Pres. Obama is trying to do too much, too soon. That’s this week’s constant refrain from Republicans in Congress. Focus on the economy, they warn. Do that first. You can get to health care later. We can deal with education down the road. We need to fix the banks now. Then the legislators retire to their offices in the sterile, white buildings that bookend the Capitol.
Those offices are so far from the regular person who might be struggling to keep health insurance after losing a job. The person who might be counting the days until unemployment insurance runs out, having already lost health insurance. The person who wants to pin their hopes on a better life for a child stuck in a school system that is failing them. Just wait, guys...to educate you, keep you afloat and healthy between jobs is too much, too soon. We’ll get to you later.
To dismiss the urgent needs of millions of Americans as too much, too soon is the antithesis of the Golden Rule. Worse, it’s an overly simplistic view of governance. Why does the president need to focus on only one thing? Is it like he’s actually doing it himself? Should all of the employees in the Department of Health and Human Services cool their heels while their counterparts at the Department of Treasury get their acts together? Employees at the Department of Education must really be thrilled to know that no one will ask anything of them for at least three years. To ask them to focus on their jobs would be too much, too soon.
I’m guessing congressional Republicans aren’t used to seeing leadership in action. The idea of a president who will set a lofty vision and challenge different communities to work toward a common purpose must be totally foreign. How about setting a goal and holding people accountable for the results? I don’t think so, Brownie.
I like that Pres. Obama is trying to do so much so soon. There’s a lot of work to do. He has to repair and rebuild almost simultaneously. He has to do it before a fickle public gets bored and impatient. He has to do it or risk becoming irrelevant. He has to do it...now.
I like that he presses on with his agenda, ignoring the chihuahuas snipping at his heels. Critics will always criticize. “Strategists” who have never had to make a decision of any consequence will always pontificate. And envious politicians will try to limit your effectiveness by challenging your ambition. Too much, too soon. Puhleeze. I say do it all. Do it now.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
It seems Steele don’t really ‘be da man’
Bless his little heart. Michael Steele really thought he was in charge of the Republicans. He eked his way into the position of Chairman of the Republican National Committee in a very competitive race, then started making the rounds to sell “his” party.
You might excuse him for thinking he was in charge after his ‘endorsement’ by Rep. Michele Bachmann. After Steele finished speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Bachmann belted out “You be da man!” That moment would have been awkward anywhere else but the CPAC. Not one person from the Conference seemed to get it or has since acknowledged her comments might be construed as inappropriate.
Anyway, fresh with that endorsement, Michael Steele went on D.L. Hughley’s CNN show and proclaimed that Rush wasn’t the head of the Republican Party. Steele said that HE was the head of the party.
“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly,” Steele said.
Now an interesting thing happened in between that exchange and Rush’s response. On CBS’ Face the Nation, Rahm Emanuel reinforced that Rush was the head of the Republican Party.
“When a Republican did attack him (Rush), he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he's apologizing and was wrong.”
Ok, back to Michael and Rush.
As you might expect, Rush didn’t take too kindly to Steele’s comments.
“I hope the RNC chairman will realize he’s not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats don’t nominate our candidates,” Limbaugh said, his voice rising. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.”
Ooooh... Well Michael Steele couldn’t let those comments go without a response, could he?
“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."
“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”
An apology? Actually, three. After that apology, Steele called Limbaugh and apologized in person. Steele then issued another statement saying that he had apologized, and Rush had accepted him back into the fold. I guess now he can “go behind the scenes and do the work he was elected to do,” just as Rush had instructed.
Excuse me… who’s the head of the Republican Party?
Bless his little heart... He really thought he was in charge.
You might excuse him for thinking he was in charge after his ‘endorsement’ by Rep. Michele Bachmann. After Steele finished speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Bachmann belted out “You be da man!” That moment would have been awkward anywhere else but the CPAC. Not one person from the Conference seemed to get it or has since acknowledged her comments might be construed as inappropriate.
