If you're not planning on being in front of a television set or radio tomorrow afternoon at 3:15pm Eastern time, the answer to this question is a resounding yes.
Team USA has captivated hockey fans and non-hockey fans alike over the past two weeks as they have continued their improbable undefeated Olympic run toward the gold medal in men's hockey. I've always loved the Winter Olympics, and as a former hockey player and fan (I haven't followed the NHL since the Whalers left town), I always look forward to watching hockey and having a team to pull for. As a proud American, it's especially fun to root for my countrymen.
I must confess, I wasn't all that optimistic about our chances this year. Canada, Sweden, and Russia seemed to be the three medal favorites, and I figured if the US could make it to the bronze medal game that would be a very solid showing.
But Team USA has gelled. They've become an efficient unit that shares the puck well and plays as a team. Lots of analysts pointed to Team USA's lack of superstars, as opposed to the Russians with Alex Ovechkin and the Canadians with Sidney Crosby. But it may be that our lack of superstars has been a blessing in disguise, allowing the Americans to become a true team rather than just a collection of all-stars.
And a collection of all-stars is just what the Canadians are, by their own admission. That makes them a formidable opponent, to be sure, but as anyone who has watched an NHL all-star game or a NFL pro-bowl can attest, the team chemistry element is often lacking.
The USA has had a great run up until this point. They opened with a solid win, if not an entirely convincing or mistake-free one, over an able Switzerland team. They got by Norway easily. Then, they shocked the world by beating Team Canada 5-3 in front of what is essentially a home crowd for the Canadians. That game, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's gold medal rematch, will go down in my mind as one of the most exciting games I've ever watched, in any sport.
Tomorrow, the stakes are much, much higher. Canada is hungry...you can see it in the players' faces and hear it in the cheers of the spectators. Canadian fans have been waiting for this moment, this chance to win gold in their national sport on their home turf, since Vancouver was chosen as the 2010 venue way back in 2003. And the Canadians appear to have shaken off most of the jitters that they showed in the preliminary rounds- they smoked the Russians, who many believed were the gold medal favorites, and they held a commanding 3-0 lead against Slovakia last night before allowing the jitters to resurface temporarily. They escaped with a scary 3-2 victory.
So the USA faces a real challenge tomorrow afternoon. Beating as good a team as Canada twice in the course of a week is an incredibly tall order. But the USA is still going strong, as their gritty 2-0 win over the Swiss and their dominant 6-1 obliteration of a solid Finland squad shows.
Can they get one more win and bring home the gold? I hope so. You gotta believe.
And if you consider yourself an American, you better set aside two and a half hours of your day tomorrow to cheer on our guys. Wear red, white, and blue. Put your flag up outside. Start a USA chant in your living room or go outside and start one in your neighborhood.
Enjoy it. This one's special.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Crist/Bayh in 2012?
Now, let me preface this by saying that what I'm about to suggest is pure speculation and therefore not all that useful. In fact, this isn't even speculation, because speculation often implies some level of prediction, and I am not making a serious prediction here. Nor do I necessarily wish this to happen. This is more of an interesting thought exercise than anything else. But it's a fun one.
Oh and by the way, in the event that this actually happens, disregard my opening paragraph disclaimer about this not being a prediction. I'll look like an absolute genius. Genius.
Behold:
I read online today a very credible rumor that the current governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, a Republican, will make the switch to Independent in his bid for US Senate.
For those of you who haven't followed the Senate campaign unfolding in Florida, it's fascinating. Back in 2008, Crist was a very popular governor of an influential battleground state. Crist's endorsement of John McCain in the run-up to the Florida primary helped give McCain a boost and put him over the top in Florida, a key victory that effectively cleared McCain's path to the GOP nomination. Crist's name was subsequently batted about as a possible VP selection, and he was seen by many as a rising star in Republican politics. He was conservative enough (or so it seemed, at the time) for much of the party's base, with a centrist-y, pragmatic streak that appealed to GOP moderates and independents (and perhaps a few Democrats too).
But in 2009, with the unexpected rise of the influential Tea Party movement, Crist's political fortunes changed dramatically. Crist came under intense fire from the energized fiscal conservative wing of the GOP for his public support of the president's "stimulus" bill. He earned the infamous RINO label ("Republican In Name Only") and became a favorite target of conservatives disenchanted with the GOP's agenda of reckless spending during the Bush years. The argument that was made by these conservatives (and is still being made right now) is that Republicans will only win again by returning to their limited government principles, not by becoming "Democrat Lite."
Enter Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida state house. Rubio is a young, charismatic Latino with solid conservative credentials. Upon announcing his primary challenge to Governor Crist in the Senate race, Rubio quickly became a darling of the Tea Party movement, riding the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-big government wave sweeping the nation. With incredible speed, Rubio went from an unknown long-shot, to a viable contender for the Republican nomination...and now, to the overwhelming favorite to win not only the GOP nomination, but the seat as well (the Democrat, Kendrick Meek, is polling weakly in a prospective head-to-head match-up with Rubio).
A few days ago, some of Crist staffer's left the campaign, claiming that the campaign was "going in a different direction." Now, today, a completely believable rumor about Crist running for Senate as an Independent. It makes sense. Rubio has opened up an insurmountable lead in GOP primary polls against Crist, so Crist can either a) stay the course, lose the Republican primary, and in all likelihood fade away, b) pull an Arlen Specter party switch, run as a Democrat, and in all likelihood lose to Rubio in the general election (or perhaps even to Meek in the Dem. primary), c) drop out of the race immediately and in all likelihood fade away or d) go the Joe Lieberman independent route, make the election into a chaotic, 3-way Rubio-Meek-Crist battle, and hope to peel off enough Democratic voters and hold enough centrist-y Republicans to eke out a win over Rubio. I think that's highly unlikely, too, since Rubio would have the vocal support of virtually every important Republican in the state and country, the vast fund-raising opportunities and turnout operations that come with that, and the ever-important twin pillars of enthusiasm and MO-MEN-TUM.
In other words, if you're Charlie Crist, you're up shit's creek. And yes, you have no paddle. Or do you?
And this is where the fun starts.
Let's say Crist runs as an Independent, as it appears he will. Let's also assume he loses to Rubio in November, which at this point seems like a decent bet, given the polls in Florida, the current political climate, and the mood of the electorate. Finally, let's imagine Crist is determined to keep his political career, now on life-support, alive, because, well, the guy's a politician, and that's what politicians do, God love 'em.
Put yourself in Charlie's shoes. You angered conservative Republican purists, and you probably can't win them back. You'll never win with committed Leftists. But hard-line conservative Republicans and the far-left make up relatively small segments of the populace.
The vast majority of Americans are fed up with BOTH political parties. That is, after all, what the Tea Party movement is all about. But the Tea Partiers are, for the most part, interested in effecting change within the Republican Party rather than through a third party. Let's say they succeed in co-opting the GOP on the presidential level in 2012 and help propel Sarah Palin to the Republican nomination.
Palin, despite being adored by a certain portion of the Republican base, appears to have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama, if he fails to turn things around, will also have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats come 2012.
And that's when Charlie Crist picks up the phone, calls up moderate Democrat Evan Bayh up in Indiana (at that point, Bayh will be almost two years retired from the Senate), and says something like: "Hey, you know what would be really awesome? If you and I ran for president!"
Naturally, I had to award Crist the top spot and Bayh the VP slot in my ridiculously ridiculous hypothetical scenario because, after all, Charlie was at least a Republican at one point. But if Evan Bayh is the more clever of the two, and he very well might be, perhaps he'll beat Charlie to the punch and Charlie will have to settle for Number 2. That ain't so bad, considering less than two years prior his political career seemed dead.
Let me conclude by recapping the things that have to fall into place for this to happen. Crist must lose the race for the Florida Senate seat. He must desire to keep his political career going. The Republicans must nominate a candidate for president in 2012 who has a devoted throng of core supporters but very little appeal to key portions of their own party as well as independents and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama must continue to govern incompetently and alienate independents as well as moderates in his own party. Evan Bayh must be open to the possibility of running on a ticket with a former Republican, either as president or vice-president. Charlie Crist must be open to the idea of running alongside a (former?) Democrat, either as president of vice-president.
So there you have it. A Crist/Bayh third party campaign for the presidency in 2012 that emphasizes the extent to which partisan rancor and politics-as-usual are causing gridlock in DC and preventing us from solving the problems facing our nation. A campaign that offers voters a third option, a middle way between a right-wing nut-job from Alaska and a pinko commie from Chicago.
You heard it here first.
Oh and by the way, in the event that this actually happens, disregard my opening paragraph disclaimer about this not being a prediction. I'll look like an absolute genius. Genius.
Behold:
I read online today a very credible rumor that the current governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, a Republican, will make the switch to Independent in his bid for US Senate.
For those of you who haven't followed the Senate campaign unfolding in Florida, it's fascinating. Back in 2008, Crist was a very popular governor of an influential battleground state. Crist's endorsement of John McCain in the run-up to the Florida primary helped give McCain a boost and put him over the top in Florida, a key victory that effectively cleared McCain's path to the GOP nomination. Crist's name was subsequently batted about as a possible VP selection, and he was seen by many as a rising star in Republican politics. He was conservative enough (or so it seemed, at the time) for much of the party's base, with a centrist-y, pragmatic streak that appealed to GOP moderates and independents (and perhaps a few Democrats too).
But in 2009, with the unexpected rise of the influential Tea Party movement, Crist's political fortunes changed dramatically. Crist came under intense fire from the energized fiscal conservative wing of the GOP for his public support of the president's "stimulus" bill. He earned the infamous RINO label ("Republican In Name Only") and became a favorite target of conservatives disenchanted with the GOP's agenda of reckless spending during the Bush years. The argument that was made by these conservatives (and is still being made right now) is that Republicans will only win again by returning to their limited government principles, not by becoming "Democrat Lite."
Enter Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida state house. Rubio is a young, charismatic Latino with solid conservative credentials. Upon announcing his primary challenge to Governor Crist in the Senate race, Rubio quickly became a darling of the Tea Party movement, riding the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-big government wave sweeping the nation. With incredible speed, Rubio went from an unknown long-shot, to a viable contender for the Republican nomination...and now, to the overwhelming favorite to win not only the GOP nomination, but the seat as well (the Democrat, Kendrick Meek, is polling weakly in a prospective head-to-head match-up with Rubio).
A few days ago, some of Crist staffer's left the campaign, claiming that the campaign was "going in a different direction." Now, today, a completely believable rumor about Crist running for Senate as an Independent. It makes sense. Rubio has opened up an insurmountable lead in GOP primary polls against Crist, so Crist can either a) stay the course, lose the Republican primary, and in all likelihood fade away, b) pull an Arlen Specter party switch, run as a Democrat, and in all likelihood lose to Rubio in the general election (or perhaps even to Meek in the Dem. primary), c) drop out of the race immediately and in all likelihood fade away or d) go the Joe Lieberman independent route, make the election into a chaotic, 3-way Rubio-Meek-Crist battle, and hope to peel off enough Democratic voters and hold enough centrist-y Republicans to eke out a win over Rubio. I think that's highly unlikely, too, since Rubio would have the vocal support of virtually every important Republican in the state and country, the vast fund-raising opportunities and turnout operations that come with that, and the ever-important twin pillars of enthusiasm and MO-MEN-TUM.
In other words, if you're Charlie Crist, you're up shit's creek. And yes, you have no paddle. Or do you?
And this is where the fun starts.
Let's say Crist runs as an Independent, as it appears he will. Let's also assume he loses to Rubio in November, which at this point seems like a decent bet, given the polls in Florida, the current political climate, and the mood of the electorate. Finally, let's imagine Crist is determined to keep his political career, now on life-support, alive, because, well, the guy's a politician, and that's what politicians do, God love 'em.
Put yourself in Charlie's shoes. You angered conservative Republican purists, and you probably can't win them back. You'll never win with committed Leftists. But hard-line conservative Republicans and the far-left make up relatively small segments of the populace.
The vast majority of Americans are fed up with BOTH political parties. That is, after all, what the Tea Party movement is all about. But the Tea Partiers are, for the most part, interested in effecting change within the Republican Party rather than through a third party. Let's say they succeed in co-opting the GOP on the presidential level in 2012 and help propel Sarah Palin to the Republican nomination.
Palin, despite being adored by a certain portion of the Republican base, appears to have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama, if he fails to turn things around, will also have little appeal among moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats come 2012.
And that's when Charlie Crist picks up the phone, calls up moderate Democrat Evan Bayh up in Indiana (at that point, Bayh will be almost two years retired from the Senate), and says something like: "Hey, you know what would be really awesome? If you and I ran for president!"
Naturally, I had to award Crist the top spot and Bayh the VP slot in my ridiculously ridiculous hypothetical scenario because, after all, Charlie was at least a Republican at one point. But if Evan Bayh is the more clever of the two, and he very well might be, perhaps he'll beat Charlie to the punch and Charlie will have to settle for Number 2. That ain't so bad, considering less than two years prior his political career seemed dead.
Let me conclude by recapping the things that have to fall into place for this to happen. Crist must lose the race for the Florida Senate seat. He must desire to keep his political career going. The Republicans must nominate a candidate for president in 2012 who has a devoted throng of core supporters but very little appeal to key portions of their own party as well as independents and moderate Democrats. Barack Obama must continue to govern incompetently and alienate independents as well as moderates in his own party. Evan Bayh must be open to the possibility of running on a ticket with a former Republican, either as president or vice-president. Charlie Crist must be open to the idea of running alongside a (former?) Democrat, either as president of vice-president.
So there you have it. A Crist/Bayh third party campaign for the presidency in 2012 that emphasizes the extent to which partisan rancor and politics-as-usual are causing gridlock in DC and preventing us from solving the problems facing our nation. A campaign that offers voters a third option, a middle way between a right-wing nut-job from Alaska and a pinko commie from Chicago.
You heard it here first.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Harry Reid (Flip-flopper, Nev.)
Yes, as the title of this post suggests, we have a new designation for our country's beloved Senate Majority Leader. Wait, did I say beloved? I meant reviled. His favorability rating in his home state of Nevada stands at 35/58, which is abysmal. I'm actually surprised Reid didn't follow Chris Dodd out the door with a retirement announcement last month to save whatever face he has left, but oh well. More fun for us this November when we get to watch the Majority Leader go down in flames... Hey, maybe he ought to try out a "Negro dialect" and see if that restores his image in the eyes of Nevadans.
If being a complete bumbling idiot was an Olympic sport, we all know Leader Reid would have accrued countless gold medals by now. And guess what? He earned yet another one today, in a statement to CBS News. (link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6235624.shtml)
Here's Reid's eloquent advice to Republicans who are criticizing the Democrats' new commitment to using a procedure known as reconciliation to circumvent the filibuster's 60 vote threshold: "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before."
In other words: "Shut up," Reid explained.
Now, first of all, let's clear one thing up. Yes, reconciliation has been used before...but it is a budgetary procedure. It has been used to enact things like tax cuts, not pass comprehensive legislation that would change our health care system. Reid's being dishonest by acting like ramming through a gigantic and unpopular health reform bill that the American people don't want by circumventing the filibuster rule is just business as usual. It's not. Even Olympia Snowe, the most moderate Republican legislator in the Senate who originally helped move the Democrats' health care legislation forward, has said using reconciliation would be a terrible move.
Another senator offered a particularly useful defense of the filibuster and highlighted the perils of ignoring long-standing institutional rules. I'll quote from that senator's floor speech (via Naked Emperor News):
"Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government...
"When legislation is supported by a majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster's delay. But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation, prevents a senator from ramming it through, and gives the American people enough time to join the opposition...
"The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick, it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate...The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution, and in our own rules...
"But no, we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this...administration...
"[The Founders] established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control...They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that that's true."
So who's the wise senator who made this floor speech?
These words belong to none other than Harry Reid. He spoke them on the Senate floor on May 18, 2005. They were meant as a criticism of the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House.
And now, fast-forward to 2010, and gone are Reid's concerns about the "check on power" that the filibuster provides. Gone are Reid's hang-ups about "preserv[ing] our limited government." The filibuster used to be indispensable as a mechanism for stopping senators from "ramming through" legislation that is not supported by a majority of Americans, but suddenly Reid has changed his tune. Why? Because the Democrats' health care reform legislation isn't supported by a majority of Americans, as every poll shows.
And you've got to love the part about legislation that's supported by a majority always overcoming a filibuster. Harry, go back and listen to yourself. Or perhaps even you yourself can't bear to listen to your own stupidity.
In the coming days, we'll see if the Democrats are seriously going to try using reconciliation to pass this bill. At this point, it's unclear whether the Democrats have enough votes to pass the bill in the House, of all places. I suspect the use of reconciliation might turn off enough Democrats in the Senate to make it a close vote there too...but apparently Reid has the 50 votes required to do it.
Is this all a bunch of political posturing to save face and blame the health care reform failure on the GOP's obstructionist tactics? Or are the Democrats seriously going to try this?
If being a complete bumbling idiot was an Olympic sport, we all know Leader Reid would have accrued countless gold medals by now. And guess what? He earned yet another one today, in a statement to CBS News. (link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6235624.shtml)
Here's Reid's eloquent advice to Republicans who are criticizing the Democrats' new commitment to using a procedure known as reconciliation to circumvent the filibuster's 60 vote threshold: "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before."
In other words: "Shut up," Reid explained.
Now, first of all, let's clear one thing up. Yes, reconciliation has been used before...but it is a budgetary procedure. It has been used to enact things like tax cuts, not pass comprehensive legislation that would change our health care system. Reid's being dishonest by acting like ramming through a gigantic and unpopular health reform bill that the American people don't want by circumventing the filibuster rule is just business as usual. It's not. Even Olympia Snowe, the most moderate Republican legislator in the Senate who originally helped move the Democrats' health care legislation forward, has said using reconciliation would be a terrible move.
Another senator offered a particularly useful defense of the filibuster and highlighted the perils of ignoring long-standing institutional rules. I'll quote from that senator's floor speech (via Naked Emperor News):
"Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government...
"When legislation is supported by a majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster's delay. But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation, prevents a senator from ramming it through, and gives the American people enough time to join the opposition...
