TW: Seems like the women of the View burned through the BS and put Bayh on his heels where he belongs. The fundamental point is simple- folks like Bayh, who instead of staying and fighting, retreat and claim some sort of righteous indignation are part of the problem not the solution. Conservatives may be very wrongheaded but they have stuck around and in fact continue to exert an almost irrational zeal to foment their increasingly strident, radical and harmful agenda. If eveyone acts like Bayh be they politicians or voters, the wrong side will win.
I went to a Bayh fundraiser a couple of years ago (small setting thing) he is all hat no cattle.
From Politics Daily:
"Politicians frequently appear on national talk shows when they're running for office, but Sen. Evan Bayh, the retiring Democratic senator from Indiana, appeared on "The View" Monday to explain why he's not running for office later this year.
"I reached the conclusion that I could get more done for my country and for my state in the private sector," he told Barbara Walters. "Congress is so gridlocked these days. It's regrettable that with brain-dead ideology and strident partisanship, months go by and we don't get anything done."
If Bayh expected a soft-ball interview after that, he was in for a shock.
"I hate to say it, but you sound like Sarah Palin right now," Joy Behar said, accusing the senator of quitting his job before his work was done.
"Do you want to look at my hand?" he joked, referring to the talking points Palin wrote on the palm of her hand during a recent interview.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the conservative in the group, pounced on Bayh's remark about Palin. "You sit here and say, 'I'm sick of the partisanship,' yet you throw a cheap Sarah Palin joke in, so I don't really understand or believe you," Hasselbeck said. "I just think if you're going to participate in that, you can't be saying the other things. So I want to hold you accountable."
Bayh went on to explain that he is tired not only of the partisanship in Washington, but also of the spiraling federal deficits that Congress is running up.
"Why not quit during the Bush administration when the deficits went up?" Behar said. "Why quit now when we need you?"
After Bayh said that he was equally frustrated with the Bush administration's spending record, Whoopi Goldberg jumped in. "But you didn't leave. I think the leaving is the part that we're really having a hard time with," she said. "Sometimes when you're fighting the good fight, you're out there and you're going to get hit with the stuff. Why are you splitting?"
Bayh finally appealed to Goldberg, "You're going to get me in trouble with my wife if you're mad at me."
After describing the ways he thinks Congress can by-pass partisanship in the future (more bi-partisan meetings, less money in campaigns), Bayh told the women that he will not run for president in 2012, but did not rule out another run for office in the future.
Barbara Walters seemed not to buy the senator's assertion that he's fed up with politics. She signed off by saying, "Come back and see us, especially when you run again in 2016."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/evan-bayh-gets-rough-treatment-on-the-view/
Showing posts with label Misc. Democratic Lawmakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misc. Democratic Lawmakers. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Who Is Your Leader?
TW: The Daily Telegraph in the UK prepares an every other year list of top leaders amongst conservatives and liberals. I found the lists instructive.
From Telegrah UK:
Conservatives:
1) Dick Cheney
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Matt Drudge
4) Sarah Palin
5) Bob Gates (Sec. Def.)
6) Glenn Beck
7) Roger Ailes (head of the Fox Republican News Network)
8) David Petreaus
9) Paul Ryan (Wisconsin representative)
10) Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota governor)
Liberals
1) Barack Obama
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Nancy Pelosi
4) Bill Clinton
5) Rahm Emanuel
6) Al Gore
7) Oprah Winfrey
8) Tim Geithner
9) David Axelrod
10) Harry Reid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html
From Telegrah UK:
Conservatives:
1) Dick Cheney
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Matt Drudge
4) Sarah Palin
5) Bob Gates (Sec. Def.)
6) Glenn Beck
7) Roger Ailes (head of the Fox Republican News Network)
8) David Petreaus
9) Paul Ryan (Wisconsin representative)
10) Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota governor)
Liberals
1) Barack Obama
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Nancy Pelosi
4) Bill Clinton
5) Rahm Emanuel
6) Al Gore
7) Oprah Winfrey
8) Tim Geithner
9) David Axelrod
10) Harry Reid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Could There Be a Stronger Argument For Gun Control?
TW: Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson "hunting" in Nebraska...what has the world come to...those two trying to hunt has to mess up the cosmos somehow. Some folks really should not be allowed to dress up and use a gun that way.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Devolution Of American Politics
TW: The tendency is always claim things were easier way back when. But what if a sea change in American politics has occurred? What if our governance processes rather than being tried and true through over 200 years of history are becoming time bound and sclerotic? What if obstructionism is a rational political approach but an irrational governance method.?
From Democratic House #2 leader Steny Hoyer (Maryland) via Ezra Klein:
"...it's not clear that minority obstructionism is bad politics. Back in the early 1990s, of course, Bill Kristol, among others, urged Republicans to kill the Clinton health-care bill. Not modify it, or improve it, or amend it, but kill it. And then they picked up more than 50 seats.
Newt Gingrich was of course the chief proponent of that policy, and he and Bob Michel, who was leader of the Republicans, disagreed. And Gingrich eventually succeeded in pushing Michel out. Michel’s view was you sit down, offer your input, and move forward. The theory was that the American people elected the legislative body to make policy and so you make policy. Gingrich’s proposition, and maybe accurately, was that as long as you, Bob Michel, and our party cooperate with Democrats and get 20 or 30 percent of what we want and they get to say they solved the problem and had a bipartisan bill, there's no incentive for the American people to change leadership. You have to confront, delay, and undermine and impose failure in order to move the public. To some degree, he was proven right in 1994."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/hoyer_draft.html
From Democratic House #2 leader Steny Hoyer (Maryland) via Ezra Klein:
"...it's not clear that minority obstructionism is bad politics. Back in the early 1990s, of course, Bill Kristol, among others, urged Republicans to kill the Clinton health-care bill. Not modify it, or improve it, or amend it, but kill it. And then they picked up more than 50 seats.
