The Cold War at Home Again?

I do not have much time to lay into the Republicans on this one, but it seems like their recent attempts to scuttle the “New Start” treaty smack of the 1970s and 1980s. Remember then? The Republicans seemed to think that only they could properly defend the country, whereas (according to them) the Democrats were always ready to somehow degrade the military and imperil the security of the country. Democrats were weak, Republicans strong. They won elections sowing fear that a Democrat would make us all Communists.

Today, the world is vastly different, so it is time to think differently about the world. Having the US and Russia make a deal on nuclear arms would send a clear message that we are serious about controlling arms. This needs to be done in order to start to put some fences around the nuclear ambitions of Pakistan, India, China and Iran. How can we try to control those countries when we cannot even control ourselves? Republicans need to get out of the way. Despite their attempts to question the foreign policy credentials of the Obama administration, and to suggest that he is weak on defense, it is the Republicans who  imperil our security. They even threaten to rebuke their own master.

WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

Maybe I am getting too old, but the “transparency” that WikiLeaks supposedly promotes seems to be a bit traitorous. What kind of world does this promote? While we have always heard that the Internet is the forum for unfettered information and open democracy, simply leaking this information for the sake of leaking makes no sense. If there was criminal activity, that is one thing, but undermining legitimate attempts to use diplomacy throughout the world is unfairly damaging to US interests.

Now, should the NY Times cover this story? What part does the news media play in simply justifying the leaks in the first place? Here is some of a defense from the paper itself: Sharing Secrets. In response to that, here are some of the readers’ comments.

For the latest cache of leaks, see full story:  WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy.

For a great, positive perspective on what the leaks show, see Fareed Zakaria.

Where Were You Ten Years Ago?

I was in Florida. I did not travel there to steal the presidential election like many Republicans did; I lived there. In 2000, my family and I lived in Orange Park, Florida, near Jacksonville. I cast my ballot in Clay County, one of many Republican strongholds in the state. Aside from the nearby naval air station, Clay County was pretty rural and very redneck. I was probably one of the few Democratic votes, but cast that vote proudly…I distinctly remember that the lines were very long that day, but things were very organized. Oddly enough, even though Clay County was a bit old-fashioned, the commissioners had obtained optical scanners to read our ballots, so we had none of the “hanging chad” issues that bedeviled other counties in the state. My vote was counted.

The infamous story is well-known. Miami’s Dade County. Al Gore’s retrieval of his concession to Bush. The Republican operatives descending upon the state to spread false claims of voter “fraud.” The lawsuit by the Bush campaign that started it all. The valiant but mis-guided attempt by the Democrats to argue for a selective recount across the state. The decision by the Republican-leaning Supreme Court that – literally – changed history. Wow, those were some tense days. Even then, the Democrats across the country had an inkling that the Supreme Court decision was going to change us – and we were right.

If only Miami’s Dade County had optical scanners. Better yet, if only Gore had won his home state of Tennessee. We never would have heard about hanging chads or the Electoral College, and we would have never known that a part of Florida is actually in the Central time zone. Oh, and we never would have had Bush. Yes, your vote matters, and elections do change history.

The Hammer Gets Hammered

Well, Mr. DeLay, seems as those all of those roosters have come home to roost. To imagine that it was a jury in Texas of all places that brought the hammer down. Jury of one’s peers….yes! Tom DeLay Found Guilty of Money Laundering – NYTimes.com.

What Say You, Bill O’Reilly?

Granted, unemployment remains stubbornly high, but the facts continue to show that government intervention can work. Along with the support for banks and GM, the Obama Administration has done everyone a favor: Stimulus Gave Large Jobs Boost In Q3 – CBO – NYTimes.com.

Only James Bond Could Love a Story Like This

I would hate to be the military officer trying to explain this one to his command….

Taliban Leader in Peace Talks Was an Impostor – NYTimes.com.

Solution for Deficit? Can Anyone Make the Call?

If these latest NY Times articles are any indication, a solution for getting a handle on the deficit is a long ways off. The debates will be full of rhetoric, half-solutions, unreasonable demands and demagoguery. Along the way, it is fairly certain that the people will have a very small voice in the process. But whatever voice “the people” have – that voice will be sending mixed signals. No easy solutions – and the solution seems to be based on whether you would rather have tax increases (generally on someone else’s income level) or spending cuts (as long as it does not cut any programs that matter).

To fully appreciate the process,

first read: Ok, You Fix the Budget

then read: How Readers Chose to Fix the Deficit

The second piece provides some insight into how almost 7,000 would work on the issue of trying to reduce the budget deficit. Not an easy issue.

