Hmmmmm ...
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Surviving the disaster
Blood bath. Tidal Wave. Tsunami. Earthquake.
These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.
But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.
And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.
But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.
I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.
My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.
In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.
But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.
The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.
We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.
So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.
Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html
Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.
These were some of the ways that the pundits were using to describe the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. The largest switch of power in the House since 1948 was breathtaking to watch.
But election night was not as bad for the Democrats as you might think. The Republicans failed to win the Senate. Despite a very tough race with a favorite of the T.E.A. party movement, Harry Reid will remain as Majority Leader. And while promising to embrace an era of compromise in Congress, Reid also promised to defend health care reform.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and the Senate, and frankly I've woken up to much worse political news than that. Their control of the White House and both Houses of Congress -- including a near filibuster-proof majority -- was a political aberration. Apparently, they knew they would only have two years to enjoy such an advantage and they used it to get health care reform and other legislation passed. That is something that probably could not have been achieved under a divided government.
And according to the exit polls, the sea of red that has swept across the maps of the TV pundits does not mean that Americans will now embrace the entirety of the Republican platform. Elections are won in the middle, with independents. And the independents who backed Obama in 2008 switched to the GOP candidates in 2010.
But they did so not because they and other voters loved the Republicans so much, but because they were so very unhappy about the economy and needed to express their frustration. So, they backed the Republicans, but it is cautious support and it could switch back to the blue in another two years. They are on probation, and voters will be waiting to see whether they make things better.
I take comfort in the fact that the most extreme of the T.E.A. party candidates either lost or seem to be lagging behind in the vote counts at this writing. O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, Buck and Miller were the most outrageous in this campaign, and I would be glad to see their ambitions clipped. Apparently Murkowski is way ahead of Miller in Alaska, but because hers was a write-in campaign, we will need to wait as the votes are verified.
My other concern was Rand Paul in Kentucky, who made some questionable attacks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He had criticized the part of the act that required businesses to not discriminate against customers. He saved his campaign by reaffirming his support of the Civil Rights Act. However, I will have to wait and see what his record will be in the Senate. Paul is a ophthalmologist who has never held office before. However, his father is a former congressman and former candidate for president.
In the end, I don't think that the Republicans or the T.E.A. party candidates have the mandate or the means to conduct the kind of dismantling of governmental agencies, programs and the Constitution that had been bandied about in this election.
But they do carry the message to Washington that the economy is the No. 1 concern of American voters. They will also carry their core philosophy of smaller government and less taxes, which is a theme I respect but they had lost sight of under George Bush. So, the debate between the left and the right will continue. Hopefully, it will be a debate conducted with some sanity and reason.
The good news is that Democrats and Republicans now have a common enemy: unemployment.
We avoided falling into a second Great Depression in 2008. The economy stabilized and there has been some small economic growth. The problem is that it has been a jobless recovery. Nearly 10 percent of the workforce is still unemployed, and that was a major source of voter dissatisfaction.
So, this is the opportunity to show compromise is possible. The two sides need to work together on creating jobs in America. That is the mandate for both parties.
Here's a blog in the Washington Post that I thought was very insightful: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/11/voters_wanted_change_not_neces.html
Good interview on the Colbert Report with David Frum.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2010 - David Frum | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Where did Obama go?
I'm watching the early results on the election, and of course it is not going well for the Democrats. Holding the Senate will be the big victory if the Dems can pull it off.
As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.
After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?
Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.
The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.
Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.
It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.
The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.
Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.
But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.
As I watch the returns, I'm asking myself why didn't Obama get out and campaign more to educate the public about all the good his administration his done.
After being elected with such soaring rhetoric in 2008, why couldn't he have brought those skills to bear to get out the story of the people who have been helped?
Perhaps he felt that deeds would speak louder than words. True enough. They often do. But we need to know what the has been done.
The only rhetorical refrain that has resonated was his analogy that the Republicans wanted the keys back after crashing the car into the ditch. It was an accurate analogy, but was not enough to push back against the tsunami of T.E.A. party rhetoric.
Part of what happened was that the T.E.A. party candidates were given free reign on the political landscape. Their rallies should have been answered with progressive rallies all along. The Democrats needed an image makeover, and they needed it much earlier.
It is probably fair enough to say that the impact of the T.E.A. party movement had not been anticipated early enough.
The Jon Stewart rally may have helped a little, but Stewart was not trying to save the Democrats. If he had been trying to save them, it was too little, too late.