Newt Gingrich was of course the chief proponent of that policy, and he and Bob Michel, who was leader of the Republicans, disagreed. And Gingrich eventually succeeded in pushing Michel out. Michel’s view was you sit down, offer your input, and move forward. The theory was that the American people elected the legislative body to make policy and so you make policy. Gingrich’s proposition, and maybe accurately, was that as long as you, Bob Michel, and our party cooperate with Democrats and get 20 or 30 percent of what we want and they get to say they solved the problem and had a bipartisan bill, there's no incentive for the American people to change leadership. You have to confront, delay, and undermine and impose failure in order to move the public. To some degree, he was proven right in 1994."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/hoyer_draft.html
Friday, November 20, 2009
Byrd Sets a Unfortunate Record
TW: Completely agree with Klein here. The tradition of folks holding on far too long especially in the Senate and often on the Supreme Court is unfortunate (same could be said of some college football coaches). This dynamic demonstrates the power of incumbency which creates a self-fulfilling inertia. We have retirement ages for many professions for a reason. Why the Senate (or House etc.) should be different is not clear to me.
From Ezra Klein:
"Robert Byrd Jr...the 91-year-old West Virginian is officially the longest-serving member of Congress, having cast more than 18,000 votes and served for more than 20,000 days. Congratulations?
This will reveal me as something of a skunk, but these records are bad things, not good ones. Byrd has spent the past year too sick to reliably carry out his day-to-day duties. It's routinely mentioned that Democrats can't count on 60 votes because they don't know whether Byrd will be able to cast his vote. Similarly long-serving public figures such as Strom Thurmond and Thurgood Marshall spent their final years virtually incapacitated, totally reliant on staff.
There's a tendency in Washington to celebrate extremely long careers despite the fact that the extra length often extends the career beyond the point of useful service. People are honored for sticking around, when the courageous and hard thing would be to cede their seat or position. The celebration and historical permanence given to these sorts of records is part of why they do it. Byrd has accomplished much in his career, and there's plenty in his service worth honoring (his eloquent opposition to the Iraq war, for instance, but this isn't a record I'm eager to see others emulate."
From Ezra Klein:
"Robert Byrd Jr...the 91-year-old West Virginian is officially the longest-serving member of Congress, having cast more than 18,000 votes and served for more than 20,000 days. Congratulations?
This will reveal me as something of a skunk, but these records are bad things, not good ones. Byrd has spent the past year too sick to reliably carry out his day-to-day duties. It's routinely mentioned that Democrats can't count on 60 votes because they don't know whether Byrd will be able to cast his vote. Similarly long-serving public figures such as Strom Thurmond and Thurgood Marshall spent their final years virtually incapacitated, totally reliant on staff.
There's a tendency in Washington to celebrate extremely long careers despite the fact that the extra length often extends the career beyond the point of useful service. People are honored for sticking around, when the courageous and hard thing would be to cede their seat or position. The celebration and historical permanence given to these sorts of records is part of why they do it. Byrd has accomplished much in his career, and there's plenty in his service worth honoring (his eloquent opposition to the Iraq war, for instance, but this isn't a record I'm eager to see others emulate."
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Bi Partisanhip on Climate Change?
TW: Any joint Lindsey Graham/John Kerry article was bound to get attention. But the article speaks to the compromises necessary to achieve significant bi-partisan climate change legislation. Their piece called for more nuclear power (good idea), more off-shore drilling (mediocre idea but if that floats conservative boats so be it, I can think of far worse alternatives) and potential carbon import taxes (dubious but not non-sensical idea). I think Graham is a sleeper for POTUS in '16, he is very much a conservative but not blind to actually trying to govern in conjunction with Dems. More importantly if there were more joint editorials like this one many other issues could be tackled more effectively.
From Economist Mag:
"MANY commentators fear that Barack Obama’s plans for a cap-and-trade bill have got fatally stuck in the Senate. Their calculations were shaken up over the weekend when Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined John Kerry, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, to write an article headlined “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)” in the New York Times.
...The part most likely to bring a few extra Republicans on board concerns nuclear power. The two call for streamlining regulations on new plant construction, and putting more money into research on handling waste. This sop to nuclear power is more likely than anything else to bring on board John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and a strong nuclear supporter. Green Democrats are wary of nuclear, but the edge of their worry has been dulled by the even greater worry over climate change...
The second main provision of the Kerry-Graham agreement is renewed offshore drilling for oil and gas. Many conservatives want to mitigate America’s energy-security problems by looking to domestic fossil fuels. This has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, but it might help a bill that does contain carbon caps to pass.
The third announcement from Senators Kerry and Graham is that “we should consider a border tax” on goods from countries with lax environmental standards. This will cause righteous howls from the big developing countries, especially China and India, which note America’s historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If included in the final bill, it would make a deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December more difficult. But the weasel-word “should consider” may eventually mean giving the president a lot of discretion on whether to levy such “carbon tariffs”. In other words, a classic fudge.
...The maths is still daunting. But the leap by Mr Graham, who voted against two earlier cap-and-trade bills, may well mean something."
(Note Economist magazine but not blog articles are now behind a paywall)
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652475
From Economist Mag:
"MANY commentators fear that Barack Obama’s plans for a cap-and-trade bill have got fatally stuck in the Senate. Their calculations were shaken up over the weekend when Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined John Kerry, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, to write an article headlined “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)” in the New York Times.
