I know the polls are encouraging for Obama supporters like myself. But when phonebanking it often seems I have to convince someone Obama isn't a Muslim. This Youtube video below illustrates why I will remain nervous until election day. Hat tip to Nelson M of the Liberal Journal.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Exhancing My Resume
I have a confession. Someday I hope to become president. I'm thinking of taking my next vacation in Alaska. I'll bring a pair of binoculars and go where I can have a nice view of Russia and then claim to have foreign policy experience. For executive experience I'll cite my tenure as president of my local Star Trek fan club growing up. We never actually met but so what? I'm also confident I can articulate better than Governor Sarah Palin during interviews with the likes of Katie Couric and Charles Gibson. And if need be I'll learn to kill defenseless animals for sport so I can appear tough. In America anything is possible and I dare to dream.
Screw The House GOP
Yesterday the House Republicans stepped into a Newt Gingrich time machine. Remember how in 1995, Speaker Gingrich forced a government showdown because he was offended that President Bill Clinton didn't allow him to leave at the front of Air Force One when returning from Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's funeral? Gingrich also complained that President Clinton didn't talk to him or Senate Republican leader Bob Dole and the New York Daily News responded with their famous "crybaby" headline.
Yesterday the House GOP scapegoated Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan speech as the reason for their not being able to deliver more votes to pass the Wall Street bail out. I'm not enamored of this bailout plan but I would have voted for it because the credit crisis is real. I'm not certain it would work but don't consider inaction an option.
However, I'm also not dissappointd it failed because the Democrats have an opportunity here to seize the manltle leadership and help the country. At this point, if the House GOP can't pull their caucus together then we should move on without them. Democrats can use their leverage to wrest more concessions from the hapless White House for bankruptcy protection for beleagured homeowners as well as expansion of FDIC. More House Democrats would support a bailout measure if funding for Wall Street bankers were scaled back and instead more funds were appropriated to address infrastructure. How about congress appropriate $500 billion for Wall Street and $200 billion as a stimulus for wage earners that includes the expansion of food stamps, unemployment insurance and job creating infrastructure development?
The House Democrats would pass such a measure overwhelmingly and enough Republican Senators would likely support any lifeline to the financial markets at this point. There is no reason for America to be held hostage by the loony far right House Republicans.
Yesterday the House GOP scapegoated Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan speech as the reason for their not being able to deliver more votes to pass the Wall Street bail out. I'm not enamored of this bailout plan but I would have voted for it because the credit crisis is real. I'm not certain it would work but don't consider inaction an option.
However, I'm also not dissappointd it failed because the Democrats have an opportunity here to seize the manltle leadership and help the country. At this point, if the House GOP can't pull their caucus together then we should move on without them. Democrats can use their leverage to wrest more concessions from the hapless White House for bankruptcy protection for beleagured homeowners as well as expansion of FDIC. More House Democrats would support a bailout measure if funding for Wall Street bankers were scaled back and instead more funds were appropriated to address infrastructure. How about congress appropriate $500 billion for Wall Street and $200 billion as a stimulus for wage earners that includes the expansion of food stamps, unemployment insurance and job creating infrastructure development?
The House Democrats would pass such a measure overwhelmingly and enough Republican Senators would likely support any lifeline to the financial markets at this point. There is no reason for America to be held hostage by the loony far right House Republicans.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The First Debate
Substance is typically irrelevant in political debates. With the debates this political season substance is especially irrelevant because of the financial crisis on Wall Street. It was hard not to smirk as both candidates discussed their plans for the economy.
Neither Obama nor McCain spoke credibly last night. Those who have capital are hording it and not about to extend credit so small businesses can make payroll or allow the people of Main Street to pay their mortgages. Credit will not be extended without a bailout and nobody can be sure that giving in to these 21st century robber barrons will solve the problem. Hence, when Obama promises that ninety five percent of the public will receive a tax cut under his administration he's blowing smoke up America's ass. And so is McCain with his "spending freeze" or asking Americans to believe that reforming earmarks will act as a growth stimulus for the economy.
So that means we have to evaluate style instead. Obama was doing just fine until about 10PM Eastern Standard Time. Then McCain the brawler asserted himself, interrupting Obama and getting under the younger man's skin. Ironic because Obama is supposed to be the one without emotion. I cringed when McCain effectively interrupted Obama and mocked his plans for talking with the psychotic president of Iran. McCain scored and one could read irritation on Obama's face because he knew it.
Obama fights fire with water. That is an admirable quality in a president and leader. It's one of the reasons I support his candidacy. Overall, I believe Obama held his own against McCain the brawler and appeared sure footed on the issue of foreign policy which conventional wisdom suggests is McCain's strength. Personally, I believe the record shows that McCain's record on foreign policy is disastrous but that's substance. We're assessing style here.
