Via Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"I’m feeling grateful to the prez these days because we happen to be in the middle of a bunch of midsized crises. There’s the oil spill in the Gulf (which is verging on a big crisis, I guess). There’s the Times Square bomber. There are various floods in Tennessee and elsewhere. The European Union is falling apart over the Greek debt crisis, and so on and so on. It’s good to have a president with equipoise. It seems to me that Obama is handling his role, which ranges from the marginal to the significant, in these events with calm professionalism. He’s active yet not annoying. He’s not taking credit for everything. He’s not creating friction by making any missteps. He is calm, cool and collected,"
- David Brooks on our temperamentally conservative president.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/why-his-approval-rating-is-ticking-up.html
TW: I think many of us have been saying this for quite awhile, glad to see a proto-conservative coming around...
Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
What Is Big Government?
TW: These type dichotomies are why I call Bullshit on those who disclaim "big government" and parade around alleging some righteousness in the cause of "liberty". Many on the right are highly comfortable with certain forms of big government just not those which do not jive with their views of what is important. Security at all costs, equality not so much, equity not so much.
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Another serious terrorist attack will result in our constitution being tossed aside like cheap pulp fiction, of this I have no doubt. It will hardly matter which party is in power although the Republicans would toss it with more fervor.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:
'If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.
Do you think that I exaggerate?
Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.'
It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/liberty-or-tyranny.html
Monday, December 28, 2009
Classic Posts: Iran!!
From June 15, 2009
TW: Big things are happening in Iran. Regardless of the outcome, our lives will be impacted for better or worse, count on it. That we have a proper POTUS can only help but will not be the primary driver, some things are just not about us.
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
TW: Big things are happening in Iran. Regardless of the outcome, our lives will be impacted for better or worse, count on it. That we have a proper POTUS can only help but will not be the primary driver, some things are just not about us.
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
Friday, November 20, 2009
My Fellow Americans...Such As They Are
From Ezra Klein:
"A couple of days ago, Ross Douthat and I spoke to a class that E.J. Dionne teaches. At some point, I was riffing about how it's a pretty odd political system in which a solid 45 percent of the people believe in death panels and yet public opinion on health-care reform is closely split. Douthat replied that he'd seen research showing that most of the people who say they hold extreme opinions do not, if questioned more deeply, hold those opinions. It's more of a group identification thing. I'm choosing to believe he's right, because I don't really know what to do with a polity in which 52 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election from John McCain."
TW: I agree with Douthat, kinda. If pressed do people really believe this stuff, most probably not, but what group exactly are they identifying with?
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans think canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Derek Thompson is slack-jawed:
The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
They're watching Fox. Facts don't matter."
"A couple of days ago, Ross Douthat and I spoke to a class that E.J. Dionne teaches. At some point, I was riffing about how it's a pretty odd political system in which a solid 45 percent of the people believe in death panels and yet public opinion on health-care reform is closely split. Douthat replied that he'd seen research showing that most of the people who say they hold extreme opinions do not, if questioned more deeply, hold those opinions. It's more of a group identification thing. I'm choosing to believe he's right, because I don't really know what to do with a polity in which 52 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election from John McCain."
TW: I agree with Douthat, kinda. If pressed do people really believe this stuff, most probably not, but what group exactly are they identifying with?
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans think canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Derek Thompson is slack-jawed:
The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
They're watching Fox. Facts don't matter."
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Fiscal Conservatism?
TW: If Obama is to be a great POTUS, one of the attributes will need to be navigating the swirling fiscal currents which integrate the realities of our economic situation with the frequently contradictory realities of our political system. The public is always left with its head spinning. Should one care about deficits? "Deficits don't matter" said VP Dick Cheney, when the wealthy were being showered with tax cuts, $ poured into Iraq and Medicare prescription drug benefits doled out like crack. "The country is headed into a fiscal hell" says most every Republican now that some $ is being spent on stimulus and financial stabilization.
When should Obama shift to fiscal conservatism? That is a question, another would be whether Americans could actually accept fiscal conservatism. Taxes? Spending cuts not on someone else but on something that impact YOU? I obviously wish him well.
