Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus spent the last few days testifying before Congress on the status of the Iraq war. If there is one thing that is clear, it is that there is no greater strategy other than ongoing force presence. The central message that the two Bush-Administration stand-ins provided, was that troops would be required until they such time as they were no longer be required, but that nobody knew when that would happen or what it would look like.
There was no explanation as to what the administration was trying to achieve or how they were going to achieve it. No overall strategy; just the idea that we'll keep forces in the area until violence somehow works itself out. The real point of the ongoing presence in Iraq appears to be nothing more than to maintain a significant force presence in that area of the world.
There is no indication that anyone in the administration cares one bit about the future of Iraq itself or the Iraqi people. In fact, there’s no indication that the administration actually has any interest in seeing the conflict in Iraq resolved. Quite the contrary, the overriding interest and concern appears to be in drawing the conflict out to justify the ongoing presence of a large number of American troops. Nobody has explained why they think this is necessary or good or helpful. And I can’t see any positive reason for doing this: it is not working as a deterrent to Iran. It’s not deterring anyone from anything.
Senator Hagel asked the right question: "Where’s the surge? Where is the diplomatic surge?" If the administration was really interested in bringing this conflict to a conclusion, there would be some form of diplomatic activity. Some shuttle diplomacy. Some use of the carrot and the stick to get the various competing factions in Iraq to make nice. Something.
What could we do? We can use rebuilding and reconstruction funds as a carrot. We can use the presence of our troops in their peacekeeping capacity as a carrot. Or we can use the withdraw of troops as a carrot. We can use offers to train and educate and feed and clothe as a carrot. Water delivery projects, sewage systems, electrical systems, infrastructure – there are any number of things that we can offer to local sects to encourage them to join in the national government.
We have plenty of sticks to. We can withdraw our troops from a given area. Or we can send more troops into that area. We can cut off funding for reconstruction. We can cut off funding for education, training, for all kinds of assistance. We can encourage a temporary suspension of shares in the national oil income. And we can give all the more to those groups that are cooperating.
And we can work diplomatically to actually bring about a measure of reconciliation. All sides in the conflict feel historically aggrieved. And each side has been aggrieved at some point or another to some extent or another. Part of reconciliation is acknowledging the ways in which each faction has been aggrieved and the ways in which they have been the aggressor. Acknowledging grievances is an important early step in achieving reconciliation.
Now the reality is reconciliation cannot come about, while people are not feeling safe. If our strategy was toward the overarching reconciliation between peoples and the first step in that strategy was creating a sense of safety, where they had not previously been any, and that would make sense. But creating a sense of safety is about more than just guns on the street. It too involves diplomacy – in reducing tensions, in encouraging cooperation, in creating a peace.
All factions in Iraq have suffered through repeated and prolonged periods of trauma (chronic trauma). Given that fact, the way in which Iraq has devolved into chaos and infighting over the past five years is and was entirely predictable.
Judith Herman, the Harvard professor of psychiatry who has done groundbreaking research into traumatic stress, has written: "People who have endured horrible events suffer predictable psychological harm." The ways in which they are going to react, with violence and anger and fear and desperation, are all predictable.
And, as Herman explains: "Because the traumatic syndromes have basic features in common, the recovery process also follows a common pathway. The fundamental stages of recovery are establishing safety, reconstructing the trauma story, and restoring the connection between survivors and their community." A tall order in a war-torn area, but one that can provide a pathway toward actual reconciliation.
Keeping troop levels up, for the sole purpose of combating terrorist cells, does nothing at all to advance the cause of reconciliation and national recovery. The spiral of trauma continues, and there can be no end without a change in strategy. It is that complex, and that simple.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
"This country that I love"
Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on race was excellent. As those who have come to support Obama’s bid for the presidency expected, he did more than respond to the wild-eyed images of his former preacher that had been playing on all channels over the past week. He put them in context, sure, and said he disagreed with them, but he went further. He discussed the country’s past and its present, the bitterness and anger and resentment on all sides of the racial divide that may be grounded on legitimate concerns and injustices, but that also flows from ignorance and insulation. By placing both the legitimate gripes and the damaging bitterness right there on the table, Obama both contextualized those issues without excusing them, and provided a basis for discussions and possibly even some eventual healing. It was a good speech indeed.
Those who do not like Obama will not be swayed by that speech. Those who want to find flaws or quibbles will always be able to do so. They will try to recast the speech as not going far enough, or going too far, or not sufficiently damning Rev. Wright, or who knows what else they will come up with. But the question that had been floated out there by Rev. Wright’s comments, and by Michelle Obama’s comments about the country which some had found bitter, was where did Obama really stand on the notion of America as a country? Was he secretly an angry, tear down the walls kind of guy who was just good at posing as a relaxed and thoughtful fellow?
And that’s why, to me, the real heart and soul of the speech was encapsulated in that one little line Obama uttered, “this country that I love.”
Obama sees the country the way many progressives do. He doesn’t have any blinders on, and he recognizes the major challenges we face. He sees the bitterness and the anger and the way some of the more dubious corporate interests have pitted the people against each other. But he is, above and beyond all that, a man of hope, who sees the promise of America, the ideals enshrined in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, and believes we can continue to work toward a more perfect nation. He seems to be coming from the same place we are -- his heart is in the right place -- and that’s probably why we’re all so comfortable with him. Good job, Obama!
