To go without saying, my prayers and thoughts have been and remained with all the victims of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona days ago. I admit that I am not often surprised or shocked by most incidents in the world including violent acts but this act of terror and senseless murder against a sitting Congresswoman and everyday people has been shocked and angered me. I am angered not simply by this evil act but by the reactions of some people, both high profile and everyday persons. They range from finger-pointing to outright disinterest and lack of care in the terrible act that occurred that day.
The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is truly a sorry excuse for a human being and should be forever remembered as cowardly and evil little man whose only achievement in life is the killing of innocent Americans who were observing one of their most basic rights as citizens as to meet and speak with their elected member of Congress. No matter what his reasoning or motive there is no excuse or justification for this most heinous act of violence...
Possibly more troubling than the actions of the shooter are the reactions I have gotten from talking about this with others. The vast majority were as you would expect, sadden and disturbed by this act. However, a small number I have spoken to or listen to in the last few days have troubled and angered me greatly.
From watching MSNBC or other Liberal media sources, you would notice that many people, both commentators, politicians, and ordinary people are already putting the blame of this attack on the "Right wing" fringe of American politics and even the Tea Party movement itself. And while it is plausible to connect fiery partisan rhetoric from conservative politicians or commentators to such actions, it is a very short-sighted and erroneous connection. I will leave the issue of responsibility and harsh partisan rhetoric for another day because from what I have seen there is little evidence to suggest this is the 'cause' of the shooting. From what has been released so far this disturbed man's political beliefs are all over the spectrum. According to people that knew him and things he has published online, He is: Anti-religion, Anti-abortion, pro-gold standard, and overall anti-government. He listed some of his favorite books that include "Mein Kampf" (Rightist), "Communist Manifesto" (Leftist), "We the Living" (Anti-communist), and others. From what I can tell this young man's political beliefs are hardly typical of a Liberal or Conservative and were all over the map which is not surprising knowing how disturbed this man is. So the idea of this attack being motivated or caused solely by either major political belief seems hardly true.
But the most troubling conversation I have had in recent days was of a different kind entirely. Instead of blaming "the Right" for helping to create such a troubled man as others have done, this person blamed the victims. This person had not seen the news and I gave him the information I had about who was shot and how many and what little information was known of the shooter at the time. What was this mans reaction? "Was she a Republican or Democrat?"....I honestly can't described how disgusted and angry I felt after hearing such a stupid, irrelevant, and heartless question. It should make no difference if Mrs. Giffords was a Republican or Democrat, violence against any politician is terrible and has no place in our society. I then mentioned the deaths of the Federal judge and young girl to this person. His response was that it was a shame a young girl was killed but the death of the Federal judge didn't bother him at all. From how he saw it, the actions of Democrats and Liberals (which he must have assumed the Federal judge was) fully justified such an act and it was just a shame 'innocent' people got killed or hurt. This conversation truly bothered me because I have had many conversations with this man before and I would never had guessed he would respond in such a way. I knew he was no fan of the President or Democrats in general but to think such an ordinary regular man could have such disdain for those he does not agree with politically and have such disregard for the loss of innocent life...It's truly shocking and disgusting. Such a person in my mind is no much better than the perpetrator of this heinous crime.
Let us, as Americans, remember that day as one of great tragedy and one of reflection. Regardless of our political differences or beliefs, there is no justification for the killing of innocent people and the attempted murder of an elected representative of the people, as such an act in not only completely and wholly un-American, but inhuman as well.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Obama's Comeback?
This last two and a half weeks have been, to say the least, very exciting from political wonks like myself.
First, seemingly out of nowhere, President Obama announced he and the GOP leadership had worked out a compromise over how to solve the expiring Bush Tax Cuts issue. This compromise included extending the Tax levels established by President Bush for two years, lowering the payroll tax for virtually all Americans, and extend unemployment benefits. This compromise came as a shock to Conservatives and Liberals alike in both how sudden it came about and what was included in the deal. How each side saw the deal however is much different.
Liberals, not shockingly, were shocked and down right angry that this deal had been struck without their participation. They believed (and still do) that this "compromise" was more like capitulation. In other words, they believe this deal gave too much to Republicans than was necessary. Liberals were of the belief that if they couldn't get middle class tax cuts passed and have the upper class tax cuts expire, they should just let all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Why? Because they believed that if they let all the tax cuts expire, they could blame the Republicans for not "doing the right thing" and the American people would blame the GOP for their suddenly higher taxes....Does that really make sense to any sane person?
