change the basic calculus that the only way to mitigate the damage done is to have a change of party.
Say what you will about the Republicans -- and there's a to say -- when it comes time to vote on an issue they usually get their ducks in line. Here and there the Democrats may shave off a couple of GOP members on a particular issue, although rarely enough to make up for the number of Democrats who get chipped off their bloc.
The Democrats area different story. More than once, some really bad legislation wanted by the administration has been passed by enlisting a substantial number of Democrats to vote with the nearly unanimous GOP. So we have the amazing sight of the so-called majority party caving in to the minority party line, despite the unpopularity of the minority party and its president. While they were the majority party, the Republicans were able to act as though they owned a supermajority despite the fact their edge was actually rather narrow, due to this Democratic habit.
The problem for the Democrats is that the public perceives them as being weak, fractious and ineffective. This is a problem because the public perception happens to be accurate. This perception, more than anything else, will pose a problem for the Democrats down the line unless they manage to change. Their time on top may not be as long-lived as it was before because the Republicans, should they manage to regain their conservative soul (see Andrew Sullivan for more on that) will be poised for a quick comeback.
Obama's flip-flop on this issue is a disappointment, although it doesn't change the basic calculus that the only way to mitigate the damage done is to have a change of party.
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.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Obama wins
Well, Kentucky covered itself in glory today, eh? While polite company tried to ignore it as best they could, it was clear from the exit polls that good old fashioned racism was the main reason for Obama's poor showing. Oregon, which is, in economic terms virtaully the same as Kentucky went the other way, so we can discount the "class" arguments being used to excuse the Appalachian voters.
In the end it doesn't matter. Clinton is toast, but don't look for a graceful exit. Her spokespeople and herself are veering into Baghdad Bob territory. She's ahead in the popular vote IF you count Florida and Michigan and IF you give Obama 0 votes in Michigan (where he followed the rules and wasn't even on the ballot) and IF you don't count the caucus states.
So in other words, IF she cheats then she's the winner.
I had drifted into acceptance of Clinton as an acceptable choice if it came down to her because I was so disaffected with the GOP but she has managed to remind me of all the things I really dislike about the Clintons. I've had quite enough of presidents with a dodgy relationship with the truth and facts for the last 16 years, thank you.
In the end it doesn't matter. Clinton is toast, but don't look for a graceful exit. Her spokespeople and herself are veering into Baghdad Bob territory. She's ahead in the popular vote IF you count Florida and Michigan and IF you give Obama 0 votes in Michigan (where he followed the rules and wasn't even on the ballot) and IF you don't count the caucus states.
So in other words, IF she cheats then she's the winner.
I had drifted into acceptance of Clinton as an acceptable choice if it came down to her because I was so disaffected with the GOP but she has managed to remind me of all the things I really dislike about the Clintons. I've had quite enough of presidents with a dodgy relationship with the truth and facts for the last 16 years, thank you.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Let all the votes happen
Obama drawing a crowd of 70,000+ in Oregon was pretty impressive.
Things have kind of moved on for us here in Connecticut as we already voted a while ago, so it's easy to forget that there's a lot of excitement in those places that are having their primaries now.
Seeing all those people in Oregon made me reconsider my desire to see Clinton bow out of the race. I'll admit I'm pretty weary of Clinton, but maybe the race going on isn't such a bad thing after all if it can generate this level of excitement.
So if Clinton runs until Montana votes, then so be it. Today Obama was in Montana campaigning. How often have Democrats visited that state during a campaign.
Things have kind of moved on for us here in Connecticut as we already voted a while ago, so it's easy to forget that there's a lot of excitement in those places that are having their primaries now.
Seeing all those people in Oregon made me reconsider my desire to see Clinton bow out of the race. I'll admit I'm pretty weary of Clinton, but maybe the race going on isn't such a bad thing after all if it can generate this level of excitement.
