Once more, Chicago's esteemed men of the cloth make themselves heard:
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Citys.Clergy.Plans.2.946816.html
P, you wrote a fairly scathing piece soon after the election lambasting a number of Chicago's African American clergymen for corruption and racial politics. I really don't see any of this changing in the forseeable future.
These men (and, branching out, women if we include some of the aldermen who have, in so many words, proclaimed that anyone who calls for Burris' impeachment is a racist pig) sincerely believe that a man should be judged not by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. I truly believe they do. They're an affront not only to Dr. King's signature message, but to one of the core principles of President Obama's campaign. And they're an affront to me.
I wonder, what incites more raw anger and speechifying in me? Venality, dishonor, and an utter lack of humility (as displayed by both Former Governor Blagoevich and Still-Senator Burris), or racist ideology and incitement (as represented by the aforementioned clergy and aldermen who dishonor their positions)? You've known me for years P. Either of these stand out as being especially notable? I ask because I've noticed that, under normal conditions, I'll calmly debate or discuss just about anything. However, whenever someone displaying either of the above-mentioned personality traits comes to the fore in the news cycle, I start seething with an unacceptable anger bordering on rage.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
President Obama and the Congressional Leadership
I've been thinking about President Obama's relationship to the House and Senate leadership for the last couple of days, and Triple 'P''s last post brought up an interesting point that I wanted to touch on (and I really need to write a response to P's very detailed posting on the stimulus bill imbroglio from early February).
It was noted that the President's speech earlier this week was a (largely) nonpartisan affair, and P observed that the President's efforts to reach across the aisle, in combination with his general demeanor helps him see just why the Republican's lionize Reagan (brief aside: Reagan is the 'best' Republican president ever? His achievements top those of Lincoln? Really?).
It was that very nonpartisan tack that got my attention. P and I had a debate several months ago on how successful then soon-t0-be President Obama would be in implementing his agenda. No surprise, I was more reticent than he. One of the points P raised at the time was his belief that President Obama would rope the Senate and House to his will, or, more prosaically, that he wouldn't allow them to drive policy. I don't recall if I offered my opinion on that belief or not, but I felt that this was in no way a sure thing.
One of my key concerns over the President, and it's one that I admittedly developed after reading one too many John Kass opinion pieces in the Chicago Tribune, is that the President has long had a key personality characteristic that I've also identified in myself, and have strove over the last few years to begin modulating. That is a desire to see all viewpoints of an issue, and to craft a decision that appeals to everyone. Now that sounds nice, but this characteristic can also be phrased thusly: The tendency to roll over.
As much as I respect and genuinely like him, the President has never been what one might call a profile in courage. While in the Illinois Senate, he very obediently towed the party line (correct me if I'm missing something in his State House experience here P), and certainly never gave Emil Jones any trouble. Now, this can be viewed as biding his time and building his power base; it certainly worked for Al Smith as he worked his way through Tammany Hall around the turn of the last century in a much more corrupt atmosphere (and Smith himself was certainly more than a _bit_ corrupt, unlike the President). Still, absent any evidence to the contrary, I have the unmistakable impression that President Obama isn't able to put his foot down all that often.
This belief has been accenuated by the stimulus bill. P, you noted in the "I'm not in the tank for Obama...." post that this is really a House bill, rather than one from the White House. You also asked why the President doesn't simply "put the screws to his own party", given that he has a mandate why they, contrary to the rhetoric, do not. I'm asking the same question. Months ago we argued over whether President Obama would bring the congressional leadership to heel. Right now it seems that they're driving him. Perhaps this will change as the administration gets its legs under it, but as of the end of February, 2009, it looks to me as though President Obama is continuing in a fine tradition of deferring to others at every vital juncture.
...
...
...
A brief addendum. All that being said, I remain impressed that the administration itself isn't held hostage by the far left. The very fact that the Left is wailing and gnashing their teeth in frustration and contemplating new protests (told ya they'd go off the deep end P; I don't think it matters though, as the President has solid support among the mainstream) gives me pause in my previous analysis. President Obama's cabinet selection was, by and large, top notch, and with the exception of the Treasury department, which is itself currently horribly understaffed through no fault of Secretary Geithner, they're doing what I consider to be a fine job.