Anyway, fresh with that endorsement, Michael Steele went on D.L. Hughley’s CNN show and proclaimed that Rush wasn’t the head of the Republican Party. Steele said that HE was the head of the party.
“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly,” Steele said.
Now an interesting thing happened in between that exchange and Rush’s response. On CBS’ Face the Nation, Rahm Emanuel reinforced that Rush was the head of the Republican Party.
“When a Republican did attack him (Rush), he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he's apologizing and was wrong.”
Ok, back to Michael and Rush.
As you might expect, Rush didn’t take too kindly to Steele’s comments.
“I hope the RNC chairman will realize he’s not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats don’t nominate our candidates,” Limbaugh said, his voice rising. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.”
Ooooh... Well Michael Steele couldn’t let those comments go without a response, could he?
“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."
“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”
An apology? Actually, three. After that apology, Steele called Limbaugh and apologized in person. Steele then issued another statement saying that he had apologized, and Rush had accepted him back into the fold. I guess now he can “go behind the scenes and do the work he was elected to do,” just as Rush had instructed.
Excuse me… who’s the head of the Republican Party?
Bless his little heart... He really thought he was in charge.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Obama, Dude, They’re just not that into you
If Obama were a close friend and Congress, a paramour, this would be a no brainer. Dude, you are chasing someone who is just not that into you.
Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo gave us a near fool-proof “No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys” in their popular book by the same title. I think Pres. Obama would do well to consider a couple chapters as he begins his presidency.
During the campaign, Obama promised us a new Washington. He would break the gridlock, restore the peace, dispel partisanship, end global warming, and so on. I must admit I was taken. Smitten even. I shared his hopes that we could fashion a newer, more tolerant America. In our optimism, we overlooked what should have been an obvious factor: it takes two to tangle.
In Obama’s early efforts to pass a stimulus and during conversations about the new president’s priorities, it became obvious that Congress had no intention of appearing to follow in the popular president’s footsteps, no matter where they might lead. While the country might still approve of Obama and his new direction … While Obama might be able to claim a mandate with his overwhelming election victory … Republicans in Congress are just not that into him.
You don’t need to read the whole book, just look at the title of the first chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not asking you out.” One of the first things Obama did when he got to Washington was start asking out Republicans. He attended a highly publicized dinner with conservative columnists George Will and company. He threw a special dinner for John McCain. He went to special closed-door meetings with the Republican delegations of both houses of Congress. He even invited John McCain to watch the Super Bowl at the White House, which McCain declined.
Then when Obama went looking for support, not one Republican in Congress could be found. They ate his food at night but wouldn’t be seen with him in the light of day.
Even the second chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not calling you” offers some clues. In each of the overtures, Obama was calling on the opposition. I can’t think of one instance where the reverse was true. To make matters worse, Republicans called everyone else except the president. They lined up for every camera they could find to denounce the president’s plans. They lectured him from the house and senate floors, they chided him from every Sunday morning show. They did everything but call the president directly.
At the end of the day, Obama had to go to the prom alone. The Republicans were unapologetic. They intended to spurn him, and they boasted in their triumph.
As Obama goes forward, he will have to decide how much to keep chasing a disinterested lover. It’s admirable to keep pushing for consensus, but sometimes you have to know when to say when. Sometimes you have to recognize: Dude, they’re just not that into you.
Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo gave us a near fool-proof “No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys” in their popular book by the same title. I think Pres. Obama would do well to consider a couple chapters as he begins his presidency.
During the campaign, Obama promised us a new Washington. He would break the gridlock, restore the peace, dispel partisanship, end global warming, and so on. I must admit I was taken. Smitten even. I shared his hopes that we could fashion a newer, more tolerant America. In our optimism, we overlooked what should have been an obvious factor: it takes two to tangle.
In Obama’s early efforts to pass a stimulus and during conversations about the new president’s priorities, it became obvious that Congress had no intention of appearing to follow in the popular president’s footsteps, no matter where they might lead. While the country might still approve of Obama and his new direction … While Obama might be able to claim a mandate with his overwhelming election victory … Republicans in Congress are just not that into him.
