Hey Ryan,
I'm sorry I haven't written for a while. I've been trying to get some creative and paying projects together and haven't had the chance to sit down and write.
Now that the election is over, my sense of urgency at updating the blog every single day has diminished (much like my finances). From here on out, I think I'll probably post one or two times per week, unless the headlines demand otherwise.
At this moment, though, I'm not sure how many times I could conjure up anything remotely interesting about who might be going into Obama's team and why.
What I will say about the whole Hillary-Clinton-as-Secretary-of-State story is that I'm not sure about it.
The fact that she voted for the Iraq War doesn't bother me. And I would tell people who are huffing about it to find a qualified person in Washington who didn't vote for the war and put that name in the ring. That qualified dove is probably pretty hard to find...just like coming up with qualified Dems who weren't involved in the two Clinton terms.
Hillary's as intelligent as they come, but I don't know if she's the right person for the job...not when you consider that John Kerry and Bill Richardson are supposedly up for it, as well. Their foreign policy Rolodexes trump a spectral sniper shootout in Bosnia any day in my book.
I understand that if you take Hillary, you also get Bill's connections, but how savory are those contacts? How would Bill's previous and future business deals impact Hillary's negotiating angles and tactics? While I know that she is her own person, for sure, I also know that the Clintons are shrewd when it comes to their own interests, and I wonder how that will play against Obama's foreign policy vision.
The other issue that bothers me is the dynastic angle. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hillary takes the job. If Obama is reelected, let's say she stays on for the second term. That means that our country will have had a Bush or a Clinton in a position of influence in the Executive Branch of government for 36 years! In a democracy, that just doesn't seem right to me.
Now, some might say this is a wrong-headed (or even stupid) way of looking at the situation. I was called a number of things on other sites for conveying this idea during the primaries. But it still nags at me. To me, involving Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State signals that in our democratic system, that there are families who serve as gatekeepers to legitimacy.
Sure, the Kennedys could be viewed that way, but when was the last time a Kennedy was picked as a pivotal team member of the Executive Branch or a Cabinet position? (Of course, here's hoping RFK, Jr. is tapped for the EPA. Does that shoot down my credibility?)
All I'm saying is that I don't feel like Clinton needs to be included--especially when she may not be the most qualified person for the job-- just to heal some wounds. Obama making the break from the Clinton name and doing just fine on his own would reconnect any divisions among Dems soon enough, without his having to pander.
But, with all that said, I'm not going to bash him if chooses to go with Clinton. As far as I'm concerned, we hired this guy to govern and now we've got to let him do it. And I'm not going to kick his ass up and down Pennsylvania Avenue before he even gets into the big house at 1600.
So, now, I think we should just take some time and enjoy the fact that our country has better shot at survival than ever before by doing this:
Charles
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Failure As Fertilizer
Hey Ryan,
By the coverage this week, it seems as if the media believes there might be some teachable moment or redemption narrative for the GOP.
With the 24-hour news cycle (and guys like us) constantly stewing over what's next for the GOP, it seems as though the conversation has been accelerated in the Repub Halls of Shame, with clamoring pseudo-luminaries professing to shy away from the spotlight while stepping in front of it.
Pawlenty's comments were, as per usual with Repub "visionaries", interesting on the surface, but most likely just show. Sure, he tried to steer his party into a direct confrontation with health care and away from big business. But he still used words like "formula" and "viewed", which suggest the GOP is still wrangling over message rather than substance.
While he talks, for example, about health care and big business, Pawlenty seems to think they're entirely separate issues facing the GOP, when, in reality, they're inseparable.
Think about how many health problems are caused in this country by the deregulation of industries. If the a Republican government feels such a responsibility to big business (or, in their words, "job creation") that it has to deregulate, shouldn't that same government also feel a similar (if not more) responsibility to take care of the citizenry it puts in harm's way through those leash-loosening moves?
They should but they don't, because we're not ATM's of campaign cash...at least not for GOP candidates. And why is that? Could it be because, I don't know, they're message doesn't really resonate in a crisis? Could it be because they've cried wolf on so many issues only to do nothing about them?
Or, maybe it's because the Republican Party has a long history of corruption going back to Watergate. Maybe now, finally, voters are seeing what GOP policies really do to the country when they're put into practice. Maybe people are starting to realize that going all the way back to Nixon's Administration, that the GOP has never really given a damn about health care, except when it can be used as a moneymaking tool.
But, now that they're on the losing end for the second time in two years, guys like Pawlenty have decided that they have to tackle this issue head on because "[i]t's one of the most pressing needs for our country." Well, welcome to the party, Mr. Pawlenty. Did you bring any ice?
Saying health care is a "pressing need" is not much in the way of insight and it's a far cry from having the tools to fix it, especially when your answer to the problem is a sham tax credit that barely covers half of the average insurance policy combined with (you guessed it) deregulation that erases state borders and stricter laws for the insurance industry.