Democrats, who the vast majority of Americans associate with higher taxes, believed that somehow their letting the tax cuts all expire and trying to blame it on the GOP would actually get them points with the American people...With beliefs like these it's no real wonder why the Democratic Party has had such a rough time the last 2 years.
Conservatives on the hand were fairly cautious of this compromise because this bill was not "paid for", meaning there were no corresponding cuts elsewhere to pay for at least some of this compromise. Nevertheless, they largely supported this move by the President they have loved to hate for the last two years and likely enjoyed seeing how angry Liberals were at the President for the next two weeks.
And boy were they mad..Geez. I will freely admit that when it comes to which major cable news channel I watch (FOX or MSNBC), I normally watch MSNBC, but these last few weeks have really bothered me. Now, it would be fairly understandable for the political commentators on MSNBC to be furious over this compromise since none of them hide their Liberal views, but the more non-political regular news broadcast during the daytime was so politically charged. All they could talk about was how much Obama had sold out the left wing of his party for the last two years and how he is always 'scolding' them about how ungrateful they are. They even suggested that there could be a Democratic primary challenge to Obama in 2012! It was so much anger and whining, I actually turned the TV over to FoxNews to get my regular news broadcast (though I still avoid the commentary shows)...
More or less, if you only watched MSNBC for the last two weeks, you would think the President had just committed some high crime in the Liberal world and had become a member of the GOP (a point hit hard by Keith Olbermann). Of course, this whole compromise was terribly overblown. While Liberals preached out evil this bill was and how they would never let it get out of the House of Representatives (which Liberals have much more power than in the Senate), when the time came for the vote, most caved and voted for the compromise. There was a fair amount of defection from both parties when it came to the House vote, but the Senate's vote of 81 to 19 was so decisive it made the vote in the House almost a formality. Why did the Liberal part of the Democratic party much such a fuss and then fold like a house of cards? I think Charles Krauthammer summed it up best in his recent article of Obama's impressive post-Midterm comeback:
First, seemingly out of nowhere, President Obama announced he and the GOP leadership had worked out a compromise over how to solve the expiring Bush Tax Cuts issue. This compromise included extending the Tax levels established by President Bush for two years, lowering the payroll tax for virtually all Americans, and extend unemployment benefits. This compromise came as a shock to Conservatives and Liberals alike in both how sudden it came about and what was included in the deal. How each side saw the deal however is much different.
Liberals, not shockingly, were shocked and down right angry that this deal had been struck without their participation. They believed (and still do) that this "compromise" was more like capitulation. In other words, they believe this deal gave too much to Republicans than was necessary. Liberals were of the belief that if they couldn't get middle class tax cuts passed and have the upper class tax cuts expire, they should just let all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Why? Because they believed that if they let all the tax cuts expire, they could blame the Republicans for not "doing the right thing" and the American people would blame the GOP for their suddenly higher taxes....Does that really make sense to any sane person?
Democrats, who the vast majority of Americans associate with higher taxes, believed that somehow their letting the tax cuts all expire and trying to blame it on the GOP would actually get them points with the American people...With beliefs like these it's no real wonder why the Democratic Party has had such a rough time the last 2 years.
Conservatives on the hand were fairly cautious of this compromise because this bill was not "paid for", meaning there were no corresponding cuts elsewhere to pay for at least some of this compromise. Nevertheless, they largely supported this move by the President they have loved to hate for the last two years and likely enjoyed seeing how angry Liberals were at the President for the next two weeks.
And boy were they mad..Geez. I will freely admit that when it comes to which major cable news channel I watch (FOX or MSNBC), I normally watch MSNBC, but these last few weeks have really bothered me. Now, it would be fairly understandable for the political commentators on MSNBC to be furious over this compromise since none of them hide their Liberal views, but the more non-political regular news broadcast during the daytime was so politically charged. All they could talk about was how much Obama had sold out the left wing of his party for the last two years and how he is always 'scolding' them about how ungrateful they are. They even suggested that there could be a Democratic primary challenge to Obama in 2012! It was so much anger and whining, I actually turned the TV over to FoxNews to get my regular news broadcast (though I still avoid the commentary shows)...