"The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick, it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate...The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution, and in our own rules...
"But no, we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this...administration...
"[The Founders] established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control...They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that that's true."
So who's the wise senator who made this floor speech?
These words belong to none other than Harry Reid. He spoke them on the Senate floor on May 18, 2005. They were meant as a criticism of the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House.
And now, fast-forward to 2010, and gone are Reid's concerns about the "check on power" that the filibuster provides. Gone are Reid's hang-ups about "preserv[ing] our limited government." The filibuster used to be indispensable as a mechanism for stopping senators from "ramming through" legislation that is not supported by a majority of Americans, but suddenly Reid has changed his tune. Why? Because the Democrats' health care reform legislation isn't supported by a majority of Americans, as every poll shows.
And you've got to love the part about legislation that's supported by a majority always overcoming a filibuster. Harry, go back and listen to yourself. Or perhaps even you yourself can't bear to listen to your own stupidity.
In the coming days, we'll see if the Democrats are seriously going to try using reconciliation to pass this bill. At this point, it's unclear whether the Democrats have enough votes to pass the bill in the House, of all places. I suspect the use of reconciliation might turn off enough Democrats in the Senate to make it a close vote there too...but apparently Reid has the 50 votes required to do it.
Is this all a bunch of political posturing to save face and blame the health care reform failure on the GOP's obstructionist tactics? Or are the Democrats seriously going to try this?
Monday, February 22, 2010
This, My Friends, Is What a Credibility Gap Looks Like...
This New York Times/CBS poll was released earlier this month, but it surfaced again today at the Washington Examiner and I felt it merited a blog post.
The poll, unsurprisingly, shows an American public that has completely lost faith in the current Congress and is growing impatient with the Obama administration. The approval rating for Congress stands at...15%. Ouch. Not a good sign if you're an incumbent, especially if you're a member of the party in power. Come to think of it, Evan Bayh's "I'm quitting" announcement that I wrote about last night occurred shortly after this poll was released. Hmmmmmm...
The news, believe it or not, gets worse for legislators. Seriously. 80% of those polled say that Congress is more interested in pleasing special interest lobbies, while just 13% believe legislators are more focused on serving the people who elected them. And if incumbents weren't frightened enough already, let them feast their eyes on this one: just 8% believe most members of Congress merit reelection in November. We'd probably be one lucky nation if 9 out of every 10 members of Congress lost their reelection bids in November. Of course that's not going to happen- it's common in our politics for people to view their own congressman more favorably than other folks' congressmen. But the numbers are still staggering.
President Obama's approval rating, meanwhile, stands at 46%, with 45% disapproving. Better than Congress, of course, but hardly impressive, especially considering the heights that he reached during and shortly after his inauguration. Yes, the presidential honeymoon wears off for every president, but the precipitous decline of Obama's poll numbers has been pretty extraordinary.
Consider the following. In April 2009, he was at 68%/23% approval/disapproval. By October, a few months after the angry town hall meetings had begun, with the health care debate dragging on, he was still at a solid 56/34 split. By December he was down to 50/39. Now, it's 46/45. The robust 68% approval rating can be chalked up to the honeymoon period, and the decline to 56% approval in the fall can be attributed to the honeymoon wearing off. But the continued dive to the lowest approval rating and the highest disapproval rating yet after more than a full year in office suggests that this president is losing the confidence of Americans.
Remember the enthusiasm back in 2008 after Barack Obama's election and inauguration? Barely? Well, just 3% (!) now say they are enthusiastic about the way things are unraveling in DC, while a whopping 70% are "dissatisfied" or "angry." To quote Sarah Palin: "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya?"
The news is even worse for President Obama when you dig a little deeper into the approval ratings on his handling of specific issues. While he's doing fairly well on terrorism (55/34) and foreign policy (47/34), surprisingly well, in my opinion, considering that civilian trials for terrorists and closing Gitmo don't seem to play well with a majority of Americans, Obama's numbers on the issues that matter most to Americans right now should alarm his advisers. On the economy, voters disapprove 42/52. On health care, the issue on which he has spent so much time and political capital, he's at 35/55. And on the deficit, he's at 31/58.
On the far more vague issue of "change" (gag), the centerpiece of candidate Obama's presidential campaign, Americans give the president underwhelming marks. Just 9% see lots of change, 30% see "some" (and that could mean anything- remember, even John McCain, despite Barack Obama's campaign strategy of painting him as "4 more years of Bush," would have ushered in "some" "change"), while 30% see "not much" (is there any meaningful way to differentiate "not much" from "some"?). 20% see none at all.
In a nation with double-digit unemployment, you'd figure the president would go to great lengths to convince the people that he was serious about job growth. But only 39% think Obama has a plan to create jobs, while 56% doubt it.
Wait, what's that you say? He already had his plan passed? Oh yeahhhh...the stimulus plan. Remember that $787 billion bill that was supposed to create jobs and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%? Well, just 6% of those polled believe it has created jobs. Stop rubbing your eyes. You read that correctly. 6% believe the stimulus package created jobs. This, despite all of those statements on Sunday talk shows by Obama advisers and Obama himself that the "Recovery Act" saved 2 million jobs.
That, my friends, is a credibility gap.
The poll, unsurprisingly, shows an American public that has completely lost faith in the current Congress and is growing impatient with the Obama administration. The approval rating for Congress stands at...15%. Ouch. Not a good sign if you're an incumbent, especially if you're a member of the party in power. Come to think of it, Evan Bayh's "I'm quitting" announcement that I wrote about last night occurred shortly after this poll was released. Hmmmmmm...
The news, believe it or not, gets worse for legislators. Seriously. 80% of those polled say that Congress is more interested in pleasing special interest lobbies, while just 13% believe legislators are more focused on serving the people who elected them. And if incumbents weren't frightened enough already, let them feast their eyes on this one: just 8% believe most members of Congress merit reelection in November. We'd probably be one lucky nation if 9 out of every 10 members of Congress lost their reelection bids in November. Of course that's not going to happen- it's common in our politics for people to view their own congressman more favorably than other folks' congressmen. But the numbers are still staggering.
President Obama's approval rating, meanwhile, stands at 46%, with 45% disapproving. Better than Congress, of course, but hardly impressive, especially considering the heights that he reached during and shortly after his inauguration. Yes, the presidential honeymoon wears off for every president, but the precipitous decline of Obama's poll numbers has been pretty extraordinary.
Consider the following. In April 2009, he was at 68%/23% approval/disapproval. By October, a few months after the angry town hall meetings had begun, with the health care debate dragging on, he was still at a solid 56/34 split. By December he was down to 50/39. Now, it's 46/45. The robust 68% approval rating can be chalked up to the honeymoon period, and the decline to 56% approval in the fall can be attributed to the honeymoon wearing off. But the continued dive to the lowest approval rating and the highest disapproval rating yet after more than a full year in office suggests that this president is losing the confidence of Americans.
Remember the enthusiasm back in 2008 after Barack Obama's election and inauguration? Barely? Well, just 3% (!) now say they are enthusiastic about the way things are unraveling in DC, while a whopping 70% are "dissatisfied" or "angry." To quote Sarah Palin: "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya?"
The news is even worse for President Obama when you dig a little deeper into the approval ratings on his handling of specific issues. While he's doing fairly well on terrorism (55/34) and foreign policy (47/34), surprisingly well, in my opinion, considering that civilian trials for terrorists and closing Gitmo don't seem to play well with a majority of Americans, Obama's numbers on the issues that matter most to Americans right now should alarm his advisers. On the economy, voters disapprove 42/52. On health care, the issue on which he has spent so much time and political capital, he's at 35/55. And on the deficit, he's at 31/58.
On the far more vague issue of "change" (gag), the centerpiece of candidate Obama's presidential campaign, Americans give the president underwhelming marks. Just 9% see lots of change, 30% see "some" (and that could mean anything- remember, even John McCain, despite Barack Obama's campaign strategy of painting him as "4 more years of Bush," would have ushered in "some" "change"), while 30% see "not much" (is there any meaningful way to differentiate "not much" from "some"?). 20% see none at all.
In a nation with double-digit unemployment, you'd figure the president would go to great lengths to convince the people that he was serious about job growth. But only 39% think Obama has a plan to create jobs, while 56% doubt it.
Wait, what's that you say? He already had his plan passed? Oh yeahhhh...the stimulus plan. Remember that $787 billion bill that was supposed to create jobs and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%? Well, just 6% of those polled believe it has created jobs. Stop rubbing your eyes. You read that correctly. 6% believe the stimulus package created jobs. This, despite all of those statements on Sunday talk shows by Obama advisers and Obama himself that the "Recovery Act" saved 2 million jobs.
That, my friends, is a credibility gap.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Evan Bayh the Quitter
Several days ago, I was shocked to learn that Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana has chosen to retire from the Senate rather than seek reelection to a third term.
Once upon a time, Bayh was a popular moderate governor of a red state, a rising star in the Democratic party, with a family name that, while never reaching the level of Kennedy or Bush, is a household one in the Midwest (his father, Birch Bayh, was a three-term senator). Bayh was good-looking, smart, had a telegenic family, quite a bit of money, and superb fund-raising connections. He was touted as a possible VP selection in the last three presidential elections.
Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries signaled a leftward shift within the Democratic Party. Obama, despite his post-partisan, "I'm a unifier" campaign rhetoric, was quite clearly a leftist ideologue throughout his entire life, an inconvenient truth that many in the mainstream media went to great lengths to cover up or obscure. The media was pretty successful at doing that, and they were no doubt aided by John McCain's lackluster campaign.
Barack Obama's decision to effectively cede much of his legislative agenda to his fellow leftist, the uncharismatic (boy, am I being charitable or what?) Nancy Pelosi, allowed the Democrat-controlled House to pass big-government bill after big-government bill. Voters got angry, and Obama tried to remain above the fray as much as possible. Obama succeeded in distancing himself enough from the legislative process to piss off the left for not being enough of a leader/failing to bring Hopenchange to DC, but not distancing himself far enough to prevent his approval ratings from cratering worse than any president in the modern era during his first year in office (most significantly among independents, the very voters who put him over the top in 2008). Quite the feat indeed, Barry!
Getting back to the point, though: Evan Bayh, as a centrist Democrat from a mostly-red state (Indiana did go for Obama, barely, in '08), was forced to take tough votes in the Senate on the uber-liberal House legislation. Evan Bayh had a choice: he could throw his lot in with the people of Indiana, who clearly weren't enthused about the big-government agenda being pushed in DC, or he could throw his lot in with Barack Obama. Bayh chose Obama. His support for the Senate health care reform bill cost him with voters in his home state, as polls showed potential Republican candidates running a close race against Bayh. Many therefore speculated that the political climate, which is extremely unfavorable for Democrats, led Bayh to resign. Why risk losing an election, an event that might tarnish your image (Bayh has never lost an election- he was governor for two terms and then senator for two) and damage your political future.
This might be true. Maybe Bayh seriously thought he was in danger of losing in November, which given his name, his history, and his enormous war-chest (he apparently has more than $10 million on hand), is a testament to how bleak the future looks for Democrats.
Now, politicians are often truth-challenged and less than candid, but it's only fair that we give Mr. Bayh the opportunity to explain his decision to quit in his own words. He did that yesterday in the New York Times. In an article entitled "Why I'm Leaving the Senate," Bayh proceeds to discuss the reasons why he believes Congress must be "reformed" and how we ought to go about doing it. Bayh's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the article begs the question: if things have gotten so bad in Congress, and the Senate in particular, would Bayh be in a better position to work for positive reforms from within the walls of the Senate or outside them? Logic would say the best way to overcome the "institutional inertia" that Bayh rails against in the Times piece is from within, not from without.
And anyway, all of this "government is broken" stuff coming from Democrats and their pals in the liberal media is getting way, way, waaaaay old. Think about it: Barack Obama is on record as having argued last autumn that his legislative and executive accomplishments in the first few months of his presidency were the most productive and plentiful in a generation. Does that boast suggest that our institutions are breaking down? Noooope.
George Will, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, said it best (as usual) today on ABC News: "With metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments all have one thing in common: the Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one, when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security, said, oh, that's terrible, the government's broken."
Will's exactly right, and Obama's braggadocio about his administration's numerous legislative accomplishments in 2009 proves the point. The "government is broken" trope is code for "damn, why can't we jam through this government takeover of the American health care system" OR "shit, you mean we can't reorder the American economy by levying enormous taxes on carbon emissions?". The fact that two enormously unpopular, big-government bills couldn't be rammed down the throats of Americans who are clearly saying NO (even with the Democratic Party's huge majority in the House AND filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate!!!) isn't indicative of a government that's broken. It's indicative of a party that has totally lost touch with the American electorate it claims to serve.
So, to finish up this admittedly all-over-the-place post, I'm not sure why Evan Bayh quit the Senate. Maybe he really is fed up with the Senate and eager to get into the private sector. Maybe he felt he actually might lose in November and couldn't bear the thought of it. Or, to delve deeper into the realm of speculation, perhaps Bayh is setting up some sort of third party challenge down the road. It could also be that Bayh is banking on Obama losing in 2012 and thinking about casting himself as the pragmatic, centrist Democrat in the 2016 presidential race. Who knows?
Once upon a time, Bayh was a popular moderate governor of a red state, a rising star in the Democratic party, with a family name that, while never reaching the level of Kennedy or Bush, is a household one in the Midwest (his father, Birch Bayh, was a three-term senator). Bayh was good-looking, smart, had a telegenic family, quite a bit of money, and superb fund-raising connections. He was touted as a possible VP selection in the last three presidential elections.
Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries signaled a leftward shift within the Democratic Party. Obama, despite his post-partisan, "I'm a unifier" campaign rhetoric, was quite clearly a leftist ideologue throughout his entire life, an inconvenient truth that many in the mainstream media went to great lengths to cover up or obscure. The media was pretty successful at doing that, and they were no doubt aided by John McCain's lackluster campaign.
Barack Obama's decision to effectively cede much of his legislative agenda to his fellow leftist, the uncharismatic (boy, am I being charitable or what?) Nancy Pelosi, allowed the Democrat-controlled House to pass big-government bill after big-government bill. Voters got angry, and Obama tried to remain above the fray as much as possible. Obama succeeded in distancing himself enough from the legislative process to piss off the left for not being enough of a leader/failing to bring Hopenchange to DC, but not distancing himself far enough to prevent his approval ratings from cratering worse than any president in the modern era during his first year in office (most significantly among independents, the very voters who put him over the top in 2008). Quite the feat indeed, Barry!
Getting back to the point, though: Evan Bayh, as a centrist Democrat from a mostly-red state (Indiana did go for Obama, barely, in '08), was forced to take tough votes in the Senate on the uber-liberal House legislation. Evan Bayh had a choice: he could throw his lot in with the people of Indiana, who clearly weren't enthused about the big-government agenda being pushed in DC, or he could throw his lot in with Barack Obama. Bayh chose Obama. His support for the Senate health care reform bill cost him with voters in his home state, as polls showed potential Republican candidates running a close race against Bayh. Many therefore speculated that the political climate, which is extremely unfavorable for Democrats, led Bayh to resign. Why risk losing an election, an event that might tarnish your image (Bayh has never lost an election- he was governor for two terms and then senator for two) and damage your political future.
This might be true. Maybe Bayh seriously thought he was in danger of losing in November, which given his name, his history, and his enormous war-chest (he apparently has more than $10 million on hand), is a testament to how bleak the future looks for Democrats.
Now, politicians are often truth-challenged and less than candid, but it's only fair that we give Mr. Bayh the opportunity to explain his decision to quit in his own words. He did that yesterday in the New York Times. In an article entitled "Why I'm Leaving the Senate," Bayh proceeds to discuss the reasons why he believes Congress must be "reformed" and how we ought to go about doing it. Bayh's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the article begs the question: if things have gotten so bad in Congress, and the Senate in particular, would Bayh be in a better position to work for positive reforms from within the walls of the Senate or outside them? Logic would say the best way to overcome the "institutional inertia" that Bayh rails against in the Times piece is from within, not from without.
And anyway, all of this "government is broken" stuff coming from Democrats and their pals in the liberal media is getting way, way, waaaaay old. Think about it: Barack Obama is on record as having argued last autumn that his legislative and executive accomplishments in the first few months of his presidency were the most productive and plentiful in a generation. Does that boast suggest that our institutions are breaking down? Noooope.
George Will, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, said it best (as usual) today on ABC News: "With metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments all have one thing in common: the Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one, when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security, said, oh, that's terrible, the government's broken."
Will's exactly right, and Obama's braggadocio about his administration's numerous legislative accomplishments in 2009 proves the point. The "government is broken" trope is code for "damn, why can't we jam through this government takeover of the American health care system" OR "shit, you mean we can't reorder the American economy by levying enormous taxes on carbon emissions?". The fact that two enormously unpopular, big-government bills couldn't be rammed down the throats of Americans who are clearly saying NO (even with the Democratic Party's huge majority in the House AND filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate!!!) isn't indicative of a government that's broken. It's indicative of a party that has totally lost touch with the American electorate it claims to serve.
So, to finish up this admittedly all-over-the-place post, I'm not sure why Evan Bayh quit the Senate. Maybe he really is fed up with the Senate and eager to get into the private sector. Maybe he felt he actually might lose in November and couldn't bear the thought of it. Or, to delve deeper into the realm of speculation, perhaps Bayh is setting up some sort of third party challenge down the road. It could also be that Bayh is banking on Obama losing in 2012 and thinking about casting himself as the pragmatic, centrist Democrat in the 2016 presidential race. Who knows?
Thoughts on CPAC 2010...
Over the past few days, the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was held in Washington D.C. I followed the events/speeches at CPAC via my favorite blog, Hot Air. Ed Morrissey, one of Hot Air's two main bloggers, won Blogger of the Year, an award that he very much deserved. Ed had lots of good interviews with various political figures and activists on the Right, and the Hot Air coverage of the event was terrific. I highly recommend checking it out.
From what I've seen, the gathering was a success. Politicians, alternative media figures (bloggers, radio/TV people), and activists showed up en masse to offer up a healthy amount of criticism aimed at the Left and to speak about the challenges that conservatives face moving forward.
Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from CPAC was the difficulty that the Right faces in projecting a unified front. People like to say the Republican Party is a big tent that (ideally) incorporates social/religious conservatives, small-government libertarians, and national security hawks...but CPAC made it clear that "conservatism" is potentially even a bigger tent than that.
There were social conservatives dedicated to opposing abortion and gay marriage. There were economic conservatives whose main focus is lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of government. There were national security conservatives who argue for a strong national defense and an aggressive/interventionist foreign policy. There were pragmatic conservatives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty, who have spent time doing the dirty work of governing and working for bipartisan solutions. There were enthusiastic Ron Paul Revolution supporters, who turned out in large numbers to cheer on their guy when he spoke and propel him to victory in the straw poll. These Paulites tend to be small-government, isolationist libertarians who stand directly opposed to national security hawks like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich (both of whom ALSO spoke).
So there was considerable diversity at CPAC, and that diversity was simultaneously encouraging and troubling. Encouraging, because it speaks to the fact that the Right has a philosophy of governance that has broad appeal to the American electorate and can elicit support among people of all ages, people with divergent foreign policy views, and social conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Troubling, because the diversity of opinion on the Right means it will be difficult to bring everyone into the Republican fold without alienating key constituencies.
With all the foreign policy differences and the disagreements over social issues, there is one single theme that unites those on the Right: opposition to Barack Obama. Left-wing commentators have repeatedly (and perhaps somewhat disingenuously) painted this opposition as a personal antipathy toward the president driven by racism. That's both untrue and despicable. This isn't about skin color. Barack Obama is the latest ideologue to join what was formerly a triumvirate in American politics: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. All three of these men worked for and achieved drastic expansions in the size and scope of government. But their progressive, big-government agenda has fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans, as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress found out during the health care debate (and to a lesser extent, the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and the cap and trade legislation).
It is opposition to this president's AGENDA, not his skin color, that has unified the Right in favor of smaller government. We saw this at CPAC.
I'll close with this: there was one moment at CPAC that was for me both a low-light AND a highlight. Ryan Sorba, the leader of a group called the California Young Americans for Freedom, was introduced to talk about his involvement in an investigation of ACORN (a worthy endeavor indeed), but instead Sorba changed the topic and launched into a minute-long, moronic tirade against gay people. He offered up a condemnation of CPAC for inviting a conservative, gay rights group called GOProud to attend the conference. Sorba, who seemed much more like a dumb jock high-school baseball star than a thoughtful college graduate, responded to the jeering audience by stating that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."
The Sorba spectacle was a sad one. It's the 21st century. Those who oppose gay marriage are unquestionably fighting a losing battle. Times have changed, as the military brass's decision to end Don't Ask Don't Tell shows. Still, we should have a civil debate in this country about legalizing gay marriage, because altering the traditional definition of marriage is a big deal. It needs to be done carefully and respectfully. But what Sorba did was inexcusable. He didn't get up and articulate why he feels gay marriage ought to be opposed. He instead engaged in the same sort of ugly name-calling and shouting that the Left so often does (and I so often criticize).
There's no place for people like Sorba at CPAC or ANY gathering of intelligent Americans who are interested in solving the real problems our nation faces. As far as I'm concerned, those problems are skyrocketing deficits, an enormous national debt, unions that are too powerful, onerous regulatory/tax burdens that are preventing real economic growth, the continued shrinking of our individual liberties, and the very real threat that radical Islamic terrorists pose to our way of life. It's time to stop worrying about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they're not hurting anyone else.
So while Sorba's rant first seemed like a low-light, it was also a highlight, because the crowd at CPAC made it clear that they didn't support his views. At a time when our president and our Congress are threatening to take this country in a direction that so many of us reject, we need to stand together. And if a gay individual wants to stand with us against the disastrous Obama-Pelosi-Reid big-government agenda, it seems the height of folly to tell them, no, we don't want you on our side.
From what I've seen, the gathering was a success. Politicians, alternative media figures (bloggers, radio/TV people), and activists showed up en masse to offer up a healthy amount of criticism aimed at the Left and to speak about the challenges that conservatives face moving forward.
Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from CPAC was the difficulty that the Right faces in projecting a unified front. People like to say the Republican Party is a big tent that (ideally) incorporates social/religious conservatives, small-government libertarians, and national security hawks...but CPAC made it clear that "conservatism" is potentially even a bigger tent than that.
There were social conservatives dedicated to opposing abortion and gay marriage. There were economic conservatives whose main focus is lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of government. There were national security conservatives who argue for a strong national defense and an aggressive/interventionist foreign policy. There were pragmatic conservatives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty, who have spent time doing the dirty work of governing and working for bipartisan solutions. There were enthusiastic Ron Paul Revolution supporters, who turned out in large numbers to cheer on their guy when he spoke and propel him to victory in the straw poll. These Paulites tend to be small-government, isolationist libertarians who stand directly opposed to national security hawks like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich (both of whom ALSO spoke).
So there was considerable diversity at CPAC, and that diversity was simultaneously encouraging and troubling. Encouraging, because it speaks to the fact that the Right has a philosophy of governance that has broad appeal to the American electorate and can elicit support among people of all ages, people with divergent foreign policy views, and social conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Troubling, because the diversity of opinion on the Right means it will be difficult to bring everyone into the Republican fold without alienating key constituencies.
With all the foreign policy differences and the disagreements over social issues, there is one single theme that unites those on the Right: opposition to Barack Obama. Left-wing commentators have repeatedly (and perhaps somewhat disingenuously) painted this opposition as a personal antipathy toward the president driven by racism. That's both untrue and despicable. This isn't about skin color. Barack Obama is the latest ideologue to join what was formerly a triumvirate in American politics: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. All three of these men worked for and achieved drastic expansions in the size and scope of government. But their progressive, big-government agenda has fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans, as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress found out during the health care debate (and to a lesser extent, the bailouts, the stimulus plan, and the cap and trade legislation).
It is opposition to this president's AGENDA, not his skin color, that has unified the Right in favor of smaller government. We saw this at CPAC.
I'll close with this: there was one moment at CPAC that was for me both a low-light AND a highlight. Ryan Sorba, the leader of a group called the California Young Americans for Freedom, was introduced to talk about his involvement in an investigation of ACORN (a worthy endeavor indeed), but instead Sorba changed the topic and launched into a minute-long, moronic tirade against gay people. He offered up a condemnation of CPAC for inviting a conservative, gay rights group called GOProud to attend the conference. Sorba, who seemed much more like a dumb jock high-school baseball star than a thoughtful college graduate, responded to the jeering audience by stating that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."
The Sorba spectacle was a sad one. It's the 21st century. Those who oppose gay marriage are unquestionably fighting a losing battle. Times have changed, as the military brass's decision to end Don't Ask Don't Tell shows. Still, we should have a civil debate in this country about legalizing gay marriage, because altering the traditional definition of marriage is a big deal. It needs to be done carefully and respectfully. But what Sorba did was inexcusable. He didn't get up and articulate why he feels gay marriage ought to be opposed. He instead engaged in the same sort of ugly name-calling and shouting that the Left so often does (and I so often criticize).
There's no place for people like Sorba at CPAC or ANY gathering of intelligent Americans who are interested in solving the real problems our nation faces. As far as I'm concerned, those problems are skyrocketing deficits, an enormous national debt, unions that are too powerful, onerous regulatory/tax burdens that are preventing real economic growth, the continued shrinking of our individual liberties, and the very real threat that radical Islamic terrorists pose to our way of life. It's time to stop worrying about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they're not hurting anyone else.
So while Sorba's rant first seemed like a low-light, it was also a highlight, because the crowd at CPAC made it clear that they didn't support his views. At a time when our president and our Congress are threatening to take this country in a direction that so many of us reject, we need to stand together. And if a gay individual wants to stand with us against the disastrous Obama-Pelosi-Reid big-government agenda, it seems the height of folly to tell them, no, we don't want you on our side.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger
Wow, I haven't posted on here for over a week, which is disappointing.
I'm fresh off a two-day trip to Manhattan to see Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck with family and friends. Great times.
Yesterday, as probably everyone already knows, Tiger Woods made his highly anticipated first public statement about his numerous affairs. It seems like everyone I talk to, golf fan or not, has an opinion on Tiger and "the speech," so I figure it's my duty to join the fray.
First off, I think it was an important step for Tiger to come out of hibernation and get in front of the cameras. Tiger's right that this is first and foremost a matter between husband and wife, but as one of the most dominant, widely-celebrated professional athletes of our time, he's become an icon and a role model for lots of young kids. Whether or not Tiger wanted to become a role model is irrelevant; it simply comes with the territory. And he failed miserably at it.
Yesterday, he admitted that. But here's the thing: anyone can get in front of a camera and read a prepared statement. Tiger Woods stood in front of a tiny, sympathetic audience, read straight off of a piece of paper for 13 minutes, hugged his mother, and walked out of the room. He fielded no questions. He elaborated no further than he saw fit. That's fine, that's Tiger's prerogative, but it was no major achievement.
I went back and watched the speech again today, and I came away from this second viewing with my mind changed a bit: yesterday I thought the address was bad. I now think it was downright terrible. He was wooden, robotic...to the point where you had to wonder whether he had chopped up some onions before walking to the podium in order to generate the mistiness in his eyes.
As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and this is a case in point. Tiger said a lot of things yesterday, but what matters are his actions from this point forward. Will he really recommit himself to his wife and his two little children, who he has hurt so badly with his selfish, disgusting actions? Is he really genuinely contrite? And as a golf fan, I also have to wonder whether he will truly seek to change his on-course behavior, which has all too often been petulant, ungracious, and disrespectful of the game, which as golfers are wont to say, is a "gentleman's" one.
In the interests of full disclosure, for those who don't know, I've never been a Tiger Woods fan. One of the reasons I root for ABT (Anybody But Tiger) is because I usually prefer the underdog in any sport, unless it's MY team (and hey, let's face it, when you're a Mets, Jets, and former Whalers fan, your team usually is the underdog anyway). But the main reason I never rooted for or liked Tiger is because of his demeanor on the course, a point that class-act Tom Watson made a few weeks back when he urged Tiger to not only make amends in his personal life but to manifest more openly and regularly a respect for the game in his professional endeavors. Kudos to Tom Watson for that statement.
Tiger fans usually engage in a kneejerk defense of Woods's club-throwing and cursing, brushing it aside because "he's just such a competitor" or "he settles for nothing less than perfection," but that's just a cop-out. There have been many golfing greats down through the years who played the game it was supposed to be played. They were role models. I'm talking about Arnold Palmer. Jack Nicklaus. Tom Watson. Gary Player. The list goes on, and while Tiger Woods has certainly earned a spot next to these men on the greatest golfers of all-time list, he is most certainly not worthy of a place anywhere near these guys on the role models/class-act list. And that's a shame.
So maybe yesterday was the beginning of Tiger growing up and embracing his status within the golfing world and, more broadly, the sports world. Time will tell. He said a lot of the right things, which he's done for much of his career, but his actions thus far have fallen far, far short of the mark both on the course and off of it. Does he really mean it this time? Can Tiger Woods change for the better?
I'm fresh off a two-day trip to Manhattan to see Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck with family and friends. Great times.
Yesterday, as probably everyone already knows, Tiger Woods made his highly anticipated first public statement about his numerous affairs. It seems like everyone I talk to, golf fan or not, has an opinion on Tiger and "the speech," so I figure it's my duty to join the fray.
First off, I think it was an important step for Tiger to come out of hibernation and get in front of the cameras. Tiger's right that this is first and foremost a matter between husband and wife, but as one of the most dominant, widely-celebrated professional athletes of our time, he's become an icon and a role model for lots of young kids. Whether or not Tiger wanted to become a role model is irrelevant; it simply comes with the territory. And he failed miserably at it.
Yesterday, he admitted that. But here's the thing: anyone can get in front of a camera and read a prepared statement. Tiger Woods stood in front of a tiny, sympathetic audience, read straight off of a piece of paper for 13 minutes, hugged his mother, and walked out of the room. He fielded no questions. He elaborated no further than he saw fit. That's fine, that's Tiger's prerogative, but it was no major achievement.
I went back and watched the speech again today, and I came away from this second viewing with my mind changed a bit: yesterday I thought the address was bad. I now think it was downright terrible. He was wooden, robotic...to the point where you had to wonder whether he had chopped up some onions before walking to the podium in order to generate the mistiness in his eyes.
As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and this is a case in point. Tiger said a lot of things yesterday, but what matters are his actions from this point forward. Will he really recommit himself to his wife and his two little children, who he has hurt so badly with his selfish, disgusting actions? Is he really genuinely contrite? And as a golf fan, I also have to wonder whether he will truly seek to change his on-course behavior, which has all too often been petulant, ungracious, and disrespectful of the game, which as golfers are wont to say, is a "gentleman's" one.
In the interests of full disclosure, for those who don't know, I've never been a Tiger Woods fan. One of the reasons I root for ABT (Anybody But Tiger) is because I usually prefer the underdog in any sport, unless it's MY team (and hey, let's face it, when you're a Mets, Jets, and former Whalers fan, your team usually is the underdog anyway). But the main reason I never rooted for or liked Tiger is because of his demeanor on the course, a point that class-act Tom Watson made a few weeks back when he urged Tiger to not only make amends in his personal life but to manifest more openly and regularly a respect for the game in his professional endeavors. Kudos to Tom Watson for that statement.
Tiger fans usually engage in a kneejerk defense of Woods's club-throwing and cursing, brushing it aside because "he's just such a competitor" or "he settles for nothing less than perfection," but that's just a cop-out. There have been many golfing greats down through the years who played the game it was supposed to be played. They were role models. I'm talking about Arnold Palmer. Jack Nicklaus. Tom Watson. Gary Player. The list goes on, and while Tiger Woods has certainly earned a spot next to these men on the greatest golfers of all-time list, he is most certainly not worthy of a place anywhere near these guys on the role models/class-act list. And that's a shame.
So maybe yesterday was the beginning of Tiger growing up and embracing his status within the golfing world and, more broadly, the sports world. Time will tell. He said a lot of the right things, which he's done for much of his career, but his actions thus far have fallen far, far short of the mark both on the course and off of it. Does he really mean it this time? Can Tiger Woods change for the better?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Say It Ain't So, Joe
Last night, on Larry King Live, a well-known American politician uttered the following statement:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."
So who said it? Surely it had to be a member of the former administration, which was solely responsible for implementing the surge strategy that has allowed us to leave Iraq honorably and, most importantly, victoriously. Perhaps it was George W. Bush, who has remained largely out of the spotlight over the past year?
But no. It was a vice president who said it.
Oh, so it must have been Dick Cheney! Yeah! He's been out and about, making waves, giving interviews, challenging the Obama administration every step of the way. Good old Richard Cheney, that devil, going on Larry King to stroke his ego, to reflect upon his legacy...
Wait, what's that you say? It wasn't Dick Cheney? Seriously???
Oh. Wait a second.
Oh no.
No. Not possible. You can't be serious...
Noooooooooooooooo...
The individual who made this remark was... current VP Joe Biden.
Now, please indulge me for a second here and let me borrow Sarah Palin's line from the vice presidential debate: "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
To make a claim like Biden made last night, you either have to a) believe Americans are politically ignorant fools or b) be approaching senility. Or both.
Look. I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers then-Senator Joe Biden's plan for Iraq. Biden, who was touted as a smart VP for Barack Obama since he supposedly had "foreign policy experience," proposed partitioning the nation of Iraq into three regions along ethnic/religious lines. It was a breathtakingly silly plan that was fraught with problems, and the Bush administration thankfully rejected it.
Even if I am one of the few who recalls Biden's strategy (if you can even call it a strategy), surely most Americans remember Barack Obama's position on the surge. Need a reminder? In 2007, he said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." He opposed the surge and voted against the funding for it- a stand that was principled but completely wrong.
And yet, instead of candidly admitting his error- something His Arrogance clearly does not do well, if he's indeed even capable of doing it at all- Obama steadfastly refused time and again to acknowledge the surge's success.
Even today, President Obama can't talk about Iraq without a petty poke in the eye of the previous administration (see his not-so-veiled shot at Bush in the Nobel acceptance speech). What's worse, Barack Obama can't even bring himself to say the word "win" or "victory" when discussing Iraq (or even Afghanistan, but that's a different story), preferring instead to talk coolly about "bringing the troops home" (see his recent State of the Union address).
Remember: Joe Biden and Barack Obama belong to the party whose Senate Majority Leader memorably announced in the spring of 2007 that "this war is lost." Biden and Obama were both senators at the time, and they both fit squarely into the Harry Reid Defeatist Camp.
We all know Barack Obama likes to talk about "audacity": the audacity of hope, the audacity to dream of a post-partisan America...but last night, Joe Biden took audacity to a whole new level. And it wasn't pretty.
Say it ain't so, Joe.
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."
So who said it? Surely it had to be a member of the former administration, which was solely responsible for implementing the surge strategy that has allowed us to leave Iraq honorably and, most importantly, victoriously. Perhaps it was George W. Bush, who has remained largely out of the spotlight over the past year?
But no. It was a vice president who said it.
Oh, so it must have been Dick Cheney! Yeah! He's been out and about, making waves, giving interviews, challenging the Obama administration every step of the way. Good old Richard Cheney, that devil, going on Larry King to stroke his ego, to reflect upon his legacy...
Wait, what's that you say? It wasn't Dick Cheney? Seriously???
Oh. Wait a second.
Oh no.
No. Not possible. You can't be serious...
Noooooooooooooooo...
The individual who made this remark was... current VP Joe Biden.
Now, please indulge me for a second here and let me borrow Sarah Palin's line from the vice presidential debate: "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
To make a claim like Biden made last night, you either have to a) believe Americans are politically ignorant fools or b) be approaching senility. Or both.
Look. I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers then-Senator Joe Biden's plan for Iraq. Biden, who was touted as a smart VP for Barack Obama since he supposedly had "foreign policy experience," proposed partitioning the nation of Iraq into three regions along ethnic/religious lines. It was a breathtakingly silly plan that was fraught with problems, and the Bush administration thankfully rejected it.