It was noted that the President's speech earlier this week was a (largely) nonpartisan affair, and P observed that the President's efforts to reach across the aisle, in combination with his general demeanor helps him see just why the Republican's lionize Reagan (brief aside: Reagan is the 'best' Republican president ever? His achievements top those of Lincoln? Really?).
It was that very nonpartisan tack that got my attention. P and I had a debate several months ago on how successful then soon-t0-be President Obama would be in implementing his agenda. No surprise, I was more reticent than he. One of the points P raised at the time was his belief that President Obama would rope the Senate and House to his will, or, more prosaically, that he wouldn't allow them to drive policy. I don't recall if I offered my opinion on that belief or not, but I felt that this was in no way a sure thing.
One of my key concerns over the President, and it's one that I admittedly developed after reading one too many John Kass opinion pieces in the Chicago Tribune, is that the President has long had a key personality characteristic that I've also identified in myself, and have strove over the last few years to begin modulating. That is a desire to see all viewpoints of an issue, and to craft a decision that appeals to everyone. Now that sounds nice, but this characteristic can also be phrased thusly: The tendency to roll over.
As much as I respect and genuinely like him, the President has never been what one might call a profile in courage. While in the Illinois Senate, he very obediently towed the party line (correct me if I'm missing something in his State House experience here P), and certainly never gave Emil Jones any trouble. Now, this can be viewed as biding his time and building his power base; it certainly worked for Al Smith as he worked his way through Tammany Hall around the turn of the last century in a much more corrupt atmosphere (and Smith himself was certainly more than a _bit_ corrupt, unlike the President). Still, absent any evidence to the contrary, I have the unmistakable impression that President Obama isn't able to put his foot down all that often.
This belief has been accenuated by the stimulus bill. P, you noted in the "I'm not in the tank for Obama...." post that this is really a House bill, rather than one from the White House. You also asked why the President doesn't simply "put the screws to his own party", given that he has a mandate why they, contrary to the rhetoric, do not. I'm asking the same question. Months ago we argued over whether President Obama would bring the congressional leadership to heel. Right now it seems that they're driving him. Perhaps this will change as the administration gets its legs under it, but as of the end of February, 2009, it looks to me as though President Obama is continuing in a fine tradition of deferring to others at every vital juncture.
...
...
...
A brief addendum. All that being said, I remain impressed that the administration itself isn't held hostage by the far left. The very fact that the Left is wailing and gnashing their teeth in frustration and contemplating new protests (told ya they'd go off the deep end P; I don't think it matters though, as the President has solid support among the mainstream) gives me pause in my previous analysis. President Obama's cabinet selection was, by and large, top notch, and with the exception of the Treasury department, which is itself currently horribly understaffed through no fault of Secretary Geithner, they're doing what I consider to be a fine job.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Address to Congress II
Great minds think alike. I was sitting here thinking, "I should post about Obama." DH beat me to it.
I'm beginning to understand why Republicans are so gay for Reagan. His accomplishments do not jibe with the accolades Repubs throw on him but if Obama is as much like him as people say, (in the sense that he's able to speak to the other side and gain their confidence) I get it. Regardless of how succesful we are on what Obama outlined last night, people get the sense that he respects them and that he's trying (which is almost good enough when you consider he's smarter and more accomplished than 99.x% of the American populace). That will count for a lot. Both in terms of getting reelected, and in how history remembers him. The contrast is starker because contemporary Republicans insists on talking to us like children or attacking very transparent straw men. WE GET IT, paying for your neighbors mortgage. Yes, normally that's bad, but right now we're fending off a crisis.
What I saw last night from Obama is what I remembered about the 2004 DNC speech. Unfortunately the price of campaigning means everything has to be spoken to through partisan and then swing voter filters. Last night was the first time in a long time I felt he had NO party affiliation.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Address to Congress
A brief post, simply to comment on President Obama's address this evening to Congress.