More or less, if you only watched MSNBC for the last two weeks, you would think the President had just committed some high crime in the Liberal world and had become a member of the GOP (a point hit hard by Keith Olbermann). Of course, this whole compromise was terribly overblown. While Liberals preached out evil this bill was and how they would never let it get out of the House of Representatives (which Liberals have much more power than in the Senate), when the time came for the vote, most caved and voted for the compromise. There was a fair amount of defection from both parties when it came to the House vote, but the Senate's vote of 81 to 19 was so decisive it made the vote in the House almost a formality. Why did the Liberal part of the Democratic party much such a fuss and then fold like a house of cards? I think Charles Krauthammer summed it up best in his recent article of Obama's impressive post-Midterm comeback:
"Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal. "
The second big political master stroke of President Obama as of late is the passage of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the United States Armed Forces. Many had written off this repeal effort weeks ago because of the drag out political fight that was going on over the Bush tax cuts expiring and the so-to-be battle of the New START treaty. Some speculated that there would be some kind of trade off between the DADT repeal and some kind of deal with the Republicans on the tax cut issue. Regardless, most commentators considered the effort a bust.
But that all changed several days ago. All the sudden, there were reports the Democrats were rallying support among their party members in the Senate for a vote on DADT repeal and were actively lobbying some Republicans for the vote as well. These efforts were effective enough that the night before the final vote, it was all by certian the DADT repeal would pass. And when the final vote came down, there 57 Democrats and 8 Republicans voting to repeal DADT.
Two arguably Bipartisan votes in less than two weeks on such public policy issues should not be taken lightly. These votes are even more impressive considering they were accomplished during a so-called "lame duck" session of Congress. But these would not be the only bipartisan bills to pass into Law before the 111th Congress went home for the last time.
The last major piece of legislative success to be achieved by President Obama was the passage of the New START treaty. In my last post, I pointed out that while Democrats were claiming this treaty to be more important than othe domestic issues, I disagreed and believed that the treaty should wait until the Tax cut issue was resolved, even if that meant it would next year before it was voted on. However to my own shock, the tax compromise removed that roadblock and weakened the GOP's argument that the New START treaty could wait til next year. This was further pushed by the fact the President Obama announced he would stay in Washington until it was passed (even though his family had already left for the holidays). With all this pressure, it was not really much of a shock how the final vote came down. The final tally was 71 to 26, with 13 Republicans crossing the party line and voting with the Democrats.
With all these successes and shockingly bipartisan votes, where does this leave President Obama? As Mr. Krauthammer suggests in his recent article, President Obama has trully become the "New Comeback Kid". He was had managed to achieve something even the 'great' Bill Clinton could not achieve: Rebound with a major political compromise personally negoated between himself and the opposing GOP and pass several major pieces of legislation is a "lame-duck" session of Congress..All just a little under two months after his party's massive losses in the mid-term elections. Quite impressive indeed..
My kudos Mr. President
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
I Hate to admit it...But.
While it is probably clear to most readers that I am not a big fan of the GOP generally, lately some of the actions of the Democrats in Congress have annoyed me much more.
For example, the debate over whether the New START treaty should be voted on before the next Congress comes into session next year has been all over the news in the last few weeks. Now as a rule, I have no problem with such treaties simply because nuclear arms reduction is always a good thing in my book, especially considering how large the stockpile of the United States and Russia still are now 20 years after the Cold War has ended. My problem with this treaty has been timing.
This treaty was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010. Since that ceremonial signing, little has progressed with the treaty here in the United States and this uncertainty of whether it will passed has caused the Russians to become cautious of the treaty as well. So why has it taken so long for the treaty to come to a vote? Many actually predicted the treaty would be passed with little delay since it was backed from the start by Senator Lugar who is seen as one of the most influencial Republicans (and Senators in general) on matters such as these. But support from Republicans has been much less than forthcoming.
The main issues brought up by Republicans is that the treaty is more oriented in reduction and maintaince than modernization. The Obama administration denies this but the Republicans, led by Senator Kyl, have not been convinced and want more time to debate this treaty. In the same thought, others have made the point that debating the new START treaty is not as high of priority as other matters, mainly the continuation or the Bush Tax Cuts.