Even if I am one of the few who recalls Biden's strategy (if you can even call it a strategy), surely most Americans remember Barack Obama's position on the surge. Need a reminder? In 2007, he said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." He opposed the surge and voted against the funding for it- a stand that was principled but completely wrong.
And yet, instead of candidly admitting his error- something His Arrogance clearly does not do well, if he's indeed even capable of doing it at all- Obama steadfastly refused time and again to acknowledge the surge's success.
Even today, President Obama can't talk about Iraq without a petty poke in the eye of the previous administration (see his not-so-veiled shot at Bush in the Nobel acceptance speech). What's worse, Barack Obama can't even bring himself to say the word "win" or "victory" when discussing Iraq (or even Afghanistan, but that's a different story), preferring instead to talk coolly about "bringing the troops home" (see his recent State of the Union address).
Remember: Joe Biden and Barack Obama belong to the party whose Senate Majority Leader memorably announced in the spring of 2007 that "this war is lost." Biden and Obama were both senators at the time, and they both fit squarely into the Harry Reid Defeatist Camp.
We all know Barack Obama likes to talk about "audacity": the audacity of hope, the audacity to dream of a post-partisan America...but last night, Joe Biden took audacity to a whole new level. And it wasn't pretty.
Say it ain't so, Joe.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Winter Storm Barbara
As we brace for a good old-fashioned Nor'easter in the midst of one of the coldest winters we've had in awhile (and after one of the coldest years we've had in awhile), I can only wonder one thing: what ever happened to Al Gore's "inconvenient truth"? You know, the artist formerly known as Global Warming, but now known as climate change, so that way no matter how things change, whether it gets hotter or colder, its believers can claim vindication.
The outlandish predictions, the doomsday scenarios, the shameless scare tactics...all these elements of the radical environmentalist movement (or, to be more accurate, the Church of Environmentalism, because at bottom it's a religion) are being exposed for what they are: overblown, irresponsible, and often blatantly unscientific maneuvers that would usher in a global project of wealth redistribution and massive government regulation that intrudes into every nook and cranny of our day-to-day lives.
Up until last year, it almost looked like these folks were winning. But then "Climate Gate" hit, and all of us got a sneak peek into the "scientific" process that brought us Global Warming. We found out for certain what many of us suspected all along: that it really hasn't been much of a "scientific" endeavor at all. In those emails, we witnessed scientists willing to go to extreme, completely unprofessional and unscientific lengths to manufacture a "consensus." They massaged the data to "hide the decline." They short-circuited the peer review process, freezing out anyone who wished to publish articles that challenged the phony "consensus." They unlawfully refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests- a shocking insight into just how far these folks are willing to go to make what they desperately wish to be true a fact. Aided by countless politicians and a mostly sympathetic media, they engaged in a campaign to marginalize anyone who challenged the existing "consensus," dismissing them as "deniers" (heretics?) who were mere tools of the big oil companies.
Think about it. Many of these scientists have staked their reputation, their credibility, their careers on their predictions of impending global doom. So why let temperature data from recent years that don't support your conclusions or preconceived notions discourage you? What's more important- facts, or that big fat research grant you're applying for to continue your "research"? Now, don't get me wrong: a lot of scientists are noble enough to stick to the facts. But, as the emails revealed, a number of them aren't...including some of the cause's most cherished leaders (priests?) in the scientific community.
The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently had many of its lies exposed too. Their hysterical claim about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing in a few decades turned out to be nothing more than improperly-quoted speculation based on a ten-year old phone interview. Their alarmist predictions about the Amazonian rain forests turned out to be based on claims made in two unpublished Masters' theses as well as articles in the World Wildlife Fund's magazine...which is advocacy journalism (if you can even call it that), not rigorous scientific research.
So, as we prepare here in New England for 6-12 inches of powder, remember this: the coldness and snowiness of this winter isn't proof that Global Warming is a fraud. It's proof that Climate Change is real and happening right before our very eyes!
The outlandish predictions, the doomsday scenarios, the shameless scare tactics...all these elements of the radical environmentalist movement (or, to be more accurate, the Church of Environmentalism, because at bottom it's a religion) are being exposed for what they are: overblown, irresponsible, and often blatantly unscientific maneuvers that would usher in a global project of wealth redistribution and massive government regulation that intrudes into every nook and cranny of our day-to-day lives.
Up until last year, it almost looked like these folks were winning. But then "Climate Gate" hit, and all of us got a sneak peek into the "scientific" process that brought us Global Warming. We found out for certain what many of us suspected all along: that it really hasn't been much of a "scientific" endeavor at all. In those emails, we witnessed scientists willing to go to extreme, completely unprofessional and unscientific lengths to manufacture a "consensus." They massaged the data to "hide the decline." They short-circuited the peer review process, freezing out anyone who wished to publish articles that challenged the phony "consensus." They unlawfully refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests- a shocking insight into just how far these folks are willing to go to make what they desperately wish to be true a fact. Aided by countless politicians and a mostly sympathetic media, they engaged in a campaign to marginalize anyone who challenged the existing "consensus," dismissing them as "deniers" (heretics?) who were mere tools of the big oil companies.
Think about it. Many of these scientists have staked their reputation, their credibility, their careers on their predictions of impending global doom. So why let temperature data from recent years that don't support your conclusions or preconceived notions discourage you? What's more important- facts, or that big fat research grant you're applying for to continue your "research"? Now, don't get me wrong: a lot of scientists are noble enough to stick to the facts. But, as the emails revealed, a number of them aren't...including some of the cause's most cherished leaders (priests?) in the scientific community.
The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently had many of its lies exposed too. Their hysterical claim about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing in a few decades turned out to be nothing more than improperly-quoted speculation based on a ten-year old phone interview. Their alarmist predictions about the Amazonian rain forests turned out to be based on claims made in two unpublished Masters' theses as well as articles in the World Wildlife Fund's magazine...which is advocacy journalism (if you can even call it that), not rigorous scientific research.
So, as we prepare here in New England for 6-12 inches of powder, remember this: the coldness and snowiness of this winter isn't proof that Global Warming is a fraud. It's proof that Climate Change is real and happening right before our very eyes!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Michael Being Michael?
Michael Steele, the current chairman of the Republican National Committee, has a penchant for staying stupid things. He's got Biden-syndrome.
I've never been a big fan of Mr. Steele, nor have I been much of a detractor either. But over the past few months, his antics have gotten tiring and increasingly difficult to dismiss with a chuckle as "Michael being Michael" (Remember Manny being Manny? Didn't that get old, Red Sox fans?).
Recently, Steele said in an interview that the Republican Party wouldn't win back the House in 2010. Um, Michael? That sort of candor simply can't come out of the mouth of the Republican National Committee chairman. You're supposed to be optimistic about the party's chances no matter how bleak they are. But what was doubly stupid about this statement was that it very well may not even be true! Many commentators are saying Republicans have a 50/50 shot at taking back the House, given the political climate and the amount of seats Democrats must defend in red states/districts.
But wait. That's not all. Michael followed up his prediction by wondering aloud whether the GOP was even ready to lead. Yes, you read that right. The RNC chairman hinted openly that his party might not be prepared to govern.
This was just ONE INTERVIEW. Here are some other recent gems from Chairman Michael (thanks to the Hot Air archive, which I used to refresh my memory):
- He told his critics within the Republican Party recently to "shut up...get with the program or out of the way."
- When asked to grade himself on his first year job performance, he answered: "a solid B." This happened AFTER Barack Obama uttered his now-infamous "good solid B+" grade for his own first year. Steele had a perfect opportunity to dodge this question about his own job performance and turn it into a zinger against Obama...but no. Instead, he offered a grade just like Barack did...a lower one, in fact, and he stuck the word "solid" in front of it just like the president did. I know 8 year olds who wouldn't have missed the opportunity Steele had. That was like tee-ball, and Steele swung, missed, and then hit himself in the face with the bat.
- In a CNN segment with Steele, a moron named D.L. Hughley commented on the 2008 Republican National Convention, saying that it looked like "Nazi Germany." Steele sat quietly, and instead of jumping in to challenge Hughley for his disgusting remark, seemed to actually nod his head almost sympathetically.
- Steele recently stated his belief that "God, I really believe, has placed me here for a reason," making it seem like he didn't actively campaign for the chairmanship. Except that he did. Vigorously.
- Steele has been under fire for writing and promoting a book during his tenure as chairman, which apparently included speaking engagements for which he took money. As party chairman, it's your JOB to give speeches. Any money being made should be pumped back into the party, not stored away in your bank account.
Ok. That's just a taste. You can see why I, like so many others, have become critical of Mr. Steele and skeptical that he's the right man for the job.
But alright, surely Mr. Steele will take the constructive criticism in stride and promise to try to do better, right? After all, some people are just more gaffe-prone than others. A few apologies, a vow to right the ship, and everything will be hunky-dory. Right?
Heeeeeeeeeere's Michael: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” (More at the link: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/michael-steele-suggests-criticism-of-his-tenure-motivated-by-racism/)
Oh boy.
The reason there are stories, Michael, is because you created them. You said idiotic things. You questioned the chances of victory of the party that YOU are supposed to promote. You questioned your party's ability to govern. You took money for giving speeches that promoted your book. You claimed that your chairmanship is the result of divine will. You let someone liken your party's 2008 convention to Nazi Germany. And, despite all of these missteps, you had the gall to tell your critics to shut up.
What did this stooge expect? That we'd all embrace him as the Republican Party's Joe Biden? The GOP's Manny Ramirez? He's the party chairman. He's supposed to raise money, win elections, and promote the party. Instead, he's spent a year grabbing headlines for himself...and not for good reasons, either. The Republican Party is making a comeback in spite of Steele, not because of him.
And now this. The race card. From a guy who, just months ago, said he doesn't play that game. C'mon, man. Part of Michael Steele's appeal, part of the reason he won the chairmanship in the first place, is that he's a black Republican, and the party needs to start reaching out to minority voters. Let's face it: Michael Steele is a lackluster speaker and a gaffe-prone politician. If anything, the fact that he's a prominent black Republican has HELPED him become RNC chairman. Skin color certainly isn't the reason he's being criticized now. Steele's remarks are ridiculous. He needs to take responsibility for his actions and words instead of playing the victim.
In this instance, Michael Steele should channel Barack Obama, who responded to David Letterman's question about whether racism was playing a part in the criticism of his presidency by quipping: "I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election." So were you, Michael.
I've never been a big fan of Mr. Steele, nor have I been much of a detractor either. But over the past few months, his antics have gotten tiring and increasingly difficult to dismiss with a chuckle as "Michael being Michael" (Remember Manny being Manny? Didn't that get old, Red Sox fans?).
Recently, Steele said in an interview that the Republican Party wouldn't win back the House in 2010. Um, Michael? That sort of candor simply can't come out of the mouth of the Republican National Committee chairman. You're supposed to be optimistic about the party's chances no matter how bleak they are. But what was doubly stupid about this statement was that it very well may not even be true! Many commentators are saying Republicans have a 50/50 shot at taking back the House, given the political climate and the amount of seats Democrats must defend in red states/districts.
But wait. That's not all. Michael followed up his prediction by wondering aloud whether the GOP was even ready to lead. Yes, you read that right. The RNC chairman hinted openly that his party might not be prepared to govern.
This was just ONE INTERVIEW. Here are some other recent gems from Chairman Michael (thanks to the Hot Air archive, which I used to refresh my memory):
- He told his critics within the Republican Party recently to "shut up...get with the program or out of the way."
- When asked to grade himself on his first year job performance, he answered: "a solid B." This happened AFTER Barack Obama uttered his now-infamous "good solid B+" grade for his own first year. Steele had a perfect opportunity to dodge this question about his own job performance and turn it into a zinger against Obama...but no. Instead, he offered a grade just like Barack did...a lower one, in fact, and he stuck the word "solid" in front of it just like the president did. I know 8 year olds who wouldn't have missed the opportunity Steele had. That was like tee-ball, and Steele swung, missed, and then hit himself in the face with the bat.
- In a CNN segment with Steele, a moron named D.L. Hughley commented on the 2008 Republican National Convention, saying that it looked like "Nazi Germany." Steele sat quietly, and instead of jumping in to challenge Hughley for his disgusting remark, seemed to actually nod his head almost sympathetically.
- Steele recently stated his belief that "God, I really believe, has placed me here for a reason," making it seem like he didn't actively campaign for the chairmanship. Except that he did. Vigorously.
- Steele has been under fire for writing and promoting a book during his tenure as chairman, which apparently included speaking engagements for which he took money. As party chairman, it's your JOB to give speeches. Any money being made should be pumped back into the party, not stored away in your bank account.
Ok. That's just a taste. You can see why I, like so many others, have become critical of Mr. Steele and skeptical that he's the right man for the job.
But alright, surely Mr. Steele will take the constructive criticism in stride and promise to try to do better, right? After all, some people are just more gaffe-prone than others. A few apologies, a vow to right the ship, and everything will be hunky-dory. Right?
Heeeeeeeeeere's Michael: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” (More at the link: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/michael-steele-suggests-criticism-of-his-tenure-motivated-by-racism/)
Oh boy.
The reason there are stories, Michael, is because you created them. You said idiotic things. You questioned the chances of victory of the party that YOU are supposed to promote. You questioned your party's ability to govern. You took money for giving speeches that promoted your book. You claimed that your chairmanship is the result of divine will. You let someone liken your party's 2008 convention to Nazi Germany. And, despite all of these missteps, you had the gall to tell your critics to shut up.
What did this stooge expect? That we'd all embrace him as the Republican Party's Joe Biden? The GOP's Manny Ramirez? He's the party chairman. He's supposed to raise money, win elections, and promote the party. Instead, he's spent a year grabbing headlines for himself...and not for good reasons, either. The Republican Party is making a comeback in spite of Steele, not because of him.
And now this. The race card. From a guy who, just months ago, said he doesn't play that game. C'mon, man. Part of Michael Steele's appeal, part of the reason he won the chairmanship in the first place, is that he's a black Republican, and the party needs to start reaching out to minority voters. Let's face it: Michael Steele is a lackluster speaker and a gaffe-prone politician. If anything, the fact that he's a prominent black Republican has HELPED him become RNC chairman. Skin color certainly isn't the reason he's being criticized now. Steele's remarks are ridiculous. He needs to take responsibility for his actions and words instead of playing the victim.
In this instance, Michael Steele should channel Barack Obama, who responded to David Letterman's question about whether racism was playing a part in the criticism of his presidency by quipping: "I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election." So were you, Michael.
Monday, February 8, 2010
"America Is Not Yet Lost"
That's the title of Paul Krugman's recent scare-mongering New York Times op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html).
May I suggest a subtitle to be placed beneath Krugman's ominous title? America is Not Yet Lost...But Only Because the 2010 and 2012 Elections Will Give Americans a Chance to Change Course."
Krugman spends the bulk of the article railing against the rules of the United States Senate that make it difficult to govern. He does make one good point: the practice of placing holds on uncontroversial and/or low-level presidential appointees in order to extract millions of dollars in pork for one's own district HAS to stop. That's absolutely absurd. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, is doing that as we speak. His constituents should be calling him and giving him a piece of their mind.
But Krugman, like so many columnists whose political sympathies lie with the Left, couldn't resist an attack on that evil filibuster rule...and that's where he stumbles into the twin realms of partisan drivel and willful blindness.
Quoth Krugman: "It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis."
Earth to Paul: it WAS the message in Massachusetts. You have to wonder what Krugman could possibly have been doing while the special election unfolded. Scott Brown signed numerous autographs by putting a big "41" after his name. That wasn't the number Brown wore in his basketball days, Mr. Krugman, that was a direct and unapologetic allusion to the fact that Brown would be the 41st Republican vote in the Senate with the power (and the mandate, directly from the voters of Massachusetts, I might add) to put a stop the Democratic Party's health insurance reform bill.
A vote for a Republican, in the case of Massachusetts, not to mention in Virginia and New Jersey back in November, is a repudiation of the Democratic Party's left-wing agenda, which is completely out-of-step with the American electorate. Remember: the Democrats won back the House and Senate by running centrist candidates in 2006. That was the strategy articulated by none other than current Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
The result has been disastrous for the Democrats: it caused Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their fellow lefties in the media to view Democratic victories in '06 and '08 as a mandate for the progressive/liberal agenda, when in fact it was NOTHING OF THE SORT. Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 because they didn't have an "R" next to their names or, more precisely, because they didn't belong to the party of Satan incarnate, George W. Bush. The misreading of the mandate has killed President Obama's approval ratings and set his party up for catastrophic losses in 2010 and, quite possibly, 2012.
It's not the Senate rules that doomed Barack Obama's first year and has put the Democrats on the ropes. Barack Obama came into office with sky-high approval/favorability ratings, enormous reserves of goodwill from the media and the average citizen, and huge congressional majorities. He completely squandered it, with lots of help from Pelosi and Reid. The Democrats had the votes necessary to pass their ill-advised, unpopular health care overhaul...and they didn't get it done. It's politically convenient for them to blame it on the Republicans. It's also totally false. They can't seem to bring themselves to admit what is now an obvious fact: Americans rejected their hard-left, hyper-partisan, utterly un-transparent approach.
Even though the GOP has come to the table with ideas for real reform, people like Paul Krugman (and Barack Obama) apparently think they'll benefit from continuing to paint the GOP as "the party of no" or the party of "paralysis." But, the problem is, they tried that in November in New Jersey and Virginia, and they tried it again in Massachusetts last month.
How'd that work out for ya, champ?
May I suggest a subtitle to be placed beneath Krugman's ominous title? America is Not Yet Lost...But Only Because the 2010 and 2012 Elections Will Give Americans a Chance to Change Course."
Krugman spends the bulk of the article railing against the rules of the United States Senate that make it difficult to govern. He does make one good point: the practice of placing holds on uncontroversial and/or low-level presidential appointees in order to extract millions of dollars in pork for one's own district HAS to stop. That's absolutely absurd. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, is doing that as we speak. His constituents should be calling him and giving him a piece of their mind.
But Krugman, like so many columnists whose political sympathies lie with the Left, couldn't resist an attack on that evil filibuster rule...and that's where he stumbles into the twin realms of partisan drivel and willful blindness.
Quoth Krugman: "It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis."
