Gerard Alexander wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post last week that he says, was solicited. One has to wonder why. His premise is that American Liberals, "... to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration." He continues with the assertion that despite his calls for bipartisanship, President Obama is the "leading voice" of "intellectual condescension." I have to confess that as a lifelong liberal--and a fairly radical one at that--I find that Alexander's piece is breathtaking in its condescension and lack of fact and reason. After reading it, my reasons should be self-evident, however, his opening argument appears to be the fact that "...Democratic fortunes are on the wane..." and that we claim that our troubles are a combination of "...conservative misinformation...and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments" This is critically important to Mr. Alexander as his argument is that, "...[this] liberal tradition for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever." On the wane? Impoverished debate?
Evidently, liberals have always looked down on conservative thinking, believing as we do that right-wing ideology "...stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity..." In the 1950's and 60's, according to Alexander, liberals trivialized conservatives. His argument falters somewhat when he acknowledges that this changed during the Carter years and their associated economic difficulties followed by the rise in the 1980's of Reaganomics.In four areas, liberals attack conservative thought and action, says Alexander, and by so doing, we lose the benefit of sound science and thinking from the conservative side of the spectrum. I can almost feel the little pat on the head at this point.
The first area in which liberals attack conservatives, according to Alexander, is the paranoid delusion of--as coined by Hillary--the vast right-wing conspiracy. The premise of this point is that supported by such entities as Fox News today and conservative columnists in the past, science is distorted and evidence ignored in order to, "... reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity." To be successful, this tactic must have the tacit approval of the "...dupes, quacks, or hired guns..." who disseminate this information. By extension, "...the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst." Which is, to Alexander, the second point of attack. Seriously people. Think about this. If all cats are animals, then all animals are cats? He has created a false dichotomy (it is either this or that, when in fact, it is neither).
I am curious how anyone could watch even a portion of Fox News and not see that it is the media arm of the Republican Party. Every news story or opinion piece is full of fallacies or distortions. Loaded words are de rigueur, if it was said by President Obama it is bad, politicians can stare into the camera and lie and no "journalist" will hold them accountable. Policies in place under Republican administrations become bad policy if continued under a Democrat, every action taken, word spoken, or gesture given is distorted and twisted in order to manipulate its audience. It is not a conspiracy if the Republican leadership holds press conferences and distributes "talking points" on how to bring down the Obama presidency and Fox News pundits discuss how to stop the "dangerous" programs of this administration. It may not be hidden so it is technically not a conspiracy, but it is definitely an organized attack by the right-wing extremists of the Republican Party.
Over the past forty years, the Republican media machine has convinced blue-collar, middle-class America to vote against their self-interest. Those most affected by the actions of Wall Street, the corruption of the insurance industry, the revolving doors on K Street, and the loss of our manufacturing jobs overseas do not seem to understand that it is the very policies they say they support that have permitted those things to happen. The deregulation of business took away the controls on the free market which allowed the meltdown of 2008--even Alan Greenspan admitted that he relied on the banks to regulate themselves, assuming that they would not take advantage of the system. To be fair, Jimmy Carter began the slide with his deregulation of the airline industry, but Saint Reagan and his disastrous "trickledown economics" which more than any other factor in history widened the gap between rich and poor, took away all constraints.
I talk to people who complain about Democrats, complain about taxes, complain about lazy government workers and waste and fraud in government (where have they been for the past 20 years?), and then complain because they can't find a job, their house is in foreclosure, and their 401k isn't worth anything anymore. To top it off, they bitch about the conditions of the roads, complain if the snow isn't cleared immediately, or storm drains cleaned out to prevent flooding, and get angry when they have to buy school supplies and books for their children who are in overcrowded classrooms with leaking roofs.
What people don't understand is that when government collects money, it spends it. What does it spend it on? Goods and services. Goods means supplies and materials to maintain infrastructure (roads, bridges, buildings, etc.), and paper and pencils, computers, printers, and other office equipment. Services in the form of government workers to provide all the social services that we are now doing without, processing the paperwork for all the myriad reasons governments process paperwork, and generally providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
I imagine that most of us appreciate that when we pick up the telephone and dial 911 someone answers and does not put us on hold (we hope), and that if we need an ambulance or police or fire truck, one will be provided. Taxes. I hear repeatedly from Republicans that we know best how to spend our own money. Sure. I'm like most people and would as soon hang on to what's mine. At the same time, I know I'm not going to get much for my dollar. But, if I add my dollar to your dollar, and we add our dollars to their dollars, and then add those dollars to everybody else's dollars, we might have enough to actually buy something. Never mind the fact that if someone claims to be a Christian, it is in the Christian tradition to care for those in need...