Another problem some see with the New START treaty has been made by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. He contends that while as a whole the treaty does not restrict U.S. efforts to build a real ballistic missile defense system, the pre-amble does suggest that such efforts may be restricted and contends that during the talks before the signing of this treaty there may have been some verbal deal between the American representatives and their Russian counterparts that if Russian agrees to the reductions the US will reduce its efforts to build a complete "missile shield" in return. The Obama administration denies this but Krauthammer and others contend that this should be investigated properly to make sure there were no miscommunication between the American and Russian representatives....And I agree.
While I do agree such a treaty is very important and Democrats points that there have been no inspectors in Russian to observe nuclear arsenal for over a year are quite valid, these are things that can be handled next year. Why? Because for the moment, I believe the American economy is a more important matter for the 'Lame duck' session to worry about. The New START treaty will still be there in two months and I believe thorough debate is a must on such treaties and once all is clear what the treaty will and will not do, then a vote on it can be had.
The issue of whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended or not, is in my mind more important for the 'lame duck' session to worry about right now. These tax cuts expire in a little over a month and still neither part has a concesus on what should be done. More or less, the GOP is unified in their belief that at the very least, all the tax cuts should be extended at least til next year and preferably the GOP would like to see them permanently extended. The Democrats on the other hand are all over the place with ideas of compromises but no one has a majority of support it seems. Some, like the President, believe that at the very least tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 should extended, possibly permanently while tax cuts for upper class Americans should return to their pre-Bush levels. Some have recently suggested the bar be raised to $1 million dollars instead to try and appeal to Republicans. The reasonings behind these ranging opinions from both parties is too lengthy to cover in this blog entry but there are at some solid reasoning for both sides arguments.
Ultimately, considering how little time there is left to figure this out, I think it is prudent for Democrats to quite bickering among themselves and find some compromise with the Republicans. Personally, I am not a big fan of continuing the tax cuts permanently simply because of how much they are projected to add to the deficit over the next decade (enough to make the Stimulus and TARP look like child's play). However considering the shape the economy is in right now, it is more prudent to not raise taxes on anyone at least until the economy escapes this recession. But I do believe I know why Democrats are seemingly stalling on this issue. They likely fear that if they agree to extend all the tax cuts for a few years that when the time comes to decide what to do with them again the Congress could be held completely by Republicans and they may choose to extend them permanently, and this is a valid fear but for right now they are just going to have to take that risk for the good of the economy.
For example, the debate over whether the New START treaty should be voted on before the next Congress comes into session next year has been all over the news in the last few weeks. Now as a rule, I have no problem with such treaties simply because nuclear arms reduction is always a good thing in my book, especially considering how large the stockpile of the United States and Russia still are now 20 years after the Cold War has ended. My problem with this treaty has been timing.
This treaty was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010. Since that ceremonial signing, little has progressed with the treaty here in the United States and this uncertainty of whether it will passed has caused the Russians to become cautious of the treaty as well. So why has it taken so long for the treaty to come to a vote? Many actually predicted the treaty would be passed with little delay since it was backed from the start by Senator Lugar who is seen as one of the most influencial Republicans (and Senators in general) on matters such as these. But support from Republicans has been much less than forthcoming.
The main issues brought up by Republicans is that the treaty is more oriented in reduction and maintaince than modernization. The Obama administration denies this but the Republicans, led by Senator Kyl, have not been convinced and want more time to debate this treaty. In the same thought, others have made the point that debating the new START treaty is not as high of priority as other matters, mainly the continuation or the Bush Tax Cuts.
Another problem some see with the New START treaty has been made by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. He contends that while as a whole the treaty does not restrict U.S. efforts to build a real ballistic missile defense system, the pre-amble does suggest that such efforts may be restricted and contends that during the talks before the signing of this treaty there may have been some verbal deal between the American representatives and their Russian counterparts that if Russian agrees to the reductions the US will reduce its efforts to build a complete "missile shield" in return. The Obama administration denies this but Krauthammer and others contend that this should be investigated properly to make sure there were no miscommunication between the American and Russian representatives....And I agree.
While I do agree such a treaty is very important and Democrats points that there have been no inspectors in Russian to observe nuclear arsenal for over a year are quite valid, these are things that can be handled next year. Why? Because for the moment, I believe the American economy is a more important matter for the 'Lame duck' session to worry about. The New START treaty will still be there in two months and I believe thorough debate is a must on such treaties and once all is clear what the treaty will and will not do, then a vote on it can be had.