Although there was certainly more empty rhetoric than necessary, alongside declarations without means to fulfill the promises they made, I was thoroughly satisified with the speech. It's nice to watch a President treat his audience as adults, and I felt the address touched on a multitude of important issues. In the final analysis, I think the President struck the right tone throughout.
Although there was certainly more empty rhetoric than necessary, alongside declarations without means to fulfill the promises they made, I was thoroughly satisified with the speech. It's nice to watch a President treat his audience as adults, and I felt the address touched on a multitude of important issues. In the final analysis, I think the President struck the right tone throughout.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Judd Gregg and The Republican Establishment
Although I end up voting for their candidates more often that not, I've never been overly fond of some of the more strident shibboleths of the Democratic party, and am reasonably convinced (though granted I've never done any actual research on the matter) that, given half a chance, the party would revert to its pre-Clintonian statist philosophy in fairly short order. It's in large part due to this fear that I've been so discomfitted by the possibility of the Senate Democrats achieving a filibuster-proof majority. That and I'm a firm believer in the "power corrupts" school of thought.
That being said, as of this evening and on a purely emotional level, I no longer have any sympathy for the GOP, and spitefully hope to see them suffer further electoral disaster next year. I'm furious with Gregg for withdrawing his nomination. He's apparently done so because he suddenly realized that he'd be serving a Democratic president, and Republicans can't work with Democrats. On anything. If they do, they'll be contaminated. Or something.
The GOP demanded Democratic aquiescence during their eight years in power; even when the Dems held control of the Congress. Once the Democrats gained complete and total control over both the legislative and executive branches, the first thing President Obama did (against the advice and desire of many of his supporters and colleagues) was make a serious attempt to break with his predecessor and reinstitute a true bipartisanship of the kind that's been dying since, to my mind, the beginning of the Clinton administration. He not only talked with the Republican leadership, he actively inserted their ideas into his stimulus package; the Republicans even praised the man for it. And then they refused to vote for the package, apparently because it wasn't the package that they would have created had they been in power (which is the only bill worth supporting, apparently).
Gregg's recusal is a symptom of a dying party. The GOP can revive itself; indeed, it most certainly will at some point, just as both it and its Democratic compatriot have done countless times before when it seemed that the end was nigh. But right now, the Republican Party is on a witch hunt; punishing all those who don't have the ideological purity that they demand, and viewing any compromise with the oppostion as being tantamount to apostasy. This is an idea that's been far more thoroughly (and superbly) developed by Andrew Sullivan, but it's one that I now finally, and completely, subscribe to.
That being said, as of this evening and on a purely emotional level, I no longer have any sympathy for the GOP, and spitefully hope to see them suffer further electoral disaster next year. I'm furious with Gregg for withdrawing his nomination. He's apparently done so because he suddenly realized that he'd be serving a Democratic president, and Republicans can't work with Democrats. On anything. If they do, they'll be contaminated. Or something.
The GOP demanded Democratic aquiescence during their eight years in power; even when the Dems held control of the Congress. Once the Democrats gained complete and total control over both the legislative and executive branches, the first thing President Obama did (against the advice and desire of many of his supporters and colleagues) was make a serious attempt to break with his predecessor and reinstitute a true bipartisanship of the kind that's been dying since, to my mind, the beginning of the Clinton administration. He not only talked with the Republican leadership, he actively inserted their ideas into his stimulus package; the Republicans even praised the man for it. And then they refused to vote for the package, apparently because it wasn't the package that they would have created had they been in power (which is the only bill worth supporting, apparently).
Gregg's recusal is a symptom of a dying party. The GOP can revive itself; indeed, it most certainly will at some point, just as both it and its Democratic compatriot have done countless times before when it seemed that the end was nigh. But right now, the Republican Party is on a witch hunt; punishing all those who don't have the ideological purity that they demand, and viewing any compromise with the oppostion as being tantamount to apostasy. This is an idea that's been far more thoroughly (and superbly) developed by Andrew Sullivan, but it's one that I now finally, and completely, subscribe to.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I'm not in the tank for Obama.....
