http://politicalwire.com/
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
A New Face of the RNC
Former Maryland Lt. Michael Steele was elected as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee today. He now becomes the first African-American male to lead the right wing, anti-gay, anti-choice, religious, big tent party.
More later.
More later.
Commerce Secretary
The political blogosphere is abuzz this evening as word is spreading like wildfire that President Obama will name New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg as the next Secretary of Commerce. This is important as Senator Gregg is a Republican and if he is asked and accepts, his successor will be named by Democratic Governor John Lynch. Thus, converting New Hampshire to an all blue state and giving Democrats in the Senate that magic number of 60! Of course, happens only if the Minnesota Senate Contest is decided in Al Franken's favor.
Nate Silver, a genius with numbers, has a very interesting piece over at FiveThirtyEight:
Should Democrats Beware Republicans Bearing Gifts?
Hmm:
There is a strong possibility that Barack Obama will ask Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as his Secretary of Commerce, Democratic Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
The move would fill a vacancy that has lingered since Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination. And provided that Al Franken emerges victorious in the Minnesota recount, it would give Democrats in the Senate a 60th caucusing member, as New Hampshire's Democratic governor John Lynch would appoint Gregg's replacement.
Judd Gregg is up for re-election in 2010 and stands to face a vigorous challenge, most likely from 2nd District Congressman Paul Hodes, but remains reasonably popular and would be the favorite in that race. By Senate standards, he is a relative youngin' at 61 years old, but he's been in politics forever, having first been elected to the House of Representatives at age 33 in 1980. Joining the Obama cabinet, then, is probably not a matter of Gregg's political survival, but more likely would represent a sort of early retirement.
Then again, retirement seems to be a fairly attractive option for a lot of Senate Republicans these days. The fact of the matter is that:
(i) The Republicans will be in the minority in the Senate for at least the next four years. It is close to mathematically impossible for them to re-gain the chamber in 2010 given the seats that are up for grabs in that cycle. There is considerably more upside in 2012, when a lot of freshman Democrats elected in the 2006 wave will be up for re-election, but 2012 is also a year when Obama and his massive turnout operation will be on the ballot. Realistically, the odds of Republicans re-gaining control of the chamber before 2014 are low.
(ii) The working assumption in Washington right now is that Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is arguably shortsighted -- we know how much things can change in four years. But it's the working assumption being made by both parties for the time being.
(iii) The Republican party establishment wants no part of its senators, instead looking toward its governors and to a much lesser extent the House Republicans as its future.
(iv) While I know nothing about what sort of company Gregg keeps, a lot of Republicans that are close to him ideologically have retired or are planning to do so.
All of this makes the Senate a lonely place to be. If Gregg runs for re-election in 2010 and wins, he is more likely than not facing another six years under a Democratic President, and another four to six years in the minority party.
At the same time, I'm not sure that the Republicans are all that screwed over if Gregg leaves the Senate and a Democrat is appointed in his stead. Yes, it gets the Democrats to their magic number of 60. But 60 is an overrated, fuzzy number given that Olympia Snowe has sided with the administration on 26 of 31 roll call votes so far, and that Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski and George Voinovich aren't far behind her. Moreover, if the Democrats actually get the 60th seat, it will be much harder for them to play the obstructionism card in 2010 -- and much easier, conversely, for the Republicans to play the divided government card.
Now, let's not be too contrarian here: if this happens, it is almost certainly a net gain for Democrats. But it might be relatively small one, given that:
1a) Gregg was voting with the Democrats reasonably often anyway;
1b) His replacement, conversely, would likely be someone fairly moderate who wouldn't vote with the Democrats 100% of the time;
2) Gregg, who has been a pretty reliable fiscal conservative, would presumably have at least some influence shaping policy from the Commerce Department;
3) The perceived benefit to the Democrats from getting a 60th seat is greater than the real one, increasing the risk that they will be seen as overreaching by the time that 2010 rolls around.
-- Nate Silver at 12:08 AM
____________________________________
I generally agree with what Nate has to say regarding this potential appointment. Yes, it could give the Democrats that magic 60, but they would need to be very, very careful how they used it.
What this article does not discuss in this article, but I feel is equally important is how the permanent conservative majority which Karl Rove and George W. Bush were trying to build is now completely dead. I am going to take a shot in the dark here and predict that Democrats will loose a couple of Senate seats in the 2010 Elections and probably a few House seats as well. But, back in the mid-90's with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revulsion (I mean Revolution), there was talk of a permanent Republican Majority which would last a couple of generations. Now, we have to be careful here, because it is very possible that in 2012 Democrats could loose everything; but, the American people have seen how conservatives run the country. And they do not like it.
Furthermore, the American people are tired of the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. It is "do as I say, not as I do." While the population was staying in the middle, the Republicans kept moving to the right and as much as they say they want limited government, they also want to regulate who we love and what we do with our bodies. That my friends is not limited government, that is government control over our persons. Eavesdropping and spying on the citizens of this country is not "security"; it is government controlling our lives. As much as the Republicans can talk about how they will protect us, their idea of protection is not letting us do anything. It is like a mother who does not want her child to drown so she never lets him near water.
But, we must be very careful with this. Democrats must be conciliatory towards their Republican colleagues. They must ensure that they do not make the same mistakes that Republicans made in 2004 and 2005. If they become arrogant, then they will be kicked out of office. It wasn't that America was embracing the policies of pro-life and war mongering, it was that they were tired of the party in power flaunting that power and not being held accountable.