The issue of whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended or not, is in my mind more important for the 'lame duck' session to worry about right now. These tax cuts expire in a little over a month and still neither part has a concesus on what should be done. More or less, the GOP is unified in their belief that at the very least, all the tax cuts should be extended at least til next year and preferably the GOP would like to see them permanently extended. The Democrats on the other hand are all over the place with ideas of compromises but no one has a majority of support it seems. Some, like the President, believe that at the very least tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 should extended, possibly permanently while tax cuts for upper class Americans should return to their pre-Bush levels. Some have recently suggested the bar be raised to $1 million dollars instead to try and appeal to Republicans. The reasonings behind these ranging opinions from both parties is too lengthy to cover in this blog entry but there are at some solid reasoning for both sides arguments.
Ultimately, considering how little time there is left to figure this out, I think it is prudent for Democrats to quite bickering among themselves and find some compromise with the Republicans. Personally, I am not a big fan of continuing the tax cuts permanently simply because of how much they are projected to add to the deficit over the next decade (enough to make the Stimulus and TARP look like child's play). However considering the shape the economy is in right now, it is more prudent to not raise taxes on anyone at least until the economy escapes this recession. But I do believe I know why Democrats are seemingly stalling on this issue. They likely fear that if they agree to extend all the tax cuts for a few years that when the time comes to decide what to do with them again the Congress could be held completely by Republicans and they may choose to extend them permanently, and this is a valid fear but for right now they are just going to have to take that risk for the good of the economy.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Deficit Reduction Plans..There are many!
Recently, the Co-Chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform published a proposed plan for reducing our deficit through a rather long list of pretty specific changes ranging from a gradual gas tax to reducing the Defense budget. Within just hours of being published, Democrats and Republicans alike showed their disdain for the proposal though Democrats have been FAR more critical of it (Soon to be EX speaker Pelosi called it "unacceptable").
Regardless of how valid or likely the proposal is, it turns out there are already several proposed such plans to reduce our deficit and bring spending under control which can make looking at just one a bit confusing and tricky. In order to clarify all such plans, the good people at PolitiFact.com have compiled a list of the many proposal. I encourage everyone to read these proposal so that they at least know what is on the table and who is behind them.
Many thanks to PolitiFact!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/12/factsheet-reducing-national-debt/
Regardless of how valid or likely the proposal is, it turns out there are already several proposed such plans to reduce our deficit and bring spending under control which can make looking at just one a bit confusing and tricky. In order to clarify all such plans, the good people at PolitiFact.com have compiled a list of the many proposal. I encourage everyone to read these proposal so that they at least know what is on the table and who is behind them.
Many thanks to PolitiFact!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/nov/12/factsheet-reducing-national-debt/
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Veteran's Day
On today, the day set aside to honor those who put their lives on the line for all Americans, I look to the man who proclaimed this holiday 91 years ago...President Woodrow Wilson:
"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with lots of pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and... justice in the councils of the nations."
Originally a national holiday honoring those who fought in World War I, it was expanded decades later by Congress to include all veterans not just those from WWI, a change sparked not by a politican but by a shoe maker from Kansas by the name of Alfred King. And as history would have it, this change was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower.
Finally, I leave you with these words..
"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them"- John F. Kennedy
Happy Veterans Day
"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with lots of pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and... justice in the councils of the nations."
Originally a national holiday honoring those who fought in World War I, it was expanded decades later by Congress to include all veterans not just those from WWI, a change sparked not by a politican but by a shoe maker from Kansas by the name of Alfred King. And as history would have it, this change was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower.
Finally, I leave you with these words..
"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them"- John F. Kennedy
Happy Veterans Day
Friday, November 5, 2010
Leave it to Charles to Sum it up best..
The results of Tuesday's election results are still not entirely final but one thing is clear: Democrats got their 'asses' handed to them. To best sum up the results of the election results and real meaning behind them, I give the floor to Mr. Krauthammer...Take it away Charles!
"For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning - for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born - the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.
Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good - chastening - measure.
The conventional wisdom is that these sweeps represent something novel, exotic and very modern - the new media, faster news cycles, Internet frenzy and a public with a short attention span and even less patience with government. Or alternatively, that these violent swings reflect reduced party loyalty and more independent voters.