...The part most likely to bring a few extra Republicans on board concerns nuclear power. The two call for streamlining regulations on new plant construction, and putting more money into research on handling waste. This sop to nuclear power is more likely than anything else to bring on board John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and a strong nuclear supporter. Green Democrats are wary of nuclear, but the edge of their worry has been dulled by the even greater worry over climate change...
The second main provision of the Kerry-Graham agreement is renewed offshore drilling for oil and gas. Many conservatives want to mitigate America’s energy-security problems by looking to domestic fossil fuels. This has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, but it might help a bill that does contain carbon caps to pass.
The third announcement from Senators Kerry and Graham is that “we should consider a border tax” on goods from countries with lax environmental standards. This will cause righteous howls from the big developing countries, especially China and India, which note America’s historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If included in the final bill, it would make a deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December more difficult. But the weasel-word “should consider” may eventually mean giving the president a lot of discretion on whether to levy such “carbon tariffs”. In other words, a classic fudge.
...The maths is still daunting. But the leap by Mr Graham, who voted against two earlier cap-and-trade bills, may well mean something."
(Note Economist magazine but not blog articles are now behind a paywall)
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652475
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Baucus Plan Synopsis
TW: The blogosphere was sizzling yesterday with reaction to the Max Baucus shepherded bill that came out of his Senate committee. For those actually interested in what the bill contains go to this synopsis from Time. It is detailed without getting lost in the minutiae. Fundamentally it is incremental not revolutionary. But rather than letting the pundits drive your views spend some time learning about it.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924252,00.html
TW: Too much of the reax was process BS about the politics as opposed to the substance of the bill, this from Chuck Todd sums things up well...
From NBC:
"...But what does it say about today’s Republican Party when Baucus’ bill seeks the middle ground, lowers the price tag, doesn’t contain the so-called public option, and actually lowers health costs -- and yet not a single Republican, even Snowe, will embrace it? Indeed, the middle may very well be the loneliest place to be in America these days. In our politics, almost everyone seems to be on one side or another, with very few (Snowe, Collins, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, etc.) in between. The same seems true of our society, where everyone is looking out for his or her own self-interest, rather than the greater good. Baucus’ biggest problem may have been seeking the middle ground in a country where the middle is seemingly lost."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924252,00.html
TW: Too much of the reax was process BS about the politics as opposed to the substance of the bill, this from Chuck Todd sums things up well...
From NBC:
"...But what does it say about today’s Republican Party when Baucus’ bill seeks the middle ground, lowers the price tag, doesn’t contain the so-called public option, and actually lowers health costs -- and yet not a single Republican, even Snowe, will embrace it? Indeed, the middle may very well be the loneliest place to be in America these days. In our politics, almost everyone seems to be on one side or another, with very few (Snowe, Collins, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, etc.) in between. The same seems true of our society, where everyone is looking out for his or her own self-interest, rather than the greater good. Baucus’ biggest problem may have been seeking the middle ground in a country where the middle is seemingly lost."
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
What Happens To Campaign Chest When Politicians Die?
TW: Am just learning all sorts of trivia today. This piece brings up a fair question within the context of EMK's death- what happens to politicians campaign war chest when they die in office. The notable feature with EMK being his was much larger than most $4+MM. Old politicians never die their money just fades away.
From Boston Globe:
"When he died...Senator...Kennedy left behind a war chest many politicians would envy: $4.55 million in cash and practically no campaign debt, the benefits of a 47-year incumbency and no serious political threats at home.
Now, the late senator’s aides are left to handle the money in ways that specialists expect will be dictated by Kennedy’s desires for his personal and political legacy, as well as strict campaign finance laws on how campaign funds can be redistributed.
...The millions Kennedy collected to help him stay in office won’t be of much use to any potential successors. According to campaign finance rules, the campaign can only give $2,000 or less to another political campaign - even after the candidate’s death. That would prevent Kennedy’s campaign operatives from turning over the bulk of the money to a potential successor, including his widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, or his nephew, Joseph P. Kennedy II.
...The senator’s campaign committee and its treasurer, John Zamparelli, have the authority to keep the campaign account open indefinitely, allowing them to control the money. But their options are limited: they can donate any or all of the money to charity, give an unlimited amount to the Democratic Party and its political committees, or distribute it in increments of $2,000 a year..."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/01/kennedy_left__455_million_campaign_fund/
From Boston Globe:
"When he died...Senator...Kennedy left behind a war chest many politicians would envy: $4.55 million in cash and practically no campaign debt, the benefits of a 47-year incumbency and no serious political threats at home.
Now, the late senator’s aides are left to handle the money in ways that specialists expect will be dictated by Kennedy’s desires for his personal and political legacy, as well as strict campaign finance laws on how campaign funds can be redistributed.
...The millions Kennedy collected to help him stay in office won’t be of much use to any potential successors. According to campaign finance rules, the campaign can only give $2,000 or less to another political campaign - even after the candidate’s death. That would prevent Kennedy’s campaign operatives from turning over the bulk of the money to a potential successor, including his widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, or his nephew, Joseph P. Kennedy II.
...The senator’s campaign committee and its treasurer, John Zamparelli, have the authority to keep the campaign account open indefinitely, allowing them to control the money. But their options are limited: they can donate any or all of the money to charity, give an unlimited amount to the Democratic Party and its political committees, or distribute it in increments of $2,000 a year..."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/01/kennedy_left__455_million_campaign_fund/
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
From Time:
"There was a time 40 years ago, right after the assassination of his brother Robert, when it looked like Edward Kennedy would become President someday by right of succession. The Kennedy curse, the one that had seen all three of his brothers cut down in their prime, had created for him a sort of Kennedy prerogative, or at least the illusion of one, an inevitable claim on the White House. For years he seemed like a man simply waiting for the right moment to take what everybody knew was coming his way.