The recent impeachment of Rod Blagojevich is a prime example. He got drunk with power and thought he was a nation unto himself. He did not think he could be held accountable and lambasted the system in place for that accountability. President Obama has done a great job in his first two weeks in office trying to sound the right tone and reaching out to the other party. He has also kept his party in check. If things continue this way, then we should not have any other Blagojevich type problems and this country will be able heal and move on from the tragedy of the Bush Era.
Nate Silver, a genius with numbers, has a very interesting piece over at FiveThirtyEight:
Should Democrats Beware Republicans Bearing Gifts?
Hmm:
There is a strong possibility that Barack Obama will ask Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as his Secretary of Commerce, Democratic Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
The move would fill a vacancy that has lingered since Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination. And provided that Al Franken emerges victorious in the Minnesota recount, it would give Democrats in the Senate a 60th caucusing member, as New Hampshire's Democratic governor John Lynch would appoint Gregg's replacement.
Judd Gregg is up for re-election in 2010 and stands to face a vigorous challenge, most likely from 2nd District Congressman Paul Hodes, but remains reasonably popular and would be the favorite in that race. By Senate standards, he is a relative youngin' at 61 years old, but he's been in politics forever, having first been elected to the House of Representatives at age 33 in 1980. Joining the Obama cabinet, then, is probably not a matter of Gregg's political survival, but more likely would represent a sort of early retirement.
Then again, retirement seems to be a fairly attractive option for a lot of Senate Republicans these days. The fact of the matter is that:
(i) The Republicans will be in the minority in the Senate for at least the next four years. It is close to mathematically impossible for them to re-gain the chamber in 2010 given the seats that are up for grabs in that cycle. There is considerably more upside in 2012, when a lot of freshman Democrats elected in the 2006 wave will be up for re-election, but 2012 is also a year when Obama and his massive turnout operation will be on the ballot. Realistically, the odds of Republicans re-gaining control of the chamber before 2014 are low.
(ii) The working assumption in Washington right now is that Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is arguably shortsighted -- we know how much things can change in four years. But it's the working assumption being made by both parties for the time being.
(iii) The Republican party establishment wants no part of its senators, instead looking toward its governors and to a much lesser extent the House Republicans as its future.
(iv) While I know nothing about what sort of company Gregg keeps, a lot of Republicans that are close to him ideologically have retired or are planning to do so.
All of this makes the Senate a lonely place to be. If Gregg runs for re-election in 2010 and wins, he is more likely than not facing another six years under a Democratic President, and another four to six years in the minority party.
At the same time, I'm not sure that the Republicans are all that screwed over if Gregg leaves the Senate and a Democrat is appointed in his stead. Yes, it gets the Democrats to their magic number of 60. But 60 is an overrated, fuzzy number given that Olympia Snowe has sided with the administration on 26 of 31 roll call votes so far, and that Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski and George Voinovich aren't far behind her. Moreover, if the Democrats actually get the 60th seat, it will be much harder for them to play the obstructionism card in 2010 -- and much easier, conversely, for the Republicans to play the divided government card.
Now, let's not be too contrarian here: if this happens, it is almost certainly a net gain for Democrats. But it might be relatively small one, given that:
1a) Gregg was voting with the Democrats reasonably often anyway;
1b) His replacement, conversely, would likely be someone fairly moderate who wouldn't vote with the Democrats 100% of the time;
2) Gregg, who has been a pretty reliable fiscal conservative, would presumably have at least some influence shaping policy from the Commerce Department;
3) The perceived benefit to the Democrats from getting a 60th seat is greater than the real one, increasing the risk that they will be seen as overreaching by the time that 2010 rolls around.
-- Nate Silver at 12:08 AM
____________________________________
I generally agree with what Nate has to say regarding this potential appointment. Yes, it could give the Democrats that magic 60, but they would need to be very, very careful how they used it.
What this article does not discuss in this article, but I feel is equally important is how the permanent conservative majority which Karl Rove and George W. Bush were trying to build is now completely dead. I am going to take a shot in the dark here and predict that Democrats will loose a couple of Senate seats in the 2010 Elections and probably a few House seats as well. But, back in the mid-90's with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revulsion (I mean Revolution), there was talk of a permanent Republican Majority which would last a couple of generations. Now, we have to be careful here, because it is very possible that in 2012 Democrats could loose everything; but, the American people have seen how conservatives run the country. And they do not like it.
Furthermore, the American people are tired of the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. It is "do as I say, not as I do." While the population was staying in the middle, the Republicans kept moving to the right and as much as they say they want limited government, they also want to regulate who we love and what we do with our bodies. That my friends is not limited government, that is government control over our persons. Eavesdropping and spying on the citizens of this country is not "security"; it is government controlling our lives. As much as the Republicans can talk about how they will protect us, their idea of protection is not letting us do anything. It is like a mother who does not want her child to drown so she never lets him near water.
But, we must be very careful with this. Democrats must be conciliatory towards their Republican colleagues. They must ensure that they do not make the same mistakes that Republicans made in 2004 and 2005. If they become arrogant, then they will be kicked out of office. It wasn't that America was embracing the policies of pro-life and war mongering, it was that they were tired of the party in power flaunting that power and not being held accountable.
The recent impeachment of Rod Blagojevich is a prime example. He got drunk with power and thought he was a nation unto himself. He did not think he could be held accountable and lambasted the system in place for that accountability. President Obama has done a great job in his first two weeks in office trying to sound the right tone and reaching out to the other party. He has also kept his party in check. If things continue this way, then we should not have any other Blagojevich type problems and this country will be able heal and move on from the tragedy of the Bush Era.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Daily Quote
"Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, egotistical, idiot."-Me, responding to his new war of words with President Obama.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Busy, Busy, Busy
It has been a busy few days up here in The Great Northeast. With the appointment on Friday of Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, Upstate New York is now scrambling to fill a vacancy in The House of Representatives.