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"...I've been arguing that the Obama administration needs to pivot swiftly from health insurance reform to fiscal responsibility in the coming months. The recession made deficit cutting in the here and now imprudent in his first year; but now addressing the long-term debt is itself necessary for stabilizing the economy - and reassuring independent voters that he, unlike his predecessor, gives a damn about fiscal health. Well: the good news is that he's going to do exactly that:
'President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs...'
This classic Politico piece..fails to mention a few things about Obama's spending in his first year.
Item one: the recession.
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/obama-deficit-hawk.html#more
When should Obama shift to fiscal conservatism? That is a question, another would be whether Americans could actually accept fiscal conservatism. Taxes? Spending cuts not on someone else but on something that impact YOU? I obviously wish him well.
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"...I've been arguing that the Obama administration needs to pivot swiftly from health insurance reform to fiscal responsibility in the coming months. The recession made deficit cutting in the here and now imprudent in his first year; but now addressing the long-term debt is itself necessary for stabilizing the economy - and reassuring independent voters that he, unlike his predecessor, gives a damn about fiscal health. Well: the good news is that he's going to do exactly that:
'President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs...'
This classic Politico piece..fails to mention a few things about Obama's spending in his first year.
Item one: the recession.
To treat the stimulus package as if it were something he just felt like doing - because he's a big government maniac - is a lie, a piece of propaganda that has seeped into the lazy Beltway desire to describe everything - even now - into the big government/small government, red-blue paradigm.
Item two: The health insurance reform almost painfully tries to pay for itself - something that Bush's Medicare entitlement didn't even pretend to do.
Item three: there's a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.
The way in which cynical and amnesiac Republicans have tried to portray this as classic big government liberalism is a lie. You can debate the merits of each initiative, but this is obviously not an administration as fiscally reckless as the last one. Mercifully, they have a chance to show it in earnest next year. And to call the bluff of those Republicans yelling about spending while having absolutely no plans or ideas for cutting it."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/obama-deficit-hawk.html#more
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Opportunity Costs Of a Backward Health Care System
TW: Want to encourage entrepreneurship and economic growth? Then support universal coverage. Most folks know someone tied to their current job because they fear losing health care benefits. The lack of health care insurance portability is a big problem for the U.S. economy. So is being the only developed nation in the world without universal care. As the international economy becomes increasingly competitive entrepreneurs will pay attention as well to the risks associated with a health care systems with huge holes for those under 65 yrs and neither wealthy nor poor.
From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"I'm an American who has also decided to leave the US ...my European wife has a chronic disease that worsened soon after we moved to the U.S. two years ago. I have insurance, but with a sick wife and two children, our bills are quite high. Worse, should I ever change jobs, or get fired, I have no doubt our insurer would drop us, or at least dramatically increase our premiums.
I'm a senior exec in a software company. I've always wanted to run my own company, and I have an idea that I think will work.
But we'll move back to Europe before I take that risk. In the U.S., I just cannot be without healthcare for any length of time. I wonder how many other potential entrepreneurs are discouraged from striking out on their own for this very reason?"
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
MIT economist Jon Gruber has looked into this, and the effect is quite significant:
'Over the past fifteen years, dozens of studies have documented the detrimental impact that job lock has on the economy. These studies typically compare the mobility of workers who are at firms with insurance but do not have an alternative source of coverage (such as spousal insurance or COBRA continuation coverage) to those who do have an alternative source of coverage should they leave the firm. The studies find that mobility is much higher when workers do not have to fear losing coverage; job-to-job mobility is estimated to increase by as much as 25 percent when alternative group coverage is available…'
...the most convincing research, by Alison Wellington, mirrors the findings of other job mobility studies: Americans who have an alternative source of health insurance, such as a spouse’s coverage, are much more likely to be self-employed than those who don’t. Wellington estimates that universal health care would therefore likely increase the share of workers who are self-employed (currently about 10 percent of the workforce) by another 2 percent or more. A system that provides universal access to health insurance coverage, then, is far more likely to promote entrepreneurship than one in which would-be innovators remain tied to corporate cubicles for fear of losing their family’s access to affordable health care. Indeed, even the Galtians among us should be celebrating the expanded potential for individual enterprise once the chains tying them to a job that provides insurance have been broken..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/entrepreneurship_and_health_ca.html
From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"I'm an American who has also decided to leave the US ...my European wife has a chronic disease that worsened soon after we moved to the U.S. two years ago. I have insurance, but with a sick wife and two children, our bills are quite high. Worse, should I ever change jobs, or get fired, I have no doubt our insurer would drop us, or at least dramatically increase our premiums.