You don’t need to read the whole book, just look at the title of the first chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not asking you out.” One of the first things Obama did when he got to Washington was start asking out Republicans. He attended a highly publicized dinner with conservative columnists George Will and company. He threw a special dinner for John McCain. He went to special closed-door meetings with the Republican delegations of both houses of Congress. He even invited John McCain to watch the Super Bowl at the White House, which McCain declined.
Then when Obama went looking for support, not one Republican in Congress could be found. They ate his food at night but wouldn’t be seen with him in the light of day.
Even the second chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not calling you” offers some clues. In each of the overtures, Obama was calling on the opposition. I can’t think of one instance where the reverse was true. To make matters worse, Republicans called everyone else except the president. They lined up for every camera they could find to denounce the president’s plans. They lectured him from the house and senate floors, they chided him from every Sunday morning show. They did everything but call the president directly.
At the end of the day, Obama had to go to the prom alone. The Republicans were unapologetic. They intended to spurn him, and they boasted in their triumph.
As Obama goes forward, he will have to decide how much to keep chasing a disinterested lover. It’s admirable to keep pushing for consensus, but sometimes you have to know when to say when. Sometimes you have to recognize: Dude, they’re just not that into you.
Monday, February 9, 2009
What if the bailout still works without bipartisanship?
Republicans have been trotting around Washington for the last week warning that if Pres. Obama doesn't get bipartisan support for his bailout bill, the president alone will own the results. Republicans will be able to brand the president with the failure, since none of them had a hand in the decision.
Slipping past them, seemingly unnoticed, is the reverse argument. If it succeeds, Republicans would be on the wrong side of history yet again. Not only would they have owned the worst decisions of our generation, but they would be seen as erecting roadblocks on the road to recovery. Someone ought to point out that there's a fair amount of risk in that approach, too.
Sen. John McCain, in a deja vu moment for those of us who were finally beginning to put the campaign behind us, lectured Obama from the Capitol. You might get a bill signed, he warned, but it won't be bipartisan.
The Republican road to victory goes through a little town off the side of the road called Bipartisan. In unison, they've withheld their support from the House bill and all but about three for the Senate bill. The Democrats have the votes to pass the measures, but they won't be able to claim that the victories were bipartisan.
One thing guys...Americans don't need a bipartisan, they need a bailout. When you are drowning, you don't really care if the Coast Guard and Life Guard hold hands when they throw you a life raft. People are losing jobs at ridiculous rates. Families are losing homes. Life savings have evaporated in the market. And it's only getting worse.
Against this backdrop, Republicans think that it is important to hold out and deny the president bipartisanship because if the plan doesn't work, the Democrats alone will own the failure.
Again, another little factoid that slips past them in this argument; Republicans own the current failure. This isn't something we are trying to do; it's something we are trying to UNdo. To say that you can crap all over the place for eight years and tell the new guy to clean it up in two weeks or you own the pile is kind of ridiculous. We all know whose shit we are cleaning up.
All these arguments overlook a very real possibility, however. What if it works?
What if the economy is stimulated? What if people start going back to work? What if the rate of foreclosures stalls? What if banks begin lending? What if they created or saved 4 million jobs? What if any of those things happened? What if they all happened? What if they all happened and the victory wasn't bipartisan? What would Republicans say then? What would they do? I sure hope we have a chance to find out.
Slipping past them, seemingly unnoticed, is the reverse argument. If it succeeds, Republicans would be on the wrong side of history yet again. Not only would they have owned the worst decisions of our generation, but they would be seen as erecting roadblocks on the road to recovery. Someone ought to point out that there's a fair amount of risk in that approach, too.
Sen. John McCain, in a deja vu moment for those of us who were finally beginning to put the campaign behind us, lectured Obama from the Capitol. You might get a bill signed, he warned, but it won't be bipartisan.
The Republican road to victory goes through a little town off the side of the road called Bipartisan. In unison, they've withheld their support from the House bill and all but about three for the Senate bill. The Democrats have the votes to pass the measures, but they won't be able to claim that the victories were bipartisan.