Earth to Paul: it WAS the message in Massachusetts. You have to wonder what Krugman could possibly have been doing while the special election unfolded. Scott Brown signed numerous autographs by putting a big "41" after his name. That wasn't the number Brown wore in his basketball days, Mr. Krugman, that was a direct and unapologetic allusion to the fact that Brown would be the 41st Republican vote in the Senate with the power (and the mandate, directly from the voters of Massachusetts, I might add) to put a stop the Democratic Party's health insurance reform bill.
A vote for a Republican, in the case of Massachusetts, not to mention in Virginia and New Jersey back in November, is a repudiation of the Democratic Party's left-wing agenda, which is completely out-of-step with the American electorate. Remember: the Democrats won back the House and Senate by running centrist candidates in 2006. That was the strategy articulated by none other than current Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
The result has been disastrous for the Democrats: it caused Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their fellow lefties in the media to view Democratic victories in '06 and '08 as a mandate for the progressive/liberal agenda, when in fact it was NOTHING OF THE SORT. Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 because they didn't have an "R" next to their names or, more precisely, because they didn't belong to the party of Satan incarnate, George W. Bush. The misreading of the mandate has killed President Obama's approval ratings and set his party up for catastrophic losses in 2010 and, quite possibly, 2012.
It's not the Senate rules that doomed Barack Obama's first year and has put the Democrats on the ropes. Barack Obama came into office with sky-high approval/favorability ratings, enormous reserves of goodwill from the media and the average citizen, and huge congressional majorities. He completely squandered it, with lots of help from Pelosi and Reid. The Democrats had the votes necessary to pass their ill-advised, unpopular health care overhaul...and they didn't get it done. It's politically convenient for them to blame it on the Republicans. It's also totally false. They can't seem to bring themselves to admit what is now an obvious fact: Americans rejected their hard-left, hyper-partisan, utterly un-transparent approach.
Even though the GOP has come to the table with ideas for real reform, people like Paul Krugman (and Barack Obama) apparently think they'll benefit from continuing to paint the GOP as "the party of no" or the party of "paralysis." But, the problem is, they tried that in November in New Jersey and Virginia, and they tried it again in Massachusetts last month.
How'd that work out for ya, champ?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Ask. Tell. Move On Already.
After 17 years of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of allowing men and women to serve in our armed forces as long as we don't find out that they're homosexuals, President Barack Obama has communicated his desire to see the policy overturned. He has made it clear that he favors legislation passed by Congress to end DADT rather than a unilateral executive order.
The counter-arguments that had been advanced back in the early 1990's when the Clinton administration settled for the DADT compromise are resurfacing now: that allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the US military will have a negative effect on unit cohesion and troop morale. I don't buy it. Other liberal democracies have made the change (e.g. Canada and Britain) without serious adverse effects.
And this time it's different than it was back in '93, because high-ranking military officials and well-respected bureaucrats are coming out in favor of ending DADT. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, supports the change. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is behind the effort, as is the highly-esteemed Colin Powell. These men, who have changed their position on the issue over the past decade and a half, say they're now convinced that ending DADT wouldn't threaten morale or destroy unit cohesion.
Let's face it: a number of people who oppose ending DADT don't genuinely believe that its repeal will harm "unit cohesion" or "morale." They're socially/religiously conservative, in some cases quite old-fashioned, and they're uncomfortable with homosexuality. Rather than brand these folks "bigots" and sneer at them as intolerant, ignorant rednecks like so many elitist liberals do, we should try to UNDERSTAND where they're coming from and PERSUADE them to change their minds.
Some Republican legislators are already saying that it's foolish to overturn DADT while we're fighting two wars. That's silly. Our military is the greatest in the world because it can adapt- just look at Iraq, where the surge turned the tide and allowed us to win the war. The success of the surge in Iraq wasn't primarily due to the extra manpower. It was due to strategic/tactical alterations, such as relaxed rules of engagement. Claiming that our military can't adapt to a minor change like repealing DADT is a slap in the face to all the brave, highly-skilled men and women who serve in our armed forces. They're professionals. They're great at what they do. They're adults. They can handle it.
And if you believe that we should mostly defer to military leaders on military issues, you're now in the "end DADT" camp anyway. If Republicans come out against repealing DADT, they risk looking awfully inconsistent, since many of them also urged Commander in Chief Obama to accept General McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. How can you call for complete deference to General McChrystal's position (and that was also a flawed position, by the way), but then turn around and make a complete break with Admiral Mullen's judgment that it's time to end DADT?
This was smart politics on the part of President Obama and his advisers. Pushing for the repeal of DADT does two things simultaneously: it throws a bone to his liberal base AND it puts Republicans in a difficult position. If Republicans in Congress vote to end DADT, they risk alienating the social conservatives that make up a significant portion of their base. But if they support upholding DADT, they'll likely turn off independents and moderate voters who tend to be socially liberal/moderate (especially on gay rights' issues) but fiscally conservative.
I think the best (and the only) path forward for Republicans is to support repealing DADT...and they can do this on solid grounds, by simply pointing out that the military brass have changed their minds since the early '90s. If the Republican Party is going to be successful going forward, it has to appeal to young people and social moderates/liberals. It has to be a big tent. The DADT issue before us now is a test that Republicans must pass if the party is going to win elections in the future. But more than that, it's an opportunity to do the right thing. We're so lucky to have men and women who are willing to risk their lives to defend freedom around the globe and protect American lives. Why would we want to stop men and women from doing this simply because they happen to be gay?
Bottom line: anyone who doesn't want gay men and women to serve in our armed forces should drop whatever they're doing and enlist in the armed forces. Or let's start a sign-up sheet. People who don't want gay people serving in the military can put their name on the list, and each time a gay soldier is expelled from the service, we'll pick a name off the list so that a civilian can go put his life on the line in defense of liberty, in defense of the USA.
The counter-arguments that had been advanced back in the early 1990's when the Clinton administration settled for the DADT compromise are resurfacing now: that allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the US military will have a negative effect on unit cohesion and troop morale. I don't buy it. Other liberal democracies have made the change (e.g. Canada and Britain) without serious adverse effects.
And this time it's different than it was back in '93, because high-ranking military officials and well-respected bureaucrats are coming out in favor of ending DADT. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, supports the change. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is behind the effort, as is the highly-esteemed Colin Powell. These men, who have changed their position on the issue over the past decade and a half, say they're now convinced that ending DADT wouldn't threaten morale or destroy unit cohesion.
Let's face it: a number of people who oppose ending DADT don't genuinely believe that its repeal will harm "unit cohesion" or "morale." They're socially/religiously conservative, in some cases quite old-fashioned, and they're uncomfortable with homosexuality. Rather than brand these folks "bigots" and sneer at them as intolerant, ignorant rednecks like so many elitist liberals do, we should try to UNDERSTAND where they're coming from and PERSUADE them to change their minds.
Some Republican legislators are already saying that it's foolish to overturn DADT while we're fighting two wars. That's silly. Our military is the greatest in the world because it can adapt- just look at Iraq, where the surge turned the tide and allowed us to win the war. The success of the surge in Iraq wasn't primarily due to the extra manpower. It was due to strategic/tactical alterations, such as relaxed rules of engagement. Claiming that our military can't adapt to a minor change like repealing DADT is a slap in the face to all the brave, highly-skilled men and women who serve in our armed forces. They're professionals. They're great at what they do. They're adults. They can handle it.
And if you believe that we should mostly defer to military leaders on military issues, you're now in the "end DADT" camp anyway. If Republicans come out against repealing DADT, they risk looking awfully inconsistent, since many of them also urged Commander in Chief Obama to accept General McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. How can you call for complete deference to General McChrystal's position (and that was also a flawed position, by the way), but then turn around and make a complete break with Admiral Mullen's judgment that it's time to end DADT?
This was smart politics on the part of President Obama and his advisers. Pushing for the repeal of DADT does two things simultaneously: it throws a bone to his liberal base AND it puts Republicans in a difficult position. If Republicans in Congress vote to end DADT, they risk alienating the social conservatives that make up a significant portion of their base. But if they support upholding DADT, they'll likely turn off independents and moderate voters who tend to be socially liberal/moderate (especially on gay rights' issues) but fiscally conservative.
I think the best (and the only) path forward for Republicans is to support repealing DADT...and they can do this on solid grounds, by simply pointing out that the military brass have changed their minds since the early '90s. If the Republican Party is going to be successful going forward, it has to appeal to young people and social moderates/liberals. It has to be a big tent. The DADT issue before us now is a test that Republicans must pass if the party is going to win elections in the future. But more than that, it's an opportunity to do the right thing. We're so lucky to have men and women who are willing to risk their lives to defend freedom around the globe and protect American lives. Why would we want to stop men and women from doing this simply because they happen to be gay?
Bottom line: anyone who doesn't want gay men and women to serve in our armed forces should drop whatever they're doing and enlist in the armed forces. Or let's start a sign-up sheet. People who don't want gay people serving in the military can put their name on the list, and each time a gay soldier is expelled from the service, we'll pick a name off the list so that a civilian can go put his life on the line in defense of liberty, in defense of the USA.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
It's Way Too Early For This...
...but it's also too fun and enticing to pass up this opportunity. A recent post over at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey notes that the Republican National Committee has narrowed down the field of possible host cities for the 2012 Republican National Convention to four sites: Houston, Phoenix, Tampa, and Salt Lake City.
I think Ed's right that Tampa makes the most sense, at least from a strategic, electoral standpoint, given Florida's extreme importance as a swing-state with a sizable chunk of electoral votes- just ask Al Gore. Upon hearing the news, though, I decided it was time for a blog post about potential Republican presidential nominees in 2012. What follows is a list of five of the most-discussed possible candidates, in no particular order, with some commentary about each. I will predict each person's likelihood of actually running for president in 2012, I will comment upon their strengths and weaknesses as both a primary candidate and a general election candidate (I'll assume, for the purposes of this post, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party's nominee), and I'll close with a few remarks about each person. Enjoy...
1) Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts.
- Likelihood of running: Very high
- STRENGTHS: Romney is a more formidable general election candidate than a primary one. As a former Republican governor of a deeply blue state, Romney proved he could be a pragmatic problem-solver with appeal to liberals and moderates, independents and Democrats. He looks presidential, he's a great speaker, and he has credibility as a guy with vast private sector experience and a solid grasp of economic issues.
- WEAKNESSES: The 300 pound gorilla on his back is "RomneyCare," the health care reform legislation for Massachusetts that he signed into law and supported as governor- legislation that looks eerily similar to the Democrats' Senate bill. He'll be forced to defend his position on RomneyCare time and again by conservative challengers as they battle for Republican primary voters, who of course tend to be more conservative, more partisan, and more politically-aware than general election voters. Romney will also face a bit of an uphill battle in both a primary and general election because of his Mormon faith. Finally, Mitt comes across as your consummate politician: smooth-talking, and perhaps willing to do a Kerry-esque flip-flop once in awhile (for example, he's changed his position on abortion over the years).
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: Romney is a solid candidate and would probably run a very disciplined, intelligent campaign against Obama. He'd more than hold his own against Barack in a debate. He'll have to be careful not to let the "flip-flopper" charge stick though...we saw how much that hurt John Kerry in '04. Mitt Romney's worst enemy may be himself- he needs to make sure he stays true to himself and comes across as a genuine, trustworthy individual. You can reverse your position on an issue here or there, but you can't run away and hide from your record. Explain it, defend the parts of your record worth defending, and humbly admit where you went wrong and how you intend to do things differently next time around.
2) Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska
- Likelihood of running: Beats me- Sarah's a maverick alright, as her shocking, abrupt decision to resign the governorship made clear. But if I have to venture a guess, I'd say it's possible but somewhat unlikely that she runs in 2012.
- STRENGTHS: Palin would be an extremely polarizing presidential candidate, as her presence on the McCain ticket showed in 2008. She has remained extremely relevant via Facebook, a book/book tour, an appearance on Oprah, and her new role on Fox News, and she has a base of supporters who absolutely adore her. That loyal fan-base would serve her well in a Republican primary, especially one that is populated by several different candidates who will divide up the vote. She benefits immensely from her "outsider" status, and she comes across as an extraordinarily genuine and down-to-earth "hockey mom." Lots of Americans feel a sort of kinship or bond with Palin because of the ordinariness that she cultivates so well. She's a proven reformer and her conservative credentials are virtually impeccable. She's also a woman, which may give her an advantage with female voters.
- WEAKNESSES: There are many. First and most obviously, she is an amazingly divisive figure. Many general election voters (and even primary voters, for that matter) have already made up their minds about her: they hate her or they love her. That's probably unlikely to change much over the course of a campaign. She's great at giving a prepared speech, just like our current president, but she has struggled mightily in interviews or at speaking off-the-cuff. Her inexperience is sure to be touted by Obama...and while Palin can credibly claim to have some solid executive experience, her decision to resign before her term was up isn't going to help. Neither is her unfamiliarity with foreign policy/international affairs. She's no policy wonk right now, but she could beef up and get better over time. I don't think she's stupid, but she'll have to fight hard to reverse the image she has in the mainstream media of not being intellectually up to the job.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: Please, please, Sarah, don't run for president in 2012. If the primary field is diverse and wide-open, as it is likely to be, she stands a real chance to snatch some early victories, gain momentum, and become the nominee. I could be wrong, but I just don't think she can win a general election right now. In the future, maybe, but Sarah Palin was rushed too far, too fast by the McCain camp in 2008, and she needs time. She should continue campaigning for Republicans, speaking out on her Facebook page, connecting with voters, and most of all, demonstrating that she has a firm grasp of the issues.
3) Tim Pawlenty, current governor of Minnesota
- Likelihood of running: Very high
- STRENGTHS: Pawlenty is a bit of a blank slate compared to Palin and Romney, which would probably serve him well in a general election- most moderate/independent voters would be likely to give him a fair hearing (as opposed to Palin, whom many have already made up their minds about). Pawlenty comes from a blue-collar background, and he has a real ability to connect with ordinary, working-class and middle-class Americans by virtue of his upbringing and his calm, amiable demeanor. He's smart, he knows policy, and he's got impressive executive experience as governor of a relatively liberal, blue state.
- WEAKNESSES: Pawlenty's lack of name recognition will be an obstacle in the primaries, as will his Romney-esque record of pursuing pragmatic solutions in Minnesota. T-Paw, as some are already calling him, also flirted with supporting climate change legislation but now opposes the cap and trade bill that the House passed. Thus, like Romney, Pawlenty faces a potential credibility gap with conservatives. In fact, come to think of it, Pawlenty and Romney have a lot in common as candidates- except Romney's extremely wealthy and T-Paw has a working-class background. Pawlenty's mild-mannered style might be a weakness in a debate format.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: I really like Pawlenty- he's a young, fresh face in the party with a solid record...in fact, he was apparently McCain's runner-up choice for VP in '08. He's seems to be fiscally conservative enough for me- he's currently pushing a federal balanced budget amendment to shore up his fiscal conservatism credentials. I'm not sure if Pawlenty's more non-confrontational style would play well or poorly with voters in a debate against the similarly mild-mannered Obama.
4) Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House
- Likelihood of running: 50/50?
- STRENGTHS: Newt is incredibly intelligent and has a brilliant policy mind, combined with a firm grasp of the issues and a wealth of experience. He'd make Barack Obama seem absolutely average (at best) in a debate, which is saying something. He's feisty and he's not afraid to call 'em like he sees 'em, a trait that can obviously be a double-edged sword. He's been especially critical of the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy/fighting terrorism, and he's, at least in my view, a rock-solid conservative, which should make him viable in a primary. Newt would be likely to get the party establishment's support...but of course, with both parties and DC in general so discredited, that may be more of a bane than a boon.
- WEAKNESSES: He hurt his brand immensely with influential segments of the Republican base when he backed Dede Scozzafava in the special New York 23 House election this past year, and his avowed willingness to work with the Democrats on issues like climate change also won't help him in a primary fight against a more conservative candidate. He even did a commercial side-by-side with Speaker Pelosi, which is sure to be re-aired time and again by primary opponents. Newt has a checkered personal past, including an affair and a divorce, that may weigh him down. And his feisty-ness can border on nastiness (see some of his verbal assaults on Clinton and the Democrats during his speakership), which may turn off the general electorate.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: At this juncture, Newt Gingrich is my favorite candidate in the potential field. I firmly believe we're going to need someone to run against Barack Obama that is bright, knows the issues inside-and-out, and can coherently present an alternative vision for America's future. This is, I think, what Newt Gingrich does better than anyone else I've seen. The thought of him at the podium debating President Obama sends a Chris Matthews-esque thrill up my leg. Newt's got skeletons in his closet, but don't they all? I respect Newt's conservative views, and I appreciate his realistic outlook- he understands that to get things done in our political system, you do have to work with folks on the other side of the aisle. He's also not afraid to let loose a barrage of criticism against those same people when he believes they're wrong.
5) Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas.
- Likelihood of running: Unlikely (I think)
- STRENGTHS: Mike Huckabee is very smart and has a great sense of humor. He's charismatic and extremely likable...in fact, it's almost impossible NOT to like the guy, even if you don't agree with him on any of the issues. Huckabee had a lot of admirers last time around, who loved his down-to-earth manner, his self-deprecating humor, and his strong convictions. He ran an extremely competitive primary campaign with very little resources. Huckabee's an unapologetic social conservative and a proud man of faith, which serves him well in a Republican primary race, where Evangelical voters make up a considerable chunk of likely voters.
- WEAKNESSES: Huckabee's reputation suffered a bit of a blow when it turned out that he pardoned Maurice Clemmons, the ex-convict who shot and killed four police officers in Washington back in November. That decision is sure to come under fire, especially from primary opponents. Huckabee's religiosity might be a turn-off in a general election...voters like presidential candidates to have some religious affiliation, but Huckabee's former occupation as a pastor may make moderate/independent voters uneasy.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: I don't think Huckabee's going to run this time, but I could be wrong. Like I said, it's really impossible not to like the guy...but for me, Mike Huckabee is someone I'd love to have as a next-door neighbor, as a mentor, as a governor...I'm just not sure about president of the United States and commander in chief of the armed forces. It's hard for me to envision world leaders taking Mike Huckabee very seriously, and it's also hard for me to imagine Huck talking tough with them. I think Huck is happy hosting his show on Fox and writing books. He's got a good thing going...why disrupt it for another exhausting, rather long-shot presidential run?