I'm a senior exec in a software company. I've always wanted to run my own company, and I have an idea that I think will work.
But we'll move back to Europe before I take that risk. In the U.S., I just cannot be without healthcare for any length of time. I wonder how many other potential entrepreneurs are discouraged from striking out on their own for this very reason?"
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
MIT economist Jon Gruber has looked into this, and the effect is quite significant:
'Over the past fifteen years, dozens of studies have documented the detrimental impact that job lock has on the economy. These studies typically compare the mobility of workers who are at firms with insurance but do not have an alternative source of coverage (such as spousal insurance or COBRA continuation coverage) to those who do have an alternative source of coverage should they leave the firm. The studies find that mobility is much higher when workers do not have to fear losing coverage; job-to-job mobility is estimated to increase by as much as 25 percent when alternative group coverage is available…'
...the most convincing research, by Alison Wellington, mirrors the findings of other job mobility studies: Americans who have an alternative source of health insurance, such as a spouse’s coverage, are much more likely to be self-employed than those who don’t. Wellington estimates that universal health care would therefore likely increase the share of workers who are self-employed (currently about 10 percent of the workforce) by another 2 percent or more. A system that provides universal access to health insurance coverage, then, is far more likely to promote entrepreneurship than one in which would-be innovators remain tied to corporate cubicles for fear of losing their family’s access to affordable health care. Indeed, even the Galtians among us should be celebrating the expanded potential for individual enterprise once the chains tying them to a job that provides insurance have been broken..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/entrepreneurship_and_health_ca.html
Monday, June 15, 2009
Iran!! (cont.)
TW: Big things are happening in Iran. Regardless of the outcome, our lives will be impacted for better or worse, count on it. That we have a proper POTUS can only help but will not be the primary driver, some things are just not about us.
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
This One Has Me Pissed
TW: And in a bi-partisan way, while the Republicans certainly did not help the Dems were right there skunking it. Perhaps you had seen something (probably not) on Obama's nominee to head up the obscure National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman. Freeman's sin, he is not an unabashed proponent of the U.S. Israeli lobby (he also made comments about Tiannamen Square but that was mere fluff to legitimize the "pro-Arab" charges). For the sake of argument lets assume he was biased in favor of "Arabs" that would make the score one for them and one hundred on the biased pro-Israeli side. This stuff is un-American to me.
If we cannot accept non-lockstep pro-Israelis in our government then much of the criticism of the U.S. as an unreliable broker in the Middle East gains credence. We have accused spies for Israel participating in the debate in the U.S. for chrissakes, they are a foreign nation. No other country (not the UK, not France, not Mexico) could get away with these kind of acts.
We are not talking about a person who was going to be the boss and decision-maker, he was merely going to be a voice at the table. We cannot apparently even have that amidst our monolithic intelligence staff. Disgraceful.
From Economist:
"...The swift fall of Mr Freeman was proof, if more was needed, of the power that stateside allies of Israel still wield. The drumbeat began, at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, with a blog post written by Steve Rosen—a former staffer for the American-Israeli Political Action Committee who is accused of espionage...To some, Mr Freeman was seen as a poor candidate for the job. But it seems that everyone who knew him, as opposed to those who simply claimed to know his views (and biases), regarded him as an astute individual with a sharp, analytical mind. One former profiler described him as a "one-man destroyer of groupthink". What more could you want out of an intelligence official? Ah, right, that question has been answered: a "conventional" (read pro-Israel) view of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"What Real Power In Washington Means:
You get to dictate to a president who he can and cannot appoint to his own intelligence staff. This was not a Senate-confirmation issue. And it was not because of some financial or tax issue. It was because of what he believed. And a president is simply not allowed to have that kind of diversity of view in his administration. And he knows this is a battle he shouldn't fight."
