Thursday, February 07, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Day After
Hillary and Barack played a tough game, and the outcome appears to be a draw. Obama won more states, but Hillary may edge him out in total delegates - still looking for those numbers.
The bad news: race, gender, and religion seem to matter to some Americans (not as much as some feared, but more than most of us wish). Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, as did white women and "working class" whites. African Americans rallied to Obama, and he did well among independents and white men. Can anyone really be surprised? This is a big, backward country and we still have some growing up to do.
The good news -- our two candidates are both very good, and we would do well with either of them in November.
Consider the plight of the Republicans. Huckabee won a few southern states, based entirely on the Evangelical vote. His campaign is now purely a religion-play - might work in Iran but we're not that bad here yet. Romney fizzled badly - I'm expecting him to drop out, but he might decide to waste a few more millions from his nest egg to continue what is now a deservedly lost cause. McCain is now the inevitable nominee - even as Ruch Limbaugh and Ann Coulter rip him on the right-wing media. The guy is very unpopular with so-called conservatives -- you know, people who like the Bush tax cuts, ANWR drilling, torture, persecution of gays, immigration vigilantes, unrestricted campaign funding, and other things McCain couldn't support. And he is almost certainly their nominee.
This morning, you have to be proud to be an American, hopeful about our future, and damn glad you are not a Republican. We are going to take back our country in November!
Here are Barack Obama's remarks from Chicago last night.
Neil
The bad news: race, gender, and religion seem to matter to some Americans (not as much as some feared, but more than most of us wish). Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, as did white women and "working class" whites. African Americans rallied to Obama, and he did well among independents and white men. Can anyone really be surprised? This is a big, backward country and we still have some growing up to do.
The good news -- our two candidates are both very good, and we would do well with either of them in November.
Consider the plight of the Republicans. Huckabee won a few southern states, based entirely on the Evangelical vote. His campaign is now purely a religion-play - might work in Iran but we're not that bad here yet. Romney fizzled badly - I'm expecting him to drop out, but he might decide to waste a few more millions from his nest egg to continue what is now a deservedly lost cause. McCain is now the inevitable nominee - even as Ruch Limbaugh and Ann Coulter rip him on the right-wing media. The guy is very unpopular with so-called conservatives -- you know, people who like the Bush tax cuts, ANWR drilling, torture, persecution of gays, immigration vigilantes, unrestricted campaign funding, and other things McCain couldn't support. And he is almost certainly their nominee.
This morning, you have to be proud to be an American, hopeful about our future, and damn glad you are not a Republican. We are going to take back our country in November!
Here are Barack Obama's remarks from Chicago last night.
Neil
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Yes We Can
After 9/11, Americans looked to President Bush and hoped for leadership. For a while, we put aside our deep reservations about the man and how he had stolen the presidency with the aid of Republicans on the US Supreme Court. For a while, we were one nation, ready to move as one to respond to the attacks and the threat they had revealed. For a while, Democrats and Republicans put aside their differences -- there was nothing we could not do.
It didn't last.
The President took advantage of the goodwill and solidarity of the American people and pushed hard for his partisan agenda. It was a chance to solidify Republican power, and he and Karl Rove went for it. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney used the opportunity to extend the powers of the president. And while the opportunity presented itself, they made plans to invade Iraq. They split the country deeply, embracing Karl Rove's basic principle of leveraging the president's base, and ignoring the rest of the country. The hardball partisanship stunk, but it worked for Bush -- until Katrina revealed the incompetence of his hackocracy and his Iraq war became a pointless, brutal and costly quagmire.
After 7 years, the stench is overpowering.
Maybe it is no surprise, then, that we find the message of Barack Obama so appealing.
Check this out, and tell me you don't believe we can roll back the crap of the past 7 years and start moving this country forward again. Oh, yes we can!
Neil
It didn't last.
The President took advantage of the goodwill and solidarity of the American people and pushed hard for his partisan agenda. It was a chance to solidify Republican power, and he and Karl Rove went for it. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney used the opportunity to extend the powers of the president. And while the opportunity presented itself, they made plans to invade Iraq. They split the country deeply, embracing Karl Rove's basic principle of leveraging the president's base, and ignoring the rest of the country. The hardball partisanship stunk, but it worked for Bush -- until Katrina revealed the incompetence of his hackocracy and his Iraq war became a pointless, brutal and costly quagmire.
After 7 years, the stench is overpowering.
Maybe it is no surprise, then, that we find the message of Barack Obama so appealing.
Check this out, and tell me you don't believe we can roll back the crap of the past 7 years and start moving this country forward again. Oh, yes we can!
Neil
Monday, February 04, 2008
Almost Perfect
The idea of a perfect season crept into the football conversation a few weeks ago. The Patriots came to East Rutherford to play the last regular season game, and they had not lost a game all year. By the end of that game, they were still unbeaten, but the Giants had shown that they could compete with the vaunted Patriots.
Over the next few weeks, the Giants defeated the Cowboys (who were astonished in defeat) and the Packers. Still, depending when you placed your bet, you could get 12-14 points taking the Giants in the Super Bowl (and of course, you took the Giants and the points - didn't you?)
The story yesterday turned out differently than most people expected, and the Patriots did not achieve their perfect season. 19 - 0 was not to be. I am not at all sympathetic with the New England Patriots -- and not merely due to my lifelong attachment to the Giants. I don't like Bill Belichick, I don't like anyone who thinks he is too good to lose to the Giants (ie, most of the Patriots team) , and I really didn't like Tom Brady's arrogance in ridiculing Plaxico Burress for predicting a 23-17 Giants win (Brady thought it was absurd to suggest the Giants could keep him from scoring 35 - 40 points).
Oh yeah -- I should add that I hate sore losers.
Yesterday, Mr Belichick was the sorest loser I have ever seen. With one second left, he decided he had had enough. Everyone else had to stay for the last play - the field had to be cleared, the players and ref's taking their places till the clock ran to zero - but not the big ego himself, the all-important Mr Belichick. In his surly manner during the post-game interview, Belichick made it clear how disappointed he was, as if some great disaster had fallen unfairly from the sky, some arbitrary act of the gods, rather than a contest in which his team and he had been measured and found wanting.
Three thoughts for Mr Bill:
I salute Plaxico Burress and David Tyree and all the Giants receivers who fought to get open and made tremendous catches - and of course, Eli Manning - reviled by the fans all year long - who have finally proven that, on any given Sunday, he is the equal of any quarterback in the league. I had my own doubts about Eli, but in the past month, in his competitive spirit and his refusal to give up interceptions, he has reminded me of Phil Simms -- and that is saying a lot.
I will never be a Tom Coughlin fan - the guy always looks lost and aggravated on the sideline. No matter who wins, he always looks to me like a guy who should be somewhere else. Congrats anyway, Tom.
Looking forward to next year. When do we play the almost-perfect Pats again, I wonder?
Neil
Over the next few weeks, the Giants defeated the Cowboys (who were astonished in defeat) and the Packers. Still, depending when you placed your bet, you could get 12-14 points taking the Giants in the Super Bowl (and of course, you took the Giants and the points - didn't you?)
