- Posts tagged Democrats
- Explore Democrats on posterous
The Biden-for-Clinton Swap: Why It's a Stupid Idea
The WEEK today has a nice roundup of the five major reasons all the crap floating around mostly in the echo chamber that is the right-wing media about Obama dumping Biden for Hillary Clinton is garbage.
Unless something drastic happens to Biden, there's no way Obama makes this switch. The WEEK -- my favorite current news source -- outlines nicely why that's the case.
Most Pols Want Really Big Government
This morning I was reading a thoughtful piece by a Tennessee author named Amy Greene in the New York Times. In her piece, Ms. Greene bemoans the fact that in her native state the legislature and the governor have taken some pretty bizarre and extreme (my characterization, not hers) positions lately. Her piece was specifically triggered by a legislative action barring teachers from discussing hand-holding to school students on the ground that it is a gateway activity for sexual misconduct.
I know, right?
After reading the column, I sat down to write a piece on how this and the legislature's adoption of other laws allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution in school science classes were perfect examples of where the conservative wing of the Republican Party says it wants small government but then continues to pass laws that cause the government to intrude further into many aspects of our lives. Such practice, i would have argued, inevitably means larger government, thus giving the lie to the conservatives' loudly ranted belief.
And I still think that's the case, particularly with respect to their much-loved social issues. But after some reflection I decided that sometimes what looks like a move toward bigger government can be an attempt to counter-balance or fine-tune big government of the other persuasion.
Take the right-to-teach-creationism (aka "intelligent design") legislation. (I'm not going to apply this thinking to the "don't teach kids about holding hands"; that one's too over the top even for my most conservative friends. I asked them.) It would appear at first glance that the GOP in Tennessee is hell-bent on expanding the role of government to include a law (and means of enforcement) that intrudes into the classroom and presumes to tell professionals (teachers) what and how to teach. That smacks of Big Government.
But hold on. Is it possible that before the passage of this bill there was already a state law banning such teaching? I don't know and a modest amount of research did not reveal the answer, but it's certainly not improbable. In that case, the government was already big -- presumably thanks to liberals and moderates -- and intrusive in the classroom. The conservatives merely passed a law redefining the powers of the big government and expanding the definition of what's permissible to teach.
Regardless of how I feel about the idea that teaching creationism as a co-equal theory with evolution (and I find it unpalatable and would fight it if it were tried in my town), the fact is that here is a case where both the right and the left want big government; they just disagree about the rules that government would enforce.
There's a fine line to be walked here and lots of room for nuance and gray. But at least I think I've learned a lesson: before I jump on a soapbox to attack the Right for wanting Huge Government despite their screeching about Small Government, I should consider whether they are really expanding government's reach or whether they are merely fine-tuning the operations of a Big Government they are trying to shape.
(Thanks to my pal Tony Seton for the pointage.)
Dems' Biggest Problem Nailed by Greenwald
Jeff Greenwald absolutely nails the persistent problem that has plagued the Democrats for the past couple of decades in an entertainingly readable column on Yahoo! today. Segueing off a comment by former Speaker and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Greenwald points out that the Democratic Party has identified itself with the notion that government is an effective tool for solving major problems. As a result, he says, every time government fails to live up to that expectation -- and regardless of which party is in charge when it does -- the Democrats' position is weakened, justifiably or otherwise.
"When the Republican leadership tells its members, 'there is a blue cup on the table,' every Republican repeats, 'there is a blue cup on the table,'" she said. She sighed. "When I tell my fellow Democrats, 'there is a blue cup on the table,' one will say 'there is a blue cup on a round table.' Another will say, 'there is a blue cup next to Nancy Pelosi's cup.' Another: 'a blue cup on a brown table.'"
So it sounds like messaging is the issue. But Greenwald finishes up by saying, " However clear the message is that "there is a blue cup on the table," a hefty percentage of voters still believe that if the government picks that cup up, it will drop it on the floor and break it into a hundred pieces."
Well put. Sandwiched between those pithy observations is some keen analysis that makes for a good read.
Kucinich Hated for Commitment to His Beliefs
Salon's Glenn Greenwald today posted a piece on one of my main political heroes, soon-to-be-ex Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). It is an excellent piece that puts to the lie the scurrilous establishment attacks on Kucinich from the right and the left as a "whack job." If you consider yourself a true, party-independent, thinking Liberal, you owe it to yourself to read this in its entirety.