Which is sadly the best way to sum up the Democratic campaigns this year.
But I'm watching the returns and waiting to see how it actually works out.
Marxism vs. Capitalism
No, I'm not a Marxist or a socialist.
I'm a Democrat and a capitalist. It is not socialism that I want. It is capitalism with a conscience.
Capitalism works well as an economic system, unless you are those unlucky enough to fall between the cracks and you don't have money or a job. If you are poor or disadvantaged, capitalism can be cruel.
If you want to see what capitalism is without a conscience, check out Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as well as the works of other journalists and writers at the beginning of the 20th Century. We've come a long way from those days. Let's not fall back into them again.
I'm a Democrat and a capitalist. It is not socialism that I want. It is capitalism with a conscience.
Capitalism works well as an economic system, unless you are those unlucky enough to fall between the cracks and you don't have money or a job. If you are poor or disadvantaged, capitalism can be cruel.
If you want to see what capitalism is without a conscience, check out Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as well as the works of other journalists and writers at the beginning of the 20th Century. We've come a long way from those days. Let's not fall back into them again.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thoughts before the voting
The brilliance in Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity was that it was performed without making a plea to vote for either political side. He delivered a message that will still be relevant no matter what the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. He does not have to rely on a political victory for his call for sanity to be answered.
However, it seems unlikely that sanity would be achieved if the T.E.A. party radicals achieve the kind of overwhelming victory that they are hoping for. And much as he claimed that his rally was not a response to Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor, comparisons are inevitable. Stewart himself has said that he does not care what outcome or influence there may be from his rally, but I care. And I'll make some comparisons even though Stewart is not likely to.
I do so as a Democrat, so I am applying my own filter in interpreting Stewart's rally. So, I have to apologize to Jon because I am about to become one of those people who will tell you what I think the rally means.
The exact numbers from each rally are up for debate -- to a point -- but from every reasonable source I have seen, Stewart's rally had at least 200,000 to 250,000 people. That's a number at least double the size of Beck's rally. Those estimates on the sanity rally are probably safe guesses considering that they probably do not include the crowds that also milled about on the streets around the National Mall.
Aside from keeping score, what do those numbers mean? They mean that Jon Stewart has demonstrated more with action than with words that he is the better man. He has checked Glenn Beck from making any reasonable claim that he speaks for the majority of Americans. And even though the T.E.A. party candidates do have the momentum and the energy to win in this election, he has served notice that a large part of this country is not going to support the more radical of their plans.
His rally and his call for sanity was directed at the moderate middle. It was a call for making the kind of political compromises that allow government to work. It was a call for responsible commentary on the issues. It was a call to scorn the hot heads and not hire them as news analysts. (And maybe fire the ones that are working?)
Most of the audience that demonstrated a political viewpoint leaned to the left, and that is in part because the left has been taking more of a beating this year. In a way, Stewart is like the guy who comes upon two kids having a street fight. He runs to break up the fight and restore order, but in doing so he also saves the weaker kid who is losing the fight.
Critics of Stewart would say that his audience leans to the left because he is a tool of the liberal elite. But Jon Stewart is nobody's tool.
I respect him tremendously because he has the integrity as a comedian that many journalists today lack. He is fearless in directing his thoughtful and often biting commentary at anyone who deserves it. One of his favorite targets is Fox News, which shows the least integrity of any media organization. He attacks them so often because they spend 24-hours a day pumping their propaganda and nonsense into the political landscape. Of course they are going to draw more fire.
And I apologize if my criticism has become uncivil. I am striving to be a saner person since attending the rally.
It seems unlikely that the Rally to Restore Sanity will give the Democrats the kind of last-minute boost they have been hoping for. The pundits and pollsters seem to have concluded that it is all but certain the Democrats will at least lose the House. However, so many races are so tight and so tightly contested that now more than ever, every vote will count. Every vote will matter.
Of course, I am hoping for at least a close race in this election. If the Democrats lose the House, but just barely, or at least by only a respectable margin, perhaps that might create the atmosphere for political compromise that we need. The T.E.A. party candidates may put the Republicans in charge, but perhaps there will emerge a moderate coalition that can actually get some functional legislation passed. But that is likely be a faint hope.
To repeat my earlier blog, the key is to have both fiscal responsibility and a social conscience in government. To me, that is as obvious a solution as the two-state solution is for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Israelis and the Palestinians do not see that as so obvious or as easy to achieve. Neither would this kind of compromise be for Democrats and Republicans.