The story yesterday turned out differently than most people expected, and the Patriots did not achieve their perfect season. 19 - 0 was not to be. I am not at all sympathetic with the New England Patriots -- and not merely due to my lifelong attachment to the Giants. I don't like Bill Belichick, I don't like anyone who thinks he is too good to lose to the Giants (ie, most of the Patriots team) , and I really didn't like Tom Brady's arrogance in ridiculing Plaxico Burress for predicting a 23-17 Giants win (Brady thought it was absurd to suggest the Giants could keep him from scoring 35 - 40 points).
Oh yeah -- I should add that I hate sore losers.
Yesterday, Mr Belichick was the sorest loser I have ever seen. With one second left, he decided he had had enough. Everyone else had to stay for the last play - the field had to be cleared, the players and ref's taking their places till the clock ran to zero - but not the big ego himself, the all-important Mr Belichick. In his surly manner during the post-game interview, Belichick made it clear how disappointed he was, as if some great disaster had fallen unfairly from the sky, some arbitrary act of the gods, rather than a contest in which his team and he had been measured and found wanting.
Three thoughts for Mr Bill:
- It's only a game, Bill. Grow up.
- You're not that important, Bill. Walking out when you feel like it is a bit rude to everyone else, and pretty childish. Grow up.
- Nobody likes a sore loser, Bill. When you lose, and sometimes you will, smile, remind everyone of the great season they had, congratulate your honorable opponents on their victory, and express your eagerness to do it all again next year. 12 year-old's act like you did yesterday, Bill. Grow up.
I salute Plaxico Burress and David Tyree and all the Giants receivers who fought to get open and made tremendous catches - and of course, Eli Manning - reviled by the fans all year long - who have finally proven that, on any given Sunday, he is the equal of any quarterback in the league. I had my own doubts about Eli, but in the past month, in his competitive spirit and his refusal to give up interceptions, he has reminded me of Phil Simms -- and that is saying a lot.
I will never be a Tom Coughlin fan - the guy always looks lost and aggravated on the sideline. No matter who wins, he always looks to me like a guy who should be somewhere else. Congrats anyway, Tom.
Looking forward to next year. When do we play the almost-perfect Pats again, I wonder?
Neil
Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love?
Nicholas Kristoff writes about the liberal leanings of some Evangelicals today, and urges secular liberals to be less scornful of these potential allies in the causes of social justice and saving the planet.
While I agree that open expressions of scorn are probably not polite or politically effective, it is also true that such scorn is entirely deserved, not only for the appalling superstition of these believers but also for the arrogance and belligerence demonstrated by their more numerous right-wing cousins. Even should we agree to set aside the pleasures of ridiculing these people, in the interest of good and worthy causes, let us not forget that even the most "liberal" Evangelicals believe that the rest of us are damned. And most if not all would gladly adopt a government that replaced the Constitution with the Bible - a kind of Western Sharia.
The Evangelical movement is associated with an intrusive and theocratic impulse that is essentially hostile to our traditions, which have emphasized tolerance and a fairly libertarian reluctance to impose too much on the private morals of Americans.
These people feel entitled to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us - as Mike Chucklebee recently demonstrated with his comments about amending the Constitution to align it more perfectly with an Evangelical take on Scripture. There is such a thing as absolute truth, and they are its keepers.
Evangelical proselytizing in the military has overcome the traditional church-state boundaries, transforming the Air Force Academy into an institution dominated by Evangelical belief and practice where Jews and other non-Evangelicals were harassed and intimidated. In the classrooms of America, these folks want to make sure that kids are taught that the world might only be 6,000 years old, that we were created pretty much as we are today, and that men and dinosaurs lived side-by-side.
I would suggest that it is nonsense to celebrate the Evangelical movement as a political phenomena now that its policy preferences seem to be aligning with those of Democrats. The problem is not only in their policy preferences, but in their anti-American theocratic radicalism. Whether Jim Wallis is for doing something for the poor or not, he is still one of those who thinks it is quite all right to argue public policy questions on the basis of Scripture.
Fundamentally, these people hold beliefs about government that are no different than the beliefs of the mullahs of Iran, or the Taliban. They want to claim America for Jesus, or some such nonsense (substitute Allah for Jesus and you could be in Pakistan). They have misgivings about the equality of women, and are so single-minded about abortion that they willingly gave their political support to a man who launched an unjust war and authorized the torture of prisoners.
They reject the modern sciences of geology and biology, and they would refuse gay couples the dignity of married life. Many of them voted for Bush, believing as we often heard them say, that Bush would bring the Lord into the White House. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Bush empasized her church affiliation in making the case. Many Evangelicals tell pollsters they are unwilling to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon (and therefore a heretic).
In the past 8 years, we have seen how completely the Evangelicals took over the Republican party, driving even John Danforth to speak out in opposition (and not only to the policies of the religious right - he criticized the role of religion in the party, calling the GOP the "political extension of a religious movement"). If you like Hezbollah, Mr Kristoff, I guess it's no problem for you.
Sure, some Evangelicals are compassionate towards the poor, protective of the environment, and opposed to the torture of prisoners - I'm sure Jesus would be impressed by this virtuous minority, and we should work with them to do good. But the problem of Evangelical political ambition doesn't go away when they take our side of the debate on climate change or poverty.
Progress for America requires that we reject the theocratic tendencies of Evangelicalism and revert to traditional values of church-state separation, of a polite self-restraint and broad tolerance, and of privacy of our religious practices. While we are off saving the planet, let's make sure we also protect our most prized liberties from those who think they alone have the truth.
While I agree that open expressions of scorn are probably not polite or politically effective, it is also true that such scorn is entirely deserved, not only for the appalling superstition of these believers but also for the arrogance and belligerence demonstrated by their more numerous right-wing cousins. Even should we agree to set aside the pleasures of ridiculing these people, in the interest of good and worthy causes, let us not forget that even the most "liberal" Evangelicals believe that the rest of us are damned. And most if not all would gladly adopt a government that replaced the Constitution with the Bible - a kind of Western Sharia.
The Evangelical movement is associated with an intrusive and theocratic impulse that is essentially hostile to our traditions, which have emphasized tolerance and a fairly libertarian reluctance to impose too much on the private morals of Americans.
These people feel entitled to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us - as Mike Chucklebee recently demonstrated with his comments about amending the Constitution to align it more perfectly with an Evangelical take on Scripture. There is such a thing as absolute truth, and they are its keepers.
Evangelical proselytizing in the military has overcome the traditional church-state boundaries, transforming the Air Force Academy into an institution dominated by Evangelical belief and practice where Jews and other non-Evangelicals were harassed and intimidated. In the classrooms of America, these folks want to make sure that kids are taught that the world might only be 6,000 years old, that we were created pretty much as we are today, and that men and dinosaurs lived side-by-side.
I would suggest that it is nonsense to celebrate the Evangelical movement as a political phenomena now that its policy preferences seem to be aligning with those of Democrats. The problem is not only in their policy preferences, but in their anti-American theocratic radicalism. Whether Jim Wallis is for doing something for the poor or not, he is still one of those who thinks it is quite all right to argue public policy questions on the basis of Scripture.
