* "and even some minnows". Alan Simpson, co-chair of the Catfood Commission
Alan Simpson said he wanted to be in the Government Witness Protection program after he and Erskine Bowles unveiled their recommendations yesterday. Wildly denounced,Bloomberg news writes this morning that the Deficit Commission's recommendations would cut $3.8 trillion from the national debt. But they added that politically their advice will not be taken.
Give them credit, Bowles and Simpson floated some trial balloons before the final recommendations due December 1. They are least were serious about their mission.Even their fellow board members are rebelling and it's doubtful whether they will rustle up 14 votes for their recommendations. What's curious is that we haven't heard any responses from the Republicans.
Do you get the impression that whenever President Obama is out of the country all hell breaks loose? Huffington Post broadcast that the Obama Administration has caved on tax cuts for the wealthy because of remarks yesterday by David Axelrod, who says the Administration has to deal with the political reality after the election. Almost immediately, the administration walked back the report.
Maybe it's just as well that Americans remain so self-centered. Otherwise, we would be seeing wall-to-wall stories that the young Obama's caregiver was a gay male, who now is a member of a leading transvestite group in Indonesia. Fox News floated the notion that Michelle Obama was going to meet with sex workers when she was in India. She did not. Or what about the huge scandal of Obama addressing the University of Indonesia and speaking Indonesian with some fluency. And the students were in rapture, not the heavenly kind.
It's strange that Pew published a poll on international trade while the President was out of the country. To summarize, Americans want more trade with Canada and the European countries but not South Korea or China. In short,more trade with white people.
The new teabagger congresscritters greeted Hispanic members of Congress with catcalls of "Go Back to Mexico!". Class bunch. Col. West's new chief of staff, who is a right-wing radio host, said on the first day of her new job that Nancy Pelosi was "garbage" and that illegals who commit crimes 'should be hung." It's going to be a long session.
The teabaggers are now turning on Rand Paul because he's reneging on his stance against earmarks. Jim Inhofe claims that the Left has brainwashed people about earmarks just as they have about global warming. What is in the water in Oklahoma? The war within the GOP has broken out and is likely to escalate in the next twelve months.
If you want to know how we have gotten to where we are today, rent the DVD "Casino Jack", which is a documentary on the conservative revolutionaries who gamed the system to win millions of dollars in lobbying contracts. Grover Norquist is shown emulating Lenin, who really is one of his political idols. Ralph Reed shows up with his Christian Coalition and then agitates for a gambling ban in Texas at the behest of Jack Abramoff's Indian casinos in Louisiana. Thomas Franks shows up to describe the origins of this so-called 'conservative revolution" and narrates how Tom Delay and Abramoff managed to manipulate Congress in covering up sweatshop conditions in the Marianas Islands as some showcase for free market economics. The film is a powerful indictment of the system in Washington. It ends with the Citizens United case which the filmmakers take as the ultimate triumph of these characters. One fun section is how a life guard from Reheboth was named the head of a think tank, which received millions of laundered money from Abramoff's clients. Abramoff today works in a Pizza Place in Baltimore after he served time in jail.
Gore Vidal said something that still hangs in the air," Barack Obama's problem is that he is too smart for the people he leads." James T. Kloppenberg, an American History professor at Harvard, just published "Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope and the American Political Tradition". This book is the antidote to Dinesh DeSouza's book on the anti-colonial Obama. Kloppenberg writes an intellectual history of Barack Obama by examining his writings, his graduate school papers, his teaching and his educational reading. Listening to President Obama's speeches, Kloppenberg examines Obama's willingness to be conciliatory and moderate in tone. Kloppenberg believes Obama is one of the first intellectual Presidents in a long time and he represents a long distinguished American tradition of political thought. Instead of locating Obama in the world of Franz Fanon as DeSouza does, Kloppenberg links Obama to philosophical pragmatism and its strongest proponents--William James and John Dewey. Now I know why I like him. However, Kloppenberg, who is a liberal, warns that Barack Obama's style and thinking may not be effective in a poisoned atmosphere with such polarization in the country.
Kloppenberg does an excellent job of unwinding the process Obama went through in rejecting identity politics. This always struck me when the Right mentions the list of radical characters Obama knew or was acquainted with. What the Right purposely never admits is that Obama rejected almost all these people's advice and went a different way. One of the personalities the Right identifies with Obama is a friend of his grandfather, a black member of the American Communist Party, who had been expelled. This friend told Obama not to work with white people, don't play their games and do not go to college. I guess that advice was ignored.
"Reading Obama" doesn't encourage progressives to think Obama is one of their own. Instead, he is as I've written a radical moderate. This becomes clear with each policy proposal put forth. It's simply the contrast with the very Radical Right agenda of the GOP that he appears leftish. What Koppenberg makes clear is that Obama is not a political pragmatist, a compromiser for the sake of it, but a philosophical pragmatist, who is skeptical of the assertions of any one group as possessing the right answers. In some ways, it would preferable if Obama was more in the progressive camp given our dire circumstances.
But such subtleties don't bother us with George W., who failed to repeat his defense of the Muslim people when asked about all the Islamophobia by Matt Lauer. Dubya did defend the TARP program on Rush and said facing a Great Depression he chose FDR over Herbert Hoover. Unfortunately, the results weren't the same.
"Decision Points" triggered an uncomfortable realization. George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry--same education, same wealth, same class. Why do we think any one of them would not produce what we have today? As Robert Scheer has pointed out in his most recent book, The Clinton people and the Bush people colluded in the economic downfall of the United States. Why would we think the Democratic candidates would have produced anything different? After all, Democrats allowed the Patriot Act to be passed, knew about the torture program and basically got rolled by Bush and Cheney.