In future debates Obama must cease saying that "John is right." That phrase should be replaced with "John doesn't get it." If Obama wants to be more civil he can put it this way, "I regret to say that John doesn't get it." For variety he might say, "Once again John doesn't get it" and then make his points.
I suspect McCain came off as overly condescending for some with his constant refrain, "You don't understand." Perhaps Obama's reflexive "John is right" reassured some people that he's a leader looking for consensus and common ground. In my opinion however Obama needed to be more combative. This is easily fixed by dumping "John is right" into the rhetorical landfill.
The debate was a tie. Neither had a major gaffe or delivered a knockout punch. That's probably good for Obama. The next two debates will address subjects that Obama can speak to more comfortably. Next week Joe Biden will likely demonstrate more gravitas than the hapless Sarah Palin in the Vice Presidential debate. Hence this remains Obama's election to lose.
John McCain is a twentieth century man ill equipped to address our current challenges. Using the phrase "John doesn't get it" to preface his points would better help Obama drive that point home.
Neither Obama nor McCain spoke credibly last night. Those who have capital are hording it and not about to extend credit so small businesses can make payroll or allow the people of Main Street to pay their mortgages. Credit will not be extended without a bailout and nobody can be sure that giving in to these 21st century robber barrons will solve the problem. Hence, when Obama promises that ninety five percent of the public will receive a tax cut under his administration he's blowing smoke up America's ass. And so is McCain with his "spending freeze" or asking Americans to believe that reforming earmarks will act as a growth stimulus for the economy.
So that means we have to evaluate style instead. Obama was doing just fine until about 10PM Eastern Standard Time. Then McCain the brawler asserted himself, interrupting Obama and getting under the younger man's skin. Ironic because Obama is supposed to be the one without emotion. I cringed when McCain effectively interrupted Obama and mocked his plans for talking with the psychotic president of Iran. McCain scored and one could read irritation on Obama's face because he knew it.
Obama fights fire with water. That is an admirable quality in a president and leader. It's one of the reasons I support his candidacy. Overall, I believe Obama held his own against McCain the brawler and appeared sure footed on the issue of foreign policy which conventional wisdom suggests is McCain's strength. Personally, I believe the record shows that McCain's record on foreign policy is disastrous but that's substance. We're assessing style here.
In future debates Obama must cease saying that "John is right." That phrase should be replaced with "John doesn't get it." If Obama wants to be more civil he can put it this way, "I regret to say that John doesn't get it." For variety he might say, "Once again John doesn't get it" and then make his points.
I suspect McCain came off as overly condescending for some with his constant refrain, "You don't understand." Perhaps Obama's reflexive "John is right" reassured some people that he's a leader looking for consensus and common ground. In my opinion however Obama needed to be more combative. This is easily fixed by dumping "John is right" into the rhetorical landfill.
The debate was a tie. Neither had a major gaffe or delivered a knockout punch. That's probably good for Obama. The next two debates will address subjects that Obama can speak to more comfortably. Next week Joe Biden will likely demonstrate more gravitas than the hapless Sarah Palin in the Vice Presidential debate. Hence this remains Obama's election to lose.
John McCain is a twentieth century man ill equipped to address our current challenges. Using the phrase "John doesn't get it" to preface his points would better help Obama drive that point home.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Faux Statesmanship
As many of you know by now, John McCain is "suspending" his campaign and asking that this Friday's debate be postponed due to the financial crisis. As reported in the Washington Post the McCain campaign released the following statement:
Meanwhile, McCain is hoping Obama will be in a box. If Obama plays along he's following the leader. If Obama doesn't play along McCain will claim he's putting the welfare of the country ahead of politics.
As long as there will be spin going against him either way, I think Obama should tell it like it is. The right position is to say that now more than ever we need to debate economic policy in front of the voters. Hence I would propose postponing the foreign policy debate and instead making this Friday's debate about the economy. If McCain refuses than Obama should appear anyway and address the country himself and present the direction he wants to go.
Republicans as well as financial industry insiders are like bank robbers with nitro-glycerine. They're hoping to coerce Congress into passing legislation that provides them billions in corporate welfare with minimal oversight to review the details. The Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department are complicit in our economic debacle and don't want any sunlight on their accountability for this mess. So they're also pushing for this legislation with minimal oversight before too many people hold them accountable for their incestuous relationship with Wall Street.
I readily acknowledge we have a calamity on our hands. Liberals like me have seen this coming for years and we were ridiculed as being alarmists. Yet even as the Dow drops we're not going to fix this by nationalizing the banking industry in haste.