Fundamentally, these people hold beliefs about government that are no different than the beliefs of the mullahs of Iran, or the Taliban. They want to claim America for Jesus, or some such nonsense (substitute Allah for Jesus and you could be in Pakistan). They have misgivings about the equality of women, and are so single-minded about abortion that they willingly gave their political support to a man who launched an unjust war and authorized the torture of prisoners.
They reject the modern sciences of geology and biology, and they would refuse gay couples the dignity of married life. Many of them voted for Bush, believing as we often heard them say, that Bush would bring the Lord into the White House. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Bush empasized her church affiliation in making the case. Many Evangelicals tell pollsters they are unwilling to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon (and therefore a heretic).
In the past 8 years, we have seen how completely the Evangelicals took over the Republican party, driving even John Danforth to speak out in opposition (and not only to the policies of the religious right - he criticized the role of religion in the party, calling the GOP the "political extension of a religious movement"). If you like Hezbollah, Mr Kristoff, I guess it's no problem for you.
Sure, some Evangelicals are compassionate towards the poor, protective of the environment, and opposed to the torture of prisoners - I'm sure Jesus would be impressed by this virtuous minority, and we should work with them to do good. But the problem of Evangelical political ambition doesn't go away when they take our side of the debate on climate change or poverty.
Progress for America requires that we reject the theocratic tendencies of Evangelicalism and revert to traditional values of church-state separation, of a polite self-restraint and broad tolerance, and of privacy of our religious practices. While we are off saving the planet, let's make sure we also protect our most prized liberties from those who think they alone have the truth.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
One America
John Edwards:
John Edwards, who spoke with passion about the challenge of a nation split into haves and have-nots, into "two Americas", has dropped out of the 2008 Presidential race. In doing so, he reaffirmed his commitment to the cause of those whose voices are often not heard, the voices of those who have fallen by the wayside in a globalized economy, of workers without health benefits and veterans without shelter, of parents and families that struggle in a country that has allowed the greed of a few outweigh the needs and purposes of the broader population.
He has been called a phony, a class-warmonger, a populist, and worse, but he is an American hero. He drove the agenda of Clinton and Obama. His positions and policy proposals were deeply defined, well-considered, and extensively communicated; in a campaign that often dissolved into silly and even embarrassingly petty personal attacks, ridiculous protests, and phony claims of racism and sexism, Edwards was focused on specific proposals to achieve worthy goals. He may have been beaten, but he was never outclassed.
Now, I wish him and Elizabeth well. I hope they will take some time for themselves and for their family. He should take some time and think about the role he might want in the next administration. Personally, I would like to see him take on the repairs needed at Justice. Attorney General Edwards in 2009.
Tomorrow, I hope Edwards will endorse Obama. It has to happen. Listening to Obama on Saturday, after he won South Carolina, I couldn't help but notice that he had picked up the Edwards line -- it sounded as if he had adopted the Edwards stump speech. The music was Obama's but the lyrics were clearly crafted to reach the ears and touch the hearts of every Edwards man and woman in America.
Now, today, I hear in the words of Edwards an important theme of Barack Obama's. Edwards, who frequently addressed the problem of "two America's", was talking about "One America" - the frame usually expressed by Obama. Words matter to these men, and I think before we go to the polls on Tuesday, Obama will have Edwards's endorsement.
Let us go forward now and do what is right and just. It is about time.
.
One America, one America that works for everybody.
One America where struggling towns and factories come back to life because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil.
One America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college. They will be honored for that work.
One America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.
One America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care.
One America with one public school system that works for all of our children.
One America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end. And brings our service members home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve....
John Edwards, who spoke with passion about the challenge of a nation split into haves and have-nots, into "two Americas", has dropped out of the 2008 Presidential race. In doing so, he reaffirmed his commitment to the cause of those whose voices are often not heard, the voices of those who have fallen by the wayside in a globalized economy, of workers without health benefits and veterans without shelter, of parents and families that struggle in a country that has allowed the greed of a few outweigh the needs and purposes of the broader population.
He has been called a phony, a class-warmonger, a populist, and worse, but he is an American hero. He drove the agenda of Clinton and Obama. His positions and policy proposals were deeply defined, well-considered, and extensively communicated; in a campaign that often dissolved into silly and even embarrassingly petty personal attacks, ridiculous protests, and phony claims of racism and sexism, Edwards was focused on specific proposals to achieve worthy goals. He may have been beaten, but he was never outclassed.
Now, I wish him and Elizabeth well. I hope they will take some time for themselves and for their family. He should take some time and think about the role he might want in the next administration. Personally, I would like to see him take on the repairs needed at Justice. Attorney General Edwards in 2009.
Tomorrow, I hope Edwards will endorse Obama. It has to happen. Listening to Obama on Saturday, after he won South Carolina, I couldn't help but notice that he had picked up the Edwards line -- it sounded as if he had adopted the Edwards stump speech. The music was Obama's but the lyrics were clearly crafted to reach the ears and touch the hearts of every Edwards man and woman in America.
Now, today, I hear in the words of Edwards an important theme of Barack Obama's. Edwards, who frequently addressed the problem of "two America's", was talking about "One America" - the frame usually expressed by Obama. Words matter to these men, and I think before we go to the polls on Tuesday, Obama will have Edwards's endorsement.
Let us go forward now and do what is right and just. It is about time.
.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Changing My Mind
After giving further thought to what I heard Obama say last night, I have come to the conclusion that Edwards should drop out of the campaign before Super Tuesday, and give his personal endorsement to Barack Obama. Obama's South Carolina victory speech may be the best political speech I have ever heard - not only for what he had to say, but also, in the context of an ugly campaign in that state, for how he said it.
As always, he was classy - he didn't even mention Hillary or Bill in his remarks. Though he took apart their arguments and turned them around to build a positive case for his own candidacy, his purpose was clearly not about bashing them as it was selling us on his view of how we should go forward as a nation.
John Edwards, Joe Biden - even Hillary Clinton - would have made a good President. But I am now convinced: Barack Obama is the best candidate for President in 2008.
Neil
As always, he was classy - he didn't even mention Hillary or Bill in his remarks. Though he took apart their arguments and turned them around to build a positive case for his own candidacy, his purpose was clearly not about bashing them as it was selling us on his view of how we should go forward as a nation.
John Edwards, Joe Biden - even Hillary Clinton - would have made a good President. But I am now convinced: Barack Obama is the best candidate for President in 2008.
Neil
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Dum Spiro Spero
While I breathe, I hope.
This must be a thought on John Edwards's mind tonight - this son of South Carolina must know this motto of the Palmetto State. Finishing third in this primary must really smart. He pulled out all the stops - I heard one reporter today say that he spent more on tv ads than his two opponents, combined.
I am not terribly disappointed. I listened to the Obama victory speech. Aside from the rhetorical elegance, the music of his high-minded and visionary words, there was something about his speech that was very apparent to me, and very reassuring: he was pitching the Edwards agenda.
So I congratulate Barack Obama and his multitude of supporters, but I also thank John Edwards for setting the Democratic agenda in this campaign. No matter how this campaign comes out, Edwards has had a tremendous impact and his ideas and convictions have defined the platform for the party and for the government that will be formed in January 2009.
We are heading in the right direction, under inspired and talented leadership. Yes, even up here in New Jersey, while I breathe, I am filled with hope.