OK, so there's a little discussion to whet your appetite for the 2012 presidential campaign, which actually (scarily?) isn't all that far off. After all, once the midterm elections are over in November, you'll start hearing Republicans declaring their intentions.
If Obama's approval ratings remain as low as they are now, I think you're likely to see a very solid field of Republican candidates. If Obama gets his legs under him this year and makes a bit of a comeback, which I think is quite possible, then certain Republicans with bright futures might wait it out. It can be quite damaging to run a losing presidential campaign, and if potential candidates think Obama is unlikely to lose, they'll probably sit this one out. Time will tell. Either way, though, we'll have better options than BO!
I'll close by just mentioning a handful of other names that I've heard batted about as possible Republican challengers:
- John Thune, Senator from South Dakota - keep an eye on him, a real rising star.
- Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana - young, Indian, highly intelligent, but I think more likely to wait in the wings- maybe a VP in '12?
- Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia - too soon, since he just won the governorship in November '09 and would have to start gearing up for the campaign this year- but again, definite VP material in '12
- Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi - do we really want an older, rather boring, Southerner leading the Republican revival this time around?
- General David Petraeus - not going to happen, but wouldn't that be something?
- Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania - staunch conservative, maybe too staunch
- Rick Perry, Governor of Texas - he's got a primary fight on his hands this year...whether he wins or loses, I think there's a good chance he runs
- Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York - the fact that he decided not to run for governor or Senate seemed to me like an indication he might try this again...
There are, of course, others I could have added to this list. I'll be interested to hear what other people think about this post!
I think Ed's right that Tampa makes the most sense, at least from a strategic, electoral standpoint, given Florida's extreme importance as a swing-state with a sizable chunk of electoral votes- just ask Al Gore. Upon hearing the news, though, I decided it was time for a blog post about potential Republican presidential nominees in 2012. What follows is a list of five of the most-discussed possible candidates, in no particular order, with some commentary about each. I will predict each person's likelihood of actually running for president in 2012, I will comment upon their strengths and weaknesses as both a primary candidate and a general election candidate (I'll assume, for the purposes of this post, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party's nominee), and I'll close with a few remarks about each person. Enjoy...
1) Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts.
- Likelihood of running: Very high
- STRENGTHS: Romney is a more formidable general election candidate than a primary one. As a former Republican governor of a deeply blue state, Romney proved he could be a pragmatic problem-solver with appeal to liberals and moderates, independents and Democrats. He looks presidential, he's a great speaker, and he has credibility as a guy with vast private sector experience and a solid grasp of economic issues.
- WEAKNESSES: The 300 pound gorilla on his back is "RomneyCare," the health care reform legislation for Massachusetts that he signed into law and supported as governor- legislation that looks eerily similar to the Democrats' Senate bill. He'll be forced to defend his position on RomneyCare time and again by conservative challengers as they battle for Republican primary voters, who of course tend to be more conservative, more partisan, and more politically-aware than general election voters. Romney will also face a bit of an uphill battle in both a primary and general election because of his Mormon faith. Finally, Mitt comes across as your consummate politician: smooth-talking, and perhaps willing to do a Kerry-esque flip-flop once in awhile (for example, he's changed his position on abortion over the years).
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: Romney is a solid candidate and would probably run a very disciplined, intelligent campaign against Obama. He'd more than hold his own against Barack in a debate. He'll have to be careful not to let the "flip-flopper" charge stick though...we saw how much that hurt John Kerry in '04. Mitt Romney's worst enemy may be himself- he needs to make sure he stays true to himself and comes across as a genuine, trustworthy individual. You can reverse your position on an issue here or there, but you can't run away and hide from your record. Explain it, defend the parts of your record worth defending, and humbly admit where you went wrong and how you intend to do things differently next time around.
2) Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska
- Likelihood of running: Beats me- Sarah's a maverick alright, as her shocking, abrupt decision to resign the governorship made clear. But if I have to venture a guess, I'd say it's possible but somewhat unlikely that she runs in 2012.
- STRENGTHS: Palin would be an extremely polarizing presidential candidate, as her presence on the McCain ticket showed in 2008. She has remained extremely relevant via Facebook, a book/book tour, an appearance on Oprah, and her new role on Fox News, and she has a base of supporters who absolutely adore her. That loyal fan-base would serve her well in a Republican primary, especially one that is populated by several different candidates who will divide up the vote. She benefits immensely from her "outsider" status, and she comes across as an extraordinarily genuine and down-to-earth "hockey mom." Lots of Americans feel a sort of kinship or bond with Palin because of the ordinariness that she cultivates so well. She's a proven reformer and her conservative credentials are virtually impeccable. She's also a woman, which may give her an advantage with female voters.
- WEAKNESSES: There are many. First and most obviously, she is an amazingly divisive figure. Many general election voters (and even primary voters, for that matter) have already made up their minds about her: they hate her or they love her. That's probably unlikely to change much over the course of a campaign. She's great at giving a prepared speech, just like our current president, but she has struggled mightily in interviews or at speaking off-the-cuff. Her inexperience is sure to be touted by Obama...and while Palin can credibly claim to have some solid executive experience, her decision to resign before her term was up isn't going to help. Neither is her unfamiliarity with foreign policy/international affairs. She's no policy wonk right now, but she could beef up and get better over time. I don't think she's stupid, but she'll have to fight hard to reverse the image she has in the mainstream media of not being intellectually up to the job.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: Please, please, Sarah, don't run for president in 2012. If the primary field is diverse and wide-open, as it is likely to be, she stands a real chance to snatch some early victories, gain momentum, and become the nominee. I could be wrong, but I just don't think she can win a general election right now. In the future, maybe, but Sarah Palin was rushed too far, too fast by the McCain camp in 2008, and she needs time. She should continue campaigning for Republicans, speaking out on her Facebook page, connecting with voters, and most of all, demonstrating that she has a firm grasp of the issues.
3) Tim Pawlenty, current governor of Minnesota
- Likelihood of running: Very high
- STRENGTHS: Pawlenty is a bit of a blank slate compared to Palin and Romney, which would probably serve him well in a general election- most moderate/independent voters would be likely to give him a fair hearing (as opposed to Palin, whom many have already made up their minds about). Pawlenty comes from a blue-collar background, and he has a real ability to connect with ordinary, working-class and middle-class Americans by virtue of his upbringing and his calm, amiable demeanor. He's smart, he knows policy, and he's got impressive executive experience as governor of a relatively liberal, blue state.
- WEAKNESSES: Pawlenty's lack of name recognition will be an obstacle in the primaries, as will his Romney-esque record of pursuing pragmatic solutions in Minnesota. T-Paw, as some are already calling him, also flirted with supporting climate change legislation but now opposes the cap and trade bill that the House passed. Thus, like Romney, Pawlenty faces a potential credibility gap with conservatives. In fact, come to think of it, Pawlenty and Romney have a lot in common as candidates- except Romney's extremely wealthy and T-Paw has a working-class background. Pawlenty's mild-mannered style might be a weakness in a debate format.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: I really like Pawlenty- he's a young, fresh face in the party with a solid record...in fact, he was apparently McCain's runner-up choice for VP in '08. He's seems to be fiscally conservative enough for me- he's currently pushing a federal balanced budget amendment to shore up his fiscal conservatism credentials. I'm not sure if Pawlenty's more non-confrontational style would play well or poorly with voters in a debate against the similarly mild-mannered Obama.
4) Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House
- Likelihood of running: 50/50?
- STRENGTHS: Newt is incredibly intelligent and has a brilliant policy mind, combined with a firm grasp of the issues and a wealth of experience. He'd make Barack Obama seem absolutely average (at best) in a debate, which is saying something. He's feisty and he's not afraid to call 'em like he sees 'em, a trait that can obviously be a double-edged sword. He's been especially critical of the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy/fighting terrorism, and he's, at least in my view, a rock-solid conservative, which should make him viable in a primary. Newt would be likely to get the party establishment's support...but of course, with both parties and DC in general so discredited, that may be more of a bane than a boon.
- WEAKNESSES: He hurt his brand immensely with influential segments of the Republican base when he backed Dede Scozzafava in the special New York 23 House election this past year, and his avowed willingness to work with the Democrats on issues like climate change also won't help him in a primary fight against a more conservative candidate. He even did a commercial side-by-side with Speaker Pelosi, which is sure to be re-aired time and again by primary opponents. Newt has a checkered personal past, including an affair and a divorce, that may weigh him down. And his feisty-ness can border on nastiness (see some of his verbal assaults on Clinton and the Democrats during his speakership), which may turn off the general electorate.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: At this juncture, Newt Gingrich is my favorite candidate in the potential field. I firmly believe we're going to need someone to run against Barack Obama that is bright, knows the issues inside-and-out, and can coherently present an alternative vision for America's future. This is, I think, what Newt Gingrich does better than anyone else I've seen. The thought of him at the podium debating President Obama sends a Chris Matthews-esque thrill up my leg. Newt's got skeletons in his closet, but don't they all? I respect Newt's conservative views, and I appreciate his realistic outlook- he understands that to get things done in our political system, you do have to work with folks on the other side of the aisle. He's also not afraid to let loose a barrage of criticism against those same people when he believes they're wrong.
5) Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas.
- Likelihood of running: Unlikely (I think)
- STRENGTHS: Mike Huckabee is very smart and has a great sense of humor. He's charismatic and extremely likable...in fact, it's almost impossible NOT to like the guy, even if you don't agree with him on any of the issues. Huckabee had a lot of admirers last time around, who loved his down-to-earth manner, his self-deprecating humor, and his strong convictions. He ran an extremely competitive primary campaign with very little resources. Huckabee's an unapologetic social conservative and a proud man of faith, which serves him well in a Republican primary race, where Evangelical voters make up a considerable chunk of likely voters.
- WEAKNESSES: Huckabee's reputation suffered a bit of a blow when it turned out that he pardoned Maurice Clemmons, the ex-convict who shot and killed four police officers in Washington back in November. That decision is sure to come under fire, especially from primary opponents. Huckabee's religiosity might be a turn-off in a general election...voters like presidential candidates to have some religious affiliation, but Huckabee's former occupation as a pastor may make moderate/independent voters uneasy.
- RANDOM THOUGHTS: I don't think Huckabee's going to run this time, but I could be wrong. Like I said, it's really impossible not to like the guy...but for me, Mike Huckabee is someone I'd love to have as a next-door neighbor, as a mentor, as a governor...I'm just not sure about president of the United States and commander in chief of the armed forces. It's hard for me to envision world leaders taking Mike Huckabee very seriously, and it's also hard for me to imagine Huck talking tough with them. I think Huck is happy hosting his show on Fox and writing books. He's got a good thing going...why disrupt it for another exhausting, rather long-shot presidential run?
OK, so there's a little discussion to whet your appetite for the 2012 presidential campaign, which actually (scarily?) isn't all that far off. After all, once the midterm elections are over in November, you'll start hearing Republicans declaring their intentions.
If Obama's approval ratings remain as low as they are now, I think you're likely to see a very solid field of Republican candidates. If Obama gets his legs under him this year and makes a bit of a comeback, which I think is quite possible, then certain Republicans with bright futures might wait it out. It can be quite damaging to run a losing presidential campaign, and if potential candidates think Obama is unlikely to lose, they'll probably sit this one out. Time will tell. Either way, though, we'll have better options than BO!
I'll close by just mentioning a handful of other names that I've heard batted about as possible Republican challengers:
- John Thune, Senator from South Dakota - keep an eye on him, a real rising star.
- Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana - young, Indian, highly intelligent, but I think more likely to wait in the wings- maybe a VP in '12?
- Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia - too soon, since he just won the governorship in November '09 and would have to start gearing up for the campaign this year- but again, definite VP material in '12
- Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi - do we really want an older, rather boring, Southerner leading the Republican revival this time around?
- General David Petraeus - not going to happen, but wouldn't that be something?
- Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania - staunch conservative, maybe too staunch
- Rick Perry, Governor of Texas - he's got a primary fight on his hands this year...whether he wins or loses, I think there's a good chance he runs
- Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York - the fact that he decided not to run for governor or Senate seemed to me like an indication he might try this again...
There are, of course, others I could have added to this list. I'll be interested to hear what other people think about this post!
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Trials and Tribulations of Chris Matthews
As a fellow Holy Cross graduate, it pains me each and every time I hear/see/read about the latest ridiculous statement made by Chris Matthews. Ever since Barack Obama began his campaign for the presidency, it seems that Mr. Matthews has decided to completely shed any journalistic integrity that he may have formerly possessed. Instead, Matthews has, with great success, become nothing more than an unhinged, partisan hack.
Now, you might ask, why am I spending time picking apart Chris Matthews when he's on the same network as Keith Olbermann, who, when compared to Matthews, takes "partisan hack" (or downright delusional) to a whole new level? Yes, it's true that Olbermann makes Chris Matthews look like a sensible, intelligent moderate. But that's only because Olbermann is a demagogic hate-monger who is so blinded by Leftist ideology that he's incapable of stringing two coherent sentences together.
Unlike Olbermann, who was (and inexplicably still doubles as) a useless sportscaster, Matthews received his undergraduate liberal arts education from the same place I did, a place that I hold in extremely high regard. Chris Matthews should know better.
Here's a brief list of just four of the most asinine remarks that Mr. Matthews has made within the last two years, just off of the top of my head, in no particular order, along with my brief responses (special thanks to the Hot-Air archive, which had some of the video clips so that I was able to transcribe the statements word for word):
- 1) This now-infamous remark after one of candidate Obama's campaign speeches: "The feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech...my, I felt this thrill going up my leg."
...Phew, I'm glad you didn't tell us just how far up your leg that "thrill" extended, Mr. Matthews...But seriously...people expect a newscaster to offer an analysis of a campaign speech that is critical, thoughtful, and insightful. Instead, Chris Matthews engaged in outright, unapologetic fawning over his preferred candidate's supposed rhetorical prowess. I don't remember Bill O'Reilly breathlessly claiming that one of John McCain's stump speeches (granted, they weren't very exciting, but STILL) made his heart race or gave him goosebumps. That's because Bill O'Reilly is a talented newscaster, a true professional, and Matthews is a hack.
- 2) Chris's reaction to the news that Parker Griffith, a Democratic Representative from Alabama, was switching to the Republican Party: "Are you building the right kind of Republican Party, are you building a party off the discards of the Democrats, are you gonna keep building your party with Dixiecrats, ex-Democrats who think the Democratic Party's too mainstream? Since the '60s you've built a political party, the party of Lincoln has become the party of the, I don't know, probably the party of the Confederacy."
...Oh my, where to begin? Matthews makes it seem as if this is standard operating procedure for the Republican Party, but help me out here: can anyone name more than a few Democrats who switched parties in the past decade? Of course not- but Matthews believes that's how the Republican Party is being "built." By the way, Chris, if that was true...wouldn't the GOP be a lot more to your liking? After all, the Democrats who cross-over are obviously not hard-core right-wingers, or else they'd never have been Democrats in the first place.
...Then Matthews says the converts to the GOP switch parties because the Democrats are "too mainstream"- but the whole reason elected officials switch parties is to desperately try to save their own asses. Why would a politician trying to get re-elected move AWAY from the "mainstream"?
...Finally, and this is the most laughable part: the idea that the GOP is now the party of the Confederacy. Um, Mr. Matthews, Republicans don't just win in the deep South, as any electoral map makes clear. In fact, Matthews made these remarks shortly after New Jersey elected a Republican to its governorship (and before a Republican won Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat in Massachusetts...maybe Chris is singing a different tune now? Nah, doubt it.)
-3) His take on the Tea Party movement that has become such a force in American politics over the past several months- here's the exchange between Matthews and Daily Beast contributor Mark McKinnon (transcript/video clip at http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100105064552.aspx):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: So who will lead the tea-baggers? Will it be Rick Perry down in Texas? Will it be Michele Bachman out in Minnesota? Will it be Sarah Palin? You first Mark [McKinnon] it's your idea. The tea-baggers are an interesting group to watch. They're not far right. They're probably center-right, in fact some centrists. But they're generally, I think, Republican voters. Right? Is that fair to say? They vote Republican?
...
MATTHEWS: And they're monochromatic right?
MARK MCKINNON, THE DAILY BEAST: Well I don't know that they're monochromatic?
MATTHEWS: They're not? Every picture I see shows them to be.
MCKINNON: Well there's a lot of people out there that cuts across a lot of demographics who feel disenfranchised.
MATTHEWS: But not that other demographic.
MCKINNON: The other demographic?
MATTHEWS: Meaning they're all white. All of them, every single one of them is white.
MCKINNON: I think that's, I think that's a fair characterization, predominately.
MATTHEWS: Yeah well what's that about?
...Ok, Matthews is actually on correct at the beginning, when he states that the protesters are not far-right wackos, but predominantly center-right types. Kudos to him on that score. Although, it's ridiculous that someone like Matthews continues to toss around the term "tea-bagger," when he must know by now that teabagging is a lewd and inappropriate sexual reference. The fact that a useless, vapid ignoramus like Olbermann keeps repeating teabagger as he smirks at the camera is one thing, but Matthews ought to know better.
...Onward, though, to the crux of the matter: his obsessive focus on the skin color of the tea partiers, a point Matthews has tried to make time and again in order to paint the "tea-baggers" as nativists or racists. It doesn't take much research (isn't that what journalists/newscasters, even opinion-based ones like Matthews, are supposed to do?) to uncover the presence of black tea partiers, to name just one racial "demographic," which is the one that the close-minded Matthews is focused on. After all, Michael Steele is the CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (!), he's black (gasp!!), and he's openly supportive of the Tea Party Movement (whaaaaaat!?!?!?). Other examples abound, if one is willing to spend a minute or two looking around and doing some research...which someone as committed to hackery as Matthews is simply doesn't have the time for.
4) His response to President Obama's State of the Union speech last week: "It's interesting. He is post-racial, by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour."