Pelosi Should Take the Backseat

 

 

Madam Speaker

She the votes to win; that seems certain. She makes no secret of that. But are those votes true barometers of her ability to steer the ship of the Democrats at this point, or are those votes largely chits being called in because of the amount of money Ms. Pelosi has raised for her fellow Democrats? By late October 2010, Ms. Pelosi had put her powerful fundraising skills to work for the benefit of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, at the tune of $57M, a significant portion of the overall amount raised. She directed this money to just about any candidate that asked, and she undoubtedly made it clear that the money came with strings. Always does, doesn’t it? After all, money is politics, but simply following the money to guide one’s vote – while ignoring common sense – is bad policy.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in January 2007. Her tenure was not the longest, but it was not the shortest either. More importantly, by all accounts, this congressional session was one of the most productive sessions in recent memory, and much of that is due to her leadership, drive and political skill. Congratulations, Madam Speaker. That is a great legacy.

However, in two short years, Ms. Pelosi led the congressional Democrats from one of its strongest positions in recent history (256-178) to its greatest midterm electoral defeat in history (loss of 60 seats, with Republicans holding 242 seats to the Democrats’ 193). This demise has the hallmarks of being a swift one, especially given the acclaim with which she took the position as the first female Speaker and the subsequent election of Barack Obama, who as a primary candidate received an early and strong endorsement from Ms. Pelosi.

Generally in life, such a rout would require an examination of the causes and a reconsideration of the leadership structure. If a business fails, this typically happens. Sports franchises go through these shake-ups. But seemingly not the congressional Democrats. Oh, apparently they have done some soul-searching, but the blame for the historic losses seems to be left squarely on the 9.5% unemployment rate – as if the unemployment rate is some sort of ethereal creature pulling the levers in the voting booth. In a clear statement that reeks of defensiveness, Ms. Pelosi found herself having to say:  “We didn’t lose the election because of me.” Really? Yes, there were a number of factors, but to not acknowledge your part in the rout is a classic case of living in denial. She ought to remember her own words from 2008 when the Democrats enjoyed their second straight increase in congressional seats: “The American people have called for a new direction. They have called for change in America.” So what did they ask for this time? New carpeting in the Capitol? In actuality, these types of ads from the Republicans – however repulsive – were effective:

So where is the change? Well, in the classic Pelosi move, she helped engineer the ascension of Rep. Jim Clyburn to a new, as-yet-unnamed, position. All this to make sure there was no fight over the #2 position with Steny Hoyer. So , there’s the change! This was not too hard since Mr. Hoyer’s base, the moderate Democrats, were decimated in the 2010 elections, making it impossible for him to challenge Ms. Pelosi. Many analysts point to the very legislation that Ms. Pelosi helped pass as the catalyst for the stunning losses in 2010. Sorry, Mr. Hoyer.

Ms. Pelosi said that her supporters “understand [the Republicans] made me target because I’m effective.” Yes, some would say that her effectiveness was in passing some legislation – namely the health care bill – that runs counter to popular support. While there is some private consternation over her decision to seek a leadership position, there does not appear to be a groundswell of opposition to Ms. Pelosi’s election as the House minority leader. Too bad.

This would be a good time for the Democrats to show that they are ready to govern as opposed to just passing legislation. Don’t get me wrong – a Democratic Party in the lead is better than a Republican Party – but that is why Pelosi should sit in the back.

Will We Riot Too?

Today, the co-chairmen of a bipartisan commission in the United States published a draft set of recommendations for how we might be able to get a handle on our deficit and crushing debt – an economic tsunami that all experts agree must get addressed. The commission’s final report is not due until December 1, and it must be reviewed and accepted by the full commission. The commission has no actual power, but will provide recommendations to Congress.

Already, various commissioners are questioning some of the initial recommendations. Why? Because many of the recommendations are political hot-potatoes that will likely be debated incessantly for many congressional sessions. Recommendations include a complete revamping of the tax code, reduction in all tax rates (in exchange for closing of loopholes), 15-cents-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax, and Social Security benefits cuts and an increase in the retirement age. Clearly, the commission is hitting all of the hot-button issues.

We all know that something needs to be done. Many people have been suggesting some of these changes for years, but political lobbying, a volatile electorate, and the focus on military expenditures over the last decade have ensured that nothing has happened. Now, clearly, something will happen. The “reformed” Republican Party that is supposedly now more fiscally responsible, the ascendancy of the Tea Party movement, the rising cacophony of the expert opinions, and common sense tells us that there will be many debates that will result in some action. What action? I suppose that is the question now, isn’t it?

