For me, it's kind of a big deal, because I honestly don't expect Fox News talkers to be in touch with reality. Nice to see, but what he says is scary.
In the last year, we've seen a guy shoot up a church because he wanted to kill liberals. We've seen a guy kill three cops because he thought Obama was going to take away his guns.
We've seen a guy assasinate a ob/gyn physician in his church.
We've seen a guy who hated Jews and Blacks and questioned Obama's birth certificate go on a rampage and kill a security guard at the Holocaust museum.
You can say these were all lunatics and loners if you want. But don't tell me these are isolated incidents. This is a trend. This is exactly what the DHS memo on right-wing violence predicted.
"...conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating "right-wing" with "terrorism." It made no difference to these loudmouths that the number of hate groups around the country has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It didn't matter that the memo was backed up by solid intelligence and analysis. For these infotainers, the point isn't to illuminate a subject with light but to blast it with heat."
-Eugene Robinson
(I highly recommend you read that article, by the way.)
Those "infotainers" have always bothered me, and never more so than now, when they daily rail against Obama, calling him a socialist, communist, fascist, saying he is destroying the country. A couple weeks ago I saw a clip of O'Reilly and Beck talking about how they "believed" Obama supported the Black Panther ideology. "I can't prove it, I don't have evidence, but I believe that," O'Reilly said. What a statement. And it sums up too many on the right. They want to believe the worst about Obama, so they do. No evidence required. If they say it, it's so.
If you think that violent movies and video games influence people to become more violent, what effect do you think this daily barrage of hate has? Glen Beck is the most delusional, paranoid person I have ever seen on television, and he's a huge hit with the Fox viewers. The same viewers Shep Smith was talking about.
In the end, I have only a question, not a solution.
Where is this all going to end up?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Facebook: blog killer??
Totally neglecting the blog lately. I blame facebook.
Not that there's not a lot to talk about. Here in MN, Pawlenty announces he's running for president, er, I mean, not running for another term as governor. I had a whole lot to say about that but it's a little late now.
There's a whopping health care debate going on right now, we're likely to see the biggest reform in the nation's health care system since Medicare. Lots to say about that too, hopefully I'll get to it before long.
But the thing that I've been thinking most about is the uptick in violence by far-right-wingers in this country. I'll have more on that soon, I hope.
Not that there's not a lot to talk about. Here in MN, Pawlenty announces he's running for president, er, I mean, not running for another term as governor. I had a whole lot to say about that but it's a little late now.
There's a whopping health care debate going on right now, we're likely to see the biggest reform in the nation's health care system since Medicare. Lots to say about that too, hopefully I'll get to it before long.
But the thing that I've been thinking most about is the uptick in violence by far-right-wingers in this country. I'll have more on that soon, I hope.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Specter, Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania
I think this is big, not so much because now AS will be a liberal and vote for everything Obama wants, but in that it adds to the perception that the Republican Party has no room for moderates any more.
Specter can now help Obama most by voting for cloture on controversial or close bills. He doesn't have to vote for cap and trade, for example, he just has to vote for ending debate, thereby ending any chance of a filibuster, thereby allowing the D's to pass the bill with a simple majority.
I really doubt we're going to see Specter change position much; he will be a moderate-to-conservative Dem. That breed still exists. The moderate to liberal Republican is almost entirely gone.
Kos and others argue that R's are becoming a regional party that cannot win national elections because they simply are too limited in their appeal. I think it's a little early to call them a "regional" party, after all, one of their most visible idealogues, our lovable Michelle Bachmann, comes from right here in Liberal Minnesota.
But it does again raise the question of the value of "bipartisanship," when the party is so dominated by hard core conservatives that even a moderate like Specter has to out and out leave the party to survive politically. These folks aren't interested in bipartisanship, because that would involved compromise. And compromise is something they just don't do.
Maybe, in a way, that's admirable. But mostly, lately, it's just been good for Democrats.