And:
"...Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am."
If we cannot accept non-lockstep pro-Israelis in our government then much of the criticism of the U.S. as an unreliable broker in the Middle East gains credence. We have accused spies for Israel participating in the debate in the U.S. for chrissakes, they are a foreign nation. No other country (not the UK, not France, not Mexico) could get away with these kind of acts.
We are not talking about a person who was going to be the boss and decision-maker, he was merely going to be a voice at the table. We cannot apparently even have that amidst our monolithic intelligence staff. Disgraceful.
From Economist:
"...The swift fall of Mr Freeman was proof, if more was needed, of the power that stateside allies of Israel still wield. The drumbeat began, at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, with a blog post written by Steve Rosen—a former staffer for the American-Israeli Political Action Committee who is accused of espionage...To some, Mr Freeman was seen as a poor candidate for the job. But it seems that everyone who knew him, as opposed to those who simply claimed to know his views (and biases), regarded him as an astute individual with a sharp, analytical mind. One former profiler described him as a "one-man destroyer of groupthink". What more could you want out of an intelligence official? Ah, right, that question has been answered: a "conventional" (read pro-Israel) view of the Arab-Israeli conflict."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"What Real Power In Washington Means:
You get to dictate to a president who he can and cannot appoint to his own intelligence staff. This was not a Senate-confirmation issue. And it was not because of some financial or tax issue. It was because of what he believed. And a president is simply not allowed to have that kind of diversity of view in his administration. And he knows this is a battle he shouldn't fight."
And:
"...Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am."
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Obama Revolution
TW: Have been writing how the Republicans have been petrified that the Reagan era was in the process of being trampled. Their fears are justified. Some of us like the concept...greatly.
Sullivan is being a bit overly dramatic as is his style but the sentiment is largely accurate. The thing the Republicans need to focus on from my view is less preservation of Reagan and more on how to address the very significant crisis we have entered (I would say largely due to some of the Reaganesque policies regardless the crisis is very severe). The Dems tried to keep the "FDR" age going for about twenty years too long, the Republicans risk the same now with Reagan.
I laughed on Monday when the Republicans starting whining about Obama not being hopeful enough and that he needed to sound hopeful in his Tuesday night speech. If there is one thing Obama can do it is sell hope (I thought that was one of his faults?), the Republicans played into his hands on that, will they continue to do so?
Today he announces a new Iraq policy that substantively is far closer to his campaign views than the Republicans yet the Republicans cheer it while the Dem left squawk. Again playing into Obama's hands. Meanwhile the CPAC meets in DC with cast of speakers straight out of loserville- Michelle Bachman, Joe the dumb ass Plumber, Anne Coulter and the keynote!!! speaker Rush Limbaugh. Mitch McConnell spoke and was derided for "letting" three Republicans vote for the stimulus package. The Republicans will come back but it will take awhile especially if they refuse to face reality. And no I did not appreciate John Bolton joking about Chicago getting nuked so that Obama would take the Iranians seriously, that guy was UN ambassador for W. Bush, he is a freak who should have never been anywhere near serious policy making.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"I've learned for two years now not to under-estimate Obama. I watched from the very start of the campaign how he strategized a path to achieving his goals partly by eschewing the kinds of tactics that Washington has come to see as political skill. I think of him in some ways as the Un-Rove. Karl Rove mastered the art of petty and nasty political tactics in the South of the post-Reagan era. And he never had a solid grip on conservatism as a political philosophy or of political strategy. And so Rove today endures as the architect of the biggest and deepest political implosion since the Democrats in the 1970s. It was all tactics, no strategy; all politics, no governance. He remains the worst single political strategist of modern times.