So far in my reading of Decision Points I have not come across anything to explain Dubya's studied lack of curiosity about the world at large. Also, he tries to pump up his Midlands upbringing but it doesn't explain years at Andover, Yale and Harvard. There is a lack of forthrightness about this period of his life as if he want to convey the image of the guy you must want to have a beer with. I've only gotten as far as his run for the Presidency but so far I get any new sense of gravitas or depth to Dubya.
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
When Wings Take Dreams
For Dubya's comeback, I suggest renting Will Ferrell's America:You're Welcome, a comedic but accurate account of the Bush presidency. It seems Dubya is annoying our allies. Gerhard Schroeder lambasted Bush for lying about why he didn't support the American invasion of Iraq and the British called him out on the assertion that waterboarding yielded information that prevented the Heathrow Airport plot. As a library of research has shown, it was the handiwork of the Brits and uncoerced leads from Muslims that stopped the plot.
In one of the televised interviews, W defends his approval of torture by saying that his lawyers said it was legal. Of course, Dick Cheney massaged the legal opinions, which another whole library has established.
If you are confused about Rightness and Wrongness of America's torturing people, I recommend Charles Fried and Gregory Fried's "Because it is Wrong:Torture, Privacy and Presidential Power in the Age of Terror". The father and son team debated the issues in the book privately and publicly over a year before committing their ideas to print. Charles Fried had been Reagan's Solicitor General and his son Gregory is a philosophy professor. The two handle the approaches to warrantless wiretapping and torture in their book. While both conclude they are wrong, they disagree to what are the remedies. Charles Fried backs the Obama approach of moving forward, while Gregory wants the torturing part of the Bush years to be punished and some semblance of a national reconciliation commission created.
George W's admission that he approved torture actually puts the United States in a difficult spot. Under the Torture Convention, signatory states are required to take the necessary remedis to stop the practice but also to bring the culprits to justice. This also applies to all sugnatories. In effect, George W. Bush should not be allowed to travel to Europe, Canada or any other country that has signed the Torture Convention. In addition, the United Nations rapporteur on torture is also owed considerable explanations by the United States about its practices on torture and renditioning. These requirements do not end with a change in administration. Jonathan Turley at the beginning of the Obama Administration cautioned the DOJ that if they brushed the crimes of torture under the rug than the new Administration would become liable under international law.
For those tempted to buy "Decision Points", don't. I'll report on anything newsworthy or noteworthy in the weeks ahead. I'll be reading in a quest to answer the question about why the Bush Administration was always so passive/aggressive toward every crisis. It seems Bush himself always needed at least two years before he acted on anything. In his interviews, he has lied about when he first learned about the impending financial collapse of the world economic system. He says March 2008 but the hard-copy evidence points to the same time the previous year. In the memoir he admits he let the situation in Iraq deteriorate for two years before he did anything about it.
My bet is still on Rumsfeld to produce a memoir, which actually says something truthful.
From the interviews to date, the tone of the former President gives you some hint of where the current GOP gets its rhetoric from. This tendency to make bold-faced assertions and then double-down on them if they are proven to be factually incorrect. Dubya's revisiting the reasons for war with Iraq takes us back to the good old days where he accused Saddam of harboring terrorists (he did harbor the PFLP), building vast amounts of WMDs (he wasn't and hadn't since the Gulf War), or at least having the capability (recent justification but also proven wrong), and gaming the international system by cheating on the UN food for oil program (true but can you justify war on these grounds?).
I can't wait to read about 9-11. What was it about the August warnings titled "Bin Laden Plans to Attack America" that he didn't believe. In the interviews, he tries to maintain that no one really knew who committed 9-11 until days later when intelligence picked up Al Qaeda's bragging about it. He and Cheney have argued that no one knew anything about Al Qaeda until after 9-11. This is just plain wrong as the Clinton Administration had a full-time office just tracking Bin Laden and documenting the group's plans and ideology. The same can be said about determining the group's personnel. There has been a huge smokescreen created by the Bush people over 9/11 and the rationale for why the huge military/ terrorist/ intelligence complex was created after that day.
Some of this is understandable. You get caught with your pants down on the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. It's understandable you would want to cover up the obvious tracks leading to this event. But I find the whole rationale for torture in the Bush Administration to hang on this supposed ignorance about Al Qaeda and the wonderous revelations produced by waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But those revelations made the U.S. chase around the world on false leads, produced the false info that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda, and did not produce information about the LAX plot or the Healthrow plot or anything else. The United States and its allies knew buckets of information about AlQaeda. They didn't need torture or the wonderful fantasies about the "ticking time-bomb" to motivate people.
Watching Dubya, I still get this sense the guy was not in control. If you go back to the parts of the interview with Matt Lauer about his authorizing torture,listen to it closely. You get the sense his participation was very late in the game and that he was merely asked to bless the torture that had already been approved. Even in this very major decision, he comes across as disengaged, not quite aware of what is going on.
Years ago, people speculated about Nixon's state of mind and whether he was actually engaged in the last years of his presidency. There were rumors about drink, maudlin late night tours of the Capitol, boatrides to Mount Vernon. But then slightly more than a decade ago, a book was published of all the memos he wrote while President. In these memos he was obsessed with the most minute details of policy, personnel, and politics. He even spent time actually describing the ridiculous uniforms for the White House Guards. In fact, Nixon was in total control--just not emotionally in control of himself.
Maybe we will find out the same about Dubya. But today I have my doubts.
In one of the televised interviews, W defends his approval of torture by saying that his lawyers said it was legal. Of course, Dick Cheney massaged the legal opinions, which another whole library has established.
