Occupy Wall Street has captured news headlines and provoked journalistic investigations. The movement has taken root all over the nation, and everywhere it goes occupiers have met both resistance and support. But as OWS spreads, it's dynamism is also fostering discussions and questions about the movement from those who are looking in from outside. Many of those questions have been adequately answered, as journalists examine the movement from the inside out, trying to help the public understand what is going on. But one question has not been comprehensively addressed: Is Occupy Wall Street really making a difference to the politicians in Washington?
It's a question worth asking. For all the discussions about the changes being brought about by OWS, not enough has been said about whether or not politicians are even listening. In order to answer this question we will have to examine the tangible political implications of OWS for those in power. Has OWS affected the overall American national discourse in such a way that politicians are addressing the movement's goals? Are politicians moving to embrace- or castigate- Occupy Wall Street? And how is the movement engaging with those running for office? As it turns out, events in the last few weeks can give us some great insight into this matter.
This Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that frames what is likely to be the central platform of his campaign in 2012. In language that (in no small way) echoed the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Obama laid down hard facts about disparity in the country, contrasting the vast wealth of the 1% with the plummeting incomes of most workers. Calling it “wrong” and “the height of inequality” Obama blasted the entrenched government systems and loopholes that shelter the wealthy while crushing the poor.
Obama's speech was a great indicator that the chief expression of OWS has made its way into the national and political discourse: the growing difference between the 99% and the 1%. Obama spoke of "inequality" six different times.
And as Chrystia Freeland notes in her fantastic discussion of the speech, Obama essentially declared American inequality “the defining issue of our time”, a modest nod toward OWS and the (perhaps misguided) Tea Party. But Freeland also points out that whereas the Tea Party's version of American restoration had helped to change the debate in Washington to a question of spending and cutting, Obama's speech was a recognition of how the Occupy Wall Street movement is utterly re-framing the debate too: for Occupy Wall Street, restoring America means recognizing (and changing) the power of the 1% to make room for everyone else.
In that capacity, Obama seems to agree. And by lending the weight of his voice to the cause, he only gives momentum to OWS' perspective of inequality.
So there's no question that Occupy Wall Street is substantially changing the national discourse. If the Presidential bully-pulpit is blasting out 1% tirades to win an election- if Obama is staking his Presidency on the issue of inequality- we can be certain that the message of OWS is catching on, even in political circles. Although many members of OWS may be loathe to compare themselves to the Tea Party movement, it looks like grassroots OWS has offered (to the Democrats at the top) the campaign-ready ideological response to the Republican co-opted Tea Party.
And that begs the question: are the Democrats interested co-opting OWS members into their party? Do Democrats want to join the OWS protests and turn them into a political operation? In my home state of North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who is running for re-election next year) has fully embraced the movement, and protesters also embraced her, even as she turned an appearance at Occupy Raleigh into a campaign advertisement. Marshall represents a very small portion of Democrats, however, (mainly local leaders) who have risked the political dangers of being associated with such a 'radical' movement. National leaders, while glad of the ideological framing, have been wary of declaring themselves a part of OWS (and joining in). Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she 'supports' the movement... from the comfortable chair of a national interview.
This wariness shouldn't be too surprising, though, since OWS has also gained a reputation for having little appreciation for political attention. Occupy Atlanta gained headlines in October when General Assembly rules blocked Congressman John Lewis from addressing the crowd in support of the movement's goals. It was understandable; after all, OWS is a movement that strives to ignore the celebrity of power and privilege. It's also understandable that those Democrats who already have considerable power would strive to steer clear of outright participation.
But what about Republicans? If Democrats are wary of OWS, it would follow that the GOP must be deathly allergic. But Occupy Wall Street's popular influence has even had an affect on the Republican discourse, albeit at the margins. Buddy Roemer- the former Governor of Louisiana and Presidential candidate- showed up at Occupy DC in late November to listen to (and debate with) the occupiers. While there, he defended the importance of the movement: “I told the other Republican candidates, 'Listen, listen -- they're saying something we oughta hear. They're saying that the few at the top gets the best of America, and everybody [else] gets what's left over.'”
Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarian supporters sometimes join OWS gatherings, has also declared his sympathy for the movement. Despite being heckled at a rally by members of OWS, Paul signaled his agreement with the protesters, saying “The people on Wall Street got the bailout and you guys got the bills and I think that’s where the problem is.”