Those who do not like Obama will not be swayed by that speech. Those who want to find flaws or quibbles will always be able to do so. They will try to recast the speech as not going far enough, or going too far, or not sufficiently damning Rev. Wright, or who knows what else they will come up with. But the question that had been floated out there by Rev. Wright’s comments, and by Michelle Obama’s comments about the country which some had found bitter, was where did Obama really stand on the notion of America as a country? Was he secretly an angry, tear down the walls kind of guy who was just good at posing as a relaxed and thoughtful fellow?
And that’s why, to me, the real heart and soul of the speech was encapsulated in that one little line Obama uttered, “this country that I love.”
Obama sees the country the way many progressives do. He doesn’t have any blinders on, and he recognizes the major challenges we face. He sees the bitterness and the anger and the way some of the more dubious corporate interests have pitted the people against each other. But he is, above and beyond all that, a man of hope, who sees the promise of America, the ideals enshrined in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, and believes we can continue to work toward a more perfect nation. He seems to be coming from the same place we are -- his heart is in the right place -- and that’s probably why we’re all so comfortable with him. Good job, Obama!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
It's 3 a.m. all over again
There is an excellent opinion piece in today’s New York Times entitled “The Red Phone in Black and White.” It’s by Harvard Sociology Professor Orlando Patterson, and it points out something about Hillary Clinton’s 3 am add that, once you hear it, is kind of an “aha” moment.
As you probably recall, the 3 am add shows a bunch of sleeping, light-skinned children, ostensibly being checked on by a vulnerable, white mother. All the while, a telephone is ringing, unanswered, in the background. The message of the visuals is that these innocent, light-skinned folk (first white and blond, then vaguely Latino) are being threatened by some dark, predatory character, perhaps just outside, perhaps already in the house. The unanswered phone shows that there’s nobody coming to help these poor folk. It’s classic racism. Pure and simple.
Meanwhile, continuing her trek into the world of the disingenuous, Clinton also said she and likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain both had experience to answer that 3 a.m. call, but Obama only had a speech.
Tying racism and inexperience together, Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro has now repeatedly stated (including on Fox News) that Obama is only in the position of being able to run for President because he is black. Not in spite of the fact that he is black, which would be more accurate, but because of it. As if the citizens of Illinois and all of us who voted for Obama are being duped into some sort of silly, affirmative action vote. And as if that argument couldn't be turned right back on Clinton and her status as a woman. Failing to see how silly the argument is, the Clinton camp appears to be arguing that, in addition to being black and inexperienced, Obama is also an outsider who doesn’t know what he’s doing and can’t be trusted with our precious, pure children and white women. Give me a break!
Says Clinton on answering that 3 a.m. phone call: “Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
There is no reason that being a partner in a big law form or sitting on the board of Wal-Mart or being married to a politician or eight years as an elected official (Clinton’s resume) should count as experience relevant to answering that 3 am call, where Obama’s community organization and voting rights work, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years as an elected official should not. Clinton’s argument doesn’t make a lick of sense.
For that matter, McCain’s one hundred fifty five years in the Senate doesn’t make him any better suited to answer that 3 am call either. Senators are not called on to make split-second, life and death decisions. Governors do face those situations on rare occasions, but none of the three of them (Clinton, Obama or McCain) has ever been a governor or even in law enforcement. All three of them are legislators.
And it’s not like it’s rocket science figuring out how to answer that late night distress call. The process should be relatively the same for anyone in that situation:
As you probably recall, the 3 am add shows a bunch of sleeping, light-skinned children, ostensibly being checked on by a vulnerable, white mother. All the while, a telephone is ringing, unanswered, in the background. The message of the visuals is that these innocent, light-skinned folk (first white and blond, then vaguely Latino) are being threatened by some dark, predatory character, perhaps just outside, perhaps already in the house. The unanswered phone shows that there’s nobody coming to help these poor folk. It’s classic racism. Pure and simple.
Meanwhile, continuing her trek into the world of the disingenuous, Clinton also said she and likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain both had experience to answer that 3 a.m. call, but Obama only had a speech.
Tying racism and inexperience together, Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro has now repeatedly stated (including on Fox News) that Obama is only in the position of being able to run for President because he is black. Not in spite of the fact that he is black, which would be more accurate, but because of it. As if the citizens of Illinois and all of us who voted for Obama are being duped into some sort of silly, affirmative action vote. And as if that argument couldn't be turned right back on Clinton and her status as a woman. Failing to see how silly the argument is, the Clinton camp appears to be arguing that, in addition to being black and inexperienced, Obama is also an outsider who doesn’t know what he’s doing and can’t be trusted with our precious, pure children and white women. Give me a break!
Says Clinton on answering that 3 a.m. phone call: “Now I think you will be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He has never been the president. He will put forth his experience. I will put forth my experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
There is no reason that being a partner in a big law form or sitting on the board of Wal-Mart or being married to a politician or eight years as an elected official (Clinton’s resume) should count as experience relevant to answering that 3 am call, where Obama’s community organization and voting rights work, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years as an elected official should not. Clinton’s argument doesn’t make a lick of sense.
For that matter, McCain’s one hundred fifty five years in the Senate doesn’t make him any better suited to answer that 3 am call either. Senators are not called on to make split-second, life and death decisions. Governors do face those situations on rare occasions, but none of the three of them (Clinton, Obama or McCain) has ever been a governor or even in law enforcement. All three of them are legislators.
And it’s not like it’s rocket science figuring out how to answer that late night distress call. The process should be relatively the same for anyone in that situation:
- Pick up the damn phone before the sixth ring, and find out what is going on.
