"...benefited from his firm stance on democratic progress. During the time he kept up pressure on dictators, there were openings for a democratic opposition to flourish. The current Obama policy seems weak and inconsistent by contrast."
Ouch. Now, I think he's being a bit harsh, but it's hard to argue, and this is something I've wrestled with for a while (and was touched on here), that maybe President Obama might be more of a cold-eyed realist than we liberal hawks who supported him realized. I still hope I'm wrong, and there's reason to--but this sort of thing ought to be embarassing--on a purely personal legacy level.
HT: Jennifer Rubin, via Totten
cross posted at Stubborn Facts.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
"There isn't a single objectionable point in the first fifteen minutes of his presentation."
"Unfortunately, the sixteenth minute arrives, and, if you are still paying attention, you learn that he wants us to revere the most vicious and reactionary of Islamist sheikhs -- the people who promote violence, bigotry, totalitarianism, and terror. The sixteenth minute is not good. The liberal quality of his thinking falls apart entirely."
That's from Paul Berman, about Tariq Ramadan, in a must-read interview with Michael Totten, about his must-read book The Flight of the Intellectuals. They also discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama's strengths and weaknesses, and the lack of clarity of certain Western liberal intellectuals.
Thanks to Max for the hat tip.
cross posted at Stubborn Facts.
That's from Paul Berman, about Tariq Ramadan, in a must-read interview with Michael Totten, about his must-read book The Flight of the Intellectuals. They also discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama's strengths and weaknesses, and the lack of clarity of certain Western liberal intellectuals.
Thanks to Max for the hat tip.
cross posted at Stubborn Facts.
Monday, October 12, 2009
"Giving the award to Obama is kind of like giving that junior professor the Teacher of the Year award -- it dooms their chances for tenure."
That's Daniel Drezner, with the inside scoop on how Obama got the Nobel:
MEMBER A: Fine, no one else likes Neil Patrick Harris at this table, I get that. What about Roman Polanski? That would make a statement.
CHAIR (looks at watch): Fine, whatever, we're way past deadline. (Points at MEMBER B). Write up the explanation. (Points at MEMBER A). Contact Neil Patrick Harris and put him on "standby" in case Obama can't make it for the acceptance speech.
MEMBER B (scribbling furiously): Hmmm....how's this? "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
CHAIR: Hmmm.... no actual achievements other than Not Being George W. Bush in His First Term, but it sure sounds good! OK, we're adjourned
MEMBER C (looking through nomination letters): I can't believe that professor from Tufts nominated Salma Hayek again. Doesn't he know that this is a serious award?!
Ha! Read the rest. Oh, and I made this clear elsewhere, but let me say here that this in way reflects poorly on President Obama, who has handled this pretty well. More on that later.
MEMBER A: Fine, no one else likes Neil Patrick Harris at this table, I get that. What about Roman Polanski? That would make a statement.
CHAIR (looks at watch): Fine, whatever, we're way past deadline. (Points at MEMBER B). Write up the explanation. (Points at MEMBER A). Contact Neil Patrick Harris and put him on "standby" in case Obama can't make it for the acceptance speech.
MEMBER B (scribbling furiously): Hmmm....how's this? "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
CHAIR: Hmmm.... no actual achievements other than Not Being George W. Bush in His First Term, but it sure sounds good! OK, we're adjourned
MEMBER C (looking through nomination letters): I can't believe that professor from Tufts nominated Salma Hayek again. Doesn't he know that this is a serious award?!
Ha! Read the rest. Oh, and I made this clear elsewhere, but let me say here that this in way reflects poorly on President Obama, who has handled this pretty well. More on that later.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize, and the Wartime President
In the continuing discussion over Obama's Nobel Prize, there has been much talk of what this means for Afghanistan. Certain people are wondering if Obama, as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, will continue the fight in Afghanistan. According to Bob Kerrey, he has to:
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.
He continues:
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
Indeed.
HT: Althouse
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.
He continues:
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
Indeed.
HT: Althouse
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bernie, Let It Go
Bush's Presidency ends in less than seven days, and his official potrait has been prepared. Apparently, there's an issue with the inscription on the bottom. Sen. Bernie Sanders has cried foul:
"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."
It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.
Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.
Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.
"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."
It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.
Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.
Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Case for Barack Obama (Or At Least, Why I'm Voting For Him)
This isn't really a secret at this point, but I am voting for Obama tomorrow. I guess this is the official endorsement. I put this off to the end for a variety of reasons, mainly due to a lack of time, but I'm not worried about it being too close to Election Day to influence any votes, as it's clear most here have made up their minds already, and I don't suspect I'll be changing them. No big deal. In effect, this is the answer to the question, "Why are you voting for this guy?"
First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.
Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.
What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.
To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.
The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.
On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.
There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.
Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?
Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.
As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.
This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.
I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.
Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).
If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.
And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).
And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.
First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.
Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.
What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.
To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.
The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.
On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.
There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.
Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?
Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.
As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.
This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.
I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.
Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).
If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.
And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).
And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Now Maybe I'm Grabbing At Straws,
but this statement:
“I’ve heard all the rhetoric — you’ve heard it, too — about how this is amnesty. Amnesty means that you’ve got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that.”
hardly counts as an admission of the recently revived comprehensive reform bill as being amnesty. I know how opponents of this bill would like to cast it that way, but it's not. It's just another regrettable Bush gaffe. He does have a habot of those, you know.
Ok, I'm done with this.
UPDATE: James M. in the comments, who supports the bill, argues that this bill is amnesty, and supporters should just admit that. With all due respect, I cannot that do that. This is not amnesty. It's a sort of leniency, sure, but not amnesty. Now, if one believes that the penalties are too light, than we can debate that, but let's be clear on the meaning of words first.
“I’ve heard all the rhetoric — you’ve heard it, too — about how this is amnesty. Amnesty means that you’ve got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that.”
hardly counts as an admission of the recently revived comprehensive reform bill as being amnesty. I know how opponents of this bill would like to cast it that way, but it's not. It's just another regrettable Bush gaffe. He does have a habot of those, you know.
Ok, I'm done with this.
UPDATE: James M. in the comments, who supports the bill, argues that this bill is amnesty, and supporters should just admit that. With all due respect, I cannot that do that. This is not amnesty. It's a sort of leniency, sure, but not amnesty. Now, if one believes that the penalties are too light, than we can debate that, but let's be clear on the meaning of words first.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
A Question of Values
As all of us must surely know by now, things didn’t exactly turn out well for the Democrats this past election. We can debate the size and scope of Bush’s victory, and we can agree that Bush’s “mandate,” is an overblown exaggeration. Regardless of how we slice it however, us Democrats took a hit last November. In the days and weeks following, the self-appointed experts of the political sphere made it their duty to inform us of why we lost. The Democratic leadership went back to the beginning, after having a sort of political “dark night of the soul.” “Did we move too far left?” Did we move too far to the center?” Did we pick the wrong candidate in John Kerry?” These are the questions we asked of ourselves, and others in the media asked. The right-wingers, in-between their fits of gloating and complaining (they’ve won, and they’re STILL complaining!), made up their minds that Bush’s victory was a rebuke of “blue state values, Michael Moore, the Clintons, the ‘anti-Bush Hollywood Left,’ and the so-called liberal media. According to the prevailing political wisdom, the Democrats lost on values. A question must be asked: What on earth does that mean?
Apparently, a lot of people in middle America were really upset that people had the audacity to question the policies of the President. The “liberal media” canard is an old straw man—the more things change, the more they stay the same. Conservatives have been at this for years, but the intensity has increased exponentially in the last few years. In the few months after 9-11, the country was for the most part, unified. One would think this would have lasted, but it seems that both sides are split like never before. In the realms of the lunatic fringe, it has always been like this, but even on the street, it can be brutal. Friends are lost, families are divided, and partisan division stalls those elected to do the people’s business. The debate over who is most responsible for the division could roll on ad infinitum, but it seems to me, that with a few notable exceptions, most of the criticism of Bush was policy-based, while most of the criticism of the opposition was personal, or based on distortion. Max Cleland was compared to Osama for questioning the President, Tom Daschle was compared to Saddam Hussein for opposing drilling in ANWR, and Democrats were labeled obstructionists for opposing Bush even an inch. Legitimate concerns about protecting civil liberties were dismissed as paranoia, and a whole host of pundits, activists, and Republican leaders attacked liberals and Democrats at every turn. Republicans cried about Michael Moore. Maybe sitting him next to Jimmy Carter was a bad idea. I’ll be honest, I have serious issues with Moore, but why does the Left have to rein in its extremists, and the Right gets a pass? Did Howard Dean ever accuse Bush of accusing Vietnam vets of war crimes? Did Al Franken ever accuse Bush of conspiring with the Vietcong? Need I even mention the decade of pure vitriol against Bill Clinton? What makes this even more absurd is that conservatives accuse the Left of being the haters.