But Roemer and Paul both represent significant outliers amongst Republican politicians. Most Republicans see OWS as a threat to American capitalism or at least an opportunity to score a good applause line from the conservative Republican electorate. Candidate Mitt Romney has called the movement “dangerous”, and Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich has declared that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates the moral collapse of America, saying to occupiers, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”. Zing. Applause.
Occupy members don't seem too phased by the criticism, however, and some have begun to change their protest tactics to go on the offensive against those running for office. This marks a significant change in strategy, with OWS members singling out some of the Republicans for disruptions on the campaign trail. On Wednesday night, several activists sneaked into a D.C. Fundraiser for Newt Gingrich, interrupting his $1000 ticket event to remind him of the suffering of the 99%.
It is unclear whether or not this kind of direct political action by Occupy Wall Street will continue, but as elections approach next year, those of the OWS movement will have to decide how they will approach the political system. Will they protest Democrats as much as Republicans, or will they become entangled in party preference? Can occupiers embrace direct political advocacy without compromising their ideals?
In the meantime, Occupy Wall Street's mark on the political sphere is only going to grow. Even if the protests fizzle, the discussion that was started by OWS is causing the whole American discourse to shift, and politicians are watching. OWS is fundamentally changing the way politicians in both parties approach delicate issues like loopholes, tax brackets, bailouts, inequality, and free speech. Because of OWS, Americans are even beginning to wonder if the central American problem lies in an even more fundamental structure, rather than cronyism or misconduct. At a Republican Governor's Association meeting last week in which the GOP struggled to reframe the subject, strategist Frank Luntz discussed his fears about the way the movement has changed the national dialogue: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Oh yes. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference in Washington.
Editorial Note 12/15/11: A version of this article was published at WagingNonviolence.org
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Let Republicans take control of Congress, PLEASE?
Do I speak heresy for a Democratic voter, or the first bit of common sense in a Republican wave year?
This post will contain clear and inherent bias, as it is intended as a suggested Democratic perspective on the Midterm elections.
Let me level with you. Republicans are going to win and they are going to win big this year. In the House, it would not be out of possibility for them to sweep the system, taking out 70 incumbent Democrats. In the Senate it is conceivable for them to overturn as many as 10 seats, a roughly equivalent proportion as wins in the House. And while those numbers represent very worst case scenarios, Democrats are playing defense and right now and it'll be considered a significant UPSET if Democrats are able to hold onto simple majorities in both the House and the Senate.
I can already hear the leagues of Democratic voters wailing in self-righteous desperation. Must think! Who's to blame? Right! Its all the fault of those perennial enthusiasts, those formerly loyal Obama supporters who have the nerve to abandon the Party when they're really needed. Damn those pollsters and their likely voter models! Fools! All of them!
But wait! Before you torch the house of the nearest racial minority or young adult who you think is too lazy or uninformed to go to the polls, hear me out! There are hate crime statues to consider!
Instead look at it this way: If Republicans want Congress, let's give it to 'em. But just barely. Or just in one chamber of Congress as its looking to become currently. Fight for seats, yes, but hold off some of that strategic money till 2012.
How about this instead? It's about damn time that the American people see what kinds of proposals Republicans have to put forward. Obama is still President for the next 2 years, let him use his bully pulpit to show Republicans up for how hypocritical most of their debt-reducing-yet-tax-reducing proposals are. To expose on a National stage the extreme positions of Tea Partiers and the chaos of a truly gridlocked government.
In the meantime, let's keep Democrats in the best non-majority position that we can, and use that magic filibuster tactic against the Republicans who seem to like it so much. Or, even better, just let Obama veto anything that comes across his desk that he can't take explicit credit for. If Republicans do pass anything, make sure its branded "Obama" so strongly that the American people begin seeing the President as the great uniter that he promised to be.
Meanwhile, all fingers crossed, the economy is getting better, helped in no small part by increased confidence in legislative stability with Republicans in control and (quite honestly) the historically relative cyclical nature of these recessions. Obama can take credit for the economy rebounding as well, if he likes; who cares whether or not the Recovery Act was actually what swung America out of a downturn, the point is that the economy arrow went up during the Obama Administration. Tout, tout, tout! If Clinton could get through it in 1995, Obama can handle it in 2011. And good news for Dems: Clinton went on to get re-elected; Obama's got a good shot at that too.