-One person mentioned is a former news anchor and another is a current anchor.
-Republicans have a bunch of candidates as well; including a former candidate for governor.
-There are several potential candidates who don't even live in the district, on both the Republican and Democratic side.
One thing is for sure, this is going to be a very interesting race to watch. I bet it will also get very dirty, very quickly. Republicans would love to get this house seat back. It is very possible since this is an R+3 District. The other thing to keep in mind is that this district might not be long for this world. New York is expected to loose 1 House seat in 2010 and if the Senate stays in Dem. control, they would love to divide up this district into the other 3 districts it surrounds.
______________________________________________
In other news, former New York State Majority Leader Joe Bruno was indicted in Federal Court on Friday on corruption charges. This really is not a big surprise to me. Bruno, who retired last year, is about as corrupt as you can get. Personally, I think he retired cause he knew the charges were coming and if he had stayed in The Senate, that seat would have definately gone over to Dem. control. It should be very interesting to see how this plays out.
-One person mentioned is a former news anchor and another is a current anchor.
-Republicans have a bunch of candidates as well; including a former candidate for governor.
-There are several potential candidates who don't even live in the district, on both the Republican and Democratic side.
One thing is for sure, this is going to be a very interesting race to watch. I bet it will also get very dirty, very quickly. Republicans would love to get this house seat back. It is very possible since this is an R+3 District. The other thing to keep in mind is that this district might not be long for this world. New York is expected to loose 1 House seat in 2010 and if the Senate stays in Dem. control, they would love to divide up this district into the other 3 districts it surrounds.
______________________________________________
In other news, former New York State Majority Leader Joe Bruno was indicted in Federal Court on Friday on corruption charges. This really is not a big surprise to me. Bruno, who retired last year, is about as corrupt as you can get. Personally, I think he retired cause he knew the charges were coming and if he had stayed in The Senate, that seat would have definately gone over to Dem. control. It should be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
It's Gillibrand!
New York Governor David Paterson has selected Democratic Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, from Hudson, New York, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's replacement in the Senate. I will have more on this selection later on. But, unlike some of my contemporaries, I love this decision and I am behind it 100%
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Just after 4pm this afternoon, Senator Hillary Clinton was confirmed by a vote of 94-2 as this nation's next Secretary of State. This is another history making appointment. Before I get to the historical context of this appointment, let's review how ground-breaking the Secretary of State position has been over the past 12 years:
1996: After Bill Clinton won re-election, he nominated Madeline Albright to be Secretary of State. She became the first woman ever to hold this position in our countries history.
2000: After then Governor George W. Bush was appointed to the Presidency by the Supreme Court, he appointed Ret. General Colin Powell to the position of Secretary of State. He became the nations first black Secretary of State.
2004: After barely winning re-election, President Bush nominated National Security Advisor Condileeza Rise as the next Secretary of State. She became the first black woman to ever hold this position.
2008: Shortly after winning a landslide election and becoming the nations first black man to be elected to The Office of the President, Barack Obama nominates New York Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the next Secretary of State.
January 21, 2009, Senator Hillary Clinton is confirmed, by a vote of 94-2, as the nation's next Secretary of State. She now becomes the first former first lady to hold the position of Secretary of State and continues Mrs. Clinton's trail blazing post-White House career.
Although this is not the position for which she had originally applied, I believe she will be an amazing Secretary of State.
1996: After Bill Clinton won re-election, he nominated Madeline Albright to be Secretary of State. She became the first woman ever to hold this position in our countries history.
2000: After then Governor George W. Bush was appointed to the Presidency by the Supreme Court, he appointed Ret. General Colin Powell to the position of Secretary of State. He became the nations first black Secretary of State.
2004: After barely winning re-election, President Bush nominated National Security Advisor Condileeza Rise as the next Secretary of State. She became the first black woman to ever hold this position.
2008: Shortly after winning a landslide election and becoming the nations first black man to be elected to The Office of the President, Barack Obama nominates New York Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the next Secretary of State.
January 21, 2009, Senator Hillary Clinton is confirmed, by a vote of 94-2, as the nation's next Secretary of State. She now becomes the first former first lady to hold the position of Secretary of State and continues Mrs. Clinton's trail blazing post-White House career.
Although this is not the position for which she had originally applied, I believe she will be an amazing Secretary of State.
Caroline Drops Out
From Capital News 9:
Kennedy drops out of consideration for Senate seat
Updated: 01/21/2009 07:20 PM
By: Web Staff
NEW YORK STATE -- Caroline Kennedy has removed her name from consideration to replace former Senator Hillary Clinton, according to a report in the New York Post.
The Post says Caroline Kennedy informed Governor Paterson of her decision and cited personal reasons as the reason for her withdrawal. Sources revealed that Paterson had planned to appoint her to the seat today.
___________________________________________
Well, I am a bit relieved actually. As much as I admire the Kennedy family and hold them in great esteem, I am glad that she won't be the next Senator from New York State. If she had shown more interest in public service and public office prior to this year, I would probably think otherwise. However, Ms. Kennedy has always shied away from the limelight and from electoral politics. Frankly, I believe that Kristen Gillibrand, from Hudson, NY would be the best choice for this seat. Yes, we may loose a seat in The House of Representatives, but she would really be the best choice for this seat.
More later.
____________________________________________
More on Caroline Kennedy's decission to end her bid to be the next Senator from New York; from The Politico:
Kennedy Ends Senate Bid
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant U.S. Senate seat in New York, the New York Times reports.