So if Clinton runs until Montana votes, then so be it. Today Obama was in Montana campaigning. How often have Democrats visited that state during a campaign.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Obamanami
Well the tide's coming in now. Every news organization had a slightly different count, but they all seem to agree Obama has overtaken Clinton in the Superdelegate count.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
I never thought for a minute that the superdelegates would turn around and give Clinton the nomination barring some huge disaster involving Obama. Clearly most of them were going to wait until someone established themselves as the winner. Obama has done that. The most reluctant supers will switch over once Obama passes the 50% of pledged delegates milestone. The rest once he passes the magic number. After that happens some deal will be reached on Michigan and Florida so they get to seat some portion of their delegation -- probably all their supers and half their pledged. They probably won't get all because the Democrats still want to make their party discipline point. A little discipline would do the Dems some good. It's been one of their biggest problems dealing with the Republicans, who are nothing if not disciplined.
On the other hand, the GOP could use a little more dissident spirit. Some ability to say "no" might have stopped their lemming-like following of Bush over the electoral cliff.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
I never thought for a minute that the superdelegates would turn around and give Clinton the nomination barring some huge disaster involving Obama. Clearly most of them were going to wait until someone established themselves as the winner. Obama has done that. The most reluctant supers will switch over once Obama passes the 50% of pledged delegates milestone. The rest once he passes the magic number. After that happens some deal will be reached on Michigan and Florida so they get to seat some portion of their delegation -- probably all their supers and half their pledged. They probably won't get all because the Democrats still want to make their party discipline point. A little discipline would do the Dems some good. It's been one of their biggest problems dealing with the Republicans, who are nothing if not disciplined.
On the other hand, the GOP could use a little more dissident spirit. Some ability to say "no" might have stopped their lemming-like following of Bush over the electoral cliff.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
John Coles sums up how I feel
From Ballon Juice:
Whatever. She threw everything she had at him. He weathered the storm. Consider him vetted. Consider Rev. Wright kicked in the junk. Consider me relieved. Now, can we get to the very serious business of dismantling the GOP? I have a very serious axe to grind, and it is deeply, deeply personal for me. There are a bunch of frauds, crooks, and phonies with whom I have a serious grudge that I want to settle. You see, I still have my “Peace Through Strength” button from when I campaigned for Reagan. I believed in limited government, I believed in a strong national defense, I believed in fiscal restraint and balanced budgets and I believed in personal integrity and individual liberty and personal freedom.
I am pissed. I want the frothing nutters, the fraudulent hucksters, the race-baiters, the anti-science frauds, the anti-intellectuals, the gay-bashers, the big-money cheats, the torture fetishists, the religious nuts, the tax and spenders, the xenophobes, and the phonies to pay. I want payback. I want the people who ruined my former party relegated to permanent minority status. I know I am a newly minted Democrat, and, as such, it is ballsy for me to start telling you what I want from the party, but this is my website and you are just going to have to deal with my opinion.
I am under no illusion I will buy into everything Barack Obama puts forward, but I am damned sure convinced he is a decent man who, at the very least, will restore a sense of competence to the national stage. I am willing to meet most Democrats half-way, and I am already doing everything I can to get this man elected. I think Obama will act in good faith for this nation, and I am responding in kind. His policies are not outlandish or crazy or uber-left- they reflect a rational, and I would argue, a decent and progressive way forward out of the mess I helped to create. I won’t like all of them, and I will not agree with all of them, but there is no chance that I will ever be President, so perfect agreement is never a possibility.
And don’t get me wrong- I am not for Obama because of what I am against. I am for Obama because he is a decent man, a break from the past, and really a once in a lifetime opportunity. He has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults. There will be times we feel he lets us all down, but we are not electing a diety. We are electing a leader, and Obama is that leader. It is time to get past the bullshit of the last 20 years, the battles I am really tired of fighting, and time to turn our attention to the really important issues of the day- the economy, the budget, our international presence, our crumbling infrastructure, our military, medicare and medicaid and social security, and on and on and on.
If Barack Obama was not your your preferred candidate, I am sorry that person did not win, but it is time to remember that the target is John McCain and the Bush/Cheney way of doing things. If you can not accept that and help move us forward, please at least get out of the way.
Whatever. She threw everything she had at him. He weathered the storm. Consider him vetted. Consider Rev. Wright kicked in the junk. Consider me relieved. Now, can we get to the very serious business of dismantling the GOP? I have a very serious axe to grind, and it is deeply, deeply personal for me. There are a bunch of frauds, crooks, and phonies with whom I have a serious grudge that I want to settle. You see, I still have my “Peace Through Strength” button from when I campaigned for Reagan. I believed in limited government, I believed in a strong national defense, I believed in fiscal restraint and balanced budgets and I believed in personal integrity and individual liberty and personal freedom.