By getting Americans worked up over immigration, abortion, and guns, conservatives are thus able to convince voters to vote against their own economic self-interest, something Alexander claims is obviously not the case [Really?]. He cites the gatherings at last summer's town hall meetings by members of the "tea party" movement stating that liberals refused to listen to what they were saying. I know. It is hard to listen when people insist on shouting and have no coherent message. We had birthers and deathers and people calling Obama a fascist and a socialist and a communist and wanting him to fix this or that but then said they didn't want to pay taxes. They want him to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but again, don't want to pay taxes. They want jobs and to stop foreclosures, and somehow think that 8 months after taking office, he is supposed to have solved all of the problems that 8 years of a Bush White House created.
In his third point, Alexander misses a couple of decades as he talks about racism--in the 1970's and 80's. He tries to spread the blame, stating that both parties are responsible for the role of "...mobilizing ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others." He acknowledges the role of race in the shift of the Democratic Party of the South to the Republican Party, and cites examples (Nixon and Reagan) of the use of "...white prejudice against blacks and immigrants" but is somehow unable to provide any examples when he then claims that, "...candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices..." That's it. Point three, probably one of the most divisive in our country right now and he spends two very brief paragraphs of a two-page article in discussion of this issue. But liberals are condescending? Is it not condescending to marginalize a significant segment of our society and the issues that concern them?
Let's stop trying to dance around the subject and instead of calling it "...mobilizing ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others," let's just call it what it is. Racism. The placards held up at the Tea Party rallies, the use of the "n" word that has become so frequent that it is almost routine, the slurs against the President and First Lady. Alexander gives specific examples but then says that the Democrats are guilty of this as well, (but neglects to provide any examples). Are all Democrats free of racism? Probably not, but it is certainly not institutionalized to the extent that it is today within the Republican Party.
Moving on. Point four claims that liberals condescend when they insist on using facts and logic. Republicans, however, according to liberals, Alexander says, play on emotions and fear.Liberals evidently claim that extremists in the corporate world fight against anything that interferes with their bottom line, religious extremists form coalitions, and neo-cons refuse to look outside their rigid foreign policy ideas. He quotes Psychologist Drew Westen, who is also a Democratic political consultant who said that, . "They [liberals] like to read and think. They thrive on policy debates, arguments, statistics, and getting the facts right." According to Alexander and the rest of the GOP, this is evidence that liberals are just too intellectual. So, trying to use evidence and reason rather than emotional manipulation and fear is condescending and assumes a stupid electorate.
We all like to think that we have all the answers, or if not, that our side has all the answers; that the collective wisdom and combined knowledge of our group, clan, tribe, or party is right. We might occasionally disagree--usually on little things--and sometimes argue vehemently until we reach consensus (if consensus is how our particular unit has decided to form decisions), but in the big things, the core issues and beliefs, we agree. In this country, the reason for our two major political parties is because at their core, each has a fundamentally different belief in how this country should be governed. Both agree that the Constitution set the appropriate framework upon which to build our system of laws, and both agree that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution actually means when a law can be interpreted in more than one way. But in the big things, the two parties cannot and will not agree and are not likely ever to agree.
The Republican party believes that a country is governed best that is governed least, and that the proper role of government is to see to the national defense, foreign policy, and little else.That this country was built by individual achievement and since the Constitution says "All men are created equal...," then if someone has not succeeded, it is through their own lack of effort. In a Republican world, the free market rules. The marketplace sets the price and everyone is free to participate as they are able. If you cannot afford something, you get credit. If you cannot afford something or cannot get credit, you do without. While there is a continuum of ideology within the party, there are some who believe that any kind of social welfare is wrong; a kind of social Darwinism if you will. I remember talking to a parent of one of my children's friends several years ago and he said, "If someone cannot afford to feed himself, he should starve." I thought, at the time, that his view was isolated, but have since learned that it is not. Anti-immigrant feeling has been with us for a hundred years although scratch a Republican's family tree and I would imagine an immigrant fairly close by. Initial immigration was northern European as the first settlers were from first England and Scotland, later the Scandinavian countries,and Germany and France. Ireland was considered, early in our history, in the same manner that Mexico is today, and when southern Europeans began their wave of immigration, there was very strong anti-immigrant feeling. Although we all--for the most part--came here from somewhere else, we have also all wanted to shut the door behind us. The Republican Party with their anti-tax, small government,platform exemplifies this.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, believes that in a representative democracy such as ours, all of the people get to decide how they want their country to run. The Democratic Party believes that it is the role of government to ensure that the social fabric of this country is maintained, that the wealth of the nation is used for the benefit of everyone, that if individuals and corporations benefit from the physical and social infrastructure of a country then they should in turn share those benefits with the country that provided them, and most importantly, that there is no one way to think, or believe, or be. That all are welcome within the party and within the country.The Democratic Party believes that while we may not always agree on the details, we believe that there are some things that government can do better. We believe in a pluralistic and secular society that is tolerant of differing opinions and ideas. And, we believe that if the country wants to spend its treasure on providing for its poor, then a small group of the wealthy should not be allowed to overturn that decision (and by the same token, if the majority do not want to spend its treasure on war...).