Neil
This must be a thought on John Edwards's mind tonight - this son of South Carolina must know this motto of the Palmetto State. Finishing third in this primary must really smart. He pulled out all the stops - I heard one reporter today say that he spent more on tv ads than his two opponents, combined.
I am not terribly disappointed. I listened to the Obama victory speech. Aside from the rhetorical elegance, the music of his high-minded and visionary words, there was something about his speech that was very apparent to me, and very reassuring: he was pitching the Edwards agenda.
So I congratulate Barack Obama and his multitude of supporters, but I also thank John Edwards for setting the Democratic agenda in this campaign. No matter how this campaign comes out, Edwards has had a tremendous impact and his ideas and convictions have defined the platform for the party and for the government that will be formed in January 2009.
We are heading in the right direction, under inspired and talented leadership. Yes, even up here in New Jersey, while I breathe, I am filled with hope.
Neil
John Edwards Rising?
I have long been a supporter of John Edwards for President. I supported his campaign for President in 2004, and have supported him throughout this campaign as well. As voters go to the polls in South Carolina, I am hopeful that Edwards will continue to surge as he has done in recent polls - should he win, he could open up great possibilities on February 5, and it would be a great day for working class Americans.
Edwards is a rich former trial lawyer with a 28,000 square foot home and an unfortunate You Tube grooming incident who has dedicated the balance of his life to the eradication of poverty in America; a devoted husband and family man who is campaigning even while his wife, Elizabeth, is facing a truly grave illness; a man whose two-America theme and call for universal health coverage was eclipsed by the more positive one-America anthem of a man who would settle for nearly universal health coverage; a man who trails in the polls and is dismissed by a media and electorate used to horserace-thinking and unwilling to weigh the issues and positions of the candidates when the alternatives are polls and mud.
He is the first of the three remaining Democratic candidates to have proposed a universal health coverage plan, one that has been the model for each of the later proposals from Hillary and Barack. Now that Dennis "UFO" Kucinich has returned to his home planet, Edwards is the Democrat most clearly committed to a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq. He is the candidate who - unlike Hillary - has foregone corporate funding and therefore will be able to take on corporate power and corporate interests in order to advance the interests and needs of the American people. He is the candidate who - unlike Obama - understands that the dead hand of the American Hezbollah (party of God) must be pried forcefully from the levers of power if we are to significantly raise the minimum wage and provide health care to all Americans.
Just a few years ago, Edwards was a centrist in the Democratic party - a guy not unlike Bill Clinton in 1990 - and was not known as a champion of the poor working-class Americans that he claims to be today. Some of his votes as Senator go against the principles and values he espouses today. He explains this as a maturation in leadership - saying that he had compromised much in the political arena in order to have a chance to be elected. When he lost in 2004, he resolved to be more authentic, to give full voice to his values, and to work passionately for the causes he believes in.
Some people don't believe him.
They say his haircut was too expensive and his house is too big and he has too much money to be a tribune for poor folks. They don't much like lawyers and litigation, even if he was suing large companies to protect the interests of individuals who could not fight on equal terms without the help of a lawyer. You can't help sensing that some of these folks resent his money as much as they clearly envy his youthful good looks - they take so much pleasure in calling him "pretty" and some go so far as to question his manhood (Ann Coulter has nothing on some of these Democrats). Some offer only one criticism of Edwards - the poll-driven assessment that "he can't win, he's toast" Taken as a whole, the case against Edwards offered by these people is an indictment of the maturity of the American voter. How pathetic, how superficial.
The many people who claim he is a phony, that his concern for the poor is inauthentic, that his whole campaign is a sham, never deal with the obvious counter-argument to all that negativity. The man loves his wife and his family. His wife is dying of cancer and together they have decided that he should continue this campaign - that this work is the most important work of their lives. Somehow, people ignore this compelling evidence of personal commitment. Once again I am reminded that shallow minds abound in America.
For myself, three things are clear:
I like Obama well enough, and he will be the perfect guy to come in after the knife fight is over and we have what we want - that is when you want a conciliator to take charge. Why would you want to call a truce while the other guy is holding all the prizes? Let's fix what's broken, roll back the Bush crimes, and then when the patient is stabilized, Dr Obama will be perfect. For now, though, we need a fighter, not a conciliator.
I like Hillary well enough. Next to Edwards, she is the best choice for the next four years. But she will lose the fight - at least some parts of it. She is smart, well-prepared, seasoned, and committed. But a lot of Americans find her off-putting. The Republicans will use that to undermine her and she will end up as her husband did, compromising and triangulating, and falling short of all our expectations and hopes.
Good luck today, John Edwards!
Edwards is a rich former trial lawyer with a 28,000 square foot home and an unfortunate You Tube grooming incident who has dedicated the balance of his life to the eradication of poverty in America; a devoted husband and family man who is campaigning even while his wife, Elizabeth, is facing a truly grave illness; a man whose two-America theme and call for universal health coverage was eclipsed by the more positive one-America anthem of a man who would settle for nearly universal health coverage; a man who trails in the polls and is dismissed by a media and electorate used to horserace-thinking and unwilling to weigh the issues and positions of the candidates when the alternatives are polls and mud.
He is the first of the three remaining Democratic candidates to have proposed a universal health coverage plan, one that has been the model for each of the later proposals from Hillary and Barack. Now that Dennis "UFO" Kucinich has returned to his home planet, Edwards is the Democrat most clearly committed to a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq. He is the candidate who - unlike Hillary - has foregone corporate funding and therefore will be able to take on corporate power and corporate interests in order to advance the interests and needs of the American people. He is the candidate who - unlike Obama - understands that the dead hand of the American Hezbollah (party of God) must be pried forcefully from the levers of power if we are to significantly raise the minimum wage and provide health care to all Americans.
Just a few years ago, Edwards was a centrist in the Democratic party - a guy not unlike Bill Clinton in 1990 - and was not known as a champion of the poor working-class Americans that he claims to be today. Some of his votes as Senator go against the principles and values he espouses today. He explains this as a maturation in leadership - saying that he had compromised much in the political arena in order to have a chance to be elected. When he lost in 2004, he resolved to be more authentic, to give full voice to his values, and to work passionately for the causes he believes in.
Some people don't believe him.
They say his haircut was too expensive and his house is too big and he has too much money to be a tribune for poor folks. They don't much like lawyers and litigation, even if he was suing large companies to protect the interests of individuals who could not fight on equal terms without the help of a lawyer. You can't help sensing that some of these folks resent his money as much as they clearly envy his youthful good looks - they take so much pleasure in calling him "pretty" and some go so far as to question his manhood (Ann Coulter has nothing on some of these Democrats). Some offer only one criticism of Edwards - the poll-driven assessment that "he can't win, he's toast" Taken as a whole, the case against Edwards offered by these people is an indictment of the maturity of the American voter. How pathetic, how superficial.
The many people who claim he is a phony, that his concern for the poor is inauthentic, that his whole campaign is a sham, never deal with the obvious counter-argument to all that negativity. The man loves his wife and his family. His wife is dying of cancer and together they have decided that he should continue this campaign - that this work is the most important work of their lives. Somehow, people ignore this compelling evidence of personal commitment. Once again I am reminded that shallow minds abound in America.