Still Democrats and Republicans should have an easier time in finding compromise because they do not have years of actual bloodshed to overcome. They just have years of name calling and bitter rivalry to deal with.
So, it comes down to the voting on Tuesday. The results may include some surprises for us. Stewart may have energized the middle more than the pundits expect. After all, this was not just one rally of nearly a quarter of a million people. It was a series of satellite rallies held all over the country. For every person who actually stood on the National Mall on Saturday, there were who-knows-how-many others who wanted to be there but couldn't.
And how will this energized middle vote? We'll have to wait and see. But even though the Rally to Restore Sanity may come too late to have an impact on this election, its legacy may be felt on many elections to come.
However, it seems unlikely that sanity would be achieved if the T.E.A. party radicals achieve the kind of overwhelming victory that they are hoping for. And much as he claimed that his rally was not a response to Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor, comparisons are inevitable. Stewart himself has said that he does not care what outcome or influence there may be from his rally, but I care. And I'll make some comparisons even though Stewart is not likely to.
I do so as a Democrat, so I am applying my own filter in interpreting Stewart's rally. So, I have to apologize to Jon because I am about to become one of those people who will tell you what I think the rally means.
The exact numbers from each rally are up for debate -- to a point -- but from every reasonable source I have seen, Stewart's rally had at least 200,000 to 250,000 people. That's a number at least double the size of Beck's rally. Those estimates on the sanity rally are probably safe guesses considering that they probably do not include the crowds that also milled about on the streets around the National Mall.
Aside from keeping score, what do those numbers mean? They mean that Jon Stewart has demonstrated more with action than with words that he is the better man. He has checked Glenn Beck from making any reasonable claim that he speaks for the majority of Americans. And even though the T.E.A. party candidates do have the momentum and the energy to win in this election, he has served notice that a large part of this country is not going to support the more radical of their plans.
His rally and his call for sanity was directed at the moderate middle. It was a call for making the kind of political compromises that allow government to work. It was a call for responsible commentary on the issues. It was a call to scorn the hot heads and not hire them as news analysts. (And maybe fire the ones that are working?)
Most of the audience that demonstrated a political viewpoint leaned to the left, and that is in part because the left has been taking more of a beating this year. In a way, Stewart is like the guy who comes upon two kids having a street fight. He runs to break up the fight and restore order, but in doing so he also saves the weaker kid who is losing the fight.
Critics of Stewart would say that his audience leans to the left because he is a tool of the liberal elite. But Jon Stewart is nobody's tool.
I respect him tremendously because he has the integrity as a comedian that many journalists today lack. He is fearless in directing his thoughtful and often biting commentary at anyone who deserves it. One of his favorite targets is Fox News, which shows the least integrity of any media organization. He attacks them so often because they spend 24-hours a day pumping their propaganda and nonsense into the political landscape. Of course they are going to draw more fire.
And I apologize if my criticism has become uncivil. I am striving to be a saner person since attending the rally.
It seems unlikely that the Rally to Restore Sanity will give the Democrats the kind of last-minute boost they have been hoping for. The pundits and pollsters seem to have concluded that it is all but certain the Democrats will at least lose the House. However, so many races are so tight and so tightly contested that now more than ever, every vote will count. Every vote will matter.
Of course, I am hoping for at least a close race in this election. If the Democrats lose the House, but just barely, or at least by only a respectable margin, perhaps that might create the atmosphere for political compromise that we need. The T.E.A. party candidates may put the Republicans in charge, but perhaps there will emerge a moderate coalition that can actually get some functional legislation passed. But that is likely be a faint hope.
To repeat my earlier blog, the key is to have both fiscal responsibility and a social conscience in government. To me, that is as obvious a solution as the two-state solution is for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Israelis and the Palestinians do not see that as so obvious or as easy to achieve. Neither would this kind of compromise be for Democrats and Republicans.
Still Democrats and Republicans should have an easier time in finding compromise because they do not have years of actual bloodshed to overcome. They just have years of name calling and bitter rivalry to deal with.
So, it comes down to the voting on Tuesday. The results may include some surprises for us. Stewart may have energized the middle more than the pundits expect. After all, this was not just one rally of nearly a quarter of a million people. It was a series of satellite rallies held all over the country. For every person who actually stood on the National Mall on Saturday, there were who-knows-how-many others who wanted to be there but couldn't.
And how will this energized middle vote? We'll have to wait and see. But even though the Rally to Restore Sanity may come too late to have an impact on this election, its legacy may be felt on many elections to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)