Nonsense. In 1946, for example, when party loyalty was much stronger and even television was largely unknown, the Republicans gained 56 seats and then lost 75 in the very next election. Waves come. Waves go. The republic endures.
Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican "thumpin'" (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades.
Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development - a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.
A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness - so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.
Opposition to the policies was compounded by the breathtaking arrogance with which they were imposed. Ignored was the unmistakable message from the 2009-10 off-year elections culminating in Scott Brown's anti-Obamacare victory in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts. Moreover, Obamacare and the stimulus were passed on near-total party-line votes - legal, of course, but deeply offensive to the people's sense of democratic legitimacy. Never before had anything of this size and scope been passed on a purely partisan basis. (Social Security commanded 81 House Republicans; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 136; Medicare, 70.)
Tuesday was the electorate's first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama's agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it - and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.
This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don't repeat Obama's drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.
Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people's proxy in saying no to Obama's overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.
The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.
The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor - subdued, his closest approximation of humility - but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The "folks" are apparently just "frustrated" that "progress" is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he'd been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110406581.html
"For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning - for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born - the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.
Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good - chastening - measure.
The conventional wisdom is that these sweeps represent something novel, exotic and very modern - the new media, faster news cycles, Internet frenzy and a public with a short attention span and even less patience with government. Or alternatively, that these violent swings reflect reduced party loyalty and more independent voters.
Nonsense. In 1946, for example, when party loyalty was much stronger and even television was largely unknown, the Republicans gained 56 seats and then lost 75 in the very next election. Waves come. Waves go. The republic endures.
Our two most recent swing cycles were triggered by unusually jarring historical events. The 2006 Republican "thumpin'" (to quote George W. Bush) was largely a reflection of the disillusionment and near-despair of a wearying war that appeared to be lost. And 2008 occurred just weeks after the worst financial collapse in eight decades.
Similarly, the massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development - a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.
A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness - so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.
Opposition to the policies was compounded by the breathtaking arrogance with which they were imposed. Ignored was the unmistakable message from the 2009-10 off-year elections culminating in Scott Brown's anti-Obamacare victory in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts. Moreover, Obamacare and the stimulus were passed on near-total party-line votes - legal, of course, but deeply offensive to the people's sense of democratic legitimacy. Never before had anything of this size and scope been passed on a purely partisan basis. (Social Security commanded 81 House Republicans; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 136; Medicare, 70.)
Tuesday was the electorate's first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama's agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it - and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.
This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don't repeat Obama's drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.
Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people's proxy in saying no to Obama's overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.
The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.
The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor - subdued, his closest approximation of humility - but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The "folks" are apparently just "frustrated" that "progress" is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he'd been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110406581.html
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Joe Scarborough Talks Some Sense...
Recently, Joe Scarborough, a former House Republican and host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe", published an opinion piece on POLITICO discussing his view about how important or earth-shaking this years mid-terms elections will actually be. In short, he makes the point that both parties are equally guilty of having terrible records when it comes to fiscal responsibility and that the end-of-the-world like rhetoric we hear from both Democrats and Republicans is all just that...Rhetoric. Whether there will be any real change this November remains to be seen and though I am not as skeptical or cynical as Mr. Scarborough, I am not holding my breath that the Republicans will be any better than the Democrats in terms of Fiscal Responsibility should they come to power.
As an interesting sidenote, this opinion piece by Scarborough has cause a good bit of reactions from readers of POLITICO. There have been alot of comments on the piece ranging from Liberals claiming Joe is just another dumb conservative and doesn't belong on MSNBC, to Conservatives accusing him of sucking up to Liberals and not being a real conservative. Such a wide range of comments suggests to me...that Mr. Scarborough must have said something right to irritate both ends of the political spectrum so kudos to you Mr. Scarborough for being bipartisan in your ability to piss off both Liberals and Conservatives!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44134.html
As an interesting sidenote, this opinion piece by Scarborough has cause a good bit of reactions from readers of POLITICO. There have been alot of comments on the piece ranging from Liberals claiming Joe is just another dumb conservative and doesn't belong on MSNBC, to Conservatives accusing him of sucking up to Liberals and not being a real conservative. Such a wide range of comments suggests to me...that Mr. Scarborough must have said something right to irritate both ends of the political spectrum so kudos to you Mr. Scarborough for being bipartisan in your ability to piss off both Liberals and Conservatives!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44134.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)