Specter can now help Obama most by voting for cloture on controversial or close bills. He doesn't have to vote for cap and trade, for example, he just has to vote for ending debate, thereby ending any chance of a filibuster, thereby allowing the D's to pass the bill with a simple majority.
I really doubt we're going to see Specter change position much; he will be a moderate-to-conservative Dem. That breed still exists. The moderate to liberal Republican is almost entirely gone.
Kos and others argue that R's are becoming a regional party that cannot win national elections because they simply are too limited in their appeal. I think it's a little early to call them a "regional" party, after all, one of their most visible idealogues, our lovable Michelle Bachmann, comes from right here in Liberal Minnesota.
But it does again raise the question of the value of "bipartisanship," when the party is so dominated by hard core conservatives that even a moderate like Specter has to out and out leave the party to survive politically. These folks aren't interested in bipartisanship, because that would involved compromise. And compromise is something they just don't do.
Maybe, in a way, that's admirable. But mostly, lately, it's just been good for Democrats.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Leave It
We probably shouldn’t take this secessionist talk of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and a few hard-right partisans too seriously. They’re just throwing red meat to the crowd, and there’s not much to indicate that they really want to secede.
But it’s interesting that the subject is even raised. I don’t recall a Democratic governor ever talking about leaving the Union, no matter how much he disagreed with a Republican President.
Now there seems to be a race among talk show hosts, Republican politicians and conservative pundits to see if they can top each other with sensational, alarmist and dishonest talking points about the Obama administration.
When I was growing up, the hard-right crowd had a favorite saying: “America – Love It or Leave It!”
Ironic that now that the majority of Americans support a liberalsocialist President, some right-wingers are now talking about the latter.
But it’s interesting that the subject is even raised. I don’t recall a Democratic governor ever talking about leaving the Union, no matter how much he disagreed with a Republican President.
Now there seems to be a race among talk show hosts, Republican politicians and conservative pundits to see if they can top each other with sensational, alarmist and dishonest talking points about the Obama administration.
When I was growing up, the hard-right crowd had a favorite saying: “America – Love It or Leave It!”
Ironic that now that the majority of Americans support a liberalsocialist President, some right-wingers are now talking about the latter.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Keeping the tone civil
I've gotten some feedback from the previous post and I think perhaps it was a bit of overreaction on my part. Sure, I saw some pretty bizarre, offensive, and downright dumb stuff in the coverage of the tea bag events, but as many have pointed out, that's what the media will play up. And I might be swimming in the lefty blog echo chamber a bit too much, if I may mix my metaphors, which also plays up the nuttiness.
So, OK, conservatives are allowed to have their day to speak their minds, even if it largely a bunch of events sponsored by Fox News. And they have every right to be angry about the lousy economy and the deficit. I just think their anger is very misdirected. And I'm still not getting answers on why people who hate taxes are mad at a president who just cut theirs.
Conservatives?
So, OK, conservatives are allowed to have their day to speak their minds, even if it largely a bunch of events sponsored by Fox News. And they have every right to be angry about the lousy economy and the deficit. I just think their anger is very misdirected. And I'm still not getting answers on why people who hate taxes are mad at a president who just cut theirs.
Conservatives?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thoughts on the Tea Bag Protests
All in all, I would think this is kind of a sad day to be a conservative.
After witnessing this parade of misfits, dimwits, and out-of-the closet racists, if I were a conservative I would be deeply embarrassed by these misguided, incoherent protests.
I actually don’t understand the reasoning here at all. Obama lowered taxes for nearly everyone, including a slew of business taxes, and they are protesting higher taxes?
Obama is trying to keep the country out of another great Depression by stabilizing the banking industry, and they call him a fascist?
Were these people protesting when Bush ran up a trillion dollar deficit? Were they protesting about the expansion of Medicare, or the huge unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind? Why the sudden outrage? Is it just because Glenn Beck cried and said some crazy stuff? I’m beginning to think so.
One guy today: “He’s a fascist!” “Why?” “He just is!”