- If it’s an attack or disaster, figure out how to stop the attack and prevent further damage to the country and its people, and then do it.
- Move to help those people who may have been harmed or affected.
- If it is an attack, strike back. (Note, that’s “strike back”, not “strike Iraq”! They rhyme, but otherwise have entirely different meanings.)
And the president doesn’t have to do those things one at a time or all by him/herself. The president has a team, his cabinet, and each is in charge of a different arm of the government. Get each of them working on whatever portion of the response their section of government is responsible for. And do it quickly and expertly.
Now, all of that would seem a no-brainer, but the Bush Administration has shown otherwise. Their first goal, protect their own ass. Second goal, use the attack/disaster to push some political goal, like attacking Iraq. Third, … well, there is no third, because everyone they put in place is an incompetent hack. Let the states/cities/democrats figure it out, that’s the third response, along with the typical Republican “tough luck, suckers.”
So the whole 3 am phone call thing really highlights the importance of having the most competent, expert advisors, cabinet and staff that a president can find. With a functioning government, the 3 am call is already planned for.
Obama is a smart guy who appreciates practical expertise, knowledge and skill, even when it disagrees or contradicts with his own positions. You don’t get good advice from “yes” men, and Obama knows that. All you have to do is read his book to confirm this. And that trait sets him apart from both Clinton and McCain, that’s the whole point of his campaign – let’s get the best out of everyone. Would I trust Obama and his team with that 3 am call? Hell yeah!
Lastly, if you’re a Clinton supporter, let her campaign know how upset you are by their recent tactics.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Experience Straw Man and Hillary's Turn to the Dark Side
Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have repeatedly hit Barack Obama over his supposed lack of experience. Sen. Clinton’s campaign highlighted this stance of their attack (which has turned singularly ugly and dishonorable) in a silly, but apparently effective, 3:00 am advertisement. Obama is all talk and no action, they say, he’s a novice, and he will freeze or not know what to do when push comes to shove. But let’s face it, Obama is 46 years old; he may not yet be a wizened sage, but he is no spring chicken either.
While Sen. Clinton derides his lack of experience, Obama has in fact been an elected official for far longer than Sen. Clinton has.
Here’s a rundown of Obama’s experience:
Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from Columbia University. After a brief stint in New York, me moved to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer. As Director of the Developing Communities Project (a management job – hello!), Obama worked with low-income residents.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated in 1991.
He returned to Chicago and spent two years working on voter registration. In 1993, he joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he continued his career working at the community level, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and (of course) voting rights cases.
On a parallel track, in 1993, Obama also became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He taught constitutional law for about ten years, until his election to the United States Senate in 2004.
Obama ran for, and was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 1998 and 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.
Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004, and has been there since that date.
So, that’s five years as a community organizer dealing with voting rights, three years as an associate at a big law firm, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years now as an elected official. Based on Hillarymath, Obama has twenty-two years of experience!
John McCain has more years as an elected official, and Hillary Clinton has less.
Despite the fact that Obama actually has a significant amount of relevant experience, Clinton has engaged in a scorched earth tactics to attempt to vilify and infantilize Obama with half-truths and outright lies. It is hard for me to believe I supported her as recently as six months ago – I am really sickened and angered by her decision to go Rove. The reality is that Clinton won in Ohio and Texas not because of any positive message she has, but through the same old false smears and fear tactics Rove and Bush and Cheney have been using for the past eight years. Sad indeed. Where’s the honor? Where’s the trustworthiness?
To this day, Clinton has not come forward with a compelling reason to support her. She has a number of interesting policy proposals, but has expressed absolutely no governing philosophy at all. Why does she advocate the things she does? How does she see the world? What does she view as the role of government? Obama has answered these types of questions, at length, in several books. Clinton, not so much. If Clinton doesn’t come up with a positive, compelling message, she should not win. If she takes the nomination anyway, the democrats will lose, and it will be entirely on her shoulders.
While Sen. Clinton derides his lack of experience, Obama has in fact been an elected official for far longer than Sen. Clinton has.
Here’s a rundown of Obama’s experience:
Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from Columbia University. After a brief stint in New York, me moved to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer. As Director of the Developing Communities Project (a management job – hello!), Obama worked with low-income residents.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988 and graduated in 1991.
He returned to Chicago and spent two years working on voter registration. In 1993, he joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he continued his career working at the community level, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and (of course) voting rights cases.
On a parallel track, in 1993, Obama also became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He taught constitutional law for about ten years, until his election to the United States Senate in 2004.
Obama ran for, and was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. He was reelected in 1998 and 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.
Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004, and has been there since that date.
So, that’s five years as a community organizer dealing with voting rights, three years as an associate at a big law firm, ten years as a constitutional law professor, and twelve years now as an elected official. Based on Hillarymath, Obama has twenty-two years of experience!
John McCain has more years as an elected official, and Hillary Clinton has less.
Despite the fact that Obama actually has a significant amount of relevant experience, Clinton has engaged in a scorched earth tactics to attempt to vilify and infantilize Obama with half-truths and outright lies. It is hard for me to believe I supported her as recently as six months ago – I am really sickened and angered by her decision to go Rove. The reality is that Clinton won in Ohio and Texas not because of any positive message she has, but through the same old false smears and fear tactics Rove and Bush and Cheney have been using for the past eight years. Sad indeed. Where’s the honor? Where’s the trustworthiness?