Sorry for the length of this post, but after 12 years of Republican control of Congress (the Democrats have had it now for 3), and 8 years of George W., the Republican Party has shown the effects of its decades long public relations campaign. Because people tend to respond to emotion with emotion, they use emotions in their messaging. Democrats try to use logic, reason, science, and evidence, a methodology that is doomed to failure in a country that is increasingly dominated by a very loud, albeit small, extremist fringe group that claims that the evidence is wrong, the science produced from that evidence distorted, and that God gave us this world and its resources to use--when the Rapture comes, it won't matter if it's all used up. The largest textbook buying state is Texas. Textbook publishers publish what states will buy. Other states then are limited by what is available. Texas has appointed a creationist to head the state school board. See where I'm going with this?
Condescending? Perhaps someone should explain the term projection to him.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Stupak - "We Won Fair and Square" - Neener, Neener, Neener
On Fox & Friends today, Bart Stupak (D-MI) talked with Steve Doocy about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment recently passed in the House. Responding to reports that his amendment might not make it into the final bill, Mr. Stupak stated,
White House Senior Advisor, David Axelrod was reported to have said over the weekend that the language of the amendment should be adjusted, and Stupak replied as any proud Republican would (except he’s not) and stated quite firmly that,
Ummm. Every time I read that or hear it, my jaw drops. Doesn't know what he's talking about? Serial stupidity does not belong only to Republicans. The White House Political Director, one of the two men responsible for getting Obama elected, and he doesn't understand legislating? I think Mr. Stupak will find his name missing from the White House invitation list from now on. He sounds like a little boy who hasn't learned how to play well with others yet. "We won fair and square...neener, neener, neener." Very adult.
I know it will play well to the GOPhers, but Stupak is a Democrat and wants to win Democratic votes. I think. He claims to have 20 Democrats who will join him in voting with him against the bill if his language is stripped out. Okay. There are at least forty who won’t vote for it if it isn’t.
What Mr. Stupak seems to not know what he is talking about, is that the amendment process on the House floor is a process. It is not the end of a bill. He introduced an amendment. He was told it would be voted on. It was. It passed. It was attached to the bill. It then goes, with all the other amendments and the bill to be attached to the Senate bill after their bill is finalized. No one expects that all of the amendments will make it through markup. A lot of them are just happy that they can go home and campaign on the fact that they offered an amendment and that it passed on the floor.
Most of their constituents don’t know or understand that something can pass on the floor and never make it into the final bill, or that the bill can die before it reaches a final vote, or never get signed, or that there are many, many things that can happen before a bill actually becomes law. The fact that an amendment made it onto the floor and passed is nice, but one of the reasons that legislators are willing to vote for amendments is the art of the deal. It is how they get votes for their pet amendments, or how the Speaker gets vote for the final bill. Many representatives will vote for an amendment because they know it will never make it through into the final bill. If they thought that this particular bill had any chance of making it into the final health care bill, it would never have passed.
Mr. Stupak has voted with his party 96.1% of the time, but this does not include the 8.5% of the time that he has not shown up for a vote. In the past year, the times when he has voted against his party include voting against paid family medical leave, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, and numerous appropriations bills to keep the government running. He lives in the C Street House owned by “The Family” while in Washington D.C., the house that became famous (infamous?) during the sex scandals involving Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and others.
[Totally off topic, but today C Street lost tax exempt status for about 66% of that house]
Stupak denies any real involvement with The Family and states that he just rents a room there. Jeff Sharlet, who lived at C Street and Ivanwald, a residence for young men also run by The Family, before he wrote his book on The Family, said that Stupak was a regular visitor to the Cedars at Ivanwald and questions his lack of participation in Family activities.
Stupak saw a way to make some video for his next campaign. He’s considering a run for governor which will be an open seat in 2010. Michigan has been blue since 92, although not solidly blue, so his conservatism clearly sells in the upper Midwest. He’s held his seat since 1993 and won his last race 65% to 35% so obviously feels pretty secure turning against his party’s platform. Many of his constituents want health care, however, and if he holds it up because of abortion, they may make him regret it.