After the election, conservatives complained about “anti-Bush hate,” and assailed the Left’s patriotism in the next breath. They gloated, arguing the Left’s supposed hatred of Bush sealed our fate. Consider this: How is it, that a handful of radicals can engage in real-live personal attacks (Bush is Hitler, Bush is a war criminal, etc), or even bash America, and the WHOLE group of liberals, Democrats, progressives gets blamed, but when practically every activist, pundit, and think tank scholar on the far-right engages in attacks, and they get a pass? O’Reilly says that Richard Mellon Scaife isn’t as far right, as George Soros is far-left. That really depends on one’s perspective, no? If Bill O’Reilly really were an independent, he would never utter such foolishness. Soros is certainly far to the Left, but Scaife is as equally far to the Right, and the only reason he doesn’t se it that way, is because he himself leans right.
Now, I’m sure you knew all that. The hypocrisy is well established in this situation. Conservatives didn’t consider what they said hate, because in their minds, it is all true. In the minds of the hard right, the Left really does hate America, and any criticism of Bush is seen as a treasonous attack against America, and American values. Now, perhaps I’m being too harsh. After all, most mainstream Republicans and conservatives don’t think this way. My best friends are Republicans. It is those elites, the pundits, the think-tankers, the activists, the ideologues, for them liberalism isn’t just different—it’s evil. That being said, it’s no wonder that conservatives get upset when Hollywood makes movies. They say they hate it when Hollywood gets involved in politics. The truth is, Hollywood’s always been political. What they hate is that it’s not their politics. When conservatives speak out in Hollywood, it’s cool. When liberals do it, it’s treason. Since Bush represents America in their minds, an attack on Bush is an attack on America. That explains why all those Dixie Chicks fans turned on them after Natalie Maines said she didn’t like Bush. “Dixie sluts!” was the outcry. Hollywood Dems who backed Bush (i.e. Ron Silver, James Woods) are seen as heroes and noble outcasts. Dennis Miller says he backs Bush because he’s a patriot. Backing the President no matter what doesn’t make you a patriot, it makes you a sheep. Never mind that none of this seemed to apply during Clinton’s term.
So, let us return to the initial question of values. I’m an evangelical Christian, and a moderate on a lot of issues, so I don’t think we should ignore the values issue. It does no one any good to label all Christians and people of faith, as “stupid, right-wing, bigots.” That behavior is just as bad as labeling blue staters “godless, commie, liberal, elites.” I do however, think it is past time for someone to stand up and draw the line between those sincere people who want sanity and balance in the debate on morality, and those self-important, un-elected, self-righteous, moralistic elites, who think it their duty to define morality for the nation, assault every work of art under the sun because it doesn’t openly endorse conservatism, and use wedge issues to divide and conquer. Christianity is not conservatism, and vice versa. We need to rise up and declare that the sum total of moral values is not simple opposition to gay marriage and abortion. The Taliban opposes gay marriage and abortion. Are we to follow their example? Strong families. A sound economy. Healthcare. Education. Equal rights. A sound and effective foreign policy. Fighting poverty. Protecting the environment. Civil rights and liberties. Free speech. Truth in government. These are all moral values too.
The Democrats don’t need to move to the Left, or to the Center. The Democratic Party is a Center-Left party. We need to stop trying to out-Republican the Republicans. We need to define issues. We need to move beyond simple opposition and take a stand. We’ve misunderstood red-state voters, while the Republicans have used them for their own political gain. Bush’ll be gone in four years. We’ll survive Bush. At the end of the day, the ideologues will fight each other, while the rest of us will take the Party back, and win this thing for America.