Kennedy called New York Gov. David Paterson to say her concerns about Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) deteriorating health "prompted her decision to withdraw... Coping with her uncle's condition was her most important priority, a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job."
According to the newspaper's source, Paterson "had indicated to her that the job was hers if she would accept it."
However, the New York Post says Kennedy pulled out after learning that Paterson wasn't going to choose her.
Kennedy drops out of consideration for Senate seat
Updated: 01/21/2009 07:20 PM
By: Web Staff
NEW YORK STATE -- Caroline Kennedy has removed her name from consideration to replace former Senator Hillary Clinton, according to a report in the New York Post.
The Post says Caroline Kennedy informed Governor Paterson of her decision and cited personal reasons as the reason for her withdrawal. Sources revealed that Paterson had planned to appoint her to the seat today.
___________________________________________
Well, I am a bit relieved actually. As much as I admire the Kennedy family and hold them in great esteem, I am glad that she won't be the next Senator from New York State. If she had shown more interest in public service and public office prior to this year, I would probably think otherwise. However, Ms. Kennedy has always shied away from the limelight and from electoral politics. Frankly, I believe that Kristen Gillibrand, from Hudson, NY would be the best choice for this seat. Yes, we may loose a seat in The House of Representatives, but she would really be the best choice for this seat.
More later.
____________________________________________
More on Caroline Kennedy's decission to end her bid to be the next Senator from New York; from The Politico:
Kennedy Ends Senate Bid
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant U.S. Senate seat in New York, the New York Times reports.
Kennedy called New York Gov. David Paterson to say her concerns about Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) deteriorating health "prompted her decision to withdraw... Coping with her uncle's condition was her most important priority, a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job."
According to the newspaper's source, Paterson "had indicated to her that the job was hers if she would accept it."
However, the New York Post says Kennedy pulled out after learning that Paterson wasn't going to choose her.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Gotta Love 'Em
From Politico:Cornyn could be thorn in Clinton confirmation
By GLENN THRUSH 1/20/09 4:09 AM EST Text Size:
The timing of Clinton’s appointment remains in the hands of Cornyn, who has threatened to block a resolution.
’Twas the night before Inauguration, and Hillary Clinton’s fate was still up in the air.
That Clinton will be the next secretary of state is not in serious doubt after the Foreign Relations Committee recommended her approval 16-1 last week.
But the timing of Clinton’s appointment remains in the hands of Texas Republican John Cornyn, who has threatened to block an Inauguration Day “unanimous consent” resolution approving Clinton’s nomination.
If he follows through, it would force Harry Reid to schedule a full roll call vote, probably on Wednesday, delaying Clinton’s resignation from the Senate — and maybe the appointment of her successor — by 24 hours.
Cornyn — joined by fellow Republicans Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn — has asked the former first lady to improve and increase oversight of her husband’s international charitable fundraising, arguing that foreign powers may try to sway her by contributing to the former president’s foundation.
Late last week, Cornyn, the incoming head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, penned a letter asking Clinton to revise a five-page disclosure agreement with Obama. As of Monday night, she had not answered to the senator’s satisfaction, a Cornyn spokeswoman suggested.
“It’s the senator’s hope that we will find common ground,” Tina Gray said. “It’s his hope they’ll meet him halfway.”
“He is keeping all of his options on the table,” another spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, added in an e-mail.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines didn’t respond to requests for comment. But a top Democratic aide told Politico he didn’t expect the situation to be resolved, one way or another, until Tuesday afternoon.
Spokeswoman: Biden Was Never Offered the Job
Team Obama is recasting Jill Biden’s comment — on Monday’s “Oprah” — that her husband was offered a choice of the VP job or the secretary of state slot.
A simple misunderstanding, says vice president-elect spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander:
“Like anyone who followed the presidential campaign this summer, Dr. Jill Biden knew there was a chance that President-elect Obama might ask her husband to serve in some capacity and that, given his background, the positions of vice president and secretary of state were possibilities. Dr. Biden’s point to Oprah today was that being vice president would be a better fit for their family because they would get to see him more and get to participate in serving more. To be clear, President-elect Obama offered Vice President-elect Biden one job only: to be his running mate. And the vice president-elect was thrilled to accept the offer.”
CBC Staffs Up
The Congressional Black Caucus, gearing up for a frenetic session, has hired former Stephanie Tubbs Jones chief of staff Patrice Willoughby as its new executive director.
J. Jioni Palmer, the national press secretary of Media Matters, has been named CBC communications director. Palmer is a former Newsday reporter and recently served as press secretary for the House Ways and Means Committee, which afforded him ample opportunity to show off his bottomless stock of bow ties.
Irene Schwoeffermann, a 2004 Howard University grad, is staying on as coalitions director.
Where’s the Outrage?
One reason Tim Geithner seems to be squeaking through: The usual chain — in which conservative media stokes outrage from the public, which then floods Hill Republicans with anger — seems to have been severed by the financial crisis.
Rush Limbaugh, for one, is puzzled and frustrated.
“Having a guy in charge of the IRS with multiple tax issues might have sullied the Immaculate Inauguration, but now that Barack Obama has determined it won’t be a problem, it won’t be a problem,” Limbaugh said last week. “I still can’t figure out why they’ve dumped [Commerce pick Bill] Richardson. They threw him under the bus for far less than what’s gone on here.
“Why are the American people not up in arms about this?”
Whatever the answer, relatively few commentators or editorial pages have called outright for Geithner’s cowlicked scalp.
An exception: the Rocky Mountain News, which demanded Monday that Geithner withdraw his nomination and decried “the relatively muted reaction by Republicans to these disturbing revelations.”