This country still supports a woman’s right to choose regardless of what the religious right would have you say. In July 2009, a Harris poll found that 51% of Americans supported the provisions of Roe v. Wade vs. 44% opposed, with 5% unsure. On the issue of whether people considered themselves pro-choice or pro-life, a USA-Gallup poll taken at the same time found 46% found themselves pro-choice vs. 47% pro-life. Remember, someone can consider themselves pro-life, and not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I consider myself pro-life, and support a woman’s right to choose. I just believe that if you say you are pro-life, you must also be against war, the death penalty, and allow a woman the right to decisions about her own life.
My biggest problem with Bart Stupak and the other Blue Dogs and Conservadems? They signed on as Democrats. The used the Democratic Party to get elected, they caucus with the Democrats, the accept committee assignments from the party, accept party money, and in return, accept the party platform. The platform and each plank are agreed to by everyone in the party. If the Democratic Party wants to change their platform, they can. Everyone gets together and talks about it and votes and changes are a big deal.
Being a member of the party is a big deal, its how a legislator gets seniority. Having seniority is how one gets committee assignments and what assignments you get determines how much power you have in Washington, and how much power you have determines how much your voice (and therefore your vote) matters. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders going independent was a very big deal even though they both caucus with the Democrats. There’s a reason Lieberman gets away with the sh*t he does even though he’s not a member of the party. In fact, if he was a member of the party, and not a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, he would likely get away with a lot less, but that’s another post.
Why am I ticked? Have you ever read the Democratic Party Platform? I didn’t think so. [emphasis added]
So how exactly does this philosophy, these promises to women and to the American people square with the Stupak-Pitt Amendment which takes us further back than the Hyde Amendment? The Amendment means that not only can no federal dollars be used to pay for an abortion (Hyde), but that no woman eligible to receive exchange dollars to pay for her insurance coverage (whether through an employer, a public option, or whatever) can have any insurance plan that covers abortion, even if she pays for it with her own money. In plain and simple language, you don’t like the insurance plan offered to you through your employer, you shop around and find a plan that would cost you a similar amount that you would have to pay to buy into your employer’s plan, and you buy that. Employer plan does not cover abortions but receives exchange dollars, your plan does cover abortions but does not. According to Stupak-Pitt, it’s illegal.
Do you ever get the feeling that we're moving backwards?
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
“They’re not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward…We won fair and square.”
White House Senior Advisor, David Axelrod was reported to have said over the weekend that the language of the amendment should be adjusted, and Stupak replied as any proud Republican would (except he’s not) and stated quite firmly that,
“That is why Mr. Axelrod is not a legislator, he doesn’t really know what he is talking about.”
Ummm. Every time I read that or hear it, my jaw drops. Doesn't know what he's talking about? Serial stupidity does not belong only to Republicans. The White House Political Director, one of the two men responsible for getting Obama elected, and he doesn't understand legislating? I think Mr. Stupak will find his name missing from the White House invitation list from now on. He sounds like a little boy who hasn't learned how to play well with others yet. "We won fair and square...neener, neener, neener." Very adult.
I know it will play well to the GOPhers, but Stupak is a Democrat and wants to win Democratic votes. I think. He claims to have 20 Democrats who will join him in voting with him against the bill if his language is stripped out. Okay. There are at least forty who won’t vote for it if it isn’t.
What Mr. Stupak seems to not know what he is talking about, is that the amendment process on the House floor is a process. It is not the end of a bill. He introduced an amendment. He was told it would be voted on. It was. It passed. It was attached to the bill. It then goes, with all the other amendments and the bill to be attached to the Senate bill after their bill is finalized. No one expects that all of the amendments will make it through markup. A lot of them are just happy that they can go home and campaign on the fact that they offered an amendment and that it passed on the floor.
Most of their constituents don’t know or understand that something can pass on the floor and never make it into the final bill, or that the bill can die before it reaches a final vote, or never get signed, or that there are many, many things that can happen before a bill actually becomes law. The fact that an amendment made it onto the floor and passed is nice, but one of the reasons that legislators are willing to vote for amendments is the art of the deal. It is how they get votes for their pet amendments, or how the Speaker gets vote for the final bill. Many representatives will vote for an amendment because they know it will never make it through into the final bill. If they thought that this particular bill had any chance of making it into the final health care bill, it would never have passed.
Mr. Stupak has voted with his party 96.1% of the time, but this does not include the 8.5% of the time that he has not shown up for a vote. In the past year, the times when he has voted against his party include voting against paid family medical leave, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, and numerous appropriations bills to keep the government running. He lives in the C Street House owned by “The Family” while in Washington D.C., the house that became famous (infamous?) during the sex scandals involving Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and others.
