I had intended to take a summer break when my husband ended the school year, but I am going to start my break early.
My fibromyalgia has come out of remission and is wreaking havoc. It is hard to concentrate on my writing due to the pain.
I hope you all have a wonderful summer.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The power of persuasion
President Obama entered the arena to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of over 12,000, while just fewer than 300 anti-abortion protestors (most were not connected with the university) were outside the gates of the grounds of Notre Dame. Only about two dozen students refused to attend their graduation ceremony.
Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He does not. They want to reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refuses to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to an arrogant certainty. In his Notre Dame speech he opted for humility.
The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for inviting him to speak, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited. Jenkins said, "As we serve our country, we will be motivated by faith, but we cannot appeal only to faith. We must also engage in a dialogue that appeals to reason that all can accept" and do so "with love and a generous spirit."
The president courageously ceded no ground. He said that those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions." He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the controversy surrounding his visit there.
"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." Then he encouraged the two sides to find common ground: "Let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
His discussion of faith tells us much about his own Christian beliefs and about his approach toward those who believe differently: "That which unites Americans is more essential that that which divides us. Our essential common values should allow us to reach compromise where we can and remain at least civil as we discuss what cannot be compromised. True faith, true respect for religion, requires actions that make this world a better place."
He spoke of doubt in Christian faith:
"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
"This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds."
I found Obama’s speech to be highly Christian in nature. Here are some more highlights:
A litany of sins:
"Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism, in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."
The transformational role of good works in the realm of faith:
"And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn -- not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."
Defining common values:
"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth…
"Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"
A call for action:
"But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.
"If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union…"
In the book Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, with its premise that the most important power of the president is the power to persuade, Richard Neustadt wrote: "Persuasive power, thus defined, amounts to more than charm or reasoned argument. These have their uses for a President, but these are not the whole of his resources. For the individuals he would induce to do what he wants done on their own responsibility will need or fear some acts by him on his responsibility. If they share his authority, he has some share in theirs. Presidential "powers" may be inconclusive when a President commands, but always remain relevant as he persuades."
George W. Bush seemed to think that persuasion emerges from the exercise of power. But from Obama's first two commencement speeches, in fact from his body of speeches as president, it looks like he believes that power is through persuasion.
It was hard to square the messages given by Obama and Jenkins with the rage directed toward them by their detractors. Yet in raising the stakes entailed in Obama's visit, the critics did the president a great service. By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama showed great courage and helped to strengthen moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.
Obama's opponents on the ultra-right placed a huge bet on his Notre Dame visit. In their delusion they may think they won, but they lost.
Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He does not. They want to reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refuses to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to an arrogant certainty. In his Notre Dame speech he opted for humility.
The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for inviting him to speak, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited. Jenkins said, "As we serve our country, we will be motivated by faith, but we cannot appeal only to faith. We must also engage in a dialogue that appeals to reason that all can accept" and do so "with love and a generous spirit."
The president courageously ceded no ground. He said that those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions." He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the controversy surrounding his visit there.
"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." Then he encouraged the two sides to find common ground: "Let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
His discussion of faith tells us much about his own Christian beliefs and about his approach toward those who believe differently: "That which unites Americans is more essential that that which divides us. Our essential common values should allow us to reach compromise where we can and remain at least civil as we discuss what cannot be compromised. True faith, true respect for religion, requires actions that make this world a better place."
He spoke of doubt in Christian faith:
"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
"This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds."
I found Obama’s speech to be highly Christian in nature. Here are some more highlights:
A litany of sins:
"Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism, in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."
The transformational role of good works in the realm of faith:
"And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn -- not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."
Defining common values:
"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth…
"Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"
A call for action:
"But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.
"If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union…"
In the book Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, with its premise that the most important power of the president is the power to persuade, Richard Neustadt wrote: "Persuasive power, thus defined, amounts to more than charm or reasoned argument. These have their uses for a President, but these are not the whole of his resources. For the individuals he would induce to do what he wants done on their own responsibility will need or fear some acts by him on his responsibility. If they share his authority, he has some share in theirs. Presidential "powers" may be inconclusive when a President commands, but always remain relevant as he persuades."