But there’s been no coordinated national outcry such as the one that led to the defeat of the first bank bailout vote in the House. And it’s noteworthy that the campaign against the Treasury pick, such as it is, has been led by a Northern moderate (Arlen Specter) and not by some senator from a region farther south or west, where the Dittoheads traditionally rule.
Even Limbaugh seems to let Geithner off the hook a bit, blaming his tax woes on an overly complicated IRS code.
“I mean, it’s so common. It ensnares so many worthwhile public servants. It’s a mistake everybody makes. It’s such a common mistake. Isn’t it time to get rid of the mistake, which is the law, not the people?”
Well Begun Is Half-Done
In a new Rasmussen survey, 10 percent of Americans say the economy is getting better. Twelve percent say economic conditions in the United States are already “good” or “excellent.”
_________________
Call it a hunch, but I think we might be in for a lot of this in the next few years. You know, the democrats tried to play nice with most of Bush's appointments, you would think the republican's would do the same for Obama! Fat chance.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bush Say's Good-bye...
...But Is Anyone Listening?
Last night, President George W. Bush bid the nation farewell. In a thirteen minute speech delivered in front of nearly 250 friends and colleagues, the 43rd President of the United States tried one last time to vindicate himself to a wary American public. My question is: "Is there anyone out there even listening to him anymore?" Obviously, yes, people watched him last night. Political die-hards, such as myself, listened to what the man had to say, and sighed every time he justified his actions.
What's interesting to note, although he leaves office in four days, he really hasn't done much of anything since the end of September. I recall, back in 2000, President Clinton was working on a Mideast Peace Plan right up until almost the day he left office. Whether he was doing it because he believed in it or he wanted one last award to put on his mantle, we may never know. The point is, "W" checked out a long time ago. He has only been doing interviews lately to try to salvage a decent legacy.
I must say, listening the idiot-in-chief on last time, I was struck by how much he really believed everything he was saying. The man honestly believes he was good for the country. Despite everything that has happened over the past eight years, he still had the nerve to stand up there and say that he was proud of what he had accomplished. And, to his end, he has yet to acknowledge that he had made any mistakes along the way, except for not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
President George W. Bush's legacy will live on long after you and me have ceased to breath our last breath's. He is now a part of our United States history. People will study his Presidency for years and years to come. I am sure that there will be volumes of books written about this man long after he is buried at his library in Dallas, TX. Bush may have prevented other attacks upon the United States, as he is so fond of saying, yet he attacked this country and did more damage than any terrorist could have imagined.
So, let him go back to Texas and kick up his heels and live the life of Riley. We will work, together with our new President to pick up the pieces of wreckage that "W" has left behind. Maybe one day, when he is old and wiser, he will begin to understand that he what he did while he was leader of our country wasn't in our best interests, but in his best interests. Maybe he will one day understand that keeping us safe isn't the only thing he was responsible for. Because really, are we more safe than we were eight years ago? Have we achieved peace and prosperity? Are our elders and children and disabled taken care of? Has he left the world a better place for being our President?
Apparently, after listening to is farewell address, he certainly believes this is so. Yes, George W. Bush said farewell to America last night. He told us he was honored and humbled to have been our leader for the past eight years. But honestly, how many of us were just glad to see him walk away from the lectern one last time? How fitting that on Tuesday afternoon, he will be flying west, into the sunset. Good-bye George W. Bush, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
Last night, President George W. Bush bid the nation farewell. In a thirteen minute speech delivered in front of nearly 250 friends and colleagues, the 43rd President of the United States tried one last time to vindicate himself to a wary American public. My question is: "Is there anyone out there even listening to him anymore?" Obviously, yes, people watched him last night. Political die-hards, such as myself, listened to what the man had to say, and sighed every time he justified his actions.
What's interesting to note, although he leaves office in four days, he really hasn't done much of anything since the end of September. I recall, back in 2000, President Clinton was working on a Mideast Peace Plan right up until almost the day he left office. Whether he was doing it because he believed in it or he wanted one last award to put on his mantle, we may never know. The point is, "W" checked out a long time ago. He has only been doing interviews lately to try to salvage a decent legacy.
I must say, listening the idiot-in-chief on last time, I was struck by how much he really believed everything he was saying. The man honestly believes he was good for the country. Despite everything that has happened over the past eight years, he still had the nerve to stand up there and say that he was proud of what he had accomplished. And, to his end, he has yet to acknowledge that he had made any mistakes along the way, except for not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
President George W. Bush's legacy will live on long after you and me have ceased to breath our last breath's. He is now a part of our United States history. People will study his Presidency for years and years to come. I am sure that there will be volumes of books written about this man long after he is buried at his library in Dallas, TX. Bush may have prevented other attacks upon the United States, as he is so fond of saying, yet he attacked this country and did more damage than any terrorist could have imagined.
So, let him go back to Texas and kick up his heels and live the life of Riley. We will work, together with our new President to pick up the pieces of wreckage that "W" has left behind. Maybe one day, when he is old and wiser, he will begin to understand that he what he did while he was leader of our country wasn't in our best interests, but in his best interests. Maybe he will one day understand that keeping us safe isn't the only thing he was responsible for. Because really, are we more safe than we were eight years ago? Have we achieved peace and prosperity? Are our elders and children and disabled taken care of? Has he left the world a better place for being our President?
