|
|
 Posted August 11th, 2009 at 12:29PM
Last Sunday on Meet The Press, I thought David Brooks was at moments unintentionally both humorous and insightful. At multiple points, Brooks resorted to using “crazy” or “insane” – in responding to a Limbaugh clip, Palin’s ‘death panel’ post on Facebook, and the regime in Iran. Simple, straightforward. Yup, I couldn’t have put it better. There are some real nutjobs making news these days.
The Chicken Littles are already decrying the end of Hope, as public support starts to slip for both healthcare reform and the White House itself. Let’s put it in perspective. Despite falling poll numbers, there is no alternative party to the Democrats. The mainstream media is doing their part to paint the loony fringe as the voice of the GOP, but their sensationalizing hits way too close to home. Scarily, the only rational Republicans left seem to be party cast outs, independents (Bloomberg), or those not seeking re-election (the majority of Repubs who broke ranks to support Sotomayor). Minority Leader John Boehner has made it abundantly, explicitly clear that Congressional Republicans will not be in the business of legislating over the next four years. (Maybe this shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering that Bush decided to not lead the country for eight years.) The disheartening part is not asinine GOP leadership, but the way in which elected officials follow that leadership lockstep, heedless of the effect to their constituents or the country as a whole.
With Obama actually wielding power and under the constraints of political realities, it’s no surprise that a certain amount of “re-disillusionment” is kicking in. For the people prepared to take a rational look at things, I need only point to the bizarre alternate reality where McCain and Palin were in charge over the past seven months. (Add four points to unemployment, half the Dow Jones, and throw in a few launched nuclear ICBMs, and you’re almost there.)
With the Republican opposition’s infantile refusal to do their jobs, ostensibly denying each Dem-sponsored bill to come along, the White House needs to take a firmer role in directing Congress and focusing the debate. Bipartisanship comes second to constructive lawmaking, and the two become mutually exclusive when one side decides to play the dunce.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 6:56PM
John McCain hopes to convince a majority of people under 30 years old that he’s the best presidential candidate for them. So far, it’s not going well. Recent polls show Barack Obama with a lead of at least 20 percentage points.
“John McCain sees young voters as a competitive demographic this year,” said McCain youth outreach spokesman Joe Pounder, “and we’re going to go after them.”
To do that, the McCain campaign says it will focus on his legacy as a war hero, plus appearances on late night television shows — including Saturday Night Live — and town hall meetings around the country. He also has an army of thousands of young volunteers, thanks to Young Republican and College Republican clubs around the country connecting with peers over the phone and through canvas drives.
…
Those campaign methods look pretty traditional next to Obama’s presence on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. McCain has said he’s still learning how to sign onto the Internet himself.
Yeah, good luck with that. I can kind of predict already that Obama will still get a huge majority of the 18-35 demographic, nationwide. But McCain still has to go after the younger demographic, if only
for appearances’ sake. It’s the classic “go after them where they’re strong” tactic, a la Kerry’s swift boat vets. My main concern at this point is Obama relying too heavily on the “youth vote.” That supposed great voting bloc, rocking the vote and supporting the most progressive of causes every four years, has a tendency to skip out come election day (although the 18-35 segment did increase their turnout by 11% in ’04, it simply wasn’t enough).
Democrats need to focus on the winning play book that Republicans have been writing over the past two decades. That means…
- getting dirty (no, I’m talking dirtier than free bumper stickers from MoveOn),
- amp up the pandering and fearmongering (the difficulty here is finding a feasible Other, given a progressive(ish) Dem platform),
- going after the opponent’s strong points (debating a nonissue like flag pins draws attention away from actual issues, ie. potential weaknesses),
- getting more support from the people who actually vote (older than 18-35, certainly).
I think by this point, after eight years of Bush (and eight years of Clintonian triangulation before), the ends justify the means. I’m never a fan of personal politics, but provided success both for POTUS and in Congress, the Democrats might be able to get something done after this election.
Bring on the cult of personality. Obama is personable enough. Maybe he should get a dog before the election.
Here’s a hopeful accompanying article re: the ’08 primaries and the youth vote, from futuremajority.com.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 8:24AM
It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.
Dumb as We Wanna Be
But on a positive note, it looks like the NYT is now offering permalinks that work for nonsubscribers even after the article is archived.
Posted February 21st, 2008 at 3:54PM
“Nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.”
– Barack Obama in Iowa, March 11th, 2007
Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn’t criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States’ top ally in the Mideast. Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message—one that could have been mistaken for words straight from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website. “The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot…I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,” Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was “forced” to shut down Gaza’s border crossings.
– Obama’s Israel Shuffle by Justin Elliot, Feburary 1st, 2008
If Obama does become the next president of the United States, we need to start demanding the “change” that his entire campaign has run on. Unilateral support of Israel will get votes, but it is not change in any shape or form.
Posted January 30th, 2008 at 1:37PM
Came online to make this post, noticed that Edwards finally dropped out. Along with Kucinich about a week ago, the field is only getting narrower. New York has closed primaries, and since I’m registered Green, I can’t vote this primary season. But I feel like it’s important to take a stake in the campaign, and at this point I’d much rather see Obama win the nomination than Clinton.