[Totally off topic, but today C Street lost tax exempt status for about 66% of that house]
Stupak denies any real involvement with The Family and states that he just rents a room there. Jeff Sharlet, who lived at C Street and Ivanwald, a residence for young men also run by The Family, before he wrote his book on The Family, said that Stupak was a regular visitor to the Cedars at Ivanwald and questions his lack of participation in Family activities.
Stupak saw a way to make some video for his next campaign. He’s considering a run for governor which will be an open seat in 2010. Michigan has been blue since 92, although not solidly blue, so his conservatism clearly sells in the upper Midwest. He’s held his seat since 1993 and won his last race 65% to 35% so obviously feels pretty secure turning against his party’s platform. Many of his constituents want health care, however, and if he holds it up because of abortion, they may make him regret it.
This country still supports a woman’s right to choose regardless of what the religious right would have you say. In July 2009, a Harris poll found that 51% of Americans supported the provisions of Roe v. Wade vs. 44% opposed, with 5% unsure. On the issue of whether people considered themselves pro-choice or pro-life, a USA-Gallup poll taken at the same time found 46% found themselves pro-choice vs. 47% pro-life. Remember, someone can consider themselves pro-life, and not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I consider myself pro-life, and support a woman’s right to choose. I just believe that if you say you are pro-life, you must also be against war, the death penalty, and allow a woman the right to decisions about her own life.
My biggest problem with Bart Stupak and the other Blue Dogs and Conservadems? They signed on as Democrats. The used the Democratic Party to get elected, they caucus with the Democrats, the accept committee assignments from the party, accept party money, and in return, accept the party platform. The platform and each plank are agreed to by everyone in the party. If the Democratic Party wants to change their platform, they can. Everyone gets together and talks about it and votes and changes are a big deal.
Being a member of the party is a big deal, its how a legislator gets seniority. Having seniority is how one gets committee assignments and what assignments you get determines how much power you have in Washington, and how much power you have determines how much your voice (and therefore your vote) matters. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders going independent was a very big deal even though they both caucus with the Democrats. There’s a reason Lieberman gets away with the sh*t he does even though he’s not a member of the party. In fact, if he was a member of the party, and not a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, he would likely get away with a lot less, but that’s another post.
Why am I ticked? Have you ever read the Democratic Party Platform? I didn’t think so. [emphasis added]
Page 50
Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informal choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre-and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.
Page 12
Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options. […] should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.
So how exactly does this philosophy, these promises to women and to the American people square with the Stupak-Pitt Amendment which takes us further back than the Hyde Amendment? The Amendment means that not only can no federal dollars be used to pay for an abortion (Hyde), but that no woman eligible to receive exchange dollars to pay for her insurance coverage (whether through an employer, a public option, or whatever) can have any insurance plan that covers abortion, even if she pays for it with her own money. In plain and simple language, you don’t like the insurance plan offered to you through your employer, you shop around and find a plan that would cost you a similar amount that you would have to pay to buy into your employer’s plan, and you buy that. Employer plan does not cover abortions but receives exchange dollars, your plan does cover abortions but does not. According to Stupak-Pitt, it’s illegal.
Do you ever get the feeling that we're moving backwards?
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
Friday, November 6, 2009
Sarah Palin Says "Jump," Republican Leadership Says "How High"
Today, Sarah Palin, the blogger from Alaska, will speak at a Right to Life event in Wisconsin. Running true to form, no press will be allowed, and to add to the bizarreness of the event, according to Mike Tate, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman, no one entering the venue will be allowed to bring in a cell phone, camera, laptop, or any kind of recording device. Think she might be worried some of her insightful comments might make it out onto the intertubes?
Earlier in the week it was reported that she was asking $100,000 for an appearance in Iowa, a claim that her aides denied and it was later reported that she was asking only $75,000 and three first-class airline tickets. There is no doubt that she is seriously considering a run for the presidential nomination in 2012, especially after inserting herself into the NY-23 campaign and attempting to insert herself into the Virginia and New Jersey Republican campaigns (they declined, although they allow her to record robo-calls, minus any identifiers which unfortunately, run afoul of campaign law).
It is apparent that the GOP rather than move to the center in an effort to win back seats, has decided that ideological purity is the answer and so is investing its energy into tea parties and other extremist activities. Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was in her glory as the GOP leadership joined her on the Capital steps, for the first time giving institutional approval to her - and by extension - Fox News's more radical and extreme astroturfing ideas.