One thing guys...Americans don't need a bipartisan, they need a bailout. When you are drowning, you don't really care if the Coast Guard and Life Guard hold hands when they throw you a life raft. People are losing jobs at ridiculous rates. Families are losing homes. Life savings have evaporated in the market. And it's only getting worse.
Against this backdrop, Republicans think that it is important to hold out and deny the president bipartisanship because if the plan doesn't work, the Democrats alone will own the failure.
Again, another little factoid that slips past them in this argument; Republicans own the current failure. This isn't something we are trying to do; it's something we are trying to UNdo. To say that you can crap all over the place for eight years and tell the new guy to clean it up in two weeks or you own the pile is kind of ridiculous. We all know whose shit we are cleaning up.
All these arguments overlook a very real possibility, however. What if it works?
What if the economy is stimulated? What if people start going back to work? What if the rate of foreclosures stalls? What if banks begin lending? What if they created or saved 4 million jobs? What if any of those things happened? What if they all happened? What if they all happened and the victory wasn't bipartisan? What would Republicans say then? What would they do? I sure hope we have a chance to find out.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Republicans lose in a dramatic stand
This week the Republicans tried to send Pres. Barack Obama a strong message: you might be Michael Jordan, but we're still going to play defense.
Despite personally campaigning for an $819 billion stimulus bill, Pres. Obama could not raise a single Republican vote. In Obama's 244 - 188 victory, Republicans were unanimous in their opposition.
Just eight days after 2 million people gathered in front of the Capitol steps to welcome the new executive, Republicans, in the same building, staged an open revolt against the president's leadership.
To keep my basketball analogies going, I remember a quote that says 'if a guy is coming through the lane scoring on every possession, the next time he comes your way, clean his clock. He'll think twice before driving your way again.'
Bless their little hearts, the Republicans figured they'd make an early stand against the popular president, just to let Obama know Republicans won't be pushovers. They not only played defense, they tried to clean his clock. (Ok, no more basketball analogies.)
A couple issues, however... The bill still passed. As many of Michael Jordan's opponents learned, playing defense wasn't enough to ensure a win. (Ok.. ok... I couldn't resist one more.)
One other thing... they were opposing solutions for the future with arguments from the past. They opined that the bill consisted of wasteful spending rather than tax cuts. Once again, they told us that only tax cuts will rescue us from this disaster. The danger is in including unemployment insurance for all those Americans who lose their jobs in this economy. We don't need social programs. They are only a drag on the American economy.
Is it just me, or haven't we heard these arguments before? Isn't this the vehicle that took us straight into this ditch? Didn't Republicans promise us that a sole diet of tax cuts was the path to financial health? And didn't it end in the spectacular failure we now endure?
If we learned anything during the last eight years, it's that the Right won't be deterred by reality as long as they clutch to their core "principles." Slogans over substance all over again.
Here we are...a tad more than a week after a resounding repudiation of those "principles" and Republicans are still resisting based on the same failed theories.
Sometimes I'm glad they don't learn from their mistakes.
Despite personally campaigning for an $819 billion stimulus bill, Pres. Obama could not raise a single Republican vote. In Obama's 244 - 188 victory, Republicans were unanimous in their opposition.
Just eight days after 2 million people gathered in front of the Capitol steps to welcome the new executive, Republicans, in the same building, staged an open revolt against the president's leadership.
To keep my basketball analogies going, I remember a quote that says 'if a guy is coming through the lane scoring on every possession, the next time he comes your way, clean his clock. He'll think twice before driving your way again.'
Bless their little hearts, the Republicans figured they'd make an early stand against the popular president, just to let Obama know Republicans won't be pushovers. They not only played defense, they tried to clean his clock. (Ok, no more basketball analogies.)
A couple issues, however... The bill still passed. As many of Michael Jordan's opponents learned, playing defense wasn't enough to ensure a win. (Ok.. ok... I couldn't resist one more.)