If you are confused about Rightness and Wrongness of America's torturing people, I recommend Charles Fried and Gregory Fried's "Because it is Wrong:Torture, Privacy and Presidential Power in the Age of Terror". The father and son team debated the issues in the book privately and publicly over a year before committing their ideas to print. Charles Fried had been Reagan's Solicitor General and his son Gregory is a philosophy professor. The two handle the approaches to warrantless wiretapping and torture in their book. While both conclude they are wrong, they disagree to what are the remedies. Charles Fried backs the Obama approach of moving forward, while Gregory wants the torturing part of the Bush years to be punished and some semblance of a national reconciliation commission created.
George W's admission that he approved torture actually puts the United States in a difficult spot. Under the Torture Convention, signatory states are required to take the necessary remedis to stop the practice but also to bring the culprits to justice. This also applies to all sugnatories. In effect, George W. Bush should not be allowed to travel to Europe, Canada or any other country that has signed the Torture Convention. In addition, the United Nations rapporteur on torture is also owed considerable explanations by the United States about its practices on torture and renditioning. These requirements do not end with a change in administration. Jonathan Turley at the beginning of the Obama Administration cautioned the DOJ that if they brushed the crimes of torture under the rug than the new Administration would become liable under international law.
For those tempted to buy "Decision Points", don't. I'll report on anything newsworthy or noteworthy in the weeks ahead. I'll be reading in a quest to answer the question about why the Bush Administration was always so passive/aggressive toward every crisis. It seems Bush himself always needed at least two years before he acted on anything. In his interviews, he has lied about when he first learned about the impending financial collapse of the world economic system. He says March 2008 but the hard-copy evidence points to the same time the previous year. In the memoir he admits he let the situation in Iraq deteriorate for two years before he did anything about it.
My bet is still on Rumsfeld to produce a memoir, which actually says something truthful.
From the interviews to date, the tone of the former President gives you some hint of where the current GOP gets its rhetoric from. This tendency to make bold-faced assertions and then double-down on them if they are proven to be factually incorrect. Dubya's revisiting the reasons for war with Iraq takes us back to the good old days where he accused Saddam of harboring terrorists (he did harbor the PFLP), building vast amounts of WMDs (he wasn't and hadn't since the Gulf War), or at least having the capability (recent justification but also proven wrong), and gaming the international system by cheating on the UN food for oil program (true but can you justify war on these grounds?).
I can't wait to read about 9-11. What was it about the August warnings titled "Bin Laden Plans to Attack America" that he didn't believe. In the interviews, he tries to maintain that no one really knew who committed 9-11 until days later when intelligence picked up Al Qaeda's bragging about it. He and Cheney have argued that no one knew anything about Al Qaeda until after 9-11. This is just plain wrong as the Clinton Administration had a full-time office just tracking Bin Laden and documenting the group's plans and ideology. The same can be said about determining the group's personnel. There has been a huge smokescreen created by the Bush people over 9/11 and the rationale for why the huge military/ terrorist/ intelligence complex was created after that day.
Some of this is understandable. You get caught with your pants down on the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. It's understandable you would want to cover up the obvious tracks leading to this event. But I find the whole rationale for torture in the Bush Administration to hang on this supposed ignorance about Al Qaeda and the wonderous revelations produced by waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But those revelations made the U.S. chase around the world on false leads, produced the false info that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda, and did not produce information about the LAX plot or the Healthrow plot or anything else. The United States and its allies knew buckets of information about AlQaeda. They didn't need torture or the wonderful fantasies about the "ticking time-bomb" to motivate people.
Watching Dubya, I still get this sense the guy was not in control. If you go back to the parts of the interview with Matt Lauer about his authorizing torture,listen to it closely. You get the sense his participation was very late in the game and that he was merely asked to bless the torture that had already been approved. Even in this very major decision, he comes across as disengaged, not quite aware of what is going on.
Years ago, people speculated about Nixon's state of mind and whether he was actually engaged in the last years of his presidency. There were rumors about drink, maudlin late night tours of the Capitol, boatrides to Mount Vernon. But then slightly more than a decade ago, a book was published of all the memos he wrote while President. In these memos he was obsessed with the most minute details of policy, personnel, and politics. He even spent time actually describing the ridiculous uniforms for the White House Guards. In fact, Nixon was in total control--just not emotionally in control of himself.
Maybe we will find out the same about Dubya. But today I have my doubts.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Whom Do You Represent?
It seems the GOP has trouble grasping representative democracy. Even though you win elections, you do have to represent all your constituents. The exit polls for this year's elections clearly indicate the issue was jobs and the economy. Yet, our newly elected Republicans have taken this to mean an outright endorsement of their ideology--and an ideology it is. They claim they are for "limited, constitutional government, cutting taxes (although they will not acknowledge Obama cut them) and the deficit".
While the President extended his hand to reach compromise, both John Boehner and Mitch McConnell said that Obama would have to adopt the Republican agenda or else they will close down the government. Oklahoma Tom Coburn threatened to close down the government unless $300 billion cuts in spending were found immediately. Senator Jim DeMint has demanded the right to read every bill before he would consent to let it come to a vote. A punk Michigan congressman, who just barely won election, demands that Obama do what Republicans say or the government will be closed down.
All of this rhetoric comes around the impending need to raise the debt ceiling of the country. The last time the GOP blocked this under the Clinton Administration we were not in a depression, fighting two wars, and having to assure the international community we can manage the awesome debt accumulated during the Bush-Cheney years. A failure to raise the debt ceiling now would trigger a collapse of the stock market and another severe challenge to the international economic system. Yet, our great media doesn't call these people out on their sheer insanity. They like the sports analogies of politics.