I am pissed. I want the frothing nutters, the fraudulent hucksters, the race-baiters, the anti-science frauds, the anti-intellectuals, the gay-bashers, the big-money cheats, the torture fetishists, the religious nuts, the tax and spenders, the xenophobes, and the phonies to pay. I want payback. I want the people who ruined my former party relegated to permanent minority status. I know I am a newly minted Democrat, and, as such, it is ballsy for me to start telling you what I want from the party, but this is my website and you are just going to have to deal with my opinion.
I am under no illusion I will buy into everything Barack Obama puts forward, but I am damned sure convinced he is a decent man who, at the very least, will restore a sense of competence to the national stage. I am willing to meet most Democrats half-way, and I am already doing everything I can to get this man elected. I think Obama will act in good faith for this nation, and I am responding in kind. His policies are not outlandish or crazy or uber-left- they reflect a rational, and I would argue, a decent and progressive way forward out of the mess I helped to create. I won’t like all of them, and I will not agree with all of them, but there is no chance that I will ever be President, so perfect agreement is never a possibility.
And don’t get me wrong- I am not for Obama because of what I am against. I am for Obama because he is a decent man, a break from the past, and really a once in a lifetime opportunity. He has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults. There will be times we feel he lets us all down, but we are not electing a diety. We are electing a leader, and Obama is that leader. It is time to get past the bullshit of the last 20 years, the battles I am really tired of fighting, and time to turn our attention to the really important issues of the day- the economy, the budget, our international presence, our crumbling infrastructure, our military, medicare and medicaid and social security, and on and on and on.
If Barack Obama was not your your preferred candidate, I am sorry that person did not win, but it is time to remember that the target is John McCain and the Bush/Cheney way of doing things. If you can not accept that and help move us forward, please at least get out of the way.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Clinton wins by just enough to hang on
It's like one of those Friday the 13th movies where the monster will not stay dead.
It really also demonstrates why the Democrats are, generally, such sorry-ass losers. If only we had a half-way smart opposition party. The GOP should be such dead, dead, dead meat this time around. Bush and his enablers are the biggest screwups in history and yet the Democrats can't help themselves but keep the Hillary crap alive just a little bit longer.
It really also demonstrates why the Democrats are, generally, such sorry-ass losers. If only we had a half-way smart opposition party. The GOP should be such dead, dead, dead meat this time around. Bush and his enablers are the biggest screwups in history and yet the Democrats can't help themselves but keep the Hillary crap alive just a little bit longer.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Rescuing the GOP
I was fairly satisfied with being a registered Republican for over 30 years. While I didn't agree with the party on every issue, I agreed with Democrats on far less. Being an independent didn't much appeal to me, because it seemed rather wishy washy, to tell the truth.
Besides, I got to indulge in my contrariness by being a Republican in Dem-dominated Massachusetts.
Now I live in Connecticut, where there's actually still a functioning GOP, so simply being contrary isn't a good enough stance. Picking a party is more significant when there's an actual consequence.
Bushism drove me out of the GOP this year. Very little about what I dislike about Bush seems authentically conservative to me, and I'm baffled why so many so-called conservatives are in his camp. Expansive government, unchecked spending, unwise foreign policy, corruption and valuing expediency over principle are not just bad when Democrats do them.
And I'll admit that I'm severely disillusioned by the whole Iraq affair. It may or may not have been a good idea, but I don't think there's any doubt at all that it was very badly executed. Indeed, it was so badly executed as to be criminal. There finally seems to be a general in charge who's been able to execute tactics and operations that may salvage something less than debacle from our war, although there's still no clear strategic vision guiding things. Still, Peraeus' and Gates' success is damning of Bush's leadership as commander in chief because nothing is being done now that couldn't have been done years ago. The success may come too late. Bush's inability to hold people accountable for failure fatally compromised his war leadership. The president's main job as CinC is to find generals who win and keep firing the losing ones until he does.
Even all this, however, would not have been enough to drive me away. I'm more inclined to hope that McCain's approach to Iraq might possibly work something out than Obama's.
But I can't be in a party that supports torture.