What is fascinating about this endeavor by the GOP is that less than 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republican. Fox News and the fringe of the Republican Party in the form of Michele Bachmann inflame the extremists and most radical libertarians - the ones that boo the Republican leadership at town hall meetings as often as the Democratic - and when faced with endorsing a moderate Republican (Scozzafava) or a wacko Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) in New York, they choose Hoffman. Even losing a seat in Congress for the first time since before the Civil War is still a win in their eyes as they have removed someone from the party who is not pure enough to represent them. To them, it isn't about winning elections (and thus gaining seats), it's about shaping the ideology of the party and thus shaping the ideology of the country as a whole, forgetting that is just ain't gonna happen.
They know they cannot win elections without independents, but party purity is more important than winning elections. Isn't that what political parties are all about? Weird.
It doesn't matter who is in power. It doesn't matter what laws they write. It doesn't matter who has the money. There will always be liberals and progressives and libertarians. There will also always be wackos and extremists and people balancing on the edge who when riled up, will take up their guns and their bombs and use them and won't care if the government who riled them is Republican or Democratic.
I digress. In the past year since losing her bid to become vice president, Sarah Palin has snubbed the Republican Party more often than not. She has engaged where she should have ignored, and ignored when she should have engaged. When she should have taken the high road and acted like a politician and demonstrated that thick skin she claimed to have, she threatened lawsuits. At this point, I was going to say that when she was mistreated, but couldn't think of any examples. So, moving on.
Sarah Palin has never felt it necessary to fulfill her obligations, keep her promises, or apply laws and ethical rules to herself. For some reason, she retains a great following. She remains very popular in some circles and is able to attract large crowds. What she seems unable to do is recognize that those large crowds aren't big enough to elect her dogcatcher. She doesn't seem to understand that were she to run again for City Council in Wasilla, she would most likely lose. Her book hasn't even been released yet, but is available for purchase for less than ten dollars and in some places, less than five if you order a magazine. Most people would take this as a clue and begin to wonder if they should re-examine their career path. Sarah Palin's dictionary seems to be missing self-reflection or self-awareness.
It is apparent that Sarah Palin believes that she can chart her own course and that she does not think she needs the Republican Party. It is true that she has a niche that she appeals to and will likely retain their votes no matter what truths Levi reveals. It is apparent that the Republican Party, at least this week, is following Sarah Palin (and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) rather than the reverse, but at some point, they will have to start reading the polls.
In a recent CNN poll, Sarah Palin's favorability rating was at 42% and her unfavorability rating was 15 points higher than Mike Huckabee's which is saying something. Seventy percent of Americans and 50% of Republicans do not think she is qualified to be president, and from where I sit, nothing she is doing is going to change that in the next two years.
We progressives and Democrats shouldn't sit back and stop worrying though. Obama and the Democratic Party won because of grassroots support and the turnout of young people, none of which showed up this week. Off year elections typically don't get much notice, but neither do the mid-terms even though they are as important to the President as the general election. Right now, astroturfed or not, the Tea Baggers are energized and truly hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Lies or not, they believe what they hear on Fox News. They won't listen to reason and don't want to be confused with the facts. To most of them, it is a holy war which makes it scarier than ever.
If grassroots is what won in 2008, it is also what will win in 2010 and 2012, and regardless of how unpopular the Republican Party is at this time, groundswells - even if generated by hate - have a habit of growing.
Sarah Palin isn't going away unless some one of the remaining ethics charges filed against her or -gates is actually found to have merit, and accompanied by enough evidence to force her to face criminal charges. In the meantime, for all who tell me to get over it, she's no threat, I think she is. The numbers may be small, but in NY-23, when she said "jump," the entire Republican leadership said "how high." That deserves our attention.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
Earlier in the week it was reported that she was asking $100,000 for an appearance in Iowa, a claim that her aides denied and it was later reported that she was asking only $75,000 and three first-class airline tickets. There is no doubt that she is seriously considering a run for the presidential nomination in 2012, especially after inserting herself into the NY-23 campaign and attempting to insert herself into the Virginia and New Jersey Republican campaigns (they declined, although they allow her to record robo-calls, minus any identifiers which unfortunately, run afoul of campaign law).
It is apparent that the GOP rather than move to the center in an effort to win back seats, has decided that ideological purity is the answer and so is investing its energy into tea parties and other extremist activities. Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was in her glory as the GOP leadership joined her on the Capital steps, for the first time giving institutional approval to her - and by extension - Fox News's more radical and extreme astroturfing ideas.
What is fascinating about this endeavor by the GOP is that less than 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republican. Fox News and the fringe of the Republican Party in the form of Michele Bachmann inflame the extremists and most radical libertarians - the ones that boo the Republican leadership at town hall meetings as often as the Democratic - and when faced with endorsing a moderate Republican (Scozzafava) or a wacko Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) in New York, they choose Hoffman. Even losing a seat in Congress for the first time since before the Civil War is still a win in their eyes as they have removed someone from the party who is not pure enough to represent them. To them, it isn't about winning elections (and thus gaining seats), it's about shaping the ideology of the party and thus shaping the ideology of the country as a whole, forgetting that is just ain't gonna happen.