Hard to argue with that logic. I guess "Socialist" wasn't working for them.
As many have pointed out, it’s one thing to lose an election. It’s another to use that loss as a reason to talk about fascism, totalitarianism, secession, and hanging liberals.
The election of Barack Obama said a lot about this country. Sadly, these protests do too.
After witnessing this parade of misfits, dimwits, and out-of-the closet racists, if I were a conservative I would be deeply embarrassed by these misguided, incoherent protests.
I actually don’t understand the reasoning here at all. Obama lowered taxes for nearly everyone, including a slew of business taxes, and they are protesting higher taxes?
Obama is trying to keep the country out of another great Depression by stabilizing the banking industry, and they call him a fascist?
Were these people protesting when Bush ran up a trillion dollar deficit? Were they protesting about the expansion of Medicare, or the huge unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind? Why the sudden outrage? Is it just because Glenn Beck cried and said some crazy stuff? I’m beginning to think so.
One guy today: “He’s a fascist!” “Why?” “He just is!”
Hard to argue with that logic. I guess "Socialist" wasn't working for them.
As many have pointed out, it’s one thing to lose an election. It’s another to use that loss as a reason to talk about fascism, totalitarianism, secession, and hanging liberals.
The election of Barack Obama said a lot about this country. Sadly, these protests do too.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
You gotta feel for him
I was just reading about South Dakota's richest man, Denny Sanford.
Dude had a net worth of $2.8 billion a couple years ago.
With the drop in the stock market, he's now worth a measly $1 billion.
It does raise a question.
Which is worse for your average billionaire: "socialists" like Obama, who would raise his taxes a a couple percentage points, or unrestrained capitalism?
Dude had a net worth of $2.8 billion a couple years ago.
With the drop in the stock market, he's now worth a measly $1 billion.
It does raise a question.
Which is worse for your average billionaire: "socialists" like Obama, who would raise his taxes a a couple percentage points, or unrestrained capitalism?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Greed: Not So Good
I think it’s perfectly OK for the Obama Administration to be taking a good deal of heat for this whole AIG thing. They coulda, shoulda, handled it better. I think they have demonstrated that they’re a resilient bunch who can learn from their mistakes.
But I am kind of enjoying this whole populism trend we’re starting to see. ‘Cause I think it really plays into the hands of people such as myself who just don’t see the need for anyone to get million-dollar bonuses.
The critics of Obama have every right to question how the AIG thing has been handled, but aren’t they also buying into the underlying proposition: that too many folks have been making too much money at the expense of the middle class?
Isn’t that, I don’t know, SOCIALISM????
When conservative Republicans start screaming about the rewards of capitalism, you know we’ve entered a strange and new place.
But I am kind of enjoying this whole populism trend we’re starting to see. ‘Cause I think it really plays into the hands of people such as myself who just don’t see the need for anyone to get million-dollar bonuses.
The critics of Obama have every right to question how the AIG thing has been handled, but aren’t they also buying into the underlying proposition: that too many folks have been making too much money at the expense of the middle class?
Isn’t that, I don’t know, SOCIALISM????
When conservative Republicans start screaming about the rewards of capitalism, you know we’ve entered a strange and new place.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Jon Stewart vs. the Liberal Media
Conservatives take it as a given that the media is stacked against them. So why has Jon Stewart become the most effective media critic of our time?
He's a bleeding heart liberal. Surely he has no problem with the drive-by media?
(I'm not even bothering with quote marks for this post.)
Stewart's thorough whipping of Jim Cramer this week is another example of why the myth of a liberal media is becoming less believable every day.
Cramer, and his network CNBC, have been exposed as cheerleaders of the worst excesses of capitalism, the inflated, bubble-mentality that has driven this country to its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They've been out there, defending unregulated capitalism at every chance, waving their arms, shouting "Buy, Buy!" and basically behaving like idiots.