And until the day that the Grand Old Party remembers that it was born out of the honorable and noble cause of human dignity and freedom that is wholly incompatible with the unholy, dishonorable and dehumanizing practice of torture and inhumane treatment, I'll be out.
The Democrats' flaws have improved not a whit. But they are the opposition party we have, and so they'll have to do. Right now their main good quality is that they're not Republicans. We'll need a little spell of them in power to clean out the rot. In the meantime maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.
Some may say that the Democrats are worse because they support abortion.
That gives some choice -- between the abortionists and the torturers, eh? Well, at the moment the torturers are doing more damage to America. Accepting torture means accepting the very same moral relativity that accepts abortion, really. The morally consistent position is to reject both.
Accepting torture has brought lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution into the very highest reaches of our government. We found out this week that specific torture techniques were discussed within the very walls of the White House among the highest officials of the government. U.S. cabinet officers! Shame.
Well, I'm out.
Only a party the repudiates Bush will be worthy of the legacy left by Reagan, Eisenhower, TR and Lincoln.
I'll vote for Democrats as long as I must, and for some select Republicans who seem to get it. But there will be an "I" next to my name in the voting lists from now on.
Besides, I got to indulge in my contrariness by being a Republican in Dem-dominated Massachusetts.
Now I live in Connecticut, where there's actually still a functioning GOP, so simply being contrary isn't a good enough stance. Picking a party is more significant when there's an actual consequence.
Bushism drove me out of the GOP this year. Very little about what I dislike about Bush seems authentically conservative to me, and I'm baffled why so many so-called conservatives are in his camp. Expansive government, unchecked spending, unwise foreign policy, corruption and valuing expediency over principle are not just bad when Democrats do them.
And I'll admit that I'm severely disillusioned by the whole Iraq affair. It may or may not have been a good idea, but I don't think there's any doubt at all that it was very badly executed. Indeed, it was so badly executed as to be criminal. There finally seems to be a general in charge who's been able to execute tactics and operations that may salvage something less than debacle from our war, although there's still no clear strategic vision guiding things. Still, Peraeus' and Gates' success is damning of Bush's leadership as commander in chief because nothing is being done now that couldn't have been done years ago. The success may come too late. Bush's inability to hold people accountable for failure fatally compromised his war leadership. The president's main job as CinC is to find generals who win and keep firing the losing ones until he does.
Even all this, however, would not have been enough to drive me away. I'm more inclined to hope that McCain's approach to Iraq might possibly work something out than Obama's.
But I can't be in a party that supports torture.
And until the day that the Grand Old Party remembers that it was born out of the honorable and noble cause of human dignity and freedom that is wholly incompatible with the unholy, dishonorable and dehumanizing practice of torture and inhumane treatment, I'll be out.
The Democrats' flaws have improved not a whit. But they are the opposition party we have, and so they'll have to do. Right now their main good quality is that they're not Republicans. We'll need a little spell of them in power to clean out the rot. In the meantime maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.
Some may say that the Democrats are worse because they support abortion.
That gives some choice -- between the abortionists and the torturers, eh? Well, at the moment the torturers are doing more damage to America. Accepting torture means accepting the very same moral relativity that accepts abortion, really. The morally consistent position is to reject both.
Accepting torture has brought lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution into the very highest reaches of our government. We found out this week that specific torture techniques were discussed within the very walls of the White House among the highest officials of the government. U.S. cabinet officers! Shame.
Well, I'm out.
Only a party the repudiates Bush will be worthy of the legacy left by Reagan, Eisenhower, TR and Lincoln.
I'll vote for Democrats as long as I must, and for some select Republicans who seem to get it. But there will be an "I" next to my name in the voting lists from now on.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Richardson endorses Obama
I think Obama's small kindness to Richardson during the Democratic debate, when he gave him a stage whisper hint when Richardson missed hearing the moderator's question about Katrina probably played a very big role in his decision to endorse Obama.
It was a very decent thing to do, and I think it provides a small peek into what kind of person Obama really is.
It was a very decent thing to do, and I think it provides a small peek into what kind of person Obama really is.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Negativity
Negative campaigning has been around since there have been elections. (And by negative campaigning, I do not mean simply criticizing your opponent. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize your opponent's substantive positions on issues.)
