|
|
 Posted February 6th, 2009 at 4:48PM
Support for Obama’s stimulus plan has slipped markedly in the past two weeks, according to recent Rasmussen polling. The news cycle has been dominated with Republicans pushing tax cuts and balking at arguable spending. Not a single one could even be swayed in the House to vote for the plan. Partisan politics and stimulus plans got you down? Don’t let it – this is indicative of a fundamental difference between conservatives and reality:
Once the Stimulus Kicks In, the Real Fight Begins by Robert Reich
…
Obama is facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Even fiscal conservatives concede that when consumers stop buying and businesses stop investing, as they are now, the government must step in as the buyer and lender of last resort.
But the moment the economy appears to be on the mend, conservatives such as Feldstein will want the government to cut spending. In their view, this is the only way to get the economy fully back on track. But others believe that it is precisely the track we were on that got us into this mess in the first place.
Those who support the stimulus as a desperate measure to arrest the downward plunge in the business cycle might be called cyclists. Others, including me, see the stimulus as the first step toward addressing deep structural flaws in the economy. We are the structuralists. These two camps are united behind the current stimulus, but may not be for long. Cyclists blame the current crisis on a speculative bubble that threw the economy’s self-regulating mechanisms out of whack. They say that we can avoid future downturns if the Fed pops bubbles earlier by raising interest rates when speculation heats up.
But structuralists see it very differently. The bursting of the housing bubble caused the current crisis, but the underlying problem began much earlier — in the late 1970s, when median U.S. incomes began to stall. Because wages got hit then by the double-whammy of global competition and new technologies, the typical American family was able to maintain its living standard only if women went into the workforce in larger numbers, and later, only if everyone worked longer hours.
…
Robert Reich continues, illustrating how economic conservatives are naturally less inclined to support a stimulus plan that results in long-term sustainable economic growth. Read it.
All talk of America’s common interest aside, contrasting ideologies means different paths to separate goals. The paradox of Reagan conservatives: if you believe government to be the problem, your natural inclination is to run it into the ground. Joe Brewer on commondreams.org:
The narrow reporting on current Congressional politicking would lead one to believe that conservatives simply want a different bill to be passed. By now it should be clear that this just isn’t the case. The truth is that conservatives want to be sure Obama and his progressive colleagues at all levels of government are not able to do their jobs. Imagine what would happen if Obama succeeded at delivering money to state and city officials to build mass transit, generate renewable energy, and provide affordable health care to the populace. This would be the fulfillment of government’s moral mission – to protect and empower our citizens.
A successful progressive Obama presidency would mean a fundamental shift in American politics: the pendulum’s long, slow motion back from Reagan’s own revolution.
Posted December 11th, 2008 at 12:39PM
So it’s December 11th and I wish we were two or three months earlier in the year. I’ve been busy with some home improvement projects. Ordered some closed cell DIY polyurethane spray-in foam insulation. With an r-value of 7/inch, airtight and impermeable to water and moisture, and no off-gassing or VOCs, it’s just about the best insulation in my mind. We’re moving the pellet stove to the first floor, from the basement. More on that in a later post.
Also received two pallets of pellets from PelletSales.com. They came on a flatbed with a 3-wheel forklift hanging off the back. The guy got the forklift stuck in the ditch and we had to pull him out. It’s been rainy the past few days, but it’ll turn to snow / ice later tonight into Friday.
And you know what seems like a really distant memory? That election. It’s been interesting watch Obama make cabinet appointments based on merit, as opposed to Bush who stuffed regulatory agencies like the EPA with people from the private sector hellbent on dismantling said agencies. I read an article awhile ago that claimed Republicans were horrible policy makers because of their assumption that government is the problem. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when they’re in power.
And what’s with the Illinois governor? What a moron!
Posted November 5th, 2008 at 12:11PM
I’m currently sitting in a cafe using their wifi, having coffee and a wrap, and soaking in the positive atmosphere. Even though he led virtually the entire campaign and all indicators pointed toward an Obama win (FiveThirtyEight’s predictions were spot-on) nobody took this result for granted. The full import has yet to fully sink in on my end, but I’m looking forward to these formative years. Ending the occupation of Iraq, reforming our healthcare system, and working toward balancing the budget are the three key issues I’ll be watching develop, in addition of course to the most pressing economic woes. I’m hopeful, and that in itself is something I haven’t been able to say for a long time.
Posted November 2nd, 2008 at 12:25PM
So the other day I received a political flyer in the mail, not from Obama, McGaughey, or Gillibrand, but Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente, the Green Party’s Prez / Veep candidates. I’m registered Green and one of only a half dozen (at most!) in my entire district, so I’m just surprised they found my name in the voter logs.
This got me to thinking. In 2000, I was underage, but supported the Greens (that time, Ralph Nader). Four years ago I begrudgingly voted for Kerry because I felt a large popular vote against Bush was needed to repudiate his first reign of terror. This year, I haven’t given any third party option a second thought after supporting Obama through the extended primaries. What’s changed?