For myself, three things are clear:
- We need a President who understands the tragic, immoral and ruinously expensive war in Iraq must come to an immediate end, and that we the American people want to reverse the course set by the idiot from Crawford. And we must have a President who will attend to the needs of our veterans and end the disgraceful Republican era of neglect.
- We must enact programs to provide all Americans with decent health care coverage and a minimum wage. The Bush tax cuts which mainly benefited the most wealthy must be reversed to pay for economic equity and security for those Americans who work and struggle to get by.
- We need a President who recognizes from Day One that the GOP who ran roughshod over the Democrats while they had power are not going to cooperate in some blissful bi-partisan agenda. Their idea of bi-partisan was established clearly over the past eight years. We need someone who can fight them and beat them. Someone who can make the case to the people and overcome resistance by getting the people behind him. Nobody makes the case for what he believes in as clearly and compellingly as Edwards. Obama has lofty rhetoric, to be sure, but Edwards is more skillful at persuading the common folks of the American jury.
I like Obama well enough, and he will be the perfect guy to come in after the knife fight is over and we have what we want - that is when you want a conciliator to take charge. Why would you want to call a truce while the other guy is holding all the prizes? Let's fix what's broken, roll back the Bush crimes, and then when the patient is stabilized, Dr Obama will be perfect. For now, though, we need a fighter, not a conciliator.
I like Hillary well enough. Next to Edwards, she is the best choice for the next four years. But she will lose the fight - at least some parts of it. She is smart, well-prepared, seasoned, and committed. But a lot of Americans find her off-putting. The Republicans will use that to undermine her and she will end up as her husband did, compromising and triangulating, and falling short of all our expectations and hopes.
Good luck today, John Edwards!
Monday, January 21, 2008
King
I was 12 years old when Dr. King was killed in Memphis. Growing up in northern New Jersey, I remember the riots in Newark and other cities in the summer of 1967. I remember a neighbor inviting my father to join him and other vigilante-bigots in going to Newark to beat up any black person who might be unlucky enough to be targeted for such senseless brutality (Dad stayed home -- my parents were appalled by the violence but sympathetic with the plight of the Negroes. They didn't teach their children to hate, but they thought the civil rights protesters were pushing too hard, and hurting their own cause).
That fall, I started eigth grade and my homeroom teacher was Sister Eileen Marie, a sincere but baffling woman known by the derisive nickname "Fish" among the smart-mouths at St Phillip's School. Sr. Eileen Marie was very deeply involved in issues of social justice and racial harmony - but my hometown was lily-white and I really didn't get it. I thought she was more than a little bit nuts. Still, I was picking up the vibe of the times: it was tense, unhappy, and pessimistic -- would there be more violence? Were the prayers of Sr. Eileen Marie ever to be answered, or was God laughing her off like the kids in my eighth-grade class? Was it too much to ask - just too much change for America?
In the years that followed - as I completed my education and entered a more diverse world of work and of living in a much more integrated community than the one I had grown-up in - I came to understand a great deal about our long-troubled and profoundly and pathologically unjust experience with race in America. I read the history of the civil rights movement, and especially valued the three-volume work of Taylor Branch for its close rendering of the the details of that struggle, and of the role of Dr King.
When I think of great Americans, Washington and Lincoln come to mind, of course: Washington, for resisting the monarchical suggestions of his admirers and maintaining the republican ideal; Lincoln for his commitment to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the pragmatic genius necessary to protect those ideals; and King for changing the hearts of a nation and moving us forward, dramatically, towards the day when his dream of racial justice and harmony would become fact.
It may be hard for people much younger than myself to see it, but for me the change in American racial attitudes have changed dramatically since 1968. There's no doubt in my mind that we still have race issues in America, or that we still have a large problem with race-related social injustice. There's also no doubt in my mind that the advances in civil rights for blacks, women, gays, Jews and other Americans, are the legacy of a man whose conscience, courage, vision, oratory, and ultimate blood sacrifice won over the hearts and minds of the nation.
In 2008, now almost 40 years since Dr King was assassinated, I am grateful to a man I know mostly from books and film. King showed us the gap between our reality and our ideals, and inspired us to close that gap. Were he alive today, I think he would still be hard at work - but I think he would also agree with my view that we have come a remarkably long way.
Barack Obama is running for President, and his race is not an issue. Whether he will be "ready on day one", whether his health insurance plan should include a "Mandatory" provision, whether his Iraq exit plan is fast enough, and whether he is too moderate to fight the GOP -- these are the decision factors being weighed, and not the color of his skin.
Sister Eileen Marie's prayers have not all been answered, and the challenges of social justice are still before us, but in 2008 we have come so far that we can be optimistic about the tasks still ahead of us. I hope my own children will say when they are 52 that this noble cause advanced dramatically in their lifetimes.
That fall, I started eigth grade and my homeroom teacher was Sister Eileen Marie, a sincere but baffling woman known by the derisive nickname "Fish" among the smart-mouths at St Phillip's School. Sr. Eileen Marie was very deeply involved in issues of social justice and racial harmony - but my hometown was lily-white and I really didn't get it. I thought she was more than a little bit nuts. Still, I was picking up the vibe of the times: it was tense, unhappy, and pessimistic -- would there be more violence? Were the prayers of Sr. Eileen Marie ever to be answered, or was God laughing her off like the kids in my eighth-grade class? Was it too much to ask - just too much change for America?
In the years that followed - as I completed my education and entered a more diverse world of work and of living in a much more integrated community than the one I had grown-up in - I came to understand a great deal about our long-troubled and profoundly and pathologically unjust experience with race in America. I read the history of the civil rights movement, and especially valued the three-volume work of Taylor Branch for its close rendering of the the details of that struggle, and of the role of Dr King.
When I think of great Americans, Washington and Lincoln come to mind, of course: Washington, for resisting the monarchical suggestions of his admirers and maintaining the republican ideal; Lincoln for his commitment to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the pragmatic genius necessary to protect those ideals; and King for changing the hearts of a nation and moving us forward, dramatically, towards the day when his dream of racial justice and harmony would become fact.
It may be hard for people much younger than myself to see it, but for me the change in American racial attitudes have changed dramatically since 1968. There's no doubt in my mind that we still have race issues in America, or that we still have a large problem with race-related social injustice. There's also no doubt in my mind that the advances in civil rights for blacks, women, gays, Jews and other Americans, are the legacy of a man whose conscience, courage, vision, oratory, and ultimate blood sacrifice won over the hearts and minds of the nation.
In 2008, now almost 40 years since Dr King was assassinated, I am grateful to a man I know mostly from books and film. King showed us the gap between our reality and our ideals, and inspired us to close that gap. Were he alive today, I think he would still be hard at work - but I think he would also agree with my view that we have come a remarkably long way.
Barack Obama is running for President, and his race is not an issue. Whether he will be "ready on day one", whether his health insurance plan should include a "Mandatory" provision, whether his Iraq exit plan is fast enough, and whether he is too moderate to fight the GOP -- these are the decision factors being weighed, and not the color of his skin.