Of course if Democrats stay in control, Republicans can continue to use the same stalling tactics and blame an even weaker Democratic Party for not getting anything done. They'll likely have the momentum in 2012, telling voters to send 'em all packin', including the President so that the Government works again. If Republicans take some control, it's possible the Government will also come to a standstill, but this time, Republicans get their share of the blame.
But hold on a minute. If things are made so good by Democrats "letting" Republicans take some control, why isn't that the Democratic strategy, at least secretly?
Well there is a lot of conventional wisdom in trying to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of what the Government does at this point, the economy is liable to get better, as is the way with these things. Democrats are reasonably confident that they can take credit for the good economy if they can just hold on long enough for the economy to actually improve. Then there's the incumbency factor. The same reason that Obama is already nominally favored to win the 2012 election, as mentioned above, also favors all currently sitting politicians. Name recognition is already higher with incumbents, not to mention the great fundraising platform incumbency affords. This Democrats figure they'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome in the next 3 election cycles if they lose the incumbency factor in this one election. And finally there's the policy considerations. With less power, Democrats have less control over policy, Republican proposals are more likely to be adopted and signed into law.
The point of this article is to recognize some serious advantages on which Democrats might be able to capitalize if Republicans take control of either the House, or Senate, or both. Since at least one of those scenarios is likely, it will be interesting to see if Democrats use any of the strategies outlined in this piece.
I'll have a different discussion on Republican strategies in the near future.
This post will contain clear and inherent bias, as it is intended as a suggested Democratic perspective on the Midterm elections.
Let me level with you. Republicans are going to win and they are going to win big this year. In the House, it would not be out of possibility for them to sweep the system, taking out 70 incumbent Democrats. In the Senate it is conceivable for them to overturn as many as 10 seats, a roughly equivalent proportion as wins in the House. And while those numbers represent very worst case scenarios, Democrats are playing defense and right now and it'll be considered a significant UPSET if Democrats are able to hold onto simple majorities in both the House and the Senate.
I can already hear the leagues of Democratic voters wailing in self-righteous desperation. Must think! Who's to blame? Right! Its all the fault of those perennial enthusiasts, those formerly loyal Obama supporters who have the nerve to abandon the Party when they're really needed. Damn those pollsters and their likely voter models! Fools! All of them!
But wait! Before you torch the house of the nearest racial minority or young adult who you think is too lazy or uninformed to go to the polls, hear me out! There are hate crime statues to consider!
Instead look at it this way: If Republicans want Congress, let's give it to 'em. But just barely. Or just in one chamber of Congress as its looking to become currently. Fight for seats, yes, but hold off some of that strategic money till 2012.
How about this instead? It's about damn time that the American people see what kinds of proposals Republicans have to put forward. Obama is still President for the next 2 years, let him use his bully pulpit to show Republicans up for how hypocritical most of their debt-reducing-yet-tax-reducing proposals are. To expose on a National stage the extreme positions of Tea Partiers and the chaos of a truly gridlocked government.
In the meantime, let's keep Democrats in the best non-majority position that we can, and use that magic filibuster tactic against the Republicans who seem to like it so much. Or, even better, just let Obama veto anything that comes across his desk that he can't take explicit credit for. If Republicans do pass anything, make sure its branded "Obama" so strongly that the American people begin seeing the President as the great uniter that he promised to be.
Meanwhile, all fingers crossed, the economy is getting better, helped in no small part by increased confidence in legislative stability with Republicans in control and (quite honestly) the historically relative cyclical nature of these recessions. Obama can take credit for the economy rebounding as well, if he likes; who cares whether or not the Recovery Act was actually what swung America out of a downturn, the point is that the economy arrow went up during the Obama Administration. Tout, tout, tout! If Clinton could get through it in 1995, Obama can handle it in 2011. And good news for Dems: Clinton went on to get re-elected; Obama's got a good shot at that too.
Of course if Democrats stay in control, Republicans can continue to use the same stalling tactics and blame an even weaker Democratic Party for not getting anything done. They'll likely have the momentum in 2012, telling voters to send 'em all packin', including the President so that the Government works again. If Republicans take some control, it's possible the Government will also come to a standstill, but this time, Republicans get their share of the blame.
But hold on a minute. If things are made so good by Democrats "letting" Republicans take some control, why isn't that the Democratic strategy, at least secretly?