Apparently, after listening to is farewell address, he certainly believes this is so. Yes, George W. Bush said farewell to America last night. He told us he was honored and humbled to have been our leader for the past eight years. But honestly, how many of us were just glad to see him walk away from the lectern one last time? How fitting that on Tuesday afternoon, he will be flying west, into the sunset. Good-bye George W. Bush, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Few Parting Thoughts on "W"
In less than one week, the Presidency of George W. Bush will come to an end. After eight tumultuous years, the man who came to Washington as a "uniter" will leave being one of the most despised Presidents this country has ever had. Not only did President Bush not live up to his "uniter" claims, he divided this nation more than any other person in American history. People are glad to see him go. Not only the citizens of this country, but the citizens of many countries around the world will be happy that the Presidency of George W. Bush has come to an end.
It will be argued for many years where George Bush's place in history will be. Some will say he saved this nation and kept us safe from those who would do us harm. Many though, will say that he was a complete failure as President and aided the enemies of the United States more than any other event of person could have. Personally, I say that George W. Bush nearly single-handily destroyed our country. In the eight year he has been President, he has over-seen three wars; the worst attack on American soil by an outside force; the worst economic down-turn since The Great Depression; alienated our allies and enraged our enemies.
Off the top of my head: More people are out of work today than there were when he took office. More people are without health insurance than when he took office. More schools are failing then when he took office. Our national debt is double the size it was when he took office. We went from having a $200 billion surplus to having a nearly $1.5 trillion deficit. He has ok'd the use of torture on prisoners of war. He has allowed American citizens to have their phone calls tapped and listened in on. He has taken the Constitution of The United States of America and wiped his ass with it.
When a president takes the oath of office, he swears to defend the constitution. President George W. Bush has done nothing of the sort. He and Vice President Dick Cheney have laughed at our Constitution and ridden over it in their four-wheel drives. We should have seen this coming. Back in November of 2000, after election night, then Governor George W. Bush and his legal team did everything within their power to ensure that the votes of the American People were not counted fairly. In what could be called a "bloodless" coup, George W. Bush ascended to power because of a Supreme Court ruling that should have never reached the Supreme Court in the first place. Yet, because he was friends with several of the justices, it did and this is country we are left with.
However, now is not the time to get complacent. H.L. Mencken once said, "we get the government we deserve." He is correct. We, the people of this great country, got greedy. We became couch potatoes and unsympathetic toward those other than ourselves. Instead of working to solve the worlds problems together, George W. Bush chose to try to solve the problems of this country, alone. Now, we are left to pick up the pieces.
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office next week, we expect great things from him. Yet, to many, he will fail if he does not follow through on all of his promises immediately. The mess of the last eight years will not be fixed over night. It will take a long time undo the damage that George Bush has brought upon our nation. We must be patient with our new president. We must work with him to ensure the changes we want are enacted. But, the most important thing we must do is to remember the mistakes of the past eight years and not walk down the same path again.
At the dawning of this new era in American History, let's remember what Robert Kennedy said about history: "Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation." We must all work together, we must all come together and if we do, the next generation of this country will be the greatest generation since The Great Depression. And we will have overcome all that has been thrown at us in these past eight years.
It will be argued for many years where George Bush's place in history will be. Some will say he saved this nation and kept us safe from those who would do us harm. Many though, will say that he was a complete failure as President and aided the enemies of the United States more than any other event of person could have. Personally, I say that George W. Bush nearly single-handily destroyed our country. In the eight year he has been President, he has over-seen three wars; the worst attack on American soil by an outside force; the worst economic down-turn since The Great Depression; alienated our allies and enraged our enemies.
Off the top of my head: More people are out of work today than there were when he took office. More people are without health insurance than when he took office. More schools are failing then when he took office. Our national debt is double the size it was when he took office. We went from having a $200 billion surplus to having a nearly $1.5 trillion deficit. He has ok'd the use of torture on prisoners of war. He has allowed American citizens to have their phone calls tapped and listened in on. He has taken the Constitution of The United States of America and wiped his ass with it.
When a president takes the oath of office, he swears to defend the constitution. President George W. Bush has done nothing of the sort. He and Vice President Dick Cheney have laughed at our Constitution and ridden over it in their four-wheel drives. We should have seen this coming. Back in November of 2000, after election night, then Governor George W. Bush and his legal team did everything within their power to ensure that the votes of the American People were not counted fairly. In what could be called a "bloodless" coup, George W. Bush ascended to power because of a Supreme Court ruling that should have never reached the Supreme Court in the first place. Yet, because he was friends with several of the justices, it did and this is country we are left with.
However, now is not the time to get complacent. H.L. Mencken once said, "we get the government we deserve." He is correct. We, the people of this great country, got greedy. We became couch potatoes and unsympathetic toward those other than ourselves. Instead of working to solve the worlds problems together, George W. Bush chose to try to solve the problems of this country, alone. Now, we are left to pick up the pieces.
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office next week, we expect great things from him. Yet, to many, he will fail if he does not follow through on all of his promises immediately. The mess of the last eight years will not be fixed over night. It will take a long time undo the damage that George Bush has brought upon our nation. We must be patient with our new president. We must work with him to ensure the changes we want are enacted. But, the most important thing we must do is to remember the mistakes of the past eight years and not walk down the same path again.
At the dawning of this new era in American History, let's remember what Robert Kennedy said about history: "Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation." We must all work together, we must all come together and if we do, the next generation of this country will be the greatest generation since The Great Depression. And we will have overcome all that has been thrown at us in these past eight years.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Go Away, Sarah!
This woman has really got to start getting her stories straight. First it was the media's fault, then it was her handler's fault. Now, she is claiming that becuase she is not of the elite class, she was treated unfairly. Gee, did she ever think that maybe she is just a dumb bitch who needs to go back to huntin' moose and birthin' babies?
Anyway, in the video below, Keith Olberman delivers a great story on Gov. Palin. Enjoy...