To this day, Clinton has not come forward with a compelling reason to support her. She has a number of interesting policy proposals, but has expressed absolutely no governing philosophy at all. Why does she advocate the things she does? How does she see the world? What does she view as the role of government? Obama has answered these types of questions, at length, in several books. Clinton, not so much. If Clinton doesn’t come up with a positive, compelling message, she should not win. If she takes the nomination anyway, the democrats will lose, and it will be entirely on her shoulders.
Friday, February 22, 2008
McCain the Opportunist
Reports over the last few days have highlighted Senator John McCain’s ties to certain lobbyists, and the favorable treatment he has given their clients.
McCain has challenged Obama to accept public financing in the general election – not out of principle, but simply because Obama can raise more money than McCain. How do we know it is not out of principle? Because, as the Washington Post details in a report today, over the course of his current presidential campaign, McCain has repeatedly opted in and out of public financing, depending on what best suits his campaign. The man’s “principles” are nothing more than opportunistic positioning.
Here’s the scoop, coming from the Washington Post, in a story reported by Matthew Mosk and Glenn Kessler:
“Within hours of the [New York Times’ publication of a controversial article detailing McCain’s ties to a young, attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, which McCain oversees], McCain sought to turn it to his advantage, sending out a fundraising appeal decrying the "baseless attacks" and urging contributions. "With your immediate help today, we'll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine," McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, said in an e-mail.
“But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
“The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
“By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
“But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
“Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
“The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
“If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.”
...
The sad truth is that McCain is just as opportunistic -- just as willing to break the law when it suits his own ambitions -- as his fellow republicans Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Dolittle, Renzi, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Scalia, Thomas, Bush, etc.
I suspect the story of McCain’s duplicity and opportunism is just getting started. After all, McCain was one of the infamous Keating 5. And his current campaign is run entirely by lobbyists, supposedly for free. He may do it for a different reason than some – rather than calculating, he seems easily swayed (some would say duped) by swaggering, powerful people – but the end result is the same. Ethics take a back seat to the quest for power. Pure and simple, the man does not have what it takes to be a good president
McCain has challenged Obama to accept public financing in the general election – not out of principle, but simply because Obama can raise more money than McCain. How do we know it is not out of principle? Because, as the Washington Post details in a report today, over the course of his current presidential campaign, McCain has repeatedly opted in and out of public financing, depending on what best suits his campaign. The man’s “principles” are nothing more than opportunistic positioning.
Here’s the scoop, coming from the Washington Post, in a story reported by Matthew Mosk and Glenn Kessler:
“Within hours of the [New York Times’ publication of a controversial article detailing McCain’s ties to a young, attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, which McCain oversees], McCain sought to turn it to his advantage, sending out a fundraising appeal decrying the "baseless attacks" and urging contributions. "With your immediate help today, we'll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine," McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, said in an e-mail.
“But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
“The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
“By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
“But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
“Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
“The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
“If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.”
...
The sad truth is that McCain is just as opportunistic -- just as willing to break the law when it suits his own ambitions -- as his fellow republicans Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Dolittle, Renzi, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Scalia, Thomas, Bush, etc.
I suspect the story of McCain’s duplicity and opportunism is just getting started. After all, McCain was one of the infamous Keating 5. And his current campaign is run entirely by lobbyists, supposedly for free. He may do it for a different reason than some – rather than calculating, he seems easily swayed (some would say duped) by swaggering, powerful people – but the end result is the same. Ethics take a back seat to the quest for power. Pure and simple, the man does not have what it takes to be a good president
Another one bites the dust.
Today, the Associated Press reports: "Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs."
Is anyone surprised? No, of course not. Most people are starting to understand that behind that false front of piety and overly-starched moral rectitude, Republican lawmakers are, by and large, a corrupt, bitter, nasty, incompetent bunch of people. And when you’re incompetent, but you have power, you can just force other people to give you stuff. That’s the Republican way!
The entire "conservative" philosophy of government is a fraud. It is not system for governing a nation, but one for transferring the accumulated wealth and power of a nation into the hands of a very few as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
What does the whole anti-regulatory, anti-tax scheme accomplish? It greases the economic rails, allowing money to slip and slide quickly into the pockets of those few who hold the reins of power. And they could only do any of this because, during the era of higher taxes and stronger regulation, our government built up a solid foundation for the country, in its infrastructure, its market supervision, its educational system, its legal system, its social safety net. After decades of neglect resulting from the Republican assault on government, all of this stuff is now falling into disrepair.
The infrastructure is a perfect example. We rely on the infrastructure that was built up during the golden age of liberal government, under FDR and Truman. Streets, highways, bridges, sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, storm drain systems, natural gas systems, electrical wiring, fresh water delivery. All of these systems are falling into disrepair for lack of sufficient investment in their upkeep. Sewage leaks are becoming more common, treatment plants are overwhelmed by the output of growing populations, pipes burst or break, a foul smell fills the air. I’m sure that if you think about any aspect of infrastructure, you’ll find plenty of places where investment is sorely needed.
A country that does not invest in itself cannot survive. It is that simple. Democrats, progressives, liberal republicans all know this. But we don’t hold the reins of power right now. Not in the executive, not in the judiciary, certainly not in industry or the corporate world. We have a thin majority in the House, and a plurality in the Senate, where one man, Joe Leiberman, can scuttle even the best-laid plans.
Meanwhile, all of those taxes that should have been paid over the last thirty years to invest in the upkeep of the nation’s (and in California’s) infrastructure, all of that money has instead gone into the pockets of the Rick Renzis and Rupert Murdocks and Dick Cheneys, the Halliburtons and Enrons and Exxons of the country.