Stewart is just about the only person who has called them on it, and he is right to do so. And it may just be that because he is ostensibly a comedian, he is the only person who *can* call them on it. After all, it's not liberalism that drives our media. It's money. The networks, the newspapers--they are businesses at heart. They are run by businessmen, not political ideologues. (Well, with the exception of Fox, which is run by a fella who is both.)
And calling into question the basic foundations of modern capitalism (which one could argue is failing as spectacularly as communism failed in the 80s) is not something that has been good for business. Journalists, for the most part, have just not gone there.
Satirists like Stewart and Colbert have done a much better job of questioning the status quo. As it turns out, the status is not quo. (I love that line) The emperor, to borrow another line, has no clothes. The parrot has ceased to be. Bereft of life ...
Uh, I got a little lost there. Anyhow, Stewart, time and time again, shows us a media that does not question the status quo, does not really educate or inform, and does not provide any discernible public service, unless you count division and fear as public goods. There's liberal media, there's conservative media, and there's bad media. In the past decade or so, we have been treated mostly to the last of those three.
He's a bleeding heart liberal. Surely he has no problem with the drive-by media?
(I'm not even bothering with quote marks for this post.)
Stewart's thorough whipping of Jim Cramer this week is another example of why the myth of a liberal media is becoming less believable every day.
Cramer, and his network CNBC, have been exposed as cheerleaders of the worst excesses of capitalism, the inflated, bubble-mentality that has driven this country to its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They've been out there, defending unregulated capitalism at every chance, waving their arms, shouting "Buy, Buy!" and basically behaving like idiots.
Stewart is just about the only person who has called them on it, and he is right to do so. And it may just be that because he is ostensibly a comedian, he is the only person who *can* call them on it. After all, it's not liberalism that drives our media. It's money. The networks, the newspapers--they are businesses at heart. They are run by businessmen, not political ideologues. (Well, with the exception of Fox, which is run by a fella who is both.)
And calling into question the basic foundations of modern capitalism (which one could argue is failing as spectacularly as communism failed in the 80s) is not something that has been good for business. Journalists, for the most part, have just not gone there.
Satirists like Stewart and Colbert have done a much better job of questioning the status quo. As it turns out, the status is not quo. (I love that line) The emperor, to borrow another line, has no clothes. The parrot has ceased to be. Bereft of life ...
Uh, I got a little lost there. Anyhow, Stewart, time and time again, shows us a media that does not question the status quo, does not really educate or inform, and does not provide any discernible public service, unless you count division and fear as public goods. There's liberal media, there's conservative media, and there's bad media. In the past decade or so, we have been treated mostly to the last of those three.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
I think I understand what you're doing, but really, the last thing I want to see more of on my TV is Rush Limbaugh.
Ok, so the big thing on the blogs lately is Rush vs. Obama.
You guys probably know I don't like Rush much. I know lots of decent people who have been fans at some point, including an African American single mom I used to work with. But I have never been able to stand him. I think he's probably the worst thing to happen to American politics since Joe McCarthy.
Here's the thing: Rush Limbaugh has never gotten a single vote. He's never worked to solve a problem. He's never had to build a coalition. He's never had to answer to voters. He's never had to face a public crisis. All he's done for 30 years is sit on his oversize behind and spread hatred for people who don't think like him.
Not a role model, in my book.
But I'm not going to analyze the Rush vs. Obama thing. At least not right now. There are lots of smarter people than I doing that:
"Upcoming legislative fights are expected to be brutal, tougher than the stimulus bill. The votes of Specter, Snowe and Collins, critical for passage of the stimulus, are still considered the first gettable Republican votes. The spectacle of Limbaugh as Republican-in-Chief sucks all the oxygen from the room when these moderate Republican senators may want cover for any potential “no” vote – or “no” leverage in negotiations.
"Don’t think the White House doesn’t know that. Gibbs yesterday: “I think maybe the best question, though, is for you to ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend. Do they want to see the President's economic agenda fail?” (emphasis added). It’s not about Limbaugh. It’s about Specter, et. al. It’s about winning the budget fight, the health care fight.