Anyway, in the video below, Keith Olberman delivers a great story on Gov. Palin. Enjoy...
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, January 8, 2009
It's Official!
Barack Obama was officially elected the 44th President of the United States today. The official electoral vote count was 365 votes for Barack Obama and 173 votes for John McCain.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Daily Quote
“If given the opportunity to do some good however minute it may be, or could be something really good, you gotta take that chance. You have to do it,” says Joe Wurzelbacher.
-Joe the Plumber, during an interview, explaining why he is going to Israel as a war reporter.
_________________________________________________________________
Now, I am not a genius, but what gives him the qualifications to be a war corespondent? Frankly, he just needs to just go away.
-Joe the Plumber, during an interview, explaining why he is going to Israel as a war reporter.
_________________________________________________________________
Now, I am not a genius, but what gives him the qualifications to be a war corespondent? Frankly, he just needs to just go away.
Joe's Gotta Go!
From Think Progress
Joe the War Correspondent.»
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” is taking on a new job as a war correspondent. He is heading to Israel to cover the war for the conservative site PJTV.com. Wurzelbacher said his 10-day journey will help explain why Israeli forces are mounting attacks against Hamas:
I get to go over there and let their “Average Joes” share their story, what they think, how they feel — especially with, you know, world opinion. Maybe get a real story out there.
Last October, Wurzelbacher claimed that Obama’s victory would mean “death to Israel,” leading Fox News reporter Shep Smith to call him “frightening.” Wurzelbacher also questioned Obama’s loyalty to the U.S., and has justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq by claiming “it’s like someone coming to Jesus and becoming saved.”
Joe the War Correspondent.»
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” is taking on a new job as a war correspondent. He is heading to Israel to cover the war for the conservative site PJTV.com. Wurzelbacher said his 10-day journey will help explain why Israeli forces are mounting attacks against Hamas:
I get to go over there and let their “Average Joes” share their story, what they think, how they feel — especially with, you know, world opinion. Maybe get a real story out there.
Last October, Wurzelbacher claimed that Obama’s victory would mean “death to Israel,” leading Fox News reporter Shep Smith to call him “frightening.” Wurzelbacher also questioned Obama’s loyalty to the U.S., and has justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq by claiming “it’s like someone coming to Jesus and becoming saved.”
Monday, January 5, 2009
From The New York Times:
Obama to Attend ‘Neighborhood Ball’
By Katharine Q. Seelye
On inauguration night, Barack and Michelle Obama will dance their first dance as the First Family with their new neighbors, including members of the public and residents of Washington.
“In keeping with his commitment to make this inaugural celebration open and accessible to all Americans, President-elect Barack Obama will host the first-ever ‘Neighborhood Inaugural Ball’ during this year’s inaugural celebration,” says a statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
“It is the first official inaugural ball of its kind to be held during a presidential inauguration,” the statement adds.
There have been rumors for weeks that Mr. Obama would hold a so-called people’s ball; the announcement confirms that it will be the first event of inauguration evening on Jan. 20 and will take place at the Washington Convention Center, where several balls are being held.
Tickets will be free or at “an affordable price,” and some of the tickets will be set aside for residents of the District of Columbia.
“This is an inauguration for all Americans,” Mr. Obama said in the statement. “I wanted to make sure that we had an event that would be open to our new neighborhood here in Washington, D.C., and also neighborhoods across the country. Michelle and I look forward to joining our fellow Americans across the country during this very special event.”
In a symbol of the importance of the Web, both to Mr. Obama’s election and presumably to how he will run the government, this ball will be interactive, with webcasting and text messaging, “to link neighborhoods across the country with the new president and this premier event.”
Details coming soon, both on the distribution of tickets and on how people at neighborhood balls across the country can link up, virtually, of course, to this one.
This is just one of the 10 official balls that the Obamas will be attending that night. Five others are at the convention center (cutting down on the need for a motorcade). The other four are at the National Building Museum, the Hilton Hotel, Union Station and the D.C. Armory.
-Wow, and I thought he was an elitist.
Obama to Attend ‘Neighborhood Ball’
By Katharine Q. Seelye
On inauguration night, Barack and Michelle Obama will dance their first dance as the First Family with their new neighbors, including members of the public and residents of Washington.
“In keeping with his commitment to make this inaugural celebration open and accessible to all Americans, President-elect Barack Obama will host the first-ever ‘Neighborhood Inaugural Ball’ during this year’s inaugural celebration,” says a statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
“It is the first official inaugural ball of its kind to be held during a presidential inauguration,” the statement adds.
There have been rumors for weeks that Mr. Obama would hold a so-called people’s ball; the announcement confirms that it will be the first event of inauguration evening on Jan. 20 and will take place at the Washington Convention Center, where several balls are being held.
Tickets will be free or at “an affordable price,” and some of the tickets will be set aside for residents of the District of Columbia.
“This is an inauguration for all Americans,” Mr. Obama said in the statement. “I wanted to make sure that we had an event that would be open to our new neighborhood here in Washington, D.C., and also neighborhoods across the country. Michelle and I look forward to joining our fellow Americans across the country during this very special event.”
In a symbol of the importance of the Web, both to Mr. Obama’s election and presumably to how he will run the government, this ball will be interactive, with webcasting and text messaging, “to link neighborhoods across the country with the new president and this premier event.”
Details coming soon, both on the distribution of tickets and on how people at neighborhood balls across the country can link up, virtually, of course, to this one.
This is just one of the 10 official balls that the Obamas will be attending that night. Five others are at the convention center (cutting down on the need for a motorcade). The other four are at the National Building Museum, the Hilton Hotel, Union Station and the D.C. Armory.