And lets face it, they made their money on the backs of the investments of an earlier generation of Americans. Had the people in the 40s, 50s and 60s not paid those higher taxes, there wouldn’t have been any infrastructure, educational system, regulated (and thus trusted) market system to rely on – there wouldn’t have been any rails to grease. It is only because liberal policies worked so well that the republicans were able to come in, lower taxes on themselves to the point of non-existence, grab hold of the reins of power and rake in the money by the billions.
We have been living on borrowed time, and somebody, eventually, is going to have to pay the bills. Otherwise, the country and its people will continue to fall into disrepair. Shame on you, Rick Renzi, for being an agent of misery! But none of us should be surprised -- that is the Republican way.
Is anyone surprised? No, of course not. Most people are starting to understand that behind that false front of piety and overly-starched moral rectitude, Republican lawmakers are, by and large, a corrupt, bitter, nasty, incompetent bunch of people. And when you’re incompetent, but you have power, you can just force other people to give you stuff. That’s the Republican way!
The entire "conservative" philosophy of government is a fraud. It is not system for governing a nation, but one for transferring the accumulated wealth and power of a nation into the hands of a very few as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
What does the whole anti-regulatory, anti-tax scheme accomplish? It greases the economic rails, allowing money to slip and slide quickly into the pockets of those few who hold the reins of power. And they could only do any of this because, during the era of higher taxes and stronger regulation, our government built up a solid foundation for the country, in its infrastructure, its market supervision, its educational system, its legal system, its social safety net. After decades of neglect resulting from the Republican assault on government, all of this stuff is now falling into disrepair.
The infrastructure is a perfect example. We rely on the infrastructure that was built up during the golden age of liberal government, under FDR and Truman. Streets, highways, bridges, sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, storm drain systems, natural gas systems, electrical wiring, fresh water delivery. All of these systems are falling into disrepair for lack of sufficient investment in their upkeep. Sewage leaks are becoming more common, treatment plants are overwhelmed by the output of growing populations, pipes burst or break, a foul smell fills the air. I’m sure that if you think about any aspect of infrastructure, you’ll find plenty of places where investment is sorely needed.
A country that does not invest in itself cannot survive. It is that simple. Democrats, progressives, liberal republicans all know this. But we don’t hold the reins of power right now. Not in the executive, not in the judiciary, certainly not in industry or the corporate world. We have a thin majority in the House, and a plurality in the Senate, where one man, Joe Leiberman, can scuttle even the best-laid plans.
Meanwhile, all of those taxes that should have been paid over the last thirty years to invest in the upkeep of the nation’s (and in California’s) infrastructure, all of that money has instead gone into the pockets of the Rick Renzis and Rupert Murdocks and Dick Cheneys, the Halliburtons and Enrons and Exxons of the country.
And lets face it, they made their money on the backs of the investments of an earlier generation of Americans. Had the people in the 40s, 50s and 60s not paid those higher taxes, there wouldn’t have been any infrastructure, educational system, regulated (and thus trusted) market system to rely on – there wouldn’t have been any rails to grease. It is only because liberal policies worked so well that the republicans were able to come in, lower taxes on themselves to the point of non-existence, grab hold of the reins of power and rake in the money by the billions.
We have been living on borrowed time, and somebody, eventually, is going to have to pay the bills. Otherwise, the country and its people will continue to fall into disrepair. Shame on you, Rick Renzi, for being an agent of misery! But none of us should be surprised -- that is the Republican way.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Rhetoric v. Reality - a false choice
Unhappy with her current second place standing in the Democratic Primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton is again engaging in some poorly considered attacks on Senator Obama. “There's a big difference between us - speeches versus solutions,” Clinton stated last week, “Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap.” Cheap words indeed.
Never the first to come up with any idea in his entire career, John McCain attempted to hop on the Hillary train: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas . . . is not a promise of hope,” McCain said last week, “It’s a platitude.”
Trouble with both of these statements – as applied to Obama, they are not true. Anyone that cares to know whether Obama has any specifics to offer need only pick up his book or check out his web site. Obama gives reams of specifics. And some of them are pretty good specifics. While I have preferred some of Clinton’s policy proposals to Obama’s (particularly regarding health care), and have noted that Paul Krugman has taken issue with some of the specifics of those proposals, let’s face it, Krugman can only take issue with Obama’s specifics because they exist! If memory serves, it was Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, that was late to the specifics game, choosing instead to triangulate and equivocate through much of the 2007 primary race.
But is in overarching governing strategy, rather than the specifics, where Obama differentiates himself. And I think it’s the real reason he won me over.
Clinton talks only specifics (she now calls them solutions – a better word, but not a change of tactic). Like Bill Clinton, the Great Pragmatist, Senator Clinton has a number of specific solutions to specific problems, but gives you no idea how she got to those solutions, or how she might tackle new problems. To me, way too much focus on individual issues without painting an overall governing strategy. Her “solutions” are to particularized problems, with no vision at all (or at least none articulated) for where she wants to take the country.
McCain wouldn’t know a solution if it bit him in the ass. His whole platform is “four more years … of whatever that other guy has been doing, even though I don’t have a clue what it is.” That is McCain, in a nutshell. He can’t give you an idea of his problem-solving strategy because he doesn’t have any. He tilts at windmills: that’s his thing. That’s his only thing. Not a clue about the vast, non-windmill landscape.