Well there is a lot of conventional wisdom in trying to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of what the Government does at this point, the economy is liable to get better, as is the way with these things. Democrats are reasonably confident that they can take credit for the good economy if they can just hold on long enough for the economy to actually improve. Then there's the incumbency factor. The same reason that Obama is already nominally favored to win the 2012 election, as mentioned above, also favors all currently sitting politicians. Name recognition is already higher with incumbents, not to mention the great fundraising platform incumbency affords. This Democrats figure they'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome in the next 3 election cycles if they lose the incumbency factor in this one election. And finally there's the policy considerations. With less power, Democrats have less control over policy, Republican proposals are more likely to be adopted and signed into law.
The point of this article is to recognize some serious advantages on which Democrats might be able to capitalize if Republicans take control of either the House, or Senate, or both. Since at least one of those scenarios is likely, it will be interesting to see if Democrats use any of the strategies outlined in this piece.
I'll have a different discussion on Republican strategies in the near future.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Back to Work
The Midterms are Coming, the Midterms are coming!
And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!
And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!
But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...
1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!
2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.
5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.
6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).
7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.
8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.
And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!
And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!
But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...
1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!
2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...
4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.
5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.
6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).
7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.
8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
SOTU
I have a series of comments and quotes that were of especial significance to me during the President's speech that will be mentioned below. Overall I think that his speech, as most of his speeches was phenomenal, and this one in particular was invigorating. Most important for people like me, (and liberals as such) I think seeing his confidence slowly radiate out into the Democratic Caucus despite Brown's win and health care's halt (a grinning, cheeky?, Nanci Pelosi behind him helped), as he patiently shuffled center while yet nudging left where it counted. It was a populist speech. And it will, you watch, poll very well. His approval ratings may gain as much as 5 points over night.
Here starts the commentary. If you didn't have a chance to watch the speech, I recommend you watch it; I was literally riveted for the almost full hour and a half. If speech watching isn't your thing, read on anyway, this will give you an idea. My initial comments on the speech as I watched are in bold. Comments on the comments continue afterward.
Here starts the commentary. If you didn't have a chance to watch the speech, I recommend you watch it; I was literally riveted for the almost full hour and a half. If speech watching isn't your thing, read on anyway, this will give you an idea. My initial comments on the speech as I watched are in bold. Comments on the comments continue afterward.
1. “I do not accept 2nd place for America” He says. Of course he's going to get applause. Honestly I'm tired of the 'we're number one!' rhetoric; why do we need to be in competition with other countries, why can't we have cooperation, what, seriously is the big deal with being 'number 2' or worse in some aspects. We certainly are not #1 in education, health care, employment, per capita GDP, taxes (too much or little), exports, gay rights, civil rights (in general), religious toleration, environmental cooperation, population... do I need to go on? It seems that the only thing we're #1 at is military spending and nukes. That's a good track record. Let's drop the rhetoric... America is kinda becoming second rate, that is WHY we must DO something about it. We'll get there one day. The day we realize true patriotism is seeing where/how your country is messed up, and trying to fix it.
2. “the country that leads the clean energy economy is the country that leads the global economy” Thank goodness. Ive been waiting for a real stand to be taken here. This says something progressives can get behind. Now what happened in Copenhagen, again?
3. “double exports over the next 5 years” creating 2 million jobs I really like this issue, we need to make more things in America and give 'em to other people. This is how our economy doesn't collapse. Like every other major empire.
4. Talk about nuclear weapons! (I had a sudden need. He does later, quite nicely)
5. “In the 21st century the best anti-poverty program around is a world class education” YES YES YES. We need more money for schools particularly colleges. This is a key issue for him to rally around because it is hugely popular.
6. Colleges nice. Right, like I said.
7. Talk about Afghanistan, talk about health care. (be patient!)
8. 10,000 dollar tax credit for 4 years of college, very nice Now let's do more than propose, let's pass!
9. Debt 10 years 20 years "no one should go broke just because they chose to go to college" Reminiscing on our own college debt, are we? He's referring to banks giving out college loans, and pushing for legislation which would erase college debt after 10 years or 20 years depending on the situation, and require only a 10% payment of debt per year? Something like that... but how will he cause banks to do that? With the erasure of the tax breaks on college loans for banks? I would like to see more of what Congress does with this.