Everybody was wrong. Ted Kennedy would never reach the White House. His weaknesses — and the long shadow of Chappaquiddick — were an obstacle that even his strengths couldn't overcome. But his failure to get to the presidency opened the way to the true fulfillment of his gifts, which was to become one of the greatest legislators in American history."
Monday, August 24, 2009
Herding Senate Cats
TW: When folks lament the Dems forward progress despite having "60" votes in the Senate, I respond they do not have 60 lock-step votes they have maybe 40 and a plethora of competing interests- Blue Dogs, egomaniacs and Joe Lieberman who bridges both cliques. Mr. Lieberman epitomizes the challenge of herding 50 cats, 9 blue dogs and one Lieberman pinscher.
At this point in his career, Lieberman has his own agendas and really could care less about the Dem Party. He walked lock-step with the neo-cons with the Iraq War, follows a rabid Likudnik foreign policy relative to the Middle East, wanted to keep Terry Schiavo on a ventilator in perpetuity and campaigned for McCain/Palin across the country etc. His presence in the Dem caucus is practically ceremonial. He was meant to be a Dem ally on domestic issues now he is applying the knife there as well.
Slow walking health care reform is directly equivalent to killing it, which he knows full well. He brings out the tired old excuse of lets wait until the recession over. Right Joe.
He knows any actual reform (and costs) will not truly kick in for at least a couple of years when the recession will be past (if not reform will be the least of our problems). He knows maintaining enough political momentum to pass reform is precarious now and with looming elections and Obama's natural declines in support the odds of that momentum being better next year or the year after are slim to none. He knows not getting reform done this year would be a huge political victory for the Republicans and a corresponding defeat to Obama. In other words, he is functionally a Republican now.
Please Connecticut get a good Dem to run against him next year.
At this point in his career, Lieberman has his own agendas and really could care less about the Dem Party. He walked lock-step with the neo-cons with the Iraq War, follows a rabid Likudnik foreign policy relative to the Middle East, wanted to keep Terry Schiavo on a ventilator in perpetuity and campaigned for McCain/Palin across the country etc. His presence in the Dem caucus is practically ceremonial. He was meant to be a Dem ally on domestic issues now he is applying the knife there as well.
Slow walking health care reform is directly equivalent to killing it, which he knows full well. He brings out the tired old excuse of lets wait until the recession over. Right Joe.
He knows any actual reform (and costs) will not truly kick in for at least a couple of years when the recession will be past (if not reform will be the least of our problems). He knows maintaining enough political momentum to pass reform is precarious now and with looming elections and Obama's natural declines in support the odds of that momentum being better next year or the year after are slim to none. He knows not getting reform done this year would be a huge political victory for the Republicans and a corresponding defeat to Obama. In other words, he is functionally a Republican now.
Please Connecticut get a good Dem to run against him next year.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Why Won't Dysfunctional Senators Resign?
TW: This piece makes a fair point about why is it that Senators cannot vote remotely on matters when they are ill etc. But to me the bigger question is why are folks like Byrd of WV and Kennedy of MA still in the Senate. They (like many before them, think Strom Thurmond) are unfortunately due to age and illness no longer professionally functional. A CEO, a doctor etc. would never be permitted to carry on in their condition.
Whats worse is that Byrd was recently re-elected even though he was incapacitated (Thurmond was as well). It is a failure of democracy. While I am sure both of their egos are now completely wrapped up in their senatorial roles, they are both doing a disservice to their constituents and country. They should resign.
From Economist:
"...why should the ability of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd to get out of bed affect whether or not they can cast votes in the Senate? Why not let them vote via teleconference?
Mr Zengerle thinks through all of the technical objections and doesn't come up with a dead-stop reason to prevent this. Arguably, it's another example of a congressional tradition that distributes power unfairly (it hurts Democrats now, but if a couple Republicans got sick it would be functionally impossible to filibuster) and randomly. The Senate is full of such archaic rules.
Why does it take 60 votes to break a filibuster if not all 100 senators are in their seats? Why can a senator put a "hold" on a nominee without explanation, and without revealing who he is? These rules don't get reformed largely because they are archaic. As one of Mr Zengerle's more grumpy readers says, "Just because it's 2009, doesn't mean we have to trash fundamentals of the Constitution or Senate Rules."
Whats worse is that Byrd was recently re-elected even though he was incapacitated (Thurmond was as well). It is a failure of democracy. While I am sure both of their egos are now completely wrapped up in their senatorial roles, they are both doing a disservice to their constituents and country. They should resign.
From Economist:
"...why should the ability of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd to get out of bed affect whether or not they can cast votes in the Senate? Why not let them vote via teleconference?
Mr Zengerle thinks through all of the technical objections and doesn't come up with a dead-stop reason to prevent this. Arguably, it's another example of a congressional tradition that distributes power unfairly (it hurts Democrats now, but if a couple Republicans got sick it would be functionally impossible to filibuster) and randomly. The Senate is full of such archaic rules.
Why does it take 60 votes to break a filibuster if not all 100 senators are in their seats? Why can a senator put a "hold" on a nominee without explanation, and without revealing who he is? These rules don't get reformed largely because they are archaic. As one of Mr Zengerle's more grumpy readers says, "Just because it's 2009, doesn't mean we have to trash fundamentals of the Constitution or Senate Rules."