One other thing... they were opposing solutions for the future with arguments from the past. They opined that the bill consisted of wasteful spending rather than tax cuts. Once again, they told us that only tax cuts will rescue us from this disaster. The danger is in including unemployment insurance for all those Americans who lose their jobs in this economy. We don't need social programs. They are only a drag on the American economy.
Is it just me, or haven't we heard these arguments before? Isn't this the vehicle that took us straight into this ditch? Didn't Republicans promise us that a sole diet of tax cuts was the path to financial health? And didn't it end in the spectacular failure we now endure?
If we learned anything during the last eight years, it's that the Right won't be deterred by reality as long as they clutch to their core "principles." Slogans over substance all over again.
Here we are...a tad more than a week after a resounding repudiation of those "principles" and Republicans are still resisting based on the same failed theories.
Sometimes I'm glad they don't learn from their mistakes.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Charge it to my head but not to my heart
Two weeks and two conventions later, this much is clear — Democrats love with their heads and Republicans love with their hearts.
How else do you explain Democrats working themselves up into a lather by repeating a litany of facts and stats to point out all the failures of the Right? Or the Republicans who gather to worship at the altar of 9/11, claim America as their exclusive own, and celebrate an anti-abortion neophyte as their next best hope? It's clearly a head vs heart phenomenon.
I admit that I'm biased. I do my political thinking with my head. I enjoy a little heart on the side, but I vote based primarily on what my head thinks. That's why I was completely miffed that a major party nominee could give an acceptance speech that paints no vision of the future, that offers no specific prescriptions for the nation's ills, or that looks longingly backwards while trying to convince us that they are the party of the future.
We can cede the hero argument to John McCain. John, 40 years ago, you were the man. You were a bad ass's bad ass. Lord knows not many of us could continue flipping the bird for five years at people who were treating us like a doggie chew toy. For me that would get old quickly. You win that argument hands down.
Forty years later however, you run under a theme called "Country First" that only talks about you the individual. Republicans are frothing and crying, and I'm scratching my head. You pick a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she is a spunky hockey mom of five kids with quirky monosyllabic names.
Speaking of running mates, how do you nominate someone and keep them from granting a single interview for a full 10 days now? How are you going to stare down Vladimir Putin when you can't even do a soft shoe with Wolf Blitzer?
How? Because she is an anti-abortionist. It seems a Republican could nominate an axe murderer as long as he/she was committed to overturning Roe v Wade. Speaking of the he/she story, how do you do you nominate a woman and laud it as a giant step forward for women and then have conventioneers wearing buttons that say "I'm voting for the hot chick from the cool state?" Isn't that one step forward and three steps back? That's like saying "I'm voting for the night-Black guy from the sunny state." Doesn't strike me as flattery.
Finally, if fighting your own party is such a great thing, why are you with them in the first place? What's wrong with a guy agreeing with the party he has chosen. Isn't that the point?
Of course these are all head arguments that only prove that when it comes to the Republicans, my heart just isn't in it.
How else do you explain Democrats working themselves up into a lather by repeating a litany of facts and stats to point out all the failures of the Right? Or the Republicans who gather to worship at the altar of 9/11, claim America as their exclusive own, and celebrate an anti-abortion neophyte as their next best hope? It's clearly a head vs heart phenomenon.
I admit that I'm biased. I do my political thinking with my head. I enjoy a little heart on the side, but I vote based primarily on what my head thinks. That's why I was completely miffed that a major party nominee could give an acceptance speech that paints no vision of the future, that offers no specific prescriptions for the nation's ills, or that looks longingly backwards while trying to convince us that they are the party of the future.
We can cede the hero argument to John McCain. John, 40 years ago, you were the man. You were a bad ass's bad ass. Lord knows not many of us could continue flipping the bird for five years at people who were treating us like a doggie chew toy. For me that would get old quickly. You win that argument hands down.
Forty years later however, you run under a theme called "Country First" that only talks about you the individual. Republicans are frothing and crying, and I'm scratching my head. You pick a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she is a spunky hockey mom of five kids with quirky monosyllabic names.