If you don't have or want to take time to do that, this summary will at least tell you what Mr. Greenwald and I think of this great man who has labored in near invisibility as a sane challenger to an insane politics gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Faced with a militarized and corporatized state and a cowardly political and media class that enables it, Kucinich did what he should have done: opposed it loudly, courageously, consistently, and passionately. In sum, Kucinich was one of the those rare people in Washington whose commitment to his beliefs outweighed both his loyalty to his Party and his desperation to cling to political office.That's called leadership. I hope he finds a good way to keep his voice audible on the national stage.
Rep. Weiner, One of My Real Heroes, Is Finished
New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, a real stalwart of the Left wing in American politics in recent years and a personal hero of mine for his courageous stands and articulate speeches, effectively ended his political career today. After days of denying he had anything to do with a picture that has been characterized as "lewd" and "inappropriate" and that was sent from his Twitter account to a student in Alaska, Weiner fessed up and admitted today that the photo was of him, and that he sent it.
He alleged his Twitter account had been hacked and that he had a private security team looking into how to track down the perpetrator and shore up security on his Internet communications. It was all a bold-faced lie. And so yet another rare voice for the oppressed and disenfranchised of this country is effectively silenced by his own stupidity. He says he has no intention of resigning but the odds of his retaining his Congressional seat in the next election are extremely long and will grow longer. My guess is that he will resign in coming weeks.
Politicians of all stripes can fall prey to the temptation of this kind of behavior, of course. And while we have seen much more of this sort of behavior from leaders on the Right, this incident along with former Sen. John Edwards' indictment last week for campaign finance violations directly tied to his admitted extramarital affair that produced a child, provides ample reminder that nobody is exempt.
Beyond my sadness at the loss of Weiner's voice and credibility, I'm genuinely sorry for him, Edwards, former Sen. John Ensign, and so many other national political figures whose certainly well-intentioned careers were destroyed by personal weakness, and for their families, loved ones, fans and supporters whose confidence in the integrity of the system has once again been shaken.
John Edwards Will Defend Charges on Legal Definition, Not Behavioral Grounds
Two-time Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards appears to plan to mount a defense against a criminal indictment handed down this week, based not on the facts of his behavior but on legal definitions and interpretations. Not sure what else I expected from a former trial lawyer who dashed the hopes and beliefs of his once-ardent supporters (including yours truly) by having an extramarital affair and an out-of-wedlock child while his wife suffered through cancer.
According to press reports, Edwards' defense team will not argue that the Senator didn't have the affair or didn't have the child. That's good; he's already admitted that he did. They will try to defend him against criminal charges on the basis that his conduct didn't break any Federal Election Commission rules or laws governing campaign finances.
A reading of the indictment itself makes it hard for me -- a law-trained layman -- to see how his attorneys can respond to the charges in the way they are suggesting he will. While I, like many other political observers, wonder at the Justice Department's decision to crack down on Edwards while leaving the cases of guys like Tom DeLay and John Ensign on the table (see the CREW statement, for example), their priorities don't change factual or legal observations. It wouldn't surprise me if the thinking inside the Obama administration is to pursue such a public course of action against a once-powerful Democrat as a way of appearing to be interested in equal opportunity indictments.
I feel sad for Edwards, as I do for Ensign and his family as well. This kind of familial upheaval is always so destructive in so many hidden ways in addition to the public humiliation and loss of reputation that inevitably and justifiably accompanies it. And I find it strange and depressing that most of the public officials who get caught in sex scandals are those who are loudest in proclaiming their "family values" stances on issues. Methinks they do protest too much.
The Win+Win Revolution: Real Chance or Silly Utopian Idea?
I became aware today of a new movement that is apparently just getting off the ground. It sounds intriguing. I have a reservation about it, but there may be something really valuable here. I hope you'll check out the Win+Win Revolution headed by long-time technologist and business leader/philosopher Rick Raddatz and chime in with your thoughts about my reservation.