So, will we riot when the recommendations become actual government decisions? Should we riot?

Although the cultures are different and the decisions are different, the European experience gives us some insight into what we might expect. Maybe there will not be blood, but there will be protests. Maybe those protests will get ugly. The decisions may be that tough. But do our politicians – and do the people – have the toughness to make something happen for the good of this country?

So what has happened in Europe? First, the government of Greece announced austerity measures to help address significant economic issues related to heavy government debt and financial instability; then Greek protests led to violence and deaths. More recently, the French government decided to adjust the age at which French workers become eligible for their state pension. French workers showed the French leadership that they were none too happy. Now, in Britain, students have raised a ruckus due to significant increases in university tuition. This comes after the British government announced other “austerity” measures designed to – like the Greeks – get the economy under control.

Ok, so Europeans generally like to protest more than folks in the US. They have more passion, free time and historical precedence. But the US has had its share of protests, so we are not immune. We reserve our significant protests to what really matters, and this may be that time.

The changes are coming. We need to make some sort of change. All sectors need to “feel the pain,” right?  After all, without doing anything wrong, many of our houses are worth less, wage increases have been smaller, and yet taxes are still due and college must be attended. We as a country need to address these issues – with or without a riot.

[Amended on 11/12: just another example of how tough this will be, which is another example of what can go wrong when the moderates get booted; and for the liberal perspective on the commission and its recommendations, see Paul Krugman’s lashing. But we need to start the conversation somewhere, right? ]

Joel Klein to Leave Helm of N.Y. Schools – But Where is He Going?

The real story here is that Joel Klein is leaving NYC schools to head up a “strategy” at News Corporation to get the company into “the education marketplace.” Hmmm, Fox News in the education business…just what we need.

Hearst Official to Replace Klein at Helm of N.Y. Schools – NYTimes.com.

While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales – NYTimes.com

Not much needs to be said about this – read the article: While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales – NYTimes.com. While Ms. Obama is trying to keep us off the fat train, her husband’s own bureaucracy is helping Domino’s Pizza increase the cheese content of its products. Does Domino’s really need help from the government??

Sorry MSNBC, You are More Like a Fox than a Peacock

Do not get me wrong. If given a final choice, I would take MSNBC over Fox News any day. No issue there. Why? Because MSNBC is closer to my world view than Fox News…by a long shot.

But please, MSNBC, do not pretend that you are all that uniquely different than Fox News when it comes to your prime-time lineup and how you handle the news and commentary. Your key nightly lineup – Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell – should not be mistaken for balanced commentators, and their regular assaults on conservatives, the Republicans and Fox News clearly place them near and dear to the hearts of liberals. But isn’t that why we watch them? Their color, viewpoints and comments add a certain juice to the news and are a nice balance to the insanity spouted by O’Reilly, Sustern, Stossel and Hannity.

So what prompted this post and my attempt to put MSNBC and Fox News int he same sentence? Initially, it was MSNBC’s decision to “indefinitely” suspend Mr. Olbermann for donating money to three Democratic political campaigns without asking for permission, an action that is apparently against the policies of MSNBC’s parent company, NBC News. This seemed like an odd move on MSNBC’s part given the host’s outspoken liberal tendencies, but we can understand that a policy is a policy. News that MSNBC quickly ended Olbermann’s suspension was no surprise since the action sparked such a great controversy. But it was Rachel Maddow’s commentary on her own show that really perked my ears. She used the suspension to distinctively differentiate MSNBC from Fox News, but in the same breath said that Obermann’s suspension should be lifted (the “point has been made”). Granted, her valiant trashing of Sean Hannity’s explicit political endorsements was very nice to see and should not be forgotten. She also bashed Republican fundraising activities by Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, but muddled the fact that these are done outside of their duties as Fox News hosts. While clearly Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee engage in political fundraising, that is done in the “other jobs.” On the air, they are no more conservative and outspoken than Ms. Maddow is liberal and outspoken. Ms. Maddow clearly called Fox News a “political organization” while MSNBC is a “new organization.” Obviously, to Ms. Maddow, one is lower than the other.