You see, the problem for the GOP is not to stop being "viewed as a party of the rich". It's to...stop being the party of the rich. The same goes for Dems in Congress, too.
There are plenty of articles out there about how Obama bought the election with his massive fundraising efforts and his refutation of the public campaign finance. But, when your average donation is $86, you might be looking at a new model for campaign finance, one that establishes a more direct connection between candidate and constituent. And what could be more "public" than that?
Pawlenty and Jindal may be on the level, but until they show up with policies that protect the people who vote them into office, I won't be convinced...not when Pawlenty is still using tired Rovian jargon like "formula for a majority." That's sort of talk is obsolete, just like John McCain and Sarah Palin and the lying, backstabbing, insidious campaign they just finished...well, I guess she's still running it.
Retooling the package without changing the product is over. Wrapping unmitigated stupidity up in feminism and a $150,000 costume won't solve a single problem facing our nation in the 21st Century.
According to a lot of conservatives, there must have been a glitch in the last eight years...a stretch of time in which criticism from guys like Pawlenty and Jindal was pretty hard to come by. They say the Bush Regime's tactics were against true conservative ideology. But, frankly, it's all we voters have to go on right now. To us, the Bush Debacle is the new face of the Republican Party. But people like Pawlenty can't change that image with a message shift. They have to reassess their core values and their penchant for chasing symptoms when it would be much more effective to treat the sickness.
In essence, they've got to stop pissing on people's heads and telling them it's raining.
Charles
By the coverage this week, it seems as if the media believes there might be some teachable moment or redemption narrative for the GOP.
With the 24-hour news cycle (and guys like us) constantly stewing over what's next for the GOP, it seems as though the conversation has been accelerated in the Repub Halls of Shame, with clamoring pseudo-luminaries professing to shy away from the spotlight while stepping in front of it.
Pawlenty's comments were, as per usual with Repub "visionaries", interesting on the surface, but most likely just show. Sure, he tried to steer his party into a direct confrontation with health care and away from big business. But he still used words like "formula" and "viewed", which suggest the GOP is still wrangling over message rather than substance.
While he talks, for example, about health care and big business, Pawlenty seems to think they're entirely separate issues facing the GOP, when, in reality, they're inseparable.
Think about how many health problems are caused in this country by the deregulation of industries. If the a Republican government feels such a responsibility to big business (or, in their words, "job creation") that it has to deregulate, shouldn't that same government also feel a similar (if not more) responsibility to take care of the citizenry it puts in harm's way through those leash-loosening moves?
They should but they don't, because we're not ATM's of campaign cash...at least not for GOP candidates. And why is that? Could it be because, I don't know, they're message doesn't really resonate in a crisis? Could it be because they've cried wolf on so many issues only to do nothing about them?
Or, maybe it's because the Republican Party has a long history of corruption going back to Watergate. Maybe now, finally, voters are seeing what GOP policies really do to the country when they're put into practice. Maybe people are starting to realize that going all the way back to Nixon's Administration, that the GOP has never really given a damn about health care, except when it can be used as a moneymaking tool.
But, now that they're on the losing end for the second time in two years, guys like Pawlenty have decided that they have to tackle this issue head on because "[i]t's one of the most pressing needs for our country." Well, welcome to the party, Mr. Pawlenty. Did you bring any ice?
Saying health care is a "pressing need" is not much in the way of insight and it's a far cry from having the tools to fix it, especially when your answer to the problem is a sham tax credit that barely covers half of the average insurance policy combined with (you guessed it) deregulation that erases state borders and stricter laws for the insurance industry.
You see, the problem for the GOP is not to stop being "viewed as a party of the rich". It's to...stop being the party of the rich. The same goes for Dems in Congress, too.
There are plenty of articles out there about how Obama bought the election with his massive fundraising efforts and his refutation of the public campaign finance. But, when your average donation is $86, you might be looking at a new model for campaign finance, one that establishes a more direct connection between candidate and constituent. And what could be more "public" than that?
Pawlenty and Jindal may be on the level, but until they show up with policies that protect the people who vote them into office, I won't be convinced...not when Pawlenty is still using tired Rovian jargon like "formula for a majority." That's sort of talk is obsolete, just like John McCain and Sarah Palin and the lying, backstabbing, insidious campaign they just finished...well, I guess she's still running it.
Retooling the package without changing the product is over. Wrapping unmitigated stupidity up in feminism and a $150,000 costume won't solve a single problem facing our nation in the 21st Century.
According to a lot of conservatives, there must have been a glitch in the last eight years...a stretch of time in which criticism from guys like Pawlenty and Jindal was pretty hard to come by. They say the Bush Regime's tactics were against true conservative ideology. But, frankly, it's all we voters have to go on right now. To us, the Bush Debacle is the new face of the Republican Party. But people like Pawlenty can't change that image with a message shift. They have to reassess their core values and their penchant for chasing symptoms when it would be much more effective to treat the sickness.