...WOW. Alright. First off, this is Matthews openly admitting his obsession with skin color- the implication here, of course, being that before the State of the Union and after it, Chris Matthews sees Barack Obama as a black man, not just as the President of the United States, or a politician, or an American, or just another member of the human race. Which explains his related fixation with the skin color of tea partiers too- Chris Matthews pays attention to the color of people's skin always, EXCEPT for when a black man gives an eloquent, intelligent, presidential address.
...In this case, he forgot the speaker was black- meaning exactly what? That it's surprising that a black person could deliver an eloquent, intelligent speech? That it's shocking that a black person could actually be president? Matthews's remark is condescending and absurd, and that's being charitable. Most tea-partiers and other opponents of President Obama's liberal/progressive agenda don't care that the man pushing the agenda happens to be black. They object to the policies, the continued expansion of government, the specter of higher taxes and burdensome regulations that will stifle economic growth in the long-term, infringe upon our liberties, and reduce America to a big government, European-style welfare state. But Chris Matthews simply can't get past skin color. It begs the question: who is the real racist here? It's the 21st century, most of us are ready, willing, and eager to leave skin color behind in our quest for a color-blind society, and it's folks like Matthews who perpetuate the racial divide. Irony, anyone?
Chris Matthews has had a tough couple of years, although his trials and tribulations have no doubt been mitigated by the below-the-belt tingles and thrills he experiences each time that he hears Barack Obama start speaking- at which point he immediately forgets that Barack is black until he finishes speaking.
Bravo, Chris. Keep up the great work.
Now, you might ask, why am I spending time picking apart Chris Matthews when he's on the same network as Keith Olbermann, who, when compared to Matthews, takes "partisan hack" (or downright delusional) to a whole new level? Yes, it's true that Olbermann makes Chris Matthews look like a sensible, intelligent moderate. But that's only because Olbermann is a demagogic hate-monger who is so blinded by Leftist ideology that he's incapable of stringing two coherent sentences together.
Unlike Olbermann, who was (and inexplicably still doubles as) a useless sportscaster, Matthews received his undergraduate liberal arts education from the same place I did, a place that I hold in extremely high regard. Chris Matthews should know better.
Here's a brief list of just four of the most asinine remarks that Mr. Matthews has made within the last two years, just off of the top of my head, in no particular order, along with my brief responses (special thanks to the Hot-Air archive, which had some of the video clips so that I was able to transcribe the statements word for word):
- 1) This now-infamous remark after one of candidate Obama's campaign speeches: "The feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech...my, I felt this thrill going up my leg."
...Phew, I'm glad you didn't tell us just how far up your leg that "thrill" extended, Mr. Matthews...But seriously...people expect a newscaster to offer an analysis of a campaign speech that is critical, thoughtful, and insightful. Instead, Chris Matthews engaged in outright, unapologetic fawning over his preferred candidate's supposed rhetorical prowess. I don't remember Bill O'Reilly breathlessly claiming that one of John McCain's stump speeches (granted, they weren't very exciting, but STILL) made his heart race or gave him goosebumps. That's because Bill O'Reilly is a talented newscaster, a true professional, and Matthews is a hack.
- 2) Chris's reaction to the news that Parker Griffith, a Democratic Representative from Alabama, was switching to the Republican Party: "Are you building the right kind of Republican Party, are you building a party off the discards of the Democrats, are you gonna keep building your party with Dixiecrats, ex-Democrats who think the Democratic Party's too mainstream? Since the '60s you've built a political party, the party of Lincoln has become the party of the, I don't know, probably the party of the Confederacy."
...Oh my, where to begin? Matthews makes it seem as if this is standard operating procedure for the Republican Party, but help me out here: can anyone name more than a few Democrats who switched parties in the past decade? Of course not- but Matthews believes that's how the Republican Party is being "built." By the way, Chris, if that was true...wouldn't the GOP be a lot more to your liking? After all, the Democrats who cross-over are obviously not hard-core right-wingers, or else they'd never have been Democrats in the first place.
...Then Matthews says the converts to the GOP switch parties because the Democrats are "too mainstream"- but the whole reason elected officials switch parties is to desperately try to save their own asses. Why would a politician trying to get re-elected move AWAY from the "mainstream"?
...Finally, and this is the most laughable part: the idea that the GOP is now the party of the Confederacy. Um, Mr. Matthews, Republicans don't just win in the deep South, as any electoral map makes clear. In fact, Matthews made these remarks shortly after New Jersey elected a Republican to its governorship (and before a Republican won Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat in Massachusetts...maybe Chris is singing a different tune now? Nah, doubt it.)
-3) His take on the Tea Party movement that has become such a force in American politics over the past several months- here's the exchange between Matthews and Daily Beast contributor Mark McKinnon (transcript/video clip at http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100105064552.aspx):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: So who will lead the tea-baggers? Will it be Rick Perry down in Texas? Will it be Michele Bachman out in Minnesota? Will it be Sarah Palin? You first Mark [McKinnon] it's your idea. The tea-baggers are an interesting group to watch. They're not far right. They're probably center-right, in fact some centrists. But they're generally, I think, Republican voters. Right? Is that fair to say? They vote Republican?
...
MATTHEWS: And they're monochromatic right?
MARK MCKINNON, THE DAILY BEAST: Well I don't know that they're monochromatic?
MATTHEWS: They're not? Every picture I see shows them to be.
MCKINNON: Well there's a lot of people out there that cuts across a lot of demographics who feel disenfranchised.
MATTHEWS: But not that other demographic.
MCKINNON: The other demographic?
MATTHEWS: Meaning they're all white. All of them, every single one of them is white.
MCKINNON: I think that's, I think that's a fair characterization, predominately.
MATTHEWS: Yeah well what's that about?
...Ok, Matthews is actually on correct at the beginning, when he states that the protesters are not far-right wackos, but predominantly center-right types. Kudos to him on that score. Although, it's ridiculous that someone like Matthews continues to toss around the term "tea-bagger," when he must know by now that teabagging is a lewd and inappropriate sexual reference. The fact that a useless, vapid ignoramus like Olbermann keeps repeating teabagger as he smirks at the camera is one thing, but Matthews ought to know better.
...Onward, though, to the crux of the matter: his obsessive focus on the skin color of the tea partiers, a point Matthews has tried to make time and again in order to paint the "tea-baggers" as nativists or racists. It doesn't take much research (isn't that what journalists/newscasters, even opinion-based ones like Matthews, are supposed to do?) to uncover the presence of black tea partiers, to name just one racial "demographic," which is the one that the close-minded Matthews is focused on. After all, Michael Steele is the CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (!), he's black (gasp!!), and he's openly supportive of the Tea Party Movement (whaaaaaat!?!?!?). Other examples abound, if one is willing to spend a minute or two looking around and doing some research...which someone as committed to hackery as Matthews is simply doesn't have the time for.
4) His response to President Obama's State of the Union speech last week: "It's interesting. He is post-racial, by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour."
...WOW. Alright. First off, this is Matthews openly admitting his obsession with skin color- the implication here, of course, being that before the State of the Union and after it, Chris Matthews sees Barack Obama as a black man, not just as the President of the United States, or a politician, or an American, or just another member of the human race. Which explains his related fixation with the skin color of tea partiers too- Chris Matthews pays attention to the color of people's skin always, EXCEPT for when a black man gives an eloquent, intelligent, presidential address.
...In this case, he forgot the speaker was black- meaning exactly what? That it's surprising that a black person could deliver an eloquent, intelligent speech? That it's shocking that a black person could actually be president? Matthews's remark is condescending and absurd, and that's being charitable. Most tea-partiers and other opponents of President Obama's liberal/progressive agenda don't care that the man pushing the agenda happens to be black. They object to the policies, the continued expansion of government, the specter of higher taxes and burdensome regulations that will stifle economic growth in the long-term, infringe upon our liberties, and reduce America to a big government, European-style welfare state. But Chris Matthews simply can't get past skin color. It begs the question: who is the real racist here? It's the 21st century, most of us are ready, willing, and eager to leave skin color behind in our quest for a color-blind society, and it's folks like Matthews who perpetuate the racial divide. Irony, anyone?
Chris Matthews has had a tough couple of years, although his trials and tribulations have no doubt been mitigated by the below-the-belt tingles and thrills he experiences each time that he hears Barack Obama start speaking- at which point he immediately forgets that Barack is black until he finishes speaking.
Bravo, Chris. Keep up the great work.
Monday, February 1, 2010
No, Health Care Isn't a Right
As the national debate over health care reform continues to rage, I'm interested in offering up my own views about one part of the debate: the idea that "health care" is a basic human "right" that our government owes each and every one of its citizens. This is an assertion that I've heard some of my liberal friends and family members make in recent months.
While I don't doubt the benign motives or good intentions of those who have made such claims, it's important to point out the problems with framing the debate over health care reform in this way.
As our Founders understood it, human beings are naturally endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among them are, as the Declaration of Independence states, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are the rights that any government, to be considered legitimate, must be able to protect.
What's important to note is that these rights are negative in nature. That is, individuals have a right NOT to be murdered- a right to "life." Human beings have a right to pursue their happiness free FROM unreasonable interference- a right to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Government is instituted to ensure that these rights are protected- that men are able to live and reap the fruits of their labor by lawfully accumulating private property.
The language of positive rights- a right to health care, a right to a home, a right to an automobile, etc.- is entirely divorced from the Founders' understanding of government and rights. The Founders were focused on equality of opportunity...the idea that every individual should have a CHANCE, that every human being should be allowed to engage in the QUEST for happiness. They understood that attempts to legislate equality of condition, to make everyone roughly equal by having the government redistribute wealth (as Barack Obama put it during the campaign, "spread the wealth around") were futile, unfair, and destructive.
As soon as people begin to accept that one of government's proper functions is to take from some and give to others, you open the door to corruption and you set in motion a vicious cycle of dependency. As soon as you create a bloc of voters that receive things from the government without paying anything into the system, you've created a monster. Of course these dependents are going to vote politicians into office who plunder the "rich" (but in reality, the hard-working upper-middle and middle classes too) while paying lip service to "social justice" and "equality." The dependents will keep voting for the same politicians, and the politicians will keep expanding entitlement programs to buy more and more votes.
But back to rights. Rights, as our Founders understood them, do not involve taking from one person and giving to another. Yet that is precisely what creating a universal, government-run health care system would entail.
All Americans have a universal, natural right to an equal opportunity to purchase health insurance. But government does not owe us health insurance, just as it does not owe us a house or a car or a television set. Government owes us freedom FROM things...freedom from interference, freedom from oppression, freedom from murder.
These thoughts are meant to convey my philosophical opposition to a government-run health care system, which is the natural result of the fantasy that health insurance is a basic, universal human right. Real reform should aim at increasing consumer choice, strengthening the doctor-patient relationship and weakening the influence of third parties, and by doing this, we can bring down the cost of health care. Those are the sorts of reforms we need. We DO NOT need another enormously expensive entitlement program.
I will add one more thought: the problem with government-run health care is that taxpayers are FORCED to subsidize insurance for other people...even if these other people choose an unhealthy lifestyle by, for instance, not exercising or eating fatty foods. Sorry folks- if you choose to become morbidly obese or you choose to smoke cigarettes, I don't want my hard-earned money going toward your health insurance. I'll take care of me and my own, you take care of you and your own.
While I don't doubt the benign motives or good intentions of those who have made such claims, it's important to point out the problems with framing the debate over health care reform in this way.
As our Founders understood it, human beings are naturally endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among them are, as the Declaration of Independence states, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are the rights that any government, to be considered legitimate, must be able to protect.
What's important to note is that these rights are negative in nature. That is, individuals have a right NOT to be murdered- a right to "life." Human beings have a right to pursue their happiness free FROM unreasonable interference- a right to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Government is instituted to ensure that these rights are protected- that men are able to live and reap the fruits of their labor by lawfully accumulating private property.
The language of positive rights- a right to health care, a right to a home, a right to an automobile, etc.- is entirely divorced from the Founders' understanding of government and rights. The Founders were focused on equality of opportunity...the idea that every individual should have a CHANCE, that every human being should be allowed to engage in the QUEST for happiness. They understood that attempts to legislate equality of condition, to make everyone roughly equal by having the government redistribute wealth (as Barack Obama put it during the campaign, "spread the wealth around") were futile, unfair, and destructive.
As soon as people begin to accept that one of government's proper functions is to take from some and give to others, you open the door to corruption and you set in motion a vicious cycle of dependency. As soon as you create a bloc of voters that receive things from the government without paying anything into the system, you've created a monster. Of course these dependents are going to vote politicians into office who plunder the "rich" (but in reality, the hard-working upper-middle and middle classes too) while paying lip service to "social justice" and "equality." The dependents will keep voting for the same politicians, and the politicians will keep expanding entitlement programs to buy more and more votes.
But back to rights. Rights, as our Founders understood them, do not involve taking from one person and giving to another. Yet that is precisely what creating a universal, government-run health care system would entail.
All Americans have a universal, natural right to an equal opportunity to purchase health insurance. But government does not owe us health insurance, just as it does not owe us a house or a car or a television set. Government owes us freedom FROM things...freedom from interference, freedom from oppression, freedom from murder.
These thoughts are meant to convey my philosophical opposition to a government-run health care system, which is the natural result of the fantasy that health insurance is a basic, universal human right. Real reform should aim at increasing consumer choice, strengthening the doctor-patient relationship and weakening the influence of third parties, and by doing this, we can bring down the cost of health care. Those are the sorts of reforms we need. We DO NOT need another enormously expensive entitlement program.
I will add one more thought: the problem with government-run health care is that taxpayers are FORCED to subsidize insurance for other people...even if these other people choose an unhealthy lifestyle by, for instance, not exercising or eating fatty foods. Sorry folks- if you choose to become morbidly obese or you choose to smoke cigarettes, I don't want my hard-earned money going toward your health insurance. I'll take care of me and my own, you take care of you and your own.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
How Many Americans Believe the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber Has a Right to Remain Silent?
I'd love to see that question polled.
This administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber is nothing short of a dereliction of duty. Barack Obama, you are the President of the United States, and your highest duty is to protect American lives and property.
Sure, it was ridiculous that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was even allowed on a plane to Detroit, given all the red flags that existed prior to the attempted attack. But that's not your fault, sir. It was a bureaucratic failure- a major one, a nearly catastrophic one, but not a presidential failure. I had no harsh words for you, although I did question whether your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, ought be allowed to soldier on after boldly claiming that "the system worked."
But it's the handling of the Underwear Bomber in the aftermath of the attack that has been an absolute travesty. We questioned Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes, and then decided to read him his Miranda rights. "You have the right to remain silent," we told this barbarian...despite the fact that he's not an American citizen and not a lawful combatant of any sort. He's a war criminal who attempted to blow an airplane out the sky on Christmas. But, under your administration, Abdulmutallab has a right to remain silent. It's unconscionable and indefensible.
How do I know it's indefensible? Simple. You have yet to offer any coherent defense of your administration's handling of terrorists like Abdulmutallab. You spoke for 70 minutes the other night during your State of the Union address. Mr. President, if you honestly believe this man has a right to remain silent, by all means, PLEASE explain why and on what grounds. After all, you're supposedly a constitutional law expert. And you have no shortage of regard for your abilities. So, for the love of God, why do terrorists have the right to remain silent?
I'm angry. I'm angry that your administration is willfully imperiling our national security. Mr. Obama, you can't put American lives at risk and then not even explain to us WHY you're doing it (or, alternatively, why in your opinion your policy isn't actually putting lives at risk). You owe me and everyone else whose lives would seem to be at a higher risk now an explanation.
This isn't a one-time thing, either. Mr. Obama, you announced your decision to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay and transfer detainees to American soil...but your only explanation for this decision has been that it removes one of al-Qaeda's key recruiting tools/rallying cries. Mr. President, with all due respect, that's garbage. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing happened before Gitmo ever existed. So did the bombing of the USS Cole. So did 9/11. Gitmo doesn't cause terrorism. Period. If you seriously expect us ordinary folks to accept that line of argument, that's an insight into just how foolish and ignorant you think we are.
Of course Osama bin Laden is going to say that al Qaeda attacks innocent Americans because of Gitmo. It's called propaganda. Mr. President, when did we start taking our cues from Mr. bin Laden? Last I checked, that's called appeasement. And it's appeasement of the worst possible kind. Al Qaeda also lists American support for Israel as a reason for their continued violence...so should we stop supporting Israel?
Mr. President, on Christmas Day, we got INCREDIBLY fortunate as a nation. Hundreds of innocent lives were spared when the bomb failed to detonate on that airplane, thanks to incompetence on the part of the terrorist and the bravery of the passengers, and no thanks to the "system," which failed miserably.
But that's not the only reason we were lucky. You see, Mr. President, as we carted the terrorist with his scorched crotch off of that airliner, we had an extraordinary opportunity to gather important intelligence information by interrogating him. We could have gotten phone numbers, contact information for the people who trained him. We could have learned where the Islamic terrorist training camps are in Yemen. We could have found out what Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula knows and doesn't know about our efforts to hunt them down. The list goes on. It was an incredible chance to get a leg up in the global War on Islamic Terror that, based on the terminology you and your administration use, apparently no longer even exists in your mind. But in the real world, it does exist. It's still all too real.
Mr. President, I implore you: please explain why Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has a right to remain silent. He was babbling freely right after the attack, and then we inexplicably decide to tell him you have a right to keep quiet...and a right to a lawyer, at taxpayer expense??? That's awful, sir. You owe us either an explanation, or an apology and a change in direction. I sincerely hope it's the latter, because this is a question of national security. For your good and the good of your country, swallow your pride this time, admit your mistakes, and change course. It won't make you a flip-flopper, except maybe to the anti-war loons in your party. It'll make you seem like someone who is learning on the job. It'll make the country safer. And it'll make you seem humble.
And believe me, Mr. President, you could use a healthy dose of that.
This administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber is nothing short of a dereliction of duty. Barack Obama, you are the President of the United States, and your highest duty is to protect American lives and property.
Sure, it was ridiculous that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was even allowed on a plane to Detroit, given all the red flags that existed prior to the attempted attack. But that's not your fault, sir. It was a bureaucratic failure- a major one, a nearly catastrophic one, but not a presidential failure. I had no harsh words for you, although I did question whether your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, ought be allowed to soldier on after boldly claiming that "the system worked."