I have no doubt that Fox News peddles a specific political viewpoint, and various commentators, guests and news stories help espouse that viewpoint. Some even give money to support these viewpoints. No doubt. But Ms. Maddow should not use her pulpit to seemingly place herself in the realm of Cronkite, Brokaw and Jennings. If I want news, I go to the BBC, The New York Times or (increasingly less) CNN. If I want rightist spin on that news, I watch O’Reilly or Fox News Sunday. If I want the liberal spin, I tune into Ms. Maddow or Mr. Olbermann. The fact that they are not allowed to give money makes no difference. Actually, I would be surprised if Ms. Maddow did not contribute in some way to her own particular world view. And you know what, that’s perfectly respectable and expected.

 

[Amended: some good commentary]

Good News for Illinois?

 

 

Well, it depends….

Anytime Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan has a say in the future of Illinois, we need to worry. After all, he will one day have to answer to the fact that he has led the Illinois House through one of the most tragic periods in state history, and he needs to be held partially responsible for our fiscal mess, political backwardness, and general sad state of affairs. Yes, our previous two governors – one Republican in jail and one Democrat the laughing-stock of the nation and on the verge of going to jail – have much blame on their hands. But it has been Madigan who has been the constant through this period.

Illinois needs a reset button. But until then, politics as usual. In that context, despite the wave of Republican victories across the nation and in Illinois, the Illinois Democrats still have some good news. They still run things in Springfield. Part of that power will bring the ability to redraw the congressional districts around the state, presumably to favor as much as possible the Democratic base.

Good news for Democrats; good news for Illinois if Madigan and Quinn do the right thing. Do what is right for Illinois – yes, redraw the boundaries, but start to figure out how to get the entire state out of the ditch.

Murray Wins Senate Race in Washington

Whew. Much-needed victory. Murray Wins Senate Race in Washington – NYTimes.com.

Looking for the Center

Evan Bayh has some sensible ideas…..and sensible is what we need. He may be suggesting some ideas that are a bit too on the conservative side, but his inclination – find and own the center – is what Democrats need to do. Many of those Democrats who were voted into office in 2006 and 2008 – and many who lost their spots in 2010 – were moderates. This country needs more of them….read here

Green Party Monster Bash – Again

[Amended to include results of Illinois gubernatorial race]

When will members of the Green Party learn?

This post will undoubtedly get me in trouble with some my environmentalist friends, but it needs to be said. My environmentalist credentials are solid enough – try to reduce driving, increase our recycling, reduce energy use where possible, etc. I honestly believe that global warming is real and needs to be addressed, and there is plenty of research and data to support this view. I do, however, believe that we need to approach environmental issues with a balance that takes into consideration economic and social needs, but that is just reflecting my generally pragmatic viewpoint. So, all said, I definitely feel that we need to be very environmentally conscious and that our policies need to reflect a concern for the future of the planet.

That said, does the need to address these issues justify the Green Party’s ongoing attempts to make a dent in the national electoral map even when they are confronted by failure after failure? They may argue that winning is not the goal of their candidacies, but is rather merely an attempt to get a “green” agenda into the national debate. But how many failures need to occur before they realize that such a goal is a destructive use of resources?

Was the election of 2000 not enough of a lesson? Because of Nader and his Green Party candidacy, Al Gore lost Florida and therefore lost the edge to combat the Republican takeover of the presidency. Yes, if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he could have won the election even without Florida. We all know the story, and Gore’s loss cannot all be blamed entirely on Nader. But, the numbers do not lie – simple math shows that the Green Party’s fantastical candidacy in 2000 left us with eight years of George Bush during which we saw some of the most abusive assaults on the environment since the green movement began. How does this sit with members of the Green Party? My guess is that their self-absorption in trying to combat the “two-party” system leaves them blind to their misguided priorities.

Yes, the Green Party lives on. In the process of trying to achieve something via the ballot box, the Green Party continues to squander realistic attempts to achieve real environmental progress. When will they learn? The election of 2010 has provided another set of examples – albeit smaller that the 2000 fiasco, but no less destructive.

A more thorough review of Tuesday night’s election results could probably bring forward even more examples, but a quick review of two races clearly shows the impact of the Green Party – an impact that clearly helps the Republican Party, not the party that can actually do the most for the environment.  That impact does not seem to align well with the platform of the Green Party.

I have heard the arguments – can we assume that all Green Party voters would vote for a Democrat if left no other option? Of course not, but I cna bet that a good portion would cast a ballot for a Democrat before a Republican……

Illinois Senate:

Republican Mark Kirk: 1.765M votes

Democrat Alexi Giannoulias: 1.694M votes (71K less votes than Kirk)

Green Party LeAlan Jones: 117K votes

Assuming that 75% of those Green Party votes went to the Democrat, Giannoulias wins. One more Democrat in the Senate.