George W. Bush seemed to think that persuasion emerges from the exercise of power. But from Obama's first two commencement speeches, in fact from his body of speeches as president, it looks like he believes that power is through persuasion.
It was hard to square the messages given by Obama and Jenkins with the rage directed toward them by their detractors. Yet in raising the stakes entailed in Obama's visit, the critics did the president a great service. By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama showed great courage and helped to strengthen moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.
Obama's opponents on the ultra-right placed a huge bet on his Notre Dame visit. In their delusion they may think they won, but they lost.
Neither doormat nor bully
During and following President Obama's trip to Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America, including a meeting of the Group of 20 and the NATO summit, ultra right-wing pundits and media (such as Fox News) have twisted Obama’s words and accused him of turning the trip into an "apology tour," smearing the president with half truths and lies – and calling him the "Apologizer in Chief." These right-wing pundits have also accused Obama of "running down his own country." They claimed that his remarks made overseas are indicative of how "liberals enjoy apologizing for America."
As CNN anchor Tony Harris put it during the April 7 edition of CNN Newsroom: "Day after day, country after country, the president tried to repair America's strained relationships with key allies, but his critics say his gestures of reconciliation amounted to apology after apology after apology."
Many of these attacks have been based on distortions of Obama's remarks. For instance, one statement that right-wingers have targeted is the following remark Obama made during an April 3 speech in Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." (This is a very true statement.) Ultra right-wing pundits such as Sean Hannity and Nicolle Wallace claimed the remark was an example of Obama "blaming America first," when, in fact, Obama was criticizing both American and European attitudes toward each other, and also spoke of "the good that America so often does in the world."
Right-wingers love to cherry-pick and then twist everything Obama says into something negative that he did not say nor mean. Then they magnify their twisted statement while leaving out the many good things that he said. Why do they do this? They do this out of pure hate for Obama – because he is a Democrat. But even worse, many right-wingers hate him because he is a black Democrat.
Hannity has falsely claimed that Obama "seemingly apologized for our engagement in the war on terror" when Obama stated during an April 6 speech before the Turkish parliament that "the United States is not ... at war with Islam." However, in those same remarks, Obama also stated that "Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism" and that "we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda." (These words sound very much like statements Bush made for eight years, but that fact is ignored by the right-wingers.)
Similarly, several Fox News pundits criticized Obama's comment that "we do not consider ourselves a [purely] Christian nation," which he made during an April 6 press availability with the president of Turkey. They refuse to admit that Obama was making a broader point about the ecumenical nature of our country – that the United States has citizens of many different religions.
The Obama administration has just released memos showing that the Bush-Cheney gang authorized torture. Before this event, everyone had already figured out that America was involved in torturing others. It is only right that we take responsibility for our transgressions, including the global recession, poor bank regulation, committing inhumane acts against others, and so forth. America is responsible for much more than President Obama has supposedly “apologized” for to date.
Obama is acknowledging to the world what it already knows -- the U.S. made some terrible mistakes under the "leadership" of George Bush. Only arrogant, self-centered Americans would refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Anyone who has actually given thought about this issue would know that Obama is improving perceptions of America. Oh yeah, I forgot, those who watch Fox News are incapable of thinking. They just open up their heads and allow Fox to pour in thoughts for them with half truths, distortions, and lies. These people never actually listen to President Obama's speeches; they just allow Fox News to tell them the twisted and lying version of what he said.
In the book Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten the premise is play well with others, including neighbors. If you do something wrong, arrogant, and bullheaded, then you should apologize and then get on with the greater good! Let’s restate that: If America does something wrong, arrogant, and bullheaded, then we should apologize (at least acknowledge it) and then get on with the greater good!