This should be a deliberate process that is transparent and openly debated. That is what campaigns are for. FDR and Herbert Hoover didn't suspend their presidential campaigns in 1932 when this country's economy was tottering on the abys. FDR and Thomas Dewey didn't suspend their presidential campaigns during World War Two in 1944.
More recently New York City still held a mayoral election in November 2001 nearly two months after 9/11. Back then Democratic Party candidates took a brief pause because 9/11 coincided with their primary. But the pause was shortlived and vigorous campaigning resumed.
And Spain held an election following a terrorist attack a couple years ago with no suspension of campaigning.
That's what democracies do. Even in emergencies and this economic crisis is no different. Senator Obama please don't allow your opponent to get away with faux statesmanship. This a nothing more than a stunt to help facilitate corporate welfare for the financial services industry while maintaining the fiction that John McCain is a maverick instead of a corporatist champion. Many of these people are hoping that you will give cover to a plan designed to hinder your administration if you're elected from spending on health care and other domestic initiatives.
McCain's political stunt, backed by these very same people is also designed to prevent your election so these money lending corporatists can continue to steal from wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.
"It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.''Hence, McCain is urging President Bush to,
"to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem."This is nothing more than faux statesmanship. Recent polls obviously have the McCain campaign at Defcon One and they needed a stunt. As political tactics are concerned it's very clever. It distracts from the the New York Times reporting about the firm of McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis still being paid by Freddie Mac.
Meanwhile, McCain is hoping Obama will be in a box. If Obama plays along he's following the leader. If Obama doesn't play along McCain will claim he's putting the welfare of the country ahead of politics.
As long as there will be spin going against him either way, I think Obama should tell it like it is. The right position is to say that now more than ever we need to debate economic policy in front of the voters. Hence I would propose postponing the foreign policy debate and instead making this Friday's debate about the economy. If McCain refuses than Obama should appear anyway and address the country himself and present the direction he wants to go.
Republicans as well as financial industry insiders are like bank robbers with nitro-glycerine. They're hoping to coerce Congress into passing legislation that provides them billions in corporate welfare with minimal oversight to review the details. The Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department are complicit in our economic debacle and don't want any sunlight on their accountability for this mess. So they're also pushing for this legislation with minimal oversight before too many people hold them accountable for their incestuous relationship with Wall Street.
I readily acknowledge we have a calamity on our hands. Liberals like me have seen this coming for years and we were ridiculed as being alarmists. Yet even as the Dow drops we're not going to fix this by nationalizing the banking industry in haste.
This should be a deliberate process that is transparent and openly debated. That is what campaigns are for. FDR and Herbert Hoover didn't suspend their presidential campaigns in 1932 when this country's economy was tottering on the abys. FDR and Thomas Dewey didn't suspend their presidential campaigns during World War Two in 1944.
More recently New York City still held a mayoral election in November 2001 nearly two months after 9/11. Back then Democratic Party candidates took a brief pause because 9/11 coincided with their primary. But the pause was shortlived and vigorous campaigning resumed.
And Spain held an election following a terrorist attack a couple years ago with no suspension of campaigning.
That's what democracies do. Even in emergencies and this economic crisis is no different. Senator Obama please don't allow your opponent to get away with faux statesmanship. This a nothing more than a stunt to help facilitate corporate welfare for the financial services industry while maintaining the fiction that John McCain is a maverick instead of a corporatist champion. Many of these people are hoping that you will give cover to a plan designed to hinder your administration if you're elected from spending on health care and other domestic initiatives.
McCain's political stunt, backed by these very same people is also designed to prevent your election so these money lending corporatists can continue to steal from wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Trying To Have Hope
I want to have hope for my country. And I'm doing my best to help elect the most viable progressive candidate president by volunteering for the Obama campaign. While I'm fully aware of his flaws I regard Obama as intelligent and believe his decision making process on high stakes issues will mostly be judicious and thoughtful. Hell, compared to John McCain, Barack Obama is Plato.
Nevertheless, when contemplating the socio-economic and geopolitical place we find ourselves in it's hard to feel anything but despair. We're engaged in two failed military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan is imploding and al quaeda is rebuilding. As for Iraq, with all due respect to the "surge," a military occupation that requires billions of America's treasure as well our blood, not to mention the blood of Iraqis that have been shed to maintain a semblance of stability is not a success.
And now we're forced to spend trillions to bail out Wall Street thanks to the medacity of the Bush Administration and their cabal of chuckle heads, cronies and plutocrats. Much of this is of course being financed by creditors overseas.
I mean, what the hell will a new president be able to do upon taking office? How can can any president deliver on campaign promises of tax cuts or spending programs for infrastructure, education and health care when you combine the cost of two military occupations with the bail out of Wall Street? I know Obama wants to get out of Iraq but ending that occupation in a prudent manner can't be done quickly. We're going to spend billions more money in Iraq even if Obama wins. Also, there is the moral requirements to help finance Iraq's reconstruction considering we invaded their country without legitimate provocation, tortured their citizens at Abu Ghraib and killed a whole lot of their people to make money for Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater USA.