Smears, innuendo and worse has enjoyed a heyday in the past coup,e of decades, however. Some call it Clintonian. Some call it Rovian. Many blame the late Lee Atwater. It's had many fathers and many practitioners and the fact is that it has worked.
But like every marketing technique, it appears to have a shelf-life. And it appears it has expired. Those politicians running the most positive campaigns (Obama, Huckabee and McCain) have done the best. Some running campaigns relying on more negative techniques (Clinton, Romney) have faded.
Being positive is not a guarantee of success, of course. Otherwise Dodd and Biden would have done better. But the media and the public seem to have much less patience for crap like the Obama in Somali garb photo flap. (And is it embarrassing or what that a U.S. Congresswoman could be so ill-informed as to believe that this was Obama in the dress of his "native " country? Geesh! Get a clue, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones! Obama is U.S. born!)
Tonight Hillary will be tempted to go negative on Obama. Good luck on that. If she sticks to substantive criticism, good for her. But if she goes off into silliness expect her campaign to finally collapse.
Smears, innuendo and worse has enjoyed a heyday in the past coup,e of decades, however. Some call it Clintonian. Some call it Rovian. Many blame the late Lee Atwater. It's had many fathers and many practitioners and the fact is that it has worked.
But like every marketing technique, it appears to have a shelf-life. And it appears it has expired. Those politicians running the most positive campaigns (Obama, Huckabee and McCain) have done the best. Some running campaigns relying on more negative techniques (Clinton, Romney) have faded.
Being positive is not a guarantee of success, of course. Otherwise Dodd and Biden would have done better. But the media and the public seem to have much less patience for crap like the Obama in Somali garb photo flap. (And is it embarrassing or what that a U.S. Congresswoman could be so ill-informed as to believe that this was Obama in the dress of his "native " country? Geesh! Get a clue, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones! Obama is U.S. born!)
Tonight Hillary will be tempted to go negative on Obama. Good luck on that. If she sticks to substantive criticism, good for her. But if she goes off into silliness expect her campaign to finally collapse.
Monday, February 25, 2008
If you need to lie to make your point ...
CNN has been running an ad from some outfit called "Defense of Democracies" (sic) http://defenseofdemocracies.wordpress.com/ criticizing the House refusing to cave in to the President on FISA. Or maybe better said the president's refusal to go along with a short extension so the House can deliberate on the merits of the issue.
The ad claims that the House let the law expire (not true) "crippling" out ability to monitor terrorists (a lie).
Life and politics can be pretty damn confusing and hard to sort out, but I think it's fair to say that any policy that needs lies to hold it up is almost certainly a bad one.
Conservatives, before they lost their minds, always knew this and often legitimately criticized the leftist habit of enlisting untruths and lies so long as they supported the Left's agenda.
It's funny that people who love to say things like "the scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" don't understand that calling something the "PATRIOT Act" was about as clear a signal as could be sent that it end up being no such thing.
The ad claims that the House let the law expire (not true) "crippling" out ability to monitor terrorists (a lie).
Life and politics can be pretty damn confusing and hard to sort out, but I think it's fair to say that any policy that needs lies to hold it up is almost certainly a bad one.
Conservatives, before they lost their minds, always knew this and often legitimately criticized the leftist habit of enlisting untruths and lies so long as they supported the Left's agenda.
It's funny that people who love to say things like "the scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" don't understand that calling something the "PATRIOT Act" was about as clear a signal as could be sent that it end up being no such thing.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Clinton missing the vote
Evidently Hillary is too busyt trying to save her campaign to bother voting on the FISA immunity bills today.
Obama is there, joining Dodd and most of the Democrats trying to stop this bad policy. Of course, 18 Democrats and all the Republicans continue to conspire in the emasculation of their "co-equal" branch of government by legalizing whatever illegal things the executive branch does.
Law and order only applies to the little people, don't you know?
So now the battle turns to the House.
Obama is there, joining Dodd and most of the Democrats trying to stop this bad policy. Of course, 18 Democrats and all the Republicans continue to conspire in the emasculation of their "co-equal" branch of government by legalizing whatever illegal things the executive branch does.
Law and order only applies to the little people, don't you know?
So now the battle turns to the House.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