Obama has not acted as a kiss-a** apologist, but he has acknowledged to the world some of America’s mistakes. That is the right thing to do. He is trying to mend the fences so that the U.S. can start acting like a partner in the world community. That does not mean we lie down and become the world’s doormat. It does mean that we are no longer the bully on the block.
As CNN anchor Tony Harris put it during the April 7 edition of CNN Newsroom: "Day after day, country after country, the president tried to repair America's strained relationships with key allies, but his critics say his gestures of reconciliation amounted to apology after apology after apology."
Many of these attacks have been based on distortions of Obama's remarks. For instance, one statement that right-wingers have targeted is the following remark Obama made during an April 3 speech in Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." (This is a very true statement.) Ultra right-wing pundits such as Sean Hannity and Nicolle Wallace claimed the remark was an example of Obama "blaming America first," when, in fact, Obama was criticizing both American and European attitudes toward each other, and also spoke of "the good that America so often does in the world."
Right-wingers love to cherry-pick and then twist everything Obama says into something negative that he did not say nor mean. Then they magnify their twisted statement while leaving out the many good things that he said. Why do they do this? They do this out of pure hate for Obama – because he is a Democrat. But even worse, many right-wingers hate him because he is a black Democrat.
Hannity has falsely claimed that Obama "seemingly apologized for our engagement in the war on terror" when Obama stated during an April 6 speech before the Turkish parliament that "the United States is not ... at war with Islam." However, in those same remarks, Obama also stated that "Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism" and that "we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda." (These words sound very much like statements Bush made for eight years, but that fact is ignored by the right-wingers.)
Similarly, several Fox News pundits criticized Obama's comment that "we do not consider ourselves a [purely] Christian nation," which he made during an April 6 press availability with the president of Turkey. They refuse to admit that Obama was making a broader point about the ecumenical nature of our country – that the United States has citizens of many different religions.
The Obama administration has just released memos showing that the Bush-Cheney gang authorized torture. Before this event, everyone had already figured out that America was involved in torturing others. It is only right that we take responsibility for our transgressions, including the global recession, poor bank regulation, committing inhumane acts against others, and so forth. America is responsible for much more than President Obama has supposedly “apologized” for to date.
Obama is acknowledging to the world what it already knows -- the U.S. made some terrible mistakes under the "leadership" of George Bush. Only arrogant, self-centered Americans would refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Anyone who has actually given thought about this issue would know that Obama is improving perceptions of America. Oh yeah, I forgot, those who watch Fox News are incapable of thinking. They just open up their heads and allow Fox to pour in thoughts for them with half truths, distortions, and lies. These people never actually listen to President Obama's speeches; they just allow Fox News to tell them the twisted and lying version of what he said.
In the book Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten the premise is play well with others, including neighbors. If you do something wrong, arrogant, and bullheaded, then you should apologize and then get on with the greater good! Let’s restate that: If America does something wrong, arrogant, and bullheaded, then we should apologize (at least acknowledge it) and then get on with the greater good!
Obama has not acted as a kiss-a** apologist, but he has acknowledged to the world some of America’s mistakes. That is the right thing to do. He is trying to mend the fences so that the U.S. can start acting like a partner in the world community. That does not mean we lie down and become the world’s doormat. It does mean that we are no longer the bully on the block.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
She’s a decoy
Let’s assume that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew back in 2002 that the CIA was performing waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation tactics upon terror suspects. Let’s assume Representative Pelosi said nothing about it for years. This makes her a hypocrite, a coward (as were many Democrats back then), and possibly a liar – which is not exactly rare in Washington (on both sides of the aisle).
The result is that it only reduces her power on this particular subject. It paints her as part of the problem and not part of the solution, which is the kinder way of saying what many GOP leaders were saying about Pelosi as the week wore on.
But it also brings to light that the Bush administration had been torturing people from the get-go.
Pelosi’s silence over the last few years does not exonerate the men who drafted the torture memos and the men and women who authorized them to do so. The Bush administration’s degree of culpability for torturing prisoners is an order of much greater magnitude. Pelosi did not conjure up the dangerous legal theories used by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzales, and Steven Bradbury to justify torture. She didn’t decide to call off FBI interrogators who were being successful using normal methods and replace them with CIA operatives and contractors who were willing to torture. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who did that.