....so here are my criticsms so far.
1) Robert Gibbs- I'm actually going to say big ups to Scott McClellan for suggesting the current press daily briefing be changed. It is a collossal waste of time. 1) Gibbs is getting annoying. He sounds like a Bushie who drank the Kool-Aid only he's shilling for Obama instead. This may not be his fault. That's sort of the job description. And 2) if he's not authorized to say anything, at least nothing the press doesn't already know, why even have the Q&A? McClellan suggested having different experts come on certain days and the press can ask the experts (say someone from Treasury one day, NSA, Defense, and State the next, Labor the next etc.) questions regarding their expertise but they won't get blood from a turnip and so they won't try. Then, Gibbs would only need to address the press when there is some big general news or scandal. seems more efficent and useful to me.
2) Stimulus- The more I read obsidian wings and different economists the more I think this is just retarded. But as I understand more (namely that this really is a House bill, not Obama's) the more it makes sense. Here's my stimulus plan. It would be two bills. It's easy to sell as 2 bills, I totally disagree with the pundits that say it has to be one because the republicans won't feel obligated to support the 2nd one after all the spending of the first. Newsflash, they're not supporting this one.
Bill 1) Immediate stimulus. It should get passed immediately regardless of republican obstruction.
a. Reduce EVERYBODY's marginal tax rate.
b. Extend unemployment benefits.
c. Add retraining/ tuition assistance for laid off workers.
d. Add some small business bs
e. suspend takation rules on bonuses.
Make all this last indefinitely but review it every 9 months with strict metrics on when it should be renewed and when it should be suspended.
e. Subsidize local mass transit for a year through either funding projects that are already started or reducing fares.
Bill 2) Longer term works projects type stuff.
a. Fix infrastrucutre.
b. Add highspeed rail in the various corridors that the republicans were talking about.
c. OVERHAUL the tax code- simplify it and automate it. Automating requires d.
d. Begin a government information database initiative. The combination of c and d may pay for a lot of the new tax burden this stimulus will stick us with. But it won't be effective for 4-5 years. Imagine, never having to file a tax return, or the most complicated government applications being reduced to 2-3 clicks of a button. What would the collective effect of the increase in happiness, reduced cost to consumers, businesses, and the government, increase in effectiveness of government programs because adoption would spike to 100% of those targeted, the improvement in sociological studies because of that data, and the increased tax revenues because loopholes would be eliminated? It would be awesome.
e. Commission the reorganization of freight routes in the country. This costs business almost $50B or $100B a year, I can't remember which but either way it's a lot.
f. Adopt parts of Pickens plan(namely the wind farm part).
g. Subsidize solar panel purchases for a year. Reexamine program after that.
h. Authorize the construction of nuclear power plants.
i. Invest in the electrical grid of the country.
And I like the idea of the "Bad Bank."
And w/o the bad bank, if the cost of the 2 bills comes in under $700B (I have no clue what that marignal tax cut would do-but it would cost a lot), then there's probably still some political will to spend $150-200B on patching together Healthcare. If they do it right, patching together healtcare could pay for itself in several years and then add stimulus (to businesses) after that, and possibly help pay down the stimulus debt. That's a lot of wishful thinking. Doing the analysis might be fun.
Certainly there are more things that could go here, but I'm no expert. But if this was the thrust of the bill this would be remarkably easy to sell to the American public and the republicans would HAVE to go along otherwise they would be obstructing. As it is now, this is a flawed stimulus and the republicans are sounding less obstructionist by the day. Someone like myself who believes in Obama and a "new kind of politics" wonders why he himself couldn't advocate something closer to what I've proposed and then put the screws to his own party. The man has a mandate. Congress does NOT. I know he wants to be nice and conciliatory but if people are bad faith actors (THE ENTIRE HOUSE) he needs to show them who's boss. This plan would be the spawn of evidenced based thinking so anyone who would disagree would have to argue it on the merits. Right now the republicans are able to do that because the bill is very flawed. They couldn't with a good bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)