-Wow, and I thought he was an elitist.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Darth Cheney Speaks
From Raw Story:
If you don't get punished, you didn't go anything wrong, right?
That's the message Vice President Dick Cheney gave in an interview with CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday, suggesting that a president's actions are legal if those actions didn't result in his impeachment.
Asked by Schieffer if he believed that anything the president does in time of war is legal, Cheney said there is "historic precedent of taking action that you wouldn't take in peacetime."
Cheney referenced Abraham Lincoln as an example of another president who "suspended the writ of habeus corpus" during a war, prompting this exchange:
###
SCHIEFFER: But nobody thinks that was legal.
CHENEY: Well, no. It certainly was in the sense he wasn't impeached. And it was a wartime measure that he took that I think history says today, yeah, that was probably a good thing to do.
###
The vice president spent much of the interview defending eight years of the Bush administration's policies, including its surveillance and interrogation programs.
When Schieffer asked if the Bush administration had gone "too far" in its surveillance program, Cheney said no.
"I don’t believe we violated anybody’s civil liberties," he said.
Cheney also urged President-elect Barack Obama to continue the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.
"I would hope [Obama] would avoid doing what others have done in the past, which is letting the campaign rhetoric guide his judgment in this absolutely crucial area," Cheney said. "We were very careful, we did everything by the book, and in fact we produced very significant results."
_________________________________________________
UGH, I keep telling myself there are less than 3 weeks till he is gone.
If you don't get punished, you didn't go anything wrong, right?
That's the message Vice President Dick Cheney gave in an interview with CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday, suggesting that a president's actions are legal if those actions didn't result in his impeachment.
Asked by Schieffer if he believed that anything the president does in time of war is legal, Cheney said there is "historic precedent of taking action that you wouldn't take in peacetime."
Cheney referenced Abraham Lincoln as an example of another president who "suspended the writ of habeus corpus" during a war, prompting this exchange:
###
SCHIEFFER: But nobody thinks that was legal.
CHENEY: Well, no. It certainly was in the sense he wasn't impeached. And it was a wartime measure that he took that I think history says today, yeah, that was probably a good thing to do.
###
The vice president spent much of the interview defending eight years of the Bush administration's policies, including its surveillance and interrogation programs.
When Schieffer asked if the Bush administration had gone "too far" in its surveillance program, Cheney said no.
"I don’t believe we violated anybody’s civil liberties," he said.
Cheney also urged President-elect Barack Obama to continue the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.
"I would hope [Obama] would avoid doing what others have done in the past, which is letting the campaign rhetoric guide his judgment in this absolutely crucial area," Cheney said. "We were very careful, we did everything by the book, and in fact we produced very significant results."
_________________________________________________
UGH, I keep telling myself there are less than 3 weeks till he is gone.
Change We Didn't Need
Remember back in August, when Governor Palin was picked to be John McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee? She said she and McCain were the real change. Well, apparently she is just as corrupt as her predecessor and the rest of the Alaska politicians.
From Think Progress:
Alaska State Trooper union: Johnston drug arrest delayed for political reasons.
»
The Anchorage Daily News reports that the December 18 arrest of the mother of Levi Johnston for the sale of prescription drugs was delayed because of Johnston’s relationship with Bristol Palin during Gov. Sarah Palin’s vice presidential candidacy:
Kyle Young, a troopers drug investigator who was involved in the case, wrote in an e-mail last week to all members of the Public Safety Employees Association, the union that represents troopers and other law enforcement officers around the state…that after it became clear who Johnston was, “this case became anything but normal.”
“It was not allowed to progress in a normal fashion, the search warrant service WAS delayed because of the pending election and the Mat Su Drug Unit and the case officer were not the ones calling the shots,” Young wrote. … John Cyr, executive director of the union, said it’s clear to him that the investigation was handled differently because of who Johnston is.
While the Palin administration is disputing the union’s claims, the union tells the Daily News that it verified Young’s characterization “with the entire drug unit, with all of our members.”
From Think Progress:
Alaska State Trooper union: Johnston drug arrest delayed for political reasons.
»
The Anchorage Daily News reports that the December 18 arrest of the mother of Levi Johnston for the sale of prescription drugs was delayed because of Johnston’s relationship with Bristol Palin during Gov. Sarah Palin’s vice presidential candidacy:
Kyle Young, a troopers drug investigator who was involved in the case, wrote in an e-mail last week to all members of the Public Safety Employees Association, the union that represents troopers and other law enforcement officers around the state…that after it became clear who Johnston was, “this case became anything but normal.”
“It was not allowed to progress in a normal fashion, the search warrant service WAS delayed because of the pending election and the Mat Su Drug Unit and the case officer were not the ones calling the shots,” Young wrote. … John Cyr, executive director of the union, said it’s clear to him that the investigation was handled differently because of who Johnston is.
While the Palin administration is disputing the union’s claims, the union tells the Daily News that it verified Young’s characterization “with the entire drug unit, with all of our members.”
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Daily Quote
"Too many people get impressed that they're a U.S. representative and a senator. They're really great jobs. (But) I'm not Congressman Mike McNulty — I'm Mike McNulty."
-From The Albany Times Union's interview with outgoing 10 term Congressman Mike McNulty, who is leaving Congress today after representing Albany, NY since 1988.
-From The Albany Times Union's interview with outgoing 10 term Congressman Mike McNulty, who is leaving Congress today after representing Albany, NY since 1988.
I Love Paul Krugman
From The New York Times:
January 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Bigger Than Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN
As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.
Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?
But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.
The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.
But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.
January 2, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Bigger Than Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN
As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.
Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?
But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.
The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.
But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)