Pelosi was not the one who allowed the men who wrote or authorized those memos to remain in their positions or gain promotions in the Bush Administration. She was not the one who publicly labeled the soldier guards at Abu Ghraib as “rogues and renegades” even though they were just following orders. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who did that.
Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Condoleezza Rice when she was Secretary of State, made this statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Justice Department's torture memos, "The U.S. government over the past seven years adopted an unprecedented program in American history of cruelly calculated, dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure in which a number of officials and members of Congress and staffers of both parties played a part . . . Precisely because this was a collective failure it is all the more important to comprehend it and learn from it."
There are several issues that make this fight important beyond the question of Ms. Pelosi's truthfulness and reputation – and they could be addressed by an independent commission. Is the intelligence oversight system functioning as it should? Are leaders of the intelligence committees being appropriately informed? Should information be shared more broadly? With the constraints of classified information and pledges of secrecy, is there any way that lawmakers can express opposition or concern? Reforms may be needed which only an independent commission could discern. It would help to educate us all about the routine interaction between parties on sensitive intelligence matters.
Pelosi's claims that she did not learn in 2002 of waterboarding being used by the CIA have been corroborated by Senator Bob Graham. She is not my heroine (I wish someone else was Speaker) but it is quite a stretch to say she's lying to cover her butt because she doesn't need to cover her butt. The accusations from the GOP and the media that she’s complicit are a distraction from the real issue. Many in the Bush administration did horribly worse. In using torture they ignored our constitution, twisting the meaning behind our national laws, and have yet to be held to account. Pelosi was not the tail wagging the dog. The Democrats had no power back then. None…notta…zilch.
Pelosi is being used by the Republicans as a decoy. She is not the important issue. If you are following the Republican lead and going after Pelosi, then you are doing just what the Republicans want you to do – taking your eyes off the ball. “The ball” is the fact that torture was authorized and used by Bush-Cheney to justify the Iraq war.
The result is that it only reduces her power on this particular subject. It paints her as part of the problem and not part of the solution, which is the kinder way of saying what many GOP leaders were saying about Pelosi as the week wore on.
But it also brings to light that the Bush administration had been torturing people from the get-go.
Pelosi’s silence over the last few years does not exonerate the men who drafted the torture memos and the men and women who authorized them to do so. The Bush administration’s degree of culpability for torturing prisoners is an order of much greater magnitude. Pelosi did not conjure up the dangerous legal theories used by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzales, and Steven Bradbury to justify torture. She didn’t decide to call off FBI interrogators who were being successful using normal methods and replace them with CIA operatives and contractors who were willing to torture. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who did that.
Pelosi was not the one who allowed the men who wrote or authorized those memos to remain in their positions or gain promotions in the Bush Administration. She was not the one who publicly labeled the soldier guards at Abu Ghraib as “rogues and renegades” even though they were just following orders. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who did that.
Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Condoleezza Rice when she was Secretary of State, made this statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Justice Department's torture memos, "The U.S. government over the past seven years adopted an unprecedented program in American history of cruelly calculated, dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure in which a number of officials and members of Congress and staffers of both parties played a part . . . Precisely because this was a collective failure it is all the more important to comprehend it and learn from it."
There are several issues that make this fight important beyond the question of Ms. Pelosi's truthfulness and reputation – and they could be addressed by an independent commission. Is the intelligence oversight system functioning as it should? Are leaders of the intelligence committees being appropriately informed? Should information be shared more broadly? With the constraints of classified information and pledges of secrecy, is there any way that lawmakers can express opposition or concern? Reforms may be needed which only an independent commission could discern. It would help to educate us all about the routine interaction between parties on sensitive intelligence matters.