That's poor reasoning, but others are more persuasive. Instead of changing the rules to allow telesenatoring, perhaps Americans should simply elect men and women who are able to carry out their jobs. And perhaps those who can't should have the decency to resign their office. West Virginians elected a near 90-year-old man to be their senator in 2006. That he is unable to carry out his duties today is hardly surprising..." http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/let_my_people_teleconference.cfm
Friday, June 26, 2009
Working For Obama v. Bubba Clinton
TW: Another example of why I think our current POTUS might just be able to get some things done. Obviously the sausage making process currently underway relative to climate and health care reform shows an almost super-human person is needed in order to have any chance of actual reform occurring.
As for Bubba C., an unbelievable talent ultimately diminished tremendously by the lack of discipline. He was a very good POTUS who could have been so much more. Discipline in his governing style and discipline in his personal life would have made him a real force. It took Bubba a couple of years to really figure out the governing piece. Then he f'ed it all up with the Monica thing. He should have resigned btw. If he had, Gore would have been POTUS instead W. Bush, leaving the world in far better shape than it was on Jan 23rd, 2009.
From Christian Science Monitor interview with Rahm Emanuel:
"EMANUEL: I think President Obama has one of the most disciplined minds and styles I've ever seen. And I think of my – I exercise every day. I've been doing it for umpteen years. I read a book, one every three weeks, I think I'm personally pretty disciplined. This guy is incredibly disciplined. And not only, structured, but his mind is unbelievably disciplined.
Q: For instance?
EMANUEL: He goes into a meeting and he'll have read the brief the night before, and have the crux of his argument written down that he wants to drive that discussion to basic points. And he goes right to either the assumptions, the presumptions of the case. Now, I mean, I loved, as you know, working for President Clinton, who had an unbelievably creative mind. And I think was, for a host of reasons, was a very significant president. I was honored to work for him. Their contexts are different, so while every president has a domestic issue and an international issue, etc., I mean, President Obama has what President Clinton had, but, I don't want to say, it's not appropriate to say on steroids, but by a quotient of 10."
As for Bubba C., an unbelievable talent ultimately diminished tremendously by the lack of discipline. He was a very good POTUS who could have been so much more. Discipline in his governing style and discipline in his personal life would have made him a real force. It took Bubba a couple of years to really figure out the governing piece. Then he f'ed it all up with the Monica thing. He should have resigned btw. If he had, Gore would have been POTUS instead W. Bush, leaving the world in far better shape than it was on Jan 23rd, 2009.
From Christian Science Monitor interview with Rahm Emanuel:
"EMANUEL: I think President Obama has one of the most disciplined minds and styles I've ever seen. And I think of my – I exercise every day. I've been doing it for umpteen years. I read a book, one every three weeks, I think I'm personally pretty disciplined. This guy is incredibly disciplined. And not only, structured, but his mind is unbelievably disciplined.
Q: For instance?
EMANUEL: He goes into a meeting and he'll have read the brief the night before, and have the crux of his argument written down that he wants to drive that discussion to basic points. And he goes right to either the assumptions, the presumptions of the case. Now, I mean, I loved, as you know, working for President Clinton, who had an unbelievably creative mind. And I think was, for a host of reasons, was a very significant president. I was honored to work for him. Their contexts are different, so while every president has a domestic issue and an international issue, etc., I mean, President Obama has what President Clinton had, but, I don't want to say, it's not appropriate to say on steroids, but by a quotient of 10."
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Democrat Pandering: Not Cutting Car Dealers
From NBC:
"...In a conference call last week with the White House task force on the auto industry, Hoyer asked the experts, "What does it save the manufacturer to shut down dealerships?"
The answer he received from the Obama team was "practically nothing," Hoyer said.
For this reason Hoyer reiterated his support for "The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009" which would restore auto franchise agreements to GM and Chrysler dealers who have had to close due the companies' recent declaration of bankruptcy saying: "By closing [dealerships] there is no economic benefit to the manufacturers. If that is the case I think it is irrational to close down dealerships that average 53 workers and quite possibly increase unemployment by one hundred thousand people."
TW: Either the Obama team answer was flawed or Hoyer misunderstood the answer but Hoyer's support for keeping car dealers open is not founded on rational analysis. While GM etc. may not be directly funding their dealer overheads they are inherently indirectly funding the dealers. Car dealers are merely distributors for the manufacturers. If you have more of them then you likely have more costs. Hoyer's point about employing 100K workers makes the point, someone is paying for those workers and showrooms etc.
The number of car dealers theoretically should be set by the market but decades' old and stringent franchise laws have resulted in thousands of economically marginal domestic car dealers remaining open even as the domestic car sales shrank. The imported car manufacturers get by with a fraction of the dealers the domestics use. The import car dealers have higher profit margins hence nicer showrooms hence more sales hence less price competition amongst their brands hence the death spiral for the domestic manufacturers goes unabated.
Hoyer no doubt has the still powerful domestic car dealer association up his backside but making spurious economic arguments makes him (and any other politicians preaching the same tune) a pandering fool on this issue. If the domestic auto industry is to revive they will need far fewer car dealers, period.
"...In a conference call last week with the White House task force on the auto industry, Hoyer asked the experts, "What does it save the manufacturer to shut down dealerships?"
The answer he received from the Obama team was "practically nothing," Hoyer said.
For this reason Hoyer reiterated his support for "The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009" which would restore auto franchise agreements to GM and Chrysler dealers who have had to close due the companies' recent declaration of bankruptcy saying: "By closing [dealerships] there is no economic benefit to the manufacturers. If that is the case I think it is irrational to close down dealerships that average 53 workers and quite possibly increase unemployment by one hundred thousand people."