Now look at how Obama has framed the debate since the election. Every single symbolic act has been inclusive and sober. From that speech in Grant Park to the eschewal of euphoria on Inauguration Day; from the George Will dinner invite to the Rick Warren invocation; from meeting the House Republicans on the Hill to convening a fiscal responsibility summit; from telegraphing to all of us Obamacons that he wasn't a fiscal lunatic to ... unveiling the most expansive, liberal, big government reversal of Reagan any traditional Democrat would die for.
Smart, isn't he? He won the stimulus debate long before the Republicans realized it (they were busy doing tap-dances of victory on talk radio, while he was building a new coalition without them). And now, after presenting such a centrist, bi-partisan, moderate and personally trustworthy front, he gets to unveil a radical long-term agenda that really will soak the very rich and invest in the poor. Given the crisis, he has seized this moment for more radicalism than might have seemed possible only a couple of months ago.
The risk is, at least, a transparent risk. If none of this works, he will have taken a massive gamble and failed. The country will be bankrupt and he will have one term. His gamble with the economy may come to seem like Bush's gamble in Iraq. But if any of it works, if the economy recovers, and if the GOP continues to be utterly deaf and blind to the new landscape we live in, then we're talking less Reagan than FDR in long-term impact.
It's going to be a riveting first year, isn't it?"
Sullivan is being a bit overly dramatic as is his style but the sentiment is largely accurate. The thing the Republicans need to focus on from my view is less preservation of Reagan and more on how to address the very significant crisis we have entered (I would say largely due to some of the Reaganesque policies regardless the crisis is very severe). The Dems tried to keep the "FDR" age going for about twenty years too long, the Republicans risk the same now with Reagan.
I laughed on Monday when the Republicans starting whining about Obama not being hopeful enough and that he needed to sound hopeful in his Tuesday night speech. If there is one thing Obama can do it is sell hope (I thought that was one of his faults?), the Republicans played into his hands on that, will they continue to do so?
Today he announces a new Iraq policy that substantively is far closer to his campaign views than the Republicans yet the Republicans cheer it while the Dem left squawk. Again playing into Obama's hands. Meanwhile the CPAC meets in DC with cast of speakers straight out of loserville- Michelle Bachman, Joe the dumb ass Plumber, Anne Coulter and the keynote!!! speaker Rush Limbaugh. Mitch McConnell spoke and was derided for "letting" three Republicans vote for the stimulus package. The Republicans will come back but it will take awhile especially if they refuse to face reality. And no I did not appreciate John Bolton joking about Chicago getting nuked so that Obama would take the Iranians seriously, that guy was UN ambassador for W. Bush, he is a freak who should have never been anywhere near serious policy making.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"I've learned for two years now not to under-estimate Obama. I watched from the very start of the campaign how he strategized a path to achieving his goals partly by eschewing the kinds of tactics that Washington has come to see as political skill. I think of him in some ways as the Un-Rove. Karl Rove mastered the art of petty and nasty political tactics in the South of the post-Reagan era. And he never had a solid grip on conservatism as a political philosophy or of political strategy. And so Rove today endures as the architect of the biggest and deepest political implosion since the Democrats in the 1970s. It was all tactics, no strategy; all politics, no governance. He remains the worst single political strategist of modern times.
Now look at how Obama has framed the debate since the election. Every single symbolic act has been inclusive and sober. From that speech in Grant Park to the eschewal of euphoria on Inauguration Day; from the George Will dinner invite to the Rick Warren invocation; from meeting the House Republicans on the Hill to convening a fiscal responsibility summit; from telegraphing to all of us Obamacons that he wasn't a fiscal lunatic to ... unveiling the most expansive, liberal, big government reversal of Reagan any traditional Democrat would die for.
Smart, isn't he? He won the stimulus debate long before the Republicans realized it (they were busy doing tap-dances of victory on talk radio, while he was building a new coalition without them). And now, after presenting such a centrist, bi-partisan, moderate and personally trustworthy front, he gets to unveil a radical long-term agenda that really will soak the very rich and invest in the poor. Given the crisis, he has seized this moment for more radicalism than might have seemed possible only a couple of months ago.