Pelosi's claims that she did not learn in 2002 of waterboarding being used by the CIA have been corroborated by Senator Bob Graham. She is not my heroine (I wish someone else was Speaker) but it is quite a stretch to say she's lying to cover her butt because she doesn't need to cover her butt. The accusations from the GOP and the media that she’s complicit are a distraction from the real issue. Many in the Bush administration did horribly worse. In using torture they ignored our constitution, twisting the meaning behind our national laws, and have yet to be held to account. Pelosi was not the tail wagging the dog. The Democrats had no power back then. None…notta…zilch.
Pelosi is being used by the Republicans as a decoy. She is not the important issue. If you are following the Republican lead and going after Pelosi, then you are doing just what the Republicans want you to do – taking your eyes off the ball. “The ball” is the fact that torture was authorized and used by Bush-Cheney to justify the Iraq war.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Bad dynamic for GOP
Prominent GOP candidates are turning down offers to run against vulnerable Democrats in Congressional elections. Even though they could probably win the election in their particular districts, they do not want to serve in an ever-shrinking minority party that has little power in the Senate and no power in the House.
Last week, former Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA) announced that he will not run for the Senate next year against new Democrat Arlen Specter:
“I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. However, this process also impressed upon me how fortunate I am to have so many friends who volunteered to support my journey if I chose to take it and continue to offer their support after I conveyed to them this morning how I believe I can best serve my commonwealth, my party and my country.”
The decision dramatically increases the chances that Democrats will hold that newly-acquired seat since no other potential GOP candidate was anywhere close to Ridge's stature. Arlen Specter will likely retain the seat.
Tom Ridge was just the latest in a string of prominent Republican recruits to decline runs for the Senate and House next year. Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) has declined a bid for President Obama's old Senate seat. Like Ridge, Kirk was clearly the GOP's best candidate in the state. Now, it seems highly unlikely that the GOP will wrest control of the seat away from the Democratic nominee (which will probably not be the current 'junior Senator from Illinois' Roland Burris).
In April, two other top Republicans opted out on House bids against freshmen Democrats. First, Florida GOP chair Jim Greer (R) declined to take on freshman Representative Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) in Florida's 24th Congressional District. Second, former Representative Thelma Drake (R-VA) declined a rematch against freshman Representative Glenn Nye (D-VA). Both were huge losses for the National Republican Congressional Committee which had hoped to narrow the Democrats 79-seat majority in the Congressional House of Representatives.
Top GOP recruits who could run against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) have already declined to run, as did former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) for the open Republican-held Senate seat in Florida. Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R) has indicated an interest in running for that seat, but Crist is a moderate and will refuse to walk lock-step with an obstinate, oppositional Congressional minority - so he may not win the primary against a more right-wing conservative who, in turn, will likely lose against a Democrat. Bill Konopnicki (R-AZ) actually came out and said he isn't interested in serving in Congress unless Republicans could take back the majority in the 2010 elections.
As a result of poor recruiting, Republican numbers will likely continue to be decimated in the Senate and House. This creates a situation in 2012 and beyond in which their desired outcome of growing the party and regaining their power will be impossible to attain.
This is a very, very bad dynamic for the GOP indeed.
Why is this happening? Why is the GOP continuing to shrink? See my answer in the post just below.
Last week, former Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA) announced that he will not run for the Senate next year against new Democrat Arlen Specter:
“I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. However, this process also impressed upon me how fortunate I am to have so many friends who volunteered to support my journey if I chose to take it and continue to offer their support after I conveyed to them this morning how I believe I can best serve my commonwealth, my party and my country.”
The decision dramatically increases the chances that Democrats will hold that newly-acquired seat since no other potential GOP candidate was anywhere close to Ridge's stature. Arlen Specter will likely retain the seat.
Tom Ridge was just the latest in a string of prominent Republican recruits to decline runs for the Senate and House next year. Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) has declined a bid for President Obama's old Senate seat. Like Ridge, Kirk was clearly the GOP's best candidate in the state. Now, it seems highly unlikely that the GOP will wrest control of the seat away from the Democratic nominee (which will probably not be the current 'junior Senator from Illinois' Roland Burris).