The basic idea makes a lot of sense to me. The one reservation I have is that it seems to me that Mr. Raddatz has overlooked one issue, or at least hasn't addressed it publicly yet. Depending whether Cap or Grade (you'll have to watch the movie to get that reference) is implemented first, I am unconvinced that the "other side" will be able to leverage its response from a group that will claim victory and close the debate. If government shrinkage comes first, the conservatives are, I think, unlikely then to be willing to discuss the prioritization of spending that is at the heart of the Win+Win Revolution. Similarly, if the first thing implemented is the prioritization of government spending that Raddatz sees as being of real interest to the Left, I'm not sure we'd then be ready to scale back government to do less than they'd already prioritized their spending plans around. And yet I don't see a way to implement both of these things at the same time. That may or may not be the Achilles Heel in this idea. What do you think?
(BTW I do take one minor issue with Raddatz. He says the Left is interested in government efficiency, in delivering great results. I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the real heart beating at the core of Progressivism. But I'm willing to set that disagreement aside if this thing has legs.)
The Weiner Tweet Story Was DOA
This has gone on way longer than it should have been allowed to continue.
NY Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has repeatedly and clearly denied he sent a supposedly lewd photo (that apparently no one has actually seen?) to a Twitter follower he doesn't know and who has clearly said she doesn't know him. Because of the technical and legal issues involved in tracking down the prank or hoax or downright attack on his character, Weiner has seen fit not to make a definitive statement about who might or might not have sent the photo, who is in the photo, or what motivated the incident. For that, he is being excoriated in the conservative press. They can hardly contain their glee at maybe, possibly, just perhaps having caught one Democrat in an objectionable act after a decade of their side being slimed in so many actual, provable, admitted sexual peccadilloes and scandals that their Family Values shield is full of rust and holes.
This story was DOA, people. It had no substance. It had no legs. Only the right-wing media -- aided and abetted by the once-and-no-longer-honorable CNN -- has kept it alive in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the GOP's struggles with its "kill Medicare" budget and its bloc opposition to any legislation that would fix the economy or help anyone but the nation's richest.
Nothing to see here, people. Move along.
"Less Spocky, More Rocky"
My buddy Tony Seton's daily SetoNotes today bemoans the lack of guts and courage among Democratic leaders, not just today but in the recent past as well. He views President Obama as someone who is "not a warrior," and quotes Maureen Dowd as saying we need someone at the helm who is "less Spocky, more Rocky." Clever turn of phrase but perhaps not too far from a real truth. Tony says that if Al Gore had gotten mad and really fought for the stolen election he "lost" or if John Kerry had not let the lying Swift Boaters do him in, we'd have been spared the Bush-Cheney debacle. And he's right. "What we need," he concludes, "are more warriors...for peace and justice." I'm not sure you can go to war for peace, but certainly we need leaders who can ignite passions in their team members and in their followers to pursue important goals like health insurance reform with more vigor and perhaps a willingness to become righteously indignant at the scurrilous lies and ad hominen attacks so freely indulged in by their unprincipled, win-at-any-cost opponents. Has it actually become true that in a public debate he who is willing to tell the bigger lie with the loudest voice wins? Or has it always been that way and I've been to naive to see?
Stop Joe Lieberman? Fat Chance.
I got about 10 emails this morning from various political groups to which I belong, all with the same theme: send us money to help us stop Joe Lieberman from killing health insurance reform.Right. Lieberman is a monumental ego and a jackass of the first rank. The Democrats made a colossal mistake when he ran as an independent after being defeated in his own party's primary in the last election. They welcomed him into the party fold despite his despicably disloyal behavior in backing McCain-Palin and several down-ticket GOP candidates. They let him caucus with them. They even gave him a plum chairmanship, that of the Homeland Security Committee. He repaid them by "mavericky" behavior and now by threatening to blow up his (supposedly) party's leader's primary domestic agenda item. There's no way to stop him but the Democrats should punish him to the maximum extent. Strip him of his chairmanship. Bar him from the caucus. Rip away the Groton Submarine depot funding in his home state of Connecticut and any other earmarked funds he's wangled. He wants to be an independent? Make him function like one. The man's a disgrace to his party and, in this case at least, to his country and his constituents (68% of whom favor the public option he opposes). He is so deeply in the insurance companies' pockets, he'll be there after the lint has been vacuumed out. Time to go, Joe!