And we can't just pull out of Afghanistan. After financing our proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s we turned our back on those people. And we know the tragic legacy of that mistake. Yet our presence isn't helping and a "surge" in Afghanistan will not bring any more political reconciliation to that country than it has in Iraq. If anything the internal dynamics of Afghanistan and their culture of war lords is even more cumbersome. Yet many Democrats, including Obama have talked about increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan. And that will cost billions too.
At least when FDR became president it was merely a matter of political will to implement the New Deal and establish institutions that helped build an enduring middle class for the twentieth century. Also, when FDR became president America wasn't consumed by two military occupations as the next president will be . Hence, when the gathering storm clouds of the Axis Powers engulfed the world in war, FDR was able to mobilize America's industrial prowess for the effort. Suppose the liquidity crisis on Wall Street today empowers another Hitler overseas who exploits global economic depression and seizes power? What then if America is overextended with our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Political will by itself won't be enough for the next president. Global liquidity is in rapidly short supply and the world is running out of oil. Global warming is a ticking time bomb and many regions in the world, including the American southwest our contending with a water shortage crisis. Addressing these challenges requires capital and lots of it. Capital that we don't have. Hence, somehow the next president is going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat and create a new twenty-first century socio-economic paradigm on the cheap. And he'll have to do it fast.
I believe Obama at least grasps the challenges ahead. Sadly, John McCain appears to be out of his depth with a limited grasp of the modern world.
Nevertheless, when contemplating the socio-economic and geopolitical place we find ourselves in it's hard to feel anything but despair. We're engaged in two failed military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan is imploding and al quaeda is rebuilding. As for Iraq, with all due respect to the "surge," a military occupation that requires billions of America's treasure as well our blood, not to mention the blood of Iraqis that have been shed to maintain a semblance of stability is not a success.
And now we're forced to spend trillions to bail out Wall Street thanks to the medacity of the Bush Administration and their cabal of chuckle heads, cronies and plutocrats. Much of this is of course being financed by creditors overseas.
I mean, what the hell will a new president be able to do upon taking office? How can can any president deliver on campaign promises of tax cuts or spending programs for infrastructure, education and health care when you combine the cost of two military occupations with the bail out of Wall Street? I know Obama wants to get out of Iraq but ending that occupation in a prudent manner can't be done quickly. We're going to spend billions more money in Iraq even if Obama wins. Also, there is the moral requirements to help finance Iraq's reconstruction considering we invaded their country without legitimate provocation, tortured their citizens at Abu Ghraib and killed a whole lot of their people to make money for Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater USA.
And we can't just pull out of Afghanistan. After financing our proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s we turned our back on those people. And we know the tragic legacy of that mistake. Yet our presence isn't helping and a "surge" in Afghanistan will not bring any more political reconciliation to that country than it has in Iraq. If anything the internal dynamics of Afghanistan and their culture of war lords is even more cumbersome. Yet many Democrats, including Obama have talked about increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan. And that will cost billions too.
At least when FDR became president it was merely a matter of political will to implement the New Deal and establish institutions that helped build an enduring middle class for the twentieth century. Also, when FDR became president America wasn't consumed by two military occupations as the next president will be . Hence, when the gathering storm clouds of the Axis Powers engulfed the world in war, FDR was able to mobilize America's industrial prowess for the effort. Suppose the liquidity crisis on Wall Street today empowers another Hitler overseas who exploits global economic depression and seizes power? What then if America is overextended with our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Political will by itself won't be enough for the next president. Global liquidity is in rapidly short supply and the world is running out of oil. Global warming is a ticking time bomb and many regions in the world, including the American southwest our contending with a water shortage crisis. Addressing these challenges requires capital and lots of it. Capital that we don't have. Hence, somehow the next president is going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat and create a new twenty-first century socio-economic paradigm on the cheap. And he'll have to do it fast.
I believe Obama at least grasps the challenges ahead. Sadly, John McCain appears to be out of his depth with a limited grasp of the modern world.
Friday, September 19, 2008
This Man Is Presidential
2008 is reminiscent of 1932 and the next president will have to demonstrate FDR caliber leadership. None of us can be certain Obama has what it takes during these perilous times. Yet this press conference illustrates that Obama is knowledgeable, thoughtful and measured even as he articulates his thinking about the complex issues with respect to the crisis in the capital markets. In short, he's presidential and McCain isn't. McCain possesses neither the wisdom or disposition required in a president. If Americans elect McCain over Obama they will be committing a crime against rationality.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)