They know they cannot win elections without independents, but party purity is more important than winning elections. Isn't that what political parties are all about? Weird.
It doesn't matter who is in power. It doesn't matter what laws they write. It doesn't matter who has the money. There will always be liberals and progressives and libertarians. There will also always be wackos and extremists and people balancing on the edge who when riled up, will take up their guns and their bombs and use them and won't care if the government who riled them is Republican or Democratic.
I digress. In the past year since losing her bid to become vice president, Sarah Palin has snubbed the Republican Party more often than not. She has engaged where she should have ignored, and ignored when she should have engaged. When she should have taken the high road and acted like a politician and demonstrated that thick skin she claimed to have, she threatened lawsuits. At this point, I was going to say that when she was mistreated, but couldn't think of any examples. So, moving on.
Sarah Palin has never felt it necessary to fulfill her obligations, keep her promises, or apply laws and ethical rules to herself. For some reason, she retains a great following. She remains very popular in some circles and is able to attract large crowds. What she seems unable to do is recognize that those large crowds aren't big enough to elect her dogcatcher. She doesn't seem to understand that were she to run again for City Council in Wasilla, she would most likely lose. Her book hasn't even been released yet, but is available for purchase for less than ten dollars and in some places, less than five if you order a magazine. Most people would take this as a clue and begin to wonder if they should re-examine their career path. Sarah Palin's dictionary seems to be missing self-reflection or self-awareness.
It is apparent that Sarah Palin believes that she can chart her own course and that she does not think she needs the Republican Party. It is true that she has a niche that she appeals to and will likely retain their votes no matter what truths Levi reveals. It is apparent that the Republican Party, at least this week, is following Sarah Palin (and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) rather than the reverse, but at some point, they will have to start reading the polls.
In a recent CNN poll, Sarah Palin's favorability rating was at 42% and her unfavorability rating was 15 points higher than Mike Huckabee's which is saying something. Seventy percent of Americans and 50% of Republicans do not think she is qualified to be president, and from where I sit, nothing she is doing is going to change that in the next two years.
We progressives and Democrats shouldn't sit back and stop worrying though. Obama and the Democratic Party won because of grassroots support and the turnout of young people, none of which showed up this week. Off year elections typically don't get much notice, but neither do the mid-terms even though they are as important to the President as the general election. Right now, astroturfed or not, the Tea Baggers are energized and truly hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Lies or not, they believe what they hear on Fox News. They won't listen to reason and don't want to be confused with the facts. To most of them, it is a holy war which makes it scarier than ever.
If grassroots is what won in 2008, it is also what will win in 2010 and 2012, and regardless of how unpopular the Republican Party is at this time, groundswells - even if generated by hate - have a habit of growing.
Sarah Palin isn't going away unless some one of the remaining ethics charges filed against her or -gates is actually found to have merit, and accompanied by enough evidence to force her to face criminal charges. In the meantime, for all who tell me to get over it, she's no threat, I think she is. The numbers may be small, but in NY-23, when she said "jump," the entire Republican leadership said "how high." That deserves our attention.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Kos Writes About Tuesday Night's Big Lesson
Markos Moulitsos (Kos) wrote last night on his blog, Daily Kos
I rarely post anything in its entirety, but this was short and concise and makes a good point.
I've spent several hours this morning reading aggregate sites, blogs, newspapers, the MSM pundits from both the right and the left and the analysis is all over the board. I've written some of my own. What I find fascinating, is how many left-wing bloggers are (and have been) saying that we must stop criticising Obama. My own family tells me I must stop and give the man a chance - that it has only been a (month, few months, year). My son, the politics and government major whose thesis was on Clinton and the MSM, reminds me that Obama is the President of the whole country, not just the progressives (to which I remind him that it was the progressives who gave him a majority Congress).
I agree that Obama has accomplished a great deal in one year, relatively speaking, and that he was handed a bigger mess than any president ever has with more restrictions coming in (the stimulus was Bush's, the status of forces agreement was Bush's, TARP was Bush's ...). But, does that mean that we are not to hold him accountable for the promises made in his campaign?
In every case, Obama has either changed his mind, begun discussions so close to the bottom that any legislation would be close to worthless (health care), or put people in charge that were part of the problem and allowed them to craft the solutions. Instead of taking a strong stand, he holds back. Yes, we did vote for a President who would take a measured, informed approach to problem solving. But we did not vote for a President who is going to straddle the center line at the expense of the ideals of his party.