Obama gives us more than either Clinton or McCain: he actually explains how he approaches a problem. In his book -- and less completely in his speeches -- he explains his goals, his method of analysis, the balancing of interests he believes are important, and the overall end result he seeks to achieve (e.g. increased opportunity and better-shared prosperity). Obama is a deep thinker; has given serious study to political history, constitutional law, and political economic theory (i.e. how government interacts with the economy). It’s all right there in his book, if anyone cares to check.
Obama starts his problem-solving analysis by trying to understand various points of view, where people are coming from, what are their motivations and concerns. There’s a word for that process, its called empathy. It is a powerful tool, and Obama isn’t at all afraid to use it.
And Obama is clear about his goals: he seeks to build a country that really is a land of opportunity: opportunity and all that it encompasses (national security, education, research, anti-poverty, better safety net, updated military, etc.) All good stuff.
Never the first to come up with any idea in his entire career, John McCain attempted to hop on the Hillary train: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas . . . is not a promise of hope,” McCain said last week, “It’s a platitude.”
Trouble with both of these statements – as applied to Obama, they are not true. Anyone that cares to know whether Obama has any specifics to offer need only pick up his book or check out his web site. Obama gives reams of specifics. And some of them are pretty good specifics. While I have preferred some of Clinton’s policy proposals to Obama’s (particularly regarding health care), and have noted that Paul Krugman has taken issue with some of the specifics of those proposals, let’s face it, Krugman can only take issue with Obama’s specifics because they exist! If memory serves, it was Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, that was late to the specifics game, choosing instead to triangulate and equivocate through much of the 2007 primary race.
But is in overarching governing strategy, rather than the specifics, where Obama differentiates himself. And I think it’s the real reason he won me over.
Clinton talks only specifics (she now calls them solutions – a better word, but not a change of tactic). Like Bill Clinton, the Great Pragmatist, Senator Clinton has a number of specific solutions to specific problems, but gives you no idea how she got to those solutions, or how she might tackle new problems. To me, way too much focus on individual issues without painting an overall governing strategy. Her “solutions” are to particularized problems, with no vision at all (or at least none articulated) for where she wants to take the country.
McCain wouldn’t know a solution if it bit him in the ass. His whole platform is “four more years … of whatever that other guy has been doing, even though I don’t have a clue what it is.” That is McCain, in a nutshell. He can’t give you an idea of his problem-solving strategy because he doesn’t have any. He tilts at windmills: that’s his thing. That’s his only thing. Not a clue about the vast, non-windmill landscape.
Obama gives us more than either Clinton or McCain: he actually explains how he approaches a problem. In his book -- and less completely in his speeches -- he explains his goals, his method of analysis, the balancing of interests he believes are important, and the overall end result he seeks to achieve (e.g. increased opportunity and better-shared prosperity). Obama is a deep thinker; has given serious study to political history, constitutional law, and political economic theory (i.e. how government interacts with the economy). It’s all right there in his book, if anyone cares to check.
Obama starts his problem-solving analysis by trying to understand various points of view, where people are coming from, what are their motivations and concerns. There’s a word for that process, its called empathy. It is a powerful tool, and Obama isn’t at all afraid to use it.
And Obama is clear about his goals: he seeks to build a country that really is a land of opportunity: opportunity and all that it encompasses (national security, education, research, anti-poverty, better safety net, updated military, etc.) All good stuff.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama and the roll of the dice
The choice between Obama and Clinton has clarified, and it looks like Obama has the edge. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton himself who convinced me that Obama was the man for the hour. I’ll explain.
The evening before Super Tuesday, I was invited to attend what turned out to be the San Francisco leg of Senator Clinton’s national town hall meeting. Bill Clinton was there, and I got to shake his hand. Pretty cool.
Anyway, as Bill was making the rounds after the event, he focused on a knot of people, myself among them, who remained undecided. And he said, in effect, "If you think that inspiration is the most important thing right now, then by all means you should vote for Obama. If you think, however, that the ability to wrestle with and solve the many problems we face to day is the more important, then you have to vote for Hillary." Bill made clear he felt she was the best he had ever seen at coming up with solutions to complex problems.
And my decision was confirmed right then and there - I was an Obama man. I think Bill nailed it, just as he had when he exclaimed that a vote for Obama was a role of the dice. What he didn’t realize, or more likely just doesn’t want to admit, is that we need that roll of the dice right now, we need that inspiration. The whole world needs that inspiration.
I’ll admit right of the bat that I still like Senator Clinton’s policy proposals a whole lot more than I do Obama’s. Hers are clearer, more focused, and better targeted to achieving the results she seeks. At least to date, Obama’s are comparatively broad and less likely to achieve positive results. But here’s the thing – I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton will be able to get her proposals enacted. She doesn’t inspire that call to action, that passion that is required to accomplish real change.
Obama has that ability to inspire. He charges us to believe in the possible, to feel good about our country and our people again. And, because he can summon that passion, he will get things done.
So the choice for me was between Clinton, who’s policies I prefer, but whom I suspect will not be able to bring those proposals to fruition, and Obama, who I suspect just may well be able to accomplish whatever he sets his administration’s sights on. Clinton would approach foreign policy as a deal-maker, whereas Obama will approach foreign policy by calling on people to rise to greater heights. With Obama, there is a possibility for real transformation, both within our country and throughout the world, and that is worth a roll of the dice.
The evening before Super Tuesday, I was invited to attend what turned out to be the San Francisco leg of Senator Clinton’s national town hall meeting. Bill Clinton was there, and I got to shake his hand. Pretty cool.