"...Not everyone agrees. Today, veteran Democratic messaging strategist Peter Daou panned the Limbaugh strategy, arguing that while it may seem like a good idea today due to irrational Democratic exuberance in the afterglow of the election, in the long term elevating Limbaugh is a mistake because his toxic effect on political debate will ultimately hurt Democrats. Daou, who worked for Hillary Clinton, also mocks the idea of Obama’s powerful campaign as pure myth, instead suggesting that Obama beat Clinton because Limbaugh tore her down for 15 years.
Daou is completely wrong about why Obama won, but that’s incidental. He’s wrong about Limbaugh because Limbaugh is already a tested brand, and the verdict has been rendered. Muhammad Ali, he is not. Independents aren’t going to suddenly start listening to Rush somewhere down the road, just as they aren’t going to suddenly start appreciating Al Sharpton, who also has a brand. Limbaugh doesn’t have any new, dynamic ideas that will one day become ascendant if the Democrats aren’t careful. Limbaugh has precisely the same ideas, and proudly boasts he always will..."
-Sean Quinn- fivethirthyeight.com
---
"But what about the rest of the party? Here’s the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined."
--David Frum - newmajority.com
Or let's just go to Jon Stewart, who also manages to skewer O'Reilly as well:
You guys probably know I don't like Rush much. I know lots of decent people who have been fans at some point, including an African American single mom I used to work with. But I have never been able to stand him. I think he's probably the worst thing to happen to American politics since Joe McCarthy.
Here's the thing: Rush Limbaugh has never gotten a single vote. He's never worked to solve a problem. He's never had to build a coalition. He's never had to answer to voters. He's never had to face a public crisis. All he's done for 30 years is sit on his oversize behind and spread hatred for people who don't think like him.
Not a role model, in my book.
But I'm not going to analyze the Rush vs. Obama thing. At least not right now. There are lots of smarter people than I doing that:
"Upcoming legislative fights are expected to be brutal, tougher than the stimulus bill. The votes of Specter, Snowe and Collins, critical for passage of the stimulus, are still considered the first gettable Republican votes. The spectacle of Limbaugh as Republican-in-Chief sucks all the oxygen from the room when these moderate Republican senators may want cover for any potential “no” vote – or “no” leverage in negotiations.
"Don’t think the White House doesn’t know that. Gibbs yesterday: “I think maybe the best question, though, is for you to ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend. Do they want to see the President's economic agenda fail?” (emphasis added). It’s not about Limbaugh. It’s about Specter, et. al. It’s about winning the budget fight, the health care fight.
"...Not everyone agrees. Today, veteran Democratic messaging strategist Peter Daou panned the Limbaugh strategy, arguing that while it may seem like a good idea today due to irrational Democratic exuberance in the afterglow of the election, in the long term elevating Limbaugh is a mistake because his toxic effect on political debate will ultimately hurt Democrats. Daou, who worked for Hillary Clinton, also mocks the idea of Obama’s powerful campaign as pure myth, instead suggesting that Obama beat Clinton because Limbaugh tore her down for 15 years.
Daou is completely wrong about why Obama won, but that’s incidental. He’s wrong about Limbaugh because Limbaugh is already a tested brand, and the verdict has been rendered. Muhammad Ali, he is not. Independents aren’t going to suddenly start listening to Rush somewhere down the road, just as they aren’t going to suddenly start appreciating Al Sharpton, who also has a brand. Limbaugh doesn’t have any new, dynamic ideas that will one day become ascendant if the Democrats aren’t careful. Limbaugh has precisely the same ideas, and proudly boasts he always will..."
-Sean Quinn- fivethirthyeight.com
---
"But what about the rest of the party? Here’s the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined."
--David Frum - newmajority.com
Or let's just go to Jon Stewart, who also manages to skewer O'Reilly as well:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Earmarks My Eye!