I’ve come to this conclusion after contrasting both his words and actions to Hillary’s. Although I’ve complained before about both of them lacking authenticity, I think Obama’s facade is more a result of running for president than an artificial, lifelong political persona. Hillary Clinton has always come across as triangulating and self-serving, from her run for the Senate in NY and every move since.
Authenticity or charisma aside, Clinton is also just as hawkish as many of the neo-cons currently in the White House. Her cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq cannot be understated, especially in the face of Obama’s early opposition. Despite political snipes charging otherwise, Obama did indeed oppose the Iraq War early on and for all the right reasons. Being anti-war has never been politically expedient for a politician here. Many have ridden the tired “this war was done wrong,” but few say that it was wrong, and fewer still correctly explain why it was wrong. We invaded and subsequently occupied a nation, killing hundreds of thousands. Clinton only beats around the bush about misinformation, refusing to acknowledge this mistake. And lest we forget, it was during her husband’s tenure that more than one million Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions against that country.
Obama has since said dumb things about Iraq, Iran, and various other topics. He’s said what has been politically expedient, and he’s a frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race for it. Pandering to voters is hardly a huge crime, especially when differences actually do exist between the panderers. This is the lesson of 2000, where we had Gore and Bush who, on the face of it, looked to be two sides of the same coin. We now know otherwise.
It’s not all about foreign policy. Obama’s healthcare plan is probably as close as we will get to nationalized healthcare. In the press releases, it even sounds good. Time will tell whether or not he’s able to push it through, and whether or not such a half-hearted attempt at insuring everyone succeeds.
His economic policy is the traditional “closing loopholes” and “repealing tax breaks for the richest.” He says nothing revolutionary here, it’s the same conservatism we’ve seen from Democrats for decades. But in the face of schemes like Huckabee’s Fair Tax, it’s a welcomed relief. Obama’s conservation policies echo many others: reducing foreign oil consumption, investments in renewable energy, and a cap and trade system for dealing with carbon emissions. All sound plans, if any can be accomplished.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton might sound similar on any number of issues. But Clinton comes across as more of a faceless, political automaton than Obama. She’s polarizing and just as triangulating as Bill. Looking at prospective cabinet appointments, Obama’s team makes a better case for a progressive, brighter future in America.
We already had a Clinton in the White House. It was OK. I’m hoping for better this time around. A few shed tears can’t save her now.
Barack Obama for President, ’08.
As a sign of the times, Wikipedia becomes the best place to learn about candidates.
Political positions of Barack Obama entry
Barack Obama entry
Posted January 29th, 2008 at 10:37PM
Anyone following this year’s primary season can recognize its shortcomings. Front-loading, voting regulations that vary widely from state to state, states not even receiving delegates, political fatigue, the value of campaign contributions, and the rush to judgement as poll numbers change. Popular opinion and voting outcomes are affected as polling numbers are released: this is ass-backwards.
I’ve always been an advocate of electoral reform in all shapes and sizes, and reforming the primary season is a critical first step in reshaping the way in which government officials are elected. By fixing the primary season, we can reduce the importance of campaign contributions, create an informed and motivated electorate, and get politicians who’re worth voting for.
At the 2000 Republican National Convention, the Delaware Plan (one proposed alternative) was cock-blocked by Karl Rove. Today, the similar American Plan garners much interest as being a fair and functional alternative to the current madness. The order in which states vote is random, with smaller states weighted to vote earlier in the season. This allows more candidates more time to be competitive, with a de-emphasis on money and more importance placed on grassroots politicking.
For a longer read, see John Nichols’ piece in the January 22nd issue of The Nation. For more information on the American Plan or other proposed alternatives, see Fix The Primaries, a bipartisan coalition seeking a saner primary season.
Posted January 25th, 2008 at 3:35AM
Can we not start speculating that the combatants in current global wars struggle less against each other and more with Uncle Vitoria’s legacy; one side needing acknowledgment and tribute for having shouldered the heavy and noble burden of teaching and the other side insisting on co-presence at all costs.
– Naeem Inayatullah, Present Dangers
I re-awoke after little sleep, powered on the laptop and tried to write some fiction. I’ve never seriously attempted fiction, and if I was going to seriously start, I should have done so in college. Courses on writing fiction would only go so far – most successful authors probably never enjoyed such benefit – but it couldn’t have hurt.
After about 500 words, I realized it was drivel and hit the big red button.
Last year I took a course with a professor in the politics department at Ithaca College. He had an unpronounceable foreign name with a reputation of being an oddball. The course was on the global political economy of oil. It was classified as an international relations course, which at the time I thought I needed to fulfill my politics requirement. Within a few weeks he had scorched my initial paper and advised me to drop the class if I had no reason to be there. It was probably the best class I ever took.
Naeem’s web presence is lacking, but I’d recommend reading Present Dangers. I re-read it tonight (this morning) and understood it for the first time. It’s a collection of personal experiences culminating into an understanding of our current global conflicts.
By the end of the course Naeem had given me high praise as a writer and thinker. I don’t know if the praise was earned. I don’t know what I’m doing.
It’s best to hide your intentions and contain your criticism if you value your chances.
Every human interaction is a charade. The reason I can’t find employment is because I’m uninterested in feigning interest in people or work I find uninteresting. I must become a better actor.
|
Tags: 