Speaking of running mates, how do you nominate someone and keep them from granting a single interview for a full 10 days now? How are you going to stare down Vladimir Putin when you can't even do a soft shoe with Wolf Blitzer?
How? Because she is an anti-abortionist. It seems a Republican could nominate an axe murderer as long as he/she was committed to overturning Roe v Wade. Speaking of the he/she story, how do you do you nominate a woman and laud it as a giant step forward for women and then have conventioneers wearing buttons that say "I'm voting for the hot chick from the cool state?" Isn't that one step forward and three steps back? That's like saying "I'm voting for the night-Black guy from the sunny state." Doesn't strike me as flattery.
Finally, if fighting your own party is such a great thing, why are you with them in the first place? What's wrong with a guy agreeing with the party he has chosen. Isn't that the point?
Of course these are all head arguments that only prove that when it comes to the Republicans, my heart just isn't in it.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Inside the mind of McCain
It was the middle of the week, and news media the world over were gushing over Sen. Obama. A sullen Sen. McCain summoned his staff to discuss what must be done.
McCain: This is unsatisfactory. He is on TV acting like he understands foreign policy. This is MY issue. He is over there stealing MY issue. I am NOT happy. Obama was supposed to go with us, so we could have images of me tutoring the youngster. How did we lose control?! Now he's speaking in Berlin for God sakes. Berlin!!! I need my Berlin. Get me my Berlin!
Sycophant staff member: Senator, you know there is a Berlin in Ohio. If you recall from the primary election, they don't like his kind in Ohio. We could go there and be "with the people."
They all chuckled at their wit.
McCain: Great idea, my friend. Where will we go in Berlin?
Sycophant staff: A German restaurant of course. You get Berlin AND Germany And you look like you understand ordinary people. It's brilliant.
McCain: You might be on to something. Then we could go to Paris, Wisconsin. We could trail his European cities with their American counterparts. That'll show him. We'll belittle Obama for speaking to 200,000 people. After all, this isn't a popularity contest.
The staff shuffled nervously. After all, this was not good TV. But the boss was happy, so they all went along.
Sycophant staff: Great idea, senator. This will make a tremendous impact. Your best idea yet! High five!
Oops!
McCain: This is unsatisfactory. He is on TV acting like he understands foreign policy. This is MY issue. He is over there stealing MY issue. I am NOT happy. Obama was supposed to go with us, so we could have images of me tutoring the youngster. How did we lose control?! Now he's speaking in Berlin for God sakes. Berlin!!! I need my Berlin. Get me my Berlin!
Sycophant staff member: Senator, you know there is a Berlin in Ohio. If you recall from the primary election, they don't like his kind in Ohio. We could go there and be "with the people."
They all chuckled at their wit.
McCain: Great idea, my friend. Where will we go in Berlin?
Sycophant staff: A German restaurant of course. You get Berlin AND Germany And you look like you understand ordinary people. It's brilliant.
McCain: You might be on to something. Then we could go to Paris, Wisconsin. We could trail his European cities with their American counterparts. That'll show him. We'll belittle Obama for speaking to 200,000 people. After all, this isn't a popularity contest.
The staff shuffled nervously. After all, this was not good TV. But the boss was happy, so they all went along.
Sycophant staff: Great idea, senator. This will make a tremendous impact. Your best idea yet! High five!
Oops!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
McCain's Sedona Survivor? I vote for 'Bobby' J
While most Americans are spending Memorial Day at picnics and barbeque's with friends and family, Presidential hopeful John McCain is spending the weekend with what looks like the Survivor: Sedona Republican VP edition.
Among the contests are America's favorite Republican governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
The first two I understand but Bobby Jindal?! Jindal is the 36-year-old second generation Indian immigrant who recently swept his way into Louisiana's highest office. Apparently he is highly thought of...as the conservative publication Human Events gave gave him this glowing report.
I'm not sure if John McCain is looking for any advice, but I say pick Jindal. Pick Jindal!