Anyway, as Bill was making the rounds after the event, he focused on a knot of people, myself among them, who remained undecided. And he said, in effect, "If you think that inspiration is the most important thing right now, then by all means you should vote for Obama. If you think, however, that the ability to wrestle with and solve the many problems we face to day is the more important, then you have to vote for Hillary." Bill made clear he felt she was the best he had ever seen at coming up with solutions to complex problems.
And my decision was confirmed right then and there - I was an Obama man. I think Bill nailed it, just as he had when he exclaimed that a vote for Obama was a role of the dice. What he didn’t realize, or more likely just doesn’t want to admit, is that we need that roll of the dice right now, we need that inspiration. The whole world needs that inspiration.
I’ll admit right of the bat that I still like Senator Clinton’s policy proposals a whole lot more than I do Obama’s. Hers are clearer, more focused, and better targeted to achieving the results she seeks. At least to date, Obama’s are comparatively broad and less likely to achieve positive results. But here’s the thing – I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton will be able to get her proposals enacted. She doesn’t inspire that call to action, that passion that is required to accomplish real change.
Obama has that ability to inspire. He charges us to believe in the possible, to feel good about our country and our people again. And, because he can summon that passion, he will get things done.
So the choice for me was between Clinton, who’s policies I prefer, but whom I suspect will not be able to bring those proposals to fruition, and Obama, who I suspect just may well be able to accomplish whatever he sets his administration’s sights on. Clinton would approach foreign policy as a deal-maker, whereas Obama will approach foreign policy by calling on people to rise to greater heights. With Obama, there is a possibility for real transformation, both within our country and throughout the world, and that is worth a roll of the dice.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain gives middle finger to the elderly, unemployed, and disabled veterans
Interesting news item below from the Associated Press. Although the headline says "Republicans block stimulus bill" it would more appropriately read "McCain Blocks Stimumus Bill." Why? The vote was 59 to 40, with 60 votes needed to pass, and McCain, alone out of all Senators, deciding not to vote. Harry Reid switched his vote at the last minute to "no" (thus the 58 to 41 final tally), which allows him to bring the measure back for a revote in the future.
If John McCain had voted yes, then the economic stimulus plan would have included aid for the elderly and disabled veterans, and an extension of unemployment benefits. Because 60 votes were needed to break a republican filibuster, McCain's refusal to vote was the same as voting "no". But he was too chickenshit to actually go on record! Make no mistake, though, by refusing to vote, McCain gave a big middle finger to the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed.
And he wants to be president. What a tool!
---
Republicans block stimulus bill
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.
The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.
The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.
Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for revote.
Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies.
The measure builds upon a less costly $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million older Americans, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles — or $300,000 for couples.
Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to vote for unemployment insurance and heating aid to join with Democrats to force the measure through.
"Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down, (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon S. Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package."
GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add the provisions favoring disabled veterans and the elderly and making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks.
Reid rejected the offer — at least for the time being — but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks.
The dramatic vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including several facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts were getting a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby.
GOP leaders, working to stem defections, were assuring Republicans that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill.
That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure during a brief floor debate.
"I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America," he said.
But other targets, such as Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., stuck with McConnell.
Asked Tuesday whether the administration would accept adding rebates for the elderly and disabled veterans to the stimulus measure, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declined to say definitively, but he told the Finance Committee, "I'm sure we'll be able to work something out and get something quickly done that's broad-based."
The dispute has slowed down the stimulus measure, but there's no indication that it will delay rebate checks, which are expected to begin arriving in May. The rebates will be based on 2007 tax returns, which aren't due until April 15.
If John McCain had voted yes, then the economic stimulus plan would have included aid for the elderly and disabled veterans, and an extension of unemployment benefits. Because 60 votes were needed to break a republican filibuster, McCain's refusal to vote was the same as voting "no". But he was too chickenshit to actually go on record! Make no mistake, though, by refusing to vote, McCain gave a big middle finger to the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed.
And he wants to be president. What a tool!
---
Republicans block stimulus bill
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.
The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.
The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.
Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for revote.
Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies.
The measure builds upon a less costly $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million older Americans, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles — or $300,000 for couples.
Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to vote for unemployment insurance and heating aid to join with Democrats to force the measure through.
"Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down, (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon S. Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package."
GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add the provisions favoring disabled veterans and the elderly and making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks.
Reid rejected the offer — at least for the time being — but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks.
The dramatic vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including several facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts were getting a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby.
GOP leaders, working to stem defections, were assuring Republicans that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill.
That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure during a brief floor debate.
"I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America," he said.
But other targets, such as Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., stuck with McConnell.
Asked Tuesday whether the administration would accept adding rebates for the elderly and disabled veterans to the stimulus measure, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declined to say definitively, but he told the Finance Committee, "I'm sure we'll be able to work something out and get something quickly done that's broad-based."
The dispute has slowed down the stimulus measure, but there's no indication that it will delay rebate checks, which are expected to begin arriving in May. The rebates will be based on 2007 tax returns, which aren't due until April 15.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Hogan v. Norris
If you ask me, there is no question but that Hulk Hogan could take Chuck Norris in a fight. Once Hogan slipped past those side kicks, it would be all over. There is also no question but that Hogan could kick Schwarzie's butt in an arm-wrestling match. And Hogan has already shown he can kick Stallone's butt (see Rocky III).