10. Very centrist/populist sounding
11. Health insurance reform, why come only Dems stand up? Repubs don’t want reform? He finally mentioned it! My pet issue! But yes this is interesting, a contingent of the Republicans definetely kept their butts parked when Obama said the status quo isn't enough, we need to change something. Is this because they really don't want anything to happen, or because they think all Obama reform is just Obamacare (i still don't know what that means exactly, or why it's an insult to Obama's health care)
12. ”by now it should be clear that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics” Damn straight. Nice line.
13. CBO: bring down defict by 1 trillion dollars in two decades He's talking about the current Senate health care bill which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will lower the deficit (very slowly). Still Dems should use this talking point more, even though Americans aren't likely to believe them.
14. I’m so excited by how happy Nancy seems to be with our president, some of her dreamy looks suggest she might have a crush on somebody… Seriously, watching her during the speech is almost more fun than the President
15. “Don’t walk away from reform, not now when it’s so close… let’s get it done” He's talking directly to me, I can feel it.
16. Made some several clear references to the 8 years of the XXX administration; 'don’t blame me yet!' Not porn. This is the smartest move I've seen him make in months. The Bush Presidency is still really fresh in the minds of Americans and if Obama can continue to frame the issues here as his predecessor's problems, he will be able to capitalize on a little more good will for, well... maybe he can squeeze it out for another 6 months or so.
17. “deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works” yet when he speaks i go into a trance-like state and I just feel like mindlessly OBEYing, doubting NOTHING. NO it's the liberal education mind control they've been warning me about!
18. Sounds like a campaign speech, well done Obama back in the game : ) doesn't take much to hit his stride
19. What about the SC? Yeah there it is… corporations can now spend without limit in our elections… pass a bill that corrects this In other words, Obama really seemed not to like the SC decision (about which I will have a post soon enough, hang on) and recommends Congress pass a bill to re-regulate campaign finance. It will be very interesting to see if there is the political will to really do this...
20. Earmark reform ..bleah It's a BS issue honestly. No Senator is willing to get rid of earmarks; it's what helps them get re-elected.
21. Everyone seemed to like the idea of earmark reform… outwardly But every senator has to outwardly support it and pretend that it's not THEM but everyone else who's earmarking. You assholes.
22. “perpetual campaign” neither party should delay every bill just because they can yeah hot shot, poke them Republicans, they don't even have 42 votes! Again the question, he didn't call for a bill to reform filibuster rules, but will there be the political will to remove the filibuster?
23. : ) how can this guy not win re-election? He’s just such a good speaker… this is what we need. America's image abroad and at home matters a lot. Regardless of whether or not Obama delivers, it's wonderful to have an intelligent, pragmatic, practical person at the head.
24. Democrats have the largest majority in decades, so don’t run for the hills he points out. The confidence in the room is building. They really liked the republican jabs.
25. If republicans will insist that a supermajority …. “Just saying no… is not leadership” ...that’s what the left wants to hear, Obama
26. It just occured to me (and made me feel a little safer): God no matter what happens in 2010, at least Obama will be around for 3 more years
27. “all of us are committed to [America’s] defense” “All of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this office” key word: combat troops “this war is ending and all of our troops are coming home” bullshit I really don't believe it. We'll have bases in the region for precision strikes. That means NOT all troops are coming home, sir. I'm tired of this semi-hawkishness in your foreign policy. At the least tell us the truth!
28. “greatest danger to the American people” is the threat of nuclear weapons I been waiting. It's true.
29. “farthest reaching arms control treaty in nearly 3 decades” He means with Russia. I certainly hope so.
30. “America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity, always” but do we really draw upon that ideal by engaging with wars in two countries? oh the quintessential American hypocrisy, but don'tcha love it?
31. Repeal don’t ask don’t tell! YES!!! “it’s the right thing to do”
32. His social issues parade hurry get through it; hey, progressives, like me?! plz? he'd really like them to
33. A little too mushy here at the end, but it's the end of an Obama speech, what do you expect. Solid finish. Pretty speech. This may seem strange but whether or not he can walk the walk, at least he can talk the talk somethin' beautiful
I touched that man!
I was watching a re-run of the President's SOTU (apparently that's the lingo these days) speech, and saw his entrance with all those people reaching desperately to shake his hand.
Not to brag or anything, but I was in direct physical contact with President Obama for no less than 1 full second, and yes his hands are as smooth and soft as they look.
Sometimes I'm just really special, you know?
Not to brag or anything, but I was in direct physical contact with President Obama for no less than 1 full second, and yes his hands are as smooth and soft as they look.
Sometimes I'm just really special, you know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)