Dick Armey gave an interview with NPR where he outlined what the new Republican House should do. He claims that this is utterly the last chance the Republican Party has or else it will be finished on the national stage. He said that new teabagger members should just vote for limited government and cut all spending. The only spending that they should guarantee is military because that is the only function the federal government must perform. He said that he would suggest introducing a bill immediately to repeal Obamacare and even if it didn't go to the President then they should keep voting on it to fulfill their promises. (Note: repealing Obamacare would increase the federal debt by trillions as we know from the OMB report.) Asked whether Republicans should compromise with the Democrats and President Obama, he said Obama called Republicans "nasty things" during the campaign , unlike the nice epithets the GOP has called the President since Day 1, and that the Republicans can not trust him.
Now listening to Dick Armey talk about "limited government", you get a sense we are a country the size of New Hampshire, have no international obligations, social commitments to our citizens and aren't pivotal to the world financial system. The Exit Polls show that 37% of the Republican voters wanted more spending for job creation, not less, and a majority really didn't care about the national debt--like Republicans never have since Eisenhower. Also, the largest voting bloc for Republicans were the white elderly and the Party can not risk alienating its last base of support by cutting entitlement programs.
Now we have Republicans sitting in Congress saying they will not compromise. It's like they have never participated in the legislative process before.
But what bothers me is whom do they think they represent. We always hear Boehner say "The Voice of the American voter has been heard." but he never said that when President Obama won. When healthcare reform enjoyed a 59% popularity before the disinformation campaign was launched, we didn't hear Boehner accepting this. Only when Fox News and the faux teabaggers started their white riots, did he invoke the popular will. BUT, we once understood that if you were elected to such offices, you represented everyone in your district or your state no matter what their affiliation. Already, new members are turning away calls from constituents who did not support them. They is unprecedented in recent memory.
This is a serious problem. For example, John Kasich barely won by a whisker his battle against Gov. Strickland. During the election campaign he was asked what he would cut and what taxes would he raise etc. Like all GOP candidates this year, he dodged or refused to answer these questions. Yesterday, after the results were announced, he proclaimed that he was cancelling the rapid train plans through Ohio, which had been approved by the Federal Government, stated he would refuse to accept any further stimulus funds for the depressed state, would not enforce the voter-approved tax hike to support the public school system and would totally reorganize State government and eliminate whole departments. He said he would drastically cut education spending. Remember nearly 49% of the state voted against him. The scenario was repeated in Wisconsin with the election of a new Republican Governor. The first day after his victory, he announced he was cancelling the new rail link into the state as developed as part of the rehabilitation of our rail systems.
Like Chrissie in New Jersey cancelling the tunnel to Manhattan, these Republicans try to make a great show of cancelling such projects as if they are saving money. In all three cases, they will have to pay hundreds of millions back to the Federal government. Also, all three rail projects were to be funded by US-backed transportation bonds.
But it's the collossal arrogance and ignorance of these people which is appalling. We should expect this in the next year because you can look it up--none of these people told the voters what they would actually do. But it is clear that they all had a coordinated plan. Cut to Karl Rove. Speaking in western Pennsylvania yesterday to oil drillers, he assured them that there would be no new regulations on oil drilling passed by the House and that anything having to do with Clean Air was dead. How Does He Know? Was this a quid pro quo, all the candidates agreed to for the support of Crossroads America? Is this not bribery?
Out on the West Coast, a tired, old, hoarse Jerry Brown made his victory speech in an Art Deco movie theater built in 1928. Brown had refurbished the building and created two schools there while Mayor of Oakland. Perhaps it's his Jesuit training or Zen practices or simply his memory of his past time as Governor. He opened his speech with his firm commitment to a younger generation and stated his first priority as governor would be to get the resources to support the public education system in the state. Jerry Brown was one of the reasons California could brag about its public education system and its extensive college system. This jewel in the state's crown had been tarnished by draconian budget cuts in recent years.
But Jerry Brown reminded his audience that the political situation in the state and in the nation was highly polarized. He said that over 40% of the voters did not cast their ballot for him but his opponent. But he urged everyone not to compromise on principle but to compromise so that all Californians could seek common ground and a vision for the future. This is not the winner--takes--all principles we are seeing among Republicans. His words may be corny but they remain true in all of political life. Once the campaign ends, governing begins and we have to search for the common good. Maybe it's Jerry Brown's 71 years or maybe it's his experience as a successful governor 35 years ago, but it was clear that he would try and serve all Californians. You do not get that sense from any of the Republicans who have been elected. There is a ruthless nihilism that comes through that should scare everyone. There is no sense of the common good. It is completely lacking.
Another bright spot in the last few miserable days was the YouTube talk by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka. I guess you have to have led a long miners strike to have the bounce he did after the election. He addressed his rank-and-file and talked in detail of all their election activities and said how much they had affected the elections in Nevada, Colorado and California. He could have said that they came damn close in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio. But if you are going to speak in defeat, Trumpka had the tone down pat. He said the work begins again today to fight for workers' rights. I find myself more and more impressed by him.
Not to miss a beat, Nancy Pelosi was in California to start the formation of the state's "exchanges" for the implementation of the healthrefom bill and made an extensive speech about how this will help the state rebound from its economic woes and generate new jobs. As for her loss as Speaker, she can claim that she led the most progressive legislation in over a generation. It's really too bad some 400 of these bills never got taken up by the Senate.
Progressives are finally waking up to find that almost all their caucus is left in place. It was the Blue Dog caucus that was slaughtered. Progressive really have to find a way to commuicate their positions. Throughout the last two years, polling on policy reflects that the American people support "progressive" positions if phrased specifically. Almost 60% of the American people backed a public option for healthcare reform. Similar percentages back a larger stimulus and also President Obama's plans for the infrastructure. Given that Teabaggers supported funding for job creation, there might be room for a little subversion in the next Congress.
Republicans are now showing their true attitudes to the teabaggers. Michelle Bachman's attempt to make a move to #3 in the House was rebuffed and Karl Rove has now openly gone after the teabaggers. In the House, they will get their pet rocks like the gratuitous investigations into ACORN but they will not have a say about the corporate agenda of Tan Man Boehner. Boehner had already plotted policy in his meeting with Wall Street in New York last Spring.
So far, the Republicans have overreached in their statements about their mandate. The Rasmussen poll is actually looking quite prescient about the degree of disappointment people will feel with the new Congress. It's going to be interesting to see how the teabaggers react to getting their orders from the leadership. The new Republicans are far more radical and less corporate than their leaders. It would be delightful if the GOP didn't vote in a solid block for the first time in years. It might take the new authoritarians to break up the authoritarian rule.
Forget the Democrats for a minute. The new Republican party has an ideology that is like the mirror image of a Marxist paradise. It is libertarian, free market utopianism. Col.Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, said that these Republicans' views on economics are so laughable except for the situation we're in as a country. Wilkerson warned that the United States has to have good presidential leadership for the next four terms to get out of our mess and if we don't we will decline rapidly.
What does "constitutional, limited government" mean in the 21st century? We know from the past eight years that endless tax cuts and de-regulation did not create jobs and prosperity or make us stronger abroad. We know that economic development depends on education, investment in research and development and infrastructure, which did not happen until this President took over. And how do you square "limited government" with your imperial dreams? People like Pat Ryan with his "Blueprint for the Future" tries to square all this but only comes up with a country that would de-develop but remains a formidable military power. And he now will be head of the budget committee in the House. Over 15 libertarians won seats in the New Hampshire legislature and maybe that's where such people belong.
The problem we face is that people like the simplistic solutions until the implications are spelled out. If you eliminate social security, will your children take care of you in your old age? Will you and your family be able to afford healthcare? If you severely cut public education, won't we be at the mercy of other countries' who can out-compete us and out-arm us?
It seems to me an indicator of a Great Society is how it takes care of its most vulnerable. This new Republican vision has no room for compassion, empathy or solidarity with others. There is no social compact. There is really no role for government except to protect us from real and imagined foes. Limited government breeds large corporate entities, which Republicans frame as "entrepeneurs", "the producers", and "small business". Only government can violate human rights, not corporations. The rest of society--the old, the infirm, the poor, minorities--are just out of luck. Because that's the price you pay for your freedom.
Many of the new Republican senators and congressmen proclaim that "Atlas Shrugged" is their inspiration. Almost all who said this are dependent on government for their wealth and their families receive unemployment insurance, social security and government pensions. I received an e-mail tonight from a conservative complaining about Obama's mythical plans to raise taxes on the "European model" with a complete chart of all of Europe's tax rates. He said the example was Greece, where until this year you could retire at the age of 48. What is strange is that this person receives a nice miltary pension, benefits from government health insurance at $300 per month, works for defense contractors and also receives a stipend from a news agencies partly owned by the Saudis. He basically gamed the imperial side of our system to have a permanent livelihood. But he has no sense of irony when he advocates these right-wing positions about our welfare state.
Now this call for the repeal of healthcare. The Republicans are promising they will repeal this signature accomplishment of Barack Obama. They might as well try and air-brush him out of history. What they never say--and our media doesn't mention--millions more Americans will go bankrupt because of health costs. We are currently spending 2.5 trillion dollars a year on healthcare in this country, several times the percentage of GNP of any other developed nation. From the healthcare debate, we saw how that cost will continue to escalate unless something like the healthcare bill was passed. The Republicans scared seniors this year--this was Karl Rove's doing--that Obama cut $500 billion from Medicare. What he did was eliminate that much in fraud, waste and over-charging by insurance companies. Any repeal of healthcare would out the country again at the mercy of rapacious health insurance companies. But even they don't want it repealed as some of their spokesmen made clear today. They need the individual mandates--the precise element the Republicans oppose--in order to survive as a viable business.
Somehow the bipartisan agreement that we have a dysfunctional healthcare system seems to have vanished once Barack Obama triumphed. The alternative offered by House Republicans last time would only increase coverage of 3 million Americans, not 40 million and would only save $58 billion in a one time move. We would be stuck with the monstrous system as it is and all go bankrupt.
To answer Senator Coburn, President Obama should repeat his desire to kill the new fighter jet, which is running billions over budget and would cost $300 billion to complete. That would be the instant budget cut Coburn was looking for. But the problem is that the House doesn't want to cut this needless weapons system that was geared for the Cold War.
There are some cynics who believe we should just let Republicans have their way and then the American people would become aware of their treachery. But we know from this mid-term that the American people have already forgotten how we got to the present place. And they would buy into tax cuts for corporations as job creation. Even though we found out the contrary during the George Bush years. A key element in this mid-term elections was the almost relentless 20 month propaganda campaign by the right against President Obama so that none of his significant achievements were acknowledged and almost all the bad moves at the end of the Bush years were blamed on him such as the TARP program, which he turned into a profit.
George W. Bush's memoirs are out. Don't buy them. But one gets a sense how dumbed down we have become as a country when there is no outrage that he proudly asserts he approved the torture program and specifically ordered KSM to be waterboarded. P.S. Contrary to his assertions there was nothing learned from the torture other than disinformation that linked Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. Also, W says that even though he had been told about the impending economic collapse two years in advance, he was more interested in things like the rate of inflation and not these larger issues. So he didn't do anything. The most distressing moment of his presidency was not 9-11 or blowing Iraq, but being called a racist by Kanye West.
George W. claims that he really didn't pay attention to the destruction going on in Iraq for two years and then he was forced to act. Compare what the Right says about President Obama and his achievements in 20 months. Can you imagine the reaction if Obama postpone a decision for two years? Look what happened when he deliberated on the strategy in Afghanistan.
That's why one can not believe the American people will learn the disasterous effect Bush's policy had on the U.S. and the world at large. What you see after the mid-terms is the revenge of George W. Bush and his henchmen. It really doesn't mean anything to have a reality-based politics. I believe it's essential but clearly the majority of Americans do not.
While the President extended his hand to reach compromise, both John Boehner and Mitch McConnell said that Obama would have to adopt the Republican agenda or else they will close down the government. Oklahoma Tom Coburn threatened to close down the government unless $300 billion cuts in spending were found immediately. Senator Jim DeMint has demanded the right to read every bill before he would consent to let it come to a vote. A punk Michigan congressman, who just barely won election, demands that Obama do what Republicans say or the government will be closed down.
All of this rhetoric comes around the impending need to raise the debt ceiling of the country. The last time the GOP blocked this under the Clinton Administration we were not in a depression, fighting two wars, and having to assure the international community we can manage the awesome debt accumulated during the Bush-Cheney years. A failure to raise the debt ceiling now would trigger a collapse of the stock market and another severe challenge to the international economic system. Yet, our great media doesn't call these people out on their sheer insanity. They like the sports analogies of politics.
Dick Armey gave an interview with NPR where he outlined what the new Republican House should do. He claims that this is utterly the last chance the Republican Party has or else it will be finished on the national stage. He said that new teabagger members should just vote for limited government and cut all spending. The only spending that they should guarantee is military because that is the only function the federal government must perform. He said that he would suggest introducing a bill immediately to repeal Obamacare and even if it didn't go to the President then they should keep voting on it to fulfill their promises. (Note: repealing Obamacare would increase the federal debt by trillions as we know from the OMB report.) Asked whether Republicans should compromise with the Democrats and President Obama, he said Obama called Republicans "nasty things" during the campaign , unlike the nice epithets the GOP has called the President since Day 1, and that the Republicans can not trust him.
Now listening to Dick Armey talk about "limited government", you get a sense we are a country the size of New Hampshire, have no international obligations, social commitments to our citizens and aren't pivotal to the world financial system. The Exit Polls show that 37% of the Republican voters wanted more spending for job creation, not less, and a majority really didn't care about the national debt--like Republicans never have since Eisenhower. Also, the largest voting bloc for Republicans were the white elderly and the Party can not risk alienating its last base of support by cutting entitlement programs.
Now we have Republicans sitting in Congress saying they will not compromise. It's like they have never participated in the legislative process before.
But what bothers me is whom do they think they represent. We always hear Boehner say "The Voice of the American voter has been heard." but he never said that when President Obama won. When healthcare reform enjoyed a 59% popularity before the disinformation campaign was launched, we didn't hear Boehner accepting this. Only when Fox News and the faux teabaggers started their white riots, did he invoke the popular will. BUT, we once understood that if you were elected to such offices, you represented everyone in your district or your state no matter what their affiliation. Already, new members are turning away calls from constituents who did not support them. They is unprecedented in recent memory.
This is a serious problem. For example, John Kasich barely won by a whisker his battle against Gov. Strickland. During the election campaign he was asked what he would cut and what taxes would he raise etc. Like all GOP candidates this year, he dodged or refused to answer these questions. Yesterday, after the results were announced, he proclaimed that he was cancelling the rapid train plans through Ohio, which had been approved by the Federal Government, stated he would refuse to accept any further stimulus funds for the depressed state, would not enforce the voter-approved tax hike to support the public school system and would totally reorganize State government and eliminate whole departments. He said he would drastically cut education spending. Remember nearly 49% of the state voted against him. The scenario was repeated in Wisconsin with the election of a new Republican Governor. The first day after his victory, he announced he was cancelling the new rail link into the state as developed as part of the rehabilitation of our rail systems.
Like Chrissie in New Jersey cancelling the tunnel to Manhattan, these Republicans try to make a great show of cancelling such projects as if they are saving money. In all three cases, they will have to pay hundreds of millions back to the Federal government. Also, all three rail projects were to be funded by US-backed transportation bonds.
But it's the collossal arrogance and ignorance of these people which is appalling. We should expect this in the next year because you can look it up--none of these people told the voters what they would actually do. But it is clear that they all had a coordinated plan. Cut to Karl Rove. Speaking in western Pennsylvania yesterday to oil drillers, he assured them that there would be no new regulations on oil drilling passed by the House and that anything having to do with Clean Air was dead. How Does He Know? Was this a quid pro quo, all the candidates agreed to for the support of Crossroads America? Is this not bribery?
Out on the West Coast, a tired, old, hoarse Jerry Brown made his victory speech in an Art Deco movie theater built in 1928. Brown had refurbished the building and created two schools there while Mayor of Oakland. Perhaps it's his Jesuit training or Zen practices or simply his memory of his past time as Governor. He opened his speech with his firm commitment to a younger generation and stated his first priority as governor would be to get the resources to support the public education system in the state. Jerry Brown was one of the reasons California could brag about its public education system and its extensive college system. This jewel in the state's crown had been tarnished by draconian budget cuts in recent years.
But Jerry Brown reminded his audience that the political situation in the state and in the nation was highly polarized. He said that over 40% of the voters did not cast their ballot for him but his opponent. But he urged everyone not to compromise on principle but to compromise so that all Californians could seek common ground and a vision for the future. This is not the winner--takes--all principles we are seeing among Republicans. His words may be corny but they remain true in all of political life. Once the campaign ends, governing begins and we have to search for the common good. Maybe it's Jerry Brown's 71 years or maybe it's his experience as a successful governor 35 years ago, but it was clear that he would try and serve all Californians. You do not get that sense from any of the Republicans who have been elected. There is a ruthless nihilism that comes through that should scare everyone. There is no sense of the common good. It is completely lacking.
Another bright spot in the last few miserable days was the YouTube talk by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka. I guess you have to have led a long miners strike to have the bounce he did after the election. He addressed his rank-and-file and talked in detail of all their election activities and said how much they had affected the elections in Nevada, Colorado and California. He could have said that they came damn close in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio. But if you are going to speak in defeat, Trumpka had the tone down pat. He said the work begins again today to fight for workers' rights. I find myself more and more impressed by him.
Not to miss a beat, Nancy Pelosi was in California to start the formation of the state's "exchanges" for the implementation of the healthrefom bill and made an extensive speech about how this will help the state rebound from its economic woes and generate new jobs. As for her loss as Speaker, she can claim that she led the most progressive legislation in over a generation. It's really too bad some 400 of these bills never got taken up by the Senate.
Progressives are finally waking up to find that almost all their caucus is left in place. It was the Blue Dog caucus that was slaughtered. Progressive really have to find a way to commuicate their positions. Throughout the last two years, polling on policy reflects that the American people support "progressive" positions if phrased specifically. Almost 60% of the American people backed a public option for healthcare reform. Similar percentages back a larger stimulus and also President Obama's plans for the infrastructure. Given that Teabaggers supported funding for job creation, there might be room for a little subversion in the next Congress.
Republicans are now showing their true attitudes to the teabaggers. Michelle Bachman's attempt to make a move to #3 in the House was rebuffed and Karl Rove has now openly gone after the teabaggers. In the House, they will get their pet rocks like the gratuitous investigations into ACORN but they will not have a say about the corporate agenda of Tan Man Boehner. Boehner had already plotted policy in his meeting with Wall Street in New York last Spring.
So far, the Republicans have overreached in their statements about their mandate. The Rasmussen poll is actually looking quite prescient about the degree of disappointment people will feel with the new Congress. It's going to be interesting to see how the teabaggers react to getting their orders from the leadership. The new Republicans are far more radical and less corporate than their leaders. It would be delightful if the GOP didn't vote in a solid block for the first time in years. It might take the new authoritarians to break up the authoritarian rule.
Forget the Democrats for a minute. The new Republican party has an ideology that is like the mirror image of a Marxist paradise. It is libertarian, free market utopianism. Col.Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, said that these Republicans' views on economics are so laughable except for the situation we're in as a country. Wilkerson warned that the United States has to have good presidential leadership for the next four terms to get out of our mess and if we don't we will decline rapidly.
What does "constitutional, limited government" mean in the 21st century? We know from the past eight years that endless tax cuts and de-regulation did not create jobs and prosperity or make us stronger abroad. We know that economic development depends on education, investment in research and development and infrastructure, which did not happen until this President took over. And how do you square "limited government" with your imperial dreams? People like Pat Ryan with his "Blueprint for the Future" tries to square all this but only comes up with a country that would de-develop but remains a formidable military power. And he now will be head of the budget committee in the House. Over 15 libertarians won seats in the New Hampshire legislature and maybe that's where such people belong.
The problem we face is that people like the simplistic solutions until the implications are spelled out. If you eliminate social security, will your children take care of you in your old age? Will you and your family be able to afford healthcare? If you severely cut public education, won't we be at the mercy of other countries' who can out-compete us and out-arm us?
It seems to me an indicator of a Great Society is how it takes care of its most vulnerable. This new Republican vision has no room for compassion, empathy or solidarity with others. There is no social compact. There is really no role for government except to protect us from real and imagined foes. Limited government breeds large corporate entities, which Republicans frame as "entrepeneurs", "the producers", and "small business". Only government can violate human rights, not corporations. The rest of society--the old, the infirm, the poor, minorities--are just out of luck. Because that's the price you pay for your freedom.
Many of the new Republican senators and congressmen proclaim that "Atlas Shrugged" is their inspiration. Almost all who said this are dependent on government for their wealth and their families receive unemployment insurance, social security and government pensions. I received an e-mail tonight from a conservative complaining about Obama's mythical plans to raise taxes on the "European model" with a complete chart of all of Europe's tax rates. He said the example was Greece, where until this year you could retire at the age of 48. What is strange is that this person receives a nice miltary pension, benefits from government health insurance at $300 per month, works for defense contractors and also receives a stipend from a news agencies partly owned by the Saudis. He basically gamed the imperial side of our system to have a permanent livelihood. But he has no sense of irony when he advocates these right-wing positions about our welfare state.
Now this call for the repeal of healthcare. The Republicans are promising they will repeal this signature accomplishment of Barack Obama. They might as well try and air-brush him out of history. What they never say--and our media doesn't mention--millions more Americans will go bankrupt because of health costs. We are currently spending 2.5 trillion dollars a year on healthcare in this country, several times the percentage of GNP of any other developed nation. From the healthcare debate, we saw how that cost will continue to escalate unless something like the healthcare bill was passed. The Republicans scared seniors this year--this was Karl Rove's doing--that Obama cut $500 billion from Medicare. What he did was eliminate that much in fraud, waste and over-charging by insurance companies. Any repeal of healthcare would out the country again at the mercy of rapacious health insurance companies. But even they don't want it repealed as some of their spokesmen made clear today. They need the individual mandates--the precise element the Republicans oppose--in order to survive as a viable business.
Somehow the bipartisan agreement that we have a dysfunctional healthcare system seems to have vanished once Barack Obama triumphed. The alternative offered by House Republicans last time would only increase coverage of 3 million Americans, not 40 million and would only save $58 billion in a one time move. We would be stuck with the monstrous system as it is and all go bankrupt.
To answer Senator Coburn, President Obama should repeat his desire to kill the new fighter jet, which is running billions over budget and would cost $300 billion to complete. That would be the instant budget cut Coburn was looking for. But the problem is that the House doesn't want to cut this needless weapons system that was geared for the Cold War.
There are some cynics who believe we should just let Republicans have their way and then the American people would become aware of their treachery. But we know from this mid-term that the American people have already forgotten how we got to the present place. And they would buy into tax cuts for corporations as job creation. Even though we found out the contrary during the George Bush years. A key element in this mid-term elections was the almost relentless 20 month propaganda campaign by the right against President Obama so that none of his significant achievements were acknowledged and almost all the bad moves at the end of the Bush years were blamed on him such as the TARP program, which he turned into a profit.
George W. Bush's memoirs are out. Don't buy them. But one gets a sense how dumbed down we have become as a country when there is no outrage that he proudly asserts he approved the torture program and specifically ordered KSM to be waterboarded. P.S. Contrary to his assertions there was nothing learned from the torture other than disinformation that linked Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. Also, W says that even though he had been told about the impending economic collapse two years in advance, he was more interested in things like the rate of inflation and not these larger issues. So he didn't do anything. The most distressing moment of his presidency was not 9-11 or blowing Iraq, but being called a racist by Kanye West.
George W. claims that he really didn't pay attention to the destruction going on in Iraq for two years and then he was forced to act. Compare what the Right says about President Obama and his achievements in 20 months. Can you imagine the reaction if Obama postpone a decision for two years? Look what happened when he deliberated on the strategy in Afghanistan.
That's why one can not believe the American people will learn the disasterous effect Bush's policy had on the U.S. and the world at large. What you see after the mid-terms is the revenge of George W. Bush and his henchmen. It really doesn't mean anything to have a reality-based politics. I believe it's essential but clearly the majority of Americans do not.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
W Tops Harding as Worst President in Modern Era
The Siena College Research Institute (SRI) Survey of U.S. Presidents has completed their fifth presidential rankings since 1982. They survey 238 presidential scholars, historians and political scientists , asking them to rank from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) each President on some twenty attributes, abilities and accomplishments. The top five are Franklin Roosevelt, who has won each of the five surveys,Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. In the previous four surveys, number 6 had been Woodrow Wilson but this year it's James Madison.
President Obama enters into the survey at 15th, scoring high on imagination, communications and intelligence. He is ranked in the top ten in all three of these categories.
The bottom five are Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce and of course George W. Bush. George W. entered the survey during his first term in office at 23rd but one year after leaving is ranked 39th with the possibility of dropping even further. He rated especially low in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence.
In the last two surveys Andrew Johnson edged out James Buchanan as the worst in terms of abilities and accomplishments. Warren Harding has led the pack for the first three surveys as the all-time worst and still edges everyone out in terms of worst in personal attributes, even Richard Nixon in matters of integrity. Tom Kelly, Professor of History and American Studies at Siena claims that with regards to Harding "No one appreciates corruption and ineptitude as an excuse." Warren Harding also had the distinction of weeping in front of random visitors about how overwhelming the job was.
But there are dissenters. My grandmother McColm loved Warren Harding. She was a friend of his mistress who was "a lovely woman" and Warren was so dapper. "He dressed so well and was alot of fun."
George W. Bush ranks next to last in intelligence, foreign policy accomplishments,ability to compromise, the ability to communicate, and the handling of the economy. The last on the economy was Herbert Hoover, who also rated the last in terms of luck and next to last in willing to take risks. And the last in foreign policy was LBJ.
But there is some room for movement for George W. I think he excels Franklin Pierce in awfulness. Franklin Pierce at least had the distinction of having a campaign biography written for him by his best friend Nathaniel Hawthorne. He was just a great mediocrity. And W might take down Buchanan, who always was ranked the worst of all time because he did nothing to prevent the civil war. But as our political debate worsens and some people think the civil war was a good thing, we may forgive James Buchanan, especially given the rise in gay history, where he may earn some distinction as the first gay president. The same applies to Andrew Johnson, who clearly was awful but his impeachment was simply the result of raw politics. So George may be trolling soon with Warren, bobbing along the bottom of all time.
President Obama enters into the survey at 15th, scoring high on imagination, communications and intelligence. He is ranked in the top ten in all three of these categories.
The bottom five are Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce and of course George W. Bush. George W. entered the survey during his first term in office at 23rd but one year after leaving is ranked 39th with the possibility of dropping even further. He rated especially low in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence.
In the last two surveys Andrew Johnson edged out James Buchanan as the worst in terms of abilities and accomplishments. Warren Harding has led the pack for the first three surveys as the all-time worst and still edges everyone out in terms of worst in personal attributes, even Richard Nixon in matters of integrity. Tom Kelly, Professor of History and American Studies at Siena claims that with regards to Harding "No one appreciates corruption and ineptitude as an excuse." Warren Harding also had the distinction of weeping in front of random visitors about how overwhelming the job was.
But there are dissenters. My grandmother McColm loved Warren Harding. She was a friend of his mistress who was "a lovely woman" and Warren was so dapper. "He dressed so well and was alot of fun."
George W. Bush ranks next to last in intelligence, foreign policy accomplishments,ability to compromise, the ability to communicate, and the handling of the economy. The last on the economy was Herbert Hoover, who also rated the last in terms of luck and next to last in willing to take risks. And the last in foreign policy was LBJ.
But there is some room for movement for George W. I think he excels Franklin Pierce in awfulness. Franklin Pierce at least had the distinction of having a campaign biography written for him by his best friend Nathaniel Hawthorne. He was just a great mediocrity. And W might take down Buchanan, who always was ranked the worst of all time because he did nothing to prevent the civil war. But as our political debate worsens and some people think the civil war was a good thing, we may forgive James Buchanan, especially given the rise in gay history, where he may earn some distinction as the first gay president. The same applies to Andrew Johnson, who clearly was awful but his impeachment was simply the result of raw politics. So George may be trolling soon with Warren, bobbing along the bottom of all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)