Cheech and Chong ... anyone? No? Ok.
I confess to not totally understanding what exactly earmarks are, but I think Republicans are on to something when they criticize spending bills loaded up with pet projects for a congressman's home district.
Now, there has been much talk of dishonest or deceptive examples that R's have trotted out, like the nonexistent mouse study earmark in California or Jindal's imaginary maglev train from Los Vegas to Disneyland.
But I think in principle, it's time for Congress to develop a more honest and open approach to this stuff. Let's get it all out in the open, debate it, and make the case for it if it's worthwhile.
I confess to not totally understanding what exactly earmarks are, but I think Republicans are on to something when they criticize spending bills loaded up with pet projects for a congressman's home district.
Now, there has been much talk of dishonest or deceptive examples that R's have trotted out, like the nonexistent mouse study earmark in California or Jindal's imaginary maglev train from Los Vegas to Disneyland.
But I think in principle, it's time for Congress to develop a more honest and open approach to this stuff. Let's get it all out in the open, debate it, and make the case for it if it's worthwhile.
It's OK, Bobby, there ARE second acts in American Politics
Man, the response to Jindal's speech has been brutal. In addition to Chris Matthews raking him over the coals above, the Fox News analysts (such a difficult thing to type w/o putting quotation marks in there!) also were unanimously down on his speech. The Washington Post compared him to Don Knotts. Ouch.
I did enjoy seeing Charles Krauthammer call Obama "Reaganesque."
He's Pretty Good as a Speaker, No?
I only caught part of the Almost State of the Union speech, but Obama was masterful as usual. A little short on the details, but then again, whenever a Pres. starts going into details in one of these things, everybody always complains about laundry lists and lack of a bigger vision.
I liked the "we are not a nation of quitters" line. I liked the emphasis on health care. He seemed both optimistic and doggedly realistic. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
Bobby Jindal got the unenviable task of following him, and did not do so well. I mean put aside the content (I really wonder how many people thought the problem with Katrina is that the government was TOO involved??) -- his presentation was simply stiff and kind of mechanical, in my view.
Jindal said something like, "we know we screwed up but we are going to regain your trust." It sounds like a bad boyfriend: "I know I've let you down baby, but this time it'll be different, I swear!"
Jindal said the Dems want the governmenet to solve all our problems and that Republicans want to trust the people to solve the country's problems. "Americans can do anything," he said. Really? Can they snap their fingers and suddenly catch up on their mortgage payments? Can they wave a magic wand and suddenly have health insurance? Can they clap three times and fix up their kids' crumbling schools? Can they click their heels and suddenly become employed again?
And they call Obama naive.
I liked the "we are not a nation of quitters" line. I liked the emphasis on health care. He seemed both optimistic and doggedly realistic. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
Bobby Jindal got the unenviable task of following him, and did not do so well. I mean put aside the content (I really wonder how many people thought the problem with Katrina is that the government was TOO involved??) -- his presentation was simply stiff and kind of mechanical, in my view.
Jindal said something like, "we know we screwed up but we are going to regain your trust." It sounds like a bad boyfriend: "I know I've let you down baby, but this time it'll be different, I swear!"
Jindal said the Dems want the governmenet to solve all our problems and that Republicans want to trust the people to solve the country's problems. "Americans can do anything," he said. Really? Can they snap their fingers and suddenly catch up on their mortgage payments? Can they wave a magic wand and suddenly have health insurance? Can they clap three times and fix up their kids' crumbling schools? Can they click their heels and suddenly become employed again?
And they call Obama naive.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The non-State of the Union
So officially, tonight's speech is not a State of the Union address. But still, same kinda deal. Joint session of Congress, lots of handshaking, introducing special guests, Dick Cheney glowering in the background... what? He's not a permanent part of the speeches??
God is truly good.
So anyhow, I suspect my lax blogging practices have ensured that most of my readership does not check the blog on a reg. basis, but if anyone reads this today and has five minutes, I'd be interested in hearing what you'd like to hear from President Obama tonight.