Sister Eileen Marie's prayers have not all been answered, and the challenges of social justice are still before us, but in 2008 we have come so far that we can be optimistic about the tasks still ahead of us. I hope my own children will say when they are 52 that this noble cause advanced dramatically in their lifetimes.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Unshaken Tempest Viewer, Betrothed
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments.
Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
-- William Shakespeare (Sonnet 116)
The date has been set. September 27, 2009. I am to be wed.
I am a happy man, and settled in my heart and mind.
Quoting the Bard once more:
"When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I were married."
Is life not an endless source of amazement, of unexpected pleasures, and undeserved joy?
Hallelujah!
Admit impediments.
Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
-- William Shakespeare (Sonnet 116)
The date has been set. September 27, 2009. I am to be wed.
I am a happy man, and settled in my heart and mind.
Quoting the Bard once more:
"When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I were married."
Is life not an endless source of amazement, of unexpected pleasures, and undeserved joy?
Hallelujah!
Friday, January 04, 2008
What's in it for us?
Just watching BET on cable -- they're promoting a program soon to be aired on that channel focusing on Barack Obama and the Black vote. Should be an interesting program, but I'm guessing it will make the candidate a little uncomfortable. Funny thing, race in America. A few weeks ago the majority of Black voters were supporting Hillary, and now those voters may be giving their allegiance a second thought. Who would have thought white Iowa could have made such a difference among African-American voters?
What's in it for us - the title of the BET program - is a fair question, I guess. I'm okay with it, though I see Obama's candidacy as having importance that transcends specific deliverables. A President Obama would take this nation much further than Frederick Douglas or Jackie Robinson could have imagined (though Dr. King surely had this very thing in mind when he spoke to the country of his dream).
I support John Edwards. I think he'll fight for things that matter to me, and I think he has forced Obama and Clinton to take positions closer to the lefty end of the Democratic party. Clinton will sell that agenda down the river, as did her husband. And Obama is a complete unknown -- I love his rhetoric and high-mindedness, but I don't know what he would be committed to achieving as President.
I guess I am asking the BET question, Mr Obama. Beyond the dream we share with Dr. King, what's in it for America?
What's in it for us - the title of the BET program - is a fair question, I guess. I'm okay with it, though I see Obama's candidacy as having importance that transcends specific deliverables. A President Obama would take this nation much further than Frederick Douglas or Jackie Robinson could have imagined (though Dr. King surely had this very thing in mind when he spoke to the country of his dream).
I support John Edwards. I think he'll fight for things that matter to me, and I think he has forced Obama and Clinton to take positions closer to the lefty end of the Democratic party. Clinton will sell that agenda down the river, as did her husband. And Obama is a complete unknown -- I love his rhetoric and high-mindedness, but I don't know what he would be committed to achieving as President.
I guess I am asking the BET question, Mr Obama. Beyond the dream we share with Dr. King, what's in it for America?
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A favorite verse
A faithful friend is a safe harbor;
he that has found one has found a treasure.Okay. I am not a believer, but I do love some of what I have read in the Bible, during my believer period. What is there for an atheist to like?
There is compassion and wisdom. There are moral lessons. There is poetry. These are not foreign to the godless.
I love my family. My lover is sacred to me. But a true friend is a treasure. In this world, we have need of more than family and lovers. Our true friends are indeed a treasure.
And let us be clear - friendship is the purest of human relations. No blood, no sex. Only the willing commitment of time, and caring. Of loyalty and commitment. Of patience and understanding.
For me, like Whitman, every stranger is a potential friend. I want to seduce them all. men and women, to love me and to be my friend. Do not pass me by without a smile and an intimate word, some gesture of affection and recognition of who I am.
I am here but a moment and so are you. Let us be friends and share this moment. It is all we have; let it not be wasted.
Why is true friendship so rare? Because we are fully human only for a few moments in the day. We should all be poets, artists, musicians, and lovers -- all the day long -- mindful to those around us and open to the possibilities of friendship.
I love the city. But the message one receives a thousand times in an hour is - mind your own business.
What is the point of a city if it is not human engagement? How can so much potential beauty be ignored in the hurry from A to B that typifies the streets of New York?
For me, it is almost enough to swim among these sleeping fish and feel my slim connection to it all. I am the jellyfish whose energy is sensed only by those foolish enough to get too close. It is enough for me, but still, such a waste of life's joy.
For whom are you a safe harbor, a treasure, a true friend?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Make me one with everything
I've been checking out music on You Tube. The sound isn't as good as playing a CD, but it is interesting to see the musicians. Here's a long clip of some of my favorite music. I first heard Mahler's music at Tanglewood - the NY Philharmonic played this symphony, and at the end of the 4th movement I jumped out of my seat and punched the air, exhaling suddenly all the breath that had been held in my chest through this fantastic finale.
Mahler was famous in his time as a conductor, and restricted his composing to summer vacations. His own music met with some criticism for its expressive emotional power (I am sure that the very thing the critics despised is what draws me to this music - I suspect that my appreciation of the emotional energy of jazz, blues and rock music may have paved the way for an appreciation of Mahler).
Supposedly, Mahler once said that "the symphony should be like the world: it must embrace everything" -- this seems to me to be the perfect definition of what art and music do for us, and what I want from music. Pull me from my seat and make me feel as if the infinite is moving within my heart and soul. Or as the Buddhist monk said to a New York City hot-dog vendor, "Make me one with everything!"
This recording captures the excitement of Mahler's music -- watching Leonard Bernstein at the end of the piece, I see in his movement the exhilaration that I remember feeling myself that summer night at Tanglewood.
I hope you enjoy this:
Mahler Symphony #1 "Titan" 4th Movement
Leonard Bernstein conducting the Wiener Philharmoniker.
Click here.
Mahler was famous in his time as a conductor, and restricted his composing to summer vacations. His own music met with some criticism for its expressive emotional power (I am sure that the very thing the critics despised is what draws me to this music - I suspect that my appreciation of the emotional energy of jazz, blues and rock music may have paved the way for an appreciation of Mahler).
Supposedly, Mahler once said that "the symphony should be like the world: it must embrace everything" -- this seems to me to be the perfect definition of what art and music do for us, and what I want from music. Pull me from my seat and make me feel as if the infinite is moving within my heart and soul. Or as the Buddhist monk said to a New York City hot-dog vendor, "Make me one with everything!"
This recording captures the excitement of Mahler's music -- watching Leonard Bernstein at the end of the piece, I see in his movement the exhilaration that I remember feeling myself that summer night at Tanglewood.
I hope you enjoy this:
Mahler Symphony #1 "Titan" 4th Movement
Leonard Bernstein conducting the Wiener Philharmoniker.
Click here.
Where's the Outrage?
A friend posted about the anti-war protests last week - and included a question from one protester who noted that so few people bothered to march against the war and wondered where the outrage is...so I responded:
The outrage has gone out of me like so much cold water from a bathtub.
The 2004 election ensured that we would continue this war to the end of the Bush presidency and into the next administration. Reid and Pelosi have accepted the argument that the Democrats win by losing votes on Iraq. They continue to fund the war, convinced that they will be accused of not supporting the troops if they cut off funds. Even Carl Levin was afraid to go that far.