Colorado Senate:

Democrat Michael Bennet: 799K votes

Republican Ken Buck: 783K votes

Green Party Bob Kinsey: 36K votes

Bennet wins…but this was too close. Assuming that 75% of those Green Party votes went to the Democrat, Bennet still wins but by a broader margin. Democrats should not have to fight to their left in these tight elections. In a similar vein…

Illinois Governor:

Democrat Patrick Quinn: 1.721M

Republican Bill Brady: 1.702M (19K difference)

Green Party Rich Whitney: 99K

I understand the Green Party’s desire to break the two-party system, but they need to get real. Even the upstart Tea Party produced winners in the election process. Not the Greens. They are just producing more Republicans who can further erode the environment.

Stay green, but join the Democrats so that they can actually win with better margins and do something to help you.

Republican Game Plan Led to Historic Victory – NYTimes.com

Just in case anyone thinks that a major political victory has to do with a pure notion of “what the American people want.” A victory like this takes plans, designs and cunning….

Republican Game Plan Led to Historic Victory – NYTimes.com.

McConnell, Stewart and the Line Between Policy and Insanity

Mitch McConnell had to say it – after all he is the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and they are positioned to win some electoral advances in the Senate and take over the House tomorrow. We will see how it goes on November 2nd,  but as the Republican leader he needs to set the mood. Cannot blame him for that. So, what does he say?

“…the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president…”

Now, to be fair, McConnell is in election mode and he tempered his remarks by suggesting that if Obama were to do a “Clintonian backflip” he could meet the Republican senators “halfway.” The message to Obama – move towards us, and we will work with you; don’t, and we will not. Electoral politics? Bravado in the face of a certain victory?

On the contrary, what we see from McConnell, Kasich in Ohio, Barbour in Mississippi and other standard-bearing Republicans is a relentless push to not just defeat the president’s agenda, but scuttle any reasonable opportunity to achieve anything worthwhile. And to what purpose? Because the Republicans have the magic bullet to solve all of our problems? Clearly, no. No, simply put, they are bent on taking back the power and will do so by any means necessary…even courting and encouraging the growth of the frantic Tea Party legions. There are endless calls about budget measures, spending cuts, etc, etc. Just be sure, gentlemen, that when the budget cutting begins you start with a realistic approach to the so-called “Bush tax cuts”  – in other words, rescind the tax cuts for those making more than $250K. While you are at it, be sure to carefully look at the budgets of your own pet projects before attacking noteworthy programs that actually help this country.

McConnell’s statement was what Jon Stewart was really talking about during his closing remarks at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear held this past weekend in Washington DC:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:363864

While analysts can criticize the rally as political in nature, the same criticism can be used against Glenn Beck’s rally earlier in the year. By their very nature the rallies were political since they involved people and the discussion of ideas and policy. So, let it be. While many criticisms have been directed towards the Rally, Stewart’s closing remarks exposed the “insanity” of McConnell’s comments. As Stewart suggested, certainly we ought to be able to debate, and debate we should. We all have our differences, and those differences are not small. But use the debates and the differences to build something better – do not just resist because the “other side” is different. That only brings out the worst in our society, and leaves the terrain for debate open to the most radical and destructive voices. That’s the message. Debate, don’t resist. Every day we see how this works outside of the Beltway. People do it every day. It’s the difference between developing policy and making progress, and driving us all insane with the bickering.

Say It Ain’t So, Ernie

I may not be a huge fan (or even a large fan)  of Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, but I have been a decent Cubs fan since the 1970s, so this news brings a bit of a bad taste. Seems as though the new owner of the Cubs, Joe Ricketts, has sent almost $600,000 to Nevada to unseat Mr. Reid. Certainly his constitutional right to do so, but by doing so, he decidedly has expressed his voice in favor of Sharron Angle, the Republican and prominent Tea Party candidate for senate who won a mere 41% of the Republican primary votes. Ms. Angle is not someone we want in the Senate.

The PAC established by Ricketts, Taxpayers Against Earmarks, actually has a pretty important cause, as long as the fight against earmarks fairly targets all sectors of the budget. But sending your money to Nevada to potentially put Angle into the Senate? Wow, that seems a little bit of a stretch in reason. Other than fighting for her right to carry her gun, what will she actually bring to the table? Hopefully, Ricketts is also putting his money into the Wisconsin race in favor of Russell Feingold, listed as a “hero” on the TAE website. Feingold could use the help.

One may say that the investment in the Cubs by the Ricketts family is as misguided as investing in Angle; let’s just hope that the former pays off just as the latter should not.