Personally, I hope he continues on his themes of tough times, responsibility, accountability, etc. This country has been, shall we say, delusional at times in the past few decades, but hopefully we're finally coming to accept that there are some real structural problems with our government and economy, and it's going to take some sacrifice and pain to solve them.
I'd like to hear a ringing endorsement of significant health care reform, but I have no idea how that's going to play out, and I wonder if even Obama does.
God is truly good.
So anyhow, I suspect my lax blogging practices have ensured that most of my readership does not check the blog on a reg. basis, but if anyone reads this today and has five minutes, I'd be interested in hearing what you'd like to hear from President Obama tonight.
Personally, I hope he continues on his themes of tough times, responsibility, accountability, etc. This country has been, shall we say, delusional at times in the past few decades, but hopefully we're finally coming to accept that there are some real structural problems with our government and economy, and it's going to take some sacrifice and pain to solve them.
I'd like to hear a ringing endorsement of significant health care reform, but I have no idea how that's going to play out, and I wonder if even Obama does.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What has two thumbs and one senator? THIS state!
Sorry, I heard a friend use that old chestnut recently and well, it kind of hasn't let me go.
So anyhow, are we all sufficiently tired of the Senate standoff in Minnesota?
It's frustrating, especially when it becomes clear that the one Dem vote that Coleman is denying Obama really is important.
In the meantime, the court case draaaaaags along. They opened some ballots today, I hear.
So anyhow, are we all sufficiently tired of the Senate standoff in Minnesota?
It's frustrating, especially when it becomes clear that the one Dem vote that Coleman is denying Obama really is important.
In the meantime, the court case draaaaaags along. They opened some ballots today, I hear.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Obama in Elkhart
I've been hearing a lot about the latest Republican talking point: arguing that FDR's New Deal didn't really reverse the Great Depression and in fact made it worse.
You know, it's just pathetic what depths of denial these guys will sink to. It's bad enough that they deny things like global warming. But when they try to rewrite history to better fit their delusional ideology, it's just sad. What ever happened to being man enough to admit you were wrong? It just seems like modern politics is breeding this mindset that holds it's better to run the country into the toilet than ever admit a mistake.
Speaking of living in a bubble, here's one example of how Obama really is bringing change to the White House:
"In a dramatic contrast
to former President Bush's town-hall meetings -- which were held almost exclusively in party strongholds, with tickets distributed primarily to supporters -- it was first-come, first-served in Elkhart on Saturday. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained on Friday: "I've watched the President do town halls from 2004 through 2008, and the audience has never been hand-picked, and neither have the questions. And we're not going to start any of that on Monday."
Having observed how the Bush admin. conducted town hall meetings here in Minnesota and western Wisconsin, I know for a fact that these were very carefully screened events with very friendly audiences. Very brave, Sir George.
Below is a video of Obama speaking in Elkhart. This is an unscreened crowd from an area that did not go for Obama in the election. But does it sound like they don't support his stimulus package? You tell me.
You know, it's just pathetic what depths of denial these guys will sink to. It's bad enough that they deny things like global warming. But when they try to rewrite history to better fit their delusional ideology, it's just sad. What ever happened to being man enough to admit you were wrong? It just seems like modern politics is breeding this mindset that holds it's better to run the country into the toilet than ever admit a mistake.
Speaking of living in a bubble, here's one example of how Obama really is bringing change to the White House:
"In a dramatic contrast
to former President Bush's town-hall meetings -- which were held almost exclusively in party strongholds, with tickets distributed primarily to supporters -- it was first-come, first-served in Elkhart on Saturday. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained on Friday: "I've watched the President do town halls from 2004 through 2008, and the audience has never been hand-picked, and neither have the questions. And we're not going to start any of that on Monday."
Having observed how the Bush admin. conducted town hall meetings here in Minnesota and western Wisconsin, I know for a fact that these were very carefully screened events with very friendly audiences. Very brave, Sir George.