The risk is, at least, a transparent risk. If none of this works, he will have taken a massive gamble and failed. The country will be bankrupt and he will have one term. His gamble with the economy may come to seem like Bush's gamble in Iraq. But if any of it works, if the economy recovers, and if the GOP continues to be utterly deaf and blind to the new landscape we live in, then we're talking less Reagan than FDR in long-term impact.
It's going to be a riveting first year, isn't it?"
Friday, February 13, 2009
Judd Gregg Symbol For Republican Madness
TW: Gregg issued a statement saying he reneged on Commerce because he was not going to control the census bureau and he had differences of opinion with the White House. That is BS.
Larry Kudlow's quote would have the slightest bit of validity IF Obama had barfed the stimulus out of thin air sometime within the past two weeks and never mentioned the census bureau issue prior to Gregg accepting the nomination. Of course neither is true.
Sullivan pretty much nails it. But I am already very tired of another Republican Congress mired in ideology to the detriment of actual policy. How the hell are we meant to ever address our nation's challenges if there is never even the narrowest window during which policy can be made without ideological warfare. Gregg was rolled by his own party, and now he is done as a politician.
The Republicans are trying to cap Obama's knees, they have failed to date and will fail ultimately. Will have more on this later.
From Larry Kudlow:
"Judd Gregg has more backbone than anyone in politics today. He did his best to cross over and help Pres. Obama. But as Gregg and I discussed in a recent CNBC interview, the senator has a long and outstanding record as a tax-cutter, budget-cutter, deficit-cutter, and debt-cutter. All of these principles have been badly violated in the so-called stimulus package. And of course the White House move to steal the Census Bureau during a crucial political-reapportionment period was a low blow."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"It gets clearer. When Judd Gregg approached the Obama administration to see if he could be a part of it, he was assuming that his own party wasn't going to adopt a policy of total warfare against the newly elected president in a time of enormous economic peril. Between that moment and the current all-out ideological assault on Obama, his position became untenable. His recusal on the stimulus package provoked fury at home (check out the comments here) and dyspepsia among the GOP who are intent on responding to an open hand with a clenched fist.
I have to say even I am a little taken aback by the force of the Republican assault. Even in a downturn as swift and alarming as this one, even after an election that clearly favored one approach over another, even after the most conciliatory efforts by an incoming president in memory, these people have gone to war against the president. The president should stay cool. The rest of us should realize what motivates the GOP: the opportunism of selective ideology. "
Larry Kudlow's quote would have the slightest bit of validity IF Obama had barfed the stimulus out of thin air sometime within the past two weeks and never mentioned the census bureau issue prior to Gregg accepting the nomination. Of course neither is true.
Sullivan pretty much nails it. But I am already very tired of another Republican Congress mired in ideology to the detriment of actual policy. How the hell are we meant to ever address our nation's challenges if there is never even the narrowest window during which policy can be made without ideological warfare. Gregg was rolled by his own party, and now he is done as a politician.
The Republicans are trying to cap Obama's knees, they have failed to date and will fail ultimately. Will have more on this later.
From Larry Kudlow:
"Judd Gregg has more backbone than anyone in politics today. He did his best to cross over and help Pres. Obama. But as Gregg and I discussed in a recent CNBC interview, the senator has a long and outstanding record as a tax-cutter, budget-cutter, deficit-cutter, and debt-cutter. All of these principles have been badly violated in the so-called stimulus package. And of course the White House move to steal the Census Bureau during a crucial political-reapportionment period was a low blow."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"It gets clearer. When Judd Gregg approached the Obama administration to see if he could be a part of it, he was assuming that his own party wasn't going to adopt a policy of total warfare against the newly elected president in a time of enormous economic peril. Between that moment and the current all-out ideological assault on Obama, his position became untenable. His recusal on the stimulus package provoked fury at home (check out the comments here) and dyspepsia among the GOP who are intent on responding to an open hand with a clenched fist.