Is there any other one candidate who so effectively neutralizes practically every argument John McCain could have against Barack Obama? Experience? Gone. Jindal was just elected as governor of Louisiana just eight months ago and has barely had time to learn his way around the mansion, much less build up a track record or any achievement.
How about age? Can't say Obama is too young any more, Jindal is 10 years his junior. TEN full years. There are grad students all around the country who are older then Bobby Jindal.
Oh yeah...the people won't vote for somebody who isn't a white man argument? Poof! "Bobby" Jindal is an Indian American of Punjab decent. He was born in Baton Rouge, but he is clearly not going to fool any of our Appalachian friends who are known for their 'tolerant' views.
Think Republicans will have fun with the name Barack HUSSEIN? Bobby's real name is Piyush Jindal. So much for the name game.
We could go on and on. I'm not sure who's been voted off the island out in Sedona this weekend, but I'm rooting for Bobby J. With him on the ticket, McCain might be forced to abandon the usual Republican shenanigans and focus on something entirely different.
Issues.
Isn't there a 1-900-number I can call to vote for my favorite contestant?
Among the contests are America's favorite Republican governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
The first two I understand but Bobby Jindal?! Jindal is the 36-year-old second generation Indian immigrant who recently swept his way into Louisiana's highest office. Apparently he is highly thought of...as the conservative publication Human Events gave gave him this glowing report.
I'm not sure if John McCain is looking for any advice, but I say pick Jindal. Pick Jindal!
Is there any other one candidate who so effectively neutralizes practically every argument John McCain could have against Barack Obama? Experience? Gone. Jindal was just elected as governor of Louisiana just eight months ago and has barely had time to learn his way around the mansion, much less build up a track record or any achievement.
How about age? Can't say Obama is too young any more, Jindal is 10 years his junior. TEN full years. There are grad students all around the country who are older then Bobby Jindal.
Oh yeah...the people won't vote for somebody who isn't a white man argument? Poof! "Bobby" Jindal is an Indian American of Punjab decent. He was born in Baton Rouge, but he is clearly not going to fool any of our Appalachian friends who are known for their 'tolerant' views.
Think Republicans will have fun with the name Barack HUSSEIN? Bobby's real name is Piyush Jindal. So much for the name game.
We could go on and on. I'm not sure who's been voted off the island out in Sedona this weekend, but I'm rooting for Bobby J. With him on the ticket, McCain might be forced to abandon the usual Republican shenanigans and focus on something entirely different.
Issues.
Isn't there a 1-900-number I can call to vote for my favorite contestant?
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Huckabee — finally a Republican heating up the Iowa race
Let's face it, the top tier of Republican presidential candidates were boring. No matter how long I watched them, I couldn't seem to get excited. I've blogged about the top tier Democrats and knew I should give their counterparts some attention but just couldn't bear it.
Then from out of nowhere comes a candidate with a big R on his chest (The R stands for Reagan, not Republican, of course.) who swoops down and tackles issues with a single bound. He doesn't sound scripted, focus group tested, or calculated. To me, he seems to have what the others have been trying desperately to manufacture. Authenticity.
Mike Huckabee is now surging in the Iowa polls because, I'm guessing, more than a few Republicans are taking him in like a breath of fresh air. Even with his silly Chuck Norris endorsement commercial, he created so much buzz and free media from pundits playing it, that it seems to be a shrewd strategic move. Each time one of the punditry elite played it to guffaw and then pick it apart, the good Governor Huckabee must have been chuckling to himself.
I had been hearing his name here and there and not really following him until I stumbled on this clip on YouTube.
Crisp and authentic. Even Wolf didn't know what to do with that kind of straightforward answer.
Can you imagine getting that kind of straightforward answer from any of the other top tier candidates? Mitt Romney is so manufactured. Him and his wife look like they have come straight out of a Ken and Barbie box. They smile pretty and on cue, and then cheerfully recite responses that have been carefully constructed so as not to offend or unnerve.