In essence, they've got to stop pissing on people's heads and telling them it's raining.
Charles
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Boogie Man
Hey Charles,
I just finished watching the new fascinating documentary on the late Lee Atwater, the master of dirty politics and forerunner of Karl Rove, who destroyed Mike Dukakis' run for the White House and whose impact continued to be felt even during this year's campaign. Atwater's story was a complicated one, and whether you believe it authentic or not, it's hard not to be moved in some way by the transformation he went through near the end of his life. It's also not to be hopeful that Barack Obama's victory last week signaled an end to the type of nasty campaigning/swift boat-style politics that we've witnessed for far too long.
Anyway, here's an excerpt of the documentary, which begins with Atwater's starring role in the infamous "Willie Horton" campaign of 1988. I suspect you'll find this documentary as interesting/troubling/enlightening as I did.
Ryan
I just finished watching the new fascinating documentary on the late Lee Atwater, the master of dirty politics and forerunner of Karl Rove, who destroyed Mike Dukakis' run for the White House and whose impact continued to be felt even during this year's campaign. Atwater's story was a complicated one, and whether you believe it authentic or not, it's hard not to be moved in some way by the transformation he went through near the end of his life. It's also not to be hopeful that Barack Obama's victory last week signaled an end to the type of nasty campaigning/swift boat-style politics that we've witnessed for far too long.
Anyway, here's an excerpt of the documentary, which begins with Atwater's starring role in the infamous "Willie Horton" campaign of 1988. I suspect you'll find this documentary as interesting/troubling/enlightening as I did.
Ryan
A more diverse GOP
Hey Charles,
Did you happen to hear or read about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's remarks in Miami at the Republican Governors Association conference? If not, here's a synopsis. And here's one from the Times. I'd be curious to hear your take on what the governor had to say. Personally, I thought Pawlenty's sales pitch sounded pretty good--at least on the surface--and I give him credit for the shot at Sarah Palin ("'Drill baby, drill' by itself is not an energy policy"). Of course, you know the same people applauding that line we're applauding each and every time Palin uttered those words on the campaign trail. I'd also like to see the room's reaction to Pawlenty saying the party needed to move beyond Ronald Reagan. I guess we'll have to wait for the YouTube showing (just checked, not there yet). Seriously, though, can't you just see Rush and Hannity and Ingraham just cringing. But I suspect those folks aren't listening. If you can stomach it, just read what Rush had to say today. Nope, they're spouting the same old lines about liberals and the media. I would've liked to have heard Pawlenty go a step further and tell the Rushes of the world to stuff it, but you know that could never happen. Still, I think a Republican Party that moves in the direction that Pawlenty is prescribing would be good for the country, even if I remain unconvinced that its members care less about helping the underprivileged as they do about winning again.
Ryan
Did you happen to hear or read about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's remarks in Miami at the Republican Governors Association conference? If not, here's a synopsis. And here's one from the Times. I'd be curious to hear your take on what the governor had to say. Personally, I thought Pawlenty's sales pitch sounded pretty good--at least on the surface--and I give him credit for the shot at Sarah Palin ("'Drill baby, drill' by itself is not an energy policy"). Of course, you know the same people applauding that line we're applauding each and every time Palin uttered those words on the campaign trail. I'd also like to see the room's reaction to Pawlenty saying the party needed to move beyond Ronald Reagan. I guess we'll have to wait for the YouTube showing (just checked, not there yet). Seriously, though, can't you just see Rush and Hannity and Ingraham just cringing. But I suspect those folks aren't listening. If you can stomach it, just read what Rush had to say today. Nope, they're spouting the same old lines about liberals and the media. I would've liked to have heard Pawlenty go a step further and tell the Rushes of the world to stuff it, but you know that could never happen. Still, I think a Republican Party that moves in the direction that Pawlenty is prescribing would be good for the country, even if I remain unconvinced that its members care less about helping the underprivileged as they do about winning again.
Ryan
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
McCain's Brain #6: The Final Insult
Here's the final installment of McCain's Brain.
Goodbye, Johnny Boy, we knew ye too well...
Oh, and thanks for giving us Palin, you rube!
Goodbye, Johnny Boy, we knew ye too well...
Oh, and thanks for giving us Palin, you rube!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Another Encouraging Development
Looks like Obama is going to create an Office of Urban Policy to "coordinate federal efforts to help America's cities".
What has come out of this transition effort so far looks pretty promising. What a difference a hundred or so IQ points (along with some honest reflection and insight) make in a president.
What has come out of this transition effort so far looks pretty promising. What a difference a hundred or so IQ points (along with some honest reflection and insight) make in a president.
Encouraging Developments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