Below is a video of Obama speaking in Elkhart. This is an unscreened crowd from an area that did not go for Obama in the election. But does it sound like they don't support his stimulus package? You tell me.
Friday, February 06, 2009
How 'bout we listen to this guy? #3
Krugman, a leftie, sure. A leftie with a Nobel prize. Wait, are we valuing smart people yet?
How 'bout we listen to this guy? #2
Obama talks to Dems about the stimulus debate. "Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis."
Look at who's leading the attacks on Obama's plan. The same guys who marched in lockstep with Bush and enabled his worst policies. Were their ideas good ones? Were their policies effective? Are we better off as a country because of their leadership? I'd really like to hear someone make the argument that we need to stay the course of the Bush administration.
Look at who's leading the attacks on Obama's plan. The same guys who marched in lockstep with Bush and enabled his worst policies. Were their ideas good ones? Were their policies effective? Are we better off as a country because of their leadership? I'd really like to hear someone make the argument that we need to stay the course of the Bush administration.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
How 'bout we listen to this guy?
If, God help you, you've stumbled across Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs in the last day or so, this video might bring your heart rate down a little. Organizing for America--basically the Obama campaign--just sent it out in an email.
late update: I posted in a hurry earlier, so I didn't really finish my thought. There's been a whole lot of Republican posturing on the stimulus. But as many have pointed out, Republicans had their shot to fix this last summer. And what did they do? They passed a tax rebate. With Democratic approval, of course. It was very bipartisan.
Did it fix the problem? Obviously not. Let's put aside who's actually to blame for this mess, although it's crystal clear in my mind. Let's just ask the practical question, who has the best ideas to fix it? We've tried the R solution: tax cut, tax credit, tax rebate. That's been the mantra for 8 years, and it simply hasn't worked.
late update: I posted in a hurry earlier, so I didn't really finish my thought. There's been a whole lot of Republican posturing on the stimulus. But as many have pointed out, Republicans had their shot to fix this last summer. And what did they do? They passed a tax rebate. With Democratic approval, of course. It was very bipartisan.
Did it fix the problem? Obviously not. Let's put aside who's actually to blame for this mess, although it's crystal clear in my mind. Let's just ask the practical question, who has the best ideas to fix it? We've tried the R solution: tax cut, tax credit, tax rebate. That's been the mantra for 8 years, and it simply hasn't worked.
Country First?
I haven't been watching cable news lately. Maybe that's why I'm not panicking about Obama's stimulus plan.
My sense, from reading stuff on the computer, is that the cable news idiots are spending a lot of time talking about how how Obama doesn't have bipartisan support and giving lots and lots of airtime to critics of the Obama administration.
That's the usual cable news MO; it's been documented many times. Play up the controversy, give lots of air time to Republicans and almost none to Dems.
And if I watched it, I would probably freak out.
But there are some basic facts here. The Dems control the House. They have a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Yes, if Obama doesn't pay attention to the mood in DC, he could lose some Dem. congress critters, but I don't think he's going to lose a lot.
And some of these R's just have to, when push comes to shove, do the right thing. Right?
They're not going to cripple our economy and risk the future prosperity of our nation just to score political points, are they?
Are they?
My sense, from reading stuff on the computer, is that the cable news idiots are spending a lot of time talking about how how Obama doesn't have bipartisan support and giving lots and lots of airtime to critics of the Obama administration.
That's the usual cable news MO; it's been documented many times. Play up the controversy, give lots of air time to Republicans and almost none to Dems.
And if I watched it, I would probably freak out.
But there are some basic facts here. The Dems control the House. They have a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Yes, if Obama doesn't pay attention to the mood in DC, he could lose some Dem. congress critters, but I don't think he's going to lose a lot.
And some of these R's just have to, when push comes to shove, do the right thing. Right?
They're not going to cripple our economy and risk the future prosperity of our nation just to score political points, are they?
Are they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)