John Edwards called on Congress to send Bush the same bill every time, but they caved and gave him a bill without a timetable for withdrawal. Even after the 2006 election, there is insufficient wisdom or courage (or both) to take control of the situation.
There is no longer any outrage here -- just exasperation, sorrow, and resignation.
We are reduced to empty hopes that incompetents without a plan or sufficient resources can nonetheless succeed. We are left with the selfish comfort that comes from knowing it is not my son or daughter whose life has been spent with so little care, with so little purpose, and then used to justify further bloodshed in their honor.
We are called by our hearts to grieve, and by our heads to move on - to lower our expectations.
We are past outrage and saving our strength for some future day when this dark cloud has passed over, and America regains her consciousness.
So much has been lost. Is this what 9/11 has meant for us? A departure from reason and decency? A descent into hopelessness and belligerence?
We live in an America that elected a buffoon and empowered him to wreck our national security, to bankrupt our treasury, and to trash our national image in the eyes of decent men and women of the world.
We live in an America that has surrendered its hard-won rights and liberties to protect against a terrorist attack, and that has ignored or embraced the use of torture and the abuse of persons held in our custody.
We live in an America that has taken its military from the ranks of the poor, and then borrowed from China to give tax breaks to the rich.
We live in an America that has denied 50 million Americans the most basic security of health care coverage, and worries more about the cost of "socialized medicine" than about the cost of lives ruined by bankruptcy and untreated illnesses.
We can lecture Turkey on the Armenian genocide of 1915, but will do nothing to save Darfur in 2007.
We condemn Islam for the acts of suicide bombers, and then appoint men to Attorney General who think waterboarding may be an acceptable way to interrogate a prisoner.
For the past seven years, we have slipped into a shameful and degraded condition. Of course it is outrageous, but what will we do?
I am sending John Edwards all my money and doing what I can to get the man elected. And in January 2009, we will move to fix what has been broken in these terrible years under this most terrible president.
.
What if Iraq Stabilizes?
At TNR's election blog, The Stump, Mike Crowley asks whether Democrats running for President are prepared for the possibility that the surge is working and that Iraq may be stabilizing. Recent news reports have shown that electricity service is up to pre-war levels and that Iraqi civilian casualties and American casualties are both down significantly.
In an exchange of comments with a friend there, he argued that:
My response is attached below. I include it here because I think I captured pretty well my own reasoning in support of getting out now, and my own reason - aside from blind W hatred - for seeing the surge as a meaningless stall tactic. It seems to me that we are asking soldiers and marines to die for nothing and that is simply disloyal, immoral, and self-destructive.
In an exchange of comments with a friend there, he argued that:
Ethnic (sectarian, actually) cleansing or not, fewer Iraqis are turning up dead, and some are starting trickle back home. Why isn't this good news to be celebrated. Oh, right, because W is still President, and that genius Reid has assured us that the war is "lost."
My response is attached below. I include it here because I think I captured pretty well my own reasoning in support of getting out now, and my own reason - aside from blind W hatred - for seeing the surge as a meaningless stall tactic. It seems to me that we are asking soldiers and marines to die for nothing and that is simply disloyal, immoral, and self-destructive.
What exactly is your plan? Hope for the best? Wait and see?
Let's put the best face on the situation in Iraq and see where that leads.Petraeus has already told Congress he is pulling down his troop strength by 30,000 over the next two months, right? And Mahdi Army leader Al-Sadr has declared a cease fire that will end by January 29, as I recall. I also recall that numerous statements from within the Army's senior officers have suggested that more significant troop reductions will have to occur after April 2008 due to troop rotation considerations.
Let's assume that all of these factors, which could bode ill for the security you wish to celebrate, instead have no negative effect. Let's even assume that conditions improve slightly - more electricity, fewer Iraqi casualties,fewer American casualties.It all sounds unbelievable, but let's go there anyway.
To make things even less credible, but rosier still, let's assume that Turkey does not invade Iraqi Kurdistan.
Even given all of that bullshit, what have you got to show for our efforts? An Iranian Shiite outpost in Mesopotamia, a disempowered and pissed-off Sunni minority with allies in Saudi Arabia and across the Islamic world, and the legacy of 6 years of criminality, sectarian cleansing and armed conflict - and a disreputable government that does not command the loyalty of its security forces and cannot rule without the US military to support it.
Harry Reid is no genius, but what part of this looks like victory to you?If we dare to call it victory, and pull ourselves out of this fragile mess, the house of cards will collapse. Sunnis will have to rejoin their former Al Qaeda allies to fight the Shia militia. Tribal warlords will replace the present government, Iran will move even more boldly into the South and East, and the Turks will soon move in, in force, to protect their interests in the North. Even if the surge is brilliant, you and the other diehards will find a reason we can't leave -- and you'll be right because the surge will not have changed anything.
The only thing worth celebrating is the day when no more Americans will be fighting and dying in that hell-hole -- the difference is I would like to bring that celebration home tomorrow, whereas you are willing to wait till 2009. In my view all that delay does is save face for W, which is just not worth the life of one American soldier or marine, in my book -- and is certainly not something I would celebrate.
I am resigned to wait till 2009, but let's be clear. Celebrating the surge is like celebrating that one inning in Game 3 where the Rockies almost tied the score. Go ahead and celebrate butchie, but all I see is five years of an immoral and tragic waste of American and Iraqi lives. If your surge brings that to an end sooner, I'm all for it. But it sure looks like bullshit to me.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Sunday will never be the same
I can't believe the news today
I can't close my eyes and make it go away
Okay - it is pretty old, but it still makes me laugh to see this.
I can't close my eyes and make it go away
Okay - it is pretty old, but it still makes me laugh to see this.
Axis of Necessary Evil
Pervez Musharraf has suspended Pakistan's constitution and is rounding up and detaining suspected terrorists, human rights activists, and other people he considers to be his political enemies. The Bush administration, through the Secretary of State and other spokespersons, evidently tried to persuade Musharraf to respect the rule of law and not to rely on expanded executive authority to address Pakistan's security problems.
Musharraf must have had a good laugh at that.
Even Dick Cheney must have snickered. After all, the dramatic expansion of executive authority, as a means of providing security to Americans in the face of the jihadist threat, has been the hallmark of this very troubled and unfortunate presidency. I can imagine Condi on the phone with Pervez - "Look, Pervez, you don't need the troubles we have here. Maybe you should stick with the constitution, old friend."
It also calls to mind this little episode:
I understand from the papers that Bush has not yet called Musharraf. There is some concern about our massive funding of Pakistan's military - what should we do? Can we keep on funding the Pakistani army while its leader has suspended the rule of law?
I think it is pretty clear what we should do. I think Bush should call his partner in crime today and tell him he can do whatever he wants as long as we get bin Laden. We should redeploy 30,000 troops from Iraq and move them into Pakistan's tribal territory and work alongside Musharraf's troops to eliminate Al Qaeda and find bin Laden.
Of course, someone will have to remind Bush about bin Laden. He's actually the guy who attacked us on 9/11, but Bush has never been all that interested in getting the guy. After all, there was Iraq, and Saddam, and the opportunity to remake the Middle East as an extension of the great American empire (and they think Dennis Kucinich is crazy!) .