TW: Either the Obama team answer was flawed or Hoyer misunderstood the answer but Hoyer's support for keeping car dealers open is not founded on rational analysis. While GM etc. may not be directly funding their dealer overheads they are inherently indirectly funding the dealers. Car dealers are merely distributors for the manufacturers. If you have more of them then you likely have more costs. Hoyer's point about employing 100K workers makes the point, someone is paying for those workers and showrooms etc.
The number of car dealers theoretically should be set by the market but decades' old and stringent franchise laws have resulted in thousands of economically marginal domestic car dealers remaining open even as the domestic car sales shrank. The imported car manufacturers get by with a fraction of the dealers the domestics use. The import car dealers have higher profit margins hence nicer showrooms hence more sales hence less price competition amongst their brands hence the death spiral for the domestic manufacturers goes unabated.
Hoyer no doubt has the still powerful domestic car dealer association up his backside but making spurious economic arguments makes him (and any other politicians preaching the same tune) a pandering fool on this issue. If the domestic auto industry is to revive they will need far fewer car dealers, period.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
You Go Jesse!!! (cont.)
TW: Am really digging Jesse Ventura. I generally will choose a sand enema before listening to Sean Hannity but Ventura being a large man was able to out bully the bully. The piece also frames the vacuous arguments being made by certain Republicans including:
1) our nation was in better shape post W. Bush
2) W. Bush inherited worse conditions economically and militarily than Obama
3) Bill Clinton is primarily responsible for 9/11
4) Obama has by himself quadrupled the deficit in one year
Thursday, May 7, 2009
"We Can't Afford Government"
TW: Cory Booker is a hotshot Democratic politico with ambition. He is laying paper for higher office with quotes like these, but they are true. As I have posted previously, our governments in particular state and local governments have vastly over-promised on wages and benefits to government employees. At some point these increases have to be reined in and eventually pulled back.
I keep pounding on the need for fiscal conservatism at the right time. Once this worldwide recession eases, efforts must be made to either increase taxes or cut spending. At the state and local level taxes generally are already very high if not through the income tax but through various fees, levies, sales taxes etc. Booker knows taxes are not the answer but jabbering about "efficient spending or the occasional earmark" is not the answer either. Government payrolls either through headcount reductions or benefit cuts or both need to be addressed. Of course good luck to any politician trying to implement the obviously needed changes. The solutions are not always complex getting a democratically based populace to acquiesce is a challenge.
From Bloomberg:
"New Jersey’s tax-strapped residents can’t afford their government and the state needs to rein in the mounting costs of public worker benefits, said the mayor of Newark, the state’s largest city. Cory Booker, 40, said rising expenses for health care, pensions and salaries are impinging on government finances.
“New Jersey will go bankrupt in 10 to 20 years because we cannot afford our employees as a state,” Booker said. “I’m talking about every worker from the cities and counties to the state government. Eventually, we’re going to price ourselves out as a government or tax ourselves to death.”
Governor Jon Corzine in March proposed a $29.8 billion spending plan for next fiscal year that includes $4.3 billion to operate state government. Seventy percent of that, $3 billion, is for salaries and wages. Corzine, a first-term Democrat facing re-election in November, is seeking unpaid leaves and an 18- month wage freeze to save $400 million.
In Newark, Booker said he is looking to cut “hundreds” of jobs from the city’s 4,000-person workforce as he seeks to create a long-term balance in the municipality’s budget, which is currently $659 million. The mayor also wants to force city employees to take 18 unpaid days off to help reduce expenses and close an $180 million deficit by 2012.
Personnel accounts for 70 percent of the budget of Newark, Booker said. The first-term Democrat said the employment reduction was among “very difficult decisions” he faces.
“There should be a tax revolt in the state of New Jersey,” Booker said. “We’re the most inefficient state in the country. We have more government per person than we need. You would never manage a business the way we manage our government - - we have overlapping provision of services and in my opinion, it’s insane...”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a6g6isp6ZlCI&refer=us
I keep pounding on the need for fiscal conservatism at the right time. Once this worldwide recession eases, efforts must be made to either increase taxes or cut spending. At the state and local level taxes generally are already very high if not through the income tax but through various fees, levies, sales taxes etc. Booker knows taxes are not the answer but jabbering about "efficient spending or the occasional earmark" is not the answer either. Government payrolls either through headcount reductions or benefit cuts or both need to be addressed. Of course good luck to any politician trying to implement the obviously needed changes. The solutions are not always complex getting a democratically based populace to acquiesce is a challenge.
From Bloomberg:
"New Jersey’s tax-strapped residents can’t afford their government and the state needs to rein in the mounting costs of public worker benefits, said the mayor of Newark, the state’s largest city. Cory Booker, 40, said rising expenses for health care, pensions and salaries are impinging on government finances.
“New Jersey will go bankrupt in 10 to 20 years because we cannot afford our employees as a state,” Booker said. “I’m talking about every worker from the cities and counties to the state government. Eventually, we’re going to price ourselves out as a government or tax ourselves to death.”
Governor Jon Corzine in March proposed a $29.8 billion spending plan for next fiscal year that includes $4.3 billion to operate state government. Seventy percent of that, $3 billion, is for salaries and wages. Corzine, a first-term Democrat facing re-election in November, is seeking unpaid leaves and an 18- month wage freeze to save $400 million.