This is, of course, in response to one of my favorite headlines of the week: "Hulk Hogan Has Obama's Back."
There is this myth that liberals can’t be tough – that they are always pushovers, fearful of confrontation and ready to lay down and capitulate at the slightest physical threat. This, of course, is a load of crap.
There is a corresponding myth that liberals shouldn’t be in charge of the military, and that they even loathe the military, because of their fearful nature and penchant for shrinking from a fight. Equally crap. Utter and complete bullshit.
Where does the myth come from? Certainly FDR was no Milquetoast, nor JFK, nor MLK, Jr., nor Wes Clark, nor Madeline Albright, nor Hulk Hogan! I don’t see any of that in either Obama or Clinton.
I understand that the myth was born in the turbulence of the late-1960s and early 1970s, but I suspect the myth had much more to do with deliberate Republican distortions than on actual events. I’d illustrate that with a conversation I overheard recently between a family of tourists at a local coffee shop.
A guy in his early sixties was there with his teenage kids, and was commenting rather loudly to his kids on how different San Francisco was from Kansas, where they were from. He was blustering on about communism and homelessness and how he’d just round them all up – the typical bullshit that conservative types like to throw around to pretend that they have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about (which they never do). It was clear, even from across the coffee shop, that his kids really, really disliked him, and were quite embarrassed.
He continued his rant, oblivious (as conservatives always are) to his kid’s discomfort, and started commenting about the whole Haight-Ashbury scene from the late sixties, and then said: "I was liberal back then too – free drugs, free sex, no draft . . . ."
Well, that’s not liberalism, that’s selfishness. And in his case, it laid bare his hypocrisy. As he went on to extol the great merits of the Bush Administration’s foray into Iraq, it was clear that he was against war when he might have been at risk, but was all for it if it was someone else’s neck on the line.
So, I submit to you that it was largely craven, conservative assholes who gave liberalism a bad name, and they were never liberal at all. George McGovern, the anti-war activist Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate, gave those craven conservatives real hell in a series of speeches in the late sixties and early seventies.
They paid him back in kind. It was none other than right-wing lickspittle Robert Novak (yeah, that Robert Novak) who ran an article on McGovern quoting an unnamed Democratic Senator as charging that "all McGovern is for is abortion, amnesty (for draft dodgers), and the legalization of pot."
So liberalism has been tainted with the Novak brush ever since. But it was a load of crap then, and it’s a load of crap now.
And cravenness has been a hallmark of Republicanism ever since. If there is one thing that all the Republicans I know have in common, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of "others" . . . . But the Republicans had the cash, and were successful at painting liberals with the "fearful" brush, thanks to Novak and Nixon.
So, I’m happy to see the Hulkster strutt his liberal stuff. He was always my favorite 1980s wrestling superstar anyway.
This is, of course, in response to one of my favorite headlines of the week: "Hulk Hogan Has Obama's Back."
There is this myth that liberals can’t be tough – that they are always pushovers, fearful of confrontation and ready to lay down and capitulate at the slightest physical threat. This, of course, is a load of crap.
There is a corresponding myth that liberals shouldn’t be in charge of the military, and that they even loathe the military, because of their fearful nature and penchant for shrinking from a fight. Equally crap. Utter and complete bullshit.
Where does the myth come from? Certainly FDR was no Milquetoast, nor JFK, nor MLK, Jr., nor Wes Clark, nor Madeline Albright, nor Hulk Hogan! I don’t see any of that in either Obama or Clinton.
I understand that the myth was born in the turbulence of the late-1960s and early 1970s, but I suspect the myth had much more to do with deliberate Republican distortions than on actual events. I’d illustrate that with a conversation I overheard recently between a family of tourists at a local coffee shop.
A guy in his early sixties was there with his teenage kids, and was commenting rather loudly to his kids on how different San Francisco was from Kansas, where they were from. He was blustering on about communism and homelessness and how he’d just round them all up – the typical bullshit that conservative types like to throw around to pretend that they have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about (which they never do). It was clear, even from across the coffee shop, that his kids really, really disliked him, and were quite embarrassed.
He continued his rant, oblivious (as conservatives always are) to his kid’s discomfort, and started commenting about the whole Haight-Ashbury scene from the late sixties, and then said: "I was liberal back then too – free drugs, free sex, no draft . . . ."
Well, that’s not liberalism, that’s selfishness. And in his case, it laid bare his hypocrisy. As he went on to extol the great merits of the Bush Administration’s foray into Iraq, it was clear that he was against war when he might have been at risk, but was all for it if it was someone else’s neck on the line.
So, I submit to you that it was largely craven, conservative assholes who gave liberalism a bad name, and they were never liberal at all. George McGovern, the anti-war activist Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate, gave those craven conservatives real hell in a series of speeches in the late sixties and early seventies.
They paid him back in kind. It was none other than right-wing lickspittle Robert Novak (yeah, that Robert Novak) who ran an article on McGovern quoting an unnamed Democratic Senator as charging that "all McGovern is for is abortion, amnesty (for draft dodgers), and the legalization of pot."
So liberalism has been tainted with the Novak brush ever since. But it was a load of crap then, and it’s a load of crap now.
And cravenness has been a hallmark of Republicanism ever since. If there is one thing that all the Republicans I know have in common, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of "others" . . . . But the Republicans had the cash, and were successful at painting liberals with the "fearful" brush, thanks to Novak and Nixon.
So, I’m happy to see the Hulkster strutt his liberal stuff. He was always my favorite 1980s wrestling superstar anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)