Obama has said over and over and over again that he is committed to bipartisanship, that we want bipartisanship. No we don't. Sure, we would like Congress to get things done, but I don't think at the end of the day that anyone cares who votes for what. The American people gave him an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate because we want change and we told him that we wanted the change that he said he would bring. I understand that it will take time. He said it would. But change doesn't happen if he doesn't at least begin. I don't understand why he allowed Congress to begin negotiating healthcare at the bottom, why it had to be a 50/50 committee that crafted the Senate plan, why he is going back on his word on the wars, on torture, on transparency, and so many other issues.
This election yesterday was not a referendum on Obama, but if he doesn't get it together quickly, the historic election of 2008 will be wasted and he'll lose Congress. He said that he would be happy to be a one term president if he could accomplish what he set out to do. I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
- If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
- If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
- If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
I've spent several hours this morning reading aggregate sites, blogs, newspapers, the MSM pundits from both the right and the left and the analysis is all over the board. I've written some of my own. What I find fascinating, is how many left-wing bloggers are (and have been) saying that we must stop criticising Obama. My own family tells me I must stop and give the man a chance - that it has only been a (month, few months, year). My son, the politics and government major whose thesis was on Clinton and the MSM, reminds me that Obama is the President of the whole country, not just the progressives (to which I remind him that it was the progressives who gave him a majority Congress).
I agree that Obama has accomplished a great deal in one year, relatively speaking, and that he was handed a bigger mess than any president ever has with more restrictions coming in (the stimulus was Bush's, the status of forces agreement was Bush's, TARP was Bush's ...). But, does that mean that we are not to hold him accountable for the promises made in his campaign?
- Don't ask, don't tell
- Guantanamo
- Torture investigations
- Transparency
- Regulations on Wall Street
- Iraq & Afghanistan
- Health care
In every case, Obama has either changed his mind, begun discussions so close to the bottom that any legislation would be close to worthless (health care), or put people in charge that were part of the problem and allowed them to craft the solutions. Instead of taking a strong stand, he holds back. Yes, we did vote for a President who would take a measured, informed approach to problem solving. But we did not vote for a President who is going to straddle the center line at the expense of the ideals of his party.
Obama has said over and over and over again that he is committed to bipartisanship, that we want bipartisanship. No we don't. Sure, we would like Congress to get things done, but I don't think at the end of the day that anyone cares who votes for what. The American people gave him an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate because we want change and we told him that we wanted the change that he said he would bring. I understand that it will take time. He said it would. But change doesn't happen if he doesn't at least begin. I don't understand why he allowed Congress to begin negotiating healthcare at the bottom, why it had to be a 50/50 committee that crafted the Senate plan, why he is going back on his word on the wars, on torture, on transparency, and so many other issues.
This election yesterday was not a referendum on Obama, but if he doesn't get it together quickly, the historic election of 2008 will be wasted and he'll lose Congress. He said that he would be happy to be a one term president if he could accomplish what he set out to do. I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Upset in NY-23 is a Referendum on Sarah Palin
Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin should be so proud. A small upstate New York district, the 23rd, which has gone Republican for the past 120 years tonight voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who had dropped out over the weekend, had thrown her support behind Mr. Owens, but still received 5% of the vote. Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, et al, was the odds on favorite until late in the evening and ultimately conceded defeat. All the big time names Hoffman had behind him couldn't get him elected.
It seems that the residents of NY-23 don't appreciate out of towners coming in and telling them who to vote for, especially as the person they are being told to vote for 1) does not live in their district, and 2) knows little about the local issues of concern to them (and has said that he is more concerned with the larger, values issues in any case, to paraphrase).When he appeared for an interview at the local paper, Hoffman whined that he should have been given the questions in advance. Huh? Since when? Regardless, they had been in the editorial in that morning's paper if he had bothered to read it. How many politicians running for office do you know who don't read the opinion page of the papers in the districts they're running in? Well, one, now.
Republicans may have won big in Virginia and New Jersey, but a sweep? A referendum on Obama? I don't think so. Do I think the Democrats and in particular Obama need to do some serious thinking about the implications for 2010? Absolutely.
But if this is a referendum, it is a referendum on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, not the Obama Administration.
All we've heard was how NY-23 was a microcosm of the Tea Party movement, the change that the country wanted. Sarah Palin said jump, and the Republican Party said "How high?" I watched the Twitter streams this afternoon and evening, and when it became clear that Hoffman was trailing, I started to see that "Oh, 23 is incidental." Or, "It's just a small, unimportant district." Right.
As I liked to say about W, you can say it as often as you'd like, it still doesn't make it true.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,.
k
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