In Newark, Booker said he is looking to cut “hundreds” of jobs from the city’s 4,000-person workforce as he seeks to create a long-term balance in the municipality’s budget, which is currently $659 million. The mayor also wants to force city employees to take 18 unpaid days off to help reduce expenses and close an $180 million deficit by 2012.
Personnel accounts for 70 percent of the budget of Newark, Booker said. The first-term Democrat said the employment reduction was among “very difficult decisions” he faces.
“There should be a tax revolt in the state of New Jersey,” Booker said. “We’re the most inefficient state in the country. We have more government per person than we need. You would never manage a business the way we manage our government - - we have overlapping provision of services and in my opinion, it’s insane...”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a6g6isp6ZlCI&refer=us
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Why Do We Need Parties?
TW: A question from a reader:
"I’ve been thinking ( I know that’s scary) that people are so stupid when it comes to politics.. The same people who didn’t vote for Specter before are now going to vote for him just b/c he switched parties.. what does that say about the people who blindly follow party affiliation.. I would love to see there be no party and everyone be an Independent.."
TW: While I agree with the sentiment I disagree with the conclusion. I agree the folks who shift parties are generally even more snaky than the average politician. Here is a quote re Specter from Joe Klein at Time:
"...These people [TW: he was talking about Souter and Gates] are not prima donnas. (As opposed to, say, Arlen Specter, who used to be notorious for requiring the foreign service to provide him with a squash court and partner whenever he traveled overseas.)
TW: Folks like that, and I have known some, make me ill. And Specter's performance on Meet the Press was shaky, he will fail if he ends up as a tweener neither Republican nor Democrat. He needs to clearly establish himself as a Dem albeit a moderate/conservative one. Otherwise he will get a Dem primary challenger and he might lose.
As for the parties and voters. Here is the math in Pennsylvania in very rough terms
Overall PA voting groups:
20% hard core conservatives who will not vote for a moderate like Specter
15% moderate Republicans
40% Democrats
25% Independents
PA's primaries only permit self-identified party members to vote in the primary. Hence Specter or any other moderate Republican faces a very tough primary. Assuming Specter does not screw up and entice a strong Democratic primary challenger he can go into the general election without really pulling exciting the Democratic hard core base which would have real problems with him. He has 70% of the voters available to him, 40% of whom likely identify more closely with him than any typical "hard-core conservative" or "liberal Democrat".
Net net I do not see his move requiring very many folks to "blindly vote for Specter". Our system is built to limit the electability of the hard core candidates for better or worse. This is ultimately all about alternatives, is Specter the ideal progressive candidate? Absolutely not but then in Pennsylvania ideal progressive candidates are not elected which in my book makes them less than ideal. My ideal is to get the most progressive possible candidate elected not to have the most progressive candidate run and lose.
"I’ve been thinking ( I know that’s scary) that people are so stupid when it comes to politics.. The same people who didn’t vote for Specter before are now going to vote for him just b/c he switched parties.. what does that say about the people who blindly follow party affiliation.. I would love to see there be no party and everyone be an Independent.."
TW: While I agree with the sentiment I disagree with the conclusion. I agree the folks who shift parties are generally even more snaky than the average politician. Here is a quote re Specter from Joe Klein at Time:
"...These people [TW: he was talking about Souter and Gates] are not prima donnas. (As opposed to, say, Arlen Specter, who used to be notorious for requiring the foreign service to provide him with a squash court and partner whenever he traveled overseas.)
TW: Folks like that, and I have known some, make me ill. And Specter's performance on Meet the Press was shaky, he will fail if he ends up as a tweener neither Republican nor Democrat. He needs to clearly establish himself as a Dem albeit a moderate/conservative one. Otherwise he will get a Dem primary challenger and he might lose.
As for the parties and voters. Here is the math in Pennsylvania in very rough terms
Overall PA voting groups:
20% hard core conservatives who will not vote for a moderate like Specter
15% moderate Republicans
40% Democrats
25% Independents
PA's primaries only permit self-identified party members to vote in the primary. Hence Specter or any other moderate Republican faces a very tough primary. Assuming Specter does not screw up and entice a strong Democratic primary challenger he can go into the general election without really pulling exciting the Democratic hard core base which would have real problems with him. He has 70% of the voters available to him, 40% of whom likely identify more closely with him than any typical "hard-core conservative" or "liberal Democrat".
Net net I do not see his move requiring very many folks to "blindly vote for Specter". Our system is built to limit the electability of the hard core candidates for better or worse. This is ultimately all about alternatives, is Specter the ideal progressive candidate? Absolutely not but then in Pennsylvania ideal progressive candidates are not elected which in my book makes them less than ideal. My ideal is to get the most progressive possible candidate elected not to have the most progressive candidate run and lose.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
John Edwards Sack O'Dung
From the Economist:
"THE new memoir by Elizabeth Edwards is destined to be one of those books that lives in talk-show appearances and cable-news debates, and not so much on bookshelves. She vomited when her husband told her that he'd been with another woman! She still loves him! She never wanted him to run for president!
TW: This blog was not around when the Edwards affair blew up. But the release of Elizabeth Edward's book provides an opportunity to punch him belatedly. There was a time when screwing around was not a dis-qualifier for POTUS aspirant, those days are long gone. The Bill Clinton 1992 process put philandering off the table for the foreseeable future. Clinton's continued hubris doomed the country to a wounded POTUS for the remaining two years of his own term, then created the atmosphere by which an incompetent could gain the office for the following eight years.
Any fool who would run with a mistress as part of the equation exhibits such incredibly poor judgment that his candidacy is on its face ridiculous and even scary. As the above piece frames, John Edwards stole the time and money of his supporters, thank goodness he was nowhere near to gaining the nomination. If he had done so he would have done tremendous harm not only to the Democratic party but the entire political process.