In April, two other top Republicans opted out on House bids against freshmen Democrats. First, Florida GOP chair Jim Greer (R) declined to take on freshman Representative Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) in Florida's 24th Congressional District. Second, former Representative Thelma Drake (R-VA) declined a rematch against freshman Representative Glenn Nye (D-VA). Both were huge losses for the National Republican Congressional Committee which had hoped to narrow the Democrats 79-seat majority in the Congressional House of Representatives.
Top GOP recruits who could run against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) have already declined to run, as did former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) for the open Republican-held Senate seat in Florida. Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R) has indicated an interest in running for that seat, but Crist is a moderate and will refuse to walk lock-step with an obstinate, oppositional Congressional minority - so he may not win the primary against a more right-wing conservative who, in turn, will likely lose against a Democrat. Bill Konopnicki (R-AZ) actually came out and said he isn't interested in serving in Congress unless Republicans could take back the majority in the 2010 elections.
As a result of poor recruiting, Republican numbers will likely continue to be decimated in the Senate and House. This creates a situation in 2012 and beyond in which their desired outcome of growing the party and regaining their power will be impossible to attain.
This is a very, very bad dynamic for the GOP indeed.
Why is this happening? Why is the GOP continuing to shrink? See my answer in the post just below.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Lunatics running the asylum
If Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, and Mitt Romney think that by setting aside the hot button issues, their “Conversation with America” will cause the Republican Party to attract a larger membership, they are fooling themselves. The majority of the GOP has moved much further to the right, choosing to circle the ideological wagons to make the Republican Party pure, refusing to set aside cultural issues, and continuing to spew hate for all who think differently than they do – which means no room for moderates or independents. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich continue to pine for the “good old days” - defending a string of failed policies that they advocated for decades.
And then there are the crazies:
The newest star of the ‘conservative’ media, Glenn Beck, is whipping the crazies into a frenzy. Since moving his show from CNN to Fox, Beck has turned up the volume and offered a combination of ignorance, manic fear-mongering and weepy nationalism. His goal is to give credence to every conspiracy theory about Obama and the Democrats that comes down the road. He has become a Pied Piper of far-right lunatics, luring out resentful and paranoid right-wingers with his nightly diatribe of fear and hate.
When not telling people that Obama is going to take away their guns (a lie), or claiming that Obama is planning to move to one world currency (another lie), or touting books written by John Birch Society nutcases, Beck spreads the lie that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is secretly constructing concentration camps into which Americans will be herded and perhaps exterminated, once martial law has been declared. During one particularly loony performance, Beck claimed that because of President Obama's policies, America is becoming a fascist dictatorship (while showing videos of Nazis marching in the background). Of course he provided no evidence for his claim, but he put on a heck of a show while saying it. When he was called out on his lies, Beck backed off and admitted it was all bogus – that he was saying it all just in fun. If Obama really was moving the nation towards fascism, then how is a critic like Glenn Beck still on the air? What makes Beck, and Fox News, so evil is that uninformed people believe this stuff. People do not understand that entertainment news is not about news – it is all about making money.
In response to warnings by Glenn Beck about America’s descent into fascism, Jon Stewart had the best response:
“I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you, because I've been there. A few times. In fact, one of them was a bit of a nail-biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes for the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, and invade a country that you thought should not be invaded, but that's not tyranny. That's democracy. See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like ___! (Expletive removed.)
One thing that is so remarkable about far-to-the-right-wingers like Beck is that they are throwing tantrums about the stimulus bill and raising taxes on the extremely wealthy (by just 3%) but do not care about warrantless wiretapping of American citizens or the lack of healthcare for over 44 million Americans or schools that are crumbling.