Apparently, a lot of people in middle America were really upset that people had the audacity to question the policies of the President. The “liberal media” canard is an old straw man—the more things change, the more they stay the same. Conservatives have been at this for years, but the intensity has increased exponentially in the last few years. In the few months after 9-11, the country was for the most part, unified. One would think this would have lasted, but it seems that both sides are split like never before. In the realms of the lunatic fringe, it has always been like this, but even on the street, it can be brutal. Friends are lost, families are divided, and partisan division stalls those elected to do the people’s business. The debate over who is most responsible for the division could roll on ad infinitum, but it seems to me, that with a few notable exceptions, most of the criticism of Bush was policy-based, while most of the criticism of the opposition was personal, or based on distortion. Max Cleland was compared to Osama for questioning the President, Tom Daschle was compared to Saddam Hussein for opposing drilling in ANWR, and Democrats were labeled obstructionists for opposing Bush even an inch. Legitimate concerns about protecting civil liberties were dismissed as paranoia, and a whole host of pundits, activists, and Republican leaders attacked liberals and Democrats at every turn. Republicans cried about Michael Moore. Maybe sitting him next to Jimmy Carter was a bad idea. I’ll be honest, I have serious issues with Moore, but why does the Left have to rein in its extremists, and the Right gets a pass? Did Howard Dean ever accuse Bush of accusing Vietnam vets of war crimes? Did Al Franken ever accuse Bush of conspiring with the Vietcong? Need I even mention the decade of pure vitriol against Bill Clinton? What makes this even more absurd is that conservatives accuse the Left of being the haters.
After the election, conservatives complained about “anti-Bush hate,” and assailed the Left’s patriotism in the next breath. They gloated, arguing the Left’s supposed hatred of Bush sealed our fate. Consider this: How is it, that a handful of radicals can engage in real-live personal attacks (Bush is Hitler, Bush is a war criminal, etc), or even bash America, and the WHOLE group of liberals, Democrats, progressives gets blamed, but when practically every activist, pundit, and think tank scholar on the far-right engages in attacks, and they get a pass? O’Reilly says that Richard Mellon Scaife isn’t as far right, as George Soros is far-left. That really depends on one’s perspective, no? If Bill O’Reilly really were an independent, he would never utter such foolishness. Soros is certainly far to the Left, but Scaife is as equally far to the Right, and the only reason he doesn’t se it that way, is because he himself leans right.
Now, I’m sure you knew all that. The hypocrisy is well established in this situation. Conservatives didn’t consider what they said hate, because in their minds, it is all true. In the minds of the hard right, the Left really does hate America, and any criticism of Bush is seen as a treasonous attack against America, and American values. Now, perhaps I’m being too harsh. After all, most mainstream Republicans and conservatives don’t think this way. My best friends are Republicans. It is those elites, the pundits, the think-tankers, the activists, the ideologues, for them liberalism isn’t just different—it’s evil. That being said, it’s no wonder that conservatives get upset when Hollywood makes movies. They say they hate it when Hollywood gets involved in politics. The truth is, Hollywood’s always been political. What they hate is that it’s not their politics. When conservatives speak out in Hollywood, it’s cool. When liberals do it, it’s treason. Since Bush represents America in their minds, an attack on Bush is an attack on America. That explains why all those Dixie Chicks fans turned on them after Natalie Maines said she didn’t like Bush. “Dixie sluts!” was the outcry. Hollywood Dems who backed Bush (i.e. Ron Silver, James Woods) are seen as heroes and noble outcasts. Dennis Miller says he backs Bush because he’s a patriot. Backing the President no matter what doesn’t make you a patriot, it makes you a sheep. Never mind that none of this seemed to apply during Clinton’s term.
So, let us return to the initial question of values. I’m an evangelical Christian, and a moderate on a lot of issues, so I don’t think we should ignore the values issue. It does no one any good to label all Christians and people of faith, as “stupid, right-wing, bigots.” That behavior is just as bad as labeling blue staters “godless, commie, liberal, elites.” I do however, think it is past time for someone to stand up and draw the line between those sincere people who want sanity and balance in the debate on morality, and those self-important, un-elected, self-righteous, moralistic elites, who think it their duty to define morality for the nation, assault every work of art under the sun because it doesn’t openly endorse conservatism, and use wedge issues to divide and conquer. Christianity is not conservatism, and vice versa. We need to rise up and declare that the sum total of moral values is not simple opposition to gay marriage and abortion. The Taliban opposes gay marriage and abortion. Are we to follow their example? Strong families. A sound economy. Healthcare. Education. Equal rights. A sound and effective foreign policy. Fighting poverty. Protecting the environment. Civil rights and liberties. Free speech. Truth in government. These are all moral values too.
The Democrats don’t need to move to the Left, or to the Center. The Democratic Party is a Center-Left party. We need to stop trying to out-Republican the Republicans. We need to define issues. We need to move beyond simple opposition and take a stand. We’ve misunderstood red-state voters, while the Republicans have used them for their own political gain. Bush’ll be gone in four years. We’ll survive Bush. At the end of the day, the ideologues will fight each other, while the rest of us will take the Party back, and win this thing for America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)