As long as Al Qaeda is using Pakistan as its home base, we will need a strongman in power in Islamabad. Why not Musharraf? Does anyone think Bhutto can do better than Musharraf in getting the military to expunge the jihadists?
When Bush failed to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, it seemed we might never have another opportunity. Now we do. Before this moment passes, we should shake hands with Musharraf and go after our enemy.
Tora Bora was a terrible mistake, compounded ten thousand times by the invasion of Iraq, which diverted us from the pursuit of our enemy. Let us not miss this opportunity to correct the first mistake. We have already wasted enough time, blood, and treasure in Iraq. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda must be crushed.
If Pervez Musharraf can help us do that, what are we waiting for?
.
Musharraf must have had a good laugh at that.
Even Dick Cheney must have snickered. After all, the dramatic expansion of executive authority, as a means of providing security to Americans in the face of the jihadist threat, has been the hallmark of this very troubled and unfortunate presidency. I can imagine Condi on the phone with Pervez - "Look, Pervez, you don't need the troubles we have here. Maybe you should stick with the constitution, old friend."
It also calls to mind this little episode:
During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of
the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.
To that, Putin replied, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."
I understand from the papers that Bush has not yet called Musharraf. There is some concern about our massive funding of Pakistan's military - what should we do? Can we keep on funding the Pakistani army while its leader has suspended the rule of law?
I think it is pretty clear what we should do. I think Bush should call his partner in crime today and tell him he can do whatever he wants as long as we get bin Laden. We should redeploy 30,000 troops from Iraq and move them into Pakistan's tribal territory and work alongside Musharraf's troops to eliminate Al Qaeda and find bin Laden.
Of course, someone will have to remind Bush about bin Laden. He's actually the guy who attacked us on 9/11, but Bush has never been all that interested in getting the guy. After all, there was Iraq, and Saddam, and the opportunity to remake the Middle East as an extension of the great American empire (and they think Dennis Kucinich is crazy!) .
As long as Al Qaeda is using Pakistan as its home base, we will need a strongman in power in Islamabad. Why not Musharraf? Does anyone think Bhutto can do better than Musharraf in getting the military to expunge the jihadists?
When Bush failed to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, it seemed we might never have another opportunity. Now we do. Before this moment passes, we should shake hands with Musharraf and go after our enemy.
Tora Bora was a terrible mistake, compounded ten thousand times by the invasion of Iraq, which diverted us from the pursuit of our enemy. Let us not miss this opportunity to correct the first mistake. We have already wasted enough time, blood, and treasure in Iraq. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda must be crushed.
If Pervez Musharraf can help us do that, what are we waiting for?
.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Rudy, the Values Slayer
"Rudy, the Values Slayer" is the title of a piece in the NY Times this past Sunday, by Frank Rich, a columnist whose criticism of the current administration and its extremist political base has been generally insightful, often devastating and always well-written and entertaining.
On Sunday, Rich pointed to the inexplicable success of Rudy Giuliani in the race for the Republican nomination. A New Yorker with a long track record of tolerance for gays and illegal immigrants, support for reproductive rights, an antipathy to guns, and a messy marital and family track record, Rudy is not exactly the "moral values" poster child, as envisioned by the likes of Robertson and Dobson -- that is to say, the very people who claimed kingmaker status after each of the last two presidential elections.
Read the article, if you have time -- here is my favorite part:
The Values Voter Summit’s survey of the attendees’ presidential preferences showed just as large a disconnect. Rudy Giuliani came in next to last (behind Tom Tancredo, ahead of John McCain) in the field of nine candidates, earning only 1.85 percent of the vote.
By contrast, among white evangelicals nationwide in the CBS News poll, he was in a statistical dead heat for first place with Fred Thompson; indeed, Mr. Giuliani’s 26 percent among evangelicals nearly matches his showing among all Republican voters. The discrepancy between the CBS poll and the summit survey leaves you wondering who exactly follows Dr. Dobson and Mr. Perkins beyond the ticket buyers who showed up for their media circus last weekend at the Washington Hilton.
I remember the day after Kerry conceded, listening to the radio and hearing some preacher insisting that Bush would have to give the religious right everything it wanted - everything. I was also reminded of the blog Baghdad Burning, in which the author described the imposition of Sharia law in her neighborhood and recognized that the "liberation" of Iraq was not at all what the word suggested. Could American fundamentalism be as real a threat to me as Muslim fundamentalists are to any third world Arab?
John C. Danforth, a distinguished Republican stateman and an ordained minister, wrote this (NY Times Op-Ed March 30, 2005) :
By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians...
Christine Todd Whitman, former Governor of New Jersey and former EPA Administrator under the current President, made a similar argument in her book: ''It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the G.O.P. and the Future of America'' -- in which she warned that the Republican embrace of far right social policies would marginalize the party. The GOP were in no mood to listen to her at the time (published January 31, 2005 - safely after the 2004 election).
I do hope with all my heart that Giuliani's recent success is an indicator that my worst fears, and those of men like John Danforth, may now be set to rest on the back burner - if not quite discarded altogether. Something else Danforth wrote in an Op Ed in the NY Times, in June 2005, comes to mind as well.
He wrote:
He wrote:
In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality.
I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two.
As an atheist, I have noted that believers are taken aback at the anger and ridicule that has been heaped on faith in recent years by authors such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. As if we did not live in an era in which political Islam has not set the world afire with terrorism and jihad. As if a cartoon in a Danish newspaper had not resulted in rioting and death. As if the Christian Right had not seriously eroded the tradition of church-state separation in the United States and threatened to usurp the last best hope of liberty in a troubled world.
Of course we are fighting back. We have been pushed to the wall by people whose ignorance of our great cultural and political traditions is only eclipsed by their aggressive and moronic superstition.
Of course we are fighting back. We have been pushed to the wall by people whose ignorance of our great cultural and political traditions is only eclipsed by their aggressive and moronic superstition.
So I have noted the embedded insanity of the GOP presidential campaign, with deep satisfaction and outward glee. Giuliani, the creep who had to be told by a Judge that he could not bring his girlfriend home to sleep over at Gracie Mansion while his wife and kids still lived there, is the first act of this comedy.
Then there is Romney, whose Mormonism will be a real challenge for the good Christian folks who have no idea what Mormons believe (and will be shocked when they find out) - as an atheist, I really will enjoy hearing one set of true-believers mocking the faith of other true-believers (it is bound to happen).
Finally, there is Huckabee - who should be the darling of the religious crowd, but has been rejected as too compassionate! Even as these religious conservatives mull over the bitter choice between Giuliani the lapsed Catholic and Romney the Mormon, these nutjobs have indicated they might bolt if Huckabee is named as the Republican nominee's running mate (h/t Noam Scheiber in TNR). That's right - he isn't fit to even be VP!
The craziness continues. But there is reason to hope that we are close to the end of this funhouse ride, and that rational, competent people may come to replace the ideologues and extremist hacks that have dominated government for the past 7 years.
All of this looniness will wrap up in November 2008 in a landslide Democratic victory, and some new thinking among leading Republicans will arise from the ashes. I hope they will take the opportunity to consider the advice of John Danforth and Christine Todd Whitman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)