Have these discontents looked at their most recent paycheck? Even though their taxes have just recently dropped, these folks still feel oppressed by government. I believe their frustration really comes from the fact that when they cried "socialism" most Americans did not seem to care. Now they are screaming "fascism" in the hope that it will pull Obama down, and still their words do not cause a majority of citizens to rise up. Why is this? In a poll released in April, Rasmussen Reports found that just 53 percent of Americans say that capitalism is better than socialism (with 20 percent choosing socialism and 27 percent unsure). Young adults prefer socialism by 33 percent with 30 percent undecided. Most voters do not think that a little socialism (as in Medicare and Social Security) is a bad thing.
In the meantime, charges from ultra right-wing talking heads that Obama is a socialist or even a fascist (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) is not hurting his job approval ratings which are steadily above 60 percent. These right-wingers are angry and frustrated that few people are listening. Democracy can be very frustrating when you lose.
Besides Glenn Beck, there are more right-wingers going off their rockers, seeing imaginary communists and fascists behind every tree:
*Michelle Bachman (R-MN), an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, went on the radio to claim that the Obama administration is planning to herd young people into re-education camps.
*Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) whipped up an April 15 Austin, Texas tea party crowd by talking about the blood of tyrants.
*Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) said, "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes ..." (He was referring to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn proposal to raise the state tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction.)
*Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, strongly implied that the Lone Star State is considering seceding from the Union because of Washington's ‘oppressive’ stimulus spending. Yet, just this week he asked the federal government for millions to help combat their swine flu outbreak.
*Spencer Bachus (R-AL), in confusing socialism with communism, said, "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists." When pressed by a reporter, Bachus said there were 17 "socialists" in Congress, but when asked for specifics, Bachus named only one legislator – Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described "democratic socialist," whose vision of a socialist ‘safety net’ is more like Stockholm (Sweden) than Moscow (Russia). It allows for wealth but also cares for the down-trodden.
*Rush Limbaugh (Republican pundit) said, “I hope he (President Obama) fails.” It would be one thing if Republicans were simply arguing intelligently that Obama's stimulus plan and budget will fail. That would mirror how Democrats felt about the Iraq war – a doomed mission that would cost far too many human lives for the lie of WMDs. Contrary to what these loonies are saying, Democrats never said they wished for Bush to fail; they just thought he would. Wishing for President Obama to fail is the mark of an ideologue with blinders on – making his ideas more important than the people of this nation.
These right-wing nuts do not seem to understand that the more extreme and shrill their hateful rhetoric grows – the more they scream “fascism” – the less convincing they become to the broader public. They are becoming more ridiculous in the public eye with every extreme word shouted and every stupid stunt pulled. They are causing the ranks of the Republican Party to be decimated at a time when our country could use a viable opposition party with intelligent arguments.
Having Democrats in control of the White House and Congress seems to have caused the ultra right-wingers to lose their minds. Actually, I have been noticing the loony tunes for years, but their screaming has become excruciatingly loud since the election, causing a majority of the general public to finally realize just how crazy, self-centered, and immoral these GOP leaders are.
The Republican tent will remain small as long as the far-right-wing lunatics are running the asylum.
And then there are the crazies:
The newest star of the ‘conservative’ media, Glenn Beck, is whipping the crazies into a frenzy. Since moving his show from CNN to Fox, Beck has turned up the volume and offered a combination of ignorance, manic fear-mongering and weepy nationalism. His goal is to give credence to every conspiracy theory about Obama and the Democrats that comes down the road. He has become a Pied Piper of far-right lunatics, luring out resentful and paranoid right-wingers with his nightly diatribe of fear and hate.
When not telling people that Obama is going to take away their guns (a lie), or claiming that Obama is planning to move to one world currency (another lie), or touting books written by John Birch Society nutcases, Beck spreads the lie that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is secretly constructing concentration camps into which Americans will be herded and perhaps exterminated, once martial law has been declared. During one particularly loony performance, Beck claimed that because of President Obama's policies, America is becoming a fascist dictatorship (while showing videos of Nazis marching in the background). Of course he provided no evidence for his claim, but he put on a heck of a show while saying it. When he was called out on his lies, Beck backed off and admitted it was all bogus – that he was saying it all just in fun. If Obama really was moving the nation towards fascism, then how is a critic like Glenn Beck still on the air? What makes Beck, and Fox News, so evil is that uninformed people believe this stuff. People do not understand that entertainment news is not about news – it is all about making money.