Eight years ago, Nader had a good spiel against voting for “the lesser of two evils.” But history has proven stark differences between the two major political parties. Is there anyone who’ll argue that we’d have seen the same slash and burning of environmental legislation under a President Gore as we have under Bush? And Al Gore wouldn’t have stacked the executive branch with card-carrying PNAC members. The occupation of Iraq wouldn’t have been the priority it was. To trivialize all differences between Obama and McCain, Democrat and Republican, is facile, immature.
Certainly, I don’t believe in a great bulk of the Democratic platform, today or eight years ago. Obama is hawkish on Iran, Afghanistan, Israel. Economically he promises the whole pie, or two or three, without disclosing a single item he’ll use his metaphorical scalpel on. Some of this is political necessity, some of it, his actual politics.
Even though I might not agree with Obama on all the issues, I’ll vote for him, on the Working Families party line. The Greens have for the past few elections been encouraging people living in safe states to vote for them. Get 5% of the vote, and you’re eligible for federal funding the next cycle. But federal funding would not change the fundamentals of our electoral system, which needs significant reform before third parties become viable. And a vote for an independent candidate (as Nader runs today) actually encourages the status quo – character-based politics, the sort of ass-backwardness that got Schwarzenegger elected governor.
Meanwhile, Obama holds some promise as president, with the alternative far more frightening. Framing the debate in a way that results in a choice between the “lesser of two evils” is to turn the election into a moral debate. And I’m uninterested in using elections as my own little referendums on morality.
McCain isn’t the evil choice; he’s the stupid choice. Things aren’t black and white, right and wrong. Life is shades of grey, and Obama comes out a shader (or three) better than McCain.
Posted October 29th, 2008 at 1:17PM
Will undecided voters move toward McCain come election day? Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight doesn’t think so -
The Undecideds
…
A somewhat higher proportion of whites (and Latinos) are uncommitted, but the differences are not overwhelming.
…
Another problem is that we haven’t been distinguishing undecided voters from third-party voters. There is an argument that third-party voters should be treated as quasi-undecided voters, since third party support tends to collapse at the voting booth. Nevertheless, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader will probably pick up a collective 1-2 percent of the electorate, and third party support tends to be overwhelmingly concentrated among white voters.
…
Long story short … given optimistic assumptions (McCain wins 2/3 of white undecideds, 100 percent of third-party support collapses), the undecided vote is worth a net of about a point for McCain. Given what I’d consider to be more neutral assumptions, there’s no particular reason to think that the undecided vote favors him.
My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between and that this is worth, say, half a point for McCain. Even give him the full point if you like. This effect is probably smaller than that of the cellphone problem, from which there may be 1-2 points of cushion in Obama’s direction. If on top of that the polls are being overly conservative with their likely voter modeling, the numbers are more likely to be underestimating Obama’s standing than overestimating it.
It also should be noted that people still undecided at this point are more likely to simply skip voting altogether, further reducing any advantage for McCain. A sudden upset is looking less and less likely.
Posted October 19th, 2008 at 10:05PM
So have you seen this latest Obama ad? The one that starts out with a clip of McCain at the 3rd debate saying “I’m not President Bush”? And then the voiceover goes “Truuueee, but..”?
I absolutely love this ad. I dunno how effective it is, no judgement there. But the voiceover guy is genius in taking McCain’s over the top scornful tone (of late) and reversing the tables.
Admittedly, I’ve been pretty negative toward McCain, and lest anyone think I despise the guy…
Eight years ago he ran a pretty clean campaign in the Republican primaries. Got creamed by Rove’s tactics, but also by his rather moderate, nonpartisan record. Over the course of Bush’s presidency, however, McCain has transparently attempted to re-align himself with the conservative base. And this backfired. (Looks like the last time Bush cracked into the measly 40% approval rating range was 2006!) McCain has also run a repugnantly Rovian campaign this year. (No wonder.) And so I lose respect for the guy.
…
A Rovian political strategy by definition means all slime, all the time. But the more crucial Rove game plan is to envelop the entire presidential race in a thick fog of truthiness. All campaigns, Obama’s included, engage in false attacks. But McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates keep repeating the same lies over and over not just to smear their opponents and not just to mask their own record. Their larger aim is to construct a bogus alternative reality so relentless it can overwhelm any haphazard journalistic stabs at puncturing it.
…
Can you blame me?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 8:57AM
Without being smarmy about it or unfurling gotcha questions, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson demonstrated that he knows volumes more about national security and foreign policy than does Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
To say I was unimpressed with Palin’s performance would be an understatement. I didn’t know what to expect since she’s been on a short leash since the Veep announcement, and in her three (four, total?) speeches thus far the content has been identical, and scripted. This unscripted foray did not go well for her. We’ll see more tonight. Maybe she needs to crawl before she can walk, but it’s fair to say that her unscripted televised appearances will probably make or break her image in the coming weeks… And by extension, the McCain campaign.
Meanwhile, I can only echo the sentiments of those urging Obama to avoid getting bogged down in sniping and news cycles originating from the McCain camp. Where’s Biden? The Obama campaign needs to create their own news again. The value of winning or gaining a particular news cycle is limited, but the overarching image projected is important, and everyone is dwelling too much on Palin and nonissues. Obama wins on the issues. Let’s get back to them.
|
Tags: 