Rudy Guiliani. Well Joe Biden called his number in a recent debate. The only thing that guy has to offer in any sentence is a noun, a verb, and 9-11. And what some like me are scratching our heads and wondering is what did he actually DO on 9-11? Sure he was everywhere on TV filling a void left when the president finally managed the energy to scamper out of the elementary school classroom and promptly buried his head in the ground for the rest of the day (but that's another post).
But what did Rudy do? What lasting policy changes did he offer to make New York safe from another attack. What visionary new era did he usher in with his bold striking response. What is different in New York today than Sept. 10, 2001 because of his leadership? I can't think of a single thing.
If that wasn't bad enough, he is running for the nomination while he disagrees with the majority of his voting base on the issues they care most about. That's a winning strategy? I'm just counting down to the implosion that will end this ridiculous ride.
And finally that brings us to John McCain. I must admit that I liked Sen. McCain's maverick candidacy during the 2000 election. Then he was authentic. And then, for some unexplainable reason, the senator went and sold his soul to George Bush. He might have gotten a better deal from the devil.
McCain aligned himself with the administration on the most unpopular issue at the most inopportune time, and it didn't even resonate as a principled move (as I'm sure his advisers must have convinced him). It came across as a pathetic man selling out too much too late. He sold his soul and got nothing of value in return. He should be glad there is even a Wikipedia entry under his name because the rest of history will forget him.
Wait, I almost forgot Fred Thompson. That in itself is a commentary. So the Reagan heir apparent is like Reagan without the charm or governing philosophy or leadership acumen. He's like ordering coffee without the caffeine. Why bother.
Boring one and all. So thank God for Rev Gov Huckabee. Give 'em hell, Mike.
Wait, I almost forgot Fred Thompson. That in itself is a commentary. So the Reagan heir apparent is like Reagan without the charm or governing philosophy or leadership acumen. He's like ordering coffee without the caffeine. Why bother.
Boring one and all. So thank God for Rev Gov Huckabee. Give 'em hell, Mike.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Kucinich impeachment resolution killed but who’s the real kook?
Republicans know that Kucinich comes off as a kook, that's why, when he introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, they wanted Kucinich to be heard.
Democrats also know that Kucinich tilts on the kook factor. They'd just heard him admit in a televised debate that he believed in UFOs. And with that performance still relatively fresh on many mind's, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi wanted no parts of it.
And while we all snickered at the messenger, a message or two slipped past us. One, it was an issue worthy of debate. If anyone remembers the Washington Post's exhaustive series on the vice president, you would remember that there is fertile ground to plow on whether he stretched the boundaries of his power to circumvent the law. The series seemed to make it fairly obvious that the vice president is thumbing his nose at the constitution and doing whatever he pleases.
Second, Democrats, knowing all these facts, did nothing. That's right, in an effort to avoid the label of a do nothing congress, they sent the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee where everyone agrees it will do — nothing.
For those of you who missed the resolution, here is a Cliff Notes version:
Vice President Cheney should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors:
Article 1: He purposely manipulated the intelligence process to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He did this to deceive the US citizens and Congress and justify using our military in a war against Iraq that has damaged our national security interests.
Article 2: He purposely manipulated intelligence to deceive America about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify his war.
Article 3: He openly threatened aggression against Iran without any real threat to the United States. He has done so while proving he has the capability to act on those threats.
Anything really kooky there? The resolution documents each of the articles of impeachment with a bibliography of references, not that we need it. A simple Google search can confirm most of the facts. But Kucinich is a kook. How can anyone take him seriously?
Meanwhile, I think Dick Cheney is having the best laugh. Who are the real kooks here?
Friday, September 21, 2007
When ads attack
Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.
The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.
Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.
All this commotion for an ad? An ad?
This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?
Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.
The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.
Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.
All this commotion for an ad? An ad?
This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?
Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sen. Larry Craig is not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that?
Sen. Craig is not gay. The way the Seinfeld bit goes, you’re supposed to immediately follow with “not that there’s anything wrong with that."
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Both Democrats and Republicans want Clinton. Shouldn't one of them be concerned?
GOP activists root for Clinton win - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)