In response to warnings by Glenn Beck about America’s descent into fascism, Jon Stewart had the best response:
“I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you, because I've been there. A few times. In fact, one of them was a bit of a nail-biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes for the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, and invade a country that you thought should not be invaded, but that's not tyranny. That's democracy. See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like ___! (Expletive removed.)
One thing that is so remarkable about far-to-the-right-wingers like Beck is that they are throwing tantrums about the stimulus bill and raising taxes on the extremely wealthy (by just 3%) but do not care about warrantless wiretapping of American citizens or the lack of healthcare for over 44 million Americans or schools that are crumbling.
Have these discontents looked at their most recent paycheck? Even though their taxes have just recently dropped, these folks still feel oppressed by government. I believe their frustration really comes from the fact that when they cried "socialism" most Americans did not seem to care. Now they are screaming "fascism" in the hope that it will pull Obama down, and still their words do not cause a majority of citizens to rise up. Why is this? In a poll released in April, Rasmussen Reports found that just 53 percent of Americans say that capitalism is better than socialism (with 20 percent choosing socialism and 27 percent unsure). Young adults prefer socialism by 33 percent with 30 percent undecided. Most voters do not think that a little socialism (as in Medicare and Social Security) is a bad thing.
In the meantime, charges from ultra right-wing talking heads that Obama is a socialist or even a fascist (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) is not hurting his job approval ratings which are steadily above 60 percent. These right-wingers are angry and frustrated that few people are listening. Democracy can be very frustrating when you lose.
Besides Glenn Beck, there are more right-wingers going off their rockers, seeing imaginary communists and fascists behind every tree:
*Michelle Bachman (R-MN), an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, went on the radio to claim that the Obama administration is planning to herd young people into re-education camps.
*Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) whipped up an April 15 Austin, Texas tea party crowd by talking about the blood of tyrants.
*Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) said, "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes ..." (He was referring to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn proposal to raise the state tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction.)
*Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, strongly implied that the Lone Star State is considering seceding from the Union because of Washington's ‘oppressive’ stimulus spending. Yet, just this week he asked the federal government for millions to help combat their swine flu outbreak.
*Spencer Bachus (R-AL), in confusing socialism with communism, said, "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists." When pressed by a reporter, Bachus said there were 17 "socialists" in Congress, but when asked for specifics, Bachus named only one legislator – Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described "democratic socialist," whose vision of a socialist ‘safety net’ is more like Stockholm (Sweden) than Moscow (Russia). It allows for wealth but also cares for the down-trodden.
*Rush Limbaugh (Republican pundit) said, “I hope he (President Obama) fails.” It would be one thing if Republicans were simply arguing intelligently that Obama's stimulus plan and budget will fail. That would mirror how Democrats felt about the Iraq war – a doomed mission that would cost far too many human lives for the lie of WMDs. Contrary to what these loonies are saying, Democrats never said they wished for Bush to fail; they just thought he would. Wishing for President Obama to fail is the mark of an ideologue with blinders on – making his ideas more important than the people of this nation.
These right-wing nuts do not seem to understand that the more extreme and shrill their hateful rhetoric grows – the more they scream “fascism” – the less convincing they become to the broader public. They are becoming more ridiculous in the public eye with every extreme word shouted and every stupid stunt pulled. They are causing the ranks of the Republican Party to be decimated at a time when our country could use a viable opposition party with intelligent arguments.
Having Democrats in control of the White House and Congress seems to have caused the ultra right-wingers to lose their minds. Actually, I have been noticing the loony tunes for years, but their screaming has become excruciatingly loud since the election, causing a majority of the general public to finally realize just how crazy, self-centered, and immoral these GOP leaders are.
The Republican tent will remain small as long as the far-right-wing lunatics are running the asylum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)