I have to say even I am a little taken aback by the force of the Republican assault. Even in a downturn as swift and alarming as this one, even after an election that clearly favored one approach over another, even after the most conciliatory efforts by an incoming president in memory, these people have gone to war against the president. The president should stay cool. The rest of us should realize what motivates the GOP: the opportunism of selective ideology. "
Monday, January 12, 2009
Pathetic Know Nothingness In Action
TW: The know-nothings and ignorance is bliss crowd on the right-wing gets their wish, Joe Wurzelbacher as war reporter. Sad really.
From Economist:
"RIGHT-leaning blog-and-video site PajamasMedia decided that it would be a boost to its journalism—or its ads revenue, perhaps—to hire Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher as a correspondent in Israel. Mr Wurzelbacher filed his first dispatch to a bevy of TV reporters who hadn't seen a good trainwreck in months.
I'll be honest with you. I don't think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I-I think it's asinine... I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'Well look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.
We'd hope to never have to comment on Mr Wurzelbacher again. We assumed that, as an Average Joe who simply wanted to own his own plumbing company, he would return to his Ohio home and start working hard again. But it seems he's figured out what Paris Hilton and Johnny Knoxville took years to discover: being a nitwit in public is much easier than working."
From conservative blogger Confablulum:
"But any Pajamas Media figure who revels in Joe’s new assignment ought to lose whatever credibility they’ve built up as a serious news organization, or an enterprise seriously invested in improving upon the mainstream media’s flaws...he’s cheerleading exactly the kind of thing he’d criticize were the mainstream media to do it. Coocooning, I think he calls it. But has The New York Times, to cite one frequent Instapundit target, ever so cynically pandered to its audience by hiring a reporter so little qualified? Has it ever so blatantly sacrificed the quality of information it provides its readers? Even if the answer is yes — which I don’t think it is — it makes Pajamas Media no better than the very news organizations against which it defines itself as a superior alternative."
http://culture11.com/blogs/theconfabulum/2009/01/09/say-it-aint-so-glenn/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"The conservative blogosphere began as a way to ask more questions, to get more scrutiny out there, to add new perspectives to the cocoon of the MSM, to crack the silly professional smugness that infected many newsrooms. It is ending in the dissemination of propaganda in the defense of war and an attack on journalism itself"
Friday, December 5, 2008
The World Is Not Black And White
TW: So many conservatives epitomized by W. Bush seek to break the world down into black and white choices. As most of us learn at some point between nursery school and first grade more subtle shades of gray are more relevant. Another of my least favorite conservative columnists is Victor David Hanson. In this recent piece, he bagged a two-fer, creating the dreaded straw man argument overlaid with a heavy dose of black and white logic where gray is most definitely the operative reality. Hanson implies Democrats would end all intelligence gathering involving wiretaps (the straw man) while claiming that the elimination of wiretaps is an all or nothing proposition (the black or white choice). Andrew Sullivan answered with the right points.
From Sullivan:
"One wonders how out of it NRO can get, and then one reads this from Victor Davis Hanson:
Does Hanson actually believe that opponents of the Bush warrantless wiretapping were actually against all wire intercepts of terrorist communications? Does he really believe we wanted no intelligence procured through spying or wiretapping? Or is he actually aware that we were concerned about checks and balances so that these powers could not be abused or adopted in secret or given to the president alone? And just lying about it?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/it-gets-worse.html
From Sullivan:
"One wonders how out of it NRO can get, and then one reads this from Victor Davis Hanson:
FISA and wire-intercepts of terrorist communications in the pre-Obama president months were once derided as more of Ashcroft-Bush stomping on the Constitution — except that now ABC News reports that, in fact, US intelligence agencies supplied India with general knowledge of the rough time period, place, and
perhaps even method of terrorist attack. Are we to believe that such newfound capability to warn a country 7000 miles away about terrorist infiltration on its
borders would be of no utility here at home?
Does Hanson actually believe that opponents of the Bush warrantless wiretapping were actually against all wire intercepts of terrorist communications? Does he really believe we wanted no intelligence procured through spying or wiretapping? Or is he actually aware that we were concerned about checks and balances so that these powers could not be abused or adopted in secret or given to the president alone? And just lying about it?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/it-gets-worse.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)