But it's the handling of the Underwear Bomber in the aftermath of the attack that has been an absolute travesty. We questioned Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes, and then decided to read him his Miranda rights. "You have the right to remain silent," we told this barbarian...despite the fact that he's not an American citizen and not a lawful combatant of any sort. He's a war criminal who attempted to blow an airplane out the sky on Christmas. But, under your administration, Abdulmutallab has a right to remain silent. It's unconscionable and indefensible.
How do I know it's indefensible? Simple. You have yet to offer any coherent defense of your administration's handling of terrorists like Abdulmutallab. You spoke for 70 minutes the other night during your State of the Union address. Mr. President, if you honestly believe this man has a right to remain silent, by all means, PLEASE explain why and on what grounds. After all, you're supposedly a constitutional law expert. And you have no shortage of regard for your abilities. So, for the love of God, why do terrorists have the right to remain silent?
I'm angry. I'm angry that your administration is willfully imperiling our national security. Mr. Obama, you can't put American lives at risk and then not even explain to us WHY you're doing it (or, alternatively, why in your opinion your policy isn't actually putting lives at risk). You owe me and everyone else whose lives would seem to be at a higher risk now an explanation.
This isn't a one-time thing, either. Mr. Obama, you announced your decision to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay and transfer detainees to American soil...but your only explanation for this decision has been that it removes one of al-Qaeda's key recruiting tools/rallying cries. Mr. President, with all due respect, that's garbage. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing happened before Gitmo ever existed. So did the bombing of the USS Cole. So did 9/11. Gitmo doesn't cause terrorism. Period. If you seriously expect us ordinary folks to accept that line of argument, that's an insight into just how foolish and ignorant you think we are.
Of course Osama bin Laden is going to say that al Qaeda attacks innocent Americans because of Gitmo. It's called propaganda. Mr. President, when did we start taking our cues from Mr. bin Laden? Last I checked, that's called appeasement. And it's appeasement of the worst possible kind. Al Qaeda also lists American support for Israel as a reason for their continued violence...so should we stop supporting Israel?
Mr. President, on Christmas Day, we got INCREDIBLY fortunate as a nation. Hundreds of innocent lives were spared when the bomb failed to detonate on that airplane, thanks to incompetence on the part of the terrorist and the bravery of the passengers, and no thanks to the "system," which failed miserably.
But that's not the only reason we were lucky. You see, Mr. President, as we carted the terrorist with his scorched crotch off of that airliner, we had an extraordinary opportunity to gather important intelligence information by interrogating him. We could have gotten phone numbers, contact information for the people who trained him. We could have learned where the Islamic terrorist training camps are in Yemen. We could have found out what Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula knows and doesn't know about our efforts to hunt them down. The list goes on. It was an incredible chance to get a leg up in the global War on Islamic Terror that, based on the terminology you and your administration use, apparently no longer even exists in your mind. But in the real world, it does exist. It's still all too real.
Mr. President, I implore you: please explain why Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has a right to remain silent. He was babbling freely right after the attack, and then we inexplicably decide to tell him you have a right to keep quiet...and a right to a lawyer, at taxpayer expense??? That's awful, sir. You owe us either an explanation, or an apology and a change in direction. I sincerely hope it's the latter, because this is a question of national security. For your good and the good of your country, swallow your pride this time, admit your mistakes, and change course. It won't make you a flip-flopper, except maybe to the anti-war loons in your party. It'll make you seem like someone who is learning on the job. It'll make the country safer. And it'll make you seem humble.
And believe me, Mr. President, you could use a healthy dose of that.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
New Look!
Many thanks to my esteemed friend/extraordinary artist and designer Courtney Martin Peck for offering some constructive criticism on changing my blog colors! Hope the new look is easier to read/more appealing to the eye...I have no artistic/creative skills AT ALL.
Thanks Courtney!
Thanks Courtney!
State of the Union Recap/Thoughts
President Obama delivered his first official State of the Union address to Congress and the American people last night, though it was already his third address to a joint session of Congress (last year, he gave a "State of the Nation" speech and the health care reform speech in front of the House and Senate).
So how'd he do? Before getting into some specific things that caught my eye/ear, I'll provide some general, big-picture thoughts. It was well-delivered, as are most of the president's speeches, and he was far more passionate than he has often been over the past year- no doubt a calculated maneuver to offset the criticism that he is too detached, cold, and out-of-touch with ordinary Americans. Unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Barack Obama, an Ivy League-educated, elitist liberal constitutional law professor, has to make a serious effort to seem as if he empathizes with the plight of Americans who are jobless or struggling to make ends meet. Last night, I think he was fairly successful at that.
The speech was too long, and it was also too sharply partisan- especially from a man who promised "hope," a changed culture in Washington, and a nation not of blue and red states but of unified, purple ones. It's the ultimate irony/hypocrisy- this president constantly rails against the hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington DC and politics as usual, and then promptly begins his partisan sniping.
He couldn't resist repeatedly slamming the Bush administration (he never did it by naming "Bush," but instead kept talking about the mess he inherited/the failures of the "last 8 years"), a tactic that became stale and ineffective months ago. He won an election by doing it, but continuing in campaign mode has made this president seem petulant, petty, and unpresidential. It has to stop. Voters are tired of it, as Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts made clear.
On a side note, repeating this crap about the "last 8 years" drives me especially crazy since DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR THE LAST TWO. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their liberal minions in Congress passed the last two budgets, not George W. Bush. Obama, a former constitutional law professor (!) needs a basic civics lesson, so that he'll finally understand that it's Congress, not the President, that exclusively holds the power of the purse.
I had a Word Document open during the address last night and I typed out some notes as Obama spoke. Here are some of the points that I felt were important/interesting/ridiculous:
- Early on in the speech, the president said, ”I’ve never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight." It's a vapid, stupid, throwaway line...and, what's worse, it makes him seem far more out-of-touch than optimistic. Most Americans aren't nearly as sanguine about the prospects of economic revival as this president.
- Obama cited the "2 million jobs" that the "stimulus" saved...which is, as so many media outlets have showed, a completely made-up number. He claimed that "first responders" and "teachers" were among those whose jobs were saved...but that's at least deceptive if not untruthful. The vast majority of policemen, firefighters, and teachers weren't really going to lose their jobs without stimulus money. As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has astutely observed again and again, the stimulus money was actually used to paper over holes in state budgets for another year, saving useless bureaucratic jobs that ought to have been cut back. The stimulus allowed state and local governments to continue living lavishly instead of trimming the fat like many American families have had to do.
- Obama repeatedly presented himself as the "fighter"- and he reserved especially harsh words for the Democrat-controlled Senate. On several occasions, he urged the Senate to follow the House's lead in passing things like financial reform, comprehensive energy reform, etc.
- The president, unsurprisingly given his incredible hubris/arrogance, was unable to admit that the health care reform plan that he favors is opposed by a majority of Americans because it's a bad bill. Furthermore, it was absolutely disgusting that he took credit for ending the war in Iraq- first, because he couldn't bring himself to say we had WON, and second, because we've only been able to responsibly wind down US involvement thanks to the surge strategy implemented by President Bush- a policy that Senator/Candidate Obama vociferously opposed.
- I smiled when they panned to Senator McCain and you could see him mouth "Blame it on Bush" to the person sitting next to him after Obama launched into another one of his exhausting "we're in this mess because of the last 8 years" statements.
- Obama's remark about lobbyists not being appointed to administration posts was laugh-provoking. I was waiting for someone to shout "YOU LIE!" after he said it. Boy, it takes a healthy amount of chutzpah to stand up in front of Congress and the American people and just tell a bare-faced whopper of a lie.
- Perhaps the most interesting part of the address was, I thought, the moment at which President Obama openly scolded the Supreme Court for its recent ruling on campaign finance restrictions. With the justices seated right in front of him, it was uncomfortable and awkward to watch...and it certainly seemed inappropriate, given separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law, to demagogue them like Obama did. It was even more revolting watching Senators like Chuck Schumer grin and applaud loudly right in the justices' ears from the row behind them. Ew. GOOD FOR SAM ALITO THOUGH- you could see him shake his head slightly and whisper "not true" when Obama made yet another inaccurate statement about the ruling (once again- come on Barack! You were a constitutional law expert supposedly!). Some will say Alito ought not have done this- but Obama and the Democrats who stood and applauded raucously are the ones in the wrong. It was a breach of decorum, and Obama owes the Court an apology- especially the 5 justices who issued the ruling (Kennedy, often the swing vote, wrote the majority decision).
- Obama spent far too little time on foreign affairs/fighting terrorism. After the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bombing attempt, he owed it to the American people to offer a coherent defense of his administration's anti-terror policies. If he supports Attorney General Holder's policy of trying KSM in NYC- and he must because, after all, Barack Obama is the decider- then he should have defended it. Ditto closing Gitmo and moving terrorists to US soil. Ditto treating the undie-bomber as a criminal and Mirandizing him rather than treating him as an unlawful enemy combatant and interrogating him in a military setting to extract intelligence that could bolster homeland security and our efforts to disrupt terrorism abroad.
- His casual and unbelievably unspecific mentions of a) repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and b) the need to fix our broken immigration system were silly. Surely no one, not legislators, not the American people, honestly believes he cares a whit about these issues. The empty, tepid rhetorical support for these two agenda items certainly didn't help Obama with his party's base.
- Obama did a nice job injecting a little humor into the address, and he also finished strong with his "We don't quit, I won't quit" line.
So there are some of the parts of the speech that I highlighted as I watched.
What I did find a bit surprising was that there was certainly no move toward the center by the president. He's determined to keep on governing from the left, it appears, which must be making the Blue Dog Democrats squirm. Barack Obama realizes he's not on the ballot in 2010, and it looks like it'll take a disastrous midterm election (a la Clinton in '94) to force him to do something like Clinton's triangulation. That can't sit well with Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Co. But oh well. By not pivoting toward the center, Obama showed an extraordinary degree of defiance and a lot of egotism. He basically flipped Republicans, a number of Democrats, the entire Senate, and a majority of Americans the bird last night. If you don't like my policies, tough, you're getting them anyway, because I know what's best. It's quite an attitude- and one he's likely to pay for in 2010 and 2012, if he cares.
Oh, and one final thought: if the president really wants Americans to see him as a FIGHTER, why doesn't he start by vowing to fight the Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us as war criminals/unlawful combatants instead of common criminals entitled to the same rights as American citizens? Just askin'.
Finally- the Republican response by Bob McDonnell, the recently-elected governor of Virginia. It was nothing special, but of course much better than Bobby Jindal's rejoinder to the State of the Nation last year. McDonnell did what he had to do, and he did it quite well. Kudos to him for repeatedly alluding to/quoting the Founders. Bravo for waving the federalism banner- I personally found that to be the best part of the speech, when he said that us governors, like the Founders, understand that government closest to the people governs best. He also had a good line about how Republican health insurance reform proposals aren’t thousand page bills crafted behind closed doors that no one has bothered to read.
McDonnell's speech was free from the mudslinging and partisanship of Obama's address...and it was, mercifully, much shorter. It was upbeat, hopeful, and genuine. McDonnell definitely looks like a rising star in the party...and we sorely need those.
So how'd he do? Before getting into some specific things that caught my eye/ear, I'll provide some general, big-picture thoughts. It was well-delivered, as are most of the president's speeches, and he was far more passionate than he has often been over the past year- no doubt a calculated maneuver to offset the criticism that he is too detached, cold, and out-of-touch with ordinary Americans. Unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Barack Obama, an Ivy League-educated, elitist liberal constitutional law professor, has to make a serious effort to seem as if he empathizes with the plight of Americans who are jobless or struggling to make ends meet. Last night, I think he was fairly successful at that.
The speech was too long, and it was also too sharply partisan- especially from a man who promised "hope," a changed culture in Washington, and a nation not of blue and red states but of unified, purple ones. It's the ultimate irony/hypocrisy- this president constantly rails against the hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington DC and politics as usual, and then promptly begins his partisan sniping.
He couldn't resist repeatedly slamming the Bush administration (he never did it by naming "Bush," but instead kept talking about the mess he inherited/the failures of the "last 8 years"), a tactic that became stale and ineffective months ago. He won an election by doing it, but continuing in campaign mode has made this president seem petulant, petty, and unpresidential. It has to stop. Voters are tired of it, as Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts made clear.
On a side note, repeating this crap about the "last 8 years" drives me especially crazy since DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR THE LAST TWO. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their liberal minions in Congress passed the last two budgets, not George W. Bush. Obama, a former constitutional law professor (!) needs a basic civics lesson, so that he'll finally understand that it's Congress, not the President, that exclusively holds the power of the purse.
I had a Word Document open during the address last night and I typed out some notes as Obama spoke. Here are some of the points that I felt were important/interesting/ridiculous:
- Early on in the speech, the president said, ”I’ve never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight." It's a vapid, stupid, throwaway line...and, what's worse, it makes him seem far more out-of-touch than optimistic. Most Americans aren't nearly as sanguine about the prospects of economic revival as this president.
- Obama cited the "2 million jobs" that the "stimulus" saved...which is, as so many media outlets have showed, a completely made-up number. He claimed that "first responders" and "teachers" were among those whose jobs were saved...but that's at least deceptive if not untruthful. The vast majority of policemen, firefighters, and teachers weren't really going to lose their jobs without stimulus money. As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has astutely observed again and again, the stimulus money was actually used to paper over holes in state budgets for another year, saving useless bureaucratic jobs that ought to have been cut back. The stimulus allowed state and local governments to continue living lavishly instead of trimming the fat like many American families have had to do.
- Obama repeatedly presented himself as the "fighter"- and he reserved especially harsh words for the Democrat-controlled Senate. On several occasions, he urged the Senate to follow the House's lead in passing things like financial reform, comprehensive energy reform, etc.
- The president, unsurprisingly given his incredible hubris/arrogance, was unable to admit that the health care reform plan that he favors is opposed by a majority of Americans because it's a bad bill. Furthermore, it was absolutely disgusting that he took credit for ending the war in Iraq- first, because he couldn't bring himself to say we had WON, and second, because we've only been able to responsibly wind down US involvement thanks to the surge strategy implemented by President Bush- a policy that Senator/Candidate Obama vociferously opposed.
- I smiled when they panned to Senator McCain and you could see him mouth "Blame it on Bush" to the person sitting next to him after Obama launched into another one of his exhausting "we're in this mess because of the last 8 years" statements.
- Obama's remark about lobbyists not being appointed to administration posts was laugh-provoking. I was waiting for someone to shout "YOU LIE!" after he said it. Boy, it takes a healthy amount of chutzpah to stand up in front of Congress and the American people and just tell a bare-faced whopper of a lie.
- Perhaps the most interesting part of the address was, I thought, the moment at which President Obama openly scolded the Supreme Court for its recent ruling on campaign finance restrictions. With the justices seated right in front of him, it was uncomfortable and awkward to watch...and it certainly seemed inappropriate, given separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law, to demagogue them like Obama did. It was even more revolting watching Senators like Chuck Schumer grin and applaud loudly right in the justices' ears from the row behind them. Ew. GOOD FOR SAM ALITO THOUGH- you could see him shake his head slightly and whisper "not true" when Obama made yet another inaccurate statement about the ruling (once again- come on Barack! You were a constitutional law expert supposedly!). Some will say Alito ought not have done this- but Obama and the Democrats who stood and applauded raucously are the ones in the wrong. It was a breach of decorum, and Obama owes the Court an apology- especially the 5 justices who issued the ruling (Kennedy, often the swing vote, wrote the majority decision).
- Obama spent far too little time on foreign affairs/fighting terrorism. After the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bombing attempt, he owed it to the American people to offer a coherent defense of his administration's anti-terror policies. If he supports Attorney General Holder's policy of trying KSM in NYC- and he must because, after all, Barack Obama is the decider- then he should have defended it. Ditto closing Gitmo and moving terrorists to US soil. Ditto treating the undie-bomber as a criminal and Mirandizing him rather than treating him as an unlawful enemy combatant and interrogating him in a military setting to extract intelligence that could bolster homeland security and our efforts to disrupt terrorism abroad.
- His casual and unbelievably unspecific mentions of a) repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and b) the need to fix our broken immigration system were silly. Surely no one, not legislators, not the American people, honestly believes he cares a whit about these issues. The empty, tepid rhetorical support for these two agenda items certainly didn't help Obama with his party's base.
- Obama did a nice job injecting a little humor into the address, and he also finished strong with his "We don't quit, I won't quit" line.
So there are some of the parts of the speech that I highlighted as I watched.
What I did find a bit surprising was that there was certainly no move toward the center by the president. He's determined to keep on governing from the left, it appears, which must be making the Blue Dog Democrats squirm. Barack Obama realizes he's not on the ballot in 2010, and it looks like it'll take a disastrous midterm election (a la Clinton in '94) to force him to do something like Clinton's triangulation. That can't sit well with Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Co. But oh well. By not pivoting toward the center, Obama showed an extraordinary degree of defiance and a lot of egotism. He basically flipped Republicans, a number of Democrats, the entire Senate, and a majority of Americans the bird last night. If you don't like my policies, tough, you're getting them anyway, because I know what's best. It's quite an attitude- and one he's likely to pay for in 2010 and 2012, if he cares.
Oh, and one final thought: if the president really wants Americans to see him as a FIGHTER, why doesn't he start by vowing to fight the Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us as war criminals/unlawful combatants instead of common criminals entitled to the same rights as American citizens? Just askin'.
Finally- the Republican response by Bob McDonnell, the recently-elected governor of Virginia. It was nothing special, but of course much better than Bobby Jindal's rejoinder to the State of the Nation last year. McDonnell did what he had to do, and he did it quite well. Kudos to him for repeatedly alluding to/quoting the Founders. Bravo for waving the federalism banner- I personally found that to be the best part of the speech, when he said that us governors, like the Founders, understand that government closest to the people governs best. He also had a good line about how Republican health insurance reform proposals aren’t thousand page bills crafted behind closed doors that no one has bothered to read.
McDonnell's speech was free from the mudslinging and partisanship of Obama's address...and it was, mercifully, much shorter. It was upbeat, hopeful, and genuine. McDonnell definitely looks like a rising star in the party...and we sorely need those.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