I will say as well, I had assumed Elizabeth Edwards had learned about the affair roughly when the public did. To learn she abetted her husband's scam does not put her in a better light by any means. This is not to take any of the blame off the shoulders of the John "Sack O'Dung" Edwards.
"THE new memoir by Elizabeth Edwards is destined to be one of those books that lives in talk-show appearances and cable-news debates, and not so much on bookshelves. She vomited when her husband told her that he'd been with another woman! She still loves him! She never wanted him to run for president!
Mr Edwards admitted the hanky-panky to her days after declaring his candidacy in 2006—almost a year before the National Enquirer reported it. She was afraid of the destructive questions Mr Edwards' affair with videographer Rielle Hunter would raise. Later events proved her right. "He should not have run," she says.Does Mrs Edwards understand what her husband did wrong by running? It wasn't that he embarrassed his family. It was that he basically bilked thousands of Democratic donors and volunteers out of their time and money for a cause that he knew was not just doomed, but threatened to doom the entire party if he won the nomination. If the Edwardses have some tact, they'd donate the proceeds from this book to their former campaign staff."
TW: This blog was not around when the Edwards affair blew up. But the release of Elizabeth Edward's book provides an opportunity to punch him belatedly. There was a time when screwing around was not a dis-qualifier for POTUS aspirant, those days are long gone. The Bill Clinton 1992 process put philandering off the table for the foreseeable future. Clinton's continued hubris doomed the country to a wounded POTUS for the remaining two years of his own term, then created the atmosphere by which an incompetent could gain the office for the following eight years.
Any fool who would run with a mistress as part of the equation exhibits such incredibly poor judgment that his candidacy is on its face ridiculous and even scary. As the above piece frames, John Edwards stole the time and money of his supporters, thank goodness he was nowhere near to gaining the nomination. If he had done so he would have done tremendous harm not only to the Democratic party but the entire political process.
I will say as well, I had assumed Elizabeth Edwards had learned about the affair roughly when the public did. To learn she abetted her husband's scam does not put her in a better light by any means. This is not to take any of the blame off the shoulders of the John "Sack O'Dung" Edwards.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Welcome To the Bright Side Arlen
From Time:
"Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's party switch highlights the growing marginalization of the hard-right Republican Party, now down to two moderates in the Senate. And it highlights the growing dominance of the post–George W. Bush Democratic Party, now just a Minnesota comedian away from a filibuster-proof majority. But let's not overthink: it mostly highlights the desperate opportunism of a 79-year-old five-term Senator staring into the abyss of involuntary retirement. Specter may be right that the GOP left him first, but that's just a face-saving way of admitting he couldn't win its primary"
TW: I have said before I was ambivalent about a Dem cloture proof majority. Despite the evidence to the contrary I believe bi-partisan government is best as it requires both sides to act like adults, participate and ultimately take some responsibility. Now this had not happened up to date since January so perhaps it was time to try a different path. For better or worse the Dems own the government now, although just wait for the Dem factions to emerge. The Blue Dog Dems now hold much power as opposed to a handful of moderate Republicans.
As the quote points out at the end of the day, Specter's switch is about Specter and not much else. All of the implied stuff such as the fall of moderate Republicans etc. were true last week and are still true but Specter does not change that. The Republicans are NOT in a death spiral, molting is ugly but not fatal. American parties adapt, those crowing or fretting about death spirals are hopeful and/or naive.
Generally I do not care for switchers- Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby amongst others are former Democrats (while in Congress not as teenagers). Yet parties do move away from their own politicians the remaining Northeast Senators- Collins and Snowe of Maine- are Dems not Republicans at this point. This is another attribute of a party going through a molting process.
"Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's party switch highlights the growing marginalization of the hard-right Republican Party, now down to two moderates in the Senate. And it highlights the growing dominance of the post–George W. Bush Democratic Party, now just a Minnesota comedian away from a filibuster-proof majority. But let's not overthink: it mostly highlights the desperate opportunism of a 79-year-old five-term Senator staring into the abyss of involuntary retirement. Specter may be right that the GOP left him first, but that's just a face-saving way of admitting he couldn't win its primary"
TW: I have said before I was ambivalent about a Dem cloture proof majority. Despite the evidence to the contrary I believe bi-partisan government is best as it requires both sides to act like adults, participate and ultimately take some responsibility. Now this had not happened up to date since January so perhaps it was time to try a different path. For better or worse the Dems own the government now, although just wait for the Dem factions to emerge. The Blue Dog Dems now hold much power as opposed to a handful of moderate Republicans.
As the quote points out at the end of the day, Specter's switch is about Specter and not much else. All of the implied stuff such as the fall of moderate Republicans etc. were true last week and are still true but Specter does not change that. The Republicans are NOT in a death spiral, molting is ugly but not fatal. American parties adapt, those crowing or fretting about death spirals are hopeful and/or naive.
Generally I do not care for switchers- Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby amongst others are former Democrats (while in Congress not as teenagers). Yet parties do move away from their own politicians the remaining Northeast Senators- Collins and Snowe of Maine- are Dems not Republicans at this point. This is another attribute of a party going through a molting process.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
When Mullahs And Bishops Dictate
TW: As you know, I am big on separation of church and state. I am also skeptical of dogmatic moral absolutes and those who seek to impose them on others. I am not sufficiently articulate in religion to get too specific on scriptures etc. but from my view there was a time when a more vanilla, bigger tent form of religion pre-dominated whereby the literal believers and the less confident believers co